Conceptualizing Integrated Water Resources Management From Community WASH Facility Design:

1. Conceptualizing Integrated Water Resources Management From Community WASH Facility Design: Lessons Learned from Haiti John A Akudago, Clifford Toussaint & Jean Anthony Jean June 30, 2014

2. Presentation Content • A brief background of Haiti and Samaritan’s Purse activities in the country • What were the challenges on the ground? • How did Samaritan’s Purse try to address the WASH needs? • How are WASH and IWRM related? • Integrated community WASH facility design • Results, usage and lessons learned

3. Haiti • On January 12, 2010 Haiti awoke to 7.0 magnitude earthquake. • It was estimated that about 230,000 people died and 1,000,000 people rendered homeless. • On October 15, 2010, Cholera struck Haiti which left tens of thousands of people (about 8,556) dead. • In both disasters, access to potable water supply, hygiene and sanitation needs were very high.

4. Samaritan’s Purse • A US based international non-denominational Christian relief organization with affiliate offices in Canada, Australia, UK and Germany. • Deployed disaster response teams to both disasters. • Responded to spiritual, WASH, shelter, food and medical needs.

5. WASH Challenges in Haiti:Technical and Management • Access to potable water supply was <65% • Access to proper sanitation facilities was <20% • Of the few handpumps, many were broken down • Water quality was a challenge due to poor environmental sanitation. • Sense of community ownership of WASH facilities was non-existent A community hand dug well Poor sanitation (choked water ways)

6. WASH Challenges in Haiti: Culture • Cultural belief that flowing water is clean • One water source for multiple uses (e.g. drinking, laundry, irrigation, animal watering, block moulding) Using a water source to meet community needs and uses. Water may be polluted for downstream users

7. Freshwater Availability in Haiti • Fresh water availability and usage: Haiti yearly fresh water is 12,600 Mm3/year Data source: Pan-American Health Organization/World Health Organization, Agenda 21, May 1996, P.83

8. Access to Water and Sanitation Facilities • There are many possible sources of water (spring, boreholes and surface water) but access to potable water was still limited due to poor environmental sanitation, low infrastructural development and sustainable facility management. • Sanitation coverage was bad and had been reported to have fallen from 19% in 1990 to 17% in 2008. Comparison between access to WASH before and after earthquake disaster. Source: WHO/UNICEF JMP (2014) report

9. WASH Programming • As we reflected on long term interventions in Haiti, we thought of this: Water supply source Drink, wash, animal watering bathing, etc. Where does the waste water go? Contamination and outbreak of disease? What happens to other users down stream? Flows into the soil and water ways How can we improve water quality for the downstream? Collective action-education and technology

10. WASH & IWRM • Use: WASH is a user of water and land resources whereas IWRM includes resources conservation. • Scale: WASH focuses on small community scale while IWRM is on a larger scale (e.g. basin wide) • Coordination & management: WASH uses individual community committees to manage the point source while IWRM requires coordination of committees from various communities, local and national government, and other stakeholders. • Impact: WASH shows short and long term results and impacts, and IWRM shows long term impacts.

11. WASH & IWRM • Political influence: Most developing countries governments pay more attention to WASH than IWRM. They have national policies and institutions to promote access to and sustainable management of WASH facilities. • Community understanding and participation: Many communities have more understanding on WASH issues than the concept of IWRM. Communities are more likely to protect their local water and land resources than spending their time and energy to protect basin wide resources.

12. WASH-IWRM Intersection • From the model where does WASH intersect IWRM? WASH-Using water, land and information to improve health & reduce poverty IWRM- Using collective action to improve equity, use and management of land & water resources Sustainability Quality improvement Quantity improvement Less Conflict Health and nutrition improvement

13. SP WASH Facility Design • Local government authorities buy in • Community selection • General meeting to kick off project idea • Community mobilization and acceptability of the concept

14. WASH Facility Design-Technical • 16 communities were selected and designed to have handpump well, laundry pad, bath house, latrine and waste water treatment chamber (from laundry pad and bath house). • The waste water treatment chamber had grease trap, gravel/sand media to trap solids and precipitates before entering the ground through the soak pit. Well Laundry Pad Bath house Bath house Waste treatment chamber

15. Results • Wells installed and fitted with handpumps: 22 • Bath houses and laundry pads were constructed: 22 each • Number of WASH committees trained: 22 • 140 household latrines constructed. • Laundry pad is less used compared to the other facilities: Design did not reflect the community’s culture of ladies doing laundry in groups as well as area for drying the clothes.

16. Lessons Learned • Political: We organized two workshops for the Mayors and Kazeks in the Cabaret and Leogane areas respectively. All government and local government officials agreed that the integrated way of water resources development and management was great idea and gave their blessings. Within a week, a Kazek reported that he had started installing bath houses along the irrigation canals in his local area to reduce water pollution for down stream users.

17. Lessons Learned (cont.) • Community Selection: Beneficiary communities were selected based on Kazeks and Mayor offices’ recommendation. Unfortunately, there was no transmission of message from the government officials to the communities. This really affected the communities’ understanding of the concept. • Cultural and Spiritual Beliefs: Water resources are usually tied to spirits in Haiti. Vodoo/traditional priests contributed negatively to the success of the project.

18. Lessons Learned (cont.) • Project Duration: The project duration was too short to be able to measure the impact on water resources management. • Sharing: Project design should have been shared with the WASH Cluster and Direction Nationale de l’ Eau Potable et de l’Assainissement (DINEPA) during the design stage.

19. Lessons Learned - IWRM • WASH-IWRM Relationship: Though the project was designed as a wash project, it has also introduced the concept of IWRM in the communities. Relief to development is a good time to promote integrated water resources development and management. • Understanding of Concept: To facilitate community understanding and effectiveness of water resources protection, project communities should have been in one location (region or communities along a particular basin or water way).

20. Lessons Learned - IWRM • Messaging: Haiti is rich in fresh water resources with only 10% of the water being used for various purposes. Educating communities on water availability did not have much impact but the message of water quality and its related diseases actually attracted attention. • Community action: Some communities have started to adhere to the water contamination message-Change burial sites from water ways, and protect water quality for downstream users.

21. Thank you for your attention! • Questions?