Itiati Sub-location consisting of four villages
Beneficiaries – This appears to be a very ambitious project. Besides the 8,500 people that will directly benefit from improved water supply, the project description suggests that water will also be provided to a large regional dispensary, two coffee processing plants, and cultivating...
Itiati Sub-location consisting of four villages
Beneficiaries – This appears to be a very ambitious project. Besides the 8,500 people that will directly benefit from improved water supply, the project description suggests that water will also be provided to a large regional dispensary, two coffee processing plants, and cultivating “short term cropsâ€Â. Coffee-processing operations use large amounts of water for pulping, flushing the residue and discarding pulp. Balancing domestic water use with agricultural demand may generate some friction in the future, especially if demand for water (especially by commercial and agricultural users) exceeds the new system’s capacity.
Hygiene and Sanitation Behavioral Change - Under “Additional Detailsâ€Â, why is hygiene and sanitation not being directly included in the water project? It is often the case that people are much more interested in getting access to good quality water, than they are about hygiene and sanitation behavioral change (HSBC) promotion. However, tying HSBC directly to water development projects often provides an excellent opportunity to get beneficiaries to buy into the non-water components, such as HSBC. Not doing so is a missed opportunity, especially because this proposed project is focused (at least in part) on the most vulnerable group, namely young school children. Nearly all donors (multilaterals such as World Bank, and large bilateral donors such as Danida) financing rural water supply nowadays routinely incorporate HSBC components into their water projects as a means of maximizing the health benefits of their investment in improved water supply.
Financing – It appears that all the capital investment is from external donors (with the exception of in-kind labor contributions from the beneficiary communities). Are the two coffee processing plants co-financing the capital investment cost of the proposed water system in proportion to the benefits that they will accrue as a result of the new water system? If not, they should be expected to do so. What percent of the water system output will they use? Is that acceptable to the donor? Are the farmers who stand to benefit from having improved access to water for their crops (mentioned in the “Details†section) going to help pay for the improvements? They certainly should. It seems reasonable that the Itiati Self Help Group who will cultivate short term crops should financially benefit from the new water system, and so some of their profits should go to support the water system. If the District government representative is so committed to providing clean water to his constituents, perhaps he could also find a way to earmark some supplemental government financing to support the system’s capital investment cost. Finally, the $6 per capita investment cost seems unusually low for piped water. Is this realistic? Perhaps it is because there is already an existing water distribution system at the site.
Technical Issues – You might want to also look into improving the rainwater catchment system at the dispensary in order to minimize water demand from the new system, or even financing rainwater catchment for domestic purposes at the household level. There are some quite useful articles about rainwater catchment at the following websites: http://www.gdrc.org/uem/water/rainwater/introduction.html, and http://www.oas.org/dsd/publications/unit/oea59e/ch10.htm#1.1%20rainwater%20harvesting%20from%20rooftop%20catchments
Community Contributions to Capital Investment – Except for in-kind labor, community contributions appear to be $0, which is not a good idea at all. All beneficiaries should be expected to provide at least some modest portion (e.g., 10-20%) of the capital investment cost. This is standard practice worldwide in rural water supply and sanitation projects. People who don’t pay any upfront costs tend to have little or no feeling of ownership or responsibility for water systems that are parachuted in, and collecting the proposed monthly fees may be difficult. No ownership usually means no sense of responsibility for O&M, let alone equipment replacement or needed system expansion to accommodate steadily growing populations. . What if people don’t pay the water usage fee? Will they be cut off? This is a very common failure mode for rural water systems world-wide, and should be avoided at the beginning.
Operation and Maintenance Support Costs and Metering - A water usage fee will be charged to fund maintenance efforts, presumably just a fixed amount per household or other user. However, there is no mention of any water meters being used, so there is no incentive for consumers to economize on their use of water. I would strongly recommend that water meters (paid for by each household) be installed on house connections, and that the water fee should be consumption-based. This will have the added advantages of recovering costs from high-volume users (especially the non-residential users) as well as promoting water demand management (e.g., economical use of water). The modest incremental cost (probably less than $10 for each household connection) of installing water meters in house connections will be far more than recovered from the additional water revenue that they will generate.