PRODWAT: Thematic group on productive uses of water at the household level MUS: Multiple use systems research funded by CGIAR Challenge Program – water and food Multiple Use Water Services Stockholm World Water Week side event August 2006

Background - domestic 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 - 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

Alternative approach 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

Multiple use water services InfrastructureExampleKey issues Irrigation + water quality for domestic use Domestic + water quantity for productive use universal coverage Household level systems upscaling of access to sources and technologies

Research findings What do we know from various research studies? Including: –papers at Johannesburg symposium 2003 –AWARD –PRODWAT case studies –MUS project case studies –Looking Back evaluation (Wateraid) –Drawers of Water Study (IIED)

What we know 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

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 $62 per person per year in the ‘better’ villages Benefit/costUS$/m 3 Gross margin from vegetable gardens and fruit trees 1 to 2 Gross margin from beer brewing100 Estimated cost of increasing water supply0.1 – 1.0 (utility) 0.8 – 2.0 (vendors)

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

What we know norms of 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, lpcd for domestic use and of 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 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 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

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

What we know 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

Networking and advocacy for mus PRODWAT group Johannesburg conference 2003 Think tank/ action research/ advocacy and information

Networking and advocacy for mus MUS project: advocacy at international and country levels Session at 3 rd 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

Results of networking and advocacy for mus 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

Experiences from implementation at scale NGOs –PumpAid –PLAN International Governments –South Africa –Colombia

PumpAid 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

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 families with water for irrigation, livestock and domestic use

Colombia The PAAR programme has increased design criteria from 20 m 3 to m 3 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.

Strengthening our network Why a network/ group? –Learning from existing knowledge –learning from new projects –scaling up PRODWAT thematic group activities –Existing activities: Website, newsletter, award –New activities: regional groups? Broadening the focus: multiple use water services (mus) group

Strengthening our network 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 Should we more actively promote regional activities? How? Advocacy: types and objectives

Encouraging implementation Promoting implementation (and learning) Key elements –Learning alliances/ scaling-up –Financing mechanisms and cost recovery –Micro-credit and enterprise support/ marketing

New initiatives Multiple water services for the poor project –Emphasis on financing mechanisms for incremental costs Research Inspired Policy and Practice Learning in Ethiopia and the Nile region (RIPPLE) –Money into water – water into money WSP review and scoping UNICEF Zimbabwe: water and livelihoods