1 / 26

Water Supply and Sanitation in Central Asia

Water Supply and Sanitation in Central Asia. Ayse Kudat The World Bank 1998. RUSSIA . KAZAKHSTAN. UZBEKISTAN. KYRGYZSTAN. TURKMENISTAN. CHINA. TAJIKISTAN. IRAN. AFGHANISTAN. PAKISTAN. Uzbekistan Water Supply, Sanitation and Health Project. Social Assessment. Objectives.

mitch
Download Presentation

Water Supply and Sanitation in Central Asia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Water Supply and Sanitation in Central Asia Ayse Kudat The World Bank 1998

  2. RUSSIA KAZAKHSTAN UZBEKISTAN KYRGYZSTAN TURKMENISTAN CHINA TAJIKISTAN IRAN AFGHANISTAN PAKISTAN

  3. Uzbekistan Water Supply, Sanitation and Health Project Social Assessment Objectives • Ensuring project success and sustainability through • the involvement of those it intends to serve in identifying their interests, needs and priorities; and • recognition, acceptance and responsiveness to expressed needs. • Assessing how water supply, sanitation and health fit into the broader needs of Karakalpakstan and Khorezm, as perceived by the population • Gaining information on • household water use, sanitation, health and hygiene conditions and requirements; • condition of household assets; • consumption of basic food products and other necessities; and • availability of community services

  4. Uzbekistan Water Supply, Sanitation and Health ProjectSocial Assessment Process Water Supply and Sanitation Identification Mission WSS Needs Assessment Rapid Rural Appraisal Survey of 951 Households Microcredit Component Water Vendors Survey Participatory Focus Group Meetings Social Assessment of Urban Water Supply Client Workshop NGO Meeting Salinity Taste Tolerance Assessment Hand Pump Monitoring Survey Media and NGOs Follow-upAssessments Stakeholder Workshop (179 participants) Project/Pilots Client Workshop

  5. Sequencing of the SA Process Needs Assessment Social Assessment of Urban Water Supply Hand Pump Monitoring Survey Income Generation: Rural Credit Pilot Feasibility Assessment Water Vendors Survey Salinity Taste Tolerance Assessment • Reasons for sequential SAs: • New phenomena: Transition Economies • No country knowledge • No specific sector knowledge • Real needs of the population unclear Water Supply and Distribution Pilot Project Social Impact Monitoring

  6. Lack of Fuel • Lack of Construction • Materials • Lack of Opportunities • to Make a Living • Health • Sanitation 1 2 3 PROBLEM PROBLEM PROBLEM Main Problems in Project Areas % • Lack of Flour 64.7 16.0 8.5 • Lack of Money • for Food Products 23.0 58.9 5.3 3.1 3.6 12.0 2.7 9.0 25.4 • Water 0.9 4.0 18.0 0.7 4.0 11.9 0.4 1.3 6.8 0.1 1.0 5.8 High need for water supply Project Justified

  7. ARAL ARAL Sea Sea 16 8 19 18 7 6 17 5 26 1 2 4 3 15 16 16 Total Household Income from Salary/wages by Geographical Area

  8. Natural Spring (0.2%) Well next door (8.1%) River, Lake or Pond (5%) Well in the street (11.6%) Water Pump in the street (9.1%) Piped Water next door (2%) Irrigation canal (10%) Well in the yard (8.2%) Water Pump in the yard (26.2%) Water Vendor (0.9%) Water Piped Water in the street (17.2%) SOURCES OF POTABLE WATER Piped Water in the House (6.3%) Piped Water in the yard (13.7%)

  9. Reasons of Dissatisfaction Urban Areas Rural Areas

  10. Pilot Projects • Water Supply and Distribution Pilot Project • Pilot Community-based Sanitation and Health Projects Variability in project regions is high No sector experience in the country Real needs of the people unclear Needs Assessment Community specific project design necessary Project design is based on experience from the pilots

  11. Water supply problems are different in urban and rural areas SA Follow-up Social Assessment of Urban Water Supply Focus on quality and reliability problems Equipment for operations and maintenance: $5.2 million Complete shift in focus from rural to rural/urban Urban water demand management and loss reduction: $3.3 million

  12. Water Supply in Urban and Rural Communities URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS

  13. Low incomes are the highest priority of people SA Follow-up Participatory rural sanitation component: $2 million Rural Credit Pilot Component Social and Economic Feasibility Analysis Employment generating pilot community-based sanitation and health Projects

  14. 63% 100% 98% 67% 85% 92% People use a number of coping strategies Households Who Treat Water Before Using It

  15. These strategies are not cash-based Most common methods are boiling and filtering water Incomes are low, therefore... ...revealed preferences in coping stragies are low-cost... ...and cost recovery prospects are low It is crucial to base the project on a low-cost scenario even though the Government may think otherwise...

  16. Important point: Install pumps only where water table is safely low and quality is high Low-cost scenarios include development of local water sources SA Follow-up Hand Pump Monitoring Survey Satisfaction is high Water quality is low Installation of 7,500 hand pumps in select areas Hand pump component: $1.4 million Development of local water supply and distribution systems $21 million

  17. Coli Count in Hand Pump Water - Khorezm and Karakalpakstan Average = 9 Coli Count in Hand Pump Water - in Zones

  18. Uses of Hand Pump Water Hand Pump Usage for Drinking Purposes in Settlements With and Without Piped Water Availability of Piped Water Supply in the Settlements with Hand Pumps

  19. Hand Pump Water Salinity - Khorezm and Karakalpakstan Average = 1.918 grams/liter Hand Pump Water Salinity - in Zones

  20. Salinity survey allowed the Project to use a lower, yet acceptable standard SA Follow-up Up to 2.0 g/l Salinity is acceptable Salinity Taste Tolerance Survey Government standard was 1.0 g/l, with huge investment and operating cost implications The SA found people drink water with salinity higher than 3.0g/l and accept 2.0 g/l Related changes in treatment plant investments saved more than $30 million with operational savings of about $400,000 / day Extended Project Coverage in Rural Areas

  21. Degrees of Preference for Samples with Different Salinity Levels (Khorezm and Karakalpakstan)

  22. All SAs found that sanitation and health conditions in the area are bad Bad health and sanitary conditions Health promotion and hygiene education component $4.0 million Participatory rural sanitation component $2.0 million Water quality monitoring $5.2 million

  23. SA Inputs to Each Project Component Development of local water supply and distribution systems Needs Assessment, Salinity Survey, Hand Pumps Survey Inputs to pricing and design policy through Needs Assessment, Urban Water SA Water demand management and loss reduction Equipment for operation and maintenance Justification through the SA process SA process and Social Impact Monitoring of Pilot Projects Rural sanitation Health Promotion and Hygiene Education SA Process, Sanitation Pilot SIM Water quality monitoring and strengthening of SES Salinity Survey, SA Process

  24. Uzbekistan Water Supply, Sanitation and Health Project Social Assessments Investment Linkages - Summary Key Project Design Impacts Revealed that people find 2.0g/l salinity acceptable as opposed to Government requirement of 1.0g/l Cost savings of US$400,000/day (~$30 million in investment costs) and extended coverage Salinity Taste Tolerance Assessment After NA, sewerage component dropped due to lack of capacity to pay; cost-effective sanitary services and hygiene education servicespiloted Construction of improved latrines and hygiene education is about US$6.0 million Initially, project involved a sewerage component Needs Assessment 1995 Demand Management Component: US$ 3.3 million + everyday savings Urban Areas Social Assessment Confirmed that water waste is high in urban areas Project component: Water demand management and loss reduction Needs Assessment and Hand Pumps Assessment Revealed that hand pumps are a reliable major water source which people are satisfied when they are clean Construction of 7,500 hand pumps in suitable areas: about US$1.4 million Overall, the SA Process led to a better project with substantial investment savings and extended coverage Better project design, better defined project areas, priorities, health and sanitation problems. Defined the need for Pilot Projects. Helped in economic evaluation Overall Social Assessment Process

  25. Uzbekistan Water Supply, Sanitation and Health Project Total Project Investment Cost: $116 million Total Cost of SA Process: ~ $200,000 In other words, about 0.17% of total investment costs

More Related