Multiple Use Systems (MUS) Project

1. Multiple Use Systems (MUS) Project Synthesis and main new insights

2. Outline • Background to the MUS Project • Context • Findings: community level • Findings: intermediate and national level • Conclusions • Recommendations for scaling up

3. Background to the project • Rationale: • people need water for multiple use, and they will take water anyway for their needs • Explicitly catering for these needs can improve livelihood options of poor men and women and sustainability of services • Focus: • “how to do” mus? • “how to scale up mus”?

4. Background project • Methodology • Action research in 8 countries • Learning alliances at different levels (national, intermediate, community) • Global synthesis, dissemination, advocacy • Consortium: • Global: IWMI, IRC, IDE • National: national partners, broader LA • Funded by CPWF – 1.5 million US$ • Started Jan 2004

5. Conceptual framework • Definition (Van Koppen et al., 2006): • Approach towards water services provision, which takes poor people’s multiple water needs as a starting point for providing integrated services, moving beyond the conventional sectoral barriers of the domestic and productive sectors

6. Conceptual framework • Not a specific technology, but an approach, way of thinking • Takes people’s livelihoods needs as starting point • Matching needs with integrated but reasonable response • Service delivery model

8. Context Exploring diversity of situations

9. [1] The references in this column refer to the documents which provide the intermediate level context of the respective countries. [2] Because India’s sheer size and it being a federal State, the State level is comparable to the national level elsewhere. From here on we will mainly refer to the State level, rather than the national. [s1]Not clear what this means

10. Context • Physical-hydrological context: from semi-arid to humid • Influences type of technology and storage • Only India and South Africa phase physical scarcity; others economical scarcity • Water services context: • Access linked to poverty status • Type of technology

11. Context [1] It goes beyond the scope of this book to describe each type of technology in detail. For that we refer to manuals which are commonly in use such as such as Smet and van Wijk (2002); Brikké and Brederode (2003); something from the irrigation sector? FAO [B1]Tankers?

12. Context • Poverty/livelihoods context: Least developed countries (Ethiopia, Nepal, Zimbabwe) to middle income (Colombia, SA, Thailand) • Livelihoods and poverty situation of users: • Rural communities which nearly exclusively depend on on-farm activities (Ethiopa, Zimbabwe) • Rural communities which largely depend on off-farm income, but complement these with on-farm activities (Nepal, South Africa) • Peri-urban areas, with a mixed pattern of families depending on on-farm and off-farm income • Often, diversity of livelihoods and poverty within communities • Also influences presence and capacity of State, and the services it provides

13. Context • Institutional context of services delivery: • Self supply, where users do large part of investments: Bolivia and Zimbabwe • “project” driven context (NGOs): (Bolivia), Ethiopia, Nepal, Zimbabwe • Government programmes: Colombia, India and South Africa • Stage of innovation cycle: from advocacy, to piloting, to policy development

14. Bolivia

15. Colombia

16. Ethiopia

17. Nepal

18. India

19. South Africa

20. Thailand

21. Zimbabwe

22. Findings: water and livelihoods • Big demand for water for small-scale productive uses around homestead • This demand is largely unmet • Is not necessarily main component of family income • But important in livelihoods • Diversification • Reducing vulnerability • Access to cash • Access to nutritious food

24. “Every pepper that you see hanging here, represents a 500 Peso coin.” Woman farmer, Colombia

25. Findings: implications for water demand • In all cases, people use water for productive uses, even in Ethiopia • Extent to which people engage in multiple use depends on access to services: • Quantity • Distance • Reliability • (Quality) • Empirical data converted into water ladder • 40-100 lpcd is a reasonable amount for small-scale productive uses • This does mean a move away from common standards

27. Findings: implications for water demand • Livelihoods need to be taken as starting point • Converted into water demand • Matching demand with realistic supply options • Demand will be heterogeneous within community, and in time

28. Infrastructure • Different types of infrastructure provide different levels of access and potential for mus • Incremental steps within and between system types

29. Infrastructure • Private options • Family wells: good access due to close proximity; may be upgraded with additional lifting devices • Rainwater harvesting: often as complimentary source • Communal point source systems • Borehole with hand pump: limited productive use at homestead; at most communal productive use; often in combination with other sources • Piped system with very scattered standpipes: same as hand pump

30. Infrastructure • Communal distribution systems: • The closer the taps, the more productive use • Various incremental steps possible • “add-ons”: household storage tanks, cattle troughs, farm ponds, etc • Important components to facilitate access, especially household storage • Multiple sources for multiple uses

31. Infrastructure • Treatment: “wasting clean water on productive uses?” • Only an issue in surface water fed systems • Level of treatment: central or household • Quality a difficult issue anyway

32. Infrastructure • Not only type of technology; also its performance • Chicken-and-egg between performance and engagement in productive use • Further work needed into “social re-construction” of infrastructure

33. Findings: costs • Costs of mus should be considered as incremental • Case specific and little insight into general trends • Capital costs: • relatively small when incremental steps • larger when jumping to higher service level • Context-specific • Especially in piped systems, many uncertain factors; mus is in the margins of error • Sunk costs

34. Findings: costs • O&M costs: • Directly related to consumption in pumped systems, or where treatment is involved • Less direct relation in gravity fed systems • Who pays? • Communities can assume incremental O&M costs • For capital costs this is less clear-cut; possible some community contribution can be expected • Replacement/rehabilitation costs: not considered…

35. Findings: community-level institutions • No equal demand for multiple use within community • Calls for internal rules and regulations to ensure equitable distribution and priority setting • In community-managed systems easier to define locally-relevant rules than in agency-managed systems • Often calls for outside support • Many community management issues as in conventional services delivery

36. Findings: implications for water resources • Demand for water for small-scale productive uses remains small compared to other demands at river basin level • Yet, there may be local water resources issues • In closed basins re-allocation may need to be considered – using appropriate measures • In open basins, focus on local IWRM

37. Conclusions: community level • There is a large demand for water for small-scale productive uses • This demand is largely unmet • Meeting the demand means a slight move away from current approaches, though not drastic • Appropriate community management is an important precondition for sustainable mus services

38. Findings: scaling up • Focus: what is needed to scale up mus in space and in time • Three main approaches with different potential for scaling up: • Self supply by households and communities • Project approaches • Government programmes

39. Findings: scaling up • Self-supply: • True community/household ownership responding to their own needs • Capitalises upon household investments • Poorest may not be able to invest • Need to support self-supply: credit, technology, etc • Without programmatic approach to supporting self-supply, scale cannot be achieved

40. Findings: scaling up • Project and NGO approaches: • At the forefront of innovation • Not such rigid sectoral boundaries • Difficult to ensure long-term sustainability, when (local) government is not involved • Government programmes • Potential to go to scale • However, more rigid in norms, standards, financing arrangements, etc • Scaling up: • Needs government involvement and leadership • Building upon innovation and financing of NGOs, communities, and other players • Partnership approach

41. Findings: intermediate level • Roles at intermediate level, largely similar as to ones for conventional approaches: planning, financing, support, coordination • Main differences: what is planned for • Balance between bottom-up water demand and realistic supply options • Work from within sectoral boundaries, but slowly opening up; give sectors mus mandate • Opening up financial frameworks

42. Findings: national level • Enabling conditions: • Supporting decentralised services provision • Flexible norms, standards, policies which at least that do not limit mus

43. Taking mus forward • Implementation at scale; on the basis of the identified criteria which represent opportunities • Strengthening capacities; especially at intermediate level • Research; from exploration of diversity to going into depth in some contexts • Policy dialogue; with multiple stakeholders