Download to read offline
Uploaded byCARE Water Team
GWI East Africa - Research
The document presents an analysis of the 2012 Global Water Initiative in East Africa, focusing on the functionality and governance of 281 water schemes. It highlights positive feedback regarding community participation and inclusivity, while also addressing challenges related to financial sustainability and governance structures. The findings reveal diverse experiences among women beneficiaries, emphasizing the need to understand their heterogeneous experiences to enhance service effectiveness and transformative potential.
GWI East Africa - Research
- 1. Dr. Helen Pankhurst AddisAbaba, April 2013 1
- 2. Snapshot methodology Data on 2012 Global Water Initiative (GWI) East Africa 2
- 3.
- 4. Most Environment important Second most Technology important Third most Finance important Least Governance important of the four 0 100 200 Figure 1: Factors affecting sustainability (n = 269) 4
- 5. 281 schemes, developed or rehabilitated by GWI East Africa program Mainly water for domestic use, also water for irrigation, clothes washing and cattle troughs The snapshot was filled in by, mixed interest groups: women and men, community members and committee leaders 5
- 6. 5% Not 9% functioning Functioning with difficulties Functioning 86% well Figure 2: Functionality status (n = 278) 6
- 7. Some of the feedback on the initial governance of systems developed is likewise very positive E.g. in terms of inclusion, 95 % reporting that all community members use the services equally and equitably Generally strong areas in terms of initial participation and inclusion 7
- 8. The committee and 2% office bearers were selected not elected 18% It is unclear, mixture of selection and community voice The committee and 80% office bearers were elected by the community Figure 3: Committee and officer bearer selection (n = 276) 8
- 9. 83% of schemes plan for O&M 32%, indicated that the tariffs had increased 21 % had made advanced expenditure on spares, etc However, only 67% are just about covering costs Funds not generated in advance in 43% of cases In 39 % there is no regular reporting back 9
- 10. Looked at three indicators of functionality; 15 indicators significant for all three 1. Existence and functionality of bylaws 2. The process regarding committee elections (selected or elected) 3. Community awareness of committee roles and responsibilities 4. Training and capacity regarding basic maintenance # 5 – 15 continued on next slide… 10
- 11. 5. Length of time to fix if broken due to a financial problem 6. Purchase of parts for preventative maintenance 7. The overall financial situation of the scheme 8. How funds needed for O&M are raised 9. Where funds are kept 10. Committee knowledge/practice of record keeping 11. Presence of at least two people involved in finances 12. Community knowledge of finances of scheme 13. Existence of audits or external finance checks 14. Plan for break downs & loss of trained staff 15. Forward planning 11
- 12. Front-end: initial community participation and inclusion done well, but the back-end is given less attention E.g. election vs. re-elections; initial financial discussions vs. mechanisms for regular financial report-back By-laws, need to be documents that people know about, refer to and update over time 12
- 13.
- 14. Water+ programs often report benefits to them as a whole But particular women’s experiences mediated by age, position in the household, wealth, disability etc so how do these factors affect how women experience project and how effective it is? A women’s experience snapshot questionnaire developed to look at these issues 14
- 15. Tool used in 2012 in GWI East Africa program Small sample of 191 women with differences in location, marital status, income, household position and composition, educational level, wealth, disability Small, non-randomized sample, findings need to be treated with caution, but 1st step to think about the differentiated experience of women, and the impact of these differences on the program itself 15
- 16. Young dependent 9% Older adult 10% Wife of head of household 43% Head of household 29% Elderly relative 10% 16
- 17. 80% 70% 60% 50% Time taken to 40% collect water 30% 20% 10% Amount of water 0% collected Quality of water 17
- 18. Dignity: (86%) Heads of households rather than elderly relatives, young dependents or other adults in the household were more likely to report increases in respect/dignity Leisure Time: (74%), time for socializing (77%). Relatively poor women more likely to report improvements compared to women in the middle income status 18
- 19. 2.7% 10.4% Worse than before 14.8% Not very different A bit better 27.5% Significantly better No answer 44.5% 19
- 20. Married women in particular but also widowed women were more likely than single women to take on these roles. Also women with young and old children were more likely than women with no children and wives of heads of households were more likely to take be involved compared to another adult living in the household. 20
- 21. 25 % of women reported that their voices within the community had improved. Women with young and old children were more likely to report an improvement than women with no children, likewise married women were more likely than divorced women to report improvements, other adults within the household also more likely than old parent/relative or young dependants and wives of heads of households more likely than old parent or young dependents. 21
- 22. 80% of women felt the initiative had contributed to greater equality. Disabled women were more likely to report this benefit compared to non-disabled women and likewise women with children more likely to do so than women with no children. 22
- 23. Women’s experiences not homogeneous Figures just reflecting existing differences? Program reinforcing existing patterns. Some women - namely those that are successful and at their peak in terms of society’s expectations of them as mothers and wives - have more opportunities to be heard and involved than others? 23
- 24. Further studies - Whose voice dominates? Whose is least likely to be heard? What’s the effect on effectiveness of the initiative? How equitable and transformative is it? Clear that women experience’s are mediated not only by differences in relative wealth and disabilities, but also by position in, and composition of, households. Developing an understanding of the heterogeneity of women’s experiences is the first step. We need to be much more sensitive to the heterogeneity as this can affect both the effectiveness of the service provided, and its potential for transformative impact. 24
- 25. hpankhurst@care.org http://thehowardgbuffettfoundation.org/initiatives/global-water-initiative http://water.care2share.wikispaces.net/ 25
Editor's Notes
- #3 Snapshot methodology, consisting of short, primarily numeric surveys in which most questions have a one to three scale for their answers and the option of additional commentary on the responses. Sharing findings from use of tools in 2012 in GWI, Global Water Initiative East Africa program, (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda)
- #5 A key question for the data analysis is how important governance issues are to sustainability.? We asked respondents to rank the factors they thought were most likely to affect the sustainability of their own scheme comparing four factors: environment, finance, governance and technology. In the GWI case, a very clear ranking emerges as seen in the bar-chart in Figure 1 with governance ranked as most important, finance as second, then environmental factors and technological ones lastWhat this study does is focus on governance and finance, unpacking what the critical areas are within these that affect functionality/sustainability
- #6 Schemesproviding water to around 290,000 peopleSnapshot filled in through a participatory process, so this is a quantification of subjective viewsTool has been used annually, being adapted/improved over time
- #7 Current functionality levels of 86%functioning well, 9% functioning but with difficulties and 5%not functioning are also excellent.Also other indicators with the same message: 97%positive feedback to the question on whether the water scheme provided a good service since it was built. There is no doubt that the regular functionality monitoring has contributed to ensuring that the figures are high, significantly more so than is common for work in the sector,30% non-functionality is probably a good overall estimate.
- #8 Of the remaining 4% indicated that nobody is excluded but that a few do not use the services and 1% indicated there were community members excluded/marginalized from using the service.
- #9 Another very positive example is in terms of the election of committee members, 80% indicating that committee and office bearers being elected by the community, 18% that it’s unclear with a mixture of selection and community voice and 2% that committee and office bearers were selected rather than elected.
- #10 In terms of financial governance issues, there are also some very positive findings, (first three bullet points)However,second three batch more worrying
- #11 Of all the questions that could be asked around governance, which are the most critical to sustainability? we ran correlation tests between the different governance questions namely: i) water points that are reported as providing good service since they were built, ii) waterpoints currently providing water and iii) waterpoints currently functioning well. For the GWI 2012 data, the tests identified almost all the questions as statistically relevant to one or other of the functionality tests; however, the following factors were significantly correlated with all three:(Fischer’s exact tests were performed on multi-level categorical variables. Overall significance levels available).
- #13 To improve short-term functionality and long-term sustainability more attention needs to be given to governance issues. This includes committee formation and training as well as the way the relationship between committee, community and government is formulated.
- #15 for example in terms of reduced burden, increased dignity, livelihood and empowering opportunities.
- #16 The aim of the study is to promote further discussion and analysis of the two-way impact of women’s heterogeneity both on their experiences, and on the effectiveness of the water+ services that are put into place.
- #17 An example of some of the difference in composition of respondents, namely differences of position within households.All of the respondents interviewed had access to an improved water system and 85 percent had access to a household latrine, mostly a pit latrine. Sixty-four percent of the women had a handwashing facility near their latrines, while the remainder had facilities near their houses rather than by the latrines.
- #18 It is clear from the aggregated responses that access to clean water and sanitation transformed most women’s lives and has a positive effect on development. Women reported reduced time to collect water, increased amounts collected and improvements in the quality of water collected for example, see Figure 5. The impacts on health, economic opportunities dignity, reduced stress and conflict, personal development and time to be engaged more in other activities – including visiting neighbors – are some examples of changes reported. Perhaps more importantly, however, the snapshot starts to provide an analysis which disaggregates the feedback from different types of women where statistically significant. This provides an attempt to start understanding which women tend to benefit more or less from the interventions and in what way.
- #19 DignityThe availability of water and household sanitation resulted in 86 percent of respondents feeling an improvement in dignity.The reason for this difference was not stated, however, it could be that dignity is associated more with the household than with the individual and therefore the wife of the head of household or the female head of household would be the ones more clearly feeling the benefits of the change.Leisure TimeAn improvement in leisure time was also noted by 74 percent of respondents. Time for socializing and networking significantly increased for 40 percent of women and slightly increased for 37 percent of women. Relatively poor women were more likely to report improved time for socializing after intervention compared to women in the middle income status.
- #20 An improved financial situation was reported by 72 percent of the respondents (27 significant, 45 a bit better). However 15 percent of women felt their financial situation was no different and 3 percent indicated it had worsened because they now had to pay for water. Due to the availability of water, 64 percent of women reported an increase in resources (such as vegetables) for consumption or sale. Improvement in income generating activities (IGA) varied significantly by household position. Wives of heads of households, women heads of households and women with children (particularly older children) were more likely to report IGA benefits than young dependants or elderly relatives living within the household. Engagement in economic groups (such as savings and credit associations) improved for 63 percent of women. Women with young and old children were more likely than women with no children to report greater engagement in economic groups, divorced women likewise were more likely than single women and married women more likely than single women to report benefits
- #21 Married women in particular but also widowed women were more likely than single women to take on these roles. Also women with young and old children were more likely than women with no children and wives of heads of households were more likely to take be involved compared to another adult living in the household.
- #22 Voice in the community
- #24 What this study has tried to do is highlight through statistical analysis what is an obvious point, namely that women’s experiences are not homogeneous. It could well be that these statistically relevant findings are just a reflection of women reporting existing differences, i.e. that the findings are a reflection of women reporting the underlying existing differences, rather than ones specifically affected by the water+ initiative. However, it could also be that the initiative is reinforcing existing patterns, in which some women – namely those that are successful and at their peak in terms of society’s expectations of them as mothers and wives - have more opportunities to be heard and involved than others
- #25 More studies are needed which can make stronger statistically statements - backed up by wider narrative analysis, in particular of the negative experiences, i.e. where women report no improvements or the situation for them getting worse. Fundamentally, however, the message is that programs need to be aware of the fact that how women experience the initiatives are mediated not only by differences in relative wealth and disabilities, but also by issues around position in, and composition of, households. Developing an understanding of the heterogeneity of women’s experiences is the first step. The question this leads onto is how targeting can improve the efficiency of the services put in place and the equity - in terms of which women benefit the most. In the selection of care-taker, committee member or trainee for additional income-generation opportunities, for example, it would be useful to understand who is most likely to be most effective at those roles and who is most likely to benefit in terms of reducing their economic or social vulnerability. The argument in this paper is that we need to be much more sensitive to the heterogeneity of women’s backgrounds as this can affect both the effectiveness of the service provided, and its potential for transformative impact on women.