designing water supply and sanitation projects · web viewit was however recommended by an...

Designing water supply and sanitation projects to meet demandthe engineer’s roleInception Report

Ian Smout and Paul Deverill

June 2000

Water, Engineering and Development CentreLoughborough University LeicestershireLE11 3TU UK

Designing water supply and sanitation projects to meet demand: inception report: June 2000

Contents

1. Introduction to project 21.1 Description of project outputs 21.2 Structure of Inception Report 2

2. Project activities 42.1 Literature review 42.2 Field research with project collaborators 42.3 Review group 42.4 Research reports 42.5 Guidelines 4

3. Review of project methodology 63.1 Work to date 63.2 Key changes to project methodology 63.3 Workplan 8

4. Key issues arising from literature review 94.1 Scope 94.2 Designing for demand: general implications 94.3 Water supply 114.4 Sanitation 124.5 Poverty focus 13

5. Proposed dissemination strategies 145.1 Expected target audiences 145.2 Dissemination methodologies 14

Annex A: Updated project proposal A-1

Annex B: Research framework B-1

Annex C: Literature review C-1

Annex D: Draft terms of reference D-1

Annex E: Project Flyer E-1

2

1. Introduction to projectDesigning water supply and sanitation projects to meet demand - the engineer's role' is a Knowledge and Research (KaR) project funded by the Department for International Development (DFID). The project is managed by the Water and Engineering Development Centre (WEDC), and involves input from both inde-pendent consultants and four collaborating organisations: the Mvula Trust (South Africa), Oxfam GB (Tanzania), NEWAH (Nepal) and UNICEF (Mad-hya Pradesh and Orissa in India). The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry of South Africa (DWAF) is also a key stakeholder as a proportion of the research funds are coming from a joint project with DFID (South Africa).

The purpose of the project, as set out in the project logframe, is to 'produce practical guidelines which will enable watsan staff to offer rural and peri-urban communities, especially the poor, informed choices of upgradable levels of ser-vice and technologies'.

1.1 Description of project outputs

The project outputs consist of the following:

An in-depth research report reviewing current international practices and promising approaches to designing both water and sanitation projects to meet demand. This work will be informed by detailed case studies and les-sons learnt from around the world and in particular from the project collab-orators. If required, specific tools and processes identified by the research as potentially useful may be tested and developed by the project collaborators.

Detailed report concerning the identification and participation of the poor in case study projects. This work is to be focused on Oxfam's current work in Tanzania, but will also be informed by other projects and the experiences of the other collaborators.

A guideline booklet on designing water supply and sanitation projects for demand. This is to be a practical document for engineers involved in imple-menting projects. It will be produced in draft form, and reviewed in a num-ber of workshops with the project collaborators. Collaborators will be en-couraged to use and monitor the guidelines.

One or more papers which will be presented at the 26th WEDC conference in Dhaka and other international fora.

1.2 Structure of Inception Report

This inception report provides an up to date picture of how the project stands in May 2000. Key changes are reflected in an updated Scope of Work (Section 3 of the KAR contract), which is attached in Annex A.


Section 2 of this Inception Report summarises the project activities and section 3 consists of a review of project methodology. A new project work plan has been included in the updated Scope of Work. The project methodology is based on a detailed research framework that is attached at Annex B.

Key issues arising from the literature review are developed in Section 4. The literature review itself is attached as Annex C.

Draft terms of reference with Mvula Trust and Oxfam Tanzania are attached at Annex D, and a flyer produced as part of the project's dissemination strategy is at Annex E.

2


2. Project activitiesThe following major activities were identified in the Scope of Work, an up-dated version of which has been attached at Annex A.

2.1 Literature review

The literature review draws on published papers, reports and existing project documentation, and has identified key areas for research. The literature review has been used to develop a detailed research framework and identify key areas for further investigation.

2.2 Field research with project collaborators

Dialogue has been initiated with the four project partners, with the initial aim of agreeing terms of reference for their collaboration. The collaboration is to take two forms: a) identifying, investigating and recording case studies and b) identifying and testing and monitoring potentially useful approaches. In order to ensure an adequate degree of buy in, the specific needs and interests of each collaborator are being identified. Dialogue will be maintained with collaborat-ors throughout the project to exchange ideas and report on progress.

In Tanzania, a particular focus of the collaboration concerns the identification and participation of poor groups in demand responsive projects. Simon Bibby, a social development consultant, will be primarily responsible for this aspect of the project.

2.3 Review group

A project review group is to be established in order to review the outputs pro-duced. The group will consist of about eight experts, with a range of experi-ence in terms of their interests, sector involvement (i.e. government, NGO, in-ternational organisation or the private sector) and geographical knowledge.

2.4 Research reports

The lessons learnt from the field will be combined with material from other key projects and that identified by the literature review to form the basis of the two research reports concerning designing for demand and the participation of the poor. Both reports are due to be completed by January 2001.

2.5 Guidelines

Work will start on preparing draft guidelines once the field visits have been completed. Key components of the guidelines will be discussed with project

3


partners. The draft guidelines are due to be completed by February 2001. Local workshops are being planned with each collaborator to review the completed guidelines. Following this, collaborators will be encouraged to field test the guidelines on particular projects and monitor the results. It is intended to com-plete the final version of the guidelines by August 2001.

4


3. Review of project methodology3.1 Work to date

Final approval for the project was given by DFID in December 1999. However, with the departure of the principal WEDC Research Associate involved (see below), work was slow in the early months and started in earnest in March 2000. To date the following has been achieved:

A research framework has been developed (Annex B). This document estab-lishes key focus areas for the research, the factors involved, how the re-search is to be conducted and any specific opportunities that have been iden-tified. Some comments on the framework have been received from collab-orators and it has been refined accordingly. Its development has also been guided by the literature review.

The literature review has been completed (Annex C). Key findings are dis-cussed in Section 4. The review has helped identify a number of key pro-jects from which lessons can undoubtedly be learnt. Details of these are now being collated.

Dialogue has been established with the project collaborators, and the re-search framework used to identify key opportunities for their involvement. Terms of reference have been agreed with Mvula Trust and prepared in draft format for Oxfam in Tanzania (Annex D). Terms of reference for the parti-cipation of NEWAH and UNICEF will be prepared in June.

Thought is being given to the dissemination strategy, which is recognised as a key part of the project. A flyer has been produced (Annex E) to publicise the project, and a website will shortly be established. Local and regional dis-semination strategies will be discussed with project collaborators during the field research.

3.2 Key changes to project methodology

3.2.1 Links with other projects

The most significant change to the methodology proposed is a plan to make in-creased use of case studies, other than those associated with our collaborators. It is intended to identify and develop links with key projects, with the aim of learning lessons and disseminating ideas. This is to be tied in with the project website. To facilitate dialogue, the former Demand Responsive Approach (DRA) mail list may be re-established.

5


The project will also benefit by establishing links with related research work currently being undertaken. The following research projects have been identi-fied as being potentially very useful in this respect:

DFID KaR 'Cost Recovery in Water and Sanitation Projects' managed by En-vironmental Resources Management (ERM) Ltd. A meeting has been held with ERM to discuss possible linkages. The need to ensure that guideline outputs are consistent has been recognised. Dominic Waughray of ERM has been iden-tified as a member of the project review team.

DFID KaR 'Price and service differentiation of utility watsan for the urban poor' managed by WEDC. There is a clear need to link with this project, which explores how urban water utilities can assess demand and market water supply options to low income communities as part of a strategic marketing approach.

DFID KaR 'Guidelines for sustainable handpump projects in Africa' managed by WEDC is just starting. Although focused on one technology in one region, there are many issues of joint concern including the establishment of full life costs for a number of handpumps.

UNDP/IRC Research 'Participation, Gender and Demand Responsiveness: Making the links with impact and sustainability of WSS investments'. This re-search is being undertaken as part of a five year global initiative on participat-ory learning and action (PLA) by UNDP-World Bank. Common areas of in-terest in this work concern the participation of the poor, participative demand assessment techniques and the cross cutting issue of gender awareness in water and sanitation projects.

3.2.2 Change of personnel

Sarah Parry-Jones, originally the principal WEDC research associate with re-sponsibilities for the project, has now been replaced by Paul Deverill. This con-tributed to the slow project start. Paul has experience of working with Mvula Trust in South Africa and also has experience of working in Orissa. The Scope of Work has been amended accordingly.

The team is otherwise unchanged:

Ian Smout (project manager) Paul Deverill (water supply and sanitation engineer) Kevin Sansom (institutional specialist) Sue Coates (hygiene promotion and human resource development specialist) Simon Bibby (social development specialist) Alison Poole (environmental economist).

6


3.3 Workplan

An updated workplan has included as part of the revised Scope of Work (An-nex A). This reflects the delayed start date. It is still planned to complete the project by August 2001.

The field research is a key element of the work plan. The following dates have been planned:

Country Visit dates WEDC person involved

South Africa 8 – 31 May 2000 8 – 24 May 2000

Paul DeverillAlison Wedgwood

Tanzania 15 Jul - 3 Aug 200017 - 28 Jul 2000

Paul DeverillSimon Bibby

Nepal 14 Aug - 4 Sep 2000

Paul Deverill

India 18 Sep - 6 Oct Paul Deverill

7


4. Key issues arising from literature review4.1 Scope

The scope of this section is to extract and develop key issues identified by the literature review (Annex C), rather than to repeat its conclusions.

4.2 Designing for demand: general implications

The literature supports the fact that responding to demand improves both the use and the sustainability of water and sanitation projects. It is household de-mand, rather than the demand of a representative body such as a village com-mittee, which needs to be responded to. The research shows that household de-mand, expressed as willingness to pay (WTP), may vary considerably within a community (Sara, 1998)

Demand needs to be informed before it can be expressed. This applies not only to level of service, expressed in terms of characteristics based on household perceptions and values, but also how that service is delivered. It also applies to every phase in the planning cycle: selection of options, planning, construction, operation and maintenance. The benefits and costs (the latter including finan-cial and non-financial inputs such as labour, time and materials) of each option must be presented clearly, accurately and honestly. Of crucial importance is the associated financial system for paying contributions, upgrading charges and tariffs. If in overall terms the costs outweigh the perceived benefits, it is un-likely that households will change from their current system.

Sanitation is fundamentally different to water supply because in most cases the cost exceeds people's (unmodified) perceptions of benefits. In this case, de-mand has to be created rather than informed. Demand creation is achieved through actively identifying, promoting and marketing positive perceptions of sanitation, such as privacy and status, to a clearly defined 'target audience'. In-formation regarding options form part of that process.

In the broadest terms, the role of engineers in designing for demand is thus twofold, based on the need to:

a) inform demand and work with other disciplines as necessary to create de-mand, and

b) respond to demand and come up with options that are either based on or cap-ture WTP.

The process is iterative, involving dialogue between households and technical staff. The process is often incremental, in that the 'final' solution is developed

8


in steps, starting with a number of options and ending up with an integrated financial and managerial package that concerns the whole project cycle.

In terms of demand responsive approaches (in the plural, reflecting that there is no blue print) a number of questions remain unanswered:

If household demand is critical, to what extent can this be aggregated through a process of social intermediation, without 'losing' it altogether?

In the same context, the role of women in both water and sanitation projects is crucial. Ignoring this can lead to a project failing to meet its objectives in terms of the use of facilities and their sustainability. By focusing on WTP and household demand, it is easy to focus on men. How should the needs and associated demand of women be established and reflected in the final design? The literature review will be extended to help address this issue.

It is clear that demand responsive approaches require not only technical in-puts, but a high degree of social development, intermediation and facilita-tion. Are these skills available and if they are not, what can be done?

In the same context, how should responsibilities be defined? Who, for ex-

ample, is responsible for establishing financial and managerial options?

The process of informing and responding to demand is more complex than a top down supply driven approach. What are the implications for the cost of projects and the time required to implement them? How can cost-effective solutions be identified, bearing in mind the link between quality of engin-eering and the sustainability of the project?

There are also a number of implications for engineers in particular:

In order to capture household demand, a range of technical and delivery op-tions need to be identified, developed and presented. This implies that en-gineers will need to consider technologies and approaches with which they may not be familiar.

Engineers will have to work with social intermediaries to present the charac-teristics of different options, based on the perceptions of households. It is not clear from the literature how this is achieved. For example, how do en-gineers assist with the preparation of sanitation ladders and other participat-ive tools that inform potential users of characteristics and costs of different options? Engineers must also accept that non-technical issues may have a considerable impact on the final design adopted. The acceptability of this situation to many 'conventional' engineers is questionable.

9


Options must be fully costed, not only in financial terms but also in terms of any non-financial costs such as time and voluntary labour. The cost of pro-curing materials, spares and technical assistance will also vary considerably from location to location, and 'hidden' costs such as the need to periodically deepen a well or empty a toilet pit should also be presented. There is little evidence confirming that information of this type is accessible, or that sys-tems (e.g. checklists) have been established to facilitate its formulation. Methods by which costs can be established and presented to communities must be researched, while recognising that operators may pass on costs to consumers in various ways (mobile phones provide a good example).

4.3 Water supply

The literature review identified a number of key issues concerning the imple-mentation of water supply using demand responsive approaches.

In rural areas in particular, water is needed for a variety of domestic and non-domestic purposes, and several sources may be used. Some of these purposes and sources may vary seasonally. Income levels also vary according to the availability of work. All of these factors influence WTP, yet it is unclear how this is captured through demand assessment. In some projects, it clearly is not, as demonstrated by the seasonal return of some households to traditional water sources (for example, DFID 1998 and Breslin 1999).

Whilst designing for demand is clearly needed, engineers must balance demand with supply. Specifically, the sustainable yield of the supply can be a limiting factor and must be considered. This is especially so after the project is com-pleted and the population grows, or householders upgrade to a higher level of service associated with increased consumption. Such factors must be reflected in the design of the project.

As already implied, the design adopted must meet demand throughout the pro-ject's life. There is a need to investigate how demand assessment and other tools can be used to predict future demand. At the same time, it is also clear that the managerial capacity of the water committee or equivalent organisation must be able to manage future demand. This can be facilitated through project design (by the use of engineering, financial tools and participatory techniques that promote understanding of the problem). There is evidence that many engineers lack the ability or desire to identify and develop non-conventional options, especially low cost options. To an extent, this may also reflect rigid design and water quality standards. Experience sug-gests that insufficient attention is given to investigating the potential to im-prove and replicate existing water supplies. Technical options may include in-house water treatment and improved methods of transporting water. In order to

10


be able to offer a menu of feasible options, engineers must have the ability, willingness, time and budget to identify these.

Alternative systems for operation and maintenance (O&M) must also be con-sidered. Some reports highlight the problem of O&M systems failing in the long term, when there is a major failure or a piece of equipment simply wears out. O&M is a fundamental and integral aspect of any technological option (IRC, 1997). In presenting technical options, the responsibilities of primary and secondary stakeholders must be agreed at an early stage in order that these op-tions can be realistically appraised. One issue that is not adequately covered in the literature review as it stands is risk. If communities are to appraise options, they must appreciate the associ-ated risk of failure that they may be exposing themselves to, both in the future (e.g. if a water table falls) or during implementation (e.g. if a drilling rig fails to find water). This is particularly true if the community is contributing to cap-ital costs.

4.4 Sanitation

The main difference between sanitation and water supply is that there is usually existing demand for the latter and little if any for the former. Demand for sanit-ation has therefore to be created, based on promoting perceived benefits rather than the promise of improved health, which is in any case dependent on many other factors.

Engineers still have the dual task of informing demand and responding to it. The difference is that in the case of sanitation, initial demand is at a much lower level. Secondly, whereas engineers and consumers have a relatively common understanding of the characteristics of water supplies (e.g. location, quantity and reliability though perceptions of quality may differ), this cannot be said of sanitation. Issues such as culture and belief may be highly important, whilst what is private and comfortable to an engineer may be public and highly uncomfortable to a potential user. The issues of gender and age come into play. For example, if children are to be encouraged to use a toilet, it must be de-signed accordingly.

In presenting options, all this must be taken into account. Engineers are as likely to be responding to people's perceptions of comfort and status by work-ing out an appropriate toilet seating arrangement, as establishing the basic tech-nology to be used.

In presenting technical options, the literature confirms the importance of in-vestigating current practice. Many engineers have a bias against systems with which they are unfamiliar (Mara, 1999). For example, the ventilated improved pit latrine is promoted, but the more affordable sanplat is not considered. What

11


to do when a pit is full must also be considered, together with their associated costs. Different methods of implementation should be presented as options, for example, on site fabrication or the centralised construction of toilet slabs.

It must be recognised that sanitation can have a major environmental impact, which can in turn affect others. When households are informed of the choices open to them, this must also be considered. For example, the use of septic tanks in a peri-urban area, discharging effluent into open storm drains, may have a profound impact on 'downstream' households.

The important point was made during the electronic conference on strategic sanitation that demand responsive approaches may too easily ignore the im-portance of promoting changes in behaviour associated with improved hygiene (Blackett, 1999). This is something that needs further investigation, and in par-ticular, the use of participatory approaches such as PHAST1 to get appropriate hygiene messages across whilst promoting sanitation. The fact that women seem to be more responsive to this type of approach than men is important.

4.5 Poverty focus

The literature review confirms that poor groups within communities are rarely identified and targeted by water supply or sanitation programmes, whether these are demand responsive or not. Without this, demand responsive ap-proaches in particular are likely to exclude and further marginalise the poor. For this reason, there is a key need to focus on the poor.

At the same time, it is also apparent that in many cases the poor are paying a great deal for water, albeit possibly at the expense of their food budget. The implication is that poor people within communities are often willing to pay something for a reliable service that meets their needs.

It is clear that the poor must be identified and included in demand responsive approaches, and that their WTP is captured with appropriate options and deliv-ery methods. There may also be opportunities for cross subsidy at community level, indeed, this is something that has occurred in some rural water supply projects. More investigation is needed in order to establish how 'financial solu-tions' of this sort can be presented. Poverty is often invisible and explicit monitoring systems should be introduced to inform implementation staff of the impact of the project in this respect (IRC, 1999). A checklist has been proposed to do this.

1 PHAST: Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation: an adaptable and flexible approach de-veloped by UNDP in the early 1990s based on participatory learning through mostly graphical techniques adapted to meet the specific circumstances of a community.

12


5. Proposed dissemination strategies5.1 Expected target audiences

5.1.1 Engineers

The guidelines are primarily intended for use by engineers and other technical staff at programme or project level. In terms of institutional involvement - private, government or NGO, that depends largely on the country concerned. For example, in South Africa, there are relatively few NGOs, with water sup-ply projects being implemented by private companies or consortia. In other countries, NGO or Government takes the lead.

5.1.2 Other Project Staff

Implementing demand responsive projects inevitably requires engineers to work closely with other professionals. For example, a project involving parti-cipative demand assessment could often require the skills of a social develop-ment expert. Similarly, tariff design may require input from an economist. It is vital that the guidelines produced are accessible for non-engineers, in order that the team involved is informed of the engineer's role in what should be an integ-rated, iterative and transparent process. For the same reason, an overview of non-engineering activities, such as demand assessment, should be included in the guidelines, showing how they fit into the project process. Seen in this way, the guideline will also be a valuable tool for project and programme managers. The overall emphasis, however, is centred on the engineer's role.

5.1.3 Policy makers

Whilst primarily directed at implementing agencies, it is important the guidelines, or at very least the principles contained within them, are accessible to policy makers and intermediate staff. Frequently these will be government staff, increasingly responsible for assessing proposals or facilitating, monitor-ing and evaluating projects. This audience may need an additional section or summary, either as part of the document or as a complementary volume.

5.2 Dissemination methodologies

Dissemination relates both to how the information is presented within the guidelines and how the guidelines are introduced to the target audiences.

Clearly, in order to be practical, the final document must be relatively small, robust and readable. Its content (and binding) must be flexible enough to ac-commodate specific-to-country themes. This is especially important if the buy-in of our project partners, and the document's local impact, is to be maximised.

13


For example, the technical options for rural water supply in South Africa in-clude a variety of sophisticated prepayment systems, which are not applicable elsewhere. Such differences cannot be ignored. Flexibility would also be useful if a supplementary volume or section is to be included for policy makers and intermediaries (see above).

To ensure both buy-in and applicability, it is important that potential users of the guidelines are closely involved with their development. This process is fa-cilitated by access to e-mail. When in draft form, it is intended to workshop the guidelines in each 'partner country'. How this is done is best worked out with the collaborating organisations. For example, in South Africa, a number of re-gional workshops, associated with an existing programme, may provide the best solution. The cost implications will need to be established.

Dissemination does not start with a draft set of guidelines but is seen as an on-going process of development and information exchange. In this context, the flyer at Annex E should be seen as part of the project's dissemination strategy.

References:Blackett, I. (1999) Where is the health aspect to the strategic sanitation ap-proach? Contribution to electronic debate on strategic sanitation, 28 October 1999 http: //www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/gesi/.

Breslin, N. (1999) Lessons From the Field: Rethinking community manage-ment for sustainability: Rural and peri-urban water supply and sanitation in South Africa - appropriate practice conference East London March 1999.

DFID (1998) Mid-term output to purpose review: Oju and Obi LGA water and sanitation project DFID West and North Africa Department, October 1998.

IRC (1997) Linking technology choice with operation and maintenance for low cost water supply and sanitation. Operation and maintenance working group of Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council, IRC The Hague 1997.

IRC (1999) Discussion paper: Demand responsive programming and equity: a discussion paper for the water and sanitation sector:http://www.irc.nl/home/comm/demand.htm 1999.

Mara, D. (1999) Peri-urban sanitation Contribution to electronic debate on strategic sanitation, 13 October 1999 http: //www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/gesi/.

Sara, J. and Katz, T. (1998) Making rural water supply sustainable: report on the impact of project rules UNDP WSP 1998.

14

ANNEX C

Designing water and sanitation projects to meet demand – the engineer’s role

Literature Review

Designing water supply and sanitation projects to meet demand: literature review: June 2000

Table of contents

1. IntroductionC-3

2. Why design for demand? C-42.1 What is demand? C-52.2 Demand responsive approaches C-52.3 Implications for the engineer C-6

3. Demand assessment and WTP C-83.1 Demand assessment techniques C-83.2 Informing demand C-93.3 Responding to informed demand C-113.4 Summary: implications for the engineer C-12

4. Demand responsive water supply in practice C-134.1 Information from ‘model’ approaches C-134.2 Key issues from the field C-144.3 Summary C-17

5. Demand responsive sanitation C-195.1 Social marketing C-195.2 Strategic sanitation C-195.3 Perceived weaknesses of SSA C-205.4 Informing demand with sanitation options C-215.5 Summary C-23

6. Poverty C-256.1 Designing for the poor C-256.2 Implications for practice C-266.3 Poverty, demand assessment and the engineer’s role C-276.4 Summary C-29

7. ConclusionsC-30

References: C-31

C-2


1. IntroductionThis literature review draws on information from both formal and informal sources. This is a reflection of the fact that the project concerns the identifica-tion of good and bad practice as well as established theory. Much use has been made of contributions to two recent electronic conferences, the first concerning demand responsive approaches to water supply and sanitation, the second con-cerning strategic sanitation.

The review is structured in seven sections. Section 2 provides an overview of demand and demand responsive approaches. Section 3 specifically looks at de-mand assessment, its relevance, and the role of the engineer in both informing demand and responding to it. Section 4 and 5 consider water supply and sanita-tion issues respectively, based very much on practical experience and case studies. Section 6 looks specifically at the implications of designing for de-mand on poverty. Conclusions are made in Section 7.

C-3


2. Why design for demand?In 1992, in a review of experience gained during the International drinking wa-ter supply and sanitation decade, Sandy Cairncross concluded: ‘The principal lesson is that progress and continuing success depend most on responding to consumer demand’ (Cairncross, 1992).

In writing this, Cairncross was drawing on lessons learnt from many successful and unsuccessful projects implemented throughout the 1980’s. It was observed that water and sanitation systems which did not meet people’s demands had problems of under-use, poor maintenance and poor cost recovery. As such they were not sustained (White, J. 1997). Other studies have shown that consumers may be willing to pay (WTP) substantially more for higher levels of service than that they were actually receiving (Altaf and Hughes 1994).

In sanitation, it is now widely recognised that providing infrastructure in itself has little impact. What is important is the extent that facilities are used and what they are used for. Many examples have been provided of toilets being used for, among other times, storage facilities, bathing cubicles even and keep-ing chickens (Smout et al, 1997). In order that toilets are used as intended, there is now a considerable body of evidence that demand for sanitation has first to be created, based on building on people’s felt needs and perceptions.

Although being ‘responsive to consumer demand’ is the key to progress and continuing success of both water supply and sanitation projects, it is also clear that there are many different interpretations of what the word ‘demand’ actu-ally means. Treating water and sanitation as economic goods signifies they are commodities with an associated demand exercised by consumers. Demand is expressed as willingness to pay (WTP) which can be measured. These state-ments reflect an economic view of demand. Parry-Jones (1999) summarises how different professionals - engineers, economists and sociologists, can see demand from quite different viewpoints (Box 1).

Box 1: Demand as a concept

What does demand actually mean?

To economists: WTP for a particular level of serviceTo social scientists: a basic need or human right that must be addressed in the context of

poverty, equity and the empowerment of low income groups.To engineers: the amount of water needed to supply a population.

(Parry-Jones 1999)

C-4


2.1 What is demand?

In overall terms, it would seem that most practitioners view demand as having both economic and social components, and agree that by responding to de-mand, projects have an improved chance of being sustainable. The key issue is how to achieve this in practice in an equitable way. (Sara, 1999). Certainly the previous rule of thumb often employed by engineers, that communities will pay 5% of their income for an improved water supply has been shown to be erro-neous (World Bank 1993, White, J. 1997).

2.2 Demand responsive approaches

Implementation methods that capture demand in order to improve the potential sustainability of a project are all by definition demand responsive. It is clear from the literature and many informal accounts of projects that there is no agreed method of measuring, interpreting and reacting to demand. The ap-proach adopted will inevitably reflect both local circumstances and the ideo-logy of the agency involved. It therefore makes sense to refer to degrees of de-mand responsiveness: ‘The degree to which a project is demand driven de-pends on who makes the decisions about the type and level of service and what range of decisions the user makes (instead of having decisions made for them’. Garn (1998)

This issue of their being no single blue print approach is made more complic-ated by the development and advocacy of the ‘demand responsive approach’ (DRA) by the World Bank. It can be seen as a generic model that in practice has been adopted, adapted and used by many international donors and imple-menting agencies, for example, the Mvula Trust in South Africa.

The key characteristics of DRA have been identified as:

the community initiates and makes informed choices about service options, based on its WTP for services and acceptance of responsibility for sub-sequent operation and maintenance;

the community contributes to investment costs relative to level of service and has significant control over how funds are managed;

there is an adequate flow of information to the community as well as pro-cedures for facilitating collective action;

communities can choose how goods and services are delivered and how wa-ter and sanitation services are managed;

government has a facilitative role, sets clear national policies and strategies and creates an enabling environment;

the community or representative body owns and is responsible for sustain-ing its facilities;

C-5


community capacity is appropriately strengthened; and

innovation is promoted and the need for flexibility recognised.

(Rall 1999)

To date, relatively few projects have managed to translate all these characterist-ics into actual practice. However, the World Bank has developed an associated set of project rules and carried out a sophisticated study to examine their influ-ence on sustainability (Sara and Katz, 1998). This study concluded that:

sustainability was higher in communities where projects followed a demand responsive approach; however, training and education, the presence of some sort of community organization with managerial responsibilities and above all the quality of construction were just as or more important in determining the success of a scheme;

the demand responsive approach influences sustainability more when it is focused at household rather than at community level (as represented by a traditional leader or committee);

effective household involvement requires good information flow, implying the need for well trained extension staff and support materials;

flexible design standards are needed to capture community choice;

the implementing organization had to be responsive to meet demand and allow communities to decide for example how their funds are spent; and

the cost sharing strategy should ensure that any community or household contributions required reflect both capital and operational costs.

The study concerned water rather than sanitation projects, and made no men-tion of the impact of DRA on the poor and other marginalized groups. Neither did it investigate the relationship between gender and demand or address envir-onmental concerns. However, it is a valuable resource that emphasises that if projects are to be sustainable, not only must they be demand responsive but this must be backed up by good engineering and appropriate training.

2.3 Implications for the engineer

Based on these findings, demand responsive approaches have number of im-plications for engineers; engineers will have to provide households with a range of technical options

with their associated lifecycle costs rather than a single solution. This im-plies the need for technical flexibility and adaptability;

these options will include not just level of service but options for how that service will be delivered;

C-6


to be able to do this, engineers will have to be informed by consumer de-mand;

determining and presenting a number of feasible options (rather than a single option) is likely to require increased engineering inputs, which in turn will result in increased costs;

engineers must view users as consumers and communities as clients: this implies that there may be two clients if one includes the funding organisa-tion;

engineers will have to communicate directly or indirectly with households rather focus on committees; and

engineers will have to work more closely with social intermediaries and other professionals and be willing to accept non-technical issues in the de-termination of technical options.

C-7


3. Demand assessment and WTP3.1 Demand assessment techniques

The DFID guidance manual on water supply and sanitation is clear about the use of demand assessment techniques: in its section on economic and financial perspectives, it states: “At the centre of a demand responsive approach is the process of demand assessment, used to ascertain what levels of service users are willing and able to pay for “ (WELL 1998).

Just as demand means different things to different people, so does the term ‘de-mand assessment’. A range of techniques has been developed, with different inputs, characteristics and outputs, and these are well documented by Parry Jones (1997). The three main techniques are contingent valuation methodolo-gies (CVM), revealed preference (RP) or heuristic studies, and a combination of various participatory techniques. These are described in the following table.

Table 1: Comparison of demand assessment techniques

Characteristic CVM RP Participatory Techniques

Methodology Detailed question-naire to establish WTP for number of options

Detailed survey of ex-isting behaviour (e.g. associated with water vendors)

Group discussions and exercises with trained facilitator

Principle purpose Explicit determination of WTP for improved systems.

Data on current use of existing system: provides information for planners to guide future investments

Establish local percep-tion, priorities and solu-tions. Can inform ex-ternal agency and the community itself.

Inputs needed Economist’s input to design questionnaire. Trained enumerators

Trained enumerators Trained facilitator and participative tools.

Outputs provided(specifically related to demand)

WTP for particular options and eco-nomic status of re-spondents

Details of existing use and functioning of ser-vices

Dependent on tech-niques used and ability of facilitator.

Use Urban/peri-urban wa-ter and sanitation projects

Most often for urban or peri-urban water sup-plies

Smaller scale rural water and sanitation

C-8


Characteristic CVM RP Participatory Techniques

Disadvantages High cost of special-ised inputs. Data rarely gender disag-gregated

Does not directly es-tablish WTP for poten-tial options.

Results can be biased: needs well trained fa-cilitator.

Compatibility CVM determines maximum WTP and is theoretically difficult to match with the WTP for a particular option deduced through a participatory exercise. However, both WTP and participatory approaches can use RP surveys to support data.

One potential disadvantage with participatory approaches is that community meetings and PRA exercises can be ‘biased’ or opinions led by stronger mem-bers of the community. Parry Jones makes the point that there is little available information concerning the use of participative approaches to assess demand in peri-urban areas. It is also clear that relatively few projects have successfully applied demand assessment on the ground.

3.2 Informing demand

In terms of implementing new projects, both CVM and RP demand assessment techniques have the capacity to give potential users information about the char-acteristics, benefits and costs of different service and delivery options so that they can make an informed choice. In every case study reviewed, this has been attempted. How informing potential consumers is achieved and to what extent this is done varies according to the situation and the demand assessment tech-nique that is being used.

When new services are planned, households must be informed of what options they have. This has been achieved in a number of ways, including:

by explaining to the householder the attributes of each option. The key point here is that the attributes selected are based on user perceptions rather than those of the implementing agency involved.

by using demonstration facilities – this applies more to sanitation than water supply (see Section 4); and

the use of photographs or models;

visits to other projects; and

by using participatory tools such as the sanitation ladder originally de-veloped as part of the participatory hygiene and sanitation transformation (PHAST) approach.

The process of demand assessment is iterative and requires mutual trust, an un-derstanding of user perceptions and good communication. The degree of itera-

C-9


tion needed depends on the demand assessment technique adopted. For ex-ample, a menu of technical and financial options with their life cycle costs could be presented to households in the form of a water or sanitation ladder, based on accurate knowledge of their perceptions and circumstances. Clearly, there must be sufficient options if the demand of different groups within the community concerned is to be captured. Further dialogue is likely to be neces-sary before the final plan is agreed.

Alternatively, the characteristics of different options could be presented in or-der to establish the WTP of a representative number of households. This in-formation is then used to come up with a technical solution that best meets this demand.

Input from engineers is needed to inform households of options, costs and be-nefits (an integral part of demand assessment) and then respond to the informa-tion on demand received. How this can be done is explored in the following two sections on water supply and sanitation.

WTP is not just influenced by the levels of service offered compared to what is currently being used and the user’s perceptions of relative costs and benefits. Research has shown many other issues are involved, including;

the system of financing options;

in the case of water supply, what the water is actually going to be used for (and there are often several different uses, some of which may be seasonal);

income levels, again, these are often seasonal or vary in some other way;

the education level of the household and its various members;

other prices, e.g. of electricity or food;

the value ascribed to women’s time by men; and

the credibility of the organisations involved at various levels.

(Source: UNDP 1997 and World Bank 1993)

Engineers will primarily be concerned with establishing a menu of different levels of service and various mechanisms for their implementation. They must also provide information on their associated costs and benefits. However, en-gineers need to understand the importance and influence of other factors if the most sustainable solution is to be identified. In particular, in the absence of a better qualified professional, the engineer may well be required to come up with various financial options.

In many cases, it is the lack of appropriate financing systems for both private connections to water supplies and for paying for sanitation which have signific-antly reduced demand (Derbyshire and Vickers, 1997)

C-10


The DFID manual also makes the point that although demand assessment is somewhat focused on WTP, it has a much wider application. A brief look at the results of demand assessment exercises conducted in South Asia reveals the in-formation gathered has also been used to:

highlight people’s perceptions of their current service, how it is delivered, satisfaction levels, and the service which they require;

highlight gender concerns and the high cost of the coping strategies of the poor;

design acceptable cost recovery systems based on household cash flow;

establish acceptable tariffs that include elements of cross subsidisation;

anticipate future demand for higher levels of service through incremental development; and

establish baseline data for future monitoring.

(Source: UNDP 1997)

In the literature, theory receives better coverage than practice. Parry Jones identifies a number of grey areas in her report in this respect. There are few ex-amples illustrating the use of demand assessment for sanitation, where demand has not just to be informed but created. In overall terms, there is little informa-tion how the results of demand assessment exercises are aggregated and used to design an equitable tariff structure. There is also doubt whether elements of different demand assessment methods can be combined to form a ‘designer’ tool for a specific task.

3.3 Responding to informed demand

In his study of demand for water supply in South Africa, Webster (1999) iden-tifies a number of important relating to how engineers can respond to demand

Firstly, designs and support systems have to be sufficiently flexible to accom-modate a number of different service levels to match demand. Effectively the project is never complete but a dynamic model that is responsive to changing demands of its users.

The project must be able to accommodate level of services which are upgraded by users over time. In the South African context, this means an increasing number of private connections and with it, increasing levels of consumption. An associated issue is how to estimate the extent of upgrading over the projects ‘design life’. There is evidence that demand assessment can assist in predicting upgrading. A major factor that influences upgrading rates is the cost recovery system associated with the connection charge.

C-11


Finally, the design must also be able to accommodate a increase in the number of people using it. A case study described by Webster indicates that upgrading and population growth may each result in a 250% increase in water consump-tion over the project’s design life. This increase is significantly greater than the range of consumption estimates based on demand assessment studies (120%). The implication is that an engineer cannot afford to forget the combined effects of population growth and upgrading.

What is not covered in the report is how best to phase out stand pipes as more users switch to private connections, and how a community is expected to man-age demand some time in the project’s future when demand begins to outstrip supply.

3.4 Summary: implications for the engineer

Effective demand assessment is central to a demand responsive approach. Dif-ferent techniques have been developed to suit different circumstances and pur-poses, although as yet there is little evidence of their widespread application. A common factor is that demand must be informed before it can be assessed. The role of the engineer in this is two fold: to provide information for informing consumers of the options they have and to respond to the resulting demand. This is an iterative process often carried out over several stages.

The various options presented should be based on user perceptions. This im-plies initial interaction between the engineer and a social intermediary. A suffi-cient spectrum of options should be presented in order to capture varying household demands. Information on technical options can be presented in a number of ways depend-ing on the demand assessment techniques being used, and will include charac-teristics, benefits and costs over the projects life cycle. Additional options should be presented for the method of delivery and financial systems.

C-12


4. Demand responsive water supply in practice4.1 Information from ‘model’ approaches

How to implement demand responsive water supply projects was the subject of a World Bank conference on community water supply convened in Washington in May 1998. The conference was informed by six ‘model’ approaches from India, Indonesia, China, Bolivia, Ghana and South Africa. The key factors mentioned by staff from the six projects have been tabulated below.

Table 2: Key factors identified by model approaches

Project Key factors mentionedPROSABAR(Bolivia)

flow of information to households could have been improved; difficulties were encountered enforcing rules and to ensure messages are consistent; community members (rather than community leaders) could have been more involved in making informed choice re levels of service; training and the development of supporting manuals and plans needed a higher priority; community members wanted to be more involved in managing implement-ation and the selecting, contracting and monitoring of implementers; few efforts were made to identify the demand of women in the process; there was a lack of information re how to implement demand responsive sanitation; and some of the agencies involved lacked participatory skills and concentrated on building infrastructure.

IDA supported pro-jects(China)

demand was not fully captured in some projects where false economy led to lower levels of service being provided than were actually wanted.

CWSP(Ghana)

despite the focus on a largely illiterate rural community, the demand re-sponsive approach adopted has led to a high level of user ownership; small town water boards and watsan committees proved to be successful; and the demand for services is such that the private and NGO sectors have in-sufficient capacity to meet it; poorer communities would benefit from the programme if technical options were more varied and flexible; and there is little information concerning how sanitation was implemented.

SWAJAL(India)

Swajal has a delivery system that includes government in a facilitating rather than an implementing role, a project management unit, NGOs acting as intermediaries and eventually 1000 participating communities; it has proved difficult for the project to engage women in the decision mak-

C-13


ing process; and the capacity of NGOs is patchy.

WSSLIC & VIP(Indonesia)

some rules encouraged responsiveness to the demands of village leaders rather than households; under WSSLIC, communities were not given control of project manage-ment, the project remaining in government hands until hand-over: resulting in a reduced sense of user satisfaction and ownership; and in terms of quality, the best and worst projects were built by communities.

MVULA TRUST(South Africa)

up-front contributions are seen as critically important to project sustainabil-ity; engineers often lack social and management skills required for social me-diation; and difficulties have been encountered forming representative committees for larger communities.

(Source: World Bank, 1998)

When this evidence is compared to other case studies and comments made by participants in the 1999 electronic conference on DRA, a number of common issues emerge.

4.2 Key issues from the field

4.2.1 Appropriate implementation

An implementation model should be designed to meet the needs of local cir-cumstances. This will reflect the ideology and capacity of the agencies in-volved. The World Bank has advocated particular roles for secondary stake-holders (Sara, 1998). In some countries however, the private sector and NGOs clearly do not yet have the capacity, or an appropriate regulatory framework does not yet exist, for these sectors to undertake major responsibilities for im-plementation.

4.2.2 Household demand

In practice, establishing household demand using participatory methods is made more difficult because of the overriding authority of traditional leaders. Individuals, committees and communities can be influenced by those with tra-ditional, political and material influence. This can result in demand being un-representative. Often, the poor and women are excluded. Several of the projects reviewed ended up responding to the demand of community leaders.

The scale of the project has a profound influence on the approach adopted. Household demand is easier to elicit in smaller communities. In some cases, however, technical options were identified only when communities were clustered together (Box 2).

C-14


Box 2: Hitosa water supply scheme, Ethiopia

The Hitosa Water Supply Scheme in southern Ethiopia provides water to more than 60,000 con-sumers. It was devised, designed and constructed by the government. Local people provided 50,000 days of labour and 17% of the total cost of the project. The scheme is large but not that complex. It was envisaged from the outset local organisations would be responsible for man-aging the scheme. Despite being supply rather than demand led, the project is sustainable.

The project provides 63 public tap stands, each of which is equipped with a meter to check against sales made by a tap attendant. Potential problems include the inevitable need to re-place the pipelines; cost recovery is not sufficient to finance this level of investment. The water management board is voluntary and as such may itself not be sustainable.

(Source: Silkin 1998)

4.2.3 Consumer choice and technical options

Cost predictions associated with technical options should be honest, transparent and accurate. There are many examples in which one or more technical options have been offered with associated costs, but no information concerning how these costs were arrived at.

Technical choice can be extended to look at improving or replicating existing water sources. A research project in Zambia is currently investigating whether improvement and replication of existing traditional sources can have an impact and how this compares with more ‘conventional’ solutions. Initial results indic-ate that traditional sources are not as unreliable as they are sometimes presen-ted (Mbewe and Sutton, 1999). Certainly, there are many examples of new sup-plies being deserted in favour of traditional sources (an example of this is de-scribed in Box 3).

In presenting a number of technical options it is vital that sufficient emphasis is placed on their operation and maintenance (O&M) and management. O&M and associated factors, for example, the local availability of spares, is a major factor in determining long term sustainability and must therefore be integrated with technology choice (IRC, 1997).

One fact which is understandably not often recorded is that engineers have been known to present a number of technical options to meet criteria set down in project rules, fully knowing that only one of these is technically feasible in terms of the local scenario (Reed, B.J; personal communication).

C-15


The issue of consumer choice often extends beyond level of service to include how that service is delivered, when and by whom. In this context, presenting several options for cost recovery seems important. Many communities pay for breakdowns on an ‘as and when basis’, with little investment in preventative maintenance. More research is needed in this area, and this research project will benefit from its links with a second research project looking into this issue.

One important issue is the size of contribution to capital costs or its equivalent in terms of labour or locally procured materials made by the community. The amount is often fixed by project rules, and its collection is used by many agen-cies as an indicator of demand. One example of this is the Mvula Trust guidelines for water supply projects in South Africa. However, if the contribu-tion system favours one technical option over another, the community may eas-ily be influenced to opt for it. An example from RUWASA 1 in Uganda indic-ates that communities may have chosen hand pumps rather than spring protec-tion because the up-front cash payment was smaller. A later evaluation indic-ated that households were more willing to sustain springs rather than hand-pumps, due to the difficulties and cost of getting handpump spares (Deverill, 2000). A point made by several participants in the electronic conference is that the poor are not always presented with a choice of options due to the failure of en-gineers to come up with low cost solutions that met their demands. The tech-nical bias of engineers was highlighted in a later electronic conference on sanit-ation and is also evident in a number of water supply projects (Box 3).

Box 3: Technical bias: Oju and Obi water and sanitation project

DFID and WaterAid contracted BGS to undertake a detailed geological survey with the intention of providing water from newly drilled boreholes. The focus of the project was for new facilities and little attention was paid to rehabilitating existing facilities. There appears to have been no attempt to examine or cost other alternatives, or provide information supporting the adoption of boreholes. WTP was not investigated: the community was expected to make financial contribu-tions towards the cost of the borehole. Evidence suggests that current project facilities are only used in the dry season, with households reverting to traditional sources during the wet season.

(DFID 1998)

Technological choice can be restricted by standardisation, for example, of hand pump types. Although standardisation can improve the local availability of spares, it is obviously important that the infrastructure installed is locally ap-propriate.

Consumer choice may be constrained by the ownership of land or water sources, as well as the capacity of the supply. For example, the point was made that in some hill villages in Nepal, even if people want and are willing to pay

C-16


for private connections, they cannot as the supply is limited. In that case, only one technical option was open to them (Trace, 1999). The environmental and social (third party) consequences of adopting a demand responsive approach must be considered, and if necessary demand management measures adopted to ensure a sustainable, equitable supply can be maintained (Box 4).

Box 4: Water scarcity and the need for demand management

The Kolhapur water project in Maharastra has been operational since 1980. By 1981 there were 419 household connections and 70 public standpipes. By 1999, there were 1,723 private con-nections and 43 public standpipes. To get a private connection, families pay a total of Rs 320 to the joint management body and a fixed annual charge of Rs200. As the pumps have aged, their efficiency has decreased. Water consumption is limited by supply and pressure in many parts of the system has fallen. The poor, who use the public standpipes, are particularly af-fected.

In designing for demand, engineers must consider the future availability of water, especially where private connections are being actively promoted and for which households are WTP. If necessary, demand must be managed to ensure a reliable and equitable service can be sus-tained.

(Wedgwood, 2000)

4.2.4 Gender

There was a general concern expressed in both the World Bank conference on community water supply and the electronic conference on DRA which fol-lowed, that women could easily be excluded in a demand responsive process that was largely dependent on establishing WTP. There were few examples demonstrating how to avoid this in practice. Women are key stakeholders in water and sanitation projects, but financial decisions are usually taken by men. Certainly, many CVM surveys reviewed do not disaggregate data. There is a clear need to explore in detail how women can be actively involved and due weight paid to their views in demand responsive water and sanitation projects. A UNDP RSWG-SA project is looking into this area and it would make sense to establish links with it2.

4.3 Summary

The following key points emerge from this section:

establishing household demand is often made more difficult by the influence of local elites;

2 Participation, Gender and Demand Responsiveness: making the links with impact and sustain-ability of WSS investments. A UNDP/IRC project in the participatory learning and action (PLA) series of studies being undertaken by IRC.

C-17


the responsibilities of different stakeholders must be agreed from the outset;

the scale of the project has a major influence on the approach adopted and techniques used;

clustering villages together may result in additional options being identified, but may make it more difficult to establish household demand;

cost predictions should be honest, accurate and transparent; how costs are determined and presented needs further investigation;

engineers frequently exhibit a technical bias that may result in the adoption of a particular technology: there seems to be a lack of knowledge or accept-ance of low cost solutions;

technical options may often be limited by environmental and third party ef-fects; this may necessitate the adoption of demand management techniques to ensure an equitable service can be sustained; and

insufficient attention is given to the issue of gender and ensuring women are consulted and their views are taken into full account: more information is needed to establish how this can be achieved in practice.

C-18


5. Demand responsive sanitation5.1 Social marketing

Sanitation has remained a ‘second cousin’ to water supply since the beginning of the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade in 1980. The challenge continues to grow. WHO now estimate that more than 3 billion people are without adequate means of excreta disposal. 3.3 million people die every year from diarrhoeal diseases, the overwhelming majority being caused by excreted human pathogens. (WELL 1998).

Demand for water supply has to be informed, but demand for sanitation often has to be created from very low levels. Unlike water supply, sanitation is rarely a household priority. Furthermore, to be effective, sanitation must include ele-ments of hygiene promotion if it is to be effective. The sustainable delivery of sanitation is thus a complex issue, because it implies the need to change human priorities and behaviour.

Building on recent experience, the DFID guidance manual advocates an ap-proach based on social marketing. In essence, the consumer is placed at the heart of the programme. It develops and markets positive perceptions of the be-nefits of sanitation to particular target audiences in order generate demand. Typically, these benefits concern privacy, comfort and status rather than im-proved health.

5.2 Strategic sanitation

The failure of large supply driven investment programmes led to the develop-ment of the strategic sanitation approach (SSA), developed during the 1990s to improve the sustainable delivery of sanitation in urban areas. SSA uses the principles of social marketing and combines these with a demand responsive approach and various incentive driven institutional arrangements. Whatever its intended application, many of its underlying demand based principles can be applied to rural and peri-urban areas. SSA is therefore highly relevant to this research (White, 1997).

In terms of the consumer, SSA involves the following:

a wider choice of technological options, including low cost appropriate technologies;

the recognition and analysis of consumer’s WTP;

methods of matching services to affordability;

innovative financing; and

C-19


capacity building initiatives that enable all stakeholders including users and local government to implement responsive, sustainable programmes.

The key point is that consumer demand has to be created and then informed with a range of service, management and financial options. The support provided should also include facilitating the creation of community organisa-tions that afford individual households the opportunity to discuss and agree as-pects of project management (White, 1997). There is wide agreement that the process of informing users is best done later-ally, using local trained facilitators. Essentially, information exchange is a two way process. A dialogue is needed to ensure the implementing organisation un-derstands the viewpoint and constraints of the potential users. Above all, it is important that the implementing organisation has an understanding of the users’ perspective of the benefits of improved sanitation.

Possibly the best example of this type of approach comes from Mindapore in West Bengal.

Box 5: Midnapore sanitation project: West Bengal

The Midnapore project in West Bengal features the presentation of a range of affordable and acceptable technical options with price tags, and developed local capacity (village youth groups organised in clusters) to meet the resulting demand. A revolving fund was used to establish local production centres (of sanitation infrastructure) on a firm financial footing and to provide in-terest free loans to those who could not afford full payment. Loan repayment was prompt. There were no subsidies. Hygiene and sanitation awareness was built through village centres, and in-cluded wall writing, village motivation camps, home visits and exhibitions.

Sengupta (1998)

It is too early to state that this approach will be sustainable in the longer term, although all the indications are that the project will be successful. In this case there is no information describing how the technical choices were identified in the first place and how WTP was established.

5.3 Perceived weaknesses of SSA

If there is a question with this approach, it concerns the use of demand assess-ment techniques to establish WTP for largely unfamiliar sanitation options at project level. A study in Ouagadougou, Burkina examined this issue. As the population was unfamiliar with sanitation technologies, the attributes of vari-ous sanitation options were presented in a CVM survey to determine WTP. To keep the survey manageable, most respondents were offered a choice of two technical options. Information was also obtained about financing arrangements.

C-20


The study concluded that it is possible to use CVM to establish WTP even where people are unfamiliar with the technical options being presented. The results could be used to help design a sanitation programme for the town, al-though other factors would have to be taken into account, including public health considerations (Altaf, 1994).

One major concern with such studies concerns the degree to which households are informed before or during the survey process. In Ouagadougou it was men-tioned to respondents that pour flush toilets needed one or two litres of water for operation. 64% of respondents preferred this system over VIPs, for reasons of hygiene, its ‘modernity’, and ease of maintenance. The survey also estab-lished that 75% of sample households were dissatisfied with their water supply. The majority of households offered pour flush toilets were dependent on public standpipes. The data is not gender disaggregated.

An additional weaknesses of SSA’s demand based approach was highlighted by Taylor in his introduction to the electronic conference on the subject (Taylor, 1999). He states that SSA pays insufficient attention to the need to balance local demand and the wider, longer term environmental and third party or social implications, which may well impact on longer term sustainability or the livelihoods of others. This criticism has also been applied to demand re-sponsive approaches to water supply.

Very little work seems to have been carried out to establish the demand for sanitation by women, and how to ensure that this is taken into account in a pro-cess which is relatively focused on establishing WTP. Once again, this applies to water supply as well as sanitation. An UNDP project in South Asia3 is cur-rently investigating this issue and it makes sense to establish linkages with it.

5.3 Informing demand with sanitation options

Many of the apparent difficulties faced by engineers in the context of demand responsive sanitation projects concern the identification and presentation of different technical options to inform demand.

In presenting different options to potential users, the ‘sanitation ladder’ is often used to explain their relative characteristics and promote discussion. However, the facilitator’s notion of hierarchy may not actually apply in practice, depend-ing on user perceptions and local circumstances. Participatory tools and ap-proaches have to be developed with the potential users before they can be ap-plied (Ngubane et al, 1999). If this is done, tools such as those based on the sanitation ladder can be very effective (Box 6).

Box 6: The sanitation ladder: Tabora, Tanzania

3 Participation, Gender and Demand Responsiveness: Making the links with impact and sus-tainability of WSS investments.

C-21


In Tabora, a sanitation ladder was developed based on a series of pictures ranging from infield defecation through traditional latrines to a VIP. The pictures were locally developed and drawn by a local artist. Because project staff had had negative experiences with the sanplat, this had not been included in the ladder. Such an approach promotes the idea of incremental develop-ment, and linked to the training of local artisans and a locally managed subsidy, forms the basis for a successful sanitation project.

It was however recommended by an external review team that the sanitation ladder be exten-ded to include sanplats and pour flush toilets, as well as a toilet with an external hand washing basin.

Sakafu (1999)

A related point is that many engineers are not sufficiently familiar with an ad-equate range of technical options to give consumers adequate choice. As a res-ult, they may be misinformed and their demand not adequately captured to en-sure sustainability (Mara, 1999). The national or regional authority may also rule out the use of some ‘alternative’ designs because they do not coincide with their existing rigid standards (Parkinson, 1999).

To inform potential users of the advantages and disadvantages of various sanit-ation options, the CVM study in Burkina previously mentioned used photo-graphs and descriptions of characteristics of each option. Other projects have used demonstration facilities. Three associated points are:

different options should reflect user rather than the implementing agency’s perceptions of sanitation: for example, it may turn out to be more relevant to demonstrate a variety superstructures than a variety of technologies (Deverill, 1999)

many characteristics of a sanitation option are only manifested once it is in use (odour, ease of keeping clean, water requirement); and

any demonstration toilets must be of the standard that can be provided by the programme in order not to raise false expectations.

A case study from a supply driven project in Bharatpur, India clearly demon-strates the importance of consulting with potential users in order to establish their preference for sanitation (Box 7).

Box 7: Identification of consumer preferences, Bharatpur, India

C-22


The double pit latrine system had been identified by the implementing organisation as the most appropriate technology and many had been built.

Later it was discovered that a significant proportion of these had been converted by users into crude septic tank systems (without an adequate drainage). Prior to the sanitation project, septic tanks were common place and people were evidently used to their perceived benefits It is clear that the existing practices of potential users will be a major factor in determining their preference for any improvement, and this should be taken into account by the engineer.

(Colin, 1999 & Taylor, 1999).

A weakness with the demand based approaches considered is that they are largely divorced from behavioural change related to hygiene, without which health benefits will not follow (Blackett, 1999). It could be argued that this could equality apply to supply led sanitation projects. However, in advocating a new response it makes sense to take a holistic viewpoint. A hygiene compon-ent has to be built in to the process if health improvements are to result.

There are several useful examples showing how this can be achieved in prac-tice. PHAST techniques which focus on collective understanding have proved very successful in this context: the sanitation ladder often forms part of a PHAST tool kit. The establishment of health clubs in Bikita, Zimbabwe provides an alternative solution (Mathew, 1999). The key point is that demand based, projects provide clear opportunities to integrate hygiene with hardware delivery.

5.4 Summary

In summarising this section, a number of points can be made. Many of these apply equally to water supply and sanitation:

best practice for sanitation combines aspects of social marketing with as-pects of demand responsiveness;

establishing WTP is potentially useful as a means of matching demand with appropriate services: however, it is essential that this demand is fully in-formed of the characteristics, costs and benefits of each option.

most demand assessment studies related to sanitation has not differentiated between the different needs and demands of men and women;

the approach adopted must take into account both environmental and third party constraints;

technical, financial and managerial choices must be presented that take into account the perceptions of users;

C-23


there is a danger that by focusing on demand, the vital link with hygiene will not be considered; however, there are examples of how this can be achieved such as the use of PHAST.

C-24


6. Poverty6.1 Designing for the poor

On of the major criticisms of demand based water supply and sanitation pro-jects is that they can easily exclude and further marginalize the poor, not just in terms of poor communities, but also in terms of the poor within communities. In practice, the 4th Dublin principle which refers to water as an economic good is often only half quoted, missing out the phrase:

…… “within this principle, it is vital to recognize first the basic right of all hu-man beings to have access to clean water and sanitation at an affordable price…”

The following example of a supply driven project which ignored the poor comes from South Africa. Emphasis was placed on adherence to guidelines and spending funds quickly rather than on investigating what was affordable and practical.

Box 8: Designing for whom?

A recent evaluation of an isolated impoverished area of South Africa found that a water supply scheme had been implemented that was clearly unaffordable to local community members. Let-ters in the project file stated that the scheme could never be sustained, and that an alternative should be considered. However, the project went ahead because otherwise the consultants in-volved would have lost the funding.

The company involved failed to establish what was affordable and identify and use creative solutions to drive down costs. Instead, a system was implemented that the engineers them-selves conceded was completely unworkable. The scheme purifies all water, regardless of its proposed use, and at a cost which is beyond the economic capacity of the area.

The evaluations carried out consistently showed that systems were over designed and unafford-able at local level. Technical considerations predominated and few role players had tried to find creative ways to reduce costs.

(Breslin, 1999 )

Clearly, the approach illustrates the need to respond to people’s demand rather than design according to rigid and inappropriate standards.

The need to identify and include the poor is implicit in any equitable project. In practise, this issue is often overlooked. A review of water and sanitation pro-jects in four African countries (Deverill, 2000) concluded:

C-25


selection on projects based on an expressed demand will exclude the poor if they cannot communicate their needs or a sufficiently large up-front contribution; and

very few projects identify the poor and their particular needs within a community.

A 1997 study of rural infrastructure projects implemented in Africa found no mention of steps being taken to identify the poor within communities - very few evaluation reports raised the subject at all (Derbyshire et al, 1997).

“No records exist in the programme office on how villages are managing to balance the needs of relatively wealthy cattle owners against the domestic needs of the less well off, and how the tariff structures water committees are setting may be restricting some peoples access to water” (Sakafu, 1997).

During an evaluation of a WaterAid supported programme in Tabora, Tan-zania, it was confirmed that in some areas, the poor were not always able to use the improved water supply, simply because they could not always afford the water. Their income was seasonal, based on selling mangoes, and at times was insufficient to pay for water. In another community, poorer families tended to have smaller water containers than the better off, and had to make many jour-neys to the water source (Sakafu, 1997).

Although the Mvula Trust funds relatively small projects in rural areas in South Africa, no mention is made in current Mvula guidelines of the need to identify and make provision for poorer members of the community.

The recognition that communities are not homogeneous groups but exhibit so-cial differentiation is paramount. In the context of supply driven approaches that treat water as a social good, to be made freely available to all, this is not necessarily an issue. In demand driven projects there is a danger that contribu-tions can easily fall disproportionately on those least able to bear them (Narayan, 1995).

6.2 Implications for practice

In overall terms, projects must ensure that benefits are distributed equally to poorer and otherwise disadvantaged groups within communities, and that they do not bear a disproportionate proportion of the costs involved.

The following approaches have been identified for use in this context:

stakeholder analysis which:

identifies and defines the characteristics of key stakeholders;

C-26


assesses the manner in which they might be affected by the project;

highlights relations between stakeholders; and

assesses the capacity of different stakeholder groups to participate;

participatory wealth ranking exercises to identify stakeholder groups and es-tablish baseline data for monitoring and evaluating costs and benefits, for establishing discussion groups and to provide information for a poverty tar-geting strategy;

widely disseminating information about the project to encourage accountab-ility and transparency;

conducting small group discussions, and use these to reach a community consensus and representative decision making and management structures; and

working with the majority to encourage them to include the minority rather than targeting the poorest directly.

Fundamentally, projects should be in a position to monitor the benefits and costs of services to the poorest. The extent to which projects will focus on the needs of the poorest will vary. Targeting poverty is not a demand led agenda and is likely to require long term support (Derbyshire et al 1997).

6.3 Poverty, demand assessment and the engineer’s role

Once the poor groups have been identified as primary stakeholders in their own right, either options and associated systems can be designed which they are and willing and able to afford, or they can be subsidised at local, regional or na-tional level. In South Africa, there are examples of communities taking the de-cision to cross subsidize the poor by effectively over charging the users of private connections to subsidize users of public stand pipes The issue of cross subsidization requires considerable discussion at the start of the project, and will only be effective if the scheme is affordable in overall terms. (Breslin, 1999).

Demand assessment is a major component of a demand responsive approach. As such, it can actually help with poverty reduction by ensuring that the poor get levels of service they want at a price they can afford. There is a growing body of evidence that confirms that the poor are willing to pay for a reliable service that meets their needs. Information from demand assessment exercises can also be used to design sustainable cost recovery policies and appropriate financing schemes that can help the poor (WELL 1998). The critical point is that demand assessment must be appropriate to the situation, and this requires detailed knowledge of all groups within a community including the poor.

C-27


In terms of developing affordable technologies, one recurrent theme seems to be how little engineers actually know. It would seem that many engineers lack knowledge and confidence to propose low cost technology to users (Mara, 1999). For example, the use of cement stabilised soil bricks to build toilet su-perstructures is a possible ‘affordable’ option in some parts of South Africa. However, it is rarely if ever presented by engineers as an option (Still, 1997). In the absence of case studies, a useful document is the following checklist de-veloped by IRC to assist projects assess demand responsive projects for a ‘poverty balance’ (IRC, 1999).

Table 3: Checklist for equity: demand responsive programming and equity

1. Eligibility criteriaInitial communicationDo all communities have equal knowledge of programme?

Is it understood equally well by different groups (men, women, rich, poor, caste)?

Do methods of implication favour one group over other?

Area and village SelectionAre selection criteria based on need or demand?

Does negative political influence or risk fair and transparent area village selection?

Management groupsWho in the community is involved?

Location and coverageWho selects and how are the locations of sanitation and WP selected? Does this favour some groups unfairly?

Does the current or proposed location provide fair access to women and the poor?

2. Technology choiceSelectionDid some groups (women etc) want less expensive options in terms of cash, O&M, labour Why? What was done about this?

Is the technology selection biased towards richer or more powerful groups?

TimingWhen is the service available? Is this timing equally convenient to all groups?

Who makes the rules about timing, who is consulted?

Service levelIs service provided to those in greatest need when they want it? What is the desired level of use for domestic purposes?

Does the latrine technology provide a hygiene advantage over current practice?

3. Cost sharing for implementation and constructionSubsidyDid the users of more expensive technologies receive a higher subsidy than groups having less expensive technologies?

Is the implementation delayed a long time after the prospective users have completed their payments in cash and kind?

C-28


OwnershipIs the infrastructure perceived to be owned by one or very few persons. Why? Who uses the facilities?

4. Community payment for sustained operationHas a major effort been taken to raise awareness of various sources of funds and mechanisms to reach remote and isolated areas?

Are there graduated or flat water tariffs? Do charges limit the amount of water taken up by some families?

Has the project taken a decision re replacement of equipment? Are books available and up to date?

What happens to the money that is paid by consumers? Where is it kept? How is it used in reality?

6.4 Summary

there is evidence that demand based water supply and sanitation projects can easily marginalize the poor within communities if their needs are not spe-cifically identified;

however, very few projects actually identify the poor within communities and take their specific needs into account;

in establishing the willingness and ability to pay of the poor, seasonal or ir-regular income flows must be taken into account;

approaches that seek to include the poor in the project process have been identified - these include stakeholder analysis, the widespread dissemination of project information, small group discussions, and working with the ma-jority to include the minority. The underlying principle is that projects must be in a position to monitor and evaluate their impact on the poor in terms of benefits and costs;

it seems that many engineers lack the knowledge and skills to present tech-nical and financial options to communities that are affordable for the poor; and

a useful ‘poverty’ based checklist has been developed by the IRC for de-mand responsive projects.

C-29


7. ConclusionsAs it stands, the literature review enables a number of conclusions to be drawn. For the engineer, designing for demand is based on two related processes: in-forming the potential user about the characteristics, benefits and life cycle costs of a number of technical options in order to establish demand, and then react-ing to the demand expressed to come up with a final design. This is done in an iterative manner, involving good communications, social intermediation, trust and transparency.

The main difference between sanitation and water supply concerns the degree to which demand has to be created and informed. In order to fulfil this role, en-gineers are going to have to consider households as customers and communit-ies as clients. It is also evident that engineers will have to work very closely with both social intermediaries and other sector professionals. The extent that an engineer would get involved in identifying and presenting financial options to households needs further consideration.

If communities are to be given a choice, it is important that any project rules concerning the payment of a proportion of capital costs do not favour the com-munity adopting a particular technology over another. Ideally, any up-front payment should reflect the lifecycle costs that the community will be expected to be responsible for. Engineers must try to identify a sufficiently wide spread of technical options to capture WTP. There is evidence that many engineers are constrained by tech-nical bias and a lack of knowledge of low cost options in particular. How life cycle costs are established and then presented is also a grey area where there is insufficient guidance.

Options may not just be technical, but also relate to how services are delivered and financial systems that capture WTP, for example, by facilitating users to get house connections they want. Links to an associated KaR ‘Cost recovery in Water and Sanitation Projects’ should be developed.

Engineers must also design for the future in terms of population growth and upgrading. Both effects can be significant. There may be scope within demand assessment exercises to establish the extent of upgrading. However, considera-tion must be given to the safe yield of a water source, and if necessary demand management techniques used to ensure an equitable supply can be sustained. In general, more information is needed concerning the design of flexible systems that can accommodate change in the future.

More work is needed to establish how the different demands of women can be addressed. This is particularly important if the demand assessment techniques

C-30


used focus on WTP, as women in general have little influence over household expenditure. This applies as much to sanitation as it does to water supply. Links should be made with a UNDP/IRC project currently investigating links between gender and demand responsiveness.

Steps should be taken to ensure that the approaches adopted do not further mar-ginalize the poor. To retain a poverty focus, projects must identify poor groups within communities and include them in the process. For engineers, low cost technologies and solutions must be identified and presented to poor house-holds. Alternatively, financial options that facilitate local cross subsidisation should be considered. A checklist that specifically examines the impact of a de-mand responsive project on the poor has been illustrated in the review. The un-derlying principle is that projects must be in a position to monitor and evaluate their impact on the poor in terms of benefits and costs.

References:

Altaf, M.A. and Hughes,J.A. (1994) Measuring the demand for improved urban sanitation services: results of a contingent valuation study in Ou-agadougou, Burkina Faso. Urban Studies, vol 31 no 10

Blackett, I. (1999) Where is the health aspect to SSA? Contribution to elec-tronic debate on SSA, 28 October 1999 http: //www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/gesi/

Breslin, N. (1999) Lessons From the Field: Rethinking community manage-ment for sustainability Rural and peri-urban water supply and sanitation in South Africa – appropriate practice conference East London March 1999

Colin, J. (1999) Experiences from Bharatpur, Rajastan Contribution to elec-tronic debate on SSA, 2 November 1999 http:// www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/gesi/

Derbyshire, H. and Vickers, P. (1997) The Sustainable Provision of Poverty Focused Rural Infrastructure in Africa: a Study of best practice DFID August 1997

Deverill, P., Ntuli, J. and Still, D. (1999) Simple solutions for difficult prob-lems: sanitation in Maputaland, Lessons learned conference: Implementing sanitation in KwaZulu Natal, Hillcrest, South Africa, March 1999

Deverill, P. A. (2000) Lessons learnt from water sanitation and environmental scoping studies: Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Nigeria WELL, March 2000

DFID (1998) Mid-term output to purpose review: Oju and Obi LGA water and sanitation project DFID West and North Africa Department, October 1998

C-31


Garn, M. (1998) Managing water as an economic good: the transition from supply oriented to demand responsive services Background paper to World Bank conference on community water supply, Washington 1998

IRC, (1997) Linking technology choice with operation and maintenance for low cost water supply and sanitation. Operation and maintenance working group of Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council, IRC The Hague 1997

IRC (1999) Discussion paper: Demand responsive programming and equity: a discussion paper for the water and sanitation sector http://www.irc.nl/home/comm/demand.htm 1999. Mara, D. (1999) Peri-urban sanitation Contribution to electronic debate on SSA, 13 October 1999http: //www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/gesi/

Mathews, B. (1999) Health clubs - hygiene education in Bikita IRWSSP, 25th WEDC Conference Addis Ababa August 1999

Mbewe, I. and Sutton, S. The underestimated potential of traditional water sources? 25th WEDC Conference Addis Ababa August 1999

Narayan, D. (1995) Designing community based development The World Bank Environment Department Paper No 007 Washington DC

Ngubane, N. (1999) Why PHAST failed to create demand at Ebuyeni, Lessons learned conference: Implementing sanitation in KwaZulu Natal, Hillcrest, South Africa, March 1999

Parkinson, J. (1999) Involving community based initiatives in strategic plan-ning Contribution to electronic debate on SSA 5 November 1999 http: //www.-mailbase.ac.uk/lists/gesi/

Parry-Jones, S. (1999) Optimising the selection of demand assessment tech-niques for water supply and sanitation projects WELL Task No 207 October 1999

Rall, M. (1999) The Demand Responsive Approach to community water supply and sanitation as interpreted and applied by the Mvula Trust Paper submitted to Electronic Conference on DRA July 1999 http: //www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dra/

C-32

http://www.irc.nl/home/comm/demand.htm

http://www.irc.nl/home/comm/demand.htm


Sakafu, A., Forrester, K., and Laing, M. (1999) Participatory evaluation of WaterAid’s support for water, sanitation and hygiene in Tabora Region, Tan-zania, WaterAid, January 1999

Sara, J. (1998) Giving communities choice is not enough! Background paper to World bank conference on community water supply Washington 1998

Sara, J. and Katz, T. (1998) Making rural water supply sustainable: report on the impact of project rules UNDP WSP 1998

Sengupta (1999) Creating Sanitation Awareness: Integrated Sanitation Pro-ject, Midnapore, India World Bank conference on Community water supply and sanitation, May 1998

Shordt, K. (1999) Demand responsive programming and equity: a discussion paper for the water and sanitation sector IRC April 1999

Silkin, T. (1998) A simple but large scale system in Ethiopia Case study presented at World Bank conference on community water supply, Washington 1998

Smout, I.K., Skinner, B.H., Mukerji,R., Rajiv, K.R., Nath, S. and Sen, S. Joint evaluation of UNICEF assisted projects in the water and sanitation sector, In-dia WELL Task No 1, July 1997

Still, D. and Holden, R. (1997) Towards sustainable sanitation in South Africa Paper presented at 23rd WEDC conference Durban

Taylor, K. (1999) Strategic Approaches to Urban Sanitation Provision Back-ground paper for Electronic conference on SSA October 1999 http: //www.-mailbase.ac.uk/lists/gesi/

Trace, S. (1999) A summary from WaterAid’s perspective Contribution to elec-tronic debate on DRA, 2 July 1999 http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dra/

UNDP (1997) Report on workshop on willingness to pay for drinking water and sanitation UNDP Rural Water and Sanitation Group - South Asia and DFID September 1997

Webster, M. (1999) Effective Demand for Rural Water Supply in South Africa WEDC 1999

Wedgwood, A. (2000) Case studies on the engineer’s role in designing for de-mand. Unpublished.

C-33


WELL (1998) DFID Guidance manual on water supply and sanitation pro-grammes, WELL 1998

White, A.M. (1997) Towards a strategic sanitation approach: improving the sustainability of urban sanitation in developing countries UNDP-World Bank Washington DC 1997

White, J. Evaluation synthesis of rural water and sanitation projects, DFID Evaluation report EV 596 May 19997 World Bank (1993) The demand for water in rural areas: determinants and policy implications World Bank Water Demand Research Team Observer, vol 8 no 1 January 1993

World Bank (1998) Report of the community water supply and sanitation con-ference May 5-8 1998, Washington UNPD Water and Sanitation Programme, Washington DC September 1998

C-34

designing water supply and sanitation projects · web viewit was however recommended by an...

Documents