Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Uganda;  Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Uganda; Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi

1,211

Published on

Uganda; Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi …

Uganda; Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi

Published in: Design, Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,211
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi, UgandaFindings and Recommendations for the Sustainability of IRWH Installation Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation Progressive Health Partnership, Duke University
  • 2. Table of Contents Abstract Acknowledgements Introduction Organizations Project Background Research Thesis Methods Research Findings Interviews with Key Informants Focus Summary Report Household Survey Summary Statistics Tank Holder Survey Summary Statistics Regression Analysis of Survey Data Research Key Points Tank Committees Demand Management Funding Sensitization of the Community Recommendations Actions to be taken by MMHF and PHP Appendices A- Key Informant Interview Transcripts B- Focus Group Transcripts C- Regression Analysis Tables D- Work Done by DukeEngageE- Household and Tank Holder Survey Forms F- Photographic essay G- Bibliography 2
  • 3. AbstractIn this paper, the long-term sustainability of Institutional Rainwater Harvesting (IRWH)tank systems is investigated through performing field research on the IRWH tank systembuilt by the Progressive Health Partnership of Duke University and the MayanjaMemorial Hospital Foundation in Kashongi Sub-county, Uganda. IRWH tank systems,being a communal water source built by agencies external to the community, have had along history of being difficult to manage as compared to Domestic RWH (DRWH) tanks,leading to problems with the funding, maintenance and repair. Solutions to theseproblems were constructed after research conducted using surveys of households andowners of existing tanks, interviews with key informants, and focus groups with bothlocal community members and current water-user committees. A key finding was that thelocal community was able to raise its own funding for the maintenance and repair of thetanks, and that the willingness of a community to support an IRWH tank system relied onfactors such as the strength of community institutions, perceived potential impact of thetank and socio-economic conditions of the locals. Based on the results of the research, itwas found that factors influencing the sustainability of the IRWH tank system were localmanagement and maintenance systems, the presence of shrewd water demandmanagement, community sensitization, and the role played by the NGO in masteringintangible aspects of community dynamics. 3
  • 4. AcknowledgementsI would like to thank several people and groups; without them this research project wouldnot have been possible.First of all, I would like to thank Dr Benon Mugerwa, the Executive Director of MayanjaMemorial Hospital Foundation (MMHF), and the staff of the Foundation. They havegiven me invaluable support in providing logistics, opportunities with the localcommunity in Kashongi, and with much encouragement throughout my project. Specialthanks goes out to Jordan Bateisibwa, the Project Manager of the Rainwater HarvestingTank project, who has helped me coordinate many aspects of both fieldwork and officework.Next, I would like to thank the Progressive Health Partnership (PHP) for spearheadingthe project to build rainwater tanks in Kashongi. They have rendered life-changingservice to the people of Kashongi, and I am honored to be part of this project. Specialthanks to Joshua Greenberg, who provided much valued advice in shaping the directionof my research. Thanks also to Eddie Zhang, who invited me onboard, for giving me thistreasured opportunity.Moreover, the DukeEngage team and their ground coordinator Jacques Slaiher have beenindispensible during the course of this project. The DukeEngage team provided me withgroundwork that they had done in the two months they worked in Kashongi, and I reliedon much of this prior work in my research. Kudos goes to Mr. Slaiher, who helped me agreat deal with the day-to-day aspects of living in Uganda.The members of my survey team- Becky Kemigisha, Bob Ashabahebwa, GabrielNuwagaba, Mbabazi Zam and Joram Amanya- were crucial to helping complete themassive field research phase of the research. Without their knowledge of the field,translation skills and cheerfulness, covering so much ground in such a short period oftime would have been beyond reach.Edward Kung, one of my lecturers in Econ 139 - Econometrics, was extremely patientand helpful in providing technical advice regarding the regression analysis.Professor David Schaad, my faculty mentor from Duke University, gave much-neededguidance during both the preparation and research phases. His experience with water-related projects gave me much insight, and helped me avoid blind spots with my researchmethods.Last but not least, very special thanks to Alma Blount and the staff of the Hart LeadershipProgram. It would be an understatement to say that this project would not have started inthe first place without their guidance, training and funding. I am more grateful than youknow for this opportunity. 4
  • 5. Introduction 1. Organizations The Progressive Health Partnership (PHP) is a student-led organization from Duke University, USA, which focuses on global health issues. Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation (MMHF) is an NGO based in Mbarara that has been prominent in providing health-related services such as HIV testing to the local community, since 2008. PHP and MMHF have jointly cooperated on two projects, the Safe Motherhood Program and the Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) project. The former provides services such as ultrasound scans and prenatal advice to pregnant women in the rural Kashongi sub-county, while the latter aims to build public rainwater harvesting tanks to alleviate water deprivation in the same area. DukeEngage is a program under Duke University that focuses on giving students opportunities to provide service to communities around the world. 5
  • 6. 2. Project BackgroundWhen a team from PHP went to Southwest Uganda in the summer of 2009 to conducta maternal health project, they found that community members in Kashongi Sub-County almost unanimously complained of poor access to and quality of water astheir most urgent need, frequently expressing the problem in terms of its detrimentaleffects on children. Children often bear the burden of carrying water for domestic use,spending several hours a day in drudgery and rendering them unable to go to school.The poor quality of water also greatly impacted health and mortality rates. PHP thenapplied for and received a $180,000 grant to build a system of over 70 InstitutionalRainwater Harvesting (IRWH) tanks throughout Kashongi, with the partnership ofMMHF. For the second year running, PHP brought a team of DukeEngage studentsto run both Safe Motherhood and Rainwater Harvesting projects.The team has conducted baseline surveys of more than 2000 randomly sampledhouseholds in Kashongi, E. coli. and coliform tests of household and water sourcesamples, and focus groups with the community. The team also ran a water andsanitation education campaign. Construction of 38 tanks has started as of the summerof 2010, and the remainder of the tanks will be completed in the summer of 2011.Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi, Uganda is a researchproject investigating the sustainability of IRWH tank systems based on theexperiences with RWH and other water source system management, and has beenundertaken with the collaboration of PHP, MMHF and DukeEngage.This project‟s aim is first to provide solutions to the problem of the sustainability ofthe IRWH tank system in Kashongi, in order to preserve its effectiveness in providinga clean water source to the severely water-deprived residents of Kashongi. The project‟s second aim is to answer the broader question of what it means to makean IRWH tank system effective in the long-term. There is very little researchliterature on IRWH systems; many IRWH projects fail due to difficulties inmanagement, and as a result, many NGOs switch over to Domestic RainwaterHarvesting (DRWH) (Thomas and Martinson 1-160). By providing key insights intothe various issues facing IRWH tank systems, this project aims to fill this gap inresearch literature, thus aiding water-based NGOs who are involved in or consideringproviding IRWH systems for their beneficiaries, thus reaping the potential benefitsIRWH systems can bring if it is managed well and sustained. This is especiallycrucial given the increased attention being given worldwide to the rising importanceof RWH systems around the world, and the role it can play in solving waterdeprivation issues globally (Helmreich and Horn 118-124). 6
  • 7. Research ThesisHow does Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation (MMHF) ensure the long-termsustainability of the Institutional Rainwater Harvesting (IRWH) Network it has set up,and the water it provides? How can management, maintenance and fundingmechanisms be set up for the continued effectiveness of the RWH project, givenphysical, economic and social limitations? 7
  • 8. Methods 8
  • 9. Methods1. Focus groupsFive focus groups were conducted with the intention to discern information regardingthe current management of water sources in Kashongi. Participants within each of thefocus groups were from the same parish, but from different villages. Some focusgroups consisted of general community members, others of different water-usercommittees, and the rest of a mix of both. Five of the seven parishes were picked afterconsultation with the project manager from MMHF; Rwenjubu, Kitabo, Byanamira,Kitura and Mooya, while Rwanyangwe and Rwemamba were left out. CVCs wereemployed to recruit the participants; for the first 3 parishes, they met us in the sub-county meeting hall after local primaries were held. For the latter 2 parishes, we metthem in parish public buildings designated by their respective CVCs. In each focusgroup, it was ensured that no one else was around so that each group could feel free tovoice their opinions honestly. Each focus group member was compensated for travelexpenses at the end of the focus group.2. Interviews with Key InformantsInterviews were held with key informants that held important and relevantinformation. They were contacted through email or the phone, and informedbeforehand of the nature of the interview. Key informants that were identified ashaving RWH tanks on their premises were surveyed regarding their experiences withthe tank during the interview. a. NGOs involved in Institutional Rainwater Harvesting (IRWH) projects Two NGOs were interviewed; African Community Technical Service (ACTS), a Canadian Christian organization that has been working in other districts in western Uganda, and the Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Program, a local church-based organization that was the largest RWH-related group in the nation. The respondents of each NGO, Mr. Tim Specht and Reverend Reuben Byomuhangi, were interviewed in their respective offices in Ruharo and Kabale. b. Sub-County Chief, Kashongi Sub-County The Sub-County Chief of Kashongi, Edward Rwanyima, is a civil servant appointed by the government to oversee the running of the sub-county, and is responsible for all government actions in the area. As a representative of the government, he was interviewed on his opinion on the actions that should be taken on the sustainability, management and funding of the tanks. He was also 9
  • 10. interviewed as a key informant in charge of 2 rainwater tanks located in the sub-county office. c. Byembogo Leaders- Chairperson of Local Council 1 and Councillor of Local Council 3 Byembogo village is hailed as the Model Village in Kashongi. ACORD, an NGO that runs a program that does cost-sharing with villagers for the construction of DRWH tanks, chose to start with Byembogo due to its distance from major local water sources such as dams. Groups of villagers were organized to build tanks collectively, where villagers would pool their resources to build tanks on their houses in turns. They would share the tanks in the meantime, thus this arrangement has some resemblance to an IRWH system. Their local leaders were contacted through the phone, and then interviewed outside the sub-county meeting hall. d. RWH Tank Contractor Asiimwe Justus is one of the contractors who are responsible for the construction of the tanks commissioned by PHP. He is a trained mason, and has prior experience constructing tanks, as well as other water and sanitation facilities such as latrines. He was contacted through the telephone, and was interviewed regarding questions on tank construction and maintenance, costs, and volume of repairs. e. Tank Holders Key informants that owned IRWH tanks in their premises were identified by PHP in an exercise to map water sources in Kashongi. These included school head teachers, church leaders, health workers, and other public officials. They were surveyed regarding tank characteristics, management of the tanks, and demand management of the water. Several public tank holders that were not included in the PHP mapping exercise were identified, and surveyed. Furthermore, several private tank owners were identified and surveyed as well. They were pointed out by CVCs and several respondents in the household survey. A total of 38 tank holders were interviewed.3. Surveys of HouseholdsPHP conducted a baseline survey of more than 2000 households regarding theirfinancial, water and sanitation situation. From this survey, 81 households self-identified as using RWH tanks that were located outside of their household duringeither the dry or rainy season. Such households were assumed to use water fromeither IRWH tanks or from neighbors. These households were included in this round 10
  • 11. of surveys regarding the sustainability of IRWH systems; however, when actuallysurveyed, a number of them indicated that they had never used RWH tanks before. Itis unclear why the discrepancy had arisen. In another set of households, CVCs weremobilized to identify additional households in their respective parishes who usedRWH tanks located in public buildings, or in a neighbor‟s residence.In these surveys, households were either surveyed in their homes, or the householdhead was invited by the CVC to be surveyed in public buildings located in theirvillage, or in a neighboring village. The latter group would be compensated for travel.Also, a small number of respondents were pointed out by owners of tanks, andsurveyed in their village trading centers.A total of 116 households were surveyed. 11
  • 12. Research Findings 12
  • 13. Research Findings1. Interviews with Key Informants a. Mr. Tim Specht, Director, of African Community Technical Services (ACTS) Mr. Specht was interviewed on his experience with IRWH projects. He mentioned that most of the problems with his previous projects were with the intangible dynamics of each community, and that there was a great need for the NGO to spend time building trust, resolving hostility, and creating understanding about the tanks through discussions with the community and its leaders. He also spoke of solutions to the problems IRWH projects face. Firstly, sign a contract with stakeholders to hold them accountable. Secondly, engage in massive upfront education and sensitization of the community. This can be done through testimonials of people who benefitted through previous IRWH projects, touring of the technology. This will persuade the community to see the health and economic benefits of the tank, build transparency and trust, and increase willingness to pay for access to clean water. Also, speak with the whole community before acting so that you are seen as working for the whole community, and as a mediator. Furthermore, he spoke of how he knows that communities in the village do have enough funds to keep the tank maintained indefinitely; it is just a matter of convincing them that it is worth it. b. Reverend Reuben Byomuhangi, Deputy Program Coordinator, Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Program The Diocese of Kigezi (KDWSP) has much experience with the construction of RWH systems, and Rev. Byomuhangi spoke on aspects of IRWH that are needed to boost rates of success. First of all, the technology and the approaches used in implementation must be adapted to local geography and varying community situations. KDWSP ranks communities according to need, and maximizes resources by pulling out of communities that are uncooperative. He also spoke regarding the structure and duties of tank committees, which are essential to ensuring the effective management of the tanks. Selection of 13
  • 14. the right committee members through elections is key; they must be focusedon community development, and live close to the tanks and to the localcommunity. Reelections should be held every few years to drop ineffectivemembers. Committees should formulate a constitution, by-laws and otherrules regarding community funding and water use. They should anticipatefuture problems so as to be prepared for crises.Rev Byomuhangi also advocated a hands-off approach, and let committeesdecide what is best for their own communities. The only guideline he wishedto see was that special provisions be made for marginalized populations.c. Mr. Edward Rwanyima, Chief of Kashongi Sub-countyChief Rwanyima, as the leader of the local government, spoke of how thegovernment was unable to fund the maintenance and repair of the tanks, andthat communities should take ownership of the tank by funding and managingthem themselves.The tank committees should meet regularly about once a month. They shouldalso call meetings with the community, and discuss how to split the cost ofmaintenance. Enough money should be collected before repairs are needed.They should hold a tank commissioning where they sensitize householdsaround the tanks to show them that they own the tanks.The committees should also create collection schedules, and to only allowessential use of the water such as drinking and cooking if the dependantcommunity is large.He also suggests doing a Domestic RWH (DRWH) tank scheme in the future,such as the one ACORD is doing. In such a cost-sharing scheme, funds areused to subsidize households in a 60/40 split.d. Mrs. Kavundi Beretha, Councillor LCIII , Mrs Faith Guma, Chairperson Byembogo, LC IThe community leaders of Byembogo described the tank construction processin Byembogo, the impact the tanks had had, and the problems they have facedthus far.18 of the 45 tanks built by ACORD were individual tanks, but the rest werebuilt in a group-sharing scheme. One of the problems they faced was thatresidents were reluctant to form tank committees because not all of them had 14
  • 15. tanks at that point. Also, ACORD did not monitor the construction of thetanks, leading to some contractors and residents trying to cut corners onmaterials, leading to tanks that spoilt quickly. Furthermore, quarrelshappened because some people in the group fail to bring their share of themoney. Disputes also arose due to some marginalized groups not being able tojoin tank groups. However, during the dry season, people who share theirwater with those who did not have tanks.Mrs Kavundi and Mrs Guma felt that transparency in committees was key,and they needed to write accountability reports monthly. Moreover, the tankcommittees needed to be trained on how to manage the water, and then spreadthe knowledge to the community.e. Mr. Asiimwe Justus, Rainwater Tank ContractorMr. Asiimwe was trained under a program organized by KDWSP, and hasstarted contracting water tanks in both Kashongi and Kikatasi sub-counties.He is the only contractor in Kashongi, but has trained 3 other masons that heworks with in tank construction.He constructs 40 tanks per year on average, and has built 135 tanks in total. 23of these tanks are private. He also builds soak pits for existing tanks. Heprovides maintenance tips to his clients usually, but for the PHP tanks, he willwait for a chance to pass the maintenance advice on to the tank committeesdirectly.Repair costs range from 700,000 shillings for replacing the top cover of a20,000 liter tank, to 20,000 shillings for a soak pit, to 50,000 shillings for taps.The cost of repairing tank walls depends on the extent of the damage. 15
  • 16. 2. Focus Group Summary Report a. Key points from Community Members On Water-user Committees: Current water-user committees are receiving mixed results; some of them are effective, but some of them are not active. The community wants water-user committees to have representatives from each village, so as to ensure that their rights are taken care of, and to have someone nearby to contact in case of problems. Corruption is a very real threat, and the community is extremely concerned about the possibility of the elected water-user committees being corrupt, especially when large sums of money are collected to fund maintenance and repair The community appreciates the idea of having 2 CVCs taking on a supervisory role over all the committees in a parish to ensure accountability. The newly elected tank committees should have members who are seen as being faithful in their respective villages. Their duties should include: o Creating a constitution, and by-laws that would guide the usage of the tanks o Guarding, and protection of the tank by building fences o Collecting funds for maintenance o Supervision for equal distribution of water o Control of tank services o Cleaning of the tank, and around it by clearing grass. o Sensitizing the community on aspects of the tanks‟ maintenance and usage They would like school head teachers, water-user committees and the local people to all be educated on the maintenance of tanks, so that they will understand how it is like. They are also willing for the tanks to be taken over by the schools should the community fail in their management of the tanks. o Note: set some service level thresholds for the definition of a failure in management. 16
  • 17. On Tank Usage:The community members are worried that tanks built in schools will only bereadily available to families living around it; other families will still have totravel long distances for the waterThey prefer students not to use water from the public tank, but will still allowthem to fetch since the children are theirs.Also, the community is ready to adopt strict demand management practicessuch as using the water only in the dry season in order to avoid water scarcity. o In the rainy season, most households already have access to rainwater from their own rooftops, so they should not be getting more water from the tank.Community members would pay for maintenance of the tank, but not per unitof water they obtain from the tank.There must be equal distribution of water; the rich cannot get more than thepoor.There should be by-laws to guide the usage of the tanks. For example, a rulecan be set by the committees that each household can only use 2 jerry cans aday. o Any household that requires more than 2 should pay for the extra water that they use, and this money will go towards the maintenance and repair of the tanks. o Note: This would be like a tier-based fee structure that is commonly used o Note: This amount can be varied through the season e.g. households are only allowed 1 jerry can in the rainy season; for any extra they have to pay.Community members would like to demonstrate that they are cooperative; forexample they had participated in communal labor for the tanks by helping toget materials for the construction of the tanks, as well as water to keep in tankfor prevention of cracks 17
  • 18. b. Key Points from Water-user Committee Members On the Structure of the committees: Every tank should have a water-user committee Water-user committees have the general structure of: o A chairperson o A vice-chairperson o A treasurer o A secretary o 2 caretakers The committees want one of the members to be the leader of the establishment where the tank is built e.g. school headmaster. The other 5 members would be elected by the community The committees would have the backing of local government, such as the Local Council 1 Chairperson (LC1) at the village level, and the LC5 chairperson at the district level. The LC1 chairpersons should and would have the power to penalize those who refuse to pay up for maintenance of the tanks, such as giving them fines. This system is already being carried out in some villages for collection of fees for boreholes and other water sources. On the Duties of the Committees: Water-user committee members feel that they are not aware of how to carry out their duties o They feel like they need to be sensitized and trained on how to use and maintain their tanks, so that they can pass this information on to others as well. As a result, water-user committees face many challenges in doing their work. Committee members made the point that the group that built the tank should step in to sensitize the community on how to use the tank water, especially for stricter rules such as a limit of water per day, even if the rules are decided upon by the committee. This is because the people will not believe people on the water committees, and they will require outsiders to step in. o Note: this follows what was echoed in interviews with ACTS. In that interview, it was mentioned that the NGO needs to constantly communicate with the community and the community leaders 18
  • 19. On the Usage of the Tank:Committee members feel that there should be a timetable for the fetching ofwater so that the collection would be orderlyAlso, there should be a calculation to estimate the amount of water eachhousehold should collect.They feel that water from the tank should only be used for drinking during thedry season. 19
  • 20. 3. Household Survey Summary Statistics a. Household Characteristics, by Parish Number of Mean Standard Parish Variable Observations Value Deviation Household BYANAMIRA Size 9 5.444444 1.589899 Uses a Rainwater Tank 9 0.444444 0.527046 Uses an IRWH Tank 9 0.333333 0.5 Considered Constructing a Tank 9 0.666667 0.5 Breadwinner Income 9 1722.222 1394.433 Household KITABO Size 17 7.117647 3.551098 Uses a Rainwater Tank 17 0.588235 0.5073 Uses an IRWH Tank 17 0.470588 0.514496 Considered Constructing a Tank 17 0.764706 0.437237 Breadwinner Income 16 5572.25 9682.87 Household KITURA Size 23 7.304348 3.322578 Uses a Rainwater Tank 23 0.434783 0.50687 Uses an IRWH Tank 22 0.363636 0.492366 Considered Constructing a Tank 23 0.434783 0.50687 Breadwinner Income 23 3784.348 4861.412 Household MOOYA Size 11 6.454545 1.967925 Uses a Rainwater Tank 11 0.454546 0.522233 Uses an IRWH Tank 10 0.5 0.527046 Considered Constructing a Tank 10 0.7 0.483046 20
  • 21. BreadwinnerIncome 11 2227.273 2158.045 21
  • 22. HouseholdRWANYANGWE Size 12 6.083333 2.503028 Uses a Rainwater Tank 12 0.75 0.452267 Uses an IRWH Tank 11 0.181818 0.40452 Considered Constructing a Tank 12 0.75 0.452267 Breadwinner Income 12 3333.333 2699.607 HouseholdRWEMAMBA Size 9 10.33333 6.614378 Uses a Rainwater Tank 9 1 0 Uses an IRWH Tank 9 0.777778 0.440959 Considered Constructing a Tank 9 0.888889 0.333333 Breadwinner Income 9 8777.778 15732.35 HouseholdRWENJUBU Size 35 8.6 6.730964 Uses a Rainwater Tank 35 0.657143 0.481594 Uses an IRWH Tank 35 0.4 0.49705 Considered Constructing a Tank 33 0.757576 0.435194 Breadwinner Income 35 9403.8 23114.87 HouseholdTotal Size 116 7.551724 4.804608 Uses a Rainwater Tank 116 0.603448 0.491304 Uses an IRWH Tank 113 0.415929 0.495077 Considered Constructing a Tank 113 0.690266 0.464444 Breadwinner Income 115 5776.774 14267.62 Figure 1 22
  • 23. b. Distribution of Usage of Tank Water 1 .931 .8 .594 .6 .540 .492 .4 .207 .212 .171 .2 .018 0 0 Drinking Bathing Handwashing Cooking Animals Agriculture Cleaning Other Non-potable use of waterFigure 2. The majority of respondents used water from the tank only for potable uses, such as drinking,cooking, hand washing and bathing, in that order of frequency. A small number of them used it for non-potable purposes such as cleaning the house. For those that indicated „Other‟, a large proportion used thewater to wash their clothes. This is encouraging, because it means that respondents do know the value ofthe water and use it appropriately. This is likely due to the fact that they have to either pay for it, or receiveit in limited quantities from an institution. c. Impact of Existing Tanks on Respondents, by Parish 8 6 4 2 0 YA BA A E BU A O R IR W B O AM JU TU TA G AM O N EN KI KI EM M YA AN W W AN BY R R W R mean of dectimespentcolwater mean of incwaterqual mean of decdisttravelledFigure 3. Note: Although increase in water quality is high across the board, we see that for some parishes,there is a negative impact of tanks in terms of time spent and distance travelled. This indicates that there aremany respondents who are willing to spend a large amount of time travelling long distances just to getclean water from the RWH tanks. For Kitura Parish, though, one of the respondents had an anomalouslylarge distance travelled and time spent collecting water from the RWH tank. The surveyor was questionedabout the anomaly. Apparently, the respondent goes to great lengths to travel 10km away to Ibanda tocollect water, and spends roughly 12 hours doing so. This greatly distorts the figures shown, and thus theobservation was dropped. 23
  • 24. d. Willingness to Pay for Tank Water Max Amount Willing to Pay for 20-Litres of Water As a Percentage of Daily Income, By Parish BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA 10152025 20 17.752 13.2222 15 12.5 6.66667 05 MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA 24.1802 10152025 10 10.0972 10 10.4306 3.25 0 5 RWENJUBU 10152025 15.2733 9.09091 0 5 Mean Percent of Daily Income Median Percent of Daily Income Graphs by parishFigure 4. This graph describes the mean and median amounts a household is willing to pay per 20-litrejerry can of water from the tank, as a percent of their household breadwinner‟s daily income. This wouldserve as an indicator of the maximum value of clean water to a household, taking into account not only thehigher quality of water experienced but also the distance travelled and time spent to collect the water. Thedisparity between the mean and the median amounts serves as a rough indicator of how much variancethere is between respondents.Astonishingly, we see that households are willing to pay up to 15% of their daily income just for 20 litresof clean water. 24
  • 25. e. Willingness to pay for Yearly Tank Maintenance By Parish BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA 32911.1 0 00 00 00 00 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 10 20 30 40 12558.8 10000 8704.76 5000 3000 MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA 0 00 00 00 00 25444.4 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 10 20 30 40 20000 14363.6 12416.7 4000 5000 RWENJUBU Total 0 00 00 00 00 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 10 20 30 40 16579.4 15860.2 8250 5000 Mean Amount Median AmountGraphs by parish Figure 5 25
  • 26. Willingness to Pay, terms of Percentage of One Month’s Income 40 30 20 10 0 YA BA A E BU A O R IR W B O AM JU TU TA G AM O N EN KI KI EM M YA AN W W AN BY R R W RFigure 6. These graphs show the respondents‟ willingness to pay for yearly tank maintenance, first as theraw amount, then as a percentage of a month of their income, where a month income is calculated bymultiplying the breadwinner‟s daily income by 30. The figures shown seem to be relatively high; as we cansee from the graph below, some respondents demonstrate abnormally high willingness to pay high, withsome going as high as more than 300% (willing to pay 3 months worth of income for tank maintenance).This may reflect the respondent‟s inability to make proportional estimation, as the surveyors pointed out.On the other hand, many respondents indicated the importance of clean water to them; therefore, theabnormally high percentages should not be discounted as well.Again, the disparity between the mean and median amounts reflects the amount of variance between thewillingness to pay of respondents. Since the data reflects that a small handful of individuals earndisproportionately more than the other individuals, some going up to 50 or 100 times more, we shall takethe median value as the more accurate figure.The key figure here to take note of is the overall median amount willing to pay for the maintenance of thetank: 5000 shillings. This seems to be a sound figure, since it is roughly 4 days of the median income inKashongi. Yet, with this figure, 20 families that rely on an IRWH tank would be able to raise 100,000shillings per year, for example. This seems to adequately meet the recommended guideline of a yearlymaintenance, cleaning and repair fee of 7% of the initial cost of building the tank, which stands at about 1.7million shillings(Thomas and Martinson 1-160). 26
  • 27. f. Distribution of People or Groups Contacted for Maintenance Problems .3 .2 Fraction .1 0 0 2 ER R ER ER VT Y R E T E G D C TE O KE O AD TH BO R AD M AY IT G R U R O LE LE O M SO O M AL FO W N M S AL C O ER T. E U LO C N BL IO N AT IO T AI IG SI EN W IT M N EL AD EM E F PO R O ID TR AG ES ER TS AN R U N O W N M SO O ER R AT PE WFigure 7. This graph shows the distribution of people/groups that community members approach whenthey encounter problems with the main water source. Note: For a small number of cases, the surveyorsreported that in a few initial cases they asked respondents to report the person they contacted for problemswith the tanks that they used.We see that a large percentage of respondents do not approach anyone when they encounter problems withtheir main water source. This might reflect the community‟s lack of faith in water-user committees, whichcorroborates with focus group findings. The remainder is relatively equally spread amongst the watermanagement committees, a person responsible for maintenance (usually the owner of the source, if it is aprivate well), and the local government (LC 1 chairperson was the most commonly contacted). 27
  • 28. Effectiveness of current main source water user committees 1 .8 .6 .4 .2 0 YA BA E A BU A O R IR W B O AM JU TU TA G AM O N EN KI KI EM M YA AN W W AN BY R R W R mean of have you ever contacted this person or group before? mean of was the person or group helpful? mean of was the problem solved? mean of Do you know whether anyone else has contacted them?Figure 8. We see a disparity between the performances of water committees between different parishes.The best performing committees would be in Rwanyangwe, and the committees with the lowest scoreswould be in Byanamira. The disparity between parish water-user committee reflects a troublinginconsistency, and there is a need to find out what are the practices of each committee that result in thisdifference in performance. This also gives evidence for an argument that measures should be taken toprovide training to strengthen performance consistently through different regions. g. Strength of Community Institutions By Parish BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA .889 .889 .778 .882 .765 .765 1 1 .957 .913 .696 .696 .789 1 .667 .667 .2.4.6.8 .111 .235 .043 0 MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA 1 1 1 1 1 1 .818 .818 .909 .8 .75 .833 .75 .889 1 .75 .2.4.6.8 .455 .417 .222 0 RWENJUBU Total .971 .914 .956 .904 .771 .714 .735 .807 .75 .784 1 .2.4.6.8 .343 .259 0 Discuss Water Issues with Neighbours Village Meeting in the Past Year Village Meeting Attendance Village Cooperative in the Past Year Household Participation in Cooperative Village Health Fund in the Past Year Graphs by parish Figure 9 28
  • 29. 4. Tank Holders Survey Summary Statistics a. Survey Respondent Characteristics Type of Establishment Location of Respondents by Parish BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA MOOYA School Place of Worship RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA Health Centre Private RWENJUBUFigure 10. The majority of existing tanks were located in schools, due to government programmes. Theprivate tanks in Byembogo (Rwenjubu Parish), where ACORD chose to build its tanks, were group tankslocated in homes, and were usually shared by several households. The private tanks located outsideByembogo were commercial tanks, where the owner would sell water from the tank to other communitymembers. 29
  • 30. b. Tank Characteristics Who Built the Tank By Parish BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA 1 .2.4.6.8 0 MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA 1 .2.4.6.8 0 RWENJUBU Total 1 .2.4.6.8 0 Self Built Government NGO Campaigner Community Other Graphs by parish Figure 11 Distribution of Tank Capacities 50 40 30 Percent 20 10 0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 tank1_whatisthecapacityofthetankFigure 12. The majority of existing tanks are built by the local district government, and then a sizeablepercentage of tanks are self-built. Most of the tanks are 10,000 litre tanks; this is the most common by far,followed by capacities smaller than 10,000 litres. 30
  • 31. Distribution of Type of Tank By Parish BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA.2 .4 .6 .8 .6 .625 .5 .5 .4 .25 0 0 0 0 MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA .7.2 .4 .6 .8 .667 .667 .333 .333 .2 0 0 0 0 RWENJUBU Total .688.2 .4 .6 .8 .538 .385 .188 .125 .038 0 Ferrocement Plastic Other Graphs by parish Figure 13 31
  • 32. c. Tank Management Number of Committee Members Frequency of Committee Meetings per Year 40 50 40 30 30Percent Percent 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25Figure 14. Note: Many committees, especially in schools, were not specifically for the tank, but rathergeneral committees that took care of the entire establishment, including the tank. Such committees wouldmeet several times a year, and would act whenever they receive a report regarding the status of the tank.Most committees had about 6 members, which was a standardised number throughout the sub-county. Thefrequency of meeting per year varied, but most of them met less than 5 times a year, which was verytroubling. A benchmark set by KDWSP was once a month, which is a far higher number. Types of People on Existing Tank Committees Duties of Existing Tank Committees 1 1 .8 .8 .6 .6 .4 .4 .2 .2 0 0 Leader of Establishment Member of Establishment Meeting Repairing Tank Night Watchman Student/Child Cleaning the Tank Collecting Funds Member of Community Mobilising Community Other Figure 15 d. Funding 32
  • 33. Time Taken for Government Funds to Arrive In Months School Place of Worship Source of Funds for Maintenance 1 1 Grouped by Type of Establishment School Place of Worship 1 .8 .5 .45 .6 .4 .2 .2 .1 .1 .1 .05 0 Density 0 Health Centre Private Health Centre 1 Other 1 1 .8 .6 .4 .2 .5 0 Government Establishment Community Other Graphs by whattypeofbuildingisthis 0 -2 0 2 4 6 -2 0 2 4 6 Graphs by whattypeofbuildingisthisFigure 16. Note: Funding from the private owner of the tank is the most common source of responseslabelled “Other”.For the establishments that are schools, they are supposed to be funded quarterly (once every 3 months).Hence, responses that contain values higher than this reflect lags in government response time thatnegatively impact the establishment‟s ability to act on problems, in this case should a tank require repair. 33
  • 34. e. Maintenance and Repair Number of Contractors Known Frequency, by Parish BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA 0 2 4 6 8 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA 0 2 4 6 8 4 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 RWENJUBU 8 0 2 4 6 8 5 3 1 Contractor 2 Contractors 3 Contractors Graphs by parish Figure 17 Frequency of Tank Cleaning Per Year 80 60 Percent 40 20 0 0 2 4 6 howoftenisthetankcleanedayearFigure 18. We see that the highest frequency of cleaning occurs twice a year. This is consistent withexpectations, since the most efficient way to clean the tank is to do so before the start of every rainy season,which happens twice a year.Note: It is very likely that the respondents over-report the number of times they clean the tank. For example,a respondent who was a school teacher in one of the primary schools indicated that the tank had never beencleaned since she had arrived, and that it gave bad water. However, the headmaster of the same schoolresponded in another encounter that the tank was cleaned many times a year. The responses might indicatethe respondent‟s benchmark frequency of cleaning rather than the true number of times they clean the tank. 34
  • 35. Number of Ways Respondents Know How to Maintain a Tank 50 40 30 Percent 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 Figure 19 Areas of the Tank that are Cleaned 1 .8 .6 .4 .2 0 Tap Inside of the Tank Gutters Around the Tank OtherFigure 20. The inside of the tank is the most commonly cleaned area; since this is the area which the waterhas the greatest length of exposure to, it has the largest impact on the taste of the water. Respondents oftenclean around the tank as well, and by this they mean the water collection area, as well as clearing nearbyvegetation. 35
  • 36. f. Negative Impact of Community Usage Number of 43.33 Households which use the Establishments Tank 40 30 30 Percent 20 16.67 10 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 howmanyhousefromthecommunityuse Figure 21 Disruption Caused by Community Proportion, by Type of Establishment School Place of Worship 1 1 .857143.2 .4 .6 .8 .666667 .5 .5 .5 .5 0 Health Centre Private 1 1.2 .4 .6 .8 .5 .428571 .333333 .333333 0 0 0 Disruption Experienced Class/Work Interrupted Need to Supervise Community Noise Other Disruption Graphs by whattypeofbuildingisthis Figure 22 36
  • 37. Frequency of Disruption Per Week 100 50 School Place of Worship Percent 0 Health Centre Private 100 50 0 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 howoftendoesthisdisruptionoccurp Graphs by whattypeofbuildingisthis Figure 23. Disruption faced by the establishment during the collection of water by the community is a good indicator of the problems they face as the host of an IRWH tank, and thus how likely they are willing to cooperate. In the next graph, the ability of the establishment to overcome the disruption is shown: Ability to Overcome Disruption School Place of Worship 100 50Percent 0 Health Centre Private 100 50 0 No Yes Sometimes No Yes Sometimes doyoufindsolutionstoovercomethes Graphs by whattypeofbuildingisthis Figure 24 37
  • 38. 38
  • 39. Regression Analysis of Survey Data 39
  • 40. Regression Analysis of Survey DataRegression Analysis provides the means to determine the presence, strength andreliability of relationships between different variables. Survey data from the householdand tank holder surveys were analysed to investigate exactly which factors play a role indetermining indicators of tank sustainability, and how these factors affect the indicators.The value of coefficient of the independent variable (on the left-hand side of the equation)determines the strength of the correlation. The direction of the sign (positive or negative)determines whether the variable positively or negatively affects the dependant variable(indicator variable on the right-hand side). The statistical significance of the variabledetermines how reliable the finding is; for example, a significance level of 10% indicatesthat there is just a 10% chance that the relationship is just due to error. In other words,there is 90% confidence.The benchmark of 10% significance is used instead of the usual 5% significance todetermine statistical significance, because of the subjective nature of some of thequestions. For variables that have a *, this indicates a 10% significance level; ** indicates5% significance; *** indicates a 1% significance. Thus, the more stars there are, the morereliable the finding. A + indicates a 15% confidence level, which indicates 85% reliability.Note that the relationship could go either way; in other words, the cause/effectrelationship is not definite, and the indicator variable could be the cause of the change inthe left-hand variable.The first analysis performed using a multiple regression model, and tests for therelationship between the willingness of community members to pay for the maintenanceof the tank. This is the key indicator as to whether the tank is sustainable, as it measureshow willing community members are in supporting the tank, and in turn whether the tankwill receive sufficient funding for maintenance and repairs. From this analysis, we candetermine which other factors are significant in influencing community support of thetank.The second analysis is a binary probit regression model for the probability of a schoolsharing its tank with the community. A probit regression measures the probability of thedependant variable having a positive outcome, which in this case refers to the schoolsharing its tank. This gives us information on what factors influence the likelihood of aschool being cooperative, and in turn affect the chances of a school compromising on itspromise to share the tank with the community in the future.The third analysis is also a binary probit regression model that measures the effect ofvarious indicators of the strength of community institutions on the effectiveness ofexisting water-user committees. Other respondent characteristics are also controlled for. 40
  • 41. The last model is a multiple regression model that tests the various factors influencinghow often a tank breaks down, an indicator of the long-term functionality of the tanks.This would give us a basis to determine how influential certain establishmentcharacteristics are in determining tank sustainability, controlled for tank characteristics.For more detailed analysis, and also for the results of various equations tested for eachindicator, please refer to Appendix C.The format of this regression analysis was constructed with reference to similar literatureregarding econometric analysis of rainwater harvesting systems (He, Cao and Li 243-250). 41
  • 42. 1. Willingness and Ability for Indigenous FundingWillingness to Pay = -6.7TankWater + 1646UseIRWH + 0.76Income***+ 31.4MonthlyWaterUse*** + 1588WaterQual* – 20.39WaterQual^3 ++ 3838TimeSpent* + OtherEffects + 4187ProblemSolved+ + εDependent VariableWillingness to Pay = How much respondents are willing to pay for the yearlymaintenance of a public tank, in Uganda Shillings (2200 SHs = 1USD).Household Characteristic Explanatory VariablesTankWater = How much respondents are willing to pay for 20 liters of clean water fromthe tankUseIRWH = Dummy variable (1 for Yes, 0 for No) indicating whether respondentcurrently uses an institutional public tank e.g. at a school or church.Income = The family‟s breadwinner daily income, assuming a day has 8 working hours.MonthlyWaterUse = How much water the respondent‟s household consumes, per monthin 20-litre jerry cans.Tank Impact Explanatory VariablesWaterQual = Increase in self-ranked water quality when using tank water, compared totheir original water source WaterQual^3= WaterQual raised to the power of 3.TimeSpent = Decrease in time spent when using tank instead of old water sourceOtherEffects = Positive effects respondents experienced from using tank water, otherthan distance travelled and increase in water quality. The detailed figures are included inAppendix CCommunity Institution Explanatory VariableProblemSolved = Dummy variable for whether problems with the respondent‟s mainwater source were solved by relevant community institutions.ε = The error term that is unaccounted for by the regression 1. Note: only respondents who have previously used a tank before are included in this regression. 2. Note: one outlier with anomalously large values for distance travelled and time spent was dropped, because the respondent indicated that she regularly went to great lengths to travel 10km away to Ibanda to collect water, and spends roughly 12 hours doing so. This greatly distorts the regression, and thus was not included. 42
  • 43. The dummy variable for whether a respondent relies on water from an institution isstatistically insignificant. Thus, although the coefficient is positive at 1646 shillings, it islikely that this can be ignored, which in turn means that whether respondents previouslyused a private tank or institutional tank has no effect on their willingness to pay. Thesame goes for the variable for willingness to pay for tank water. Although it seems thatthe latter variable might be significant intuitively since a higher value on tank waterwould mean a higher willingness to pay for its maintenance, some respondents indicatedthat because they were already willing to pay for tank maintenance, they were not willingto pay for tank water. Thus, the correlation here is unclear, and the value of tank waterwill be captured in other variables.Income here is statistically very significant, and very strongly correlated with willingnessto pay for tank maintenance. The coefficient of 0.76 indicates that for every increase inthe respondent‟s income by 1 shilling, the respondent is willing to pay an extra 0.76shillings for tank maintenance.We see that with every unit of increase in self-ranked water quality when using the tank,the respondents are, on average, willing to pay an extra 1589 shillings for themaintenance of the tank. There is a slight decrease in the willingness to pay when theincrease is already high (i.e. when improvement in water quality increases from 8 to 9,there is a lower effect on willingness to pay as a unit increase from 3 to 4) as can be seenby the slightly negative coefficient on Increase in Self-ranked Water Quality3; this isexpected, since there is diminishing returns, and other factors come into play. Thesefindings mean that respondents whose prior experience with tanks gave them an increasein water quality are much more willing to support it than respondents who have not. Thisin turn means that as the community starts to experience real benefits from an increase inwater quality due to the tank, they will grow to become more supportive even if they areunwilling to contribute at first. Thus, we should expect any initial resistance to paying fortank maintenance to lessen as time passes.In the last regression, we added the variable Was the Problem Solved, referring towhether problems the respondents raised to the water-user committees were solved. Thisvariable is an indicator for the effectiveness, or perceived effectiveness of the water-usercommittee. We see that a positive response has a very strong effect on willingness to pay;for respondents that indicated that the problems were solved, they were willing to paymore than 4000 shillings extra, almost double the median willingness to pay amount.Although this variable has a p-value that is slightly above our benchmark for statisticalsignificance, it should not be discounted. This likely indicates that how effective currentwater-user committees are have an effect on how much respondents are willing to supportthe new tanks. From this, we can also infer that the perceived effectiveness of future tankcommittees will have an effect on how willing community members are to support thetanks; if they feel that committees are incompetent or corrupt, they will not put in moneyto ensure that the tanks keep going. 43
  • 44. 2. Potential Institution Cooperativeness AnalysisProbability of Sharing Tank= -0.0605DaysDry***+1.73NumberTanks** + 2.67NumberHouseholds** + 0.223Requests ***-0.0704Disputes* + εDependent VariableProbability of Sharing Tank = The likelihood that a school shares its tank with thecommunity.Institution-Specific Explanatory VariablesDays Dry = The number of days in a year that the tank goes dry.NumberTanks = The number of tanks a school has.Institution-External Explanatory VariablesNumberHouseholds = The number of households that live within 500 meters of theschool.Requests = The number of requests for tank water the school gets from the communityper month.Disputes = The frequency of disputes the school has with the community over waterfrom the tank.ε = The error term that is unaccounted for by the regression Note: The observations including other types of tanks are removed from this regression. Private tanks are either commercial tanks which are definitely shared, or tanks in Byembogo, where group tanks are built and there is huge community pressure from local leadership to share tanks. Thus, including these observations would bias the findings. Analyzing only schools is also advantageous, because the majority of PHP tanks will be located in schools.We see that the number of days the tank is dry has a strong, statistically significantcorrelation with the probability of the school sharing its water with the community. Wecan easily surmise why this happens; the school, seeing that its water supply runs outquickly, would tend to refuse any sort of assistance to the community. This provides avery strong argument for strict water demand management, since we can foresee asituation whereby schools, after obtaining the tanks that run dry quickly when thecommunity shares them, renege on their end of the bargain. Or at least, becomesuncooperative with sharing the tanks.The number of tanks the school has is also controlled for. This not only accounts for howmuch water the school has, but also how much water the school appears to have. It is 44
  • 45. likely that for schools with more than one tank, they would find it less easy to get offsharing tanks with the community by pleading a lack of water.The logged variable account for the number of households close by has the strongestcorrelation value. This would give us the insight that schools are strongly affected bycommunity pressure to share tanks; this is corroborated with the variable for how oftenthe community asks for water. A second explanation is that schools with manyhouseholds nearby are likely to draw a large proportion of their students from thesehouseholds. Since many parents are members of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA),the school would face additional pressure to be seen as being considerate of the students‟and their families‟ welfare.The variable for how often households ask for water is also an indicator of the level ofneed experienced by the community. We can infer that communities that are desperate forwater would ask more frequently, and the school, knowing the need of the families,would find some way to share the tank water efficiently.Although it is not statistically significant at a 15% level, we also see a negativecorrelation of how often the community has disputes with the school over water, with thelikelihood of the school shares its tank. Rather than disputes causing the likelihood oftank sharing to drop, the relationship is probably turned around; schools that don‟t sharetheir tanks with the community experience a much higher chance of having disputes withthe community. This is expected information, but it is one that bolsters our intuition. Thissupports findings from interviews with the school staff that the community becomesextremely hostile towards schools that do not share their tank; for example, a schoolreported that farmers in the vicinity of the school refused students to collect water fromponds on their land, even confiscating their jerry cans. In other reports, schools tell ofinstances where community members would maliciously sabotage the school tank whenrefused permission to draw tank water.This gives us extra incentive to ensure that schools are willing to, and more importantly,able to share their tanks with the community to prevent a deterioration of communityrelationships. 45
  • 46. 3. Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Water-user CommitteesProbability of Water Source Problem Solved = 3.02Contacted*** +1.14DiscussWater*** -1.59CommMeet*** - 0.0459MeetParticipation +1.81Cooperative*** + 0.112HealthFund – 0.078RankWater + εDependent VariableProbability of Water Source Problem Solved = Dummy variable for whether theproblem with the respondent‟s water source had been solved by the relevant communityinstitution.Respondent Characteristic Explanatory VariablesContacted = Dummy variable for whether the respondent had contacted the person orgroup that was in charge of the water sourceDiscussWater = Dummy variable for whether the respondent discusses water andsanitation issues with his/her neighborMeetParticipation = Whether the respondent or his/her household members hadparticipated in the meetingCommunity Institution Explanatory VariablesCommMeet = Dummy variable for whether there was a community meeting in therespondent‟s village in the past 12 monthsCooperative = Dummy variable for whether a cooperative was organized in therespondent‟s village in the past 12 monthsHealthFund = Dummy variable for whether a health fund was organized in therespondent‟s village in the past 12 months.Water Quality Explanatory VariableRankWater = Respondent‟s ranking of his main water source, on a scale from 1 to 10,with 10 being the lowest quality.ε = The error term that is unaccounted for by the regressionWe see that whether the respondent has previously contacted the community institution incharge of the water source is controlled for in this regression, and has a strongly positiveand statistically significant effect, as expected.Indicators of the relationship between the strength of various community institutions andthe probability of the water source problem being solved seem to give mixed results.DiscussWater and Cooperative are both positively correlated, which seems to indicatethat the presence of strong community relationships does result in an increase in theeffectiveness of the water-user committees. However, CommMeet has a strong negativecorrelation, which seems to contradict this inference. The reason behind this is uncertain, 46
  • 47. and is likely attributable to the correlation between CommMeet and the otherindependent variables. MeetParticipation, HealthFund and RankWater are statistically not significant.Furthermore, the coefficient of RankWater is very low, indicating that it has very littleeffect on the effectiveness of the community. This may indicate that whether the watersource problem is solved is more dependant on the effectiveness of the committee ratherthan the severity of the problem with the water source. Most responses for HealthFundwere negative, and the lack of variability in the answers is likely to be the reason for thelow statistical significance. MeetParticipation probably simply has low correlation withwhether the problem was solved. 47
  • 48. 4. Factors Affecting the Long-term Functionality of TanksFrequency of breakage = -0.266Contractors – 0.369NumberMaintain +2.16TankCement*- 0.258FreqClean + 1.94CommunityUse + +HowTankBroke + 0.373TankAge** -2.86PrivateSchool*** +0.373FreqComm* + εDependent VariableFrequency of breakage = Frequency of tank breakage per yearMaintenance Support Explanatory VariablesContractors = Number of repair contractors known (must know a name or contactnumber)NumberMaintain = Number of ways respondent knows of how to maintain a tankTank Characteristic Explanatory VariableTankCement = Dummy Variable for whether the tank is a Ferrocement tank. Variablesfor other types of tank are omitted from this regression because of the dummy variabletrap; all the other tanks are plastic tanks.FreqClean = Frequency of tank cleaning per year.CommunityUse = Dummy variable for whether the tank is shared with the communityHowTankBroke = Dummy variables for how the tank was broken. These include „OwnUse‟, „Community Use‟, „Students Playing‟, „Accidental‟ and „Other‟. Detailed figuresare included in Appendix C.TankAge = Age of the tank in yearsSchool Characteristic Explanatory VariablePrivateSchool = Dummy variable for whether the school was a private school. Anegative answer indicates a public, government-funded school.FreqComm Frequency of tank committee meetings per year.ε = The error term that is unaccounted for by the regression Note: This regression only includes schools in order to more clearly analyze the effect of tank committees. For analysis that includes all types of establishments, please refer to Appendix C.The variables Contractor and NumberMaintain both have relatively high negativecoefficients, indicating that with an increase in both variables, the frequency of breakagedecreases. This provides evidence to show that the presence of a network of maintenancesupport systems, as well as widespread knowledge of how to maintain the tank does havean effect on how often the tanks break down. Thus, there is a need to foster an increase inthe availability of contractors. However, with the low statistical significance, it may bepossible that these findings are not reliable and are influenced by high standard deviation. 48
  • 49. This is probably firstly because the questions asked were not precise indicators, andsecondly because respondents gave inaccurate answers on the number of ways they knewhow to maintain the tank.The type of tank seems to have a strong correlation with the frequency of breakage;however, since both ferrocement tanks and plastic tanks obtain similar positivecoefficients, we may conclude that neither of them has more of an effect on frequency ofbreakage. On the other hand, other types of tanks, namely masonry tanks, decrease thefrequency of breakage.An increase in the frequency of cleaning has a small positive, but statisticallyinsignificant effect on frequency of breakage. This could potentially mean several things,but the most likely explanation is that it is insignificant. Several respondents haveindicated that they know the optimum number of times the tank has to be cleaned, butoften times this is not followed through in practice. The blur between indicating theoptimal frequency of cleaning and the actual frequency is likely to be the reason for theunexpected result.An interesting finding is that establishments that share their tanks with the communityexperience a very strong, positive and statistically significant increase in the frequency ofbreakage. This is, of course expected; the more people use the tanks, the more likely it isto break, especially when respondents have indicated that the community often handlesthe tank very poorly. This has several implications. First of all, since the tanks accessibleto as many community members as possible, the tanks are likely to experience highbreakage rates unless community members are trained on how to handle the tanks well.Thus, any community education programs regarding the tanks need to involve a trainingcomponent on how to use the tanks well.The age of the tank, unsurprisingly, has a strongly positive and statistically significantcorrelation with the frequency of breakage. However, the most interesting findings comefrom the last 2 variables: whether the school is private or public, and how frequently theschool tank committee meets. A school that is private has a massively decreasedfrequency of tank breakage as compared to a public school. A possible reason for this isthat private schools have more money than public schools, and are thus more able tospend money to maintain the tank. Another factor, one explained by the survey, is that forpublic schools, there are long delays in getting funds from the government. This sharplyreduces the ability of the public school to respond to tank problems, and thus result in theaggravation of the damage.The frequency of tank committee meetings acts as a proxy for the motivation level,responsiveness and effectiveness of the tank committees. This has a moderate, butstatistically significant effect on the frequency of tank breakage. This provides evidencefor the importance of the management committee in the sustainability of the tank, andsupports the argument that tank committees should be made to meet more frequently. 49
  • 50. Research Key Points 50
  • 51. Research Key PointsTank Committees • ElectionsElections should be held for water committees so that the people get to decide on whichrepresentatives will speak for them on the committee. Re-elections should be held everyfew years so that ineffective and inactive members of the committee will be dropped(Rev. Byomuhangi, Interviews with Key Informants). • Structure • RepresentationEvery village should have their own representative on the committee, as far as possible,or at least someone who stays in a neighboring village. Proximity has a high valuebecause committee members need to be easily accessible to residents, in order forreported problems with the tank to be easily solved (Focus Group Summary Report).This is especially true for the chairperson; should he/she be far away, it will be difficultto be present for all activities and meetings, compromising the effectiveness andresponsiveness of the committee (Rev. Byomuhangi, Interviews with Key Informants). • Presence of the InstitutionThe leader of the establishment (e.g. school headmaster, church pastor), chairman of themanagement board, or another member of the establishment (e.g. teacher or churchdeacon) should be on the tank committee. This is to ensure that the lines ofcommunication between the institution and the committee are kept open. Also, it wouldbe recommended for the LC 1 chairperson to be only the committee, so as to ensure alevel of enforcement in terms of rules of tank usage and maintenance fee collection. Theother members of the committee will be elected. • TrainingExisting water-user committees have indicated that one of the reasons why they areunable to act is because they are not sure of what their duties are, and they would like tobe sensitized as to what they are. Therefore, it is crucial for them to be trained andeducated on various aspects of tank management, especially aspects which might not becommonsense knowledge. In this way, they will be able to pass on this information toother community members as well.A handbook of guidelines should be published and made available for the reference of thetank committees. A committee guidelines document created by the DukeEngage team inUganda is available in Appendix D. 51
  • 52. • Duties • ConstitutionThe newly elected water committees need to formulate their own constitution, by-lawsand other management tools. They will then communicate these to community members. • MeetingCommittees should be encouraged to meet as often as they can. This will help them toanticipate future problems rather than wait for and manage crises, which greatly booststheir level of responsiveness and in turn reduces the frequency of tank breakage. • Collection of MoneyFrom the various sources investigated, there is a consensus that funds for the repair andmaintenance of the tanks should come from the community, and committees shouldmobilize the community in collecting these funds. Committees should decide whatbeneficiaries should contribute and how often, based on estimates of how much yearlymaintenance of the tank would cost and how many households use the tank. Theguidelines given for a ferrocement tank is 7% of the original cost per year (Thomas andMartinson 1-160).A financial accounting system should be set up, where money is collected, and clearrecords of how much money is collected and used (Interviews with Key Informants). • Repair of the tankCommittees would monitor the tanks, repair them if broken, report breakages that are toobig, and manage the usage of water from the tanks. • Sensitization of CommunityOne of the duties of the committee must be to sensitize the community with regards to theworkings and usage of the tank. This is crucial to canvassing understanding and supportfrom the community, and in turn to the sustainability of the tank. Methods andapproaches to sensitization will be further elaborated upon. • Transparency • Prevention of CorruptionCorruption is a very real threat, according to the community members. There is apossibility that any funds that are collected and not accounted might be embezzled.Ensuring the community‟s faith in the tank committees is of paramount importance orelse they will be reluctant to contribute their funds, and support the tank. • Measures for AccountabilityCommittees should write written reports monthly on: o Water that is left in the tank o Repairs needed 52
  • 53. o Funds left o Quarrels o Distribution o Cleaning of tank(Byembogo Community Leaders, Interviews with Key Informants) • OversightThe Community Volunteer Counselors (CVCs) will play a supervisory role in overseeingthe committees in their respective parishes (Their detailed duties are explained inAppendix D). This idea is supported by the community and by current water-usercommittees, since this measure ensures accountability, transparency, and the continuedworking effectiveness of the tank committee over time. • EnforcementCurrently, water-user committees of sources such as boreholes and dams have thebacking of Local Councils (LC1s), where fee collection can be enforced, and wherecommunity members who refuse to pay can be penalised. This ensures fairness in equalpayment amount community members.Demand management 1. Strict Management of the WaterGiven the size of the tank and the size of the community it is expected to support, it islikely that it will have a very low level of reliability (number of days it contains water).This would have a strong effect on the likelihood of the establishment cooperating withthe community, as can be seen from the regression analysis. The community supports theproposition that the water should be strictly managed in order to provide sufficient waterfor as many community members as possible, and for long as possible. 2. Dry Season UsageFor certain communities, especially those that are much larger or are in closer proximityto the establishment with the tank, they may find it necessary to limit water use duringthe rainy season, and allow more usage during the dry season. This is because during therainy season, community members can easily collect rainwater from their own rooftops,and the need for the tank isn‟t as great. Should the tank water be extensively used duringthe rainy season, it will be dry during the dry season when need is the greatest. Thus,rationing of the water is needed even if it somewhat compromises on water availabilityduring a large portion of the year. However, it should be noted that the tank would fill upfrom the constant rainfall during the rainy season, and this should still be maximised bythe community. 53
  • 54. 3. Scheduled Collection TimesEach tank should have its own timetable for collection, as set out by the tank committees,depending on what type of institution the establishment is, and the ability of thecommittee. For example, a committee for a tank in a school might decide to set collectiontimes during games period, where water collection would not disrupt classes, but notduring the evening where there would be nobody to supervise collection. 4. Equal Provision to all Community MembersA big concern that community members have is that tank water will not be equitablydistributed. For example, rich residents would take precedence over poor residents ingetting water, even though it is supposed to be meant for equal access. Such perceivedunfairness will result in hostility within the community, and loss of support for tank use.Thus, the tank water cannot be seen to be „sold‟, and fees collected for each unit of water.This is also an issue when tanks are built in communities where households are sparselydistributed, and a centralised institutional tank is not easily accessibly to everyone. 5. *Tier-based demand management systemA basic amount of water should be allocated for each household‟s use. This amountshould be decided by the individual tank committees based on community demand.Households that decide to increase their usage beyond this basic amount of water shouldbe charged a fair sum. In this way, every household is guaranteed access to clean water,but there is flexibility to provide for households that require more water whilemaintaining a level of regulation. This system is regularly used in determining the pricesof piped water in other countries for the same reasons (Wong 1)For example, a tank committee may decide that each household can collect 2 jerry cans ofwater per day. Any household that decides to collect more than that will pay 100 shillingsper jerry can, and again up to a certain cap to prevent abuse. 6. Special ProvisionsThere should be extra provision made for marginalized groups such as HIV/AIDs patients,children, the elderly and widows. This is because they are groups that suffer most fromwater deprivation, in terms of waterborne disease, difficulty of travel and drudgery fromlabour. Even during the dry period, they should have water set aside for them.Funding 1. Cost Sharing with the Community 54
  • 55. Communities that are more invested in their tanks through the provision or funds, labouror materials are much more likely to take responsibility of the tanks, thus ensuring itssustainability. According to ACTS, IRWH project that have little to no cost-sharing oftenfail in the long-run due to a lack of concern and relegation of responsibility by thecommunity. 2. Community-based Funding of Maintenance and RepairAccording to the Sub-county Chief of Kashongi, sustainability means the communityhaving its own money to maintain and fix their own tanks without needing outsiders to bepresent. Through the analysis of the surveys, it can be seen that it is very likely that thisdefinition of sustainability can be upheld in Kashongi, and this should be the primarymeans through which tank maintenance is supported. The finding that DRWH tanks canbe supported by an individual household (Sturm et al. 776-785)also adds weight to thisrecommendation, since the burden of funding is spread across many families.According to ACTS, it is possible for the community to provide its own funds formaintenance, but the problem is convincing them that it is worth the money in terms ofthe payback it will give them. There is a need for strong community institutions to followup through enforcement, since volunteer payment is difficult to enact in practice. Also,the more self-interest is involved, the more likely the community members are incooperating. 3. Institution-based Funding of Maintenance and Repair For communities that, for whatever reason, fail to provide for the maintenance of the tank, the establishment holding the tank will take over the responsibility of providing funding. However, if the institution itself pays for the maintenance and repair of the tanks, they will expect to take the lion‟s share of the water. 55
  • 56. Sensitization of the Community Upfront education and communication Before starting an IRWH system, the community needs to first be engaged in discussions to hear about their needs and concerns. Afterwards, there needs to be communication with them about the decisions that have been made so as to clear up any misunderstandings. This will do much to greatly reduce hostility and resentment against any perceived unfairness. Spreading Knowledge about Tank Maintenance and Repair Costs: Touring the TechnologyThe community needs to be exposed to the technology behind the tanks. There can be anexhibition of the tanks at each village after the tank construction is complete. Firstly, thishelps them understand how the tanks work and how they should be used. This will reduceincidence of breakage due to community usage, which is a big factor in the frequency oftank breakage as seen in the regression analysis.Secondly, this clears up misunderstanding about how the tanks are employed. Forexample, during focus groups community members did not understand tanks were to bebuilt at public buildings like schools in order to harness the large roof area available.Furthermore, the cost of parts of the tanks like the taps, gutter, and first flush system canbe clarified. This promotes transparency with the community, and helps them tounderstand where the cost of repair comes from. Helping Community to perceive Need and Benefit o Canvassing SupportWidespread discussion needs to happen, and this can best be done in town hall meetingswhere a large portion of the village community is present. The key is to have opinionleaders of the village present; bringing them onboard means that even if not everyone ispresent, favourable opinion of the tank will be spread. o TestimonialsPeople need to be convinced that their money is well-used before they are willing tocontribute for tank maintenance. The best way to do this is to bring in communitymembers from other IRWH projects who have benefitted from the program. Thesecommunity members can then share how the tank has benefitted them in terms of notonly health, but also economic savings from medical bills. 56
  • 57. Recommendations 57
  • 58. Recommendations Continued Monitoring There is a need to constantly monitor the tanks and their management even after construction has been completed. The reliability of the tanks in terms of number of days it contains water per year, the service level of the tank in terms of how many households are served, and type of water demand management being employed and the physical condition of the tanks need to be taken note of. This is crucial, because if any of these indicators of performance are compromised, both the likelihood of the establishment sharing the tank with the community, and the long-term support of the community for the tank will decrease, resulting in a severe curtailment of the tank‟s sustainability. Thus, the NGO need to set aside funds for continued project monitoring. Having said this, it is crucial for the NGO not to be seen as still being overly present, as this will result in a decrease in the willingness of the residents to take full responsibility of the tanks. This is termed the dependency syndrome, where community members rely fully or partially on external bodies for the management of their water resources, even though they are the sole beneficiaries of the resource. Furthermore, efforts to mobilize the community to become stakeholders will not be successful, as it will be seen as a thrusting of unwanted responsibility by the NGO. (Gupta 131-147). Thus, there is a very fine line to walk between the two extremes of working on a purely project basis, and being completely removed from the community after construction, and micro-managing the system. To overcome this, the NGO should begin to set up a sub-county wide monitoring and evaluation team that is elected by the community to start taking over the role of the NGO after several years, when the community management system has begun to mature (Byomuhangi ) Community Volunteer Counselors (CVCs) as Supervisors The CVCs are a tremendous resource because of their knowledge of the local situation in their respective parishes, and their ability to mobilize the community due to their networking with local leaders. Employing and training them to be supervisors of the IRWH tank system will reap big benefits in terms of tank sustainability because there will be a measure of accountability from the tank committees when they report to the CVCs, consistency in tank committee performance across villages, and decrease in corruption and ineffectiveness due to transparency. Committee Guidelines and Management Training Program 58
  • 59. The effectiveness of the committee has a great effect on the functionality of the tanks, ascan be seen from both the focus group findings and the survey data analysis. Thus, theywill need to be trained on various aspects of tank management, including: o Tank Maintenance Tips o Demand Management Assessment. For this aspect, the committee can be trained to use the Simple Supply-side calculation method (Doyle K, FAU - Shanahan Peter and Shanahan P ) in order to determine how much water each household should get, and during which season. o Water Distribution Techniques o Fund Collection and Assessment o Report WritingThus, it is recommended that there be a significant training phase conducted for thecommittees after the members have been elected, to go through their responsibilities, andto train them in how to undertake them. For an example of a committee guidelinedocument, refer to Appendix D Tank Committee Guidelines. Fostering Maintenance Support Systems MMHF should work to support the increase in the number of contractors who know the working of RWH tanks well. This will result in increased availability of repair services to the tank holders, and thus decrease down time. Also, with more contractors, prices charged for repair will decrease, making it cheaper for tank committees to repair the tank. MMHF can take the step of identifying masons from Kashongi sub-county and surrounding sub-counties can be identified, and sent to RWH training programs, such as the ones organized by the Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Program. Programs such as these will do much in terms producing contractors like Mr. Asiimwe Justus who are very well-versed in adopting the right technologies to different communities, and have a level of excellence in tank construction and maintenance. Furthermore, this produces a ripple effect of having other masons who are trained in the technology, like what Mr. Asiimwe did. Selection of Phase 2 Tank Sites In the analysis of school potential cooperativeness, we see that private schools have a major advantage over public schools in terms of keeping their tanks from breaking down. This should be a consideration in the selection of school sites, since the frequency of breakage is a major factor in the sustainability of the tank. We may find that in schools that are unable to or less willing to support the tanks, tanks will become non-functional after a few years of service. 59
  • 60. However, a point to take into consideration is that because public schools may haveless money than private schools, they may face a greater need in terms of ability toprovide sanitation facilities to their pupils. This is a big factor; in interviews, schoolsnote how parents would move their children to other schools based on whether theschool had adequate water and sanitation facilities like a RWH tank. Intensive SensitizationIt is very necessary for MMHF and PHP to step in with sensitization in several forms.The first step is to educate and train the CVCs, who are the supervisors for eachParish. The CVCs will then have the capability to hold sensitization meetings with thecommunity during tank commissioning ceremonies, town hall discussions with localleaders, and tank exhibitions meant for touring the technology, and to showcasetestimonies from people from previous IRWH projects.The next step is to sensitize tank committee members in tank knowledge, and givethem the responsibility of passing on this knowledge to their respective villagecommunity members. This is important; since they perform the daily running of thetank, they will have the greatest exposure to the community, and thus the biggestopportunity.However, it is insufficient to rely on the CVCs and the tank committees to performthe sensitization. In focus groups, water-user committees indicated that thecommunity might not give them full trust because they are also part of the communityand might have vested interests. The committees requested that the built the tanksshould play a big role in helping to sensitize the community, especially on harderaspects such as collection of fees and water use restrictions. Contract SigningThe final recommendation is to sign a contract with all parties involved with the tank.Firstly, this includes establishments who receive the tank. This ensures that they donot renege on their promise to share their tanks with the community, a very realpossibility should scenarios highlighted in the regression analysis occur. Secondly,this includes tank committee members, to ensure that they fulfill their roles as keymanagement of the tanks. Lastly, CVCs, as supervisors of all the tank committees ineach parish, should be included. This covers all the management bases.This step is crucial to MMHF and PHP, because it ensures consistency as time goeson. Should it be found that any stakeholder fails to keep their end of the bargain, theycan be taken to account for the benefit of the whole community. This also ensures thatMMHF is seen as upholding its promised level of service to the community, anessential component in maintaining the trust of the community. 60
  • 61. 61
  • 62. Appendices 62
  • 63. AppendicesAppendix AKey Informant Interview Transcripts Water-based NGO: African Community Technical Services (ACTS) Water-based NGO: Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Programme (KDWSP) Community Leadership: Sub-County Chief, Kashongi Sub-County Community Leadership: Byembogo Leaders- Chairperson of Local Council 1 and Councillor of Local Council 3 Rainwater Harvesting Tank Contractor 63
  • 64. Key Informant Interview TranscriptWater-based NGORespondent: Mr. Tim Specht, African Community Technical Services (ACTS)Interviewer: Jason WongDate: July 26th 2010Time: 1500 to 1730Location: ACTS compound, Ruharo.About ACTS: 1. Canadian Christian NGO that works with providing water 2. Mainly works with Gravity Flow Systems (GFS), but has been supplementing their GFS systems with IRWH tanks from 2 years ago. a. GFS systems rely on laying pipes to carry water from large water sources, powered only by gravity. Simple and cheap system to employ. 3. ACTS started DRWH systems recently. 4. ACTS receives funding from the Canadian government, but for the allotted projects does not carry out any sort of ministry work. They work with the Christian objective of promoting harmony, peace and wellbeing of the communities they work with. 5. They conduct workshops to meet with political groups, tribes, churches etcRecommendations made for Institutional Rainwater Harvesting (IRWH) projects Get the institution or community to cost-share, or by providing goods and services if they cannot pay cash. o For example, they can provide the materials such as rocks, bricks and dirt, and help with labor. Sometimes a little cash. Set up a strong management system. Discussion is very important in creating this. The community must trust the institution that it will work with the community (note from Jason: this isn‟t always present in Kashongi. Some community members in focus groups have expressed sentiments that the schools will not share water with the community) o The community must see the benefits of the IRWH come back to them The more time spent with the community, the more trust will be built. A lot of the success of an IRWH project comes from the intangibles As a third party, you can work to overcome trust issues inherent in a community. This must be made an objective. Show the community a vision. Then, assist them. There needs to be monitoring of the project after the construction is completed. You need to show them that you are staying in the community for the long-term. o The program needs to build in funds for monitoring. 64
  • 65. Get the water committees that are formed to come up with their own constitution. Set up a whole financial system; how money is collected, how is the collected money recorded etc. There needs to be massive, large-scale reaching out to the community. Focus groups are good, but they are too limited in size.Problems faced in previous IRWH projects 25,000 liter tanks were built. In some instances, communities will perceive unfairness in how the project was implemented e.g. placement of tanks etc. This will result in hostility within the community. Also, some villages might be unwilling to cooperate despite the whole community deciding to go ahead with the project. This might just be due to internal dynamics within the village where villagers have disputes with each other, and don‟t want to work together The government doesn‟t have the resources to follow up with whatever they build. They leave it to the user to maintain the system, and thus it is unlikely to get funding from the government. Most times, the institution finishes up most of the water, and there isn‟t much left for the community. In all the projects Mr. Specht has seen, only 30% of institutions share water with the community.Solutions to problems Speak with the whole community before speaking to individual groups; there is a need for upfront sensitization (education and communication). This will first get everyone‟s opinions before deciding how to proceed. o Afterwards, leave it to local leadership to overcome groups that are not cooperating Also, it is crucial for the NGO to be viewed as working for the whole community. Sign a contract with all the stakeholders, including what they have agreed to beforehand. This will prevent them from backing out or shirking from their responsibilities, thus jeopardizing the whole project. There is a need to talk to people multiple times. When disputes or internal squabbles arise, come in as a mediator and straighten things out. Be prepared to do this multiple times. Funds for monitoring the project as it progresses needs to be built into the budget.Funding 65
  • 66. It is possible for the community to provide its own funds for maintenance o Mr. Specht made the point that for many people, it is not necessarily true that they don‟t want to pay money for clean water because they can‟t afford it. They still do go to bars and such to buy waragi (locally produced gin), and just 500 to 1000 UGX a month per family (equivalent to about 25 US cents) can sustain repairs for a tank indefinitely. The problem is convincing them that it is worth the money in terms of the payback it will give them. o He has seen widows groups that get together to pool money to pay. This is coming from an extremely marginalized section of the population. Intensive sensitization a. Work with the sub-county to sensitize locals b. People need to be convinced that their money is well-used. 2. There is a Ugandan Law that says that if a water system is installed, it has to be maintained 3. Any project needs to be long-term to be successful; it needs to last for more than just a few months Volunteer payment is difficult o If a volunteer payment system is set up, a lot of follow-up is required to ensure that people pay o Also, the more self-interest is involved, or the more an individual has invested in the tank, the better cooperation will be Also, if the institution itself pays for the maintenance and repair of the tanks, they expect to take the lion‟s share of the water For most government sources of funding, they build the tank and expect the user to maintain the system. It is very unlikely that the government has funding to maintain the tanks. Mr. Specht has heard of funding for the Kigezi Diocese from USAid, but it was strictly for education purposes. Also, he has heard of WaterAid providing funding for some projectsRecommendations for Sensitization 1. Sensitize the community to help them perceive the need, and to see the benefit they can gain. a. Show them that paying some money a month for water can save them 40000 UGX to 50000 UGX a year in medical fees 2. Do presentations at current project areas, where you bring in people from previous projects to provide testimonials of how safe water has helped them. These testimonials must include details such as how much the person saved from medical fees by not having to see the doctor etc. 3. This would be very convincing, and give the community more reason to take a greater stake in their tanks. Hearing economic reasons for drinking safe water instead of dirty water would also convince them to pay for access to clean water 66
  • 67. 4. Key point: Get the whole community to do discussions, perhaps in trading centers. This is very important. Get the opinion leaders and major stakeholders onboard with the ideas that are being raised, and then leave it to them to spread the word. This will help a great deal with massive sensitization. a. Sensitization should reach out to the children as well, since they are the future. Having this ingrained in them will make things much easier when they grow up. They also will have a say in the family. 5. Hold meetings with water committees 6. Give the locals a tour of the technology. For example, show them a tank, demonstrate to them the moving parts such as the first flush system that might break easily. Then, they can be showed what each piece costs, how it works, and thus where would repair costs come from. This will help them understand the technology involved in the tank better, and also lets them know what they are contributing towards in terms of repairs. 7. This all leads back to having transparency with the localsWhat is the impact of RWH systems? 8. RWH systems deliver clean water that has strong documented health improvements. Dysentery, intestinal worms and other waterborne disease have been reduced by 90 to 98% in the areaCost Benefit Analysis a. RWH doesn‟t have as great an impact per dollar spent compared to a technology such as GFS. This is because it cannot reach out to as many people, and is more expensive. a. However, GFS doesn‟t work in many places, while RWH is the only technology available that can work because it collects water directly from the sky b. Also, RWH systems are much easier to monitor because they are a point source as compared to GFS systems, which has kilometers of piping. b. The target service level is to provide people with access to clean water within a radius of 500m from their homes.Ending Comments c. The end goal is to create a system that is pay-as-you-go. This refers to a water system that has people paying for the water they use. This is easy to create in an urban setting, but not so easy in the village. a. Mr. Specht has only seen 2 examples of this before, where there are monitored taps built in the trading centre, with people 67
  • 68. paying to get water. They have huts/shelters built over them, and have people overseeing their distribution.d. NGOs need to keep doing follow-ups with the community 68
  • 69. Key Informant Interview transcriptWater-Based NGORespondent: Reverend Reuben Byomuhangi, Deputy Programme Coordinator, Dioceseof Kigezi Water and Sanitation ProgrammeInterviewer: Jason WongDate: July 30th 2010Time: 4.30pm to 5.15pmLocation: Kabale Town, Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Programme OfficeAbout the Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Programme The Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Programme is the largest NGO in Uganda that deals with rainwater harvesting systems. They have their own masons, and build 12 tanks of 20,000 litre capacity, 100 of 4,000 litre capacity, and 500 smaller tanks They organize a 6-week programme every year to train artisans, gathered from around the country, in the selection of tank technology in different situations, and in the construction and repair of these tanks.The Need for RWH Systems Gravity flow systems have become increasingly ineffective due to falling water tables. As a result, the Ugandan Government has started to grudgingly admit that RWH is a possible option, as compared to its previous position that RWH is a waste of money. RWH is catching on fastThe Effectiveness of an IRWH System For the success of an Institutional Rainwater Harvesting System, you cannot have a straight guide, like a telephone guide, that tells you what to do from A to Z and expect that to solve the problems you face The success of an IRWH system is very much dependent on the characteristics of the individual communities, such as terrain, rainfall, populations etc. o There is a need to have a deep understanding of RWH and the local situation The technology and approaches used must adapt to the local conditions The Kigezi Diocese ranks communities according to need and population, and then enters communities that are high on their list. Some projects have much slower than expected progress. 69
  • 70. For communities that are uncooperative, the Kigezi Diocese simply withdraws. They do this to conserve resources, and meet their targets.Tank Committees Elections should be held for water committees o Always get the residents of the villages as the committee members o Elect members who are active, and have a demonstrated passion for and focus on community development o Re-elections should be held every few years so that ineffective members of the committee will be dropped The committee chairperson especially needs to be someone who fulfils all the above requirements. If he is far away, he will consistently be absent from activities and meetings. Committees should formulate by-laws, constitutions and other management tools They should be encouraged to meet as often as they can. This will help them to anticipate future problems rather than wait for and manage crises. Committees should decide what beneficiaries should contribute, and how often for the tank Some committees are not effective because they expect benefits, and when they do not receive them, become inactive.Demand Management Demand management depends on the size of the tank and the size of the population It is not a good idea to dictate how much water should be given out from the tanks, and the way it is given up. This should be left up to the committees to decide. It is not possible to set rules and expect people to obey them like how they would to the police. However, one a rule that Reverend Byomuhangi would like to make to the committees is that there should be extra provision made for marginalized groups such as HIV/AIDs patients, children, the elderly and widows. Even during the dry period, they should have water set aside for them. This should be the only guideline.Funding 70
  • 71. 1. The government publishes calls for proposals in the newspapers every 6 months. They are willing to fund good proposals from organizations that are on the ground and working well.Community Sensitisation The community needs to know that they own the facility, from day 1. They should not expect people to come and fix the taps or repair the cracks for them when the tank breaks down. If community members know how much water they need, they will then be willing to pay for the water. The community also needs to be sensitized on how climate change, population growth and HIV/AIDS directly affect water and sanitation issues, and how they are implemented.Ending CommentsThe Kigezi Diocese is interested in the handbook. They would like to look at, debate orcorrect any findings, and see if they corroborate with their own findings on the ground.They are also in the process of creating documentation for their work, and will soon behiring a documentation officer to record all the steps of what they do. This will enablethem to also create a handbook that can be shared with the wider community with regardsto RWH systems. 71
  • 72. Key Informant Interview transcriptSub-County ChiefRespondent: Rwanyima EdwardInterviewer: Jason WongDate: August 11th 2010Time: 12:17pm to 13:02pmLocation: Kashongi Sub-County, Sub-County Office Headquarters Mr Rwanyima appreciates the help with the tanks; they fill the gap in terms of proving water to the community He feels that he has a few opinions to share with regards to the tanks PHP is building: The water-user committees should call the members who use the tank, and tell them how much it costs. The committee will then decide how to split the cost, based on the households. Money should be collected beforehand, not just during a crisis If the number of users is big, committee should create a schedule for collection. Also, in such cases the water can only be used for drinking and cooking. Only essentials will be allowed. Arrangements should be made e.g. each household can only collect 2 jerry cans a day. It is not a good idea to collect money for the collection of water e.g. a certain amount per jerry can. This will make people feel like they are buying water, and that is bad compared to the approach of collecting money for the maintenance of the tanks. Only a few will be able to use the tanks. The committee will have a problem regulating use. He suggests using future money to build domestic tanks, and doing a 60/40 split with households. The is being done by ACORD in Byembogo, where they help groups of community members build tanks one household at a time, then rotates to another household in the group. He feels that is approach is very good. However, ACORD is not large enough to cover all the villages in Kashongi. He also feels that it will be tiresome for the committees to keep the tank open everyday, even with rules and guidelines. To overcome this, he suggests having children bringing small jerry cans to school, and taking water back to their homes. Sustainability of the IRWH system is having money. The community must have their own money. You cannot have other people (MMHF, government etc) 72
  • 73. coming in to provide money for maintaining tanks. The community must providetheir own money, to feel responsible for the tanks.There should be regular meetings of the community, about once a month. Thereshould be a commissioning of the tank, with the households who stay around thetank. Then, you sensitise them to realize that they are the ones who own the tanks. 73
  • 74. Key Informant Interview transcriptByembogo Local LeadersRespondents: Mrs Kavundi Beretha, Councillor LCIII Mrs Faith Guma, Chairperson Byembogo, LC IInterviewer: Jason WongTranslator: Joram AmanyaDate: August 11th 2010Time: 12:17pm to 13:02pmLocation: Kashongi Sub-County, Sub-County Office Headquarters 45 tanks of 7000-litre capacity were built in November 2008 by an NGO, ACORD. o For houses that wanted a higher capacity, they would top up with cash. 18 out of 45 tanks were individual tanks, while the rest were group tanks. Group tanks were built by a system whereby community members would self-organise into groups, and they would all pool money together to build tanks. They would build on one house, and then rotate until all the houses had tanks. ACORD chose Byembogo because of its distance from the communal dam that served as a main water source for most villages in Rwenjubu Parish Also, it had first tried Kashongi II village, but it was not cooperative. Thus, it moved. Management Even group tanks are personally managed, by the person whose house has the tank. ACORD told the community about tank committees, but they were reluctant to form committees. This is because some people still didn‟t have tanks, and thus were reluctant Committees would monitor the tanks, repair them if broken, report breakages that are too big, and manage the usage of water from the tanks. The owner of the tank would repair any breakages with his own funding. Problems Encountered Some tanks are spoilt because they tried to enlarge the tank without getting more material. Also, sometimes contractors get poor quality sand for some tanks, resulting in inconsistency in the quality of the tanks. ACORD did not monitor the contractors, which was a mistake on their part. 74
  • 75. Quarrels happen when some people in a group fail to uphold their end of the bargain. They do not bring their share of the funds required to build the tanks for the other people in the group. Certain people in the village do not have money even to join a group. Some groups try to include widows and other marginalized groups by using them to contribute stones and gravel, and the labour for obtaining these materials. o But other marginalized groups, such as the poor, complained why the same was not being done for them. 1. There is a large time gap between the building of tanks for different groups. 2. During the dry season, people who don‟t have tanks would beg those who did have tanks for drinking water. The water is shared with them; however, there is a shortage, especially during the dry season.Opinions on Public Tanks 3. Water committees need to be trained on how to manage their water, and then they will go sensitise the people. a. They should mobilize funds from the community for repair of public tanks. 4. Committees should write written reports monthly on: a. Water that is left in the tank b. Repairs needed c. Funds left d. Quarrels e. Distribution f. Cleaning of tank 75
  • 76. Key Informant Interview transcriptTank ContractorRespondent: Asiimwe JustusInterviewer: Joram AmanyaTranslator: Joram AmanyaDate: August 11thLocation: Kashongi Sub-County, Rwemamba Parish How did you get started as a contractor for tanks?He is a trained mason, and he used to get government contracts e.g. for building staffhouses, classes and latrines. Kiruhura district selected 1 contractor from every sub-county,and trained them from Kabale rainwater centre in 2007. Note: This is likely to bereferring to the Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Programme‟s training services.Since then, he started contracting water tanks in both Kashongi and Kikatasi sub countiesat the household level. How many contractors are there in Kashongi?He is the only one, but he has trained 3 others that he works with. How many clients do you see in a year?He constructs 40 tanks on average. On top of this, he provides soak pits covered on topwith stones for the water that overflows during fetching. What maintenance tips are there for tanks? o Cleaning around the tank, to avoid stinking after. The water can be stagnant in the grasses around the tank. o Not to plant trees near the tank. The tree roots can create cracks in the tank. o Monitoring to observe the leakage points o Cleaning inside the tank, the gutters and the sealed end pipe at least thrice a year i.e. before the rainy season. The sealed end pipe requires people to disconnect the pipe. o Using a first flush system Do you tell your clients the tips?Yes, he does, but for PHP tanks, he thinks that it will be done to the committees. Which parts need repair, and how much does each part cost to repair? o Tank walls: this depends on the extent of the damage o Top Cover of the tank: removing all of it costs 700,000UGX for a 20,000 litre tank o Soak Pit: 20,000 o Taps: 50,000 76
  • 77. Where do most of your requests come from?Most of them come from Kiruhura District How many tanks have you built, and how many in a year?Around 135 tanks, 40 a year. How many are private tanks?23 Private tanks.Additional Comments:He said that it would be better on opening days for him to meet the tank committees togive them the tips on how to maintain their tanks. 77
  • 78. Appendix BFocus Group Transcripts Rwenjubu Parish Kitabo Parish Byanamira Parish Kitura Parish Mooya Parish 78
  • 79. Focus Group Number 1Rwenjubu ParishRecording 5Interviewer: Jason WongTranslator: Joram AmanyaTranscriber: Becky KemigishaParticipants in this focus group are all general community members from RwenjubuParish. None of them sit on water-user committees. All names and contact numbers wererecorded in a document located in the premises of Mayanja Memorial HospitalFoundation.Questions from the community Participants: Who will keep doing the maintenance of the tanks? o Jason: The community What capacity of the tanks will be built? o 20,000 liters Is the community going to select its own committee member for the tanks under construction? o YesInterview1. Jason: How do you feel about the water committees you have in your community?Participants: Committees were selected but are not activeCommittee members are selected from only one place in a parish, so most villages stayfar away from the committee members, and are not helped at all( for shallow wells).Suggestion: each village should have a representative committee2. What do you feel about each tank having its committee?That is ok3. What about 2 CVCs supervising your selected committees?Very good3. Are there any other reason besides the already mentioned issues why thecommittees are not active? Tank problems and when soliciting for maintenance fees, the community fails tocontribute.When the committee is active, the tank will still be properly maintained even if thecommunity doesn‟t contribute anything. 79
  • 80. 4. So, is funding a problem like maintenance and repair?Yes.5. Give ideas like how we can get money for maintenance Fight corruption in the water committee (authorize the committee by all means to be as honest as possible) Tanks are being put on public buildings so there should be a person selected to guard the tank. Looking for faithful people Choose a person to stay at the tank so that every one takes an equal amount of water like the rest- Equal distribution of waterHowever, during the rainy season every one traps water from their roofs, so it is kind ofhard for sufficient supervision during the rainy season.The tanks built on schools will only sustain the families neighboring the school. Andmost people are scared of never reaching the school tanks for water, and are afraid of thelong distance.6. Is there any way to decide how to distribute the water apart from setting tanks onschools?May be if they can agree with PHP and MMHF such that on every 40 households, theybuild a tank.The problem is the limit of the tanks we are buildingThey agree with each other not to use tank water during the rainy season, but to wait forthe dry season to avoid water scarcity.7. Do you have more ideas of how to go about this because in the survey we did wefound out that most of the people who have tanks; they get dry before the end of thedry season?Wait for the dry season to avoid water scarcity8. Do you have suggestion of how you can inform others about this good idea?The committee can decide on that.9. So they are giving the committee the powers to do that?No, that will keep the water for themselves10. What powers would you like the committees to have?Collecting funds for maintenance and supervision of equal distribution of water.; control tank services.11. Besides that, is their any thing else they would like to see the committee do?Protection and cleaning of the water source, like slashing (cutting grass) and fencing. 80
  • 81. Some schools have tanks and pupils use a lot of water. Are they allowed to encroachon public water after their tank is empty?The pupils school use their water. They prefer them not to encroach on the public tankbut they will be allowed to fetch though, since the children are theirs.12. If you found the school without a tank, would you allow them to fetch from thecommunity tank?Yes13.How is the water quality of the water you are fetching from dam?Very poor14. Would you be willing to pay for water from the tank?Yes, but as a contribution for maintenance. They can agree with each other and thechairman on how to pay15. How reliable is the government as concerned with waterThey form our own local government, so they will try to do their best in managing theirwater16. How open would you be to say by coupons distribution of five for each so thatevery time you go to fetch water you present a coupon?When you are near the tank you need more coupons than that one who is farMay be if they are given two coupons a day, they utilize that water very well.17. Is that a good idea?Yes18. How much water does your household use every day?For the dam water for other uses and tank water for drinking19. Dont you think that your committees will help you in future?Yes20. So how much water should each family get a day?Five jerry cans a day.Participants: After this construction, are there more future plans of more tankconstruction?May be the foundation and PHP will in future but I don’t know. 81
  • 82. Focus Group Number 2Kitabo ParishRecording 6 and 7Interviewer: Jason WongTranslator: Joram AmanyaTranscribers: Joram AmanyaParticipants in this focus group are from Kitabo Parish. The focus group consists of a mixof general community members and water-user committee members, including one whosits on a primary school tank committee.Participants: They all use dam waterThe water they use don‟t have committees but some valley dam water users select someone to control it in term of protection and to keep the children away such that they shouldnot drown because those wells are deep. And even not to wash their clothes near thewater.Jason: How is the tank committee structure at Akatenga P/S?Participant: Their committee had a problem: what made it inactive is because the schoolis the only one that oversees the tank. Therefore, they think that the local people shouldhave a representative on the committeeWhat can they do because of long distances?May be to add them another tankSo we did a base line survey and it’s the one we are going to use as a basis forselecting areas to give tanksThe people in schools limit them on water therefore what can they do?How to over come the problem:Sensitising the head teachers to give them enough water and tell them that tanks are forboth schools and communitiesWhere do you want tanks to be built?If we can construct big tanks in villages, not in schools that are bigger to satisfy themPutting tanks in the villages with calculated distances such that all people can access thewaterSo the places we put up the tanks were not the right ones?They reacted that they were right places because it was good to first consider theirchildren and that they will be considered later. But the tanks are not enough.We are building 70 tanks. Therefore, if we are to build more tanks, then it meansthat they will be little in size. How would you react to that? 82
  • 83. The big tanks would help them when we put them in schools and churches so the mediumsized tanks would be put in villages which would not necessitate very big tanks.What is the structure of the committees in Akatenga primary?Chairman who is the head teacher, vice chairman general secretary who is any teacher, atreasurer who is any one near the school and 2 ex officials who are the chair person Lc1and any other person from the communityIt should be functional, only that they are not there during the holidays since the schoolauthorities are not around, and they can‟t hand over the keysOpinions on power sharing or any change in the committee?One‟s view was that the keys should remain with the treasurer because it‟s the only wayto get water therefore there is need to sensitize the committees on that.They should give the key to the immediate neighbor such that any one who wants to fetchshould come pick the key and after fetching brings it back to that person.One challenged them that the tanks were given to the schools not to the communities,therefore the schools were doing their work.How to access the tanks, funds to maintain them, repair them in case of anyproblem?Chairperson Lc1 and the head teacher should be responsible for the tank and the treasurershould be some one near the school.What people would they like to manage their water?If the tank is near the school then the committee should be comprised of the people nearit because they can easily notice a problem in a short period of time.Another respondent supported the above statements.What if the people who are far also complain that they want to take part on thesecommittees?They will explain to them that the responsibility lies on the people who are near the tanksthat will be during the meeting.They all agreed on thatWho should be in charge of repairing the tanks?The responsibility will be with the chairman and the committee members to sensitise andmobilize the funds from the local people which are for repairing the tankThose schools that have tanks they call tank users in form of general meeting and theycontribute funds to repair the tanks and so as to the wellsThose who resist paying will be made to pay fines. 83
  • 84. One of them who was a chairman LC1 said that for him, he has the power and authorityto do that.There should be equal distribution of the tanks, as one of the respondents said that thedistances will be too long for some people.Joram told him that we needed big roofs to collect enough water that was another reasonas to why we were looking for public buildings which are bigger.Would you prefer to collect much water a day and the water lasts shorter or to uselittle water and the water lasts for long?They replied that they would prefer to use less water and it lasts longerHow much water do you use a day? You can all react to that.One said that it can take them a jerry can of water in 3 days only if they are using it fordrinking.Another one said that they can use like 4 jerry cans if they are to use water for allpurposes.How do you look at it if you used tank water for drinking only?They agreed with the idea but one of them said that sensitization to the communities isimportant.Who should be in charge for sensitization?It would be better if we carried sensitization ourselves (people from MMHF and Duke)because for them (local committees), people can‟t believe in them as they do for us. Theyused a term of „the new eye”. For example, sensitise that there should be a limit of 2 jerrycans after 2 days.That can take a lot of time before we come back. How are you going to go about it?The water committee should make constitution, and then call the people in a generalmeeting. Then, they would explain to them how to go about that.You agreed on access and management of tank. What if we say that water shouldbe used by children only?One of them said that since they are already told that water is theirs, it would not be goodto them.Another one said that people have already invested a lot of energy well knowing that thetanks are for them. That is they do communal work, even when collecting the materialsfor tank construction. Therefore, it would only work if they explained to them that thiswater is for children, and you are giving the old people theirs. 84
  • 85. How are you going to handle the case where schools already have their own tanks?How are you going to differentiate the water?One of the respondents said that the tanks we built are bigger; therefore, they should onlyuse their water, and not encroach on the school‟s water. They can only do so with theauthority from the school authorities.They asked whether it was important to keep some water in the tank because one persontold us that it is needed for the tank not to develop cracks.The answer was yes you need to do that.Do the tank contractors give you other tips on how to maintain the tanks?They also told them to protect the tanks from animals‟ interference.Participant Question 1: Since we told them that we targeted public buildings to collectmore water, why is it that we are using only one side of the roof?Joram tried clarified to them that the roofs are enough and the one side will be enough tocollect the water.Participant Question 2: Can I top up some money in case you are building the tank on myhome such that you can build a bigger one? There is no tank that is going to be built at the homes; all the tanks are public tanks.What are your opinions on the fact that in other districts, people don’t take chargeof the tanks in terms of ownership? How are you going to go about that?The reply was that if the communities can‟t take charge then the schools will do it.To show that the people are willing to cooperate, what the contractor told them that theyshould fetch water for the new tanks, they did it willinglyOne respondent said that before you go you should first visit the head teachers and chairpersons and local people to educate and explain to them about maintenance of tanks suchthat they can go and tell others by calling all of them at the sub county.They had wished this education to be at every place you have built a tank. But otherstried to inform him about time which is the limit but we would wish it to happen like that.More explanation was given that they shall be educated by the community volunteercounsellors on tank openings. 85
  • 86. FOCUS GROUP Number 3Byanamira ParishRecording 8Interviewer: Jason WongTranslator: Joram AmanyaTranscriber: Mbabazi ZamParticipants in this focus group are from Kitabo Parish. Some of them are generalcommunity members, 3 of them are on dam committees, and 1 of them sits on a schooltank committee. All names and contact numbers were recorded in a document located inthe premises of Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation.Jason: Are any of you involved in water committees?Participants: School tank committee –Byanamira Modern P/SDam water committee, so they are 3Do any of you use rain water tank at home?No oneWhat do you know about the water committee, I mean those on the rainwater tankcommittee?There are many challenges, like the gutters were not fixed well.Water is not filtered well before it goes in the tankThe tanks are not well cared for e.g. they are always bushy; do not slash around the tanks.That is his experience as a committee member.Is there anything else that makes these water committees not to be good?Because they are not aware of what should be done.Do you think that there is what can be done to help them know, is there anysensitization/ training needed to be aware about that.Yes that when we sensitize them about how to use our own tanks then they can how tomaintain other tanks so it‟s a good idea to help these water committees so that they canalso help others on how to maintain their water tank.What do you think about people who should be on these water committees?That usually children play with the taps heads and spoil it and so you find that watercannot be accessed. Also, another thing is that the tank should be protected becauseanimals encroach upon the tank.Is there any other thing to know how the tanks can be managed?One the respondents gave an example that it will be hard for people who stay far away toaccess the water, since most of the tanks are constructed on schools and churches, so it‟sof great advantage to those who stay nearby. There was also a reaction by one of the 86
  • 87. members that is should be gazetted or fenced to protect it from being reached by peopleand animals.That the discussion is for their own benefit so they should get more involved to shareideas on how to maintain these tanks since the tanks is for them the community so theyare trying to help themThose tanks also can be constructed far away from people‟s households and so end upbeing destroyed without their knowledge.So you mean that where the tanks are that is on schools and churches, there are nopeople who stay around or nearby? Another question is can any of you build yourown tank and then destroy it yourself? A respondent said that people are not the same,so you that are here can go back and help those people know that these tanks are theirsand so if they destroy them it‟s them who are losing out on getting tank water. Therespondent was saying that as you construct the tanks, you should also help them toconstruct wells.A question was posed to them by Joram that how can a person contrast for you are ahouse and them come sweep the house for you? They should take it as a blessing thatsomeone would come all the way from USA to built tanks for them even though they donot know them, and are not even related to them.How the community can contribute to the managing of tanks, what views/ ideas doyou have concerning the maintenance and repairs of these tanks in case there is aproblem with the tank?The respondent says a committee will be appointed, which will be the one to take chargein case there are any repairs needed on the tank. They will take the initiative to collectmoney from those using the tank so as to do the repairs. Also, on the day of opening thetanks, we should go there and try to sensitize them on how to use those tanks.So you have managed to make your own water committee; who are the people onthe committee?There is chair person, vice chair person, secretary, treasurer and 1 member.Have this committee already worked on some of these problems?They say no because most of the tanks are new and so nothing has been done yet. Thatthe old tanks never had committees until they were spoilt; that‟s when they had to put upthose committees to help out.If there are people who do not want to pay for the tank repairs what would you do?That they would use the money which the other people contributed and those who refuse/fail to pay they leave them. But that has not happened yet, and even then, there are moreschool tanks.What kind of powers should the water committee have? 87
  • 88. That there should be equal distribution of water between the households; if its 20litres foreach, let it be so that it‟s not the rich who are taking more than the poor. Also, thereshould be by-laws to guide them e.g. if it‟s 2 jerry cans, those who need more should becharged, so that those fees can be used for the repair and maintenance of tanks. The watertank was agreed to be collected/ fetched during the dry seasons since in wet season mostof the households have rain water.Who will be responsible for the collection of money /funds for the repairs of the tank?The whole water committee should be responsible for that not only the chair person totake the initiative of collecting the funds.According to the research it was found out that most tanks run out of water in wetseason, and in the dry season they have no water. So what should we do to overcomethis kind of problem?That they will make sure that water will be drawn only in the tank when it‟s in the dryseason only.Respondents asked: What happens to those who have no schools or churches to buildthere tanks? Answered by, asking them to write down their names, phone contactsand villages since he did know which village they are from and in case there is anyneed they will be able to contact them. The reason why they are using the publicbuildings is tap more water.Ended but giving them a highlight that a discussion always allows everybody toparticipate and so should always feel free to participate not particular people to do that. 88
  • 89. Focus Group Number 4Kitura ParishRecording 9Interviewer: Jason WongTranslator: Kanyebaze TaracisTranscriber: Becky KemigishaParticipants in this focus group are all members of different water-user committees fromKitura Parish. None of them are general community members. All names and contactnumbers were recorded in a document located in the premises of Mayanja MemorialHospital Foundation.1. How do you maintain your water sources, and what problems do you face withthat water?-Running water in the rainy season falls into their water sources with a lot of dirt, trashand diseases.-Water from the dams is also shared by animals like cattle2. So all the water sources dry during the dry season, in all places?Yes, because we don‟t have underground water and even the sources we have arelittle.And more to that, the water in existence is contaminated by animals and people whofetch while stepping in the source.How do you access the water?People access water free with no payment.3. How do you over come the problem of dirty water?We hired a watchman to guard he water source and prevent people from stepping in thewater and animals form drinking from the water source.4. Where does the committee get funding for the watchman?They collect funds from the market place like twice a year like 24,000/= shillings everyyear.5. How the people pay for maintenance of dams, would they be willing to pay forrepair and maintenance of tanks?They are never willing to pay. They need a lot of sensitization.6. How would you like the sensitization to be carried out?Through LCs and some water management committees around.7. What should the tank water committee look like?It should have a Chairman, vice chairman, secretary, treasurer, and two care takers. 89
  • 90. 8. Should each tank have a committee?Yes9. What kind of strength does the committee have?It is empowered by the government like the LC 5 Chairman at the district level.10. What kind of duties does the committee have, do they move in the community tocollect money?They have by laws from the society so if one neglects the law, they are charged by thegovernment.11. What will the committee do for the tanks?To know their duties, they have to first know the number of tanks and theircapacity to know how they can look after them.The tanks will be 20,000 litres concrete tank and the committee will decide who willuse the tank. They will construct on public buildings first like schools, churches andhealth centres.Qn. You are constructing tanks on public buildings first, will the local community comein to be part of the tank committees?Our idea is that the community will elect people to be on the committee and the firstwill be the head teacher and the other five will come from the community.13. Are there any ideas on how to make the management committee better?It will be up to the member of the committee to enhance respect between the communityand the people.Committee should take the responsibility to sensitize the community.Have a time table for the usage of the tank so that the community should fetch whenstudents go home and students fetch during class time for effective usage of water in thetank.The builders of the tank should first come in to teach the community about the usage ofthe tank. And there after the responsibility will be left to the committee.14. What else can be done to make sure that the water for the tank should beutilized efficiently?By making a timetable for fetching water and estimate how much water is convenientlyrequired for a family depending on the number of the household.But the worry is that the size of the tank will also affect the water to be supplied.They are also suggesting that the water should be strictly used for drinking during the dryseason. 90
  • 91. Qn. For how many people is one tank built for?The committee will decide.Qn. How many tanks per parish?Like ten tanks each parish.What will be the distribution of the tank?Public Buildings like schools, churches and health centres. 91
  • 92. Focus Group Number 5Mooya ParishRecording 10Interviewer: Jason WongTranslator: Joram AmanyaTranscriber: Becky KemigishaParticipants in this focus group are all members of different water-user committees fromKitura Parish. There were 5 participants. None of them are general community members.All names and contact numbers were recorded in a document located in the premises ofMayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation.1. Jason: How do you find, use and maintain your water sources?Participant: Shallow wells contain salty water, the dams carry rainy running water, hardto use and maintain. And though shallow well water is clear, being salty makes themprefer the use of dirty dam water.Is there any question on how to use tank?We are still waiting for how you will construct the tankQN Is one tank going to be enough for a village?We shall start with public buildings first on public buildings and there are somecells that don’t have schools.2. How much water per home?Two jerry cansThe committees that they are going to set up will help them3. What is the opinion on how the water should be distributed?They support the suggestion of two jerry cans per day.4. Who will be in charge of the committee members?After constructing the tank, we will hand over to the community and it will decide onhow to look after the tank. They will make a Rota (a daily routine) and each member willbe given duties and days to work. The committee will choose a committee three people toremain active throughout and do repair.5. How possible will it be to collect money from the community and how willing willthey be to pay money?According to how people long for good water, they would be willing to cooperate infunding for the tank.6. Does everyone agree with this?Yes. 92
  • 93. 7. How about how to maintain the tank?The committee will include defence which will ensure protection and good handling ofthe tank.It has worked with boreholes successfully and so it will for the tanks. And collecting2000 shillings with keeping the records.8. Do you collect 2000 from every user?Yes. The government also gives a hand for water source conservation and maintenance.So after constructing tanks, they will be handed over to the community committeemembers. To make the tap more secure they will buy a pad lock to lock the tap.Making a fence around the tank and leaving some water in the tank in the dry season toavoid getting cracked.9. What material will be used to make a fence? Pole and wire meshPeople destroy the taps because they are not theirs personally, so it is very important tolet the people fully understand that the tank is theirs.Suggesting that the local people should be linked with the heads and incharges of thepublic buildings where the tanks have been constructed so as to have easy access anddistribution of water. 93
  • 94. Appendix CRegression Analysis TablesNote: The benchmark of 10% confidence is used instead of the usual 5% confidence todetermine statistical significance, because of the subjective nature of some of thequestions. 1. Willingness and Ability for Indigenous Funding (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Willing to Pay Willing to Pay Willing to Pay Willing to Pay Willing to Pay for Tank for Tank for Tank for Tank for Tank Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance MaintenanceAmount -3.846 -3.967 -3.155 -6.571 -6.704Willing toPay forTank Water (5.999) (5.393) (7.341) (4.629) (4.479)Use of 1038.0 743.3 490.1 1022.3 1645.5InstitutionalTank (4865.4) (4904.0) (4688.9) (4805.5) (4746.6)Daily 0.856*** 0.862*** 0.837*** 0.767*** 0.760***Income ofFamilyBreadwinner (0.102) (0.140) (0.130) (0.117) (0.124)Increase in 144.5 589.7 806.1 1400.6* 1588.4*Self-rankedWaterQuality (294.1) (533.5) (501.2) (685.4) (778.3)Decrease in -1695.1** -3220.2** -2780.0***DistanceTravelledwhen UsingTank (572.6) (971.1) (718.2)Decrease in 5753.4** 5126.4** 4908.8** 3743.8** 3838.4* 94
  • 95. Time Spentwhen UsingTank (1662.3) (1493.4) (1663.9) (1561.7) (1638.4)(Increase in -77.20 -93.35Self-rankedWaterQuality)^2 (114.3) (96.41)Monthly 63.75*** 52.32** 26.25** 31.36***HouseholdWaterConsumption, in 20-litreJerry cans (14.08) (17.65) (9.855) (8.367)Effect of 5154.0 6161.6 6146.1UsingTank-Reductionin Disease (5762.5) (6732.3) (6877.9)Effect of 767.6 3445.8 2487.2UsingTank-ReducedChances ofRape (5488.2) (7813.4) (8418.4)Effect of 8455.1 8384.9 8716.3UsingTank-ReducedChances ofRobbery (9502.1) (10250.1) (10031.2)Effect of -4760.6+ -4198.9+ -5362.2*UsingTank- Other (2592.3) (2540.2) (2550.2) 95
  • 96. (Increase in -17.79+ -20.39+Self-rankedWaterQuality)^3 (10.65) (11.87)Problem 4187.0+with MainWaterSourceSolved (2509.7)_cons 8514.2* 1416.5 -1138.4 -2018.9 -5465.4 (4199.9) (6620.2) (9792.1) (7915.9) (7230.2)N 71 71 71 71 71R2 0.382 0.440 0.485 0.448 0.455Standard errors in parentheses+ p < 0.15, * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01Final Equation:Willingness to Pay = -6.7TankWater + 1646UseIRWH + 0.76Income*** +1588WaterQual* – 20.39WaterQual^3 + + 3838TimeSpent* + Other Effects +31.4MonthlyWaterUse*** + 4187ProblemSolved+ + εIn the first regression, willingness to pay for clean water from the tank, reliance on anexisting tank, reliance on an institutional tank, family breadwinner income, and theimpact of existing tanks in terms of change in water quality experienced, distancetravelled and time spent collecting water.In the second regression, we add variables to account for how much water a householdconsumes, and also a quadratic variable for the change in water quality experienced tocheck for an improvement in p-value.In the third regression, dummy variables for other effects of using the tank, such as adecrease in occurrences of disease and robbery while collecting water. We see anincrease in the p-value of the variable for willingness to pay for tank water whendummies for other impacts of tank use are added. This is likely to be because ofimperfect collinearity; the other benefits experienced from using the tank are probablyalready captured in the willingness to pay for tank water. The R-square value doesincrease significantly; this is likely mostly due to the effect of „Other‟, which isnegatively correlated and statistically significant. 96
  • 97. The difference in the coefficients of decrease in distance travelled and decrease in timespent gives us a basis for interesting analysis. Both of them have strong correlation, andare statistically very significant. We would expect them to be similar, since they seem toboth be indicators of the benefits experienced from using a tank. However, decrease indistance travelled has a negative relationship with willingness to pay for tankmaintenance, while decrease in time spent is has a strongly positive effect.This is very puzzling at first. However, a few explanations can be offered at closerinspection. Firstly, they may explain the conflict between the experience of real benefitsof having a tank leading to increased willingness to pay, versus the decrease inwillingness to pay due to already having a tank nearby. The second explanation that maybe offered is the interplay between distance travelled and time spent. When the distancetravelled is far to the previous water source is far yet the time spent is little, as with somerespondents who indicate that they own a bicycle or with respondents who travel easyroads to get to their water source, the combined effect is to have a less positive impact onwillingness to pay. This makes sense, since this means that it didn‟t cost the respondentvery much at all to travel to his/her previous water source.On the other hand, for respondents who indicated a large amount of time spent for ashorter distance, the combined effect would be to have a greater positive effect onwillingness to pay. This would naturally mean that the respondents found it very difficultto get to their water source, and would be willing to pay for a tank in exchange for all thattrouble.Upon performing a regression of decrease in distance travelled with decrease in timespent, we find that they are highly correlated. In the fourth regression, we remove thevariable for decrease in distance travelled. This decreases the R-square value significantly,but is expected because of the removal of imperfect collinearity. Also, we replace(increase in water quality)2 with (increase in water quality)3, which gives us improved p-values for increase in water quality in general.In the final regression, we add a dummy variable for whether problems with therespondents‟ main water source were solved by the relevant institutions in charge ofwater. We see a strong positive correlation, but one that is statistically significant only atthe 15% significance level. 97
  • 98. 2. Potential Institution Cooperativeness AnalysisNote: Only schools are included in this regression (1) (2) (3) Tank Shared Tank Shared Tank Shared with with with Community Community CommunityTankShared withCommunityNumber of -0.0378* -0.0264** -0.0605**Days Tankis Dry (0.0166) (0.00809) (0.0178)Number of 1.281 0.837 1.725**Tanks (1.212) (1.174) (0.540)Number of 0.450Householdswithin500m (0.318)Ln(Number 1.467+ 2.666**ofHouseholdswithin500m) (0.852) (1.084)Frequency 0.223***ofcommunityrequests forwater permonth (0.0363)Frequency -0.0704of disputesover waterper year (0.0568) 98
  • 99. _cons -0.437 -0.685 -2.459+ (2.733) (3.093) (1.275)N 26 26 26Standard errors in parentheses+ p < 0.15, * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01Final Equation:Probability of Sharing Tank= -0.0674DaysDry*** + 2.289NumberTanks*** +0.791NumberHouseholds** + 0.103Requests ***- 0.117Disputes* + εThe observations including other types of tanks are removed from this regression. Privatetanks are either commercial tanks which are definitely shared, or tanks in Byembogo,where group tanks are built and there is huge community pressure from local leadershipto share tanks. Thus, including these observations would bias the findings. Analyzingonly schools is also advantageous, because the majority of PHP tanks will be located inschools.In the first regression, the only independent variable that is statistically significant is thenumber of days the tank is dry. When the distribution of how many households wasgraphed, we see that it is very skewed. Thus, in the second regression we use the naturallog of the variable instead, which gives us greatly improved p-values. Interestingly, the p-values for how many days are the tank dry is also improved as well. In the last regression,we add variables for how often the community asks for water, and how often disputesover water occur. Only the former is statistically significant (and highly so). 99
  • 100. 3. Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Water-user Committees (1) (2) Problem with Problem with Main Water Main Water Source Solved Source SolvedProblem withMain WaterSource SolvedRespondent 2.770*** 3.019***ContactedRelevantAuthority inCharge ofWater Source (0.519) (0.614)Discusses 1.270*** 1.135***Water andSanitationIssues withNeighbours (0.331) (0.335)Community -2.141*** -1.588***Meeting in theVillage in thePast Year (0.642) (0.306)Respondent or 0.870 -0.0459HouseholdMemberParticipated inMeeting (0.706) (0.334)Cooperative in 1.379*** 1.805***Village in thePast Year (0.365) (0.465)Health Fund in 0.283 0.112Village in thePast Year (0.296) (0.304) 100
  • 101. Self-ranked -0.0783Water Qualityfrom MainSource (0.0613)_cons -3.441*** -2.838*** (0.352) (0.471)N 114 96Standard errors in parentheses+ p < 0.15, * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01Final Equation:Probability of Water Source Problem Solved = 3.02Contacted*** +1.14DiscussWater*** -1.59CommMeet*** - 0.0459MeetParticipation +1.81Cooperative*** + 0.112HealthFund – 0.078Rankwater + ε 101
  • 102. 4. Factors Affecting the Long-term Functionality of TanksRegression involving all Tank Holders (1) (2) (3) Frequency of Frequency of Frequency of Tank Tank Tank Breakage per Breakage per Breakage per Year Year YearFrequencyof TankBreakageper YearNumber of 0.305RepairContractorsknown(might notincludename orcontact) (0.283)Number of -0.0683 -0.0715 0.302*ways tomaintain atank known (0.142) (0.159) (0.148)Ferrocemen 0.338 0.921 -1.209t Tank (0.651) (0.708) (0.658)Plastic Tank 0.127 0.249 -2.828*** (0.630) (0.639) (0.333)Frequency 0.0879 0.0520 -0.0186of tankcleaning (0.140) (0.238) (0.190)Tank 0.782 0.769 0.0517Shared withCommunity (0.444) (1.201) (1.639)Number of -0.0610 -0.211 102
  • 103. ContractorsKnown(WithNames orContactNumber) (0.279) (0.389)Age of the 0.226** 0.508***Tank inYears (0.0695) (0.101)Tank 0Broken bySelf-Use (.)Tank 4.399***Broken byCommunityUse (0.677)Tank 0Broken byStudents/Children (.)Tank 3.961***BrokenAccidentally (0.876)_cons -1.348* -2.041 -3.476* (0.640) (1.276) (1.482)N 52 48 44Standard errors in parentheses* p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01Note: Amongst the dummy variables for how was tank broken, „sabotage‟ and „other‟excluded because of the low number of observations. 103
  • 104. Regression involving only schools (1) (2) (3) (4) Frequency of Frequency of Frequency of Frequency of Tank Tank Tank Tank Breakage per Breakage per Breakage per Breakage per Year Year Year YearFrequencyof TankBreakageper YearNumber of 0.143 0.198 -0.184 -0.266ContractorsKnown(WithNames orContactNumber) (0.376) (0.432) (0.461) (0.456)Number of -0.139 0.192 -0.269 -0.369ways tomaintain atank known (0.166) (0.267) (0.242) (0.372)Ferrocemen 4.046*** 0.431 1.220+ 2.160*t Tank (0.792) (0.539) (0.698) (1.092)Plastic Tank 3.878*** (0.748)Frequency 0.0934 0.248 -0.0786 -0.258of tankcleaning (0.214) (0.156) (0.250) (0.359)Tank 0.705* 0.0931 1.267 1.944+Shared withCommunity (0.294) (0.784) (0.786) (1.024)Tank 0Broken bySelf-Use (.) 104
  • 105. Tank 3.076***Broken byCommunityUse (0.638)Tank 2.202+Broken byStudents (1.285)Tank 2.274*BrokenAccidentally (1.015)Age of the 0.338*** 0.373**Tank inYears (0.0838) (0.112)Private -2.857***School (0.741)Frequency 0.373*of TankCommitteeMeetingsper Year (0.159)_cons -4.676*** -3.269** -2.291+ -3.579* (0.371) (1.321) (1.249) (1.538)N 37 35 34 29Standard errors in parentheses+ p < 0.15, * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01Final Equation:Frequency of breakage = -0.266Contractors – 0.369NumberMaintain +2.16TankCement*- 0.258FreqClean + 1.94CommunityUse + + HowTankBroke(dummies) + 0.373TankAge** -2.86PrivateSchool*** + 0.373FreqComm* + ε 105
  • 106. We find that often times the respondent claims to know a certain number of contractors,but cannot name them. Thus, from the second regression onwards we instead use only thenumber of contractors they can name. From the regression, we see that real number ofcontractors has weak correlation, probably because the competing effect of knowingmore contractors resulting in lower frequency of breakage, and the fact that therespondent would know more contractors because the tank had spoiled more frequently.The number of ways the respondent knows of how to maintain the tank has a stronglynegative correlation with the frequency of breakage, as expected. This provides a strongcase for intensive education of tank committees with regards to tank maintenance,especially since it is ambiguous how much tank contractors pass on their knowledge tothe tank owners and committees. 106
  • 107. Appendix DWork Done by DukeEngage 1. Tank Committee GuidelinesGuidelines for Rainwater Harvesting Tank CommitteesThe following are suggested guidelines to ensure the sustainability of the RainwaterTanks which you have been elected to preserve for the benefit of your community. Thesetanks are fully and wholly the responsibility of your committee, and the water theyprovide belongs to the community. Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation, theProgressive Health Partnership and Duke University will NOT take any responsibility forthe management and repair of the tank. Thus, it is essential for each committee to createan effective and reliable management structure. Your community is relying on you for theprovision of this much needed tank water.Suggested General GuidelinesGoals of Committee 1. Ensure that water from the tanks is equitably distributed 2. Budget water efficiently to last throughout the dry season 3. Ensure that the water from the tanks is of good quality 4. Ensure that the tanks are well maintained and repaired promptly 5. Ensure that tanks, gutters, roof tops, and surrounding areas are cleaned regularly. This should ideally happen twice a year- once before each rainy season. 6. Make special provision for needy groups. This includes widows, the elderly, young children and HIV/AIDS patients. They should have water set aside for them, especially during the dry season.Responsibilities of Committee Meeting regularly, preferably once a month. Creating a committee constitution and by-laws that are communicated to the community. This ensures that committee and community members understand the responsibilities of the committee, and the rules of using the tank Funding Soliciting funds for the maintenance, repair and cleaning of the tank. Committees should decide the amount to be collected per household based on estimated yearly cost of maintenance (7% of initial tank cost) and on the number of households using the tank. Demand Management Communicating with the community to determine out how best to use the tank water including: 107
  • 108. o How and when water will be collected. A timetable for collection that is agreed upon should be created. Either committee members or a designated member of the establishment (e.g. school teacher) should be present to ensure smooth distribution of water. o If any organization such as a health center or school should be given priority for using tank water. o How much water each person/family can take. Several demand management strategies are suggested, and may be adopted and adapted by the committees as need requires: o Tier-based demand management system A basic amount of water should be allocated for each household‟s use. This amount should be decided by the individual tank committees based on community demand. Households that decide to increase their usage beyond this basic amount of water should be charged a fair sum. o Varying Seasonal Use Community members may be allowed to draw water according to seasonal needs. For example, a community may decide they want to use 2 jerry cans a day during the rainy season, and 1 jerry can a day during the dry season. o Dry Season Usage For communities that have many people using the tank, it may be necessary to be very strict on water usage, and only allow use during the dry season, or during emergencies. o Adaptive Demand Usage A certain fixed amount is allowed when the tank is between one-third and two-thirds full. When the water level increases, the fixed amount can be increased; when water level decreases, below one-third full, the fixed amount is decreased. Implementing and enforcing the rules of using the tank that the community has decided upon. Committees should refer to Local Council 1 (LC1s) for enforcement, should rules not be followed.Maintenance A person should be appointed to hold the primary responsibility of cleaning the tank. They must ensure that the tanks are cleaned twice a year, during both dry seasons. The cleaning includes: o Washing out the tank o Clearing out the first flush pipe o Clearing out the gutters o Cleaning the surrounding area around the tank o Cleaning the roof. 108
  • 109. Sensitization of the Community Transparency and Accountability to the Community o Reports should be written monthly on:  Water that is left in the tank  Repairs needed and costs  How funds are used, and how much is remaining  Distribution methods  Tank Cleaning and Maintenance o These reports should be made public to the community for checks Education and Communication Meetings and discussions should be held with the community to spread knowledge about the tanks and to canvass support: o Tank usage, so that they will not damage the tank during collection o Tank maintenance, cleaning and repair costs of each part of the tank o Sensitization on savings on healthcare and other benefits of the tank, so that they are more willing to pay for tank maintenance.Suggested Specific GuidelinesLocated at School The water in the tanks must be made available for members of the community. Any decisions should be made in consultation with the Headmaster of the school or a representative of the school. It is important to maintain a good relationship with the school, so that community access to the water is not affected. If it is appropriate, you might consider ensuring a member of the school‟s administration is part of the committee, to ensure consistent and healthy communication and collaboration between the school and the committee. It is important to set up a timetable for water collection that is widely publicized within the community to prevent congestion and confusion. People should encourage to collect in the morning before school, and during breaks within the school day (games time, lunch breaks). Collection after dark or late in the evening should be discouraged as this is dangerous, and it is harder to monitor. You need to make sure that these times when tank water will be available is frequently and accurately relayed to the community so that they feel they have sufficient access to the tank. If congestion becomes a severe problem, consider limiting visits per household to once daily. Have a responsible individual (i.e., a committee member, a teacher, or a trusted member of the community) present when water is distributed The taps of the tanks should be locked when not in use. Be sure to lock them overnight. 109
  • 110. The hatch of the tanks should be locked at all times except when cleaning is conducted, particularly if the tank is located in a school, where the risk of smaller children drowning is high. Ensure that the school is not allowing children to access the tank unsupervised at any time. The school should be prepared to set aside funds to repair the tanks, but only if the community is not able to provide funds. An alternative to hiring a cleaning crew is to implement a water and sanitation club in which pupils appointed by the water and sanitation teacher help clean the tanks before every rainy season. Be attuned to the needs of the community to prevent schoolchildren and community members from intentionally damaging/vandalizing the tank. Encourage active community involvement and interest in the tank, Consider involving the PTA and some influential parents. This might help in the long run with management issues, fundraising issues, and general maintenance.Located at Place of Worship 1. Mostly same as with schools 2. The committee must discuss their policy regarding the use of water at large events such as weddings, funerals, church conventions etc. We would suggest you discourage these events using the tank water as it is not easy to limit. 3. Collection at a place of worship could be held throughout the day, as long as there is supervision. Church administration in conjunction with the Committee should decide what the most convenient collection schedule is and publicize this to the community. The committee should have frequent communication with the church administration so that everyone is on the same page. 4. Discuss when the water should be “turned on” and “turned off” and ensure that this is most appropriate for the needs of the community 5. Discuss some times of the day/times of the month that will be appropriate for community members to collect water, which will not interfere with the church’s schedule. Collection of water after dark or in the late evening should be discouraged because this can be dangerous and it is difficult to monitor and control the collection. 6. Discuss with church administration who is in charge of minor repairs and maintenance . Ensure that this person is aware of their responsibilities. 7. As with schools, consider having some members of the church administration run for a committee position, to ease communication and create an efficient relationship between the community and the church. 8. It might be sensible to decide early on how to approach the issue of funds. If the church is willing to consider using some of their funds for minor repairs or minor maintenance, set guidelines for this use before the need arises. If the church is unwilling to use their own funds, then ensure that everyone understands this, so that there is no miscommunication. Then look into other possible methods of fundraising. Having a back up plan incase of an emergency repair would be sensible. 110
  • 111. 9. If many people decide to collect after Sunday services, there may be severe congestion. It may be wise to suggest alternative times, or allow for collection both before and after the service.Located at Health Centre Your committee needs to make a decision regarding the specific use of the water. Your committee is entirely in charge of these decisions. They are your responsibility and your community is relying on you for the efficient management of the tank. You would need to outline the boundaries of use. Would the Health Centre be permitted to use the tank water in a different manner to the rest of the community? How would you deal with people who came to the health centre for treatment and asked to take water with them? It is important that these rules and boundaries are instituted and consistently reinforced by the committee. Seeing as local health centers tend to be understaffed, it would not be sensible for the responsibility of tank management to be delegated to a health worker, nurse, doctor, or midwife. Look into alternatives within the community so that the best possible management is achieved.GENERAL CHECKLIST FOR COMMITTEES 1. Finance □ 2. Repair responsibilities □ 3. Collection timetables □ 4. Safety □ 5. Equal Access □ 6. Special Provision □ 111
  • 112. The Community Volunteer Counselor’s (CVC’s) Role as Committee SupervisorThe Community Volunteers Counsellor (CVC) will act as the supervisors of the electedcommittees for the rainwater harvesting tanks. The CVCs are not a member of thecommittee; they are solely monitoring bodies. They will not regularly attend meetings.They act purely as an aid and a resource to the committee. Please know that these tanksare still your responsibility. In each Parish, two CVCs will be responsible for thesupervising the committees. Their role is as follows: Facilitate the election of the tank committees Oversee and monitor the committees Support the committee Help create committee laws and regulations Ensure that committee responsibilities are being followed Replace members that leave the committee Communicate with the chairman of the committee Help facilitate community financing of tanks for repair, cleaning, and maintenance Report major problems to Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation (MMHF) Ensure that the needs of the community are being met 112
  • 113. Appendix E Household and Tank Holder Survey FormsInstitutional Rainwater Harvesting Sustainability Survey for Households (July 2010)Progressive Health Partnership/Duke University and Mayanja Memorial HospitalFoundation IDENTIFICATION Sub-County____________________________________ Household ID………………………. Parish_________________________________________ Respondent Name_______________________________ Village________________________________________ Respondent Line Number……………………… Cluster ID………………………………………. Household Head Name___________________________ GPS Coordinates – RECORD UP TO 15 DECIMAL POINTS S: E: INTERVIEW VISITS 1 2 3 DATE: Month Day Month Day Month Day Year Year Year SURVEYOR ID: RESULT: 113
  • 114. RECORD DATEAND TIME OFNEXT VISIT Month Day Month DayREQUESTED BYRESPONDENT. Year Year Hours Minutes Hours MinutesINFORMED CONSENT RESULT CODESThe informed consent script has been read and the 1 COMPLETEDrespondent has agreed to participate in the study. 2 NO HOUSEHOLD MEMBER AT HOME OR NO COMPETENT RESPONDENT AT HOME AT_____________________________ TIME OF VISITSurveyor‟s Signature 3 ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD ABSENT FOR EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME 4 POSTPONEDRECORD THE START TIME 5 REFUSED 6 DWELLING VACANT 7 DWELLING DESTROYED Hours Minutes 8 DWELLING NOT FOUND 9 OTHER______________________________ (SPECIFY) Institutional Rainwater Harvesting Sustainability Survey for Households (July 2010) Progressive Health Partnership/Duke University and Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation 114
  • 115. INSTRUCTIONS: AFTER REACHING ANAPPROPRIATE HOUSEHOLD, ASK TO SPEAK WITH Replaced with:THE HIGHEST-RANKING MEMBER.SECTION A: HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS □□ 1. How many people are there in your household? Abantu abari omukayawe nibangahi ? 2. Do you rely on an institutional rainwater harvesting tank for YES…………………………………..1 water? NO……………………………………2 No koresa za tanka za abingi kugira ngu obase kubona amaizi? Tick YES only if household ever draws water from a public building. TICK NO if the household draws from a neighbour‟s or private tank. If the tankj is the household‟s main source, please write “Main Source” 3. What is water from the tank used for? DRINKING…………………………...1 Q Amaizi gomu tanka nogakozesaki? BATHING…………………………….2 HANDWASHING…………………….3 COOKING…………………………….4 ANIMALS (NP)...…………………….5 AGRICULTURE (NP)..………………6 CLEANING (NP)...…………………...7 OTHER _______________________ 8 (SPECIFY) 4. Does your household own its own rainwater tank? YES…………………………………..1 Ekayawe eine tanka ya maize nge njura? NO……………………………………2 Has your household ever considered building a rainwater YES…………………………………..1 harvesting tank to collect water? NO……………………………………2 Enka yawe yaragizireho ekitekateko kyo kombeka tanka DON‟T KNOW……………………998 yamaizi nge njura? Do you know of other households in the community who YES…………………………………..1 have ever considered building a rainwater harvesting tank to NO……………………………………2 collect water? DON‟T KNOW…………………….998 Haine eka oyorikumanya omukyaro kyanyu eyaratekatekireho okweyombe kyera tanka ya maizi nge njura ? □□□□□ 5. How much does the breadwinner in the family get paid for a day of work, on average? (Each day is considered to have 8 working hours) Omuntu oine entastya omuka, nasha shurwa nka sente zingahe omu izoba ? □□□ 6. How many households live within 500m of this household? (estimated) Namaka anga hi agarikutura hahi ne kayawe(500m)? DON‟T KNOW……………………998SECTION B: IMPACT OF TANK □□□□ 1. How far away is the tank (in metres) ? Hariho orungyendo ruri kwingana ke kuhika ahatanka(omu metres) ? 115
  • 116. □□□□2. How much water do you collect from the tank each day (in litres)? Notaha amaizi garikwinganaki omutanka buri zoba(omu litres) ? □□3. How long do you spend collecting water each day? Nikukutwarira obwire buri kwinganaki kutaha amaizi omutanka buri izoba ? □□4. Rank the quality of the water from the tank (from 1 to 10). Gyeragyeranisa oburungi bwamaizi kuruga omu tanka ( from 1to 10) 1 is best quality, 10 is the worst quality.5. What water source did you use before you started using the PIPED WATER………………………1 tank (for general use, not just clean water)? TUBE WELL OR BOREHOLE……...2 Okaba nokoresa amaizi gamuringo ki otakatandikire DUG WELL kukoresa aga tanka ? PROTECTED WELL……………31 UNPROTECTED WELL………..32 WATER FROM SPRING……………4 TANKER TRUCK…………………..5 SURFACE WATER (RIVER/ DAM/LAKE/PONDS/ STREAM/CANAL/ IRRIGATION CHANNEL)……..6 BOTTLED WATER…………………7 OTHER: _______________________96 □□6. How far away is this source (in km)? Hariho arugyendo rurikwinnganaki kuhika ahamaizi aga ? □□7. How long did you spend getting water from this source ( in hours per day)? Kikaba nikikutwarira obwire burikwingana ki okutaha amaizi aga (in hours per day) ? □□8. Rank the water quality of this source (from 1 to 10). Gyeragyeranisa oburungi bwa gamaizi(from 1 to 10)9. Has getting water from the tank helped your household in REDUCED DISEASE……………….1 Q any other way besides water quality and distance travelled to REDUCED CHANCES get water? OF RAPE…………………………….2 Hani okutaha amaizi omutanka oku kyahwerire REDUCED CHANCES ekayawe omugundi muringo gutari ogwa amaizi OF ROBBERY………………………3 marungi hamwe norugyendo rurigwa rwo kutambura OTHER_____________________ 96 kutaha amaizi ?10. Do you use other sources together with the RWH tank? YES…………………………………..1 Nobasa kuba nokoresa agandi maize hamwe nag a tanka NO……………………………………2 yenjura ?11. Is this the same source as the one you used before getting YES…………………………………..1 the tank? NO……………………………………2 Aga nigo maize gamwe nka gu wabaire nokoresaho enyima ya tanka ?12. If not, what source is it? PIPED WATER………………………1 Kyaba kitari ekyo okaba nogataha nkahi ? TUBE WELL OR BOREHOLE……...2 DUG WELL PROTECTED WELL……………31 UNPROTECTED WELL………..32 WATER FROM SPRING……………4 TANKER TRUCK…………………..5 SURFACE WATER (RIVER/ DAM/LAKE/PONDS/ 116
  • 117. STREAM/CANAL/ IRRIGATION CHANNEL)……..6 BOTTLED WATER…………………7 OTHER: ______________________96SECTION C: COMMUNITY-LEVEL INSTITUTIONS When there is a problem with your main water source, NOBODY…………………………….1 whom do you tell or ask for help? WATER MANAGEMENT Habaho ekizibu kyona ahumurikutaha amaizi, COMMITTEE……………..……..2 nimumanyisa oha ahabwo buyambi ? PERSON IN THE COMMUNITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE………...………3 MAINTENANCE WORKER FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY…4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT……………5 MAYOR………………………………6 TRADITIONAL LEADER…………..7 RELIGIOUS LEADER………...…….8 OTHER _______________________ 96 (SPECIFY) DON‟T KNOW…………………….998 Have you ever contacted this person or group before? YES…………………………………..1 Warabasize kugamba ninga kumanyisa ogumuntu nari NO……………………………………2 egi gurupu enyimaho ? DON‟T KNOW…………………….998 Was the person or group helpful? YES…………………………………..1 Ogu muntu nari gurupu haine eki yakuhwerire ho? NO……………………………………2 DON‟T KNOW…………………….998 Was the problem solved? YES…………………………………..1 Ekizibu kikahwa? NO……………………………………2 DON‟T KNOW…………………….998 Do you know whether anyone else has contacted this person YES…………………………………..1 or group for a problem related to your water source? NO……………………………………2 Haine omuntu wena owu orikumanya awaburize DON‟T KNOW…………………….998 ogumuntu nari gurupu ahabizibu ebikwatirine na amaizi ganyu ? Do you ever discuss issues related to water, sanitation, or YES…………………………………...1 hygiene with your neighbors? NO…………………………………….2 Hariho obu muri kuganira aha bikwatirine ne bya maizi, obuyonjo, hamwe na bariranwa bawe ? Do you know whether, in the last 12 months, a community YES…………………………………..1 meeting has occurred in this village? NO……………………………………2 Nobasa kuba nomanya omu mwaka oguhwaire, haba DON‟T KNOW…………………….998 harabiremu orukiko rwabataka ? During the last 12 months, did you or another member of YES…………………………………..1 your household participate in a community meeting? NO……………………………………2 Omumwaka oguhwaire , iye nari owo mukayawe, haine owaragire omurukiko rwabataka ? Do you know whether, in the last 12 months, people in this YES…………………………………..1 village have worked together in a cooperative? NO……………………………………2 Nobasa kuba nomanya omumwaka oguhwaire, abantu DON‟T KNOW…………………….998 bo mu kyaro baba baine enkoranga emwe ? During the last 12 months, did you or another member of YES…………………………………..1 your household participate in a cooperative? NO……………………………………2 117
  • 118. Omumwaka ogwenyi oguhwaire, iye nari owe haine obu mwayejumbire omunkoragana nabataka omukyaro eki ? Do you know whether, in the last 12 months, people in this YES…………………………………..1 village have formed a health fund? NO……………………………………2 Omumwaka gumwe oguhwaire, haine abantu DON‟T KNOW…………………….998 bomukyaro kyanyu barundi neho esente zokuyamba ebyamagara ? Is there a committee or group in the community that is YES…………………………………..1 responsible for maintenance of this rainwater tank? NO……………………………………2 Hari ho akakiko nari gurupu omukyaro eki eine DON‟T KNOW…………………….998 obuvunanizibwa aha kureberera egi tanka ya maize ge njura ? How would you assess the effectiveness of the committee? EXCELLENT…………………………1 Iwe akakakiko kamaizi noreba enkora yako erweta GOOD…………………………………2 ahabuhereza bwa maize ga tanka yenjura ? FAIR…………………………………..3 POOR…………………………………4 DON‟T KNOW…………………….998 Are you or another member of your household a member of IS A MEMBER………………………1 any of these groups, and do you or the other household PARTICIPATES IN MEETINGS member participate in their meetings? AND OTHER EVENTS………….2 Iye nari owe ekayawe ondijo, haine ori omu za gurupusi NO MEMBERSHIP OR kandi iye nari oweka hari ho ri kwejumbira omu nkinko PARTICIPATION………………..3 zebyaro ? What are the issues dealt with by this group? CONSTRUCT WATER SUPPLY…...1 Nibintuki ebi gurupu egi eri kukora ho? CONSTRUCT PUBLIC LATRINES……………………….2 CHECK ALL MENTIONED. CONSTRUCT PRIVATE LATRINES……………………….3 FUNDRAISING…………………...…4 USER FEES…………………………..5 MAINTENANCE OR REPAIRS…….6 SPARE PARTS……………………....7 CLEANING………………………..…8 WATER SHED/SOURCE PROTECTION……………..…….9 WATER RIGHTS/ACCESS………...10 WATER DISTRIBUTION…………..11 IRRIGATION SYSTEM…………….12 OTHER _____________________ 96 (SPECIFY) DON‟T KNOW…………………….998SECTION D: WILLINGNESS TO PAY ASSESSMENT □□□□ 1. How much water does your household consume (per month in 20-litre jerry cans?) Eka yawe nekoresa amaizi gari kwi nganaki (per month in 20 liter jerry can ?) □□□□□□ 2. How much are you willing to pay for the maintenance and repair of the tank you are using (per year in UGX)? Iye bobasa kushashura sente zingahe ezo kureberera zatanka (per year in UGSH) *Randomize starting point. Take the ID number of household, minus 1, and then multiply by 100. If starting point is accepted, increase by 100 UGX intervals until respondent rejects the number. Record the last accepted number. If initial starting point is rejected, decrease by 100 UGX intervals until 118
  • 119. respondent accepts. Record the last accepted number.3. Has anyone approached you to ask you to pay for the YES…………………………………..1 maintenance and repair of the tank? NO……………………………………2 Hariho omuntu wena owa kuhikire ari kukushaba sente zo kureberera nano kukuma gye za tanka ? □□□□4. If yes, how often have they asked you ( per year)? Yaba nikwe, niki batwarira bwireki kukubuza (per year)5. If you were asked to pay for clean water, would you be YES…………………………………..1 willing to pay? NO……………………………………2 Kuwokushabwa kushashura sente zamaizi gatanka, okagashashura oine okwikiriza ? (Note: clean water in general) □□□□6. If you were willing to pay, would you be willing to pay _____UGX for 1 20-litre jerry can of water (in UGX)? Kuwo kuba nobasa kushashura, okashashura sente zingahe…………UGX for 1 20 liter jerry can of water (UGX) *Randomize starting point. Take the ID number of household, minus 1, and then multiply by 100. If starting point is accepted, increase by 100 UGX intervals until respondent rejects the number. Record the last accepted number. If initial starting point is rejected, decrease by 100 UGX intervals until respondent accepts. Record the last accepted number. 119
  • 120. SECTION E: Interview Evaluation WHAT IS YOUR EVALUATION OF THE ACCURACY OF EXCELLENT………………………..1 RESPONDENT‟S ANSWERS? GOOD……………………………......2 FAIR……………………...……...…..3 NOT SO GOOD………………...…....4 VERY BAD…………………….……5 WHAT IS YOUR EVALUATION ON THE SERIOUSNESS EXCELLENT………………………..1 AND ATTENTIVENESS OF THE RESPONDENT? GOOD……………………………......2 FAIR…………………...………...…..3 NOT SO GOOD………..……....…....4 VERY BAD……………...……..……5 WHAT QUESTIONS DID RESPONDENT FIND DIFFICULT, EMBARRASSING, OR CONFUSING? _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ WHAT QUESTIONS DID INTERVIEWER FIND DIFFICULT, EMBARRASSING, OR CONFUSING? _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ WHAT QUESTIONS DID RESPONDENT SEEM INTERESTED IN? _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ ADDITIONAL COMMENTS _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ RECORD THE TIME. : Hours Minutes 120
  • 121. Institutional Rainwater Harvesting Sustainability Survey for RWH Tank Holders (July 2010)Progressive Health Partnership/Duke University and Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation IDENTIFICATION Sub-County____________________________________ Tank ID………………………. Parish_________________________________________ Respondent Name_______________________________ Village________________________________________ Respondent Line Number……………………… Local Leader Name___________________________ INTERVIEW VISITS 1 2 3 DATE: Month Day Month Day Month Day Year Year Year SURVEYOR ID: RESULT: RECORD DATE AND TIME OF NEXT VISIT Month Day Month Day REQUESTED BY RESPONDENT. Year Year Hours Minutes Hours Minutes INFORMED CONSENT RESULT CODES The informed consent script has been read and the 10 COMPLETED respondent has agreed to participate in the study. 11 NO ESTABLISHMENT MEMBER PRESENT OR NO COMPETENT RESPONDENT PRESENT AT _____________________________ TIME OF VISIT Surveyor‟s Signature 12 ENTIRE ESTABLISHMENT ABSENT FOR EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME 121
  • 122. RECORD THE START TIME 13 POSTPONED 14 REFUSED 15 TANK HAS BEEN ABANDONED Hours Minutes 16 ESTABLISHMENT DESTROYED 17 ESTABLISHMENT NOT FOUND 18 OTHER______________________________ (SPECIFY)INSTRUCTIONS: AFTER REACHING THE PUBLIC NOTE: QUESTIONS MARKED WITH „Q‟ NEEDBUILDING, ASK TO SPEAK WITH THE HIGHEST- TO ALSO HAVE ANSWERS MARKED ON THERANKING LOCAL LEADER. QUALITATIVE DETAILS SECTION.SECTION A: GENERAL INFORMATION AND LOCATION CHARACTERISTICS No. Question Answer Comments 1. What type of building is this? SCHOOL…………………………..1 PLACE OF WORSHIP……………2 HEALTH-CENTRE……………….3 OTHER:_____________________ 4 2. What is the name of the location? NAME: □□□□□□□□□□ 3. Contact Number □□ 4. How old is this establishment (in years)? Ekyombeko eki kyahitsya bwiire ki? □ 5. How many tanks are located here? Harimu tanka zingahi omumwanya ogu? □□□ 6. How many households live within 500m of this establishment? (estimated) Ni amaka nka angahi agarikutura omumwanya gwa entambwe 500 okuruga aha?SECTION B: SPECIFIC LOCATION CHARACTERISTICSSection B1: Schools 1. Is this a private school or a public school? PRIVATE……………………….1 Eishomero eri ni eryabantu ninga erya gavumenti ? PUBLIC…………………………2 □□□ 2. What is the enrolment of this school? Mwiine abaana bangahi omwishomero eri ? □□□ 3. What was your school enrolment before the tanks were Q installed? (Write down why enrolment increased/decreased) Eishomero rikaba ryiine abaana bangahi tanka etakagiireho? □□ 4. How many staff members are part of the school? Nibangahi omubakozi abarikutura abarikutuura aheishomero? □□ 5. How many teachers stay at the school? Ni abashomesa bangahi abarikutuura ahaishomero? □□□ 6. How many students stay at the school? Ni abegi bangahi abarikutuura aheishomero? 122
  • 123. Section B2: Place of Worship □□□□ 1. How many people attend this place of worship regularly? Ni abantu bangahi abarikushabira omumwanya ogu burijo ? □□□ 2. What was your attendance before the tanks were installed? (Write down why attendance increased/decreased) Mukaba mwiine abantu bangahi tanka zitakagiireho? 3. Does the pastor stay at/near the church? YES…………………………………..1 Omuriisa natuura omumwanya ogu ? NO……………………………………2 □□ 4. How often do you hold functions outside of regular services (per year)? Haine obumurikutunga emikoro endiijo etari yaburiijo ? □□□□ 5. How many people attend these functions on average? Ni abantu nkabangahi abarikwetaba omumikoro egi ? 6. Do you serve them water from the tank? YES…………………………………..1 Nimubaha amaizi agarikuruga aha tanka ? NO……………………………………2 □□□□ 7. How much water do you use at such functions (in hundreds of liters)? Nimukozesa amaizi garikwinganaki ahamikoro egi ?Section B3: Health Centres □□□□ 1. How many patients do you see a week? Nimureeba abarweire bangahi omusande □□□ 2. How patients were seen per week at health centre before the tanks were installed? □□ 3. How many staff members work at the health centre? Mwiine abakoozi bangahi ahirwariro eri ? 4. Is the health centre understaffed? YES…………………………………..1 Mwiine abakozi bakye ? NO……………………………………2 5. Do the health workers stay at/near the health centre? YES…………………………………..1 Abashaho nibatura ahirwariro ? NO……………………………………2 □□ 6. How many stay at/near the health centre? Nibangahi abarikuturaho ?SECTION C: SPECIFIC TANK CHARACTERISTICSREFER TO ATTACHED TABLESECTION D: MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE 1. Do you have a committee that oversees the management of YES…………………………………..1 If NO, the tank? NO……………………………………2 go to Mwiineho akakiiko akarikureberera tanka ? D11 2. Who are the committee members? LEADER OF ESTABLISHMENT…...1 Q Nibantuki abari ahakakiiko aka ? MEMBER OF ESTABLISHMENT….2 123
  • 124. NIGHT WATCHMAN……………….3 RECORD ALL MENTIONED. STUDENT/CHILD………….………..4 MEMBER OF COMMUNITY……….5 □□3. How many members are there on the committee? Akakiiko kariho abantu bangahi ? □□□4. How often does the committee meet (per year)? Akakiiko nikabugana emirundi engahi omumwaka ? □5. What are the duties of the committee? Q Emigasho yakakiiko aka niyo eha ? MEETING REPAIRING TANK □ CLEANING TANK □ COLLECTING FUNDS □ MOBILISING COMMUNITY □ OTHER:_____________________ □ □6. Where do funds to maintain/repair the tank come from? Q Esente zokureberera tanka nimuziiha nkahi ? GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENT □ COMMUNITY □ OTHER:_____________________ □ □□7. If the funds come from government sources, how long do they take to arrive (in months)? Esente zaaba niziruga omu gavumenti nizitwaara bwiire ki kubahika (omu myeezi) ?8. Do you know how to maintain the tank? YES…………………………………..1 Nimumanya okureberera tanka ? NO……………………………………2 □□9. Name the ways which you would maintain a tank Q Gamba emiringo eyimurikubasa kurebereramu tanka *Write down the number of ways respondent mentions □□10. How many repair contractors do you know of? Nomanya abantu bangahi abakugaruraho tanka yacweka ?11. Can you name a specific contractor, should major repairs be NAME 1: YES………………………..1 needed? NO…………………………2 Nobasa kungambira oworikumanya ngu nabasa NAME 2: YES………………………..1 kugigaruraho kuyakucweka ? NO…………………………2 NAME 3: YES………………………..1 NO…………………………2 □□□12. How often is the tank cleaned a year? Tankamugiyonja emirundi engahi omumwaka ?13. Who cleans the tank? LEADER OF ESTABLISHMENT…...1 Nooha orikugiyonja? MEMBER OF ESTABLISHMENT….2 124
  • 125. NIGHT WATCHMAN……………….3 STUDENT/CHILD………….………..4 MEMBER OF COMMUNITY……….5 14. Which areas of the tank do you clean? TAPS……………….…...1 Nimuyonja bicweka ki bya tanka ? INSIDE TANK……….....2 GUTTERS………..…......3 AROUND TANK……….4 OTHER………..………...5SECTION E: IMPACT OF THE TANKS 1. Where did you obtain water from before you got the tank? PIPED WATER………………………1 Mukaba mwiiha nkahi amaizi mutakabwiine tanka ? TUBE WELL OR BOREHOLE……...2 DUG WELL PROTECTED WELL……………31 UNPROTECTED WELL………..32 WATER FROM SPRING……………4 TANKER TRUCK…………………..5 SURFACE WATER (RIVER/ DAM/LAKE/PONDS/ STREAM/CANAL/ IRRIGATION CHANNEL)……..6 BOTTLED WATER…………………7 OTHER _______________________ 8 □□ 2. How far away was the source (in km)? Ahi mwabiire nimwiiha amaizi hakaba nihinganaki ( omu km)? 3. Were there any problems with the water from this source? TASTES BAD……………………….1 Q Ago maizi haine obuzibu obugabiire gaine? DISCOLORED/DIRTY……………..2 GERMS/CAUSES DISEASE.……....3 CHECK OFF ALL THAT APPLY SHARED WITH ANIMALS………..4 INSECTS………………………….…5 PEOPLE STEP IN………………..…6 OTHER _______________________8 (SPECIFY) 4. Were there any problems with the water from the rainwater TASTES BAD……………………….1 Q tank? DISCOLORED/DIRTY……………..2 Haine obuzibu obwamiizi ga tanka garabaretiire? GERMS/CAUSES DISEASE.……....3 SHARED WITH ANIMALS………..4 CHECK OFF ALL THAT APPLY INSECTS………………………….…5 PEOPLE STEP IN………………..…6 OTHER _______________________8 (SPECIFY) 5. Where do you obtain water from when the tank runs out? PIPED WATER………………………1 Nimwiiha nkahi amaizi agomutanka gahwamu? TUBE WELL OR BOREHOLE……...2 DUG WELL PROTECTED WELL……………31 UNPROTECTED WELL………..32 WATER FROM SPRING……………4 TANKER TRUCK…………………..5 SURFACE WATER (RIVER/ DAM/LAKE/PONDS/ STREAM/CANAL/ IRRIGATION CHANNEL)……..6 125
  • 126. BOTTLED WATER…………………7 OTHER: _______________________ 8 □□ 6. How far away was the other source (in km)? Hakaba nihinganaki (omu km)? 7. Were there any problems with the water from this other TASTES BAD……………………….1 Q source? DISCOLORED/DIRTY……………..2 Amaizi ago gakaba gaine obuzibu bwoona? GERMS/CAUSES DISEASE.……....3 SHARED WITH ANIMALS………..4 INSECTS………………………….…5 CHECK OFF ALL THAT APPLY PEOPLE STEP IN………………..…6 OTHER _______________________8 (SPECIFY) 8. If you share the water from the tanks with the community, YES…………………………………..1 has there been any disruption to your work when the general NO……………………………………2 population comes to get water? Mwaba nimukozesa amaizi aga nabantu boona, hiine okukyabateganiise ahamirimo yanyu abantu aba kubarikwiija kutaha amaizi? 9. How is your work disrupted? CLASS/WORK INTERRUPTED…….1 Q Nikibateganisa kita omumirimo yanyu? NEED TO SUPERVISE COMMUNITY Give us MEMBERS……………………………2 some NOISE………………………………...3 examples. OTHER _______________________8 (SPECIFY) □□ 10. How often does this disruption occur (per week)? Okuteganisibwa oku nikubaho emirundi engahi omusande? 11. Do you find solutions to overcome these disruptions? YES…………………………………..1 Q Nimuronda emiringo yokumaraho okuteganisibwa oku? SOMETIMES………………………...2 How do you NO……………………………………3 overcome this disruption?SECTION F: DEMAND MANAGEMENT 7. What is water from the tank used for? DRINKING…………………………...1 Q Amaizi agumurikwiiha omu tanka nimugakozesa ki? BATHING…………………………….2 HANDWASHING…………………….3 NON-POTABLE USES OF WATER MARKED AS NP. COOKING…………………………….4 ANIMALS (NP)...…………………….5 AGRICULTURE (NP)..………………6 CLEANING (NP)...…………………...7 OTHER _______________________ 8 (SPECIFY) 8. *Check Y if the water is used for non-potable purposes YES…………………………………..1 (MARKED AS NP). NO……………………………………2 □□□□ 9. How much water is drawn out from the tank each day (in liters?) Amaizi agari kutahwa omutanka burizoba nigingana ki? 10. Who decides how much water to give out? COMMITTEE………………………...1 Noha ori kusharamu amaizi gokutaha okugari COMMUNITY REQUEST…………...2 kwingana? LEADER OF ESTABLISHMENT…...3 126
  • 127. OTHER _______________________ 8 (SPECIFY) 11. What is the process for decision? CONSENSUS BY COMMITTEE……1 Q Nitwazaki erikugyenderwaho kusharamu amaizi VOTING BY COMMITTEE…………2 Give gokutahwa? CONSENSUS BY COMMUNITY…...3 details VOTING BY COMMUNITY………...4 CHAIRMAN OF ESTABLISHMENT DECIDES……………………………..5 LEADER OF ESTABLISHMENT DECIDES……………………………..6 OTHER _______________________ 8 (SPECIFY) 12. How is water distributed? FIXED AMOUNT…………………….1 Q Amaizi nigahebwa gata? NO LIMIT………………………….....2 VARIES WITH SEASON………….....3 VARIES WITH WATER LEFT IN TANK…………………………………4 OTHER _______________________ 8 (SPECIFY) □□□ 13. How many people from the establishment use water from the tank from the establishment? Ninka bantu bangahi abari kutaha amaizi omutanka etekatekirwe ? 14. Is water from the tanks shared with the community? YES…………………………………..1 If NO, Amaizi gomu tanka nigatahwaho nabandi bantu bo NO……………………………………2 go to mukyaro eki ? F10. □□□ 15. How many people from the community use water from the tank? Ni abantu bangahi abomukyaro eki abarikutaha amaizi gomutanka? 16. Does the tank go dry? YES…………………………………..1 If NO, Amaizi gomutanka hariho obugarikuhwamu? NO……………………………………2 end this section. □□□ 17. How many days a year is the tank dry? Namazoba angahi agu tanka erikuba ehwiremu amaizi omumwaka?SECTION G: RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMMUNITY 1. Does the establishment have disputes with the community? YES…………………………………..1 If NO, Hine nkoku abarikukoresa amaizi baine oku NO……………………………………2 go to G3 batarikwetegyerezana nabantu bomukyaro eki ? □□□□ 2. How often has your establishments had disputes with the Q community (in a year)? Nikitwara obwire buri kwinganaki abu orikutaha nabo amaizi barikugira emparana nabantu bomukyaro enki ? 3. Disputes over water from the tank? YES…………………………………..1 If NO, Emparana zamaizi gomutanka ? NO……………………………………2 go to G5 □□□□ 4. How often do disputes over water from the tank occur ( in a year)? Nikimara bwire ki emparana zamaizi gomu tanka zikubaho(omumwaka)? 5. Does the community ask for water? YES…………………………………..1 If NO, Abantu bomukyaro eki nibashaba amaizi ? NO……………………………………2 go to G7 127
  • 128. □□□6. How often does the community ask for water (in a month)? Nikitwara bwire burikwinganaki abantu bo mukyaro eki kushaba amaizi ?7. Do parents/community members contribute money to the YES…………………………………..1 If NO, establishment? NO……………………………………2 go to G9 Abazaire na bantu bomukyaro eki nibarundana sente zoku yamba abari kutaha amaizi? □□8. What percentage of parents/community members contribute money? Nimuhendo ki gwa bazaire/ abantu bo mukyaro eki abari kurundana sente ? □□9. What percentage of parents/community members attend meetings organized by the establishment? (PTA meetings, functions etc) Nimuhendo ki gwabazaire /abantu bomukyaro eki barikuza omunkiiko ezi tebekanisibwe abatahi bamaizi ? □□□10. On average, how far away do pupils/community members stay (in km)? Okutwariza hamwe abantu bomukyaro eki nibatura ahari kwi nganaki kuruga ahatanka yamaizi eri ? 128
  • 129. QUALITATIVE DETAILSFor questions marked with a „Q‟, please record any answers given that are not captured by the answer formatgiven in the previous sections. SECTION D4. Who are the committee members? Abakakiiko abo nibaha?7. What are the duties of the committee? Emirimo yakakiiko ako niyo eha?8. Where do funds to maintain/repair the tank come from? Esente zokureberera/okukanika tanka niziruga nkahi?14. Name the ways which you would maintain a tank Gamba emiringo eyiwakurebereramu tankaSECTION E3. How would you rate the quality of this water (on a scale from 1 to 10)? (Write other attributes described) Okarenga ota oburungi bwamaizi.4. How would you rate the quality of the water from the tank (on a scale from 1 to 10)? (Write other attributes described)7. How would you rate the quality of this water (on a scale from 1 to 10)? (Write other attributes described)9. How is your work disrupted? Give us some examples.11. Do you find solutions to overcome these disruptions? How do you overcome this disruption?SECTION F1. What is water from the tank used for? 129
  • 130. 5. Who decides how much water to give out? What is the process for decision?6. How do you decide how much water to give out?SECTION G2. How often has your establishments had disputes with the community (in a year)?Other Questions_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 130
  • 131. SECTION L: Interview Evaluation WHAT IS YOUR EVALUATION OF THE ACCURACY OF EXCELLENT………………………..1 RESPONDENT‟S ANSWERS? GOOD……………………………......2 FAIR……………………...……...…..3 NOT SO GOOD………………...…...4 VERY BAD…………………….……5 WHAT IS YOUR EVALUATION ON THE SERIOUSNESS EXCELLENT………………………..1 AND ATTENTIVENESS OF THE RESPONDENT? GOOD……………………………......2 FAIR…………………...………...…..3 NOT SO GOOD………..……....…....4 VERY BAD……………...……..……5 WHAT QUESTIONS DID RESPONDENT FIND DIFFICULT, EMBARRASSING, OR CONFUSING? _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ WHAT QUESTIONS DID INTERVIEWER FIND DIFFICULT, EMBARRASSING, OR CONFUSING? _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ WHAT QUESTIONS DID RESPONDENT SEEM INTERESTED IN? _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ ADDITIONAL COMMENTS _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ RECORD THE TIME. : Hours Minutes 131
  • 132. SECTION C: SPECIFIC TANK CHARACTERISTICSTank Number Skip Pattern 01 02Is the tank functional? If YES, go to YES………..1 YES………..1 C3. If NO, go to C2 NO…………2 NO…………2 □□□□ □□□□If non-functional, howlong has it been non-functional?RECORD IN DAYS. □□□□□□ □□□□□□What is the capacityof the tank (in liters)? □□ □□How old is the tank (inyears)?Who built the tank? SELF_BUILT…………….1 SELF_BUILT…………….1 GOVERNMENT…............2 GOVERNMENT…............2 NGO………………...........3 NGO………………...........3 CAMPAIGNER………….4 CAMPAIGNER………….4 COMMUNITY……...........5 COMMUNITY……...........5 OTHER_______________8 OTHER_______________8What type of tank is FERRO-CEMENT……….1 FERRO-CEMENT……….1it? PLASTIC………………...2 PLASTIC………………...2 MASONRY……………...3 MASONRY……………...3 UNDERGROUND……….4 UNDERGROUND……….4 OTHER_______________8 OTHER_______________8Has this tank been If YES, go to 8 YES………..1 YES………..1broken before? If No, end NO…………2 NO…………2 SECTION C DON‟T KNOW………8 DON‟T KNOW………8How was it broken? OWN USE…………….….1 OWN USE…………….….1 COMMUNITY USE……..2 COMMUNITY USE……..2 STUDENTS PLAYING……..…….........3 STUDENTS PLAYING……..…….........3 ACCIDENTAL..……........4 ACCIDENTAL..……........4 SABOTAGE……………...5 SABOTAGE……………...5 OTHER_______________8 OTHER_______________8Which part required TAP……………….….1 TAP……………….….1fixing? TANK WALL……......2 TANK WALL……......2 GUTTER…………......3 GUTTER…………......3 PIPE………………….4 PIPE………………….4 OTHER………..……..5 OTHER………..……..5 □□ □□How often has it beenbroken before? □□ □□*Calculate frequencyof breakage per year:Incidents divided byyears □□□□□□ □□□□□□How much haverepairs cost in total?(in UGX)? □□□□□□ □□□□□□How much do youestimate it will cost toperform repairs peryear? 132
  • 133. 133
  • 134. Appendix FPhotographic EssayPeople On the bus to Mbarara Town Children playing in the school field. 134
  • 135. Getting punished. Curious. 135
  • 136. DukeEngage carrying out the Water and Sanitation Education Campaign. 136
  • 137. How to Wash Your Hands 101 137
  • 138. A boy collecting jerry cans of water using his bicycle. 138
  • 139. Surveying a household, but parents were not around. Focus Group 139
  • 140. Golfing on the green. 140
  • 141. Buildings Hut in the Savannah A self-constructed private tank in Kabushwere Village 141
  • 142. Trading center on the way to Mbarara Town. 142
  • 143. Post-class procession. A church. 143
  • 144. A primary school building Sub-County Town Hall 144
  • 145. On Lake Bunyonyi in KabaleAn Institutional Rainwater Harvesting tank built outside a health center. The tank was left broken for several years. 145
  • 146. Gravel, sand and cement used for building the foundation of the new tanks. Fitting in the outlet pipe into the wet cement foundation 146
  • 147. Wrapping a bamboo mat around the wet tank wall to keep its shape.A tank fenced by the school to prevent illegal usage of and sabotage by community members. 147
  • 148. Rural Landscape A large, cactus-like plant that thrives in dry conditions. Cattle of the Bahima tribe grazing on the land. 148
  • 149. Shallow well used for drinking and other purposes.A larger communal dam. The water is pastel-green with scum containing runoff from trash around the countryside. 149
  • 150. Local government construction of RWH tanks.Deep ruts in the village pathways prevent easy access to larger vehicles like cars. 150
  • 151. Waterfall in Fort Portal Crater Lakes of Fort Portal.Many thanks to Ritza Calixte, who helped pick the photographs for use. 151
  • 152. Appendix GBibliographyWorks CitedByomuhangi, Reuben. "Adapting Water Management to the Consequences of Climate Change(Focusing on Rainwater Harvesting and Other Technologies)the Diocese of Kigezi Rainwater Harvesting Case". Ecumenical Water Network Conference, Entebbe, Uganda, Entebbe. Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Programme. Web. 08/29/2010.Doyle K, FAU - Shanahan Peter, and Shanahan P. "The Impact of First Flush Removal on Rainwater Quality and Rainwater Harvesting Systems Reliability in Rural Rwanda FAU - Doyle Kelly." - ASCE Conf.Proc.2010 May 16;371(41114):52-52Print.Gupta, R. K. "Water Governance in Gujarat State, India." International Journal of Water Resources Development 20.2 (2004): 131-47. Print.He, Xue-Feng, Huhua Cao, and Feng-Min Li. "Econometric Analysis of the Determinants of Adoption of Rainwater Harvesting and Supplementary Irrigation Technology (RHSIT) in the Semiarid Loess Plateau of China." Agricultural Water Management 89.3 (2007): 243-50. Print.Helmreich, B., and H. Horn. "Opportunities in Rainwater Harvesting." Desalination 248.1-3 (2009): 118- 24. Print.Sturm, M., et al. "Rainwater Harvesting as an Alternative Water Resource in Rural Sites in Central Northern Namibia." Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 34.13-16 (2009): 776-85. Print.Thomas, T. H., and D. B. Martinson. "Roofwater Harvesting: A Handbook for Practitioners." Technical Paper Series 49 (2007): 1-160. Print.Wong, Jason. "Its Time to make Water Cost whats its Worth." Bachelor Duke University, 2009. Print. 152
  • 153. General ReferencesGarcha, Jasdeep. "The Socio-Economic Viability of Tankas for Marginalized Village Populations." (2008): 1-51. Print.Mbilinyi, B. P., et al. "Indigenous Knowledge as Decision Support Tool in Rainwater Harvesting." Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 30.11-16 (2005): 792-8. Print.Ngigi, Stephen N. "What is the Limit of Up-Scaling Rainwater Harvesting in a River Basin?" Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 28.20-27 (2003): 943-56. Print. 153

×