Optimising community management of rural water services

2,773 views

Published on

WASH 2011 conference: Richard Carter, Head of Technical Support, WaterAid Chair, Rural Water Supply Network

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,773
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
686
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Optimising community management of rural water services

  1. 1. Richard Carter, Head of Technical Support, WaterAidChair, Rural Water Supply Network<br />Optimising community management of rural water services<br />
  2. 2. Rural water supply and community management<br />The dominant paradigm since the early 1980s<br />establish physical infrastructure<br />set up community management arrangements (water user committee and revenue collection)<br />hand over and walk away<br />Water user committee<br />organise, train<br />External intervention<br />manages <br />Water supply assets<br />design, construct<br />
  3. 3. Rural water supply systems (1)<br />Point sources – the vast majority using groundwater<br />Typified by borehole – handpump supplies<br />Community-managed by Water User Committee<br />
  4. 4. Rural water supply systems (2)<br />Gravity flow piped systems – community-managed by tap and system committees<br />
  5. 5. Rural water supply systems (3)<br />Motorised borehole systems. Community-managed or more commonly private operator-managed.<br />Need for sound management and financial viability.<br />Need for regulation.<br />Increasing in number?<br />
  6. 6. Rural sanitation systems – household latrines<br />Household latrines – hh spending decisions to be taken when full<br />
  7. 7. Rural sanitation systems – institutional latrines<br />Generations of defunct and abandoned school latrines<br />
  8. 8. Common principles of household and community management for sustainability<br />
  9. 9. Field realities<br />lip-serviceto principles of community participation and management<br />benevolencerather than empowerment for community management<br />lack of monitoring of post-construction performance<br />
  10. 10. Field realities<br />community management worksbut it has its limits<br />technologycan fail in ways which communities cannot fix<br />committees can failbecause of breakdown of trust or of voluntarism<br />the operating environmentcan militate against sustainable service provision<br />external shockscan undermine the best of systems<br />
  11. 11. The need for a paradigm shift<br />from belief in community management to community management plus<br />the ‘plus’ involves external support, due attention to financial viability and to the environment<br />not an abandonment of past practice, but building on experience to step up a gear<br />
  12. 12. Doing differently and better<br />Community-management <br />Community-management plus<br />Sustainable service<br />
  13. 13. Community management plus<br />Water user committee<br />External support (to both “hard” and “soft” infrastructure<br />External intervention<br />limited ability to maintain<br />Water supply technology<br />
  14. 14. Community management plus<br />Enhanced performance of CM<br />external support - both strategic and responsive<br />recognition of internal and external threats to community management<br />thinking beyond CM and CM+ to future models of ‘professionalised’ service delivery<br />
  15. 15. WaterAid’s sustainability framework<br />TRUE DEMAND<br />EXTERNAL SUPPORT<br />TO ACHIEVE COMPETENT CM<br />DESIGN & IMPLEMENTATION<br />
  16. 16. http://www.wateraid.org/documents/plugin_documents/sustainability_framework_final.pdf<br />http://www.wateraid.org/documents/plugin_documents/sustainability_framework_french_final.pdf<br />http://www.wateraid.org/documents/plugin_documents/sustainability_framework_portuguese_final.pdf<br />
  17. 17.
  18. 18. Why better models are needed: handpump functionality, 2009 [data and estimates RWSN]<br />Population-weighted average 63% - reduces coverage by one third<br />
  19. 19. Why better models are needed: decline over time in Tanzania [WaterAid study, 2006, Haysom]<br />

×