Multiple Use Systems (Water for Productive Use)

1. Multiple Use Systems (Water for Productive Use) WSSCC Planning meeting for national coordinators and regional representatives April 2007

2. The domestic water sector should focus on meeting minimum needs and quality to improve health…some for all Productive uses overload domestic water systems… should be banned Potable water is too valuable for gardening… should be conserved Beneficiaries of productive activities are the rich… lack of equity Background - domestic

3. Background - irrigation • Household level productive uses (including livestock) are not the business of the sector…focus on field-scale irrigation • Irrigation sector should not worry about non-commercial production …valuable cash crops and growth • Irrigation water is not safe for domestic use …and supplying that is someone else’s problem

4. Small-scale productive uses as a vital contribution to poor people’s livelihoods… wider benefits of domestic and irrigation water Water quantity is often the highest priority, and domestic water often not potable anyway… respond to demands Incremental costs may be affordable… examine costs and benefits Productive uses can be designed for…plan Alternative approach

5. Multiple use water services

6. Thematic group • Operational for 4 years…strengths and weaknesses • Wider interest and uptake of ideas • Now at a crossroads • Should the group be more formalised? • How to deepen participation? • How to embed ideas/ activity in other platforms and groups?

7. What we know • What do we now know from various research studies? • Including: • papers at Johannesburg symposium 2003 • AWARD, South Africa • PRODWAT/ MUS group case studies • MUS project case studies www.musproject.net • Looking Back evaluation (Wateraid) • Drawers of Water Study (IIED)

8. People draw multiple benefits from access to small-scale water supplies Direct use of water in productive activities…gardening, livestock, agro-processing, micro-enterprises Link between improved WASH, health and time-saving and productivity The right water supplies can add up to an appreciable impact on livelihoods and poverty What we know

9. Bushbuckridge, South Africa • Vegetable gardens, fruit trees, building; brewing, livestock • Income from productive uses was substantial in these poor villages • averaged $34 per person per year in the ‘worse’ villages • averaged $62 per person per year in the ‘better’ villages

10. Gujarat, India • Service breakdowns cost women the equivalent of 4 days labour over summer months • Potential extra income of Rs750-5500 year when collection time reduced from 3 to 1 hour per day • However, enterprises are about much more than water

11. norms of 50-200 lpcd depending on setting are needed to provide sufficient water for productive uses In peri-urban Cochabamba, Bolivia, 50 lpcd for domestic and 62 lpcd for productive uses In rural Bushbuckridge, South Africa, 21-22 lpcd for domestic use and of 23-40 lpcd for productive activities In Ethiopia, 7 lpcd for domestic and productive use Low and inflexible norms-based ‘basic needs’ or rights-based approaches can be a handicap What we know

12. Productive uses may lead to system failure Tail-end problems May be linked to illegal connections Managing productive uses is an important issue in demand management Also potential negative impacts on sewerage systems e.g. small towns in Colombia Unplanned productive uses leads to inequitable access What we know

13. What we know • Potential for improved cost recovery • E.g. Challacaba case study, Cochabamba • Financing of water system linked to access of water for diary production in a peri-urban area • Narrow approaches to water supply that neglect the potential of productive uses are an opportunity missed

14. Users have access to water at low cost and appropriate quantity and quality 1 The service is improved reinforcing the needs of users 4 2 Users utilise water for productive activities and Improve their economic situation Ownership of the system: empowerment Appropriate technology and support Appropriate financial models Users improve their capacity and willingness to pay for the service 3 Cochabamba, Bolivia Key ingredients

15. bottom-up, people-centred, and multi-sectoral planning processes tend to facilitate Projects fail to address these small-scale productive needs because these uses slip between sub-sectoral remits What we know

16. Questions • Is the MUS concept useful in your attempts in improve access to WASH? Why? • What opportunities/ ideas are there to share lessons, pilot, implement etc in your countries, regions and networks?

17. Think tank/ action research/ advocacy and information Website, newsletter, award, regular meetings www.musgroup.net 300 members and a more active core group Thematic group

18. Thematic group impacts • MUS project: examples of advocacy at international and country levels • Session at 3rd world water forum, Mexico • Wider support from domestic and irrigation sectors • Importance of investigating sanitation linkages • In South Africa, household level productive uses have been recognised in DWAF policy, and guidelines developed • www.musproject.net

19. increase in recognition, across water sub-sectors, for holistic approaches to meeting people’s water needs at household level some convergence between sectors offers practical support to implementing IWRM many positive examples are now emerging Thematic group impacts

20. Experiences from implementation at scale • NGOs • PumpAid • PLAN International • Governments • South Africa • Colombia

21. NGOs like PumpAid are encouraging better access to groundwater Government support for rural water supply under strain: coverage up but access down Rope and washer pumps are cheap and easy to maintain PumpAid

22. PLAN • PLAN Eastern and southern Africa region have mainstreamed multiple uses of water • Bringing together fragmented water related interventions in health, food security/nutrition, livelihoods and WATSAN to have more impact • Examples : • multiple purpose dams in Ghana designed for irrigation, fisheries and livestock use • dams in Kenya for livestock, gardening and domestic use • promotion of drip kits in Zimbabwe for garden irrigation • boreholes with windmills in Zambia to supply groups of 20-30 families with water for irrigation, livestock and domestic use

23. Colombia • The PAAR programme have piloted increasing design criteria from 20 m3 to 30-40 m3 per month per family • Proposals for changes in rural water supply policy • How to manage productive uses at household level? • Tariffs/ cost recovery. Boundary between domestic and commercial.

24. Strengthening our group • Coming back to our crossroads…. • Should the group be more formalised? • How to deepen participation? • How to embed ideas/ activity in other platforms and groups?

25. Strengthening our group • Governance of the group • Currently coordinated by IRC, 9 coordinating partners, open membership list • Limited funding from IRC will continue for next 5 years • Welcome new partners and members • …also funding participation • Regional/ national groups? Participation

26. Some key issues • Promoting more implementation (and learning and sharing lessons) • Key elements • Financing mechanisms and cost recovery • Micro-credit and enterprise support/ marketing • Sanitation linkages • Learning alliances/ scaling-up

27. Some new initiatives • Research Inspired Policy and Practice Learning in Ethiopia and the Nile region (RIPPLE) • Money into water – water into money • Planned WSP surveys (Colombia, Zimbabwe, Kenya) • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation scoping study • UNICEF Zimbabwe: water and livelihoods

28. Questions • Is the MUS concept useful in your attempts in improve access to WASH? Why? • What opportunities/ ideas are there to share lessons, pilot, implement etc in your countries, regions and networks?