Cornell University a Master Thesis submitted fr the...

SUSTAINABILITY OF RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION

SERVICES IN ETHIOPIA: A CASE STUDY OF TWENTY VILLAGES IN

ETHIOPIA

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School

Of Cornell University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MPS in Integrated Watershed Management and Hydrology

By

Tarekegne, Tegegne M.

August 2009

ABSTRACT

Providing access to safe water and sanitation to combat poor health is an

integral part of the strategy to alleviate poverty in many countries according to the

United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF, 2006). Although

sustainable water supply and sanitation services is a basic requirement for

development, there are only very few systems implemented over last 25 years in rural

areas of Ethiopia that are still functioning The objective of the research was to

investigate the reasons behind the low sustainability of rural water supply and

sanitation services among different organizations each with their unique approach. The

research was conducted in the Libo Kemkem Woreda near Lake Tana Ethiopia where

a recent survey showed that two-thirds of constructed water points were not

functioning, and there was a low coverage of sanitation services. In this study a

survey was undertaken covering 20 villages in which more than 400 respondents were

interviewed examining a range of aspects such as community participation, operation

and maintenance practice, institutionalization of schemes, community preferences and

thoughts and major problems in water supply and sanitation services.

Results showed the sustainability of rural water supply and sanitation service

depended on the approach followed by the providers. Water supply systems were

sustainable in which the community participated in all stages of the project, selected

members of the community were educated in operating the system and spare parts and

man power were available and manpower from the agency are special factors to

sustain the system; Latrine construction coverage and hygienic behavior was improved

in villages where volunteers and community facilitator teams were working. The

survey indicated that the best place to meet was on holidays in formal locations and

not in church after church program. Finally, organizations should focus on latrine

construction, both household and communal latrines around farming and grazing

places.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Tegegne Mekonnen was told that he came to join this world early in the

morning at 12:30 am on the first day of 1982 in Gonder Referral Hospital, Ethiopia.

Tegegne graduated from Arba Minch University, Ethiopia, in Hydraulic

Engineering in 2005. Since then, he has worked as a technical advisor in a rural water

supply and sanitation program in Libo Kemkem Woreda and a teacher of technical

drawing in a preparatory school in the same place for two years. And he is on the

verge of getting a degree in Integrated Watershed Management and Hydrology from

Cornell University.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author would like to give especial words of thanks to his advisor Professor

Tamo Steenhuise for his support right from the conception of the thesis. His comments

and suggestions were useful in improving the quality of the thesis. I would like to

thank all those who played a major role during my studies at Libo Kemkem Woreda

individually for being informant and provide valuable data; I would like to thank Mr.

Yeshiber Muche, Mr. Alleligne Ewnwtu and Solomon Assefa. I would like to thank

Mr. Tewodros Worku for critical readings of my thesis. Special thanks to Adino

Tegegne, Libo Kemkem RWaSHP member, who accompanied me throughout the

research acting as facilitator and informant.

Gratitude is also deeply expressed to all field workers for their contribution in

data collection. The author especially thanks the household respondents and

participants in focal group discussions without their full participation this study would

have not been possible. Finally but not least I would like to give my special thanks to

Dr. Amy Colic for editing the thesis.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................................iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.................................................................................................................iv

LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................................viii

Chapter 1...................................................................................................................................1

1 Introduction............................................................................................................................1

1.1 Justification of the study..................................................................................................3

1.2 Objective of the study......................................................................................................4

1.3 Organization of the thesis................................................................................................5

Chapter 2...................................................................................................................................6

2 Background of Water Supply and Sanitation..........................................................................6

2.1 Water supplies and sanitation in perspectives..................................................................6

2.2 Sustainability of rural water supply and sanitation as a concept......................................7

Chapter 3.................................................................................................................................10

3 Materials and Methods........................................................................................................10

3.1 Location and description of the study area and the water schemes................................10

3.2 Data collection...............................................................................................................12

3.2.1 Water users.............................................................................................................13

3.2.2 Village level maintenance trainees and water and sanitation committees...............14

3.2.3 Organizations which provided water and (or) sanitation services...........................15

3.3 Data analysis..................................................................................................................17

Chapter 4.................................................................................................................................19

4 Results..................................................................................................................................19

4.1 Characteristics of the respondents..................................................................................19

4.2 Household Water Use and Accessibility........................................................................20

4.3 Community participation...............................................................................................28

4.3.1 Community participation at the pre-planning and planning stage of the project.....30

v

4.3.2 Community participation in village meetings.........................................................32

4.3.3 Community participation during the construction stage of the project....................33

4.4 Operation and Maintenance...........................................................................................33

4.4.1 Existing village level operation and maintenance practice......................................33

4.4.2 Satisfaction with collection and use of operation and maintenance funds...............35

4.7........................................................................................................................................36

4.5 Sanitation.......................................................................................................................40

4.5.2 Types of latrines constructed..................................................................................40

4.5.1 Number of latrine construction...............................................................................41

4.5.3 Hygienic behaviors.................................................................................................42

4.9 The impact of rural water supply and sanitation services...............................................46

4.6 Functionality and institutionalization of schemes and community satisfaction with service.................................................................................................................................47

4.8 Community preferences.................................................................................................47

4.10 Community thoughts in sustaining rural water supply services...................................49

Chapter 5.................................................................................................................................51

5 Discussions and Conclusions.................................................................................................51

5.1 Discussions....................................................................................................................51

5.2 Conclusions...................................................................................................................57

CHAPTER 6...............................................................................................................................60

6. REFERENCES........................................................................................................................60

Appendix 1: List of selected villages for the study..................................................................................72Appendix 2: Table of results from the community..................................................................................73Appendix 3: Comparison of the water quantity measured with the standard........................................80Appendix 4: Questionnaire used for user communities..........................................................................81Appendix 5: Questionnaire used for service providers (organizations)...................................................85Appendix 6: Checklist used for operation and maintenance trainees.....................................................87

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The sustainability chain................................................................................10

Figure 2: The location of the study area and villages..................................................14

Illustration 1: sample water point.................................................................................41

Illustration 2: Sample household latrine.......................................................................41

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

O & M Operation and Maintenance

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

USD United State Dollar

WHO World Health Organization

RWaSSHP Rural Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Program

UNICEIF United Nations International

GDP growth domestic product

UNESCA United Nations Economic and Social Council for Africa

ECSA Ethiopian Central Statistical Agency

LKWFDO Libokemkem Woreda Finance and Development Office

NWSSP National Water Supply and Sanitation Program

ORDA Organization of Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara

LKWWRDO Libo Kemkem Woreda Water Resource Development Office

MDGs Millennium Development goals

UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework

MoWR Ministry of Water Resources

NWSSP National Water Supply and Sanitation Program

m.a.s.l meter above sea level

viii

Chapter 1

1 Introduction

It is estimated that 35% of all rural water supplies in sub-Saharan Africa are

not functioning (Baumann, 2005; adopted from Alexia H., 2006). Women and children

in developing countries suffer most from water related diseases and the damaged

environment (WHO/UNICEF, 2003). People do their laundry and bathe in the same

places that they water their animals and get their drinking water. Eighty percent of

health problems in Ethiopia are attributed to poor sanitation and inadequate safe water.

As of 2000 in Ethiopia, 82 percent of rural households nationwide in Ethiopia do not

have sanitation facilities in or near their homes. Latrines are virtually non-existent in

rural communities with defecation taking place in fields, bushes or along drainage

ditches. However, a simple long-drop latrine can radically reduce the amount of fecal

matter entering the water supply. Furthermore, it has been estimated that adequate and

safe water, sanitation and hygiene could decrease the number of diarrhea cases by one-

third to one-fourth (Secil Ozkan et al, 2007). Unfortunately at the rate of construction

in 2007 and not allowing for population growth, it would take more than 100 years for

all households in the rural communities of Ethiopia to be equipped with latrines

(EMoWR, 2007).

Providing access to safe water and sanitation to combat poor health is an

integral part of the strategy to alleviate poverty in many countries according to the

United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF, 2006). However,

unless strategies are found to motivate rural communities and create a demand for

water and sanitation, we cannot achieve the United Nations Millennium Development

Goal of halving the proportion of the global population without sanitation and access

to safe water by the year 2015 (Waterkeyn and Cairncross, 2005). Clearly, more

resources need to be applied to solving the water supply and sanitation problems of

9

rural people. And for this stronger methodologies for fostering rapid implementation

must be devised, and answers must be found to why sanitation and hygiene programs

are often non-sustainable. Before the inception of this study, the researcher observed

large gaps in the sustainability of water supply and sanitation services in different

villages provided by different organizations. This led to the hypothesis that the

approaches utilized by the organizations in providing rural water supply and sanitation

services were related to the sustainability of rural water supply and sanitation services.

Therefore, these approaches followed by different rural water supply and sanitation

service providers in different areas need to be evaluated so that those approaches

resulting in sustainable services can be identified. Similarly, those approaches which

resulted in non-successive rural water supply and sanitation services need to be

identified so that they will not be used in the future by providers. By evaluating the

sustainability of the services provided by different organizations, this research aimed

to find the appropriate approaches necessary for sustainable water supply and

sanitation services and the right methods to address these approaches.

The widespread failures in water supplies have been attributed by Carter et al.

(1999) to a number of factors in a project: (1) the intervention was not desired by the

community, (2) the capital and/or recurrent costs are too high for the community, (3)

lack of ownership results in neglect of maintenance and repairs, (4) the promised

benefits do not materialize, (5) education programs are too short, and (6) trained

members of the community move away or lose interest (Carter et al, 1999).

It became obvious that the different approaches followed by the organizations

in the study area included adoption of a demand-driven approach based on

empowerment of villagers to ensure their full participation in pre-planning, planning

and implementation; decision-making in the choice of scheme; focus on village level

10

capacity building; and ten per cent capital cost sharing by users. Each organization

also followed different methods in addressing the approaches followed.

This study involved the evaluation of the current status of water supply and

sanitation services sustainability in Libo Kemkem Woreda, North West Ethiopia in

order to explore the effectiveness of the aforementioned dimensions of sustainability,

where and how success has been achieved, and what needs to be done to improve

sustainability of water schemes.

1.1 Justification of the study

Under the National Water Supply and Sanitation Program (NWSSP), the

government of Ethiopia intends to increase the national water supply and sanitation

coverage to 62% and 54%, respectively, by 2015 (MDGs in water supply and

sanitation coverage). It has been said that the chances of achieving the Millennium

Development Goal of halving the proportion of people without access to safe water by

2015 will be seriously lowered unless levels of sustainability can be greatly improved.

(Haysom, 2006). For example in the study area, the present functionality rate of rural

water supply services was only 34.4% (LKWFDO, 2009). Therefore, satisfaction with

the water supply and sanitation services was mixed. Furthermore, some schemes were

institutionalized and eventually governed by the community, while others were not.

Finally, the actual sanitation coverage varied from .high to low throughout the study

area.

Large gaps have been observed in the sustainability of water supply and

sanitation services provided by different organizations in different villages . The gap

in sustainability among villages is a bottle neck for achieving the vision 2015 and

MGDs. Therefore it will be important to explore the main reasons for the gaps in the

sustainability of the schemes in different villages in order for action can be taken to

ensure the longevity of the provision of services at village level. Water and sanitation

11

services are at the centre of all MDGs; therefore, evaluating the different approaches

each organization followed in achieving sustainability and selecting those approaches

resulting in sustainable water supply and sanitation services in order to forward these

approaches to organizations that implement these services is essential for achieving

the vision of the development goals for 2015.

1.2 Objective of the studyTo achieve the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG) in

water supply and sanitation coverage, the government of Ethiopia intends under the

National Water Supply and Sanitation Program (NWSSP )to increase the national

coverage to over 50 percent by 2015 In order to achieve the Millennium

Development Goals the sustainability of the installed systems need be greatly

improved above that in the last 25 years. (Haysom, 2006). Therefore the general

objective of this research is to investigate the reasons that the sustainability of rural

water supply and sanitation services does not meet the expectations. To do so we

assessed in 20 villages in the Libo Kemkem Woreda the utilization, functionality,

institutionalization and community participation and satisfaction of water supply

systems provided implemented by various organizations.

Specific objectives are:

To examine where and how success has been achieved and what needs to be

done to improve sustainability of water schemes.

To investigate the impacts of rural water supply and sanitation services to the

community

To investigate potential and constraints facing rural water supply and

sanitation services

To investigate different needs of user communities of water supply and

sanitation services

12

to explore whether and which of the aforementioned dimensions of

sustainability are effective

1.3 Organization of the thesis

This thesis is made up of five chapters. This chapter provides the introduction

of the water supply and sanitation situation in Ethiopia. The chapter also describes

justification, objectives and hypothesis of the study. Chapter 2 discusses the

background information about rural water supplies, different approaches water

providers follow and sustainability of water schemes. To gain insight of the

sustainability of rural water supply and sanitation services under different

organizations approach, different sources in line with community participation,

satisfaction, functionality, utilization and management of water projects were

explored. Experiences gained from different parts of the world in relation to

community management of water projects in rural areas and community participation

in project activities provided basis for comparison. Chapter 3 describes the materials

and methods used in the study. The chapter describes the location of the study areas

and the status of water schemes visited. The detail research design and data analysis is

also part of this chapter. Chapter 4 contains the results of the study from quantitative

and qualitative data, water quantity measurement, water users, community operation

and maintenance trainees and water providers (the five different organizations

working in the study area). The last chapter, chapter 5, discusses the main findings

which were explored during the study and the conclusion drawn from the results.

13

Chapter 2

2 Background of Water Supply and Sanitation

Water is one of the most important natural resources because access to safe

water is vital for survival. However, despite significant investments in the water

sector, the outlook on access to safe water remains grim at the globally (World Bank,

2001). Rural Africans have the lowest level of access to clean water and sanitation

when compared to other developing areas of the world (UNESCO-WWAP, 2003).

This holds also true in Ethiopia. Lack of access to clean water and proper sanitation is

a major cause of diarrheal diseases, which in turn account for a large fraction of

childhood morbidity and mortality (Janvier et al, 2002). It is generally accepted that

lack of potable water and basic sanitation services remains one of the world’s most

urgent health issues (Onesmo and Holmes, 2006). Inadequate access to sufficient good

quality water and appropriate sanitation will exacerbate already difficult situations,

e.g. where people are being treated for chronic and/ or possibly fatal illnesses such as

HIV/AIDS (Ngwenya and Kgathi, 2006). In a review of over 60 studies, Esrey et al.

(1985) found that the largest benefits of service improvements in reducing morbidity-

related diarrhea were improved water availability (25%), improved excreta disposal

(22%), and water quality (16%).

2.1 Water supplies and sanitation in perspectives

Wilderer, (2004) pointed out that serving the world population with adequate

drinking water and sanitation is an important prerequisite, not only to hygienic safety,

but to prosperity and political stability as well, and will foster the adaptive capacity of

the societies in the developing countries and beyond. Research and experience

continually confirm that a safe water supply is not sufficient and that adequate

sanitation facilities and hygiene practice are essential to improving the health of the

local population (Van Derslice and Briscoe 1995). It is estimated that currently more

14

than one billion people do not have access to safe drinking water. About 2.4 billion

people are not served by any type of reasonable sanitation, and one-half of the world’s

hospital beds are occupied by people suffering from water-borne diseases (Wilderer,

2004).

It is well accepted that water supply and sanitation problems cannot be solved

with concrete and pipes and that integrated approaches to water supply and sanitation

that put people at the center need to be used. This means from a social development

perspective understanding and involving users and responding flexibly towards their

concerns.

2.2 Sustainability of rural water supply and sanitation as a concept

Sustainability pertains to multiple aspects of a rural water supply, with

institutional, social, technical, environmental and financial dimensions (WELL, 1998).

This accounts for the fact that understanding and measuring sustainability is so

difficult, and why solutions are highly context specific. Sustainable rural water

supplies ensure the ongoing provision of a service that is fundamental to improving

health, reducing the burden of carrying water long distances, and enabling users to live

a life of dignity (Haysom, 2006). Therefore, in our context, sustainability is best

defined pragmatically as “whether or not something continues to work overtime”

(Abrams, 1998).

The conceptual frameworks to achieve sustainability by Carter et al (1999) for

rural water supply and sanitation services are depicted in Figure 1. According to these

authors, a motivated community is the one that needs the service more and therefore

considers the scheme as its own property. As a result schemes constructed by

community motivation are likely to be sustainable. Effective O and M is essential for

sustainability and village level O and M is one of the ways through which

sustainability can be achieved. In cases of scarce government resources the money

15

collected from cost recovery can be used for capacity building such as sanitation

education and village level maintenance training which can play great role in

sustaining the services. Services can’t be always managed by the community alone.

For example at times where village level maintenance trainees are lost from the

community new training should be given to the trainees. Village level rural operation

and maintenance has limited success if ongoing support is not provided.

Figure

1: The sustainability chain (Source: Carter et al 1999)

Water supply development projects need to extend their scope beyond simply

the provision of sustainable water supply infrastructure. The greatest beneficial on the

health of the local population is derived from an integrated multidisciplinary approach

that works in close collaboration with the local population (Gleitsmann et al, 2007).

Demand-driven approaches are effective since communities are capable of making

decisions, maintaining services, and making their contributions to capital costs,

operations and maintenance. In addition, a strong and well-structured information

campaign is necessary to empower communities to make an informed choice

(UNESCA, 2005).

Livingstone et al. (1993) explained that poor program conceptualization,

unimaginative planning, use of inappropriate technologies, and rigid management

approaches had contributed to high rates of program failure. Implementation

approaches which resulted in non-sustainability of water supply projects should be

identified so that they would not be repeated in the future. At the same time

Continuing support

Cost recoveryMaintenance

Motivation

16

implementation approaches, which resulted in sustainability of water supply projects

should be identified so that they can be used as a base for future project

implementations.

The chances of achieving the Millennium Development Goals by halving the

proportion of people without access to safe water by 2015 will be seriously hampered

unless levels of sustainability can be greatly improved, (Haysom, 2006). Therefore, it

is necessary to follow approaches which can lead to the sustainability of rural water

supply and sanitation.

17

Chapter 3

3 Materials and Methods

3.1 Location and description of the study area and the water schemes

The study area, Libo Kemkem Woreda, is found in the South Gondar Zone of

the Amhara Regional State. It extends from a latitude of 37o15‘36” E to 38o06’36” E

and from a longitude of 11o54‘36” N to 12o22‘48” N. This area receives a unimodal

rainfall of approximately 1300mm per year, the majority of which falls between June

and August. The mean annual temperature in the area is 19.7oC. According to the 2007

census report of the Ethiopian Central Statistical Agency (ECSA), its total estimated

population was 198,374 of which 88.9% live in rural areas. The rural population is

relatively poor, relying on traditional farming and small holder livestock production,

the success of which is threatened by unpredictable rainfall patterns and low

investment capacity. Rain-fed subsistence farming of crops (maize, millet, “teff” and

sorghum), animal husbandry, and irrigated paddy rice cultivation along the Ribb River

remain the principal agricultural activities despite poor soil fertility and highly

variable rainfall in most areas.

According to the technicians of the organizations working in rural water supply

and sanitation, the groundwater depth ranges from 3m to 30m. This explains that the

prevalence of hand pump schemes in many areas allowing for the widespread use of

shallow and medium depth hand pumps, such as Nira and Afridev, respectively. The

dispersed nature of the settlements also makes point source extraction systems more

appropriate.

The list of the villages that each of the five organizations provided service was

obtained from each organization. Among the villages provided with a water supply

service by each of the five organizations four villages were randomly selected from

each of the organizations. A total of twenty villages were therefore selected for this

18

study. The locations of the villages selected are shown in figure 1 below. Information

on the schemes in these villages: the GPS location of each scheme in each village, the

number of water users in each scheme, the time the scheme was constructed, the

organization provided the service is provided in Table 1 of Appendix 1.

For the sake of simplicity the villages served by the five organizations namely

RWaSSHP, LKWWRO, ORDA, RED CROSS and UNICEF are classified as Region

1, Region 2, Region 3, Region 4, and Region 5 respectively in this paper. In region 1

where RWaSSHP was service provider the selected villages were Shini Difa,

Chekchakit, Aba Mederoge and Shina; in Region 2 where LKWWRO was service

provider the selected villages were Bata, Dikulle, Belles and Mewagna; in Region 3

where ORDA was service provider the selected villages were Keroye, Agamoch,

Shumana-2 and Dokimit; in Region 4 where RED CROSS was service provider the

selected villages were Kibichalle, Bisrogmi, Bayiyo and Milangib in Region 5 where

UNICEF was service provider the selected villages were Menta Walka, Lay Chiche

Walka, Kidane Mihret and Endodo Mesk.

19

Figure 2: The location of the study area and villages

3.2 Data collection

Information was obtained from three different groups: water users, village

maintenance trainees and water and sanitation and organization designing and

implementing the water and/or sanitation services. Formal interviews, observation and

20

group discussion were held. Field observations using structured checklists were

administered. Data for the observation included mainly protection mechanism

(presence of fence, guard, problems related with service structures, presence of latrine

and its situation).

To generate information from diverse stakeholders and to capture their

perspectives focus group discussions were held with the following groups in the

communities studied: village Water supply and sanitation commute, village level

operation and maintenance trainees, concerned officials of water supply and sanitation

issues in the study area, representatives of each organization and extension staff

operating in the specific communities.

3.2.1 Water users

The principal researcher was able to directly observe water-use behavior as

well as conduct formal and informal surveys with residents of each village. A pre-

tested structured questionnaire was used for the formal survey, Appendix 4. The

questionnaire was designed to collect information on demographic and socio-

economical characteristics of the respondents and the degree of functioning,

utilization, and participation in water supply facilities and sanitation practices. A total

of 400 water users were interviewed during the questionnaire survey by selecting

randomly twenty interviewees in each village (among list of settlers in each village).

The proportion of respondents in each village consisted of 70% women and 30 % men.

This was done by selecting randomly 17 women and six men among the settlers in

each village. The rationale for this selection was in part from evidence-based literature

on women’s major participation in water resource management (Gleitsmann et al,

2007, Makule, 1997) and through direct observation of women’s primary role in water

provision and distribution at the household level. The higher number of female

respondents is attributed by culture and traditions of Ethiopia, especially in rural areas

21

where women and girls are responsible for collecting water for household use. It is

said that women are more knowledgeable than men of the problems concerning water

accessibility and use (Onesmo et al, 2006). In the Ethiopian context, women are

primary users of water and commit a considerable portion of their daily time table to

water collection and management of household water and hygiene. Therefore, it is an

undeniable fact that, they have the best information on water supply and sanitation

issues.

3.2.2 Village level maintenance trainees and water and sanitation committees

A pre-tested structured checklist was used for conducting formal surveys with

village level maintenance trainees and a checklist was used to gather information on

water and sanitation committee in each village. The checklist used for village level

maintenance trainees included information on the trainees experience in maintaining

the scheme, belief of the trainees on their ability to maintain a system, constraints of

village level maintenance and their perspective in sustaining water supply service.

Except for villages in region 5 where there were no village level maintenance trainees

two village level maintenance trainees were interviewed in each village.

The checklist used for collecting information on water supply and sanitation

committee by holding focal group discussion included their role in water supply and

sanitation, the time the committee was formed (at the beginning or end of the project),

constraints in water supply and sanitation service management. In most of the villages

the water and sanitation committee consist seven members. It was tried to include

more than 50% of the water supply and sanitation committee in each village in the

focus group discussion held.

22

3.2.3 Organizations which provided water and (or) sanitation services

The questionnaire used for the survey with the service providers is attached in

appendix 5. The questionnaire included information on the general approaches that the

organizations followed in providing the services in the villages selected for this study,

more specifically community participation in project activities, operation and

maintenance, supporting mechanisms after handing over the schemes to the

community, opportunities and constraints in working to sustain rural water supply and

sanitation services, perspectives in sustaining rural water supply and sanitation

services.

The interview with WaSSHP, LKWWRDO and ORDA was made with the head of

each of the organizations in the study area. However since RED CROSS and UNICEF

programs phased out in the study area information how these organizations were

working was collected from Libo Kemkem Woreda Water Resource Development

Office as the office has always the responsibility to follow up the works of any

organization in the woreda.

3.3 Well yield measurement

The yields of each of the wells in Region 1, 2, 3, and 4 were measured. However,

the yields of the wells in Region 5 could not be measured since the depth of the wells

was higher and required a higher cost of pumping. The yields of the wells were

measured through the following procedures:

1. The static depth of water was measured in the morning before the well was

pumped by the users.

2. After measuring the static water level the well was emptied by using a

dewatering pump.

3. Water was allowed then to enter the well to a depth of 0.5 meters (The depth at

which the hand pumps installed suck water from the well)

23

4. Water was allowed to enter the well for 30 minutes

5. The depth of the water entering in to the well in the 30 minutes time was

measured

6. The yield of the well was then calculated as follows

a. The total quantity of water (Q) that has entered the well was calculated

by multiplying the flat surface area of the well by the depth of water

(d)

Where d is the depth of water entered in to the well in the 30 minutes time, D

is the diameter of the well, A is cross sectional area of the well, Q is the total

quantity of water entered in to the well in the 30 minutes time.

The yield was then calculated as:

[m3/minute]

[Litter/minute]

The quantity of water measured in such a way was then compared with the

standard to determine whether the quantity of water measured is enough or not for the

users. The standard gave only three yield values that need to be achieved at the

specified corresponding three overnight storages so that the quantity of water is

enough for the specified users. Linear interpolation was used to obtain the yield value

of the standard when the measured overnight storage was different from the specified

in the standard. The value of the yield obtained directly from the standard or using

interpolation of the standard was then used to compare the amount obtained by

measurement. The result of the water quantity measurement and the corresponding

24

comparison with the standard is shown in table 1 appendix 3. Table 1 below is the

standard used by the Amhara Region Water Resources Development Bureau.

Table 1: Standard for well yield at different static depth of waterStatic depth of water

(meters)Well yield [q]

(litters per minute)2.0 202.5 153.0 10

Source: Amhara Region Water Resources Development Bureau, 2007.

3.3 Data analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 14 for Windows was

used for analyzing the data collected during the questionnaire survey. The respondents

were given numbers for identification purposes. The region and the village each

respondent was living were coded with numbers so that the situation in each region or

village under the different questions in the questionnaire can be analyzed. Each

question in the questionnaires was identified by a variable name and within variables

there were values and value labels for identification of responses from the

respondents. After coding the information from the questionnaires, template for

entering data in the computer program was created. The coded data was then entered

in the SPSS computer program where frequencies, multiple responses, mean, standard

deviations and cross tabulations were computed during the analysis.

Information collected from the water and sanitation committee and water and

sanitation service providers during the FGDs and water providers were grouped

together according to the checklist questions and category of respondents. The issues

originated from different groups but believed to be related were grouped together. For

comparisons between different groups on specific issues to be easier issues believed to

25

be related were arranged in rows and the focus groups related with these issue were

arranged in columns in a summary table. The issues believed to be related were then

summarized and interpreted according to the relation that might exist between them as

seen by different groups. Different views from different groups were taken into

consideration during interpretations.

26

Chapter 4

4 Results

Due to the large number of tables of results, some tables are presented within

the text while others are presented in Appendix 2. Some results obtained during the

focus group discussion are also presented within the text.

4.1 Characteristics of the respondents

About 30% of respondents interviewed were men and 70% women. This was

intentionally made on the belief that women know about water and sanitation more

than men as it is described in section 3.2.1. The age of respondents interviewed ranged

from 20 to 72 years with an average of 41 years.

Table 2 below describes education level of the respondents’ household

composition in the study area. The majority of respondents’ household compositions

(69%) was not educated meaning they could not write or read or did not attend formal

education. About 1% of the composition can write and read without having formal

education in schools. The remaining 30% included those attending or interrupted

education at primary, high school, preparatory or college level.

Table 2: Education level of respondents’ household composition Education level Percentages (n=400)

Write and read /non formal education/ 1.00Primary 15.80

High school 7.20Preparatory 5.90

College 0.60Not educated 69.50

n indicates the number of respondents

The marital status of the respondents is presented in table 3 appendix 2. The

result shows that approximately 84% were married. About 4.5% and 11.5% of them

were divorced and widowed, respectively. Only 0.3% of the respondents were single.

27

Because the majority of the respondents were married, our survey results are valid for

fetching water (usually by the family female members). The number of people in a

household ranged from 1 to 9 with an average of 4.3 persons, which is slightly less

than the average Ethiopian family size of 4.7 persons (Ethiopian Central Statistical

Agency 2007)

4.2 Household Water Use and Accessibility

Functionality of schemes

The functionality of schemes in Libo Kemkem Woreda is about 34.4%.

(Libokemkem Woreda Finance and development Bureau, 2009). Three hand dug

wells in regions 2, 4 and 5 were found to be unfunctional. The villages were Belles in

region 2, Bisgormi in region 4 and Kidane Mihret in region 5. The causes of non-

functionality of these schemes were pump breakage, unproductive well (dried well),

and pump breakage and unproductive well respectively. The Belles scheme served for

28 months before pump breakage. Whereas the Bisgormi scheme served for four

months before the well got dry. The Kidane Mihret on the other hand served for four

months only before the pump got broke and the well got dry.

It was observed that there was a guard in all of the four schemes in region 1and

one of the schemes in region 2. The remaining 15 schemes were not having guards.

The guard works to protect the scheme from damage by animals and children. He will

be paid monthly from the contribution of users for operation and maintenance.

Institutionalization of the schemes

Water and sanitation commute existed in the eighteen villages of the whole

twenty villages. The two villages in which water supply and sanitation commute were

not formed were Bisgormi of region 4 and Kidane Mihret of region 5. Among the

eighteen villages 14 villages formed the commute after the completion of construction

28

work of the scheme. In the remaining 4 villages in region 1 water commute was

formed just at the inception time of the project.

Users in region 1 had rules and regulations in the use of water supply services.

The organization constructed the scheme, RWaSSHHPM, taught these users about the

importance of having rules and regulations and helped them to develop their own rules

and regulations on the use of the water supply services. The rules and regulations

basically included the punishment and measures that will be taken for delays in paying

operation and maintenance fee, the fetching time and so on. Users in a village in

region 2 also developed their own rules and regulation. They took this experience

from villages in region 1 as they were neighbors to them. We can learn from this the

importance of experience sharing. By enabling communities which have less

performance towards sustaining their schemes can learn a lot from villages with better

handling of the schemes. The reason given in villages where rules and regulations

were not developed was luck of awareness on the use of regulations. This implies a

need to inform or to teach about the importance of having rules and regulations in

introducing rural water supply and sanitation.

Modern hand dug wells like the one in figure 3 were the main source of water for

household use in the villages where the schemes were functional. Before the

construction of the modern hand dug wells or when the modern hand dug wells were

not functional: traditional hand dug wells, unprotected wells, rivers, ponds during the

rainy season and lake were mentioned as alternative sources of water used by the

respondents, table 3. This is especially the main problem in villages where the

schemes were not functional. These villages were Belles in region 2, Bisgormi in

region 4 and Kidane Mihret in region 5. Communities in villages where flooding was

a common problem and their schemes were non-functional used pond water in the

rainy season for household consumption. These villages are Bisgormi and Kidane

29

Mihret in region 4 and 5 respectively. Since the villages used to get totally submerged

by flood in rainy season, the community in these villages couldn’t get any other source

of water nearby except the pond. However communities in similar flooding problem

but had schemes functional were not using pond water in the rainy season even though

they used pond water before the construction of the scheme. Unreliability of water

supply due to mechanical breakdown of the schemes was mentioned as one of the

factors forcing people to go for traditional hand dug wells and other unprotected water

sources such as rivers, ponds and lake in order to cope with water scarcity. The other

reason was low supply of water in some of the water schemes visited.

Table 3: Different sources of water used by the communities in each region before the scheme was constructed or when the scheme is non-functional or supplies law quantity of water

Sources of water(a)

% within the region the respond is givenRegion 1 (n=133)

Region 2 (n=95)

Region 3 (n=104)

Region 4 (n=172)

Region 5 (n=196)

River 52.6% 31.6% 44.2% 14.0% 23.0%Pond water in the summer 15.0% .0% .0% 34.9% 40.8%

Unprotected well 8.3% 9.5% 4.8% 46.5% 26.0%

Unprotected spring 24.1% 58.9% 51.0% 4.7% .0%

Lake .0% .0% .0% .0% 10.2%

Respondents were asked to point out the most responsible person in their

family to fetch water. The result in table 4 showed that females, mothers and

daughters, are responsible to fetch water most of the time in most of the households, in

44.5% and 38.75% respectively. Males, fathers and sons, carry the responsibility in

only 2% and 14.75% of the households respectively. Therefore it can be concluded

30

that most of the responsibility to collect water for household use lies in females than

males. The impact of spending a lot of time for collecting water in addition to the

times she spends in carrying other household responsibilities for a female in rural area

on her education status can be guessed.

Table 4: House hold members responsible to fetch water most of the timeHousehold members responsible to fetch water

most of the time% of the respondents

n=400Daughter 38.75

Son 14.75Mother 44.50Father 2.00

n indicates number of respondents

Time required for fetching water

The villages under study were using unprotected sources of water such as

ponds, rivers, springs, open hand dug wells and lakes before water supply services

were given. The respondents were asked to give information on the time it took them

to fetch water from these sources and the new schemes constructed. Although the

values obtained were not based on accurate measurement they can be used to roughly

estimate the improvement in time that the community gained from rural water supply

services. The researcher was careful about overestimation and underestimation of

these times.

The results were tabulated in table 5 below. The maximum time to fetch water

from the supplied services and the unprotected sources were 32 minutes 43 minutes

respectively. The average time to fetch water from the supplied services and the

unprotected sources were 16.36 minutes and 25.24 minutes respectively. The average

improvement in time of using the water supply services was 8.88 minutes. The

maximum improvement in time by using the scheme was 32 minutes. For women or

31

girls who make frequent trips (2 to 3 trips most of the time) to fetch water about 32

minutes improvement in time by using the scheme in a single trip is a great advantage.

For them, on whom most of the responsibility to collect water for household use lies,

in place of killing most of their time in fetching water from distant sources, the saved

time from nearby schemes can be commenced to do other household works or

specially for girls to go to school

The time spent on fetching water from the water points ranged from 10

minutes to 32 minutes with an average of 16 minutes, while to other sources in case of

non- functionality of the schemes it ranged from 13 minutes to 43 minutes with an

average of 25 minutes (Table 5). According to the responses, women and girls were

responsible in collecting water in most of the households (90%). Women and girls

were the bearers of responsibilities with regard to water collection and other domestic

works and hence a big workload and a long walk in search of water for household use.

The number of people in a household ranged from 1 to 9 with an average of 4.3. You

can imagine the workload facing women and girls to ensure availability of water for

about 4 people in a household, regardless of whether it is water from dug wells or

other sources.

Table 5: The average time improved in fetching water by using water supply servicesTime taken in minutes to fetch water

Comparison parameter Reg. 1 n=80

Reg. 2 n=80

Reg. 3 n=80

Reg. 4 n=80

Reg. 5 n=80

Total n=400

Average from scheme 13.94 17.80 16.86 16.40 16.78 16.36Average from other sources 22.80 29.60 24.19 24.60 25.00 25.24Average improvement by

using the scheme 8.86 11.80 7.33 8.20 8.23 8.88

The maximum improvement by using the scheme 25.00 32.00 19.00 27.00 21.00 24.80

Maximum from the scheme 20.00 32.00 24.00 28.00 28.00 26.40Minimum from the scheme 10.00 11.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.20

Standard deviation from 2.31 4.80 4.41 4.35 4.68 4.11

32

schemeMaximum from other sources 36.00 43.00 33.00 39.00 37.00 37.60Minimum from other sources 13.00 14.00 14.00 13.00 14.00 13.60

Standard deviation t from other sources 6.80 8.09 4.70 6.66 5.99 6.45


Amount of water fetched per day

Being unfamiliar with the word liter most of the respondents were unable to

tell the amount of water that their family uses per day in liters. The respondents were

asked therefore to tell the average number of a twenty liters “jerican” (the container

they usually used to fetch water) that their family used per day. The per capita

consumption of water in a respondent’s household was then calculated by multiplying

the number of “jericans” used per day by twenty and then dividing the result by the

household’s family size. The result is tabulated in table 6 below.

According to Table 6, the average quantity of water used by a person per day

per household ranged from 3.33 litters to 25 liters and the average was about 12.65

liters, which is significantly less than the WHO guide values of at least 20 liters

(Webster J. et al, 1999). The standard deviation was found to be 5.33 liters implying

there is much difference in the amount of water used per person among different

households. Higher average values were recorded in region 1 and 3 and the lowest

average value was recorded in Region 5.

Table 6: The average amount of water used per person per householdAmount in liters per person per day per household

Statistical parameter

Region1 n=80

Region2 n=80

Region3 n=80

Region4 n=80

Region5 n=80

Total n=400

Average 14.00 12.35 14.79 11.32 10.79 12.65Minimum 3.33 2.86 4.00 4.00 3.33 3.33Maximum 25.00 20.00 25.00 25.00 20.00 25.00

Standard deviation 5.33 4.93 5.41 5.08 4.59 5.33


33

Results of water quantity measurement

The Amhara Region Water Resources Office has developed a standard that

helps to decide whether the quantity of water that can be obtained from a well gives a

sufficient amount of water for a specified number of users. The procedure for

measuring the water yield is given in the Methodology section. The result of water

quantity measurement was then compared with the Regional Bureau of Water

Resources standard which is 20 liters/day/person. Water quantity measurement was

not done in villages in region 5 as the wells in these villages were deep and their

discharge could not be measured by locally available low capacity dewatering pump.

In the standard the yield of a well is defined as the amount of water the well gives in a

certain time. However it doesn’t mean that a well that has a certain amount of yield

can give that amount of water throughout the day. The continuous ground water flow

in to the well is affected by the level of water in the well. At the time the depth of

water in the well reaches the natural water table level, the flow of water from the

ground in to the well stops. This case will happen at the night time when the well is

not pumped by users. The water stored at the night can be used by users during day

time. The overnight storage is defined as the amount of water that can be stored by the

well in a single night.

According to the standard for a well that can store a certain amount of water in

a night, its yield should correspond with the amount specified in table 1 to fully supply

sixty to seventy households (from 300 to 350 users). This is based on an average use

of 20 liters of water per person per day which is believed to be enough for rural

people.

34

The results of the water quantity measurement show that compared to the

Amhara Region Water Resources Office standard five of the schemes (31.25%) did

not provide sufficient amount of water for the community, table 1 appendix 3.

The role of community participation and contractual agreement in increasing the

quantity of water supplied.

One of the approaches RWaSSHP followed was community participation in

decision making in the processes involved in water supply and sanitation works. The

community through its representatives (usually the water and sanitation committee)

participated in deciding whether the quantity of water that can be supplied by the well

under construction is enough for the community or not. The contractor would be

ordered to deepen the well by the committee to deepen the well if the committee

believed the yield of the well at that depth was not enough for the community.

RWaSSHP gave measured work payment1 contract to contractors. Payments to the

contractor were made by the provider only with the approval of the representatives of

the village.

Red Cross and LKWWRDO did not involve community participation in

decision making especially in approving whether the works of the contractor was

satisfactory. A supervisor was assigned to control the quality of work that a contractor

did under a fixed price2 contract agreement did. Five of the schemes constructed by

these organizations were found to provide a lesser quantity of water than the standard,

table 1 appendix 3.

Unlike Red Cross and LKWWRDO, RWaSSHP gave measured payment

contracts to contractors. Compared to the regional standard the wells constructed by

RWaSSHP provided a higher amount of water to users. Consequently, community

1 The type of payment agreement by which the contractor was paid based on the quantity of work he did. The more quantities of work he did the more he paid.

2 The type of payment agreement by which the contractor was paid only the amount specified in the agreement regardless of the quantities of work he did upon finishing the work.

35

participation in deciding whether further deepening of a well is required is important

in order for the community to receive sufficient water for their needs. This result

shows the higher importance of giving contracts based on unit cost than fixed price.

4.3 Community participation

Most NGOs accept and understand the need to fully involve all members of a

community in the planning and implementation of a water and sanitation project. It is

only through participation that communities will get a sense of ownership and should,

therefore, feel motivated to operate and maintain the system.

Table 7: Cash and kind contributions by the community for water supply systems

Types of cost sharing% within the region the respond is given

Region1 n=80

Region2 n=80

Region3 n=80

Region4 n=80

Region5 n=80

Total n= 400

In cash only 5.0% - - - - 1.0%In kind only 6.3% 13.8% 28.8% 22.5% 27.5% 19.8%

Both in cash and in kind 81.3% - - - - 16.3%

Didn’t share at all 7.5% 86.3% 71.3% 77.5% 72.5% 63.0%


In Region 1, over 90% of the respondents have contributed cash, in kind or

both, table 7. The other regions contributed significantly less for the water supply

system and the contributions were only in kind. The reasons of the majority of the

respondents in regions 2, 3, 4 and 5 for not contributing project cost in cash or in kind

is for being not asked, (Table 2 Appendix 2). The other reasons given were being

poor, being old and unable to contribute in kind, the scheme being far and unreliability

of the scheme.

In Region 1, each of these respondents was obliged to contribute 3% of the

construction cost. This amounted from 10 Br to 20 Br with an average of 14 Br. The

payment varied among villages because the cost of construction differed. There were

36

also differences in payments among households within a village because the very poor

members were unable to pay. The shortages were made up by the rest of the

community members.

In kind contributions consisted of fencing the water point, removing excavated

material, providing locally available construction materials such as sand and stone,

inserting pre casted concrete rings in to the well shaft and installing pump (Table 3

Appendix 2).

Community satisfaction with the quantity of water supplied

The respondents were asked to scale their satisfaction level with the quantity of

water they got from the scheme they were using. The satisfaction level on the scale the

respondents were given to choose were: completely unsatisfied, unsatisfied, somewhat

satisfied, satisfied and completely satisfied in increasing order of satisfaction level. It

was found in table 8 below that only 45.5 % of the total respondents were highly

satisfied by the quantity of water supplied by the scheme they were using. More than

40% of them were less satisfied than the highly satisfied. The others level on the

satisfaction level of being satisfaction to some extent, unsatisfied and completely

unsatisfied.

Table 8: Community satisfaction with the quantity of water supplied% within the region the respond was given

Region 1 n=80

Regio2 n=80

Regio3 n=80

Regio4 n=80

Region5 n=80

Total n= 400

Completely unsatisfied - 1.3% - 12.5% - 2.8%Unsatisfied - 5.0% - 16.3% - 4.3%

Somewhat satisfied - 8.8% - 22.5% 3.8% 7.0%Satisfied 26.3% 55.0% 40.0% 46.3% 35.0% 40.5%

Completely satisfied 73.8% 30.0% 60.0% 2.5% 61.3% 45.5%


37

The respondents were asked to tell the period through which the quantity of

water supplied was not enough to fulfill their demand. For the same scheme

respondents in a village were using, different periods through which low quantity of

water was obtained from the scheme were specified. These periods are explained in

table 9. The larger gaps in the periods were the highest in region 4 where respondents

claimed low supply from November to June.

Table 9: The period through which the quantity of water supplied is lower than the demand

% within the region the respond was given.Region 1

n=80Region 2

n=80Region 3

n=80Region 4

n=80Region 5

n=80Total n=400

November to June - - - 15.0% - 3.0%February to June - - - 16.3% - 3.3%March to June - - - 3.8% - .8%April to June - 3.8% - 18.8% 6.3% 5.8%May to June 5.0% 15.0% 8.8% 17.5% 13.8% 12.0%

Sufficient well yield throughout

the year95.0% 81.3% 91.3% 28.8% 80.0% 75.3%


4.3.1 Community participation at the pre-planning and planning stage of the

project

The types of community participation activities during the planning stage of the

projects in each region are tabulated in table 4 appendixes 2. Each type of participation

activity is briefly described below. It was found that most of the respondents in region

1 participated on most of the activities specified in table 4 appendixes 2. However,

none of the respondents in the other four regions took part in any of the activities,

except in selecting place of construction.

Asking for services

38

The schemes in Region 1 were constructed after the community asked the

organization, RWaSSHP, to provide water. It was the belief of the organization that

communities with severe water supply problems will demand water supply services

prior to other communities. Asking for service would also ensure community

ownership.

The first step of RWaSSHP is to inform all communities in the woreda that

water supply systems are available to groups in villages satisfying the following major

criteria: (1) is able to contribute 3% and 7% of the total construction cost in cash and

in kind respectively (2) able to contribute the total operation and maintenance cost of

the scheme after construction. Community members requesting a hand dug well are

expected to form a group with a maximum number of sixty households. The

community is then expected to submit an application letter signed by all the

participanats to the RWaSSHP.

Selecting a well location

Communities know their environment best and can identify the potential

ground water areas. Based on previous attempts of finding ground water, the

approximate depth of the well and the likely cost can be estimated. The amount that

each household would need to contribute can be decided based on the feasibility of the

project and eventually agree to go with the organization.

Information from the community on excluding cultural sites is very important.

An engineer working in LKWWRO told the principal researcher about a problem he

faced for not participating community in selecting place of construction. He said that a

well constructed on an area where ancient people used as a grave area in a village

could not be used by the community. The primary reason was the fear that the quality

of water was affected by the buried remains. This experience tells how much it is

important to consider community participation in choosing a construction place.

39

Selecting the type of technology

With the help of the community facilitators of RWaSSHP, the community

participates in selecting the type of technology consisting of either a hand dug well,

shallow well, deep well, or spring. Each type of technology is priced, and the

community will select the technology based on the capacity to pay the 3%

construction cost and the advantages and disadvantages of each technology. In most of

the cases, a hand dug well was selected.

Participation in planning the project work

Based on availability and ease of access the community will identify the

construction materials that can be contributed The quantity of sand and stone required

will be estimated with the help of the community facilitator teams and the quantity

that each household need to contribute will be estimated. The water and sanitation

commute handles the responsibility to control the contribution. The community also

participates in planning the project work. This helps in arranging different works of

the project according to the working habits of the community.

4.3.2 Community participation in village meetings

Community participation in village meetings to address and discus water

supply and basic sanitation services in each region were assessed. Findings in table 5

appendix 2 depict community participation in the village meetings. 100% of the

respondents in Region 2, 3, 4 and 5 had not participated to the village meetings; they

said that meetings were not conducted by the village government leaders or the

respective organization giving service in each of these regions. In Region 1, 26% of

the respondents said that they contributed ideas for the improvement of water services

in the meeting with representatives of RWaSSHP. Twenty-seven percent in Region 1

did not attend the meeting.

40

In places where WASH worked, it can be seen that women in these areas have

participated in village meetings than the other villages where other organizations have

worked (table 5 appendixes 2). This is mainly due to the fact that RWaSSHP has

trained workers called community facilitator team that encourages women

participation in meetings. Women seat in front, they will be advised to share ideas in

the meetings if they are not sharing. One of the facilitators said that it is when asked

by name that women share their idea in meetings is most of the time

4.3.3 Community participation during the construction stage of the project

The water committees in region 1 involved in decision making during the construction

phase of the project. The committees in the other regions however were not involved

in making decision during the construction phase of the projects. Water committees in

Region 1 participated in ensuring that they provided sufficient water; supervising the

quality of construction; and approving the works of the contractor for payment. This

might be the case why the distribution of community satisfaction with the quantity of

water supplied by the scheme is the highest for this region, table 14 appendix 2.

4.4 Operation and Maintenance

4.4.1 Existing village level operation and maintenance practice

Sustainability invariably depends upon communities taking financial

responsibility for their schemes, which if achieved will enable scarce resources from

government and donors to be targeted specifically on areas where there is no improved

water supply, (Haysom, 2006; Parry-Jones et al, 2001). Communities are normally

expected to finance and manage the operation and maintenance of a system. This

requires capacity building in money management and organization and planning.

However, funds for O & M were not collected in most of the villages included in this

study. Only in the four villages of Region 1 and one village in Region 2 were O & M

fees collected.

41

Operation and maintenance training was given in all the regions except Region

5 where wells developed were deeper and it was believed to be impossible to maintain.

The trainings for Regions 1, 2 and 3 were given by the organization that installed

water supply system. For Regions 4 and 5 the training was given by Libo Kemkem

Woreda Water Resource Office after one year the construction of the wells were

finished (note that in these regions the training was not given by the organization

which constructed the scheme but the woreda water resource office gave the training).

It was found that 74% of the respondents in Region 1 and 83% in Region 2 did

not believe the operation and maintenance trainees had the capacity to maintain the

scheme, based on the trainees’ performance (Table 6 Appendix 2). None of the

trainees the researcher interviewed even tried to maintain the pump. 90% of operation

and maintenance trainees were not confident to maintain the systems by themselves if

failure occurs in the future.

Representatives of organizations explained that the cost for maintenance was

covered by the respective organization which maintained the schemes. A scheme in

each of region 1 and 3 and two schemes in region 4 were maintained only once since

the schemes had given service. A scheme in each of regions 2, 3 and 5 were

maintained twice since installation. No village had started using the money collected

for maintenance purpose in the schemes where the community was contributing

operation and maintenance cost. Include trainees’ attitude. Maintenance cost required

and operation cost required and the existing situation.

During the focus group discussion with the workers of the organizations it

became obvious that one of the bottle necks in village level maintenance practices was

lack of spare parts in both the local and national markets. Important parts of the hand

pump are made of plastic and wear easily by the up and down movement and need to

be replaced on a yearly basis. This issue was also raised by maintenance trainees.

42

4.4.2 Satisfaction with collection and use of operation and maintenance funds

Respondents in villages 1 and 2, where operation and maintenance costs were

collected, were asked about their satisfaction in how the funds were collected and

used. Twenty-two percent of the respondents in Region 1 and 45% in Region 2 were

dissatisfied with the collection of the funds. The reasons given were that not all users

paid and that the collection was late (Table 10).

In Region 1 23% of the respondents were dissatisfied with how the O & M

funds were managed. Forty percent were not content in Region 2. The dissatisfaction

resulted from not putting funds in the bank and the lack of (or minimal) reporting on

income and expenditures of the funds. The latter resulted in low trust by the

respondents (Table 11).

Table 10: Factors affecting effective collection of money in the regions where some villages practice collecting operation and maintenance cost

Reasons% within the region the respond was givenRegion 1 n=26 Region 2 n=15

Money is not collected from all users 57.7% 53.3%Delay in collection of the money 42.3% 46.7%

Percentages are based on responses.n indicates counts from multiple responds

Table 11: Factors affecting good management of operation and maintenance cost

Reasons% within the region the respond is given

Region 1 n=22Region 2

n=13Money collected should be put in the

bank 22.7% 53.8%

Low reporting rate of incomes and expenditures to the community 77.3% 46.2%

Percentages are based on responses.n indicates counts from multiple responds

43

4.7 Major problems encountered in water supply service

Table 7 appendix 2 lists all the problems the respondents claimed in the use of

water supply service they were using. The major problems are discussed as follows:

Low quality of water supplied

Two villages in region 4 and 5 reported that water quality problem exists in the

schemes they are using. They reported that the test and smell of the water they are

using has been changed after the schemes have served only one year. This might be

due to lack of frequent chlorination of the wells.

Low quantity of water supplied

Most of the respondents in region 1 and 3 (95% and 87.5% respectively)

reported as there is no low quantity of water supplied by the scheme they were using.

Low water quantity was reported as a problem in mainly in region 2, 4 and 5. This was

the case in regions where the community didn’t participate in planning, construction,

and operation phase of the project. The health extension agents in these villages stated

that they had had very limited success with hygiene education because the residents

used to complain that they did not have enough water to satisfy their primary needs

and hygiene was a distant secondary concern. They added that if the community in

these villages were provided enough quantity of water, then training them to store and

use their water in a hygienic manner would be much simpler as they would have a

sufficient supply of water to be able to worry about hygiene. It is obvious that with

law quantity of water supplied to the community building sustainable sanitation

practices will be impossible.

The beliefs of the respondents for no or law quantity of water supplied by the

scheme they are using are tabulated in table 12. They are:

Corruption: 14 responds in region 4 and 19 responds in region 5 believed corruption

between the contractors who constructed the schemes and the supervisor was one of

44

the reasons for no or low quantity of water supplied by the schemes they were using,

table 12. They believed that the existing depths of each of the wells they are using are

not enough to give enough quantity of water to the community. They said that the

wells needed to be deepened during construction. The respondents explained the

relation between corruption and deepening of well as follows.

After the contractors were selected based on tendering, payment agreement

was made between the contractor and the organization. The agreement explains that

the contractor would be paid the amount of money that he won during bidding up on

finishing the construction work regardless of the depth of the well he dug. In other

words the contractor will be paid the same amount of money whether he dug a shorter

or longer depth of well. To the contractor deepening the well more adds some extra

cost to him. The respondents said that we suspect the contractor and the supervisor had

negotiated for gaining the extra cost of deepening the well for them.

Slide of bottom well side made deepening difficult: 18 responds in region 4 and 41

responds in region 5 believe that slide of bottom well side made deepening work

difficult, table 12. They said the soil in the villages this issue was raised was a black

cotton soil type. At the water table the soil is moistened as a result due to its nature the

black cotton soil starts to slide and make the manual deepening of the well difficult.

These respondents claimed that the wells were not deepened to the depth where

enough quantity of water could be gained to supply the community.

Construction began lately: 6 responds in region 2, 32 responds in region 4 and 50

responds in region 5 the contractors were in a hurry to finish the construction work

before the rain hinders the construction work. Because of this the contractors had not

deepen the well at the depth where enough quantity of water can be obtained to supply

the community.

Low reliability of the schemes

45

This was the reason given by the respondents in all of the regions. This is

because the respondents have seen a lot of hand dug wells constructed in different

villages are not functioning. They said that the non-functionality of these schemes is

due to pump breakage. As a result they are in fear of pump breakage of the schemes

they are using now. As a result they the respondents who raised this issue are not

certain about the sustainability of the schemes they are using as they have seen a lot of

the similar technologies in different villages not functioning due to pump breakage.

Structural design not suitable to the village conditions

Problems related with structural design of structures was the case raised in

villages where flooding problem is high in the rainy season. These are the two villages

in region 3 (Keroye, and Agamoch) and four villages in region 4 (Kibichalle,

Bisrogmi, Bayiyo and Milangib). The flooding problem is due to overflow of Ribb

River. The respondents said that the height of the well head structure should be higher

than the depth of the pond that will be created during flooding so that the well head

structure can’t be submerged. Structural design is a part of a project work need to be

done at the planning stage. The villages in these regions didn’t participate at the

planning stage at all, table 4 appendixes 2. The fact that the primary reasons given in

these villages for not satisfied by the schemes were design related shows the

importance of appropriate design for the sustainability of a water supply intervention.

Appropriate design depends upon the communities’ needs and preferences and without

input from the diverse members of the communities it is unlikely that an externally

chosen infrastructure will be appropriate (Brett A. Gleitsmann et al, 2007). The

studied communities in these villages were not consulted during the design phases of

the water supply development projects and thus the dissatisfaction with the design of

the pumping infrastructure is not surprising. In this realm careful strategic ways of

46

engaging community through authentic participation in all processes involved in water

supply works is needed.

Non functionality of the schemes

Three villages in region 2 (Belles), region 4 (Bisgormi), region 5 (Kidane Mihret)

were un functional. The non-functionality in Belles is due to pump breakage. The non-

functionality in Bisgormi was due to pump breakage and dried well while that of

Kidane Mihret was due to dried well.

Table 12: Beliefs of the respondents for no or law quantity of water supplied by the schemes

% within the region the respond was givenRegion1

n=80Region2

n=88Region3

n=80Region4 n=121

Region5 n=82

Total n=451

Corruption 0.0% 6.8% 0.0% 14.0% 0.0% 5.1%Slide of bottom

well made deepening difficult

0.0% 5.7% 8.8% 27.30% 0.0% 10.0%

Construction began lately 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 31.40% 22.0% 12.4%

Carelessness of the contractor and

supervisor0.0% 14.8% 0.0% 2.50% 3.7% 4.2%

Presence of hard rock made

deepening difficult5.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.00% 0.0% 2.0%

No low quantity of water supplied 95.0% 67.0% 87.5% 20.70% 67.1% 63.2%

I do not know the reason 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 4.10% 7.3% 3.1%

n indicates counts from multiple responds

4.5 Sanitation

The higher percentage coverage of latrine in region 1 might be attributed to the

higher frequency of education given by RWaSSHP. It can be said that the average

47

frequency of education given in region 1 was almost every two weeks, table 8

appendix 2 (because more of the respondents, 68.8% said almost every two weeks and

31.3% almost every month). However formal education was not given in region 4 and

5. Sanitation education was given in region 2 and 3 twice or once in six months of

time. The higher frequency of education given in region 1 was due to community

facilitators of RWaSSHP available only in region 1 to teach the community about

sanitation.

Another approach of WaSSHP that might help in getting higher percentage

coverage of latrine in the region it is working, region 1, is the presence of tea and

coffee ceremony. The community discusses in this ceremony the issues of sanitation

and water supply service with the community facilitators of RWaSSHP. The cost for

this ceremony is covered by community contribution for this purpose. The

organization also arranged programs for some villages by which new villages under

the program get experience in the construction and use of latrine from villages where

latrine construction coverage and use is high.

4.5.2 Types of latrines constructed

Three types of latrines were constructed in the five regions: open pit

latrine/without house, pit latrine with walls but without roof, and pit latrine with

closed wall and roof (Table 13). On the average over the five regions, 37% of the

latrines had a wall and roof. The maximum number of this type (70%) was found in

Region 1. An illustration of a pit latrine with wall and roof is shown in Figure 3. This

latrine has a container to store water for washing hands after defecating.

Table 13: Types of latrines used in the five regions% within the region the respond was given

Total n=400Region 1

n=80Region 2

n=80Region 3

n=80Region 4

n=80Region 5

n=80

48

Open pit latrine/without

house7.4% 10.7% 33.3% 44.4% 48.0% 25.0%

Pit latrine without closed wall but

with roof22.2% 53.6% 50.0% 37.0% 40.0% 37.8%

Pit latrine with closed wall and

roof70.4% 35.7% 16.7% 18.5% 12.0% 37.2%


4.5.1 Number of latrine construction

In Region 1, 67% of the respondents constructed household latrines. In the

other four regions coverage ranged between 35% and 37.5% table 13 appendixes 2.

The majority of the respondents (80%) in Region 1 constructed their latrine after the

organization, RWaSSHP, started its work.

Respondents who constructed latrines were asked what groups were most

influential in teaching the community about sanitation: community facilitators,

volunteers, political leaders, or health extension workers. The results for Region 1 are

most interesting because all four groups participated in the process. In the other

regions, only politicians and healthcare workers took part (Table 14). Volunteers in

Region 1 consisted of females that were trained to teach 15 to 16 neighbor households.

Males taught male neighbors and female volunteers taught female neighbors on the

belief that within the same gender, the participants would be less inhibited and could

explain things more clearly. In Region 1, volunteers had the greatest influence on

constructing latrines followed by community leaders and health extension workers

(Table 14). The political leaders had the least influence because as the farmers

explained “the issues that the political leaders addressed were assumed to be related

with politics by the community”.

49

Table 14: Effectiveness of sanitation workers in promoting latrines% within the region the respond was given

Influencing workers Reg. 1 (n=80)

Reg. 2 (n=80)

Reg. 3 (n=80)

Reg. 4 (n=80)

Reg. 5 (n=80)

Total (n400)

Political leaders 5.6% 46.4% 26.7% 48.1% 36.0% 28.0%Community facilitators of

the organization 31.5% - - - - 10.4%

Health extension workers 20.4% 53.6% 73.3% 51.9% 64.0% 47.6%Volunteers 42.6% - - - - 14.0%

n indicates the number of respondentsReg. mean region

The greatest number of latrines in Region 1 can likely be related to both high

frequency of education and organization of tea and coffee ceremonies where sanitation

and water supply service issues were discussed. Both were instituted by RWaSSHP.

Cost for the tea and coffee ceremony was covered by the community. In Region 1,

“sanitation” meetings were held on two- to four-week intervals (Table 8 Appendix 2),

In Region 2, two to four meetings occurred per year and in Regions 4 and 5 no formal

education was given to the community.

4.5.3 Hygienic behaviors

Materials used most of the time for washing hands after defecation

More than 50% of respondents in all regions were neither using soap nor ash

for hand washing (Table 15). The majority of them were using water alone or water

and soap for hand washing after attending toilet. The number of respondents who

don’t use water at all after attending toilet was the smallest in Region 1. Use of soap

was limited because soap was reportedly expensive and was only used for laundry

purposes. For those who used it for hand washing after attending toilet, soap was not

kept at the toilet because of the fear that someone might visit the toilet and decide to

take it.

Table 15: The washing materials used most of the time after defecating% within the region the respond was given Total

50

n= 400

Region 1 n= 80

Region 2 n= 80

Region 3 n= 80

Region 4 n= 80

Region 5 n= 80

Water only 29.6% 10.7% 16.7% 14.8% 24.0% 20.7% Water and soap 16.7% 3.6% - - 4.0% 6.7% Water and ash 27.8% 21.4% 20.0% 18.5% 16.0% 22.0% Don't use water at all 25.9% 64.3% 63.3% 66.7% 56.0% 50.6%


Figure 3: Photos of sample watering points (A) and sample household latrine (B)

The habit of using latrines

The survey showed that if latrine was constructed, it did not mean it was used

regularly. Only 20% or less of those who constructed a latrine used it regularly (Table

9 Appendix 2). On average, about 35% of the respondents who had constructed a

latrine used it rarely or not at all. The reasons for not using the latrine regularly were

in order of importance: bad smell around the compound, feeling uncomfortable in

A B

51

using the latrine, and the large distance between agricultural fields and their home and

latrine (Table 16).

Table 16: Reasons of the respondents who have latrine for not using it regularly% within the region the respond was given

Total n=491Region1

n=82Region2 n=102

Region3 n=99

Region4 n=111

Region5 n=97

feel uncomfortable using latrine 36.6% 25.5% 31.3% 27.9% 27.8% 29.5%

Farther distance between farming place and home 26.8% 31.4% 23.2% 29.7% 27.8% 27.9%

Bad smell developed around the compound 36.6% 43.1% 45.5% 42.3% 44.3% 42.6%


Pit latrines with bowls covered

Bowls and air vents are used to avoid bad smell around latrines. However in

most of the latrines observed in the five regions bowls were not covered and air vents

were not installed.

More than 65% of the latrine bowls were not covered (Table 10 Appendix 2).

This poses a risk as far as human health is concerned due to a high probability of water

contamination by flies from the latrines. Apart from water contamination, food and

utensils used in households may also be contaminated by flies. Moreover, covering

might prevent bad smells from spreading beyond the latrine. The greatest number of

latrines (57%) with bowls covered is found in Region 1. In the other four regions less

than 30% of the bowls were covered. There is a link between the presence of

volunteers and community facilitators to teach the community about sanitation and the

acceptance of sanitation facilities.

52

Bowl covers used in Region 1 can be taken as an experience that other

communities can share. They are easy to construct and can be made locally from

straw and mud. They have a funnel shape and handle at the top.

Disposing baby feces

Very few respondents disposed of baby faces in latrines (1.8%), instead threw

it inside their compound or in a nearby field (Table 17). Most of the respondents

believed baby feces were harmless while it has been reported that baby feces that is

not properly disposed might put household members at risk of diarrhea (Tumwine et

al. 2003).

Table 17: Places where baby feces are disposedRegion No.

Regio1 n=80

Regio2 n=80

Regio3 n=80

Regio4 n=80

Regio5 n=80

Total n=400

Throwing inside compound 70.0% 73.8% 70.0% 68.8% 71.3% 70.8%

Throw in the field outside their compound 26.3% 25.0% 27.5% 31.3% 27.5% 27.5%

Who put in to latrine 3.8% 1.3% 2.5% - 1.3% 1.8%


Defecating places used by respondents without a latrine or who did not use a

latrine regularly

The defecating places of the respondents who had no latrine or didn’t use the

latrine regularly were forest or bush areas, by river sides’, paddy fields and within the

home compound, table 11 appendix 2. The most frequently used places were home

compounds, paddy fields and forest or bush areas. The frequency of responses in

which defecating by river banks was relatively few; however, it was not difficult to

find feces along river banks. It is believed that human feces are sources of disease if

53

contamination with water bodies happens. In rural areas where rivers are used as a

source of water for household consumption, bathing and laundry, defecation along

stream banks especially can cause contamination.

4.9 The impact of rural water supply and sanitation services

The impacts of water supply and sanitation services on users were assessed based on

the effect of the services on women’s relief and the advantages that the services

brought to women.

Most of the respondents believed that the presence of latrines is most important

to females because it allows females to use the toilet during the day time. The habit of

defecating in fields or bushes during the day is not culturally accepted for women.

Women are able to defecate after sunset even though a need may arise. The risks, for

example intestinal drought, of not defecating at the right time can be imagined.

However the presence of latrine can give relief for women as they can attend latrine

during the day time. It should be noted that women defecating in latrine during the day

time has culturally acceptance. What is not accepted is defecating in day time in the

fields has like men do. I am not saying that women need to defecate like men in

bushes or forest like men but the presence of latrine is a relief for women in rural areas

and need to be encouraged.

4.6 Functionality and institutionalization of schemes and community satisfaction

with service

The organization constructed the scheme, RWaSSHHPM, taught these users about the

importance of having rules and regulations and helped them to develop their own rules

54

and regulations on the use of the water supply services. The rules and regulations

basically included the punishment and measures that will be taken for delays in paying

operation and maintenance fee, the fetching time and so on. Users in a village in

region 2 also developed their own rules and regulation. They took this experience

from villages in region 1 as they were neighbors to them. We can learn from this the

importance of experience sharing. By enabling communities which have less

performance towards sustaining their schemes can learn a lot from villages with better

handling of the schemes. The reason given in villages where rules and regulations

were not developed was luck of awareness on the use of regulations. This implies a

need to inform or to teach about the importance of having rules and regulations in

introducing rural water supply and sanitation.

4.8 Community preferences

Preferred meeting places and times to discuss or teach water supply and

sanitation issues

It is important to give attention to community preferences in places and times

to discuss or learn water supply and sanitation issues. Discussing or teaching these

issues in places and times that the community prefers helps in getting the full attention

of the participants. This in turn helps in addressing the issues easily and to the desired

level. The respondents were asked to choose the most preferred places and times to

discuss water supply and sanitation issues among the places that had been commonly

used. Most of the respondents, about 69.5%, preferred to discuss these types of issues

under tree shade near villages during local holidays (none working days), table 18

below. 25.75% of the respondents preferred places where social programs such as

“Zikir”, “Senbete” and “Kub” are undergone. The minority of the respondents, 4.75%,

chose discussion in churches after the church program is over.

55

Table 18: Places and times preferred for discussion or learning about sanitation and water supply issues

List of meeting place and time % of responds n=400

In churches after the church program is over 4.75In churches or other places during social programs such as

“Senbete”, ” Kub”, and “Zikir” 25.75

In places where social or political issues are discussed during non-working days 69.50


The respondents were also asked to choose the most disliked places and times

to discuss or learn water supply and sanitation issues. The results are tabulated in table

19 below. Most of the respondents, 65.25%, hated discussion or learning these issues

in churches after the church program is over. 22.75% of the respondents hated places

where social programs such as “Zikir”, “Senbete” and “Kub” are undergone. The

minority of the respondents, 12%, chose discussion in churches after the church

program is over. Most extension workers or political leaders prefer churches to discuss

their agenda with the community. This is because they believed that higher number of

persons can be obtained without pre informing. On the other hand most community

members hated discussion or learning in churches after church program is finished.

This is because they go to church early in the morning before eating their breakfast

and need to go to home and eat breakfast as soon as the church program is finished

rather than having a discussion or learning with any issues. The church program

usually takes up to four hours and a person who didn’t eat breakfast prefers to go to

home to eat than discussing or learning any agenda. It will be therefore difficult to get

full attention, from people in hunger and need to eat breakfast, in discussing or

teaching about water supply and sanitation issues.

56

Table 19: Places and times hated for discussion or learning about sanitation and water supply issues

list of meeting place and time % of responds n=400

In churches after the church program is over 65.25In churches or other places during social programs such as

“Senbete”, ” Kub”, and “Zikir” 22.75

In places where social or political issues are discussed during holidays 12.00


4.10 Community thoughts in sustaining rural water supply services

Community thoughts in sustaining rural hand dug well water supply from table

12 Appendix 2 the highest number of respondents believe on community

empowerment in the processes involved in the project works. These are choice of

place of construction, controlling the quality of construction and financial aspects of

the project.

Six respondents in region 1 and seven in region 2 said that encouraging private

sectors to make available hand pump spare parts in the market is one of the solutions

to sustain hand dug well water supply schemes. Some workers of the organizations

whom the researcher discussed this issue agrees with this idea. They said that

eventhough selected members of the community were trained in each scheme so that

they can maintain it by themselves, lack of hand pump’s spare parts in the local

market was the bottle neck hindering community based maintenance practice. They

added also as they were unable to get spare parts not only in the local market but also

in the national market. Some of the five organizations, RWaSSHP, LKWWRO and

ORDA do maintain hand pumps of the schemes they constructed. However the spare

parts they are using are those additional pump parts supplied when a new pump set is

bought. The limited number of spare parts supplied in the new pump sets can be used

57

for a limited number of years. Therefore for sustainable use of the hand dug wells,

hand pump spare parts need to be available in the market.

Some respondents also said that a continuous support is required. According to

this respondents the continuous support they believed need to be given are immediate

maintenance during failure and periodic treatment of water. Some respondents also

said the construction period especially the digging time need to be in the dry period in

order to sustain the scheme. In the villages these respondents lived the quantity of

water supplied was lower and they believed the reason for the low quantity of water

supplied was the digging of the well in the wet season instead of the dry season. They

said that the water that is obtained during the wet season might not be available during

the dry season however the water that can be obtained during the driest period is more

likely to be available at all times.

Some other community beliefs in sustaining rural water supply included:

schemes should not be constructed near road ways rather near homes, efficient and

committed leaders required; strong bylaws need to be developed, good fencing and

guarding practice required and closure settlement of users.

58

Chapter 5

5 Discussions and Conclusions

5.1 Discussions

The very low coverage of drinking water supply and sanitation in rural areas of

Ethiopia has existed for decades (Birhanu A. 1999, EMoWR, 2007, World Bank

2005). The reason behind is not only low construction rate but also the already

constructed services are not used sustainably. However it doesn’t mean that all the

constructed schemes are not giving service in a sustainable way. Some of them

constructed under the approach of some providers are used in a sustainable way and

some others constructed under different providers approach are not used in a

sustainable way. Therefore it is important to sea which approaches helped in

sustaining rural water supply and sanitation services and which of them didn’t so that

the right approaches need to be followed by providers can be identified.

The functionality of the scheme directly affects household water use. It was

observed that in the villages where schemes were not functional people used

unprotected sources of water such as flood pond. In rural settings where there is very

less environmental protection practice, for example defecating in fields is a common

practice, cattle dung spread over fields the possibility of pollution of pond is

unquestionable. A need to give immediate solutions to the non-functional schemes is

therefore important.

The suitability of structural design of well head to the village conditions was

among the problems encountered in water supply services in the villages where

flooding was a problem. The structural design in these villages was done without the

involvement of the community in the process. If the community were involved in the

design process they might had the chance to explain the flooding problem so that the

59

designer can fix the height of the well head according to the depth of the pond that

could be created by the flood.

It was found that average distance to the schemes decreased in villages

provided service with the demand driven approach which require a 10% construction

cost share by the community. This shows that households settled closely are likely to

agree to pay the 10% construction cost than households settled sparsely. The need to

have a nearby scheme by each household might be the cause why closely settled

households are more likely to agree than sparsely settled households.

It is important to give attention to community preferences in places and times to

discuss or learn water supply and sanitation issues. Discussing or teaching these issues

in places and times that the community prefers helps in getting the full attention of the

participants. This in turn helps in addressing the issues easily and to the desired level.

Most extension workers and political leaders prefer churches to discuss their agenda

with the community. This is because they believed that higher number of persons can

be obtained without pre informing. On the other hand most community members hated

discussion or learning in churches after church program is finished. This is because

they go to church early in the morning before eating their breakfast and need to go to

home and eat breakfast as soon as the church program is finished rather than having a

discussion or learning with any issues. Most of the respondents preferred to discuss

such types of issues in a formal meeting in non-working days.

The time taken to fetch water from protected sources greater than 15 minutes

in most of the villages in this study exceeded the guide line value recommended time

by WHO (World Bank, 1999), which is set at 15 minutes of walking distance,

equivalent to a distance of about one kilometer. Thus daughters and mothers, who are

the common water attendants, spend much time on water collection in the rural

60

settings of Ethiopia. This is believed to affect spare times required for other household

affairs that may impact the health of the family as a whole (WHO, 1992).

The amount of water per capita consumption, about 12.65 liters and less used

by the majority, was significantly different from WHO guide line value set at least 20

liters per capita per day (Webster J. et al., 1999). Inadequate drinking water adversely

affects personal hygiene, clean food preparation, and housing sanitation, hence

favoring the transmission of water borne and water washed communicable diseases.

The amount of water used per person per day increased relatively in villages where

there is no low quantity of water supplied by the services than in villages where the

services provided low quantity of water. Though the water quantity measurement at

some of the schemes showed a higher amount of water than the WHO standard, 20

liters per person per day, can be supplied, still the amount used by users was found to

be lesser. This implies that the amount of water used for different purposes such as

keeping personal hygiene, clean food preparation and housing sanitation was lower

than that need to be used. This in turn implies the per capita consumption is not only

determined by the quantity of water supplied but also community behaviors on the use

of water for different purposes.

In the focus group discussion lack of spare parts and required manpower in

some of the providers are some of the observed problems in the water supply service.

Some workers of the providers said that they couldn’t get spare parts not only in the

local market but also in the national market. They got the spare parts they were using

sometimes from additional parts that were supplied when a new pump sets were

bought. They added that the limited number of spare parts that can be obtained from

buying new pump sets can be used for not more than two years. Therefore for a

sustainable use of the schemes spare parts should be available on local market. For this

the reason(s) why private sectors are not participating in the supply of spare parts need

61

to be known and possible solutions need to be fined accordingly. The LKWWRO also

lacked the required manpower especially social workers to do activities like

community mobilization and participation. This was mainly due to the manpower

structure designed by the government for this office didn’t include social workers. It

mainly included technical persons. Community mobilization and participation are

among the activities that need to be done by social workers. In money literatures these

are among the major factors that determine sustainability of rural water supply and

sanitation services. Therefore the required manpower in the office should be available

so that the desired social works to be done to ensure the continued service of water

points.

It was also discussed in the focus group discussion that he water committees

formed in villages where the project period of the providers was small (only for not

more than four months which was the construction period) were found not properly

doing their job. In the same way the guards were found not doing their job. However

in villages where the project period of the providers was long (more than 1.5 years in

most of the villages) the water committees and guards were found properly doing their

job. This indicates that the formation of committee and guard alone is not enough for a

continued function of these bodies a continuous follow up and support is required until

they accustomed their jobs.

Field observations had given a chance to observe both the negative and

positive factors related to water use and physical features of the water schemes. The

presence of rules and regulations, fences, proper and fixed time of fetching and guards

in 25% of water points is a positive participatory response from the beneficiaries

reflecting their desire to sustain the technology. Negative attitudes are related to the

mishandling of water sources like poor site clearing and not totally having or

maintaining fences in most of the schemes.

62

In villages where the community participated in decision making during the

construction stage (especially in deciding whether the depth of excavation was enough

or not to obtain enough quantity of water from the well) community satisfaction with

the quantity of water supplied increased relatively. This indicates the importance of

community involvement in decision making. This reason can be seen in the other

direction. In the villages where the satisfaction with the quantity of water was

relatively low their beliefs for the low quantity of water supplied was corruption

between the contractor and the supervisor and carelessness of the supervisor and

contractor. Both these problems can be controlled with the involvement of community

in the process.

Effective O&M is essential for sustainability and village level operation and

maintenance is one of the ways through which sustainability can be achieved.

However the government has not facilitated village level operation and maintenance

effectively and services cannot be managed by communities alone. Village level rural

operation and maintenance has limited success if ongoing support is not provided. For

example (1) the capacities of the trainees need to be checked every time and if

required additional training need to be given so that the trainees’ ability to maintain

schemes is assured, (2) to solve the problem of spare parts a way has to be sought to

assure presence of spare parts on the market for example enabling private sectors to

participate on this activity (3) in villages where operation and maintenance cost

collection is not practiced a way these types of villages can practice has to be sought.

With the above mentioned types of maintenance practice in 2009 today achieving the

millennium development goal, to reduce by half the number of people without

sustainable access to safe drinking water by 2015, will be difficult in the case of this

study area.

63

In villages where volunteers were trained and worked to teach the community

about sanitation the latrine construction coverage increased relatively than in villages

where volunteers didn’t exist. Some hygienic behaviors (hand washing habit, Presence

of latrine bowls, the habit of using the constructed latrine and proper disposal of baby

feces) were also better in these villages where volunteers existed. It was also found in

these villages that most people accept sanitation lessons easily and immediately from

volunteers than health extension workers and political leaders. This tells us a need to

scale up the presence of volunteers in villages where volunteers are not present so that

higher latrine construction coverage can be achieved.

One of the reasons given by the respondents for not using the latrine they

constructed in their home regularly was farther distance between farming place and

home. These respondents said that it would take a considerable amount of time to

come to home to use latrine from farming places. To combat this problem a need to

construct communal latrines around farming and grazing places is required.

Organizations involved in sanitation works in rural areas should not focus only in

household latrine construction they also need to focus in the construction of communal

latrines around farming and grazing places.

Involving communities in identifying and planning procedures projects is time-

consuming and cannot be rushed. The traditional hardware-driven approach to water

and sanitation projects does not allow time for community consultation or

participation. A community-based approach requires a much longer lead-in time and

NGOs must have a long-term commitment to see the project through. This is

particularly important when working with poorer communities who may be lacking in

organizational structure and need more capacity building. Projects with a significant

hygiene promotion or behavior change component also need long-term inputs from the

implementing NGO. Donors need to be educated to understand the need for longer-

64

term funding to achieve sustainable projects, and both donors and NGOs should move

away from the “target number of installations” approach and concentrate on achieving

positive long-term benefits for end users.

5.2 Conclusions

The different approaches followed by the different providers had resulted in

the difference in the sustainability of water supply and sanitation services even in

villages under similar circumstances (social, cultural, economical and geographic

locations).

Community participation at all stages of the project, proper capacity building,

and availability of spare parts are special factors to sustain the system. Community

participation at all stages of the project work is very important in addressing the exact

problems of the communities under a given situation, for example: (1) redesigning of

structures can be made if flooding is a problem; (2) community participation in

making decisions during the construction phase helped in assuring the quantity of

water that can be obtained from the well was enough or not by involving in the

decision whether further deepening of the well to get enough water is required or not.

Without effective O & M practice the sustainability of rural water supply schemes

can’t be achieved. If this target is to be achieved through village level O & M the

capacities of village level trainees should be strengthened because none of the

respondents of trainees has said he had confidence in maintaining schemes; they didn’t

maintain the system even failure happened. Besides the reason(s) why private sectors

are not participating in the supply of spare parts need to be known and accordingly

possible solutions need to be found so that spare parts could be available in the local

market. Even though the providers had given the service and left the villages other

methods by which communities which are not contributing O & M should start to

contribute need to be sought.

65

The project period of the providers should be enough to insure the

institutionalization of the schemes by the community. The project period should not

consider only the time required to construct the physical structure. It should also need

to consider the time that will be required to achieve institutionalization of the scheme

so that the constructed scheme can be governed by the community. The water and

sanitation committee could not serve the community for long unless a continuous

follow up and support is given. To do this the providers need to have a project period

through which the institutionalization of the schemes is assured.

To get the proper attention of the community while discussing water supply

and sanitation issues the meetings places and times need not to be in churches after

church program is finished. Instead they need to be in formal places during non

working days.

Providing enough quantity of water didn’t ensure the use of water that need to

be used according to the WHO standard, 20 liters per person per day. This was mainly

due to the lesser amount of water used in clean food preparation, keeping personal

hygiene and housing sanitation. The limited amount of water used when surplus

supply was available was due to lack of awareness on the effect of using the required

amount of water. Therefore besides providing enough quantity of water providers need

to change this behavior through education.

Improvement in the hygiene behavior of a community cannot be sustained

without a concurrent improvement in the quality of environmental sanitation and the

supply of safe drinking water. Therefore providers should not work on water supply

and sanitation separately instead they need to integrate the two as they are very much

dependent on each other.

Success on large latrine construction coverage depends on the presence of

community facilitators and volunteers. This can be scaled up in villages where

66

volunteers and community facilitators do not exist. Besides bodies responsible in

sanitation of rural areas need not focus only in household latrine construction only

they also need to focus in the ways communal latrines around farming and grazing

places can be constructed so that better environmental conditions can be created.

The results of the present study have implications for policy-makers, program

planners, academics, and practitioners in the field of water and sanitation in terms of

policy and program formulation, curriculum development, and service delivery. They

serve as a knowledge base on which the national, provincial, local governments as

well NGOs and the private sector can build strategies for promoting good sanitation

practices.

67

CHAPTER 6

6. REFERENCES

Abrams. Understanding Sustainability of Local Water Services, 1998.

Haysom, Alexia. A study of the factors affecting sustainability of rural water supplies

in Tanzania. msc water management, community water supply option

Cranfield University, Silsoe institute of water and the environment,

September 2006.

Amhara Region Water resources development Bureau. Hand dug well and spring

development construction manual. Amhara Region Water resources

development Bureau, 2007.

Brehanu A. Environmental Impacts of Rural water systems 25th Conference.

Integrated Development for water and Sanitation. Addis Ababa,

Ethiopia, :73-75, 1999.

Brett A. Gleitsmann, Margaret M. Kroma and Tammo Steenhuis. Analysis of a rural

water supply project in three communities in Mali: Participation and

sustainability. Natural Resources Forum 31 142–150, 2007.

Carter, R. C., Tyrrel, S. F. and Howsam, P. Impact and sustainability of community

water supply and sanitation programs in developing countries. Journal of

the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management, 13: 292

– 296, 1999.

Makule, Diana E. Water and sanitation-gender perspective WATER AND

SANITATION FOR ALL: PARTNERSHIPS AND INNOVATIONS:

23rd WEDC Conference Durban, South Africa, 1997.

Mtinda, Elias O., Holmen, Hans Sustainability of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation

Services under Community Management Approach: The Case of six

villages in Tanzania, December 2006.

68

Abitbol, Eric. Water Aid Ethiopia. Evaluation Report Summary, September 2000.

www.wateraid.org.uk. ( last visited January 2009).

Esrey, S.A., Feachem, R. and Hughes, J.M. Interventions for the control of diarrheal

diseases among young children: improving water supplies and excreta

disposal facilities. World Health Organization. 63, 757 – 772, 1985.

Ethiopian Central Statistics Agency (ECSA. Report on the 2007 population and house

count, 2007.

Janvier G., Jules M.,Andre N., and Pie K.. Impact of Water Supply and Sanitation on

Diarrheal Morbidity among Young Children in the Socioeconomic and

Cultural Context of Rwanda (Africa). Environmental Research Section A

90, 76-88, 2002.

Libokemkem Woreda Finance and Development Office. Report on rural water supply

services functionality in Libo kemkem Woreda. Monthly Report Paper,

January 2009.

Ngwenya, B., Kgathi, D. HIV/AIDS and access to water: a case study of home-based

care in Ngamiland, Botswana. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 31,

2006.

Wilderer, P.A, Applying sustainable water management concepts in rural and urban

areas: some thoughts about reasons, means and needs. Water Science and

Technology Vol 49 No 7 pp 7–16 © IWA Publishing, 2004

P.K. JHA .Health and social benefits from improving community hygiene and

sanitation: an Indian experience. International Journal of Environmental

Health Research 13, S133 – S140, June 2003.

Parry- Jones, S., Reed, R. and Skinner, B. H. Sustainable hand pump projects in

Africa: A literature review. WEDC, Loughborough University, UK, 2001.

69

http://www.wateraid.org.uk/

Tumwine JK, Thomson J, Katui-Katua M, Mujwahizi M, Johnstone N, Wood E,

Porras I. Diarrhea and effects of water sanitation and hygiene in East

Africa. Trop Med Int Health 7(9):750 – 756, 2003.

United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF). 2006. United Nations

Development Assistance Framework reported 2002 – 2006. Policy paper:

in corroboration between United Nations and Arab Republic of Egypt,

2006.

United Nations Economic and Social Council, Economic Commission for Africa

(UNESCA). Public-Private Partnerships for Service Delivery: Water and

Sanitation. Third meeting of the Committee on Human Development and

Civil Society, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: E/ECA/CHDCS.3/4 13, April

2005.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — World Water

Assessment Program (UNESCO-WWAP). Water for People, Water for

Life: The United Nations World Water Development Report, 2003.

VanDerslice, J. and Briscoe, J. Environmental Interventions in Developing Countries

– Interactions and their implications. American Journal of Epidemiology

141(2), 135-144, 1995.

Waterkeyn J, Cairncross S. 2005. Creating demand for sanitation and hygiene through

Community Health Clubs: A cost-effective intervention in two districts in

Zimbabwe. Soc Sci Med 61(2):1958 – 1970.

Webster J. Dejachew G, Bereket G, Mehari N, Tesfaye G. Sustainability of rural water

and sanitation projects. 25th WEDC Conference on integrated

development for water supply and sanitation. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,

1999:416-417.

70

WELL, DFID guidance manual on water supply and sanitation programs. WELL,

WEDC, Loughborough University, UK, 1998.

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/Publications/guidancemanual/

overview.pdf#search=%22DFID%20guidance%20manual%22 (accessed:

28thFebruary 2009).

World Bank. Participatory project planning a case study. 25th WEDC Conference,

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1999.

World Bank Participatory project planning a case study. 25th WEDC Conference,

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1999.

World Bank, 2005. Water Supply and Sanitation Feature Story, scaling up support to

water supply and sanitation in Ethiopia. Available on the web:

http://www.worldbank.org/watsan (last visited 10th January 2009).

World Bank, World Bank development report, Washington DC, 2001.

World Health Organization. Our planet, our health: Report of the WHO Commission

on Health and Environment. WHO, Geneva, 1992: 123-124.

World Health Organization. Our planet, our health: Report of the WHO Commission

on Health and Environment. WHO, Geneva, 1992: 123-124

Yohannes Ghebremedhin. Effects of insufficient water supply and sanitation. .

Integrated Development for Water Supply and Sanitation. 25th WEDCH

Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1999.

71

http://www.worldbank.org/watsan

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/Publications/guidancemanual/

Appendix 1: List of selected villages for the study

Table 1: List of villages selected for the study

NO. Name of the village

The 3Kebelle the village is

found

The organization which gave the

water supply and sanitation service

The assigned region No.

given in this paper

1. Shini Difa Angot RWaSSHP Region 12. Chekchakit Ginaza RWaSSHP Region 13. Aba Mederoge Bura RWaSSHP Region 14. Shina Bura RWaSSHP Region 15. Bata Yifag Zuria LKWWRO Region 26. Dikulle Yifag Zuria LKWWRO Region 27. Belles Yifag Zuria LKWWRO Region 28. Mewagna Yifag Zuria LKWWRO Region 29. Keroye Shumana ORDA Region 310. Agamoch Shumana ORDA Region 311. Shumana-2 Shumana ORDA Region 312. Dokimit Shumana ORDA Region 313. Kibichalle Banbiko RED CROSS Region 414. Bisrogmi Banbiko RED CROSS Region 415. Bayiyo Banbiko RED CROSS Region 416. Milangib Banbiko RED CROSS Region 417. Menta Walka Bira UNICEF Region 518. Lay Chiche Walka Bira UNICEF Region 519. Kidane Mihret Bira UNICEF Region 520. Endodo Mesk Bira UNICEF Region 5

3 Kebelle is the smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia

72

Appendix 2: Table of results from the community

Table 1: Marital Status of the respondents

Table 2: Reasons of the respondents for not contributing project cost (in cash or in kind)

Reason

% within the region the respond was givenRegion 1

n=9Region 2

n=93Region 3

n=107Region 4

n=102Region 5

n=104Was not asked .0% 64.5% 53.3% 60.8% 55.8%Being poor 44.4% 11.8% 21.5% 17.6% 21.2%Being old 22.2% .0% .0% .0% .0%Low reliability of scheme 33.3% 15.1% 15.0% 14.7% 13.5%The scheme being far .0% 8.6% 10.3% 6.9% 9.6%

Percentages and totals are based on responses.a Groupn indicates counts from multiple responds

Table 3: Types of kind contribution by user communities in the water supply projects in the five regions

Types of kind contribution

% within the region the respond was given

Region 1 (n=168)

Region 2 (n=17)

Region 3 (n=26)

Region 4 (n=19)

Region 5 (n=27)

Digging .0% 11.8% .0% .0% .0%

Fencing 26.8% 5.9% 7.7% .0% .0%Removing excavated

Marital statusPercentages

n=400Single 0.3

Married 83.8Divorced 4.5Widowed 11.5


73

material 20.8% 29.4% .0% .0% 7.4%

Contribute sand 22.6% .0% .0% .0% .0%Inserting pre casted

concrete rings in to the well shaft 11.9% 29.4% 65.4% 78.9% 77.8%

Installing pump 2.4% 23.5% 19.2% 21.1% 14.8%

Contribute stone 15.5% .0% 7.7% .0% .0%Percentages and totals are based on responses.a Groupn indicates counts from multiple responds

Table 4: Participation of the respondents during the planning stage of the water supply projects in each region

Participation% within the region the respond was givenRegion 1 (n=481)

Region 2 (n=82)

Region 3 (n=80)

Region 4 (n=80)

Region 5 (n=80)

Asking for demand 15.6% 9.8% .0% .0% .0%

Selecting construction site 13.5% 13.4% 18.8% 6.3% 10.0%

Selecting the type of technology 12.1% .0% .0% .0% .0%

Decide amount of money need to be contributed by

each HH and how12.9% .0% .0% .0% .0%

Decide how kind contribution could be

performed12.3% .0% .0% .0% .0%

Quantity of sand & stone each HH should

contribute2.7% .0% .0% .0% .0%

Deciding division work 10.6% .0% .0% .0% .0%Scheduling project work 10.4% .0% .0% .0% .0%

Did not participate at planning stage .0% 76.8% 81.3% 93.8% 90.0%

Percentages and totals are based on responses.a Groupn indicates counts from multiple responds

74

Table 5: Community participation in meetings concerning the water supply or (and) sanitation service in the project time

% of responses within the regionTypes of

participationRegion 1

n=80Region 2

n=80Region 3

n=80Region 4

n=80Region 5

n=80Total n=400

Attended the meeting and contribute idea 26.3% - - - - 5.3%

Attended the meeting and contribute idea 46.3% - - - - 9.3%

Didn't attend the meeting 27.5% - - - - 5.5%

No meeting at all - 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 80.0%Percentages and totals are based on responses.a Groupn indicates number of respondents

Table 6: Belief of the households that the operation and maintenance trainees can maintain the scheme based on the existing skill of the trainees

% within the region the respond is givenRegion 1 n=80

Region 2 n=80

Region 3 n=80

Region 4 n=80

Region 5 n=80

Total n=400

O & M training was not given at all - - - - 100.0% 20.0%

believe the trainees can maintain the system 26.3% 17.5% 12.5% 22.5% - 15.8%

believe the trainees cannot maintain the

system73.8% 82.5% 87.5% 77.5% - 64.3%

Percentages and totals are based on responses. a Group n indicates counts from multiple responds

Table 7: Reasons of the respondents for dissatisfaction by the water supply services

% within the region the region the respond was givenRegion 1

n=86Region 2

n=106Region 3 n=93

Region 4 n=142

Region 5 n=100

Total n=527

Low quality of water 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.60% 6.00% 2.70%

Low quantity of water 4.70% 14.20% 6.50% 33.80% 12.00% 16.10%

75

Low reliability of the scheme 23.30% 16.00% 23.70% 8.50% 19.00% 17.10%

OM cost very high 9.30% 1.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.90%

Long distance to the scheme 0.00% 7.50% 11.80% 4.90% 10.00% 6.80%

Delay for maintenance 17.40% 16.00% 12.90% 8.50% 6.00% 11.80%

Structural design not suitable to the village conditions

0.00% 0.00% 7.50% 10.60% 0.00% 4.20%

Do not have water through

year0.00% 6.60% 0.00% 4.90% 9.00% 4.40%

Scheme is non-functional 0.00% 18.90% 0.00% 14.10% 20.00% 11.40%

No problem 45.30% 18.90% 37.60% 9.20% 18.00% 23.70%


Table 8: The frequency of sanitation education given by the corresponding organization in each of the five regions


Region 1 n=80

Region 2 n=80

Region 3 n=80

Region 4 n=80

Region 5 n=80

Total n=400

Not at all - - - 100.0% 100.0% 40.0%Almost every two

weeks 68.8% - - - - 13.8%

Almost every month 31.3% - - - - 6.3%

One time through the project time - 63.8% 76.3% - - 28.0%

Almost two times through the project

period- 36.3% 23.8% - - 12.0%


Table 9: The frequency of using latrine of the respondents who had latrine

76

% within the region the respond was givenTotal n=400Region 1

n=80Region 2

n=80Region 3

n=80Region 4

n=80Region 5

n=80Very rarely 14.8% 32.1% 23.3% 40.7% 16.0% 23.8%

Rarely 22.2% 28.6% 36.7% 25.9% 44.0% 29.9%Sometimes 38.9% 7.1% 13.3% 18.5% 8.0% 20.7%Regularly 20.4% 14.3% 13.3% 7.4% 12.0% 14.6%Not at all 3.7% 17.9% 13.3% 7.4% 20.0% 11.0%


Table 10: Pit latrines with bowls covered


n=80Region 2

n=80Region 3

n=80Region 4

n=80Region 5

n=80pit latrines with bowls covered 57.4% 21.4% 26.7% 25.9% 20.0% 34.8%

n indicates number of responds

Table 11: Defecating places of the respondents who have no latrine or don't use the latrine regularly


n=60Region 2

n=116Region 3

n=106Region 4

n=119Region 5

n=145Inside forest areas or

around bushes 30.0% 23.3% 21.7% 11.8% 25.5% 21.8%

By river sides 13.3% 1.7% .0% .0% 3.4% 2.7%

Paddy fields 28.3% 37.9% 31.1% 44.5% 37.9% 37%Within the home

compound 28.3% 37.1% 47.2% 43.7% 33.1% 38.5%n indicates counts from multiple responds

77

Table 12: Community ideas about sustaining rural water supply services % within the region the respond was given

Total n=434

Reg. 1 n=73

Reg. 2 n=117

Reg. 3 n=53

Reg. 4 n=97

Reg. 5 n=94

Community empowerment in the project works 27.4% 9.4% 20.8% 8.2% 6.4% 12.9%

Hand pumps should be replaced by motor pumps/working with solar

energy0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 10.3% 9.6% 7.4%

Strong training which insures the community maintenance team can

maintain the system should be given

16.4% 3.4% 18.9% 1.0% 0.0% 6.2%

Place of construction should be selected together with the

community0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 13.4% 10.6% 7.4%

Regular maintenance is required 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 10.3% 3.2% 6.0%

Closure settlement of the community is required 0.0% 12.0% 0.0% 11.3% 6.4% 7.1%

Community ownership should be developed 12.3% 0.0% 20.8% 4.1% 5.3% 6.7%

Schemes should not be constructed near road ways 0.0% 8.5% 0.0% 7.2% 9.6% 6.0%

Regular water treatment is required 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%Increase the number of schemes 0.0% 9.4% 0.0% 5.2% 9.6% 5.8%

Good fencing and guarding practice is required 13.7% 4.3% 15.1% 0.0% 9.6% 7.4%

Efficient/committed leaders required 0.0% 6.8% 0.0% 5.2% 6.4% 4.4%

Strong bylaws should be developed and practiced 19.2% 0.0% 11.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6%

Continuous support required 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 8.2% 6.4% 5.3%Encourage private sectors to sell

maintenance parts 6.8% 0.0% 13.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8%

Schemes need to be constructed near to villages 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 7.2% 5.3% 3.9%

Well shaft should be excavated during dry periods 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 8.2% 11.7% 5.5%


Table 13: Household latrine construction coverage


Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Total

78

n=80 n=80 n=80 n=80 n=80 n=400Respondents who constructed home latrine

67.5% 35.0% 37.5% 33.8% 31.3% 41.0%

n indicates number of responds

Appendix 3: Comparison of the water quantity measured with the standard

Table 1: Comparison of the water quantity measured with the standard

79

No.

Village name

Organization which

constructed the well

Overnight storage

The required standard for the given overnight

storage

Well yield=q Comparison

to the regional standard(m) (L/min) (L/min)

1 Shini Difa RWaSSHP 2.54 14.60 23.11 Greater2 Chekchakit RWaSSHP 3.10 9.00 22.48 Greater3 Aba Mederoge RWaSSHP 3.88 1.20 34.83 Greater4 Shina RWaSSHP 2.25 17.50 19.31 Greater5 Bata LKWWRDO 2.43 15.70 21.53 Greater6 Dikulle LKWWRDO 2.05 19.50 16.46 Less7 Belles LKWWRDO 2.60 14.00 20.58 Greater8 Mewagna LKWWRDO 3.40 6.00 28.50 Greater9 Keroye ORDA 3.00 10.00 43.06 Greater10 Agamoch ORDA 3.45 5.50 38.94 Greater11 Shumana-2 ORDA 2.78 12.20 14.25 Greater12 Dokimit ORDA 3.94 0.60 25.33 Greater13 Kibichalle Red Cross 0.90 31.00 10.76 Less14 Bisrogmi Red Cross 1.15 28.50 12.98 Less15 Bayiyo Red Cross 1.15 28.50 8.23 Less16 Milangib Red Cross 0.90 31.00 13.30 Less

Appendix 4: Questionnaire used for user communities

Rural Water supply and sanitation assessment questionnaire To be responded by selected community members

80

1. Family situation1. Age of the respondent……………years2. Sex of the respondent3. Number of household members and their education level 4. Marital status of respondent2. Operation and maintenance practices5. Does your household contribute for operation and maintenance cost of the

scheme?6. If your response for Q1 is yes, how much do you contribute?7. If your response for Q1 is yes, do you believe there is effective financing

management of the money collected in the community? 8. If your response for Q6 is yes, what are your reasons?9. If your response for Q6 is no, what are your reasons?10. If your answer for Q1 is No, What is the reason for not contributing operation and

maintenance cost? 11. Was training on maintenance of the water points given to selected community

members? 12. If your answer to question 10 is yes, do you believe that the training was good

enough to help the trainees to maintain the system without external help?13. If the trainees maintained a failure(s) in the scheme’s system, how many times the

system was maintained and made it function by them?14. Has the scheme maintained up to now by those other than the trainees in the

community because the trainees were unable to maintain the system?15. If your answer for question 14 is yes, who is (are) these persons(s)?16. If your answer for question 14 is yes, who covered the maintenance cost?17. If the trainees tried and failed to maintain the scheme, how many times the trainees

failed to maintain the system? 3. Community participation18. Did you share the cost of construction for the scheme?19. If your answer for question 18 is yes, how did you share?20. If your answer for question 19 is in cash or both in cash and in kind, what is the

amount of money you contributed?21. If your answer for question 19 is in kind or both in cash and kind, on what types of

works did you participated?22. If your answer for Q18 is no, what is the reason?23. Who choose place of construction?24. Was the system constructed by the demand driven approach?25. Who choose the type of technology for the scheme? 26. What was your participation in village meetings concerning water supply and

sanitation?27. Did you participate during the planning stage of the project?28. What was the timescale (period) of the project29. Did the community participate in making decision during the construction phase of

the project?30. If your answer for question 29 above is yes, what are they?

81

4. Effective hygienic use, effective environmental use and health impact

31. Have you constructed a latrine?32. If your answer for Q31 is yes, which of the followings your latrine is composed? 1. Simple dig without house 2. A house with wall and roof 3. A house with wall but without roof 33. If your answer to question 1 is yes, did you construct your latrine after or before

the organization started its work in the community? 34. If your answer to question 1 is yes, how often your families use the constructed

latrine? (Regularly, Sometimes)35. If your answer for Q34 is sometimes, what is the reason for not using the latrine

regularly?36. If you have constructed and started using latrine, what things most of the time do

your family use for washing hands after defecation?37. If your answer to question 31 is yes, who let you to construct the latrine? 38. If your answer to question 31 is No, what is your reason for not constructing

latrine?39. Are there different uses for water from different sources (drinking, cloth washing

and bathing)? 40. If your answer for Q39 is yes, which source(s) of water do you use for drinking,

most of the time? 41. If your answer for Q39 is yes, which source(s) of water do you use for washing

cloth, most of the time? 42. If your answer for Q39 is yes, which source(s) of water do you use for bathing,

most of the time? 43. Who, if anyone, provides any health and/or hygiene education in the community?44. Are there volunteers who are members of the community organized by the

organization who teach the community members about sanitation and help them in constructing household latrines?

45. If your answer for Q44 is yes, how many volunteers are serving the community? Female volunteers……………Male volunteers………….Total……….46. If your answer for Q24 is yes and the volunteers consist of both female and male,

how are they working? 47. Was training given by the organization for the volunteers?48. How often sanitation education is given in churches by the organization?49. If you have latrine, is the bowl covered?50. Before you had latrine, where did you defecate?51. Did the community share experience with other communities who have best

experience in sanitation? (With the help of the organization)52. Where does your family dispose of baby feces?53. If you are not disposing baby feces in to latrine, what is the reason for not

disposing baby feces in to latrines?

82

54. Which one of the following bodies responsible to teach communities about sanitation has the greatest positive influence on you to construct latrine

1. Political leaders2. Community facilitators3. Extension workers4. volunteers

5. Functionality, community satisfaction and willingness to sustain the system55. Is the water point functional now?56. If your answer to question 55 is no, when did it stopped functioning?57. If your answer to question 55 is no, how long did it serve the community before it

stopped functioning? 58. If your answer to question 55 is no, why it is not functioning? (Cause of non-

functionality)59. If you are not using the water supply service, what is the reason for not using the

service? 60. What is the distance of the scheme from your home?61. What time it takes to fetch water from the scheme and return back?62. For how much time you have been using the water supply and sanitation services

provided?63. What are the problems of the water supply service if there is any?6. Quantity and quality of water supplied64. Choose 5 if the quantity of water supplied by the water supply service is enough

and 1 if the quantity of water is very less and in between accordingly. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

65. How much water your household uses per day?66. Is there a problem in the water point you are using with the quality of water?67. If your answer for Q4 is yes, what is the problem?68. For what purpose does your family use the water from the scheme?69. If the scheme provides low quantity of water for some dry period in the year, what

other sources of water during these periods do you use (or before the scheme is constructed)?

70. What is the approximate distance of your household from these sources?71. What time it takes to you to fetch water from these sources?72. If the scheme gets dry during some period in a year, when does it dry (which

months)?If the scheme provides low quantity of water, what do you think the reason to be for the low quantity of water supplied by the scheme?7. Institutionalizing of the schemes, effective financing and financial

management73. Is the water point institutionalized (governed by the community)? 74. Has the community water and sanitation committee?

75. If your answer to question 2 is yes, was the water committee really helpful? 76. Have the community rules and regulations in the use of the water supply services?

83

77. If your answer to question 77 is yes, who gave you the information of having rules and regulations for the use of the water supply schemes?

78. If your answer to question 4 is No, what is the reason for not having rules and regulations for the use of the water supply and sanitation services provided?

79. Is there a guard for the water supply scheme constructed?80. If you are contributing the operation and maintenance cost, do you believe there is

effective collection of money? 81. If you are contributing the operation and maintenance cost, do you believe there is

effective management of money? 82. If your answer for Q81 is No, what is the reason? 83. If your answer for Q82 is No, what is the reason? 8. General questions84. What time it takes you to fetch water from the scheme in minutes and return to

your home?85. By whom the responsibility to fetch water most of the time in your household lies?86. For whom do you think the presence of latrine in your compound is more

important?1. For females 2. For males 3. for both it is equal

87. If your answer for Q87 is for females, why it is for?88. Which meeting place and time do you hate the most for discussion or learning

water supply and sanitation issues?89. Which meeting place and time do you hate the most for discussion or learning

water supply and sanitation issues?90. What are your comments for achieving sustainability of water and sanitation

services in rural areas?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION

Appendix 5: Questionnaire used for service providers (organizations)

84

Rural Water supply and sanitation assessment questionnaire to be responded by providers1. Give information on the villages your organization worked in water supply and

sanitation: number of households served in the village, total population served and the project period

2. What are the approaches that your organization followed in giving the communities water supply and sanitation services? List with respect to the following indexes:2.1. Effective financing and financial management of the communities that

you were working with2.2. Operation and maintenance practices2.3. Health impacts Effective hygiene and environmental use2.4. Quantity and quality of water supplied2.5. Effective functioning2.6. Quality of construction2.7. If there are other approaches than mentioned that your organization

follows explain it at the back of this page.3. Do your organization perform water quality test for each of the water points

constructed? 4. If your answer for question 3 is yes, on which of the following parameters your

organization did? 5. If your answer for question 3 is no, why water quality testes have not been done?6. How do you know the yield of the well or the spring that your organization

constructing is enough for the community consumption?7. If your answer for Q6 is by measuring, what is the standard?8. If your answer for Q6 is by guess, how?9. Did the communities participate in the project?10. If your answer for question 9 is yes, at which stage of the projects community

participated? 11. What were the major activities the community participated during planning?12. What were the major activities the community participated during

implementation?13. What were the major activities the community participated during operation?14. If your answer for question 9 is No, why so?15. What is the composition of the professionals in your organization?

15.1. Number of technicians (involved with the hard ware part of the project)…………….....

15.2. Number of social workers (involved with the software part of the project)……………..

15.3. Others (like secretaries)……………………………………..16. If your answer for question 9 is yes, how the community participated? 17. If your answer for question 16 is in cash, what was the amount of money

contributed?18. If your answer for question 16 is in kind, on what types of works do the

community participated?

85

19. Had your organization helped the community in organizing water and sanitation committee in the community?

20. If your answer to question 19 is yes, was the water committee really helpful? 21. What are the works that your organization did differently to make each household

construct latrine? 21. Have your organization worked in collaboration with health extension workers in

the community?22. How did you teach the community to construct household latrine?23. If your answer for question 22 is by arranging community meeting, how often you

did it?24. If your answer for question 22 is by having tea and coffee ceremony, how often

you did it?25. If your answer for question 22 is during weekends in church, how often you did it?26. If your answer for question 22 is during holidays such as “zikir”, “tsige” and

“mahiber” how often you did it?27. Did communities participate in choosing place of construction for the hand dug

wells and spring developments? 28. Have your organization followed demand driven approach? 29. Did your organization helped the community in institutionalizing the hand dug

wells and spring developments? 30. Did your organization give chance to the community in choosing the type of

technology of the water points constructed? 31. Did women participate in the processes involved? 32. If your answer to question 22 is yes, in which of the followings do they involve?33. Mark the approaches that your organization follows among the followings

1. Mass media campaign.2. Social marketing.3. School sanitation (education).4. The hygiene promotion team (HPT) at district and provincial level discussed

with the community how to select a local ‘champion’ as a person or a family that had shown an example of best practice within their community.

5. Raising flag at a compound of a household which has constructed excellent latrine

6. Village experience sharing7. Village volunteers and local advocates to promote community hygiene and

sanitation awareness8. Multidisciplinary team working in the community/community facilitator

team (professionals of social, technical and sanitary)9. Pamphlets, booklets, games, posters10. Hygiene promotion materials for school sanitation program11. Hygiene education in churches


86

Appendix 6: Checklist used for operation and maintenance traineesChecklist used discussing and interviewing with trainees of maintenanceCommunity name …………………………………………………………Organization name which gave the training……………………………......Name of respondent…………………………………………………….......1. Who chose you as a trainee?2. When did you get the training?3. For how much days was the training given? (if other trainings such as sanitation

and water use were given together with maintenance, your respond should be specifically the days only the maintenance part took)

4. For how money days you took the theoretical part of the training?5. For how money days you took the practical part of the training?6. How the practical training was given?7. Do you think that you know all the parts of the water supply scheme that need

frequent maintenance?8. Do you think that the training was adequate enough so that you can maintain the

scheme by yourself without assistance at any time?9. If your answer for Q5 is No, why the training was not adequate enough?10. If your answer to question 10 is yes, do you believe that the training was good

enough to help the trainees to maintain the system without external help?11. If you and your friend(S) trained with you maintained a failure(s) in the scheme’s

system, how many times the system was maintained and made it function?12. Has the scheme maintained up to now by those other than you and your friends,

trained with, because you were unable to maintain the system?13. If your answer for question 13 is yes, who is (are) these persons(s)?17. Who covered the maintenance cost in Q15?18. If you and your friend(S) trained with you tried and failed to maintain the scheme,

how many times the failure happened? 19. Are there maintenance spare parts available around?20. What do you recommend for sustainable use of the water supply scheme?


87

Cornell University a Master Thesis submitted fr the...

Documents

Transcript of Cornell University a Master Thesis submitted fr the...