Acknowledgement by yangxichun

VIEWS: 72 PAGES: 58

									Policy Reforms and Equity to Basic Services: The Case of the
Demand-Driven Approach to Safe Water Provision in Uganda
Towns of Luwero, Wobulenzi and Busia




                         Ezati Enoch
                       With support from
                        Muhangi Denis




                          April, 2001

                      NURRU Secretariat
                         Kampala

                               1
                               Acknowledgement
I wish to acknowledge the enormous contribution of the community members especially
household heads who provided valuable data for this report. I also thank the Town
Clerks and staff of Luwero, Wobulenzi and Busia towns who guided and provided data
on the water situation in their towns specifically. I would like to thank Mr Benesa
Godfrey the mass mobilizer in Busia town council for his vigorous effort in
identification, mobilization of household heads as well as implementation of interviews. I
would like also to thank the field engineers of Small Towns Water and Sanitation Project
for their support and contribution to this study. I thank my research assistants for their
patience and hard work since the data had to be collected in phases. Makerere Institute of
Social Research is particularly acknowledged for providing office space and
coordination. The main donor to this study- The Netherlands Government is thanked for
the financial support. Finally, I wish to recognize the limitless contribution of NURRU
Secretariat Staff as well as the steering committee for their administrative support. I
particularly thank the director of NURRU Secretariat (Dr. Alex Tindimubona) who
continuously encouraged me to finish the study.




                                            2
                                                      Table of Contents

Acknowledgement................................................................................................................................ ii
Table of Contents................................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ v
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………..vi
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... vii
Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................................ ix

Chapter One: Introduction...................................................................................................... 1

1.1       Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2       Statement of the problem .............................................................................................. 2
1.3       Research questions ........................................................................................................ 3
1.4       Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 3
1.5       Literature review ............................................................................................................ 4
1.6       Conceptual framework .................................................................................................. 8

Chapter Two: Methodology................................................................................................... 11

2.1        Areas of the study and selection of study communities ............................................. 11
2.2        The respondents ........................................................................................................... 11
2.3        Data collection methods, processing and analysis...................................................... 11
2.4        Collaboration with local organizations and research users ........................................ 12
2.5        Ethical considerations .................................................................................................. 12
2.6        Significance of the Study............................................................................................. 13

Chapter Three: Study Findings .......................................................................................... 14
3.1   Introduction ................................................................................................................. 14
3.2   Situation before the water improvement projects ...................................................... 14
3.3   Initiative for the water improvement projects ........................................................... 17
3.3.1 Community participation ........................................................................................... 18
3.3.2 Satisfaction with location of water source ................................................................. 20
3.4   Assessment of demand and eligibility criteria ........................................................... 22
3.5   Cost of water ............................................................................................................... 22
3.6   Determination of water technology choices .............................................................. 24
3.6.1 Satisfaction with water source technology used........................................................ 30
3.7   Exemptions ................................................................................................................. 31




                                                                           3
3.8       Outcome of the Demand-Driven Approach ............................................................... 32
3.9       Current water situation ............................................................................................... 33
3.10      Failure of service and coping mechanisms ................................................................ 33
3.11      Problems/challenges under the DDA implementation .............................................. 34

Chapter Four: Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................ 37
Conclusions and recommendations.................................................................................................37

5.       References ......................................................................................................... 39

6.       Appendices ........................................................................................................ 41




                                                                4
                                                 List of Tables

1.   Whether water was the household’s greatest need by monthly income ............................14
2.   Final decision by source of income .......................................................................................19
3.   Satisfaction with location of water source by educational level ........................................21
4.   Household heads assessment of water cost by source of income ....................................23
5.   Assessment of the amount paid for water by level of education ......................................24
6.   Coping mechanisms in case of failure to pay maintenance fee .........................................25
7.   Satisfaction with technology type by source of income .....................................................30
8.   Satisfaction with technology type by level of education .....................................................31
9.   Failure of service by source of income .................................................................................34




                                                              5
                                                   List of Figures
1.   Conceptual framework .............................................................................................................10
2.   Who made the final decision to construct the water source ...............................................18
3.   Percentage community contribution ......................................................................................20
4.   Average distance from household to water source ..............................................................32
5.   Field photography ................................................................................................16,26,27,28,29




                                                                  6
                                Executive Summary

Statement of the Problem
While the expected benefits from a demand-driven approach in terms of efficiency and
sustainability can be presumed to be enormous, the premises on which the approach is
based appears to be in conflict with the ideal of equity of access to basic services by all. It
was envisaged that some individuals or communities who fail to express effective demand
may not yet served. Some will choose a level of service too low to be adequate and some
may choose the cheapest technology, which may not be the most appropriate. Thus this
study looked at the equity differences in water provision in the Uganda towns of Luwero,
Wobulenzi and Busia. The study aimed at establishing how the approach of demand
responsiveness was used to guide the implementation of decisions. It also set out to find the
differences in access to safe water resulting from response to demand.


Methodology
The study was limited to the town settings where the demand driven approach had been
applied under the Small Towns Water and Sanitation Project (STWSP). These towns also
happened to be in districts with low safe water coverage (Luwero 39% and Busia 25%)1.
The study used both quantitative and qualitative research methods. A total of 12 key
informant interviews were conducted with leaders of the water user groups, extension staff
and Small Towns Water and Sanitation Project officials. Individual interviews were
administered using a structured questionnaire to 106 members of households in the three
towns. Documents on the demand-driven approach, the Uganda National Water Policy and
other relevant documents were reviewed.


Major findings
It was found out that before the water improvement project the result of the survey shows
that 84.9% of the community members complained that water was their greatest need. In
Luwero town, unprotected and seasonal open wells were the main sources of water. In
Wobulenzi, there was an old Indian water tank, which supplied water mainly to the middle



                                              7
        class. In both Luwero and Wobulenzi, it was found out that the insecurity
during the Luwero war in the early 1980s made most families to shift from near the roads
to the periphery thus abandoning effective utilization of the few Unicef boreholes that
existed. While Busia town mainly relied on the ancient shadoof technology and some few
boreholes in the customs village. The study also found that the community was fully
involved in the implementation of the water improvement projects in various ways: needs
assessment as respondents in analyzing water situations in their area and giving suggestions
for improvement. They were also involved in decision-making as reported by 77.4% of the
respondents. It was reported that community leaders convened meetings to educate people
on the benefits of safe water, the costs involved and community contributions. The study
found that 64% of the respondents were informed of the benefits of water improvements,
while 82.1% were informed of the cost of different technologies. The community also
elected their own water committee members who collected financial contributions and
managed the water sources. It was found that 80.2% of the respondents reported
contributing towards the construction of the water sources. It should also be noted that
72.6% of the respondents submitted that final decisions were made through a concerted
effort involving the community, government, donors and implementing agents. The study
found out that only people who footed the capital costs qualified to be members of the
Water User Group (WUG) and therefore qualified to get water. It was also found out that
people who were relatively poorer and living in the peripheral parts of the towns preferred
boreholes while those living in the town centre and the middle class preferred the piped
water through private house connections or kiosks. The amount of money charged on the
users as capital cost depended on the technology used at the water source. Users who
preferred boreholes paid sh 6,000, while those who preferred piped water through kiosks or
taps paid sh 14,000. Those who preferred private house connections paid an initial amount
of sh 50,000 and were expected to pay a difference of about 66% later. Of the respondents
interviewed, 57.5% said the charges were fair. It was only in Luwero town where
exemptions for the disabled namely: the physically disabled, visually impaired and the
elderly existed. In the case of Wobulenzi and Busia, there were no exemptions. Everybody
was treated equally and obliged to contribute towards the capital and operational costs. It

1
    Uganda National Council for Children 1994, Directorate of Water Development 1996

                                                    8
      was envisaged that once exemptions were encouraged, it would cause conflicts.
It was also found that 84.9% of the users expressed satisfaction with the water
improvement. Although the communities made decisions for choice of technology, it was
not easy for them to effectively contribute towards the capital costs and this tended to delay
implementation. The study also found out the current projections for water would not
suffice for future water needs due to expansion of towns coupled with the physical
planning problems in most of Uganda's towns.


Conclusion
In conclusion, the application of the Demand Driven Approach (DDA) was found to have
negative equity implications for the poor who could not afford to pay for the service.
Although this approach is feasible in terms of the current water demand and prospects for
sustainability, its approach requires some shielding with local organisations like town
councils to provide loan facilities for timely implementation. It is therefore crucial that
agencies involved in water provision take into account the limits to a demand-based
approach and differential impacts it engenders.


Recommendation
The STWSP approach of DDA could be replicated country wide. However, it is important
that location of sites should be done carefully and technical people need to consider
sanitation and contamination issues. Even though communities may choose technology on
the prevailing costs and socio-economic levels, technocrats may need to intervene for the
purpose of future predictions and better service delivery to cope with rapid urbanization.
Collaboration is very crucial especially from the town councils and other local
organisations for footing costly technologies, which the community can not easily afford.
The implementers of the DDA also need to address the equity concerns of the
disadvantaged groups.

Principal Authors profile
Ezati Enoch is a Research Associate with Makerere Institute of Social Research, Makerere University. He has Masters Degree
in Demography, Bachelor of Arts Degree in Social Science Majoring in Sociology. He has Post Graduate Diploma in
Demography, International Certificate in Anthropology of Health and Health Care. The author has 10 years of research
experience especially in the Health Sector.



                                                            9
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

1        DDA                       -     Demand Driven Approach
2        RTWSP                     -     Rural Towns Water and Sanitation Programme
3        RUWASA                    -     Rural Water and Sanitation
4        SAP                       -     Structural Adjustment Programme
5        SDA                       -     Supply Driven Approach
6        STWSP                     -     Small Towns Water and Sanitation Project
7        UNDP                      -     United Nations Development Programme
8        UNICEF                    -     United Nations Children Fund
9        WES                       -     Water and Environment Sanitation
10       WUG                       -     Water User Group




                          CHAPTER ONE

1.1 Background
Uganda, like many other developing countries has for more than a decade been undergoing
a process of policy reform largely associated with Structural Adjustment Programmes
(SAPs) sponsored by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Closely
interlinked with SAPs has been, among others, two related shifts:
(a) a drive to change the role of the state from that of a "direct provider" of goods and
     services to an "enabler" or "facilitator" which should concentrate on creating an
     "enabling environment",

                                            10
     (b) the movement from "need-based" provision of goods and services, to
    "demand-based" provision. The second of these two is the concern of this study.


In the drinking water sub-sector, this shift in thinking has been translated into the imperative
to switch from what is termed a "supply-driven" approach to one that is termed a "demand-
driven" or "demand-responsive" approach to safe water provision. "Supply-driven" is used
to refer to the traditional approach in which water provision followed a basic needs strategy
by which donors and governments attempted to provide a minimum level of improved water
services to as many people as possible (Kleemeier, 1995;1). This approach aimed at meeting
the basic needs of all the population including and most importantly the poor. To a large
extent, the service was provided free, at least with regard to capital costs. The health benefits
derived from access to safe water were the most important justification for government
provision of water services to all population.


On the other hand, the new "demand-driven" approach as popularized by the World Bank
works on the basis of the consumers' effective demand as measured by their willingness and
ability to pay - which determines who will be served and with what level of service. Under
the "demand-driven" approach, potential consumers or communities are supposed to be
aware of the cost implications of different levels of service and technology options. On this
basis, they make an "informed choice" of whether or not they should be served, using what
technology and up to what level of service, as determined by their willingness       and ability
to meet the capital as well as the operating costs involved. In Bennett's words, the new
paradigm represents a movement 'away from the concept of "services", delivered to all in
need as of right, instead to a concept of demand as expressed through preferences revealed
through meaningful judgements stimulated by realization of the costs involved' (Bennet,
1995:13). Responding to consumer-demand in this way is expected to result into efficient
allocation of resources, and to the sustainability of the service.


In Uganda today, the "demand-driven" approach has been embraced by government. The
approach is prescribed by the 1997 Water Policy and it is being applied in government co-
implemented water projects such as the set of projects under the Rural Towns Water and


                                                 11
      Sanitation Programme (RTWSP), which cover a big number of rural small towns
in western, central and eastern Uganda. The approach is also being used in the Rural Water
and Sanitation East Uganda Project (RUWASA) Phase II.


These changes have been introduced in a context where majority of Uganda's population
remain unserved with safe water and where due to social-cultural and gender related
reasons, women hold the responsibility collecting, keeping and providing water for their
households.


1.2     Statement of the problem
While the expected benefits from a "demand-driven" approach in terms of efficiency and
sustainability can be presumed to be enormous, the premises on which the approach is based
appear to be in conflict with the ideal of equity of access to basic services by all. An
important question to ask is: if a "demand-driven" approach is adhered to, what happens to
those members of society who cannot express effective demand those who are too poor to
afford the costs involved), and those who are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the
benefits of safe water and are therefore unwilling to pay for improved water services? It is
presumed that adhering to demand-responsiveness may affect access to safe water provision
in varied ways:
(a) some individuals or communities who fail to express effective demand might remain
      unserved,
(b)   some will choose a level of service too low to be adequate,
(c)   there may be a tendency to choose the cheapest technology options which may not
      necessarily be the most appropriate.


However, how and to what extent such equity effects have been experienced in Uganda, and
how accessibility outcomes correspond to such factors as individual and community
economic capacities, male versus female household headship, levels of knowledge and
perception of benefits is yet unknown. This study will be carried out in areas where the
demand-driven approach has been used and it will investigate the equity differences arising.
Specifically, the following issues will be investigated;

                                              12
1.3 Research questions
   What are the differences in access to safe water comparing communities/individuals that
    expressed effective demand and those that did not?
   What were the rules of eligibility to service i.e. who qualified to be served?
   How was community demand assessed and/or generated?
   What choices were made by different communities and/or individuals regarding
    whether or not to be served, service levels and technology options?
   What relationship exists between individual and community socio-economic and
    demographic characteristics and the choices that were made?
   What safeguards or exemptions, if any, were there to protect community members
    who could not express effective demand?


1.4 Objectives
i) To establish how the approach of demand-responsiveness was used to guide
implementation decisions.


ii) To find out the differences in access to safe water resulting from response to demand.
iii) To draw policy implications.




1.5 Literature review
The last ten years have seen a growing amount of literature on policy reforms and their
impact on the welfare of the poor. Much of this literature, however, has been concerned with
particular aspects of new policies, such as cost-sharing for services, removal of subsidies,
liberalization of markets and laying off of public sector workers. Specific literature on the
demand-driven approach is only beginning to come up, since the approach came up after
1990. Today Government programmes are increasingly adopting a demand driven approach
by which support is only given to activities which are genuinely required by the
beneficiaries (Muhangi Denis, 1996: pg. 69).



                                               13
     Typically, however, existing literature on the demand-driven approach (UNDP-
World Bank, 1992; World Bank, 1994; UNDP-World Bank, 1996) is still of largely a
normative and promotional nature. Normative in the sense that it tends to prescribe or to
suggest what should be done, and how it should be done, as far as service provision is
concerned. It is promotional in that it attempts, largely using a theoretical basis, to market
the approach as the most appropriate way of delivering services. Other writers on the
approach (Bennett, 1995) have based on theoretical rather than empirical grounds, while
others (Kleemeier, 1995; Asingwire and Muhangi, 1996) have focused on the merits of the
basic needs approach and the impact of the demand-driven approach on sustainability
respectively. Thus, little in the literature has been directed to documenting experiences with
the approach, or the evidence relating to its application and particularly how it impacts on
equity of access, especially for the poor.


One of the pioneering advocates of demand-based service provision is the World Bank. In
its 1994 World Development Report in which it focused on infrastructure provision, the
World Bank pointed to inefficiencies and waste in infrastructure provision and called for
interventions that tackle these problems - both in investment and in delivering services, by
responding more effectively to user's demand (p.1). The problems identified in that report
typically constitute part of what has been the critique of the past approaches to service
delivery mainly designed along the Basic Needs approach.


The Basic Needs era of the 1960s was one of expanding government capacity to reach out to
the population with services. In the water sub-sector, an important element of this expansion
was the building and expanding of government agencies; utilities in urban areas and field
offices in rural areas, to appraise, implement, and maintain water schemes. In addition, there
was reliance on subsidies especially for rural water supplies. It was believed rural
communities either did not have money to pay towards water services, or would prefer to
use traditional sources rather than contribute significant amounts to new water schemes
(Kleemeier, 1995:4). Health benefits arising from improved water services justified heavy
public investment in these services since households on their own would not be willing or
able to make the investment. At the eve of the 1980s, the International Drinking Water

                                             14
        Supply and Sanitation Decade was launched, with the resolution to work towards
universal safe water coverage.


The critique of the Basic Needs approach - now labelled the Supply-Driven approach - is
summarized in terms of three general problems: insufficient coverage, high cost, and poor
utilization (Kleemeier, 1995:1).


First, due to high population growth rates, the number of people without access to safe water
did not reduce despite heavy investments in this sector. It had actually increased (by 70
million in urban areas) during the course of the decade (World Bank, 1992 cited in
Kleemeier, 1995). With regard to the cost, the funds needed to achieve universal coverage
by the year 2000 were astronomical, being three to five times what governments were
already spending. Finally, there was poor sustainability of schemes, with the construction of
new schemes failing to keep pace with the failure of existing ones, and in most developing
countries, one in four rural schemes not functioning (Briscoe and de Ferranti 1988 cited in
Kleemeier, 1995).


One important lesson was that low-cost technology and increased investments are not
enough to improve services since projects were failing to sustain themselves. A World Bank
report from a global study on rural water and sanitation programmes recommended that
employing a demand responsive approach at community levels significantly increases the
likelihood of water system sustainability. It recommends that the success of the demand
responsive approach should include:
(i)       procedures for an adequate flow of information to households,
(ii)      provision for capacity building at all levels,
(iii)     a reorientation of supply agencies to allow demand to guide investment programme,
(iv)      the need for formal organizations to manage the water systems and
(v)       training of household members to enable water system to be achieved (UNDP-
          World Bank, 1997:p.3-4).
Consequently, during the 1990s, a global consensus was reached by water and sanitation
professionals that the only way forward was to treat water as an economic good and to

                                                 15
        deliver it using demand-based approaches (UNDP-World Bank, 1996:6-7).
Treating water as an economic good meant ensuring a balance between the economic value
of water to users, and the prices charged for these services. The overall aim would be "to
achieve water uses and investments in which the value that the users attach to a given
service is greater than the cost, and consequently, is a service for which they are willing to
pay" (UNDP-World Bank, 1996:9).


A number of rules were formulated to guide this new approach to water delivery:
(i)       Eligibility Criteria - That communities which take the initiative to seek improved
          service should be served first, and that the criteria for serving communities should
          be broad such that eligibility does not, by itself guarantee that every eligible
          community will receive service during a particular time period,
(ii)      Technical Options and Service Levels - Communities should be actively involved in
          selecting service levels. A range of technical options should be offered to
          communities, and their cost implications made clear such that communities choose
          what they can afford,
(iii)     Cost-Sharing Arrangements - That principles of cost-sharing should be specified and
          community responsibility for costs (capital and Operation and Maintenance) made
          clear from the outset,




(iv)      Responsibility for Investment support - There should be emphasis on responsibility
          for the sustainability of investments, and there should be clear rules regarding asset
          ownership, operations and maintenance and the recovery of system costs (UNDP-
          World Bank, 1996:9).


Some writers have expressed concern about the likely adverse impact of such reforms on the
poor. Bennett (1995:25) notes that while the general direction of reform is clear, there is a
problem on how to provide for most disadvantaged people or areas who are unable to act as
"consumers" and exercise choice in the fullest sense. Kleemeier (1995) argues that although



                                               16
     supply-driven projects do experience most of the problems raised in the critique
of the approach, the demand-driven approach risks its own set of problems.


Writing on the impact of cost-recovery mechanisms on the poor, Marie-France et al
(1997:2) observe that by introducing user fees, the underprivileged populations, whose
welfare is most likely to deteriorate, are asked to bear the heaviest burden, given their
greater need for services. They added that user fees may compromise the basic principle of
equal access to services. To them, user fees represent a regressive approach, that is, they
discourage the most disadvantaged from seeking services, while, paradoxically, they are
with the greatest need. In a study carried out in Mali and Uganda, Marie-France et al (1997)
found that where cost-sharing had been introduced, there were no criteria for identifying the
indigent nor cross-subsidy mechanisms to cater for them. Those who were unable to afford
the services were found to be resorting to such alternatives as self-medication and traditional
healers. The conditions to preserve equity in the context of user fee implementation were
lacking. Kleemeier (1995) notes that requiring communities to pay even 50% of the capital
costs may mean the end of drinking water supply development in rural areas. She adds that
requirement of a cash contribution may also restrict access to the more wealthy and semi-
urban communities and strengthen the influence of men, in the case of rural communities or
those in which women who primarily want an improved service are incapable of meeting the
requirement.


A demand-responsive approach requires appropriate financial policies and accountability to
community members to win their support and trust. The most important lesson of the rural
water and sanitation study reveals that project rules matter and their design and
implementation can profoundly affect water system sustainability. The rules which define
the eligibility criteria for communities, decision making roles, financial policy, service levels
and technology options, set the framework and incentives that will determine the success of
a project. Care must therefore be taken to ensure that the rules are implemented consistently
(UNDP-World Bank, 1997:p.5-7).




                                               17
    While the above literature is useful for our understanding of the premises on
which the new demand-driven approach is being urged, it tells us little about its impact on
the poor sections of the population. This study, was executed in areas where the approach
has been implemented, to empirically bring out what such impacts are.


1.7 Conceptual framework
This study was conceived in a framework of the linkages presumed to exist between the
principles underlying the demand-driven approach on the one hand, and the equity outcomes
on the other. The two are intermediated by the water users' socio-economic and
demographic characteristics, knowledge levels as well as perceptions regarding the need for
safe water. These linkages are juxtaposed with the principles of the basic-needs approach
which attempted to guarantee access to safe water by all, including the poor. The
diagrammatic representation of this framework (Fig. 1) is shown below. It shows that equity
outcomes are mainly a result of the decisions made by the beneficiaries/users. For instance,
some users who choose not to participate and those who choose inadequate level of service
under the demand-driven approach may not have access to safe water. Under the same
DDA, users who choose inappropriate technology and those who can not afford or are
unwilling to pay may not also have access to safe water. They may alternatively resort to
other traditional water sources or buy water from vendors. In case of users who agree to
participate, those who initiate improvement, those who choose the adequate level of service
with appropriate technology and who pay the costs involved are more likely to have access
to safe water and within walkable distances. Shifting to demand-driven approach therefore is
desirable in terms of sustainability but may not be desirable in terms of equity for the
marginalized or those who are too poor to afford the costs involved or those who may not be
able to make good decisions.




                                            18
                    Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
  Traditional/Basic Needs Approach                New/Demand-Driven approach

- Safe water is a basic need and a merit       - Water is an economic good.
  good.                                        - Serve those who express effective
- Serve as many people as possible.              demand.
- Provide a minimum service level.             - Provide service level for which people
- Use technology that assures minimum              are willing and able to pay.
  service level to all.                        - Use technology that people choose
- Government has primary role in design,           bearing in mind cost implications.
  construction and maintenance.                - Government is a regulator
- Communities contribute to operation          - Communicaties pay for capital as well as
  and maintenance costs.                 19        operation costs.



                                              Socio-Economic & Demographic
                    - Users agree to participate.           - Some users choose not to
                    - Users initiate improvement.             participate .
                    - Users choose adequate levels of       - Inadequate level of service
                      service.                                chosen.
                    - Users choose appropriate              - Inappropriate technology chosen.
                      technology.                           - Users cannot afford or are
                    - Users pay for the costs.                unwilling to pay.


                          Equity outcome                            Equity outcome
                    - Access to safe water.                 - Lack of access to safe water.
                                                            - Use of traditional water sources.
                    - Improved water within                 - Buying water from vendors.
                                CHAPTER
                      walkable distance.
                                                 TWO

2.0 Methodology
2.1 Areas of study and selection of study communities
This study was conducted in the districts of Busia and Luwero. These districts were
purposively selected for two reasons: firstly, they were among the districts with low safe
water coverage. Busia had a coverage of less than 25%i (Uganda National Council for
Children 1994), while Luwero had a coverage of 39% (Directorate of Water Development,


                                           20
    1996) implying serious equity concerns in these districts. Secondly, these districts
were among the first in which the demand-driven approach had been applied in the
provision of water. In each of the two districts, the study covered the small towns served
with water under a demand-driven approach. These were the towns of Busia in Busia
district, Luwero and Wobulenzi in Luwero district. In each town at least 3 water user groups
were chosen depending on the type of water source.


2.2 The respondents
In each town, consultations were made with local leaders, water agency officials and leaders
of water user groups. From each water user group, at least 10 households were selected for
household interviews, making a total of 106 households. The main respondents were
household heads or their spouses. Female-headed households were also included in the
sample to capture a gender balanced sample. In addition to the household respondents,
leaders of water user groups, members of the water committees, government health and
community development extension staff, and officials of water agencies that served the
areas were interviewed as key informants.


2.3 Data collection methods, processing and analysis
Data was collected using the following methods:
a) A review of documents on the demand-driven approach, the Uganda National Water
   Policy and other relevant documents.




b) A total of 12 key-informant interviews were conducted with the staff of water agencies,
   local leaders of the water user groups, and the local extension staff.
c) Interviews with individual household respondents using a structured questionnaire.


On spot editing was used to crosscheck and ensure accuracy and completeness of the
collected data. Tape-recorded data from key interviews were transcribed and content
analyzed, while data from structured interviews was coded and analyzed using an SPSS
software.

                                              21
2.4 Collaboration with local organizations and research users
This study was designed with the help of local organizations in the study areas, other stake
holders in the area of water, as well as potential users of its results. These included the
officials of the Directorate of Water Development, and those of the Small Towns Water and
Sanitation Project, the Assistant Town Clerk of Luwero Town Council, and the LC officials
of Luwero, Wobulenzi and Busia Town Councils, Luwero Diocese, Vedco, Plan
International and RUWASA. It was on the basis of these consultations that the study areas
were selected and confirmed as appropriate sites for this particular study. Working together
with such organizations helped in identifying and selecting specific study communities,
identifying key informants, pre-testing and refining research instruments and mobilizing
people to participate in the study.


The results of the study will be disseminated to different groups of people as well as
organizations that may need the information. Dissemination channels will include
presentation of research findings in workshops, circulation of the research report and any
other channels as will be agreed upon in consultation with NURRU.


2.5 Ethical considerations
To ensure that the study did not out step the ethical limits of the study subjects, the
following provisions were made:
   Permission was sought from various district local governments and water users.


   Respondents participated after their informed consent had been obtained.
   Anonymity respondents and confidentiality of their responses were also guaranteed.


2.6 Significance of the study
Safe water is a pre-condition for good health. Both provision of safe water and promotion of
good health remain enormous challenges in Uganda, today. In the face of diminishing
budgets for service provision, donors, governments and other agencies are seeking
alternative ways of delivering services cheaply but adequately. As alternative ways are tried

                                             22
     out, it is useful that their utility, and their potential to overcome past inadequacies
are assessed. One major issue of paramount interest is to find out whether greater efficiency
can be achieved without sacrificing equity concerns. The results of this study will be useful
to agencies both public and private involved in water provision, particularly by pointing out
the limits to a demand-based approach and by bringing to the fore, the differential impacts
that the approach engenders. The study will also be useful to other stakeholders such as
Town Councils which shoulder the responsibility for service delivery to their populations.
Finally, the results of the study will contribute to the global understanding of the impact of
new policies on peoples access to essential services.




                                               23
                               CHAPTER THREE

3.0 Study Findings
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the major findings of the study. It is divided into the following sub-
themes: situation before the water improvement project, source of initiative for water
improvement project, community participation in the project, assessment of demand and
eligibility criteria. Others are amount of money charged, how different technologies were
chosen, exemptions, outcome of the demand-driven approach and problems faced under the
implementation of the demand-driven approach.


3.2 Situation before the water improvement project
The context in which a new service is provided is a key determinant of how such a service is
perceived, utilized and appreciated. In the case of water services, the extent of need that
prevails before water improvements are done plays a big role in determining people’s
involvement and perception of the water improvement activities. To begin with, household
heads across the different income levels were asked whether water was their greatest need
before the water improvement project. The results are shown on the table below.
Table 1: Whether water was the household's greatest need by monthly income



                                         Income level

   Response   3,000 to      10,000 to 30,000     30,000       50,000       Total
              10,000                             to           and
                                                 50,000       above

   Yes        9 (10.1%)     14 (15.7%)           12 (13.5%)   54 (60.7%)   89 (91.8%)

   No         00            5 (62.5%)            1 (12.5%)    2 (25.0%)    8 (8.2%)

   Total      9 (9.3%)      19 (19.6%)           13 (13.4%)   56 (57.7%)   97 (100%)

N= 97


                                                24
The majority (91.8%) of the respondents submitted that water was the number one need in
their households. This need was mainly expressed by households with a monthly income of
shillings 50,000 and above compared to those with less monthly income. For instance,
60.7% of those with a monthly income of shillings 50,000 and more reported that water was
their greatest need compared to 15.7% with a monthly income of between shillings 10,000
to 30,000. A possible explanation may be that households with bigger incomes probably
have bigger family sizes and better capacity to afford water costs and therefore have more
felt need for water compared to those with smaller incomes. Below is the situation in
specific towns.


Luwero Town Council
Luwero Town Council is the headquarters of Luwero district with an estimated number of
6,985 households. Before the Water Improvement Project was initiated, open wells were the
main sources of water. These unprotected sources were unreliable and could dry up during
the dry season. Community members could go long distances (3-5km) in search of water.
However, besides the unprotected water sources, Luwero town council had some bore holes
that were provided by Unicef under the traditional supply-driven approach. However, these
were located along the main roads that passed through the town, hence people in the
peripheral parts of the town had to rely on unprotected water sources. Since this water was
not clean and safe, diseases such as typhoid, diarrhoea, worms and skin diseases were
rampant. As a matter of fact hospitals reported very high cases of the above diseasesii.
Besides Unicef, Plan International was also involved in the provision of water.


Wobulenzi Town Council
The Town Council with an estimated 7,000 households is located in Luwero district. The
major source of water for the town was an old tank set up by Indians. It had one standpipe
and several taps. Although this tank was the main source of water to the people of the town,
its supply was not adequate for the growing town. It was not also easily accessible to other
community members. It was mainly those who could access it that fetched this water and
some few rich people who had house connections. In addition to this source, there were

                                             25
    some few Unicef/Plan International boreholes that provided water. However,
their locations were a bit far from the town centre where most people live. They were
mainly located near the main roads. Although these boreholes were meant to serve the less
privileged rural poor, they were sunk near roads due to lack of land. Given the politics of
land in Buganda, nobody was willing to surrender land for the borehole construction. Also
due to insecurity that affected Luwero in 1980s, most families who would have benefited
from the boreholes had shifted away from the road sides thus making the borehole water
consumption insignificant.


Busia Town Council
Busia Town Council is found in Busia district in eastern Uganda with about 5,000
households. Before the Water Improvement Project by Small Towns Water and Sanitation
Project (STWSP), there was generally inadequate water in terms of both quality and
quantity. Only a few boreholes existed and were mainly located in the custom's village. The
major system that served the rest of the district was the shadoof system as shown in the
photograph below.




 Field photograph of shadoof water technology in Busia Town



                                            26
     The shadoof system was viewed as unhygienic, inappropriate and unreliable
source of water by health workers and extension staff of the STWSP for various reasons.
Firstly, shadoof system wells were sunk close to pit latrines and soak pits. Secondly they
could dry up during the dry season. Thirdly they were enclosed in the owners court yards
thus causing inconveniences to both the owner and the users. Fourthly, drawing of water by
this technology was tiresome and required a lot of strength. Fifthly, the shadoof water was
not clean because of the system of drawing stagnant water using the same jerry
can/container1. A sixth reason was that the shadoof water was costly i.e. shillings 100 during
the dry season.


Overall therefore, data from all the 3 towns indicates that the water improvement project
was introduced in a context where there was a felt need for water and where existing water
services were clearly inadequate.


3.3 Initiative for the water improvement project
In all the three towns, Needs Assessment Surveys were conducted between 1991 and 1994
by the STWSP to ascertain whether there was a felt need for improvement of water sources
or not. For the current study, questionnaires were administered to community members and
leaders. The survey conducted revealed that 74.5% of the respondents thought that the
source of the initiative was their community leaders while 13.2% said it was that of the
water users. Through this assessment the community members emphasized that water was
one of their priority problems. In the case of Luwero, the provision of safe and clean water
was a political decision in which president Museveni directly involved. During his mid 1990
campaigns, people asked him for water and he promised to provide it2. Based on this
promise STWSP embarked on the planning for implementation. Similar needs assessment
were done for Wobulenzi and Busia.


      1
         The shadoof water by its technology is stagnant, the technology does not provide for
the separation of the dirty water from the main pool or the clean one. This is more
pronounced especially when the demand is very high.
  2
    President Museveni has continued to pledge his support to the vulnerable districts. In a
UTV news item of 7th May, 2000, he promised clean water for people of Kisoro town
during his referendum campaign.
                                             27
3.3.1 Community Participation
The involvement of the intended beneficiaries in the key decisions of any project is
important in ensuring that outcomes reflect the needs and wishes of the people. This study,
therefore, investigated how community participation was mobilized and utilized in the water
improvement project. Community involvement in the initial phase of the water
improvement project was in various ways:


a)      Community members participated in the needs assessment as respondents in
        analyzing the water situation in their area and made recommendations for
        improvement. The survey shows that 7.4% of the respondents were involved in
        decisions making and 99% knew the dangers of unclean water.


b)      Final Decision on the construction of the water source
Although the idea of the community project was initiated by the community leaders, 72.6%
of the respondents seemed to agree that the final decision was through a concerted effort as
shown in the Figure 2 below. The views of the house hold heads were cross tabulated with
various income categories as indicated in the Table 2 below.

               Fig.2. Who made the final decision to construct the water source

                           80
                           70
                           60
              Percentage




                           50
                           40
                           30
                           20
                           10
                            0
                                ignorant




                                                      local leaders




                                                                      outsiders




                                                                                  Concerted
                                           Users




                                              Persons responsible




                                                    28
Table 2: Final decision by source of income.



            Salary       Farm       Trader         Casual      Others    Total

Users       2(12.5%      1(6.3%)    11             2 (12.5%)   00        16
                                    (68.8%                               (16.2%)

Local       1 (25%)      1 (25%)    1(25%)         00          1 (25%)   4
Leaders                                                                  (4.0%)

Outside     1 (50%)      1 (50%)    00             00          00        2(2.0)

Concerted   10(13%)      30(39%)    22             10          5(6.5%)   77
                                    (28.6%)        (13%)                 (77.8%)

Total       14(14.1)     33(33.3)   34             12          6         99
                                    (34.3%)        (12.1%)     (6.1%)    (100%)




Household heads were categorized into groups according to income sources and asked who
made the final decision to improve or construct the water sources. The majority (77.8%) of
the household heads interviewed were of the view that the final decision was made through
a concerted effort by different groups of people even after cross tabulating across the
different income groups.


c) Community leaders convened meetings and educated people on the benefits of safe water,
costs involved and how much the community was supposed to contribute. From discussions
with the community members interviewed, 64.2% said they were informed of the benefits of
water improvement while 82.1% said they were informed of the costs of the different
technologies. The study also found that 81.1% of the respondents were consulted on
technological options.



                                              29
d) Community members selected water user committee members who were supposed to
collect money from the community members on the capital and maintenance costs and also
manage the water sources once provided.


e) Generally the community members accepted to contribute money towards the
maintenance and capital costs. The survey also shows that 75.5% of the respondents
contributed money towards the construction of the water sources, 0.9% provided labour,
0.9% provided materials, 1.9% made other contributions while 20.8% had no idea about the
contribution. Overall, most water users contributed towards the construction of the water
source. However this contribution was mainly in form of money as shown in Figure 3
below.

                               Fig.3. Percentage community contribution

                               80
                contribution




                               70
                 Percentage




                               60
                               50
                               40
                               30
                               20
                               10
                                0
                                             Money




                                                                               others
                                    None




                                                                      Labour
                                                     Materials




                                           Form of contribution


f) Community members were involved in making key decisions for example locating a
convenient place for the water source. Of the members interviewed, 80.2% said they were
consulted on the location of the source.


3.3.2 Satisfaction with location of water source
Heads of households with different education levels were also cross tabulated to assess
whether they were satisfied with the current locations of the water sources or not. The
results are shown in the table below.


                                                                 30
Table 3: Satisfaction with location of water source by educational level.



   Education              Yes                     No               Total

   Nil                    14 (93.3%)              1 (6.7%)         15 (14.9%)

   Primary                38 (90.5%)              4 (9.5%)         42 (41.6%)

   Secondary              31 (86.1%)              5 (13.9%)        36 (5.6%)

   Post Secondary          4 (50%)                4 (50%)          8 (7.9%)

   Total                  87 (86.1%)              14 (13.9%)       101 (100%)

N=101


It was found that the majority (86.1%) of the household heads interviewed reported that they
were satisfied with the locations of the water sources. However, the findings indicate that
the level of satisfaction declined with increased levels of education. While 93% (14) of the
respondents with no education expressed satisfaction with the locations of the water sources,
while only 50% with post secondary education reported similar satisfaction. This may be
explained by the fact that people who have higher education are probably better informed
and are more likely to be critical of services provided in communities.


Besides popular community participation, STWSP also took it upon it self to scrutinize the
community proposals. For example they put into consideration some aspects like life styles
of different groups of people. For instance, in Busia where there was quite a large
population of Muslims, it was predicted that there would be more demand for water.
Another consideration was the income levels of the residents. In the poorer sectors of the
community tap water or kiosks, boreholes and protected springs were preferred. Meanwhile,
among the middle class, private house connections were more realistic since they could
afford the costs.

                                             31
3.4 Assessment of demand and eligibility criteria
As already noted, it was incumbent upon a given community or household to choose
between borehole water and piped water. However, each of the above technologies had its
own cost implications of which piped water had the highest. The choices communities
made, therefore, depended on the income of a given community or individual. In Luwero,
because people in the outer parts of the town generally had low incomes, they opted for
borehole water and each household had to pay sh 6,000 towards the capital costs. They also
paid shillings 1,000 per month towards operation and maintenance costs. On the other hand
people in the town centre opted for piped water since they already had boreholes which were
provided by Unicef. In Wobulenzi, people who footed the capital costs qualified to be
members of the water user group. So only members of that user group qualified to get water
from a specific kiosk. On the other hand people who could afford the house connections
filled forms and paid some money depending on the distance involved and size of the house.
New entrants into the community e.g. residents who came later were also asked to pay the
equivalent of the capital contribution in order for them to be eligible users.


3.5 Cost of water
In Wobulenzi the cost of water depended on the technology used. Those who opted for
piped water/house connections paid money depending on the size of the house and the
distance involved. Then those who were to benefit from the kiosks paid money depending
on the size of the user group. Some user groups who had more members paid less money
than that paid in groups with fewer members. For example Modern B water user group had
8 households and each member paid between shillings 30,000 to 60,000 depending on the
size of the household.


It is however important to know that the cost of piped water was footed by landlords. If a
landlord had 10 apartments, he paid more than other landlords who had one or two. Tenants
did not foot any capital costs but paid shillings 25 per jerry can at the kiosks.

                                               32
In Luwero, payment also depended on whether the technology used was borehole or piped
water technology. In the case of a borehole, each household had to pay shillings 6000 with
another shillings 1,000 for monthly repairs and maintenance. Whoever asked for piped
water but preferred to be served at the kiosks, paid shillings 14,000 as part of the capital
costs. For private household connections, members were asked to pay an initial deposit of
shillings 50,000 and the rest of shillings 150,000 shillings could be paid in installments. In
Busia the scenario was similar. In Luwero, one significant observation was that the potential
users could not raise the up-front contribution quickly and the project was delayed for years
until the Town Council stepped in to assist with loan funds to the user groups. The
respondents were categorized into different sources of income were asked to assess the
amount they and required to contribute whether it was high, fair or low. The results are
shown in the table below.


         Table 4: Household head's assessment of water cost by source of income



         Income          High           Fair           Low               Total

         Salary        2 (16.7%)      9 (75%)         1 (8.3%)         12 (14.5%)

        Farming         6 (20%)       24 (80%)          00             30 (36.1%)

       Petty Trader    6 (28.6%)     15 (71.4%)         00             21 (25.3%)

       Big Trader       3 (50%)       3 (50%)           00              6 (7.2%)

    Casual Worker           00        9 (100%)          00              9 (10.8%)

         Others         3 (60%)       1 (20%)         1 (20%)           5 (6.0%)

          Total       20 (24.1%)     61 (73.5%)       2 (2.4%)         83 (100%)

N=83


The household heads assessment of the contribution for water shows that the majority
(73.5%) of the household heads interviewed were of the view that the contribution was fair.



                                                33
       This view was held across the different income groups. Only 16.7% said the
amount was high while only 2.4% reported that it was low. Among the salary earners, 75%
said that the
amount was fair. Only 16.7% and 8.3% said the amount was high and low respectively.
Among the farmers, 80% reported that the amount was fair while 20% said it was high. All
the casual workers interviewed said the amount they contributed was fair.


The respondents were further categorized according to their educational levels and asked to
assess the cost of water. Whether it was high, fair or low. The results are shown in the table
below.
Table 5: Assessment of the amount paid for water by level of education


 Education              High            Fair          Low             Total


 Nil                    1 (7.1%)        13 (92.9%)    0               1
                                                                      (17.1%)

 Primary                9 (28.1%)       22 (68.8%)    1 (3.1%)        32
                                                                      (39.0)

 Secondary              10(31.3%)       22 (68.8%)    0               32
                                                                      (39.0)

 Post Secondary         0               3 (75.0%)     1 (25.0)        4 (4.9)

 Total                  20 (24.4)       60 (73.2)     2 (2.4)         82 (100.O

N=82


Overall, the study findings indicate that the majority (73.2%) of the household heads
interviewed reported that the contribution was fair, 24.4% said it was high and only 2.4%
claimed the amount was low. There was no significant relationship between level of
education and household head's assessment of their contribution. Thus across different
education levels, there was a feeling that the assessment of the amount paid was fair.




                                               34
      Respondents were asked what they would do if they failed to raise the amount of
money required for maintenance of the water sources. The results are shown on the table
below.




Table 6: Coping mechanisms in case of failure to pay maintenance fee



                            Male              Female            Total

 Borrow                     11 (84.6%)        2 (15.4)          13 (25.5%)

 Talk to Authority          20 (87%)          3 (13%)           23 (45.1%)

 Go to alternative source   7 (46.7%)         8 (53.3%)         15 (29.4%)

 Total                      38 (74.5%)        13 (25.5%)        51 (100%)

N=51


Results on the table above show that a big proportion of the respondents (45.1%) would talk
to the relevant authorities than either borrow or try another alternative water source. Most of
the men (87%) preferred to talk to the authorities while most women (53%) would prefer to
go to another alternative. The study also points out that payment failures affected about half
of the users while the other half did not have any problem.


3.6      Determination of water technology choices
Generally in the peripheral areas especially in Luwero and Busia, the poorer people opted
for water kiosks or boreholes while the "privileged" group that lived in the centre of the
town or central business district preferred piped water or private house connections.
Communities generally had the chance to choose between piped water (kiosks and house
connections) and borehole water. It was not also surprising to find people with house
connections in areas where people get water from kiosks. This is related to the haphazard
nature of development of unplanned residential areas which is characteristic of most of
Uganda towns. Community members also contended that it was unrealistic to have a
borehole near the main road since the road is to do with a network of many other services

                                              35
     i.e. communication, sanitation, electricity, road expansion etc, this was another
justification for the piped water being the most convenient in the main part of the town. Cost
of technology and income levels were key issues considered in the choice of the technology
option. In Luwero, it was reported that many more people opted and applied for private
house connections than earlier envisaged thus the number of public kiosks earlier planned
were reduced. Below are photographs of the different water technologies users chose.




       Photograph of a tank for piped water under construction in Luwero town




                                             36
Photograph of piped water through a communal kiosk in Busia town




                                37
Photograph of borehole water in Busia




                 38
Photograph of a huge water tank for piped water in Busia town




                             39
     3.6.1 Satisfaction with water source technology used
Household heads categorized into their different occupations were asked whether they were
satisfied with the technology type used in the construction of the water sources. The results
are shown in the table below.


Table 7: Satisfaction with technology type by source of income



 Income                 Yes                   No               Total

 Salary                 8 (57.1%)             6 (42.9%)        14 (13.9%)

 Farming                31 (93.9%)            2 (6.1%)         33 (32.7%)

 Petty Trader           24 (85.7%)            4 (14.3)         28 (27.7%)

 Big Trader             7 (100%)              00               7 (6.9%)

 Casual Worker          13 (100%)             00               13 (12.9%)

 Others                 6 (100%)              00               6 (5.9%)

 Total                  89 (88.1%)            12 (11.9)        101 (100%)

N=101


Overall, the majority, 89 (88.1%) of the respondents reported that they were satisfied with
the type of technology used. Only 11.9% said that they were not satisfied with the different
types of technology used. The study did not find any distinct variation in the pattern of
satisfaction according to the different income sources. However it was only among the
salaried household heads where the level of satisfaction was lower compared to other
income groups. It was found that 57% of the salary earners reported that they were satisfied
while 6 (42.9%) said they were not satisfied with the technology type used. Out of the 33
farmers interviewed 31 were satisfied with the technology type compared to only two who
said they were not satisfied. The study also found that 85.7% of the petty traders reported
satisfaction with the technology type. The rest 14.3% were not satisfied. The others
including the big traders, casual workers and those in the category of "others" all (100%)
reported that they were satisfied with technology type.

                                             40
Heads of households with various levels of education were asked whether they were
satisfied with the technology type that was used to construct the water sources. The results
are shown on the table below.


Table 8: Satisfaction with technology type by level of education.



 Education           Yes                    No                 Total

 Nil                  15 (100%)             0                  15 (14.9%)

 Primary              38 (92.7%)            3 (7.3%)           41 (40.6%)

 Secondary            32 (86.5)             5 (13.5%)          37 (36.6%)

 Post Secondary        4 (50%)              4 (50%)            8 (7.9%)

 Total                89 (88.1)             12 (11.9%)         101 (100%)

N=101


The majority (88.1%) reported that they were satisfied compared to 11.9% who said they
were not satisfied. The findings further indicate that the level of satisfaction declined with
increased education. All the household heads with no education reported that they were
satisfied with the technology type. While 92.7% of those with primary level of education
expressed satisfaction, 86.5% with secondary education said they were satisfied with the
technology type. In the post secondary category, 50% reported that they were satisfied while
the other half said that they were not satisfied.


3.7 Exemptions
Community exemptions towards payment of the capital cost and water source maintenance
cost for the disadvantaged groups varied from community to community. It was only in
Luwero that there were exemptions for the lame, blind and the elderly. The identification of
the people for exemptions was done by the community members i.e. members of the water
user groups. In Wobulenzi and Busia, there were no exemptions. Every body was treated
equally and obliged to contribute towards the capital cost and operational costs. It was
                                                 41
     envisaged that once exemptions were encouraged it would cause conflicts. One
committee member of the water user group commented that: "We thought that even
politicians would start demanding free water if an opportunity was created". For example in
Wobulenzi, people who gave land for kiosks were compensated to stop them from claiming
unrealistic amounts of money from the proceeds. However in some of the areas, the
vulnerable people who could not support themselves were being assisted by their relatives
and sympathizers. This form of support could be in form of money or fetching the water and
transporting it to their premises.


3.8 Outcomes of the demand driven approach


Fig 4: Average distance from household location to water source




                             30

                             25
             Percentage of
              respondents




                             20

                             15

                             10

                              5

                              0
                                          100-199




                                                     200-299




                                                               300-399




                                                                         400-499
                                  <100m




                                                                                   >500




                                                    Distance (m)


Where were water sources located? Sources were located where people wanted them except
for geological reasons such as failure to access the water table in the case of boreholes.
Those who opted for house connections had water flowing in their households. In Luwero
and Busia community members who opted for borehole water got water far much earlier
than those who opted for piped water systems.




                                                     42
In Wobulenzi where the predominant option was piped water, community members had
started receiving water. However, those who were not members of the water user groups and
those who did not pay the capital cost were allowed to buy water from the kiosks. A few
protected springs were also constructed in the peripheral areas of the towns.


3.9    Current water situation
In Wobulenzi, the water situation improved since people now get enough safe water unless
there is power failure or some other technical fault. Generally there are now 60-80
households that have got private house connections. This has reduced the distance people
used to walk to the water kiosks. Currently most users get water from not more than 300
metres away from their homes. All the 30 WUGs now have water through the kiosks. There
are also 2 protected springs so that people who cannot afford to pay for tap water can use
the protected springs. Besides the piped water, 2 boreholes were also sunk to provide water
in case of a breakdown of the piped water technology or power failure but also toe serve
those who could not afford the cost of the private connections and water kiosks. In Luwero
and Busia the current water supply is mainly through the boreholes and piped water. There
was a general feeling by the respondents that the boreholes were providing sufficient water
quantities and of good quality. On average 84.9% of the users expressed satisfaction with the
amount of water from these sources.


3.10   Failure of service
The respondents were categorized into salary earners, farmers, petty traders, big traders,
casual workers and others. They were then asked whether there are times when they fail
to get water. The result is presented in the table below.




                                             43
     Table 9: Failure of service by source of income



 Income                    Yes                     No                Total

 Salary                    7 (50%)                 7 (50%)           14 (13.5%)

 Farming                   10 28.6%)               25 (71.4%)        35 (33.7%)

 Petty Trader              14 (50%)                14 (50%)          28 (26.9%)

 Big Trader                7 (100%)                0                 7 (6.7%)

 Casual                    5 (35.7%)               9 (64.3%)         14 (13.5%)

 Others                    3 (50%)                 3 (50%)           6 (5.8%)

 Total                     46 (44.2%)              58 (55.8%)        104 (100%)




Overall, 44.2% of the households reported that there are times when they fail to get water
compared to 55.8% who said that they get water all the time. Specifically, 50% of the salary
earners interviewed said that there are times when they fail to get water while the other half
reported no cases of failure to get water. Similarly, 50% of the petty traders interviewed
reported that there are times when they cannot get water while the other half said they
always get water. Out of 35 farmers interviewed, 10 (28.6%) reported that there are times
when they fail to get water. All the big traders reported that there are times when they fail to
get water. Of the 14 casual workers interviewed (35.7%) reported that there are times when
they fail to get water whereas (64.3%) said they are able to get water all the time. Of the
other 6 household heads who were interviewed, 50% reported that there are no times when
they do not get water and the other half gave the contrary view. In conclusion a bigger
proportion of the household heads were accessible to water all the time.


3.11 Problems faced under the DDA
1.        Some of the boreholes have been identified to be contaminated with faecal
          material. Four of them have already been identified providing unsuitable water.



                                              44
     (The question that remains is how the users will be compensated or given an
       alternative).


2.     Some institutions like schools had not yet paid their contributions since WES with
       Unicef support build tanks for them to harvest rain water. These institutions are
       fairly comfortable.


3.     Although the core members of the community opted for piped water, it was not
       feasible in terms of costs.


4.     Lack exemptions for the disadvantaged as found out in Busia and Wobulenzi, where
       everybody is treated the same way raises serious equity concerns under the DDA.


5.     Difficulties in community contribution delayed the implementation. In Luwero,
       contributions towards the capital costs for piped water could not be male in time and
       the Town Council had to loan out money to individuals or pay on behalf of some
       communities in order for the project to take off. Up to now those loans are not fully
       repaid.


6.     One of the officials of water project in Busia complained that there was little
       concern for sanitation yet the town population was big requiring a big water system.


7.     The current projection of water is not adequate because it does not provide for the
       future expansion of the towns. The current projection seems to assume that the
       towns will remain static and the socio-economic status of the community will not
       change. The would be high class suburbs currently have low income people who
       have opted for bore holes yet such areas would have been fit for piped water. In
       some towns like Luwero, community members were also shifting their choices from
       communal kiosk to private house connections thus creating uncertainity for the
       planners.



                                            45
      8.        The study also found that there was little facilitation for community
           mobilization. Initially community members felt reluctant to contribute towards the
           water improvement. They argued that government should provide everything.
           "Community members want free water. Others argued that the shadoof was
           adequate, so why should we pay". The water engineer in Busia said that since 1996
           some people had not even paid.


9.         Hard rock formation had inhibited excavation work in some of the communities
           especially in Busia.


10.        Poor physical planning and implementation of the plans in the towns was another
           big problem. For instance the study found that 75% of the planned roads have not
           been opened. Laying water networks without roads was very inconvenient because
           they would be disrupted later at the time of road works.




                                                46
                                 CHAPTER FOUR

4. 0     Conclusions and Recommendations
4.1    Conclusion
In conclusion, there was a genuine need for water before the water improvement project.
Sufficient groundwork was done in terms of giving information, consulting users and taking
their views. The application of the demand-driven approach was also found to have negative
equity implications for the poor who could not afford to pay for the service thus the poor
resorted to unprotected sources of water. Similarly, adherence to demand-responsiveness
principles may lead to very long delays in delivering water services. Although the DDA is
feasible in terms of the current water demand and prospects for sustainability, its approach
requires some shielding with local organisations like town councils to provide loan facilities
for timely implementation. Even though communities may choose technology on the
prevailing costs and socio-economic levels, technocrats may need to intervene for the
purpose of future predictions, better service levels and rapid urbanization.


4.2     Recommendations
1.     The STWSP approach of DDA could be replicated country wide.


2.     Location of sites should be selected carefully and technical people need to consider
       sanitation and contamination issues. Depending on the community location alone
       may not yield the best result.


3.     Although DDA is popular, planners need to provide for the expansion of towns and
       the future water needs. This should be done in collaboration with town planners.


4.     Collaboration is very crucial especially from the town councils and other local
       organisations for footing bills for costly technologies which the community can not
       easily afford for timely implementation.



                                              47
5.        The implementers of the DDA need to address the equity concerns of the
     disadvantaged groups and uncertainty in service levels for different interest groups.




                                           48
5. References
Asingwire.N. and Muhangi.D.(1997); "An Analysis of the Impact of Institutional Rules on
Rural Water Sustainability". Uganda Country Report, UNDP-World Bank Water and
Sanitation Program.

Bennet.R.J.(ed)(1990); Decentralization, Intergovernmental Relations and Markets;
Towards a Post-Welfare Agenda? Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Directorate of Water Development (1996); "Policy Statement for
1996/1997 Financial Year". Ministry of Natural Resources, Kampala

"National Water Policy (Draft)", 1997. Ministry of Natural Resources, Kampala.

Green.A.(1992); An Introduction to Health Planning in Developing Countries. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, New York.

Hill.M.and Bramley.G.(1986); Analysing Social Policy

Jansson.B.S.(1990); Social Welfare Policy: From Theory to Practice. Wadsworth
Publishing Company, Belmont, California.

-------------- (1994); Social Policy: From Theory to Practice. Brooks/Cole Publishing
Company, Pacific Grove, California.

Killick.T.(1993); The Adaptive Economy, EDI Development Studies, The World Bank,
Washington, D.C.

Kleemeier.L.(1995); !From Supply-Driven to Demand-Driven Provision of Rural Drinking
Water. A Tanzanian Case Study of the Arguments for a Transition". Centre for
Development Research Working Paper 95.8, Denmark.

Marie-France et al (1997); "Impact of Cost-Recovery on Equity of Access to Health
Services by Disadvantaged Population."

Muhangi.D.(1996); Towards an "Enabling Government"? Experiences from the Water
Sector in Uganda. Institute of Social Studies, The Hague.

Nolan.B. and Turbat.V.(1995); Cost Recovery in Public Health Services in Sub-Saharan
Africa. EDI Technical Materials. The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Rondinelli.D.A.(1991); "Decentralizing Water Supply Services in Developing Countries;
Factors Affecting the Success of Community Management". In Public Administration and
Development Vol.11, 415-430.


                                           49
Semboja, J. and Therkildsen.O.(1995); Service Provision Under Stress in East Africa: The
State, NGOs and People's Organizations in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Centre for
Development Research, Copenhagen.

Titmus. R. M.(1974); Social Policy: An Introduction. Unwin Hyman, London, Sydney,
Boston, Wellington.

Uganda National Council for Children (1994); "Equity and Vulnerability: A Situation
Analysis of Women, Adolescents and Children in Uganda". The Government of Uganda.

UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program (1992); "Improving Services for the
Poor. A Program Strategy for the 1990s". Washington, D.C.

UNDP-World Bank (1997); Making Rural Water Sustainable: Water and Sanitation
Programs.Washington.

World Bank (1994); "World Development Report, 1994." Oxford University Press, New
York.

Wuytsm, M, Mackintosh M. and Hewwit T. (eds) (1992); Development Policy and Public
Action. Oxford University Press, The Open University.



i.....
       Data was for Tororo district. Busia is a new district and was until recently
part of Tororo district.
ii.....
    : The corresponding high cases of diseases associated
with drinking dirty and unsafe water was reported by Luwero
town council health inspector.




                                              50
                                       Appendices

Appendix 1

September 2, 1998

Key Informant Interview for Town Council Officials, Guide For the Water User
Committee and Extension Workers Under The Demand-Driven Approach

Introductory remarks
I am grateful that you were kind enough to come and give your time to help us. Let me
mention the purpose of our visit. As you probably know we have been trying to understand
the new system of water provision in your community under the demand-driven approach
and how it works. However, we are not certain about the feelings, practices and the general
problems regarding this new system. We have some ideas and explanations for this, but we
are not sure about them and so we want to hear your views, the best help you can give us is
to be truthful. This is an informal discussion lasting for about one hour, so do not hold back
any ideas or information. The information that you give will be kept confidential. We
would also like to get your permission to record the discussion so that we can be able to
remember your comments. Therefore feel free to express your ideas.

1.     Demand-responsive approach
       -    How was the community demand assessed or generated?
       -    How were household members involved in the initiation and selection of
            service level options, technology and siting?
       -    Did the project staff provide adequate information at household level; on
            type of assistance they offer, technology option, expected roles, availability
            of technical assistance - where to get tools and spare parts for the system.
       -    Community mobilization (how was the community mobilized?)
       -    Were all the potential members of the community represented - women's
            voices etc.
       -    What channels were used for community mobilization?

2.     Choice of technology
       -     Which technology option was selected?
       -     Who decided on the option?
       -     Who decided on the design?
       -     Is the design flexible enough to accommodate the different interest groups
             such as those who require higher levels of service and may bear the costs of
             household connections?
       -     Adequacy and appropriateness?

3.     Capital costs
       -      What were the costs involved?
       -      Who meets the costs and in what proportion?

                                             51
4.    Different roles
      -      What are the roles of the different parties?

5.    Rules of service
      -      What rules are in place to guide the water user committee and the users?
      -      Who set these rules?
      -      Were the rules communicated to the households?
      -      Do the implementors and potential users understand these rules?
      -      Who qualified to be served?
      -      How is equity of service addressed?

6.    Household members and water committee training

7.    Safeguards or exemptions to protect community members who could not
      express effective demand

8.    Benefits from the demand driven approach and other perceptions


Thank you very much.




                                            52
Appendix 2

                                   DEMAND-DRIVEN WATER PROVISION RESEARCH
                                         HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE


A:          IDENTIFICATION


Date.................   Interviewer..........................



Town................. Zone/Village.........................



B:          SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS



  No.         Question                                               Answer Codes                     Skip

  1           Sex of respondent                                      1: Male
                                                                     2: Female

  2           How old are you?

  3.          Are you the Head of this household?                    1. Yes
                                                                     2. No

  4           Sex of household Head                                  1. Male
                                                                     2. Female

  5.          Education level attained by household head             1. Nil
                                                                     2. Primary
                                                                     3. Secondary
                                                                     4. Post Secondary
  6.          Occupation of household head                           1. Peasant farmer
                                                                     2. Petty trader
                                                                     3. Big trader
                                                                     4. Civil servant/salary earner
                                                                     5. Casual labourer
                                                                     6. Self employed
                                                                     7. Others




                                                                53
No.   Question                                             Answer codes                     Skip

7.    Occupation of spouse                                 1. Peasant farmer
                                                           2. Petty trader
                                                           3. Big trader
                                                           4. Civil servant/salary earner
                                                           5. Casual labourer
                                                           6. Self employed
                                                           7. Others

8.    Highest education level attained by any household    1. Nil
      member                                               2. Primary
                                                           3. Secondary
                                                           4. Post secondary

9.    How many people live in this household?

10.   What is the major source of income for this          1. Salary
      household?                                           2. Farming
                                                           3. Petty trading
                                                           4. Big trading
                                                           5. Wages/casual labour
                                                           6. Others

11.   What is the approximate monthly income for this
      household?

12.   On what item does this household spend the biggest   1. Food
      part of its income?                                  2. Rent
                                                           3. School Fees
                                                           4. Medical Care
                                                           5. Water expenses
                                                           6. Others




                                                54
C     SOURCE OF WATER
No.    Question                                           Answer codes             Skip

13.    How do you obtain water for domestic use?          1. Fetching
                                                          2. Buying from vendors
                                                          3. Hose connection
                                                          4. Rain harvesting

14.    (If fetching) From what type of source do you      1. Borehole
       get your water during wet season?                  2. Protected spring
                                                          3. Public stand pipe
                                                          4. Open well
                                                          5. Steam/river

15.    How far is the water source?                       1. <100 metres
                                                          2. 100 - 199m
                                                          3. 200 - 299m
                                                          4. 300 - 399m
                                                          5. 400 - 499m
                                                          6. 500 or more

16.    (If fetching) From what type of source do you      1. Borehole
       get your water during dry season?                  2. Protected spring
                                                          3. Public stand pipe
                                                          4. Open well
                                                          5. Stream/river

17.    How far is the water source?                       1. <100 metres
                                                          2. 100 - 199m
                                                          3. 200 - 299m
                                                          4. 300 - 399m
                                                          5. 400 - 499m
                                                          6. 500 or more

18.    (If usual source is protected) Who protected the                            Go to 20
       source?




                                                 55
No.     Question                                    Answer Codes                           Skip

19.     (If using unprotected source) How far is    1. <100 metres
        the nearest protected source)               2. 100 - 199m
                                                    3. 200 - 299m
                                                    4. 300 - 399m
                                                    5. 400 - 499m
                                                    6. 500 or more

20.     (If using unprotected source) why don't
        you use protected source?

21.     (If fetching) Who fetches water for the
        household?

22.     (If buying from vendors) Who pays for       1. Husband/father
        the water?                                  2. Wife/mother
                                                    3. Other family members

23.     On average, how many jerrycans of           1. 1-2
        water does your household use daily?        2. 3-4
                                                    3. 5-6
                                                    4. 7+

24.     Are there times when you fail to get        1. Yes
        water?                                      2. No

25.     If yes explain




D     DEMAND FOR WATER AND DECISION-MAKING
No.     Question                                                Answers Codes                 Skip

25.     Before the water source was installed,w as water        1. Yes
        your greatest need?                                     2. No

26.     What problems related to water did you face before      1. Unsafe water
        source was improved?                                    2. Inadequate water
                                                                3. Long distance
                                                                4. High costs of buying
                                                                water
                                                                5. Others
27.     Who initiated the idea of constructing or protecting    1. Users
        the water source?                                       2. Local leaders
                                                                3. Outside the community
                                                                4. Other
28.     Did you or a member of your family take part in the     1. yes
        decision to construct improve the water source?         2. No



                                                   56
29.   Did you or a member of your household approve the        1. Yes
      idea of constructing or protecting the water source?     2. No

30.   Who made the final decision to improve or construct      1. Users
      the water source?                                        2. Local leaders
                                                               3. Outsiders
                                                               4. Concerted decision

31.   Were you or a member of your household consulted         1. Yes
      on the technology to be used?                            2. No

32.   Were you told the respective costs of different          1. Yes
      technologies?                                            2. No

33.   Was the technology used the one of your choice?          1. Yes
                                                               2. No

34.   If not, why was technology of your choice not used?

35.   Are you satisfied with the technology type that was      1. Yes
      used?                                                    2. No
36.   Give reasons for your answer

37.   Were you or a member of your household consulted         1. Yes
      on the location of the water source?                     2. No

38.   Are you satisfied with the current location of the       1. Yes
      water source?                                            2. No

39.   Give reasons for your answer

40.   Did you contribute anything towards the construction     1. Yes
      of the water source?                                     2. No

41.   If yes, what did you contribute to the construction of   1. Money
      the water source?                                        2. Materials
                                                               3. labour
                                                               4. Other

42.   How much

43.   How did you find the level of that amount?               1. High
                                                               2. Fair
                                                               3. Low

44.   Currently, how much do you pay for maintenance of
      the source?

45.   Would you say that is too high, low or fair              1. High
                                                               2. Fair
                                                               3. Low

46.   Are there times when you have failed to pay the          1. Yes
      maintenance fees?                                        2. No




                                                 57
47.     How do you come with that?                               1. Borrow
                                                                 2. Talk to authorities
                                                                 3. Go to alternative sources
                                                                 4. Nothing
                                                                 5. Others

48.     What do the water authorities do when you fail to        1. Deny me water
        pay?                                                     2. Allow me pay later
                                                                 3. Nothing
                                                                 4. Others

49.     Do you get enough amount of water from the source?       1. Yes
                                                                 2. No

50.     If not why?



E     PERCEPTION OF BENEFITS
No.     Question                                        Answer codes                            Skip

51.     Do you know any dangers of using                1. Yes
        unclean/unsafe water                            2. No

52.     What dangers                                    1. Diseases
                                                        2. Poor Hygiene
                                                        3. Others

53.     If diseases, what disease

54.     At the time of improving the source did you     1. Yes
        know any benefits that would result             2. No

55.     Did anybody inform you of those benefits        1. Yes
        before the source was improved?                 2. No




                                                 58

								
To top