Capacity for sustainability

Over the past nearly two decades, a number of authors have claimed that the major problem facing rural water supply is not its initial capital costs but sustainability (Ostrom, Schroeder, &

Wynne, 1993; Sharma, 1998, and Dixit, 2000 in Bhandari, Grant & Pokhrel, 2005; Bhandari &

Grant, 2007; Harvey & Reed, 2007). Ostrom, Schroeder, and Wynne (1993) noted two decades ago that whilst design and construction of infrastructure facilities can be completed in fairly short

periods of time, long-term vision is needed to organize and finance operation and maintenance.

Sustainable rural water supply and sanitation facilities are not technically difficult or very time-consuming to construct. However, sustainability is a complex challenge as it depends on a number of interlinked factors, including type of technology, local traditions and related cultural and social well-being and equality, formal and informal institutions and organizations, financial and institutional viability, social and economic development, natural and political environment, and other factors unique to each community. Related to these are the common water sector problems in developing countries, including inadequate cost-recovery, outdated institutional arrangements, and fragmented and poorly coordinated water administration (Katko, 1991;

Seppälä, 2002; Seppälä, 2004; Rios Osorio et al., 2005; Prokopy et al., 2008; Harvey, 2008).

Gomez and Nakat (2002) reviewed some experiences and, as others, concluded that sustainability was hampered by inadequate involvement and commitment of the beneficiaries, inappropriate technology, lack of sense of ownership and responsibility, and projects’ disregard of women, the poor, and marginalized groups. Harvey (2008) calls for a holistic approach to water service sustainability, and acknowledges that from the institutional framework down to technology choice, all are heavily influenced by government policies (p. 117).

Ostrom et al. (1993) called attention to long-term vision needed to organize and finance operation and maintenance. In 2000, Parker and Skyttä evaluated rural water projects funded by the World Bank, and found that many unexpected social factors are related to effective cost recovery, including such as participation in multiple community activities by user group members, participation in system design, participation in system construction, recognition of improved beneficiary health, and satisfactory participation in the water group by women; these are all related to above-average cost recovery (p. 39). These authors also note that there is an increased sense of ownership where beneficiaries make a regular and significant financial contribution to their scheme. In Nepal, a study surveyed 205 households for user satisfaction on water supply, and found the following leading problems: insufficient collection of money for operation and maintenance; difficulty in retaining maintenance workers who often leave villages to search for higher-paying jobs; and frequent damage by natural disasters, such as landslides (Bhandari & Grant, 2007).

There are also positive findings. The World Bank study collected information from households, village water committees, focus groups of village residents, system operators, and key informants in 400 rural communities in Bolivia, Ghana, and Peru, and found the great majority of the village water systems performing well. The findings supported the fact that first of all, these communities had been involved in pre-construction planning and had contributed to capital costs, and that the consumer satisfaction was high. Yet, few programmes had planned for systematic provision of post-construction support, assuming that community management was feasible from a technical perspective. Consequently, the villages used post-construction support from wherever they could get it, whether at their own request (“solicited construction support”) or by others arrived at their own initiative (“supply driven post-construction support”) (Bakalian & Wakenam, Eds., 2009). This study found that regardless of

the encouraging overall findings, there was still room for improvement: the households were still using unprotected water sources, and the finances of many village water committees were in poor shape, among other problems. The observers argued that it is unrealistic to leave rural communities to their own devices after a water project is completed, and some post-construction support was needed, including, e.g., follow-up training and technical assistance from the engineers.

Prokopy et al. (2008) in their study in Peru concluded that post-construction support prepares communities for self-management by increasing the community’s self-reliance and the households’ confidence in system sustainability. This suggests that projects can be made more efficient by building post-construction support into system design, as systems will operate more continuously, break down for shorter times, and can be fixed without bringing in outsiders (p.

304). In their study of 129 Community Based Organizations (CBOs), Adhikari and Goldey (2010) concluded that evidence shows that the transition period is the most vulnerable phase for the groups’ management. For this dissertation, this notion is highly relevant for the Water Users Committees when they transfer from planning and implementation into post-construction/post-implementation phase where there is no more external presence to induce practices. This is the testing time for any type of capacity built. Adhikari and Goldey (2010) recommend particular vigilance in rules-keeping and equitable resource utilization – especially during the transition period – and that those involved in community mobilization need to be aware of both sides of social capital, also the downside (p. 192).

According to Bakalian and Wakenam (2009), some of the main factors affecting sustainability can be considered as “internal” to a community, and therefore at least partly within its sphere of influence. These include such as preventive maintenance of facilities; tariff collection and cost recovery to cover routine operation and maintenance of water supply infrastructure; adequate capacity (technical, financial, administrative, etc.) within the community to manage a system, or to engage with an external party to operate and manage the system on its behalf; and the continued involvement of community women, along with men, in all aspects of system management and maintenance (p. 21).

Similarly, Bakalian and Wakenam (2009) identified factors that are seen to be largely “external”

to the community include access to, or availability of, spare parts, tools, and equipment to carry out repairs; the availability of some form of external follow-up support, not only to help empower community management structures to maintain the infrastructure they are responsible for, but also training for households to promote hygiene and behavioural change; the presence and strength of private companies and entrepreneurs providing goods and services and skilled technicians to carry out complex repairs; the existence of a supportive policy environment, legal frameworks underpinning the legitimacy of water committees, and clearly defined roles for operation and maintenance; and a system source that continues to produce water of sufficient quantity and quality to satisfy users (p. 10). The authors further listed five main groups of factors that affect post-project sustainability: technical, financial, community and social, institutional, and environmental factors (p. 9). More factors pre- and post-project are identified in Table 2.3

below. This was modified by the author of this dissertation, based on the experiences in Nepal, Tanzania, and Guyana. The dynamics of how the ‘internal’ capacities relate to ‘external’

capacities do matter.

Table 2.3 Factors influencing sustainability of rural water schemes Pre-project issues Post-project issues

Community participation Community ownership; sense of ownership; definition of roles and responsibilities for system management;

both for service authorities and service providers Scheme financing, contributions;

developing transparent and accountable practices

Tariff collection for both regular O&M; financing for capital maintenance expenditure and

reinvestment/extension/service level improvements;

public audits and public hearings are continued to maintain transparency and accountability of the user committees to the users

Demand-responsive approaches;

Serving-the-unserved; inclusion

User satisfaction; customers willing to pay for the expected services; reliable services meet the demand;

inclusive services ensuring water for all as per the right to water

Empowerment and capacity strengthening

Capacity of water user committees and its individual members; rights holders can call for their rights from the duty-bearers; duty bearers have capacity and willingness to respond

Appropriate technical design, construction quality, location of the structures, related environmental considerations and works; GESI

Linkages to government and private sector service providers and other local government/district level processes

GESI on Participation and benefits GESI on capacity enhancement Training (for planning and

implementation)

Continued learning-by-doing, refreshers, peer-networks (e.g., among pump operators, village maintenance workers, new water users committee members)

Source: Modified by Author from Hodgkin & WASH Project staff 1994; Sara & Katz, 1997; Sugden, 2003, original in Bakalian & Wakenam, Eds. 2009, p. 9.

3 METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK