Results
The need for an approach to water supply which aims to cover for both people’s domestic and productive water (the multiple use services, mus, approach) needs has gained recognition over the last few years in Zimbabwe. A range of organisations, especially NGOs are pioneering such approach in their programmes and projects.
In following such a mus approach, these organisations have started to use a range of technologies which enable multiple uses in different degrees. These range from household-based options such as family wells and rainwater harvesting devices to community-based boreholes with bush pumps; and, from drip irrigation kits to associated head works for cattle watering and laundry. These technologies differ in their functioning, their costs and especially their implications for water use.
This paper attempts to systematically document these different technologies. It does so by first providing a typology of the technologies that are being used. This typology is based upon whether technologies are typical household solutions, or communal ones. A further distinction is made along the chain of water sources, extracting and lifting devices, and then distribution devices. Each of the technologies is described in detail, especially in terms of its implications for multiple use of water.
It shows that there is not one single “best” technology for multiple uses. The household-based family wells are more expensive (in per capita costs) than the conventional boreholes with bush pumps, but allow for much higher consumption levels, which can be turned into productive use. This doesn’t mean that family wells can now spread all over the country, as they can only be applied in areas with shallow groundwater. Other technologies such as rainwater harvesting and farm ponds are complementary technology to the family wells or bush pumps, as they cannot guarantee year-round water supply. Finally, a number of technologies can be applied to save water, and reduce labour requirements in putting available water to use, ranging from cattle troughs to drip kits. To what extent these are feasible, depends mainly on the availability of water. When it is easily and readily available, the need for such technologies is less than when more effort is needed to collect water.
How to finance multiple use water systems for the rural poor? Lessons learnt from the domestic water sector in the Olifants river basin, South Africa
This international workshop paper focuses on the water policies and institutions in the domestic water sector of South Africa, and on characteristics of rural water supply in terms of level of services, costs and financing. Empirical data from the former homelands of the Olifants river basin show that, although the main determinants of costs are difficult to determine due to the extreme variability of situations, water costs per capita increase with the quantity of water delivered so without economy of scale. Very few water-pricing policies are implemented, so everybody, including poor people, have a free access to water.
Institutional framework, water pricing structures and costs of domestic water services in rural poor areas of the Olifants River basin, South Africa
This report by Marie Lefebvre, MSc student, focuses on the domestic water sector in South Africa. It presents the general institutional and policy framework for the domestic water services. Water tarifs and subsidy policy of several Water Services Authorities operating in the former homeland areas in the Olifants river basin are analysed with regards to the objectives of cost-recovery, economic efficiency, affordability, administrative costs and equity. It also analyses the costs of rural water schemes currently transfered by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry to local governments.
MSc report submitted in Oct 2005
This MSc thesis explores the on farm implementation of low cost drip irrigation in Sekororo, South Africa.
This report introduces the methodology of participatory community-based planning of multiple uses of water in partnership and coordination with local government and service providers, developed by the NGO AWARD.
This case study complements the paper with an introduction to the methodology. It provides an example of how SWELL has been applied in the Bushbuckridge Municipality in South Africa.
The multiple uses of water (mus) approach to water services provision aims to meet people’s different water needs in an integrated way. This approach has been gaining broad recognition in South Africa over the last few years, expressed in a range of initiatives in terms of policy, research, implementation and advocacy. In 2005 a
national seminar was held in which these initiatives were mapped out. One of the concerns raised was that local government is key to implementation, but they have so far been absent from the discussions about mus. Therefore, this year the seminar was convened by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF), the MUS (Multiple Use Systems) project, in partnership with WIN-SA (the Water Information Network of South Africa) and SALGA (the South African Local Government Association), with the objective to look into implications for local government implementation of the mus approach. This particularly revolved around the guidelines for local government implementation of multiple use water services that DWAF is developing. Participants came from a cross-section of institutions: national government departments, provincial DWAF offices and local government, research institutions, NGOs and consultancies. This report provides the key points of discussion of the seminar.
The importance of mus to realising goals of addressing poverty through water was emphasized. However there are still no coherent, agreed upon, national definitions of multiple uses of water, which give clarity while providing flexibility. It is agreed that livelihoods and Local Economic Development (LED) are at the heart of mus, and that
the boundaries of that cannot be tightly set. Definitions can become an academic discussion, but are important as they have implications for mandates, and for accounting and funding purposes. Mapping of the different funding streams made it clear that, mostly, combinations of such streams will be needed to implement mus.
This is complicated, as the entities who administer them operate at different levels, with different procedures. Integrated Development Plans, in theory, provide a mechanism for alignment between those, but in practice IDP processes are weak. IDPs could be the basis for assessing demand and needs for mus, considering supply issues, and enabling cooperative governance. Combining piped water supply with alternative water sources, especially rainwater harvesting, seem to provide the most practical way forward. The lack of capacity at municipal level and how this may limit the implementation of mus, was raised as a concern. On the other hand, the integrated approach required for mus may also be an opportunity to overcome these problems.
A range of activities were proposed in terms of a way forward. Communication and advocacy for the concept was recommended, targeted at senior decision makers at DPLG and SALGA, as well as at local government level. The guidelines need further elaboration, especially in terms of the mapping of financing streams, and the links with IDP processes. At the same time, piloting of the guidelines should start at municipal level. Such piloting could seek two approaches – one with funding allocated to support it, another working within the reality of the existing funding streams. Pilots could provide the nexus for further collective learning, and for including local government more actively in the further development of the guideline, and in making policy recommendations that flow from learning what is needed to enable the realisation of this approach. Alignment with other initiatives was recommended, the piloting of rain water harvesting being highlighted.
Providing water services for multiple uses, often requires a change in the way intermediate level institutions, such as local government, sector departments and NGOs, plan and implement water supply. Above all, it requires the capacity for integrated planning to meet people’s multiple livelihoods needs, and the capacity to follow a participatory approach. Many intermediate level institutions currently lack such capacities.
In Bushbuckridge, South Africa, it has been tried to promote the multiple use approach among intermediate level institutions through a programme called SWELL (Securing Water to Enhance Local Livelihoods). A key element of the programme was to follow a multi-stakeholder approach, involving community structures and intermediate level agencies in bottom-up integrated planning for multiple uses, with the view to base the mus approach within local government reality, and to strengthen the capacity of the stakeholders involved. This report details the approach followed, and tries to evaluate the changes in capacity that have occurred.
An increase in understanding about multiple use services has been observed, as well as a positive attitude towards such services. Especially at field officer level, it is realised that current approaches of services delivery and ad-hoc planning do not lead to sustainable services or impacts in people’s livelihoods. However, this realisation doesn’t lead as of yet into changes in practices. One reason for that is that senior decision-makers haven’t been fully involved in the programme as hoped. This means that field staff often do not get the mandate to take lessons learnt forward. It also implies that the call for improved cooperative governance remains a call only. Giving actual shape to this promising concept only happens on paper. But, it must be said that the consolidation of institutional responsibilities in local government help in taking away the institutional confusion which in the past has given rise to so much finger pointing. Accountability mechanisms between communities, their representative structures and service providers are poor, and haven’t improved. The limited actual responsibility of community structures is a main reason for that.
Reflecting on the learning approach taken, future activities would need to seek a closer involvement of senior decisions makers, even though it is realised that this is difficult. Probably another important lesson has been the opportunity to link the findings from working at intermediate level with the engagement with national stakeholders. It is felt that the experiences from Bushbuckridge provide relevant practical limitations to implementing mus within local government. National agencies are in a position to support local authorities in this. Linking practical experiences to the national policy debate is therefore crucial.
The concept of multiple use services has been developed in response to the often limited approach to water services development, which doesn’t include water for livelihoods activities, such as gardening or livestock. Zimbabwe is rich in experience with the implementation of water services for multiple purposes, especially those promoted by NGOs. However, learning and sharing about the experiences about this approach was deficient, limiting the effective and efficient scaling up of the experiences. A so-called Learning Alliance (LA) approach was proposed to overcome these limitations.
This report describes how the LA concepts were applied in the MUS project in Zimbabwe, and also assess the experiences with the approach, describing the process followed, and analysis of the experiences and impacts of the approach.
Initially, the LA was conceptualised as a separate group or network of organisations, which would come together on a regular basis to share experiences. Besides, support to activities at decentralised levels was planned. The LA would be a separate group under the WES-WG meeting, the existing coordination body in the water sector.
The different plans developed worked out completely different from what was envisaged. One of the reasons was that it proved impossible to find members willing to make time available for these specific meetings outside the regular WES-WG meetings. At the same time, the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the WES-WG were slightly expanded from being a purely operational coordination body to one in which learning and sharing were more predominant. That made the need for a separate group working on multiple uses partially redundant. In fact, many issues of multiple uses were included into other activities of the WES-WG, such as the standardisation of terminology for technologies and the guidelines for Community Based Management. It must also be recognised that in the country there was already a lot of critical mass around multiple uses. There wasn’t a need to advocate for it, but rather allow the sharing of practical experiences with it.
Developing the link with the district levels proved difficult within the limited resources of the MUS project only. Members of the WES-WG do share lessons with their decentralised offices, but only to a limited way. In the current context, with very limited funds, it will remain difficult to have an effective learning platform at decentralised level, as there is hardly any space to put lessons learnt into practice.
Through regular meetings a local "learning alliance", comprising of various stakeholders, including community representatives and municipal staff monitors the progress of multiple use approaches to water in the Bushbuckridge area in South Africa. This file contains a report of such a monitoring meeting.
