Multiple Use Services - IRC webinar

Multiple Use Services - IRC webinar

• 1.
  Multiple Use Services(MUS) IRC Synergy week – 22 June 2012
• 2.
  Agenda 9.00 – 9.15:Introduction, opening and explanation of objectives Keeping the water flowing (video) 9.15 – 9.45 Block 1: New research evidence: a reminder on MUS and new research evidence on extent and cost-benefits of multiple-use services, and the relation between MUS and sustainability of services (Stef Smits) Discussion: how to include MUS into the frameworks for sustainable service delivery? 9.45 – 10.15: Block 2: MUS practices: Guidelines for planning and providing multiple-use services (Marieke Adank) 10.15 – 10.30: Coffee break 10.30 – 12.00: Block 3: Institutional opportunities and barriers for scaling MUS: • Overview of entry points and scaling pathways; results of the Rockefeller Foundation study (Stef Smits) • Scoping study on MUS in Ethiopia (John Butterworth) • Domestic-plus approaches in Ghana (Marieke Adank) • NREGA and multiple-use of water in Kerala, India (Kurian Baby) Discussion: how can we analyse the opportunities and barriers for scaling up MUS? What else could IRC do to take MUS forward?
• 3.
  Block 1: A reminderand new research evidence
• 4.
  A reminder: whatis MUS? • A livelihood-based approach towards water services provision, that takes people’s multiple water needs (domestic, productive), with the view towards improving health and livelihoods in an integrated manner, often combining multiple sources for multiple uses
• 5.
  Where does MUScome from? • Recognition of de facto MUS – “unplanned” uses and causes of “vandalism” in water supply – The potential these could make to cost-recovery and human well-being – De facto use of irrigation systems for drinking water supplies and other uses – Captured in series of case studies • Proactively planning and catering for multiple uses – Research into MUS modalities – Collecting evidence – Various pilot projects – Guidelines for implementation • Promoted by organizations from both WASH and irrigation sectors
• 6.
  What does MUSlook like? • Four types: – Domestic-plus: climbing the water ladder – Irrigation-plus: add-ons for access – Self-supply: promoting household investments for multiple use – Community MUS: participatory planning for different water uses, without any pre-set priority
• 7.
  Evidence of useof water • De facto use of rural water supplies is almost universal • But, depends on availability of alternative open water sources • In Kenya: 71% use water for productive activities, but 54% use piped water for this
• 8.
  percentage of ruralusers, using point sources for productive purposes (n= 1032)
• 9.
  Dry season wateruse 50 45 Median 40 litres per person per day Lower Quartile 35 30 Upper Quartile 25 20 15 10 5 0 Northern - East Ashanti - Bosomtwe Volta - Ketu South Gonja
• 10.
  Use of watersources for productive uses 100% % Formal for Productive 90% 80% % Informal for Productive 70% % of respondants 60% % informal for domestic 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Northern - East Gonja Ashanti - Bosomtwe Volta - Ketu South
• 11.
  Benefits of MUS:user level • More livelihood benefits than ‘single-use’ services (Renwick et al. 2007) – $25-$70 / capita / yr net – Additional $125-$350 / yr for family of 5 – Above 20 lpcd, each additional lpcd generates $0.5 - $1 / yr of income • Particularly high impact for intermediate levels of service • Non-monetary benefits – Health – Food security and nutrition – Reduced vulnerability and diversification of livelihoods – Social equity and empowerment • Low, but not lowest, income category most dependent on productive use but in absolute terms, high, but not highest, income group benefits most • In Kenya 11% of total HH income earned through piped water
• 12.
  Benefits of MUS:services • High correlation between the extent of MUS and performance and sustainability of water services: – no damage of unplanned uses, anticipating competition between users – income for cost-recovery and professionalization of service providers – if more water is more reliably available, more incentive to use it productively – Ownership and maintenance in case of self-supply • Senegal: high productive use systems had, on average, greater technical sustainability than low systems, but similar financial sustainability • Chicken or egg?
• 13.
  Benefits of MUS:services In Senegal, extent of productive use associated Greater # of duties undertaken by water committee More experienced water system operators Greater % of HHs making upfront cash contributions for system construction Greater likelihood that community initiated construction of water system Source: Hall et al. 2012
• 14.
  What are thecosts? • Incremental costs: – Higher levels of service – Transaction costs of more participatory approach – Opportunity costs: more for some, or some for more • Evidence: – Particularly for piped systems, the incremental costs are low (5-15% additional costs) – e.g. Bolivia, Honduras, Senegal, Nepal
• 15.
  Cost-benefits • For themajority of systems, the theoretical financial benefits from piped-water-based productive activities are greater than the estimated incremental costs of system upgrade • If all the potential net benefits were used to repay the incremental costs, these would be recovered in approximately 1-2 years (Senegal, Kenya)
• 16.
  Source: Hall etal. 2012
• 17.
  Context matters • Highwater use correlated with: – Greater HH wealth, often associated with percentage of HHs receiving remittances – Greater % of HHs with at least one literate member – Shorter distances to nearest paved road/city (Senegal), poorer road conditions (Kenya)
• 18.
  Conclusions • Extent ofproductive use of water positively associated with better performing supplies – so that more and more reliable water is available • But needs incremental investments, which in theory can be easily earned back • Benefitting poor people, but not the poorest
• 19.
  • Questions • Discussion:implications of these research findings for service delivery approach
• 20.
  Block 2 MUS practices
• 21.
  Block 3 Institutional opportunitiesand barriers for scaling MUS
• 22.
  Scaling up MUS •4 entry points or models for MUS have developed over the past few years • Each with their own characteristics, potential and barriers • Basis for identifying scaling pathways
• 23.
  Domestic-plus Characteristics: - Providing higherlevels of service, for new infrastructure, or in expansion and rehabilitation - Strengthening community management - Add-ons, like cattle troughs, community gardens How to: - Structured planning approach - Bringing in livelihoods perspective in all phases of the project cycle
• 24.
  Examples • Zimbabwe: guidelinesfor livelihoods- based planning in rural areas (with UNICEF) • Ethiopia: new community-based WASH and nutrition (with UNICEF) and accelerated self supply • Honduras: pilot projects with gravity- fed piped schemes, using structured planning approach (also in other Latin American countries) • Nepal: gravity-fed schemes in middle hills
• 25.
  Irrigation-plus Characteristics • Providing waterservices for other needs than crop production through infrastructure adjustments and management reforms – Add-ons to improve access, e.g. cattle ramps – Provision of water in bulk for formal drinking water supplies – Conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water How to: • MASSMUS methodology (FAO) for large canal irrigation schemes – Assessing multiple uses of water in schemes, and the value generated through these – Recognise and address these in canal modernization efforts and management reforms
• 26.
  Example: Krishna WesternDelta (India) Canal irrigation supplies domestic water for millions of people through: • Bulk supply to towns and cities • Conjunctive use of ground water • In-stream uses Assessing these to address them in modernization plans
• 27.
  Self-supply Motorised Rope pump pumps Handpump (communal) Semi-protected Unprotected • Users climb the water by gradually improving their facilities • Needs support through: – Supply chain development – Market development – Targeted subsidies – Technology development
• 28.
  Community-based MUS • Participatory planning in water projects or water components in participatory programs • Own priorities for sustainability • Empowering communities linked to local government • Combining multiple sources
• 29.
  Scaling up: barriersand opportunities • Each of the 4 entry points has its own potential and barriers • Mainly institutional limitations: mandates and financial frameworks • Example: domestic-plus: Market potential: is 1-2 Billion people (60% of poor have assets that would benefit from MUS) Opportunities • Improving service levels • Higher return per dollar invested Observed barriers and concerns: • Use of high quality water for uses that do not require that • Investing in higher levels of service vs providing basic supplies for unserved • Sector targets and performance indicators • Capacity for livelihoods-based planning
• 30.
  Scaling pathways Making MUSmodels more robust • Clear definition of service levels • Targeting to address inequality • Clear criteria to measure performance • Relation between sustainability and extent of MUS • Culminating in MUS service delivery models
• 31.
  Scaling pathways Scaling • Increasedawareness and advocacy to identify and address limitations in policies, norms and standards • Building upon existing sector programmes to leverage public and private finance • Concentrating in a few areas/countries where there is heat to generate a critical mass
• 32.
  Scaling internationally • MUSGroup: 12 Core members and 350 individual members on the mailing list • Group activities: – Advocacy – Information sharing and knowledge management – Promoting innovation and research • Successes – Information base established and joint concept development – Adoption of the concept and approach by some international organisations (USAID, FAO) • Challenges – Differentiated targeting of messages to key audiences – Establishing relation with bilateral donors
• 33.
  Conclusions • MUS startedoff as recognizing reality – now moving into: – Structured implementation – Overcoming institutional barriers • Approach with high potential to improve livelihoods of the poor (but not the poorest?) and sustainability of services • Wealth of case examples and pilot experiences, culminating in standardized guidelines • Still, opportunities to make the models more robust and fit to different contexts • Sharing and learning is key – but need to differentiate messages more