Document
This research report, by BNP, seeks to assess the possibilities and limitations of using RWH for drinking water, biogas and irrigation and identity the possibilities and limitations of combining these different uses. Specifically, it seeks to:
- Assess the water use practices and water needs with respect to different purposes in rural households presently challenged with water scarcity to identify the need for rainwater harvesting for MUS
- Identify the effectiveness of combining roof water harvesting systems with surface runoff systems for MUS
- Analyse financial and economic aspects and impacts of MUS from rainwater harvesting systems
- Test the combination of Ferro-cement tanks with “1 bag cement” systems and plastic ponds
Zambia has invested substantially in rural water supply since the early 1970s, but the actual number of people effectively provided with safe drinking water remains very low. It is estimated that only 37% of the population had access to safe water supply in 2000, a deprivation that has characterised and entrenched poverty in Zambia’s rural areas. Attempts to alleviate this poverty require a policy that favours a shift in emphasis from provision of safe water supplies to that encompassing productive water. The latter enables families to increase income and reduce costs of healthcare services for water-related illnesses. Gains in income generation will further enable communities to take care of their safe water needs, addressing the systematic challenge of sustainability in the delivery of rural water supply programmes. Under such favourable conditions rural communities can enjoy a life of quality and dignity.
Summary report from the discussions
The Multiple use water services (MUS) Group, together with some of its members and partners (IRC, IWMI, Winrock International, RiPPLE, CINARA, World Vision, USAID, Virginia Tech University and Rockefeller Foundation) convened a session at the Stockholm World Water Week on ‘Scaling Pathways for Multiple-Use Services, for Food Security and Health’ with the aim of identifyingscaling pathways for MUS to reach the tipping point. [authors abstract]
Both water and sanitation and food are recognised as human rights, that every citizen is entitled to enjoy. Our professions, governments and agencies work diligently, but mostly separately on these two issues. In some places, such a clear separation of efforts is not always possible or sensible though. Water and food are especially closely linked in rural and peri-urban areas in low income countries, and here, efforts to improve access to water and food security demand integrated components that build on the potential synergies. Families integrate their own efforts after all, and many traditional water supplies schemes cater for multiple uses. To maximize the developmental impact of their work, this is something that professionals and organisations need to get better at too. This article highlights one the productive use of domestic water supplies where such a coordinated approach is required, and illustrates it by case studies from Ethiopia.
Multiple-use water services is a holistic approach to sustainable water services that improves health and livelihoods. This holistic, participatory approach to water improves livelihoods and health, increases sustainability, and ultimately improves people’s lives overall. By investing a little more to address people’s multiple needs, impact is maximized in the long term. [authors abstract]
Multiple-use water services is a holistic approach to sustainable water services that improves health and livelihoods. This holistic, participatory approach to water improves livelihoods and health, increases sustainability, and ultimately improves people’s lives overall. By investing a little more to address people’s multiple needs, impact is maximized in the long term. [authors abstract]
In collaboration with IDEO.org, Winrock International created a stylized how-to guide that shows implementers, funders, and policymakers: what MUS is, how it looks in practice, and how to incorporate MUS into their own operations.
This report synthesizes the results of a scoping study into MUS in five countries: Ethiopia, Ghana, Tanzania, India and Nepal. It analyses the potential for a MUS approach for four different entry points for scaling pathways: domestic-plus, irrigation-plus, self-supply and community-based MUS, for each of the five countries. It then identifies a number of common barriers across the countries and potential manners of overcoming those.
There is reasonably wide recognition of the potential merits of multiple use water services (MUS) in Ethiopia as a result of innovation by NGOs and advocacy by research institutes. The acronym ‘MUS’ is itself increasingly a part of the sector discourse and interest in MUS is on the rise given the growing awareness that food insecurity and water insecurity are related. However, MUS interventions and modalities have generally not been scaled up widely in the country. This seems largely due to the same barriers that MUS faces elsewhere: the conventional institutional structuring of water policies, water services implementation programs, and professional disciplines into fragmented, parallel operating ‘vertical’ sectors of single water uses such as rural water supply and agriculture. Three best-bet opportunity areas are identifed for taking MUS forward. In addition, there is an opportunity for a learning network on MUS focusing on policy and practice in Ethiopia to learn from and leverage the activities of various partners.
This scoping study offers implementable recommendations for investment opportunities in multiple use water services in Ghana. The report is based on an assessment of existing MUS modalities and innovations, potential for implementation and possible barriers. The study shows that MUS is a de facto practice both in formal domestic and irrigation service delivery, complemented by self-supply initiatives. Moving from de facto multiple use practices to a more planned and structured MUS approach can be done from various entry-points. Based on risk assessments, this study concludes that domestic-plus, rehabilitation of small reservoirs and self-supply for irrigation present the best direct investment opportunities for maximum impact.