4effdefa-1f24-417b-b1d8-b1e7986ab574-160812013320 (1)
TRANSCRIPT
RURAL WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT:
An empirical study on COWSO strategy implementation, Private sector participation and
monitoring systems in Dodoma Region – Tanzania.
The research presented at the Second International Conference on “
Advancement of geography for the people, natural resources and development”
DODOMA, TANZANIA
Luca traini and Japhet Chamgeni: Lay Volunteers International Association.
Alberto Fierro and Elina Nelaj: University of Turin.
Ephraim Mwendamseke: University of Dodoma (UDOM).
November 2015
Lay Volunteers International Association
L.V.I.A.
Office – Cuneo (ITALY)
TANZANIA Office – P.O. BOX 160,
Kongwa
Tel/fax: +255 (0)26 2323131
E-mail: [email protected]
University of Turin
Via Verdi, 8 - 10124 Turin (ITALY)
Tel: +39 011 6706111
P.I. 02099550010
C.F. 80088230018
1
ABSTRACT
Background
In 2015, World Health Organization and UNICEF reported that water coverage in Tanzania is
still low: about 46 percent in rural areas and 56 percent at national level, with a small level of
improvement compared to the total coverage of 54 percent stated in 1990 (JMP 2015, p. 75). In
order to face the current state, the Government of Tanzania structured a sector program in three
main pillars: i) implementations of new water projects or rehabilitations of old ones, ii)
improving water projects management and iii) conducting adequate monitoring.
Aim of the research
The present research contributes to the efforts of improving water supply access and water
management system in rural areas of Tanzania. It is developed as a pilot in the Dodoma Region
and can be extended in other regions as well as country-wide.
The report develops an analysis of the Tanzanian legislative and policy framework on rural water
supply. Then, starting from the recognition of the two main Government's policy principles
(community participation and private sector involvement), the research investigates the
development of the COWSOs (Community Owned Water Supply Organizations) system and
assesses the private sector participation in the management of rural water projects.
The second part of the research focuses on the improvement of water schemes monitoring
systems, analyzing monitoring resources, plans, results, methods and tools of the seven districts
of the Dodoma Region. Furthermore it designs, develops and tests a low-cost, efficient and easy
tool to monitor the performances of water schemes management.
2
Methodology
In order to investigate COWSO strategy implementation, private sector participation and
monitoring system the research team developed a quantitative-qualitative integrated approach.
In the first part, a semi-structured questionnaire was submitted to the District Water Engineers of
the seven Districts of the Dodoma Region. The questionnaire was constituted by 48 questions: 36
closed-ended questions and 12 open-ended questions, in order to integrate DWEs’ suggestions
and opinions.
In the second part, the team visited 25 water schemes of the 7 Dodoma’s Districts (three for each
district, with the exception of Kongwa and Chamwino, where the team visited 5 water schemes
each). The team research submitted to a responsible person of each scheme a questionnaire
consisting of 13 closed-ended questions with the necessary elements (number of DPs, of spare
parts, savings, etc) to calculate the three indicators of the monitoring tool: i) functionality, ii)
stability, iii) communication/satisfaction. The research designed and tested a monitoring tool that
is able to measure the performance of water service management in a scale from 0 to 10. The
“Indicator of Performance” is composed by three sub-indicators with the same scale from 0 to
10: 1) “Functionality”, 2) “Stability” and 3) “Satisfaction/Communication”. Each scale is divided
in 5 groups as follow: “very bad” (from 0 to 2), “bad” (from 2 to 4), “normal” (from 4 to 6),
good (from 6 to 8) and “very good” (from 8 to 10).
Results
In rural area of Dodoma Region, water management systems are distributed as follow: Village
Water Committees 56 percent, Private Operators 28 percent and COWSOs 15 percent.
The research shows that the COWSOs establishment and registration process lack of dedicated
financial resources, clear guidelines and adequate directives from the Central Government to the
3
Local Government Authorities. Only 25 percent of all COWSO planned in 2014 were officially
registered. Districts that have a dedicated budget line for COWSO establishment and registration,
and proper activity plans showed better results in terms of COWSO registered than other
districts.
Concerning, the role of privates, despite the fact that 57 percent of DWEs suggested that POs are
more efficient than other management entities, the institutional environment it is not fully
supportive to the involvement of the private sector. Moreover, contracts between Private
Operators and Village Governments/COWSOs are not drafted using a standard and complete
format.
Monitoring of water scheme in the Dodoma Region is not adequate: districts provide assistance
to water schemes almost only in case of emergencies, denying in this way the prevention role of
monitoring. Furthermore, DWEs do not receive periodical reports from the management entities.
The monitoring activity highlights that the sustainability of the schemes is at serious risk: 80
percent of management was classified by the “Indicator of Stability” as “bad or “very bad”.
Then, the final “Indicator of Performance” shows better general results: 48 percent of
managements are classified as “normal”, 12 percent as “bad” or “very bad”, 36 percent “good”
and 4 percent as “very good”. In Dodoma Region both COWSO and PO perform as well in terms
of Stability and Functionality but COWSO allows better “Saving”. WVC system rates are lower
in all aspects of the performance.
Conclusions and Recommendations
In order to improve the water management system, the principle of community participation
should go together with a continuous and stronger support of LGAs. COWSOs and the private
sector (Private Operators) can coexist in a management formula that holds together the
4
independence and the community participation, guaranteed by COWSOs, as well as the
efficiency in daily management of Private Operators.
Central and local government should increase funds for monitoring and COWSO establishment
and registration process. Monitoring program must be planned in advance, both in short and long
term perspective. Districts should increase/plan community incentives to produce detailed
monthly reports (e.g. communities that regularly submit monthly report and show good
performances can apply for special water loan or other facilities). Concerning contracts between
Private Operators and Village Governments/COWSOs a standard format to be provided by
Central Government could highlight some key elements: expected average revenues, costs of
water projects and the profit margin for the PO.
Finally, it is essential to keep on working on low-cost monitoring tools - like the one designed in
the present research - and effective programs (with high benefit-cost ratio), and to concentrate
resources and efforts on feasible and crucial targets.
5
INDEX
1.1 Improving rural water supply in Tanzania: background information................................... 14
1.2 The legislative and policy framework .................................................................................. 16
1.3 Aim of the research: why water schemes management in rural water projects is a key
element for sustainability .................................................................................................... 21
1.4 Research methodology and study area ................................................................................. 23
1.4.1 Seven districts of the Dodoma region........................................................................... 25
1.4.2 Twenty-five water schemes in seven districts of Dodoma region ................................ 27
2. Water schemes management: COWSO system and private sector participation .......................29
2.1 Framework: laws and policy ................................................................................................ 29
2.1.1 COWSO ........................................................................................................................ 29
2.1.2 Private sector ................................................................................................................ 31
2.2 Data analysis of the districts ................................................................................................. 33
2.2.1 Types of management ................................................................................................... 33
2.2.1.1 Types of COWSO .................................................................................................. 36
2.2.2 Resources for COWSO ................................................................................................. 39
2.2.2.1 Funds ...................................................................................................................... 39
2.2.2.2 Documents & guidelines ........................................................................................ 41
2.2.2.3 The role of CWSTs and other district officers ....................................................... 42
2.2.3 COWSO’s processes..................................................................................................... 45
2.2.3.1 COWSO formation and registration achievements................................................ 45
2.2.3.2 Steps of establishment and registration.................................................................. 48
2.2.3.3 Average time and funds needed ............................................................................. 52
6
2.2.3.4 Problems hindering the establishment and registration of COWSOs .................... 56
2.2.4 Private Sector ................................................................................................................ 59
2.2.4.1 Involvement of the district in the selection of Private Operators .......................... 59
2.2.4.2 Contracts ................................................................................................................ 61
2.2.4.3 Suggestions of DWE on the signed contracts ........................................................ 61
2.2.4.4 Comparative assessment of Private Operator’s performances ............................... 64
2.2.4.5 Possible future impact of private sector ................................................................. 66
2.3 Main problems and areas of interventions ............................................................................ 68
3. Monitoring and supervision of water schemes: Data analysis and a proposal ..........................71
3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 71
3.1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 71
3.1.2 Framework: laws and policy ........................................................................................ 71
3.1.3 The concept of monitoring and Tanzania’s strategy .................................................... 73
3.2 Data presentation and analysis ............................................................................................. 74
3.2.1 Status of monitoring and supervision of water schemes at regional level.................... 74
3.2.2Types of monitoring and supervision ............................................................................ 75
3.2.3 LGAs support to water schemes ................................................................................... 76
3.2.4 Report and information sharing between community and the LGAs ........................... 77
3.2.5 Indicators and strategies for good management of water schemes. ............................. 78
3.2.6 Challenges of schemes’ monitoring and supervision ................................................... 83
3.3 A monitoring proposal .......................................................................................................... 84
3.3.1 Three indicators: functionality, stability and satisfaction/communication ................... 84
3.3.2 The sample: 25 water schemes in the Dodoma region ................................................. 90
7
3.3.3 The results .................................................................................................................... 94
3.4 Main problems and areas of intervention ........................................................................... 110
4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 115
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................120
8
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 1: Total number of water schemes in each district of the Dodoma region ........................ 33
Graph 2: Types of management (in percentage) in the Dodoma region ....................................... 34
Graph 3: Percentage of each management entity in the seven districts of the Dodoma region .... 35
Graph 4: Percentage of Water Departments’ budget (2015) for COWSOs establishment and
registration. ................................................................................................................ 39
Graph 5: Percentages of availability of some relevant documents at DWEs’ offices.. ................ 41
Graph 6: Facilitating activities implemented by district (in percentage) in COWSOs
establishment process ................................................................................................. 44
Graph 7: Percentage of registered and unregistered COWSOs in the Dodoma Region ............... 46
Graph 8: Percentage of planned and registered COWSOs ........................................................... 47
Graph 9: The ten steps of the establishment procedure and the percentages, for each step, of
districts that implement them. .................................................................................... 50
Graph 10: Average time for COWSO establishment and registration in each district. ................ 53
Graph 11: Total cost, reported by DWEs, for establishing and registering one COWSO ............ 55
Graph 12: In percentage, the problems reported by DWEs that hinder COWSOs establishment
and registration ........................................................................................................... 58
Graph 13: Proposed DWEs’ strategies (in percentage) to improve COWSOs registration and
performances .............................................................................................................. 59
Graph 14: Percentages of districts involved in the selection of POs. ........................................... 60
Graph 15: Responsible figures for contract drafting, modification and approval ........................ 61
Graph 16: Opinion of DWEs on PO’s performances compared to other management systems. . 64
Graph 17: Advantages and disadvantages of POs according to DWEs ........................................ 66
9
Graph 18: Profitable areas in rural water supply sector according to DWEs. .............................. 67
Graph 19: Illustrates the percentage of availability of monitoring plan and monitoring budget at
regional level .............................................................................................................. 75
Graph 20: Illustrates the percentages of supports provided by the LGAs to water scheme. ........ 77
Graph 21: Indicators of a good management suggested by more than one DWE. ...................... 79
Graph 22: strategies of the districts to improve the performance ................................................. 82
Graph 23: Classification of water schemes according to the number of people served ............... 92
Graph 24: Classification of water schemes according to the price per water bucket. .................. 93
Graph 25: Bar chart of the villages according to performance indicator ...................................... 96
Graph 26: Average performances in the seven districts. .............................................................. 98
Graph 27: Bar chart of all the indicators classified in the five groups. ...................................... 103
Graph 28: Bar chart of the schemes classified according to the type of management and average
scores........................................................................................................................................... 106
10
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Results of the indicators for the complete sample .......................................................... 94
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of the performance indicator ........................................................ 95
Table 3: Classification of performance indicator in five groups .................................................. 96
Table 4: Averages scores for each district. All indicators. ........................................................... 97
Table 5: Descriptive statistics of the functionality indicator ........................................................ 99
Table 6: Classification of functionality indicator in five groups .................................................. 99
Table 7: Descriptive statistics of the functionality indicator ...................................................... 100
Table 8: Classification of stability indicator in five groups ........................................................ 101
Table 9: Descriptive statistics of the communication/satisfaction indicator .............................. 102
Table 10: Classification of communication/satisfaction indicator in five groups ...................... 102
Table 11: Classification of schemes according to the type of management and average scores 105
Table 12: Classification of schemes according to the number of DPs and average scores ........ 107
Table 13: The results for each indicator in the Nghong'ohna village ......................................... 109
Table 14: The results for each indicator in Kimagai village ....................................................... 110
11
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AMCOW African Minister's Council on Water
COWSO Community Owned Water Supply Organisation
CWST Council/Community Water and Sanitation Team
DCDO District Community development Office
DED District Executive Director
DEO District Education Office
DHO District Health Office
DLO District Legal Officer
DP Distribution Point
DPLO District Planning Office
DT District Treasurer
DUWASA Dodoma Water Supply & Sewerage Authority.
DWE District Water Engineer
DWST District Water and Sanitation Team
JMP Joint Monitoring Programme
KKK Kusoma, Kuandika and Kuhesabu
L.V.I.A. Lay volunteers International Association
LGAs Local Government Authorities
MAMADO Maji na Maendeleo Dodoma
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MoW Memorandum of understanding
MOW Ministry of Water
12
NAWAPO National Water Policy 2002
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NRWSS National Rural Water Sustainability Strategy
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PIM Program Implementation Manual
PMO-RALG Prime Minister’s Office for Regional Administration and Local
Government
PO Private Operator
TASAF Tanzania Social Action Fund
TAWASENET Tanzania Water and Sanitation Network
TSH Tanzanian Shillings
UDOM The University of Dodoma
VEO Village Executive Officer
VG Village Government
VWC Village Water Committees
WA Water Authorities
WCA Water Consumer Associations
WP Water Point
WPM Water Point Mapping
WSDP Water Sector Development Program
WSSA Water Supply and Sanitation Act
WSSR Water and Sanitation Sector Review
WUA Water User Associations
13
WUG Water User Groups
14
1 Introduction
1.1 Improving rural water supply in Tanzania: background information
The aim of this research is to contribute to the general objective of improving access to
sustainable water service in the rural areas of the country. The priority of this goal is strongly
recognized both by the Government and by international organizations: availability of clean and
safe water is a human right and also a key element of United Nations Millennium Development
Goals. In this regard, Target 7.C states that: the objective is to “halve, by 2015, the proportion of
the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation” (MDG
2015). Despite general acknowledgement of this priority, the actual situation in Tanzania
presents many challenges: for instance, the percentage of people with sustainable access to
improved water supply has not increased considerably in the past twenty years. Therefore, a joint
effort of all the relevant stakeholders is required.
The Government developed since almost ten years a comprehensive sector wide plan, the Water
Sector Development Program (WSDP), which entered this year in its second phase. In this new
stage, the Government divided the water sector in five areas of intervention (Water resource
management, Rural water supply and sanitation, Urban water supply and sanitation, Sanitation
and hygiene, Programme delivery support), in order to increase the effectiveness of planned
actions and to promote a more efficient approach in the sector. Together with the WSDP, a
substantial increase of financial resources has been registered (thanks to international
institutions, Tanzanian and foreign governments/agencies), giving reason to hope for future
improvements.
At the basis of government’s policy for improving access to sustainable water service there are
three strategic actions:
15
- Increasing water supply coverage through new projects and rehabilitations of old ones;
- Improving water management systems;
- Strengthening supervision and monitoring of the sector.
Available data about actual water coverage in urban and rural areas are not coherent among
different sources. In the AMCOW's (African Minister's Council on Water) country status
review of 2011, water coverage estimations are presented for the year 2009: 58.7 percent for
rural areas, 53 percent in small towns, 84 percent in urban areas and 68 percent in Dar es Salaam.
This report demonstrates that the estimates were calculated by the Minister using routine
monitoring data (i.e. number of facilities built, multiplied by a fixed estimated population served
per facility). Then, based on population estimation for each area, the overall water supply
coverage of 64 percent was derived. (AMCOW 2011, p.8)
In the National Rural Water Sustainability Strategy (July 2015 - June 2020) – the last
document produced by Ministry of Water about rural water supply policy, there is a table
describing water coverage in rural areas of the country between 2005 and 2012. The percentage
of coverage for 2009 (58.7 percent) is the same as in the AMCOW country status review,
suggesting that these data are estimated similarly using routine monitoring data and population
estimations. The data show that the coverage trend is slightly decreasing in the recent years: first
it is presented an increase of almost 5 percentage points between 2005 and 2009 (from 54
percent to 59 percent), and then a decrease of almost two points, reaching 57 percent in 2012
(NRWSS 2015, p. 85).1
1 WSDP phase II report provides a description of government's definition of water coverage (although it is specified
that it applies to regional centres, district headquarters and small towns, therefore excluding villages and rural areas).
The criteria to be fulfilled is 2 households (10 people) in average benefit through one connection and 250 people
through a water point or a kiosk (WSDP II 2014, p. xiv-xv).Then, water coverage estimated by the government
16
The data published in 2015 by the World Health Organization and UNICEF in their Joint
Monitoring Programme – Progress on sanitation and drinking water, are considerably
different. The report, based on three different data sources (household surveys, censuses and
administrative reports), estimates the water supply coverage (in percentage) for more than 150
countries all over the world. Tanzania has a total coverage of 56 percent: in rural areas it is 46
percent, while in urban areas it is 77 percent. Furthermore, the report shows that the situation in
the country has hardly improved from 1990 levels (total coverage increased of two percentage
points, from 54 percent to 56 percent) (JMP 2015, p. 75).2 JMP data suggest that it is difficult to
find reliable and unequivocal data about the number of Tanzanian citizens who have access to
safe water services, and that still – to guarantee the right to water - high efforts are required.
1.2 The legislative and policy framework
National Water Policy (NAWAPO), published in 2002, establishes the most relevant principles
for water sector. In order to increase the effectiveness of policy actions, this document divides
the sector into three different areas. The first area is called Water Resources Management, and it
deals with water considered as a natural resource; therefore, NAWAPO describes Tanzanian
would be the result of multiplying the number of water supply systems and the estimated amount of citizen using
those systems. This definition has been confirmed by an officer of the Minister of Water. The government does not
publish data about real (and not estimated) access to water supply system. Yet, in the WSDP II report, there are
some data labelled “water access” rather than “water coverage”. They are lower than the usual coverage percentages
presented by the government. These data are: 51 percent of water access in rural areas (June 2014), 68 percent in
Dar es Salaam (December 2013), 80 percent in urban regional centres (December 2013) and 53 percent in District
headquarters, small towns and areas covered by national projects (December 2013) (WSDP II 2014, p. xiv-xv).
Despite the difference in the data between the NRWSS and WSDP II report, a government's officer explained that
“water access” and “water coverage” cannot be considered differently. 2 JMP data, depicting a more pessimistic picture of the water supply sector in the country, seem consistent with a
paragraph of the WSDP phase II report. Namely, the latter states that: “although the water supply water coverage
that were being reported before the Big Results Now initiative indicated coverage about 57% of people in rural
areas; the detailed lab data analysis of water point data, found that due to degrade infrastructure, the actual baseline
coverage was about 40% with 5.3 million rural residents having lost supply of water because of inadequate
maintenance or infrastructure” (WSDP II 2014, p. 22).
17
water resource potential and it states the basic management principles of natural water sources.
The country is divided into nine hydrological zones or river basins, and the objectives and the
criteria for water protection, quality management and pollution control are identified. The other
two areas deal with water supply: the first with rural areas and the second with urban ones. For
the purposes of present research, it is useful to present briefly the principles and the objectives
contained in NAWAPO about rural water supply. They are:
1. Community participation. In order to achieve sustainability of water projects in
rural areas, communities have to be involved in different ways. First, they should
legally own the facilities and participate in planning and management. Second,
communities should be able to choose the appropriate technology for water supply
projects and they should also be involved in designing and constructing the projects.
Third, communities should become fully responsible for operation & maintenance
of the schemes (NAWAPO 2002, p. 32-33).
2. Private sector participation. The water sector has been dominated by the public
sector. The contribution of the private sector in service delivery of water supply
services will enhance effectiveness and enhance development. Therefore, an
enabling environment for private sector participation should be fostered, the
government should assist local authorities on this issue and communities should be
educated about the importance of private sector in rural water supply (NAWAPO
2002, p. 34).
In 2009, the Government approved two Acts that constitute the basis of the legislative framework
for the water sector. The Water Resource Management Act, that deals with water as a natural
18
resource and The Water Supply and Sanitation Act (WSSA), which is concerned with water
supply and sanitation in urban and rural areas of the country. This law coherently adopts
NAWAPO's division of the country in urban and rural areas: Water Authorities become the
entities responsible for water supply in cities and towns (regulated under part IV of the act),
while in rural areas Community Owned Water Supply Organisations (COWSO) should be
established (part VII of the Act), becoming the organisations legally responsible for water
provision. WSSA is the normative source for understanding the framework of responsibilities
and functions of the involved administrative bodies:
The Minister of Water should be responsible for providing technical and financial support
for the construction of water schemes, for ensuring provision of technical assistance to
Local Government Authorities and for monitoring and coordinating the strategies of
water schemes management entities.
In the Prime Minister’s office, the Minister of State for Regional Administration and
Local Government should be responsible for the supervision of water supply service, for
creating conducive environment and enabling the participation of communities and
private sector in the water sector development process.
The Regional Secretariats should be responsible for providing guidance to LGAs and for
monitoring them.
The Local Government Authorities (Districts and Wards) should be responsible for
coordinating and monitoring the financial management of Water Authorities and
COWSOs. Furthermore, they should be responsible for facilitating COWSOs
establishment and registration. When needed, they should approve by-laws in water
supply sector (WSSA 2009, p. 433-434).
19
The Water Supply and Sanitation Act also states the principles that have to be followed in
managing water supply. They are:
Decentralization. Management functions should be delegated to the lowest appropriate
level.
Financial autonomy of Water Supply and Sanitation Authorities.
Transferring ownership of water schemes to communities in rural areas (through
COWSO).
Costs of operation & maintenance should be met by local communities.
Promotion of Public & Private Partnerships for the provision of water and sanitation
services (WSSA 2009, p. 433).
The most important effort of the Government in order to implement a comprehensive plan about
the water sector consists of the Water Sector Development Programme. The first document
drafted is the WSDP 2005-2025 consolidated report (published in July 2006), which has a
twenty-year vision on the whole sector, on the challenges and the specific objectives and
indicators of Water Resource Management, Rural Water Supply and Urban Water Supply and
Sewerage Management. Following the publication of this document, the Minister of Water
provided stakeholders and administrative bodies with some relevant guidelines: these are the
annexes to the WSDP programme, which gave directives on many specific issues (e.g. training of
district officers, facilitation manuals for communities, field monitoring guides and financial
management formulas).
Recently, the Government published two other WSDP documents: the Water Sector Status
Report – Making the end of WSDP phase I (in October 2014) and the WSDP phase II 2014-
20
2019 (in July 2014). The firs report is a comprehensive assessment of phase I of WSDP. It
describes the performances in the three main areas (water resource management, urban and rural
water supply), the financial resources originally committed and the actual disbursements,
together with a critical review of challenges and future actions. The second document moves
from lessons learned in WSDP’s phase I in order to improve strategic interventions, institutional
setting and financial disbursement. It brings some changes to the general structure of WSDP
programme. Instead of four sectors (water resource management, urban water supply and
sanitation, rural water supply and sanitation and institutional strengthening/capacity building),
the new phase is organised around five areas. The Government provided a new structure for the
sanitation programme - which became an independent area – and constituted a new component,
labelled Programme Delivery and Support, which should facilitate effective enforcement of other
sections' plans. Despite some changes and improvements in the WSDP organisation, phase II
seem to establish too ambitious target objectives, compared with the achievements of past twenty
five years. For instance access to water in rural areas should increase from 51 percent in 2014 to
80 percent in 2019. In Dar es Saalam access should increase from 68 percent in 2013 to 95
percent in 2019 and in urban regional centres access should increase, in the same years, of 18
percentage points (from 80 percent to 98 percent) (WSDP II 2014, p. x-xvi).
The most recent document drafted by the government about the water sector is the National
Rural Water Sustainability Strategy (July 2015 - June 2020). This report (the latest version
was published in July 2015) is concerned only with water supply in rural areas, but it is a very
important tool to understand sector achievements and challenges. The strategy analyses first the
main problems faced in improving water supply service, and namely:
Inadequate attention to operation and maintenance.
21
Low community participation in project implementation.
Limited capacity of communities to maintain operative the water schemes.
Poor supply chain for spare parts (NRWSS 2015, p. v).
Then, it proposes some strategic actions to improve the situation and give effectiveness to
previous plans and reforms. Major initiatives include: recruiting and training more workers for
helping COWSO system, establishing centres of excellence to support operation and
maintenance activities, developing community awareness campaigns as also quality data
management system. Furthermore, for each specified action, the strategy specifies which are the
responsible administrative bodies (NRSS 2015, p. 12-28).
1.3 Aim of the research: why water schemes management in rural water projects is a key
element for sustainability
The present research is focused on water schemes management. On the one hand, a deep analysis
of the COWSO system will be presented. In fact, they represent the key actor chosen by the
government in order to achieve the objectives set in the rural water policy. Despite the COWSO
legislative framework is almost seven years old, the pace of formation and registration is still
low, as WSDP II underlines, the COWSOs that are registered are only 460 over 2,727 planned
(i.e. 17 percent) by Big Results Initiative until June 2014 (WSSR 2014, p. 17). Furthermore, in
order to fulfil the goal of transferring the legal ownership of water projects to local communities,
COWSO must be must be established and registered and must participate in “owning, planning,
maintaining and operating water supply projects and sanitation facilities” (NRSS 2015, p.6).
On the other hand, the research investigates the role of the private sector in rural water supply.
There are many public water schemes that are currently run by private citizens (called private
operators or private agents). How are these schemes performing? How can the private
22
management of water schemes be integrated with the law and the policy? These are the main
questions the research aims to answer. Furthermore, stakeholders shall start to look at private
participation in the water management not in antithesis with respect to the COWSO system.
Already since NAWAPO, the government suggests to foster the involvement of privates in water
service delivery, and the decision to transfer the legal property of water projects to communities
should not be interpreted as an obstacle to this aim. COWSO and privates can coexist. The
research wishes also to contribute to an assessment of future possible increases in private
involvement in water sector. Which services can the private sector provide in an efficient and
profitable manner? And which are the risks for communities in case of increasing private
involvement?
In general, in order to reach the principal objective of improving rural water coverage, the issue
of management should not be underestimated. It is a crucial aspect in the sector. Too many water
projects collapse because of poor management. Surveys found that only 54% of existing rural
water points is functional, and 25% of the schemes after only two years from installation are no
longer functioning (Water Aid 2009, p. i). As underlined by the government in the water policy,
operation and maintenance is a key element for schemes' sustainability. The sector needs
effective management models, which are able to provide services to communities, to guarantee
schemes sustainability thanks to a satisfactory financial management and to report the necessary
information to the local government authorities. As specified in the 2010 report “Myths of the
Rural Water Supply Sector”, drafted by the Rural Water Supply Network, building new water
supply systems is not more important than keeping the old one working. “Too little attention is
paid to how communities are likely to deal with the real-life complexities of a water supply
system” (Rural Water Supply Network 2010, p. 3). Designing realistic and effective management
23
models is surely a part of the solution to the problem of schemes sustainability.
Another crucial aspect for the long-term stability of rural water schemes is monitoring. Often the
management lacks of the necessary training or information; and if nobody is conducting a serious
monitoring of schemes and management performances, the probability of a scheme to collapse
increases substantially. Therefore, the research aims to investigate which are the main challenges
in current monitoring at a district level, developing at the same time an easy and efficient tool to
supervise water schemes performance at a village level.
1.4 Research methodology and study area
The general aim of the research, the methodology and the expected outcomes have been deeply
discussed with three crucial stakeholders: the National Water Network TAWASENET, the
Minister of Water and the University of Dodoma. At an early stage of research planning, a
meeting with TAWASENET helped in drafting a first outline of the project: the three core
elements of the project (COWSO establishment and registration, the role of private sector and
water schemes monitoring) had been deeply discussed and a first theoretical framework has been
developed. The research team considered the rural water supply policy as a flow of information
and responsibilities: starting from the normative and national framework of the Government,
moving to districts – which are the administrative and political bodies that have the specific duty
of implementing government's plans, and arriving at villages, where the water schemes have to
be concretely realized and managed. These three levels are sequential stages of a chain, in which
every step has the same importance in order to give concrete realization to the policy. The main
research’s objective shifted on the investigation of this flow of information and on the
institutional responsibilities on the three core topics. Yet, after having acknowledged the
24
considerable difficulties of such an extensive work, and thanks to the suggestions of the above-
mentioned institutions, the research team developed the project's field research in the following
way: first, the research focuses on the Dodoma region. This helped to reach the ambitious
objectives together within the limited time available. Furthermore, the research can be
considered as a pilot project, in which objectives and methodology are easily extendible to other
regions or to the national level.
Second, the empirical research focuses mainly at a district level. A deep analysis of both
Governmental policy and villages’ implementation problems is provided, with different aims. At
scheme level, the research team tried to test a monitoring tool for the water schemes, in order to
contribute to the discussion on the main challenges for long-run sustainability of rural water
schemes.
At Governmental level, the research team proposed an analysis of the normative and policy
framework, assessing which are the strong and weak points. This framework had been developed
thanks to the constant contribution and suggestions of TAWASENET and the University of
Dodoma (UDOM). The latter institution provided effective help to the research team by joining
the project through the participation of a UDOM’s student. At the same time, following the
positive dialogue with the government, the Ministry of Water officers provided the research team
with a presentation letter that contributed to a smoothen the planning of the field activities in the
districts.
The field research at District level consisted of seven semi-structured interviews with the District
Water Engineers. These officers are employed by the District and manage the Water Department.
They are responsible for the water supply and the sanitation services; furthermore, they
constitute the principal reference for water schemes management in the villages.
25
The second part of the field research was planned at village level. In each district, DWE
suggested to the research team three water schemes with various management models. In
Kongwa and Chamwino districts, thanks to previous L.V.I.A. knowledge of the areas, the
research team was able to visit five water schemes in each district. This helped to make a
preliminary testing of the monitoring tool (e.g. the time needed for each water scheme).
1.4.1 Seven districts of the Dodoma region
The selected area of investigation includes all seven Districts of the Dodoma region. These are:
Bahi, Chamwino, Chemba, Dodoma, Kondoa, Kongwa and Mpwapwa. The Dodoma region was
selected as consequence of the fact that L.V.I.A. works in Kongwa and Chamwino districts since
more than twenty five years, enabling the research team to have enough background knowledge
about the water supply situation in those areas. The Dodoma region located in the central plateau
of Tanzania, is one of the poorest region of the Country. The climate is semi-arid, with a unique
rainy season of 4-5 months. The annual rainfall is about 400 mm per year. The rainfall pattern is
very variable and every seven-six years a cyclic drought event can happen.
Based on the mentioned meetings and a careful review of existing laws, policy and the water
sector scientific literature, the research team prepared a questionnaire for conducting the semi-
structured interview with the DWEs. The questionnaire was divided into three sections:
COWSO establishment and registration. This section, made of twenty three questions,
dealt both with quantitative and qualitative information on COWSO. First, the document
included quantitative questions on the number of COWSOs (registered and unregistered),
average time and funds needed for a registration, total amount of funds in the water
department. Second, the questionnaire included questions on district's strategy to improve
the registration procedure, the existence of government guidelines on COWSO, the
26
degree of district involvement in COWSO establishment, together with problems and
suggestions for COWSO formation and registration.
Private sector involvement into water supply system. The second section, made of
fourteen questions, focused on the number of private operators managing water schemes
(with or without contract), the degree of district involvement in private operators
selection and in contracts drafting, a comparative assessment of private operators
performance in managing water schemes, problems, future strategies and suggestions for
increasing the involvement of privates in water supply sector.
Monitoring & Supervision. The last section, made of eleven questions, investigated how
DWEs and their teams conduct monitoring and supervision on water scheme
performances. Questions about the type and frequency of monitoring were formulated,
together with the kind of support provided to water schemes. This section was developed
in order to enrich the research part at scheme level that primarily deals with monitoring.
For this purpose, the questionnaire included a question to DWEs about which indicators
they considered mostly relevant for water schemes performance.
The research team succeeded in conducting all interviews to DWEs during three weeks. Only in
one District (Mpwapwa) the team could not conduct the interview directly with the DWE
(because of pre-scheduled duties), but the team met the person responsible for COWSO
registration and another officer of the DWE’s team, who were able to provide complete answers
and all requested data. The questionnaires were drafted in English, although the composition of
the field research team (four people with two Kiswahili native speakers) allowed to switch from
English to Kiswahili in case of misunderstandings or linguistic problems. Generally, in order to
use time efficiently, a sub-team of two components conducted the semi-structured interviews
27
with DWEs. Moreover, because the questionnaire included both open and closed questions,
generally one researcher conducted the interview while the second one was taking notes. After
having concluded the field research, in some cases it was necessary to contact again the DWEs
for completing the dataset. The average time needed for the semi-structured interviews was 1
hour and 30 minutes.
1.4.2 Twenty-five water schemes in seven districts of Dodoma region
Based on the existing literature on the field and on the long lasting experience of L.V.I.A.
employees, the research team developed a monitoring questionnaire for the water schemes
management entities. It was established on the basis of two key principles: first, it should have
been able to measure effectively water scheme performance; second, it should have been an easy
and fast tool, requiring only a short visit to the village. The final monitoring tool is a
questionnaire with thirteen questions for water schemes management entities and two questions
for the users. It is constructed upon three indicators:
1. Functionality. This indicator assesses the quality of current service delivery performed
by water schemes management. It is based on the percentage of functioning water
distribution points and on the existence of a proper financial management.
2. Stability. First, it assesses the long-run sustainability of the water scheme by checking if
the management entity has savings and of which amount per distribution point. Second,
it examines the type of management entity. It attributes higher values to management
entities that are more likely to be stable (e.g. registered COWSO) and that are as by the
law enacted (e.g. private operators with contract, COWSO).
3. Satisfaction/communication. The last indicator assesses the degree of users’ satisfaction
28
about the service. Furthermore, it examines whether the management entity is providing
the necessary information on scheme performance to the community, to village
government and to district.
The field research at a village level has been conducted together with the DWEs interviews: in
three weeks the planned villages have been monitored. Often, the research team split in two in
order to conduct the monitoring: two team members interviewed the management entities and
two team members interviewed the water users. The interviewed users were at least five in each
village, following a gender balanced selection. The average time needed to conduct the
monitoring in two teams was 50 minutes.
This is the complete list of the villages in which the research was conducted:
Bahi district: Babayu, Mayamaya and Zanka.
Chamwino district: Huzi, Mgunga, Mlebe, Mnase, Muungano.
Chemba district: Magasa, Mhlongia and Waida.
Dodoma municipal area: Ihumwa, Mapinduzi and Nghong'ohna.
Kondoa district: Kwayondu, Madisa and Soera.
Kongwa district: Laikala, Leganga, Mageseni, Majawanga/Moleti and Nolini.
Mpwapwa district: Chunyu, Kimagai and Kisokwe.
29
2. Water schemes management: COWSO system and private sector
participation
2.1 Framework: laws and policy
2.1.1 COWSO
The Water Supply and Sanitation Act No. 12 of 2009 introduces Community Owner Water
Supply Organizations (COWSO) as the only legal management entities entitled to implement the
NAWAPO’s community participation (and ownership) principle in rural water supply system.
The Act illustrates how COWSOs are formed and registered and how communities can
effectively participate in owning, planning, maintaining and operating water supply projects and
sanitation facilities.
In accordance with the Act, COWSOs established under section 31 may take the following
prescribed forms: water consumer association, water trust, cooperative society, non-
governmental organization, company, any other body as may be approved by the Minister.
Managing, operating and maintaining the water scheme and the provision of safe water to the
consumer are the main powers and functions of COWSOs. Besides these, they should make rules
for the use of public taps, install meters to measure the amount of water supplied, charge the
consumers for the water supplied and consult and cooperate with the village or any other
institution responsible for land (WSSA, 2009, p. 450).
The proposed members of the entity should prepare a Constitution/Statute or a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) and submit it to the local government authority for approval. Upon request
of the community or of a group of people who intend to establish the association, the local
government authority shall provide assistance in formulating the constitution or the MoU. After
30
approval of the constitution and community organization’s establishment, COWSO has to be
registered and published in the official Gazette. The registration responsibility has to be shifted
from the Ministry of Water to the Local level where there will be a registrar responsible on
behalf of the Ministry. From the date of the registration the community organization shall be
responsible for the water supply system and all the water consumers shall be required to
contribute for the water provision and the sustainability of its system. (WSSA, 2009, p.451)
Water Status Report – Making the end of WSDP (October 2014) affirms that COWSO
registration needs to become a priority and underlines poor results achieved in the phase I of the
program. The very recent National Rural Water Sustainability Strategy (NRWSS 2015)
recognizes same challenges and addresses and defines key actors and their responsibilities.
Moreover, in order to ensure the sustainability of water supply system, it provides strategic
interventions that are divided into three implementation terms (short-term; medium-term; long -
term).
Shortening the process of registration and formation of COWSO is one of the short-term
priorities set out in the strategy. In fact, in order to shorten the process from 251 (current
average) to 42 days, the Government identifies key interventions such as: i) allocating and
disbursing funds, ii) developing COWSO database, iii) enforcing capacity building programmes
and iv) including clear COWSO registration guideline in the Program Implementation Manual.
The NRWSS identifies the role and responsibilities of LGAs in supporting the rural water supply
service, within the COWSO’s framework:
• Promote establishment of COWSOs and provide technical assistance to them;
• Co-ordinate COWSO budgets within Council Budgets;
31
• Resolve conflicts within and between communities;
• Formulate by-laws on water source protection, water supply and sanitation;
• Improve the enabling environment e.g. working with the local private sector to improve water
facilities supply chain.
Finally, NRWSS presents main gaps between policies and practice: LGAs are often unable to
meet their obligation in the facilitation of COWSO. “There are not efficient mechanisms to
assure transparency, integrity and accountability for income and expenditure at community level.
Capacities and skills are inadequate to manage rural water supply services” (NRWSS, 2015, p.
23). The consequence of these problems can be serious: as stated by the strategy, “Often
COWSO are not better than the earlier Village Water Committees as they have inherited the
same challenges of their former institution set up” (Ibid.).
2.1.2 Private sector
Since 2002, when the National Water Policy (NAWAPO) was launched, new collaborations and
partnerships with the private sector have been constantly promoted as a new approach for the
sustainable development of water supply service in rural areas.
Then, in 2006, the WSDP Programme (Annex V) defined and described private agents as
providers of goods and services: they can support communities in conceiving, planning,
designing, constructing, maintaining and managing their water supply and sanitation facilities
(WSDP Annex V, 2006, p.4). Hence, according to this definition, the following entities were
(potentially) considered as part of the private sector: NGOs, consultants, drillers, contractors,
suppliers of pipes/pumps/other materials, private operators, artisans etc. But, although the
Government is encouraging private participation at all project cycle’s levels, there are yet no
strong policies and programs to attract private sector investments.
32
WSDP II more generally suggested the promotion and strengthening of independent
management entities, such as “Water User Groups, Water User Association and Private operator”
(WSDP II, 2014, p.61). In fact, the document states that in some areas autonomous entities are
found to be more sustainable, although there is a higher risk of excessive profiteering for private
operators. However, this risk can be reduced or avoided by stipulating well-designed contracts
with specific duties, roles, responsibilities and penalties of the parties.
Act no. 12/2009 regulates private sector participation in water supply, establishing - under
section 35 - that a “service provider” may be hired by COWSOs for performing its functions and
exercising its powers. In order to accomplish this role, they shall sign an agreement with specific
terms and conditions that shall be approved by the local government authority. Furthermore, it
includes “Companies” as one of the corporate bodies prescribed in accordance with the section
31. In this way the Act seems to establish two different levels of private sector participation,
even though there is no large experience of the latter and confusion regarding role and legal
framework of “service providers” at local level.
Should the private sector be considered only as a service provider or can it also perform other
functions? As the research will show, the most common role of the private sector in the rural
water supply is the private operator (PO) that is often operating water schemes, and mostly with
no contract and no supervision of COWSOs. Therefore, are these POs working out of the legal
framework? Which roles can the private sector play and which one will be promoted by the
Government? What kind of partnership and collaboration is the Government looking for? These
are the questions which remain unanswered and must be clarified. The Government should reply,
providing clear policies, coordination, harmonization and practical mechanisms of support and
implementation.
33
2.2 Data analysis of the districts
2.2.1 Types of management
The first question to District Water Engineers assessed the total number of water schemes in
each district. According to their answers, in the region of Dodoma there are 397 water schemes,
divided in seven districts. The following graph shows the quantity of water schemes per district.
Graph 1: Total number of water schemes in each district of the Dodoma region
It is important to note that the quantity of water schemes differ from to the number of villages: in
fact, some water schemes serve more than one village. The district with the highest quantity of
schemes is Kondoa (77). Five districts have a number of schemes between 49 and 65, while
Dodoma Municipal Area is the smallest with 36 water schemes.
52
77
36
65 62
56
49
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
KONGWA KONDOA DODOMA CHAMWINO CHEMBA BAHI MPWAPWA
Total number of schemes
34
Graph 2: Types of management (in percentage) in the Dodoma region
Graph 2 presents the percentage of each management entity at regional level. First, it can be
noted that there are four types of managements:
Village Water Committees are the majority with 56 percent.
Private Operators are the second largest group with 28 percent.
COWSOs amount to 15 percent.
Water Authorities represent only 1 percent of the management entities.
More than half of the schemes are run by “Village Water Committees”. This kind of
management entity existed in Tanzania long before COWSOs and Private Operators, and that’s
why VWCs run the majority of water schemes. Generally, the committee is constituted of at least
5 members selected from village council (in some villages the financial and planning committees
of Village Government have the responsibility of management). Sub villages are often
represented in these committees, as well.
“Private Operators” are usually citizens of the village who become managers of the water
scheme. They use to sign contracts with the Village Government, agreeing on financial and
1%
15%
28%
56%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Water Authorities COWSOs Private Operators VWC
Type of managment entity
35
technical issues concerning the scheme. Generally these contracts do not last more than two
years, and usually they specify the amount of money that the Operator has to pay every month to
the VG. In fact, the PO meets the running and maintenance costs by its own (up to a certain
amount), keeps all the revenues and pays an agreed monthly fee to the village.
COWSOs are the entities entitled to legally own the water schemes. Additionally, they can
manage directly the water systems or they can appoint “service providers”. The process of
establishing COWSOs in the rural areas of Tanzania has still to improve and the Dodoma region
can be considered an example of this challenge: only 15 percent of all management entities are
COWSOs.
Water Authorities shall be established in urban areas and small towns to manage water supply. In
the Dodoma region that is mainly constituted by rural areas WAs are few, while another legal
entity is in charge of the water supply service in the capital city: DUWASA – Dodoma Water
Supply & Sewerage Authority.
Graph 3: Percentage of each management entity in the seven districts of the Dodoma region
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Water Authorities
COWSOs
Private Operators
Village Water Committee
36
Graph 3 shows the distribution of different management models across Dodoma’s districts.
Almost in all cases the most common management is the Village Water Committee: the
percentage goes from 50 to more than 80 percent in five districts. Chamwino District is a
peculiar exception, having the highest quantity of Private Operators (almost 90 percent of
district’s schemes). Then, just three districts have a percentage of COWSO from 20 to more than
30 percent, while the other four districts have approximately from zero up to ten percent of
COWSOs.
2.2.1.1 Types of COWSO
Interestingly, DWEs reported that all the COWSOs in their district have the legal form of “Water
Consumer Associations”. As already mentioned, the COWSOs might be of various kinds (e.g.
companies, NGOs, cooperatives). Yet, in all districts the predominant models are the WCAs.
Why is this occurring? One explanation could be that, since NAWAPO (when government’s
policy was oriented to increase the independence of water management entities in rural areas) the
involvement of communities has always been achieved through fostering the participation of
water user bodies. The first National Water Sector Development Programme - published in July
2006 - calls these user bodies “Water User Groups” and “Water User Associations” (p. 4-14).
The first category usually refers to a group of people having a common water distribution point.
WUGs can also form groups at a larger scale, which might take the responsibility of managing
the entire water scheme. These bodies are called “Water User Associations” and are constituted
by village communities’ members that own and manage the water supply independently from the
political power of the village government. Basically, this is the main difference between a
Village Water Committee and a Water User Association: in the first one, members are selected
according to the political entity of the village, while in the second one the composition follows a
37
“bottom-up process”, from Water User Groups to WUAs.
At this point some terminological confusion arises: “Water User Associations” is a label which,
since NAWAPO, has been used also in a different context. Namely, this word has been used in
the Water Resource Management framework, not in Rural Water Supply. As already mentioned,
water resource management is concerned with water considered as a natural resource, and its
main objective is to properly manage natural water sources of the country (rivers, lakes,
wetlands, springs, groundwater aquifers) to reach a sustainable socio-economic development. In
this context, “Water User Associations” are the lowest appropriate management level (i.e. at
villages), being responsible for “mediation of disputes among users and between groups within
their areas of jurisdiction, [...] conservation and protecting water sources, and catchment areas,
efficient and effective water use, […]” (NAWAPO 2002, p. 28). Furthermore they provide
legitimate representatives in water resource management entities at higher levels. So, since 2002,
the label “Water User Association” has been used in the water resource framework, rather than
rural water supply. Therefore, the Water Supply and Sanitation Act of 2009 chooses another
word in order to refer to WUAs that are managing water supply facilities. It called them “Water
Consumer Associations”. Consequently, laws and policies started to use this other label in order
to distinguish the two concepts.
Looking at the evolution of community participation, it is now more understandable why, in the
Dodoma region, all COWSOs are WCAs. The idea of establishing and registering COWSOs
entered in a context in which, since some years, communities could manage water schemes
through entities called Water User Associations. Therefore, for all actors involved (districts,
village government and water users) it has been easier to think of COWSOs as associations of
water users, rather than private companies, NGOs, cooperatives, etc. Furthermore, there is no
38
document that explains in details how to establish all different types of COWSOs.
2.2.1.2 Role of Private Operators
As described previously, it is difficult to deduce unequivocally the role of private operators in the
management of rural water projects from the normative and policy framework. Since the
approval of WSSA in 2009, every scheme should be owned by a registered COWSO that, in a
subsequent moment, could decide to appoint a (private) service provider to engage management
functions. Government suggested in many documents to increase the participation of private
operators in rural water supply; yet, the only normative framework that can include private
operators seems to be the COWSO system. Concrete reality in the Dodoma region is very
different from this theoretical analysis. Almost all Private Operators have written or oral
agreements with the Village Governments rather than COWSOs (the only exception are three
schemes of Bahi District that have COWSO and PO together).
In all districts analysed, private operators are not companies, but citizens appointed by village
authorities - usually through open calls - to run the water schemes. As previously mentioned,
they manage water supply under all points of view. All District Water Engineers highlighted that
POs are collecting water fees, paying tap attendants and are responsible of ordinary technical
maintenance of the scheme (for extraordinary works it is normally the village covering costs).
They usually pay a monthly fee to the VG as a kind of rent for the water scheme, which - in the
large majority of the cases - remains property of the village. When describing the role of private
operators, only one DWE did not mention ordinary technical maintenance of the scheme as their
duties.
Although POs can be considered fully responsible for the management under a practical point of
view, in Chemba District the DWE had a slightly different view: “POs are within the control of
39
VG or water committees, so it is the VG that can be considered to manage the scheme”. This
observation highlights the fact that the communities shall always be considered the “real”
managers, which can freely decide to delegate their functions to other actors.
2.2.2 Resources for COWSO
After having assessed some general information for each district (e.g. the number of water
schemes and the management types), the interview with the DWEs focused on the issue of
Community Owned Water Supply Organisations. In order to be able to establish and register
them according to the normative framework, districts need basically three elements: adequate
financial resources, proper information/guidelines and trained officers. Therefore, in the section
of the interview about COWSOs establishment and registration, the questionnaire focused on
these three elements.
2.2.2.1 Funds
The following graph presents, for each district, the percentage of water department's budget
(2015) dedicated to COWSO establishment and registration.
Graph 4: Percentage of Water Departments’ budget (2015) for COWSOs establishment and
registration.
0%
9%
0% 2%
0%
26%
3% 0%
10%
20%
30%
KONGWA KONDOA DODOMA CHAMWINO CHEMBA BAHI MPWAPWA
Percentage of Water Departments' budget for COWSOs
establishement and registration
40
As it is possible to recognize by looking at the graph, the situation in the region is very
heterogeneous. In two cases – Kongwa and Dodoma – DWEs explained that they do not have
any specific budget line for COWSOs. When they need some funds for establishment or
registration of COWSOs they reallocate resources from the general budget of the water
department. This procedure requires some bureaucratic steps: the request for reallocation must be
officially formulated and approved by the responsible district offices. In Chemba district, the
Water Engineer said that he deleted from the 2015 budget the line of COWSOs because of
substantial reduction in the available funds: “This year I have enough resources to construct only
one new water project” said the engineer.
In two districts – Chamwino and Mpwapwa – the funds available for COWSOs are a small
percentage of the total water department's budget: respectively 2 and 3 percent. In Mpwapwa, the
officers underlined that in case more resources would be needed, the department will proceed
with the reallocation procedure. Kondoa District Water Engineer allocated 9 percent of the
budget to COWSOs; furthermore, he highlighted that there are some resources available for the
establishment and registration from the national Water Sector Development Programme and
from external donors. Finally, Bahi district allocated 26 percent of the budget to COWSOs.
Interestingly, two District Water Engineers affirm that, sometimes, it is possible to use a part of
water scheme savings in order to facilitate the development of the existent management into a
COWSO. All Districts - except one - reported that it is impossible to reallocate the resources
dedicated to COWSOs once the budget is approved. It was underlined that the procedure to
disburse funds for the activities has been computerized and it is consequently not possible to
change the destinations. In Mpwapwa, the officers reported, on the contrary, that they can
41
reallocate resources dedicated to specific activities during the budget review of mid-year. Yet,
the procedure is long: the department can make the proposal that has to be approved first by the
District Executive Director and the by the full district council. The definitive decision is taken at
regional level.
2.2.2.2 Documents & guidelines
In order to determine whether the District Water Engineers have all the necessary information on
the government policy about COWSOs, the research team asked if the relevant documents and
laws were available.
Graph 5: Percentages of availability of some relevant documents at DWEs’ offices..
The question focused on five paper documents and one website. Graph 5 shows the availability
of the documents at regional level:
All seven DWEs have in their offices three documents: the National Water Policy of
2002 (NAWAPO), the Water Supply and Sanitation Act of 2009 (WSSA) and
government guidelines on COWSOs establishment and registration. These guidelines
100% 100%
57%
100%
57%
29%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
GUIDELINES WSSA WSDP II
REPORT
NAWAPO NRWSS PIM WEBSITE
Availability of water sector's relevant documents at District level
42
were written in the years following the adoption of the national Water Sector
Development Programme and were updated after the approval of WSSA in 2009.
Four out of seven DWEs (57 percent) have the last report of the WSDP (called Water
Sector Development Programme – Phase II, published in July 2014) and the National
Rural Water Sustainability Strategy (available in the Minister of Water website since
August 2015).
Only two DWEs (28 percent) checked the new website of the Programme
Implementation Manual for the WSDP II. This website is divided into the five
components of the new WSDP phase. Component II – Rural Water Supply and Sanitation
– contains updated information about the implementation procedures and strategies.
Furthermore, it is possible to download all relevant laws and documents on rural water
supply.
From DWEs answers it is possible to recognize that the flow of information from government to
Local Government Authorities face some challenges. Documents that are relatively old are
known and available in the districts. In case of more recent policies, i.e. WSDP II and NRWSS,
three engineers reported not to have them. This implies that the engineers are not properly
updated about the recent national strategies and new targets in rural water sector. Another
example of this “information challenge” is the fact that the majority of DWEs have not yet
visited the new useful website for the implementation of WSDP II.
2.2.2.3 The role of CWSTs and other district officers
The council/community water and sanitation team (CWST) is the key body in the management
of all water and sanitation issues at district level. In phase I of WSDP, MOW referred to it as
District Water and Sanitation Team (DWST) but in more recent documents like WSDP II and
43
NRWSS, the name changed to CWST. They have to be formed in each district to facilitate
coordination of the different departments that have responsibilities in water and sanitation.
Teams' responsibilities are to provide the day-to-day leadership, planning and coordination of
water and sanitation activities at district level (PIM annex 9, 2006, p.6).
In the Dodoma region all districts have CWSTs. They generally consist of 6 head of departments
or their representatives and the District Executive Director (DED) as chairperson. The teams
include representative from LGA Director Office (DED), District Planning Office (DPLO),
District Water Engineer (DWE), District Health Office (DHO), District Community development
Office (DCDO), District Education Office (DEO) and District Treasurer (DT). The total number
of members of the team varies across districts; it ranges from 7 to 10. In some districts, most
important departments like Community Development and Water send more representatives; thus,
they have a larger team.
In each district CWSTs have different responsibilities. Specifically for COWSOs strategy,
CWSTs are accountable for organizing and supervising the whole process of establishment and
formation. They should also monitor COWSOs performances. In one district, DWE highlighted
that CWST is responsible for preparing meetings, disbursing fund and designing the plans for
implementation of water projects.
For COWSOs establishment and registration process, some responsibilities are performed by the
whole team, while some others are implemented within the single departments with close
assistance of the team whenever necessary. In the establishment process, the CWST is
responsible for sensitizing and train the community on COWSOs strategy. Once the community
is motivated to create the new entity, the team provides representatives to facilitate the process of
selecting COWSO leaders. In some districts, the entire team participates to field activities while
44
in some others, because of financial problems, only few members can be involved.
In order to understand deeper the role of the districts for COWSOs establishment, it is useful to
look at their involvement for the facilitation of COWSO leaders' election. Graph 6 shows, at
regional level, the type of activities conducted by districts (expressed in percentage of district) to
facilitate the COWSO establishment.
Graph 6: Facilitating activities implemented by district (in percentage) in COWSOs
establishment process
In four districts (57 percent), water department provides villages with the selection criteria for
COWSO leaders. They include: a gender balanced selection, an appropriate level of education (at
least being able to read, write and count – in Kiswahili KKK, Kusoma, Kuandika and
Kuhesabu), independence from the Village Government and a feeling of responsibility toward
the COWSO.
The same number of districts sends officers to facilitate the election process. In three cases the
district employees only check if the guidelines for leader selection are followed. In Mpwapwa
the degree of involvement is higher: first, the district provides cars for promoting COWSO
election; second, the officers help the village in preparing the electoral forms (generally the
57%
14%
57%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Providing officers to facilitate
the process
Providing assistance for
selection/templates
Providing criteria for leaders
selction
Districts' facilitating activities in COWSO establishment process
45
community itself decides whether to elect the leaders by raising hands or through a ballot box).
Again, Mpwapwa is the only district in which officers participate actively in the leader selection:
one CWST member helps the village in assessing the quality of the candidates.
2.2.3 COWSO’s processes
2.2.3.1 COWSO formation and registration achievements
The status of registration of COWSOs at national level is low. The water sector report for
marking the end of WSDP phase-I 2014 underlined that, out of 2,728 COWSOs planned by June
2014, only 460 (17%) were established and registered. The main problem highlighted by the
MOW is the lack of funds allocated by LGAs for undertaking the process. Often, even when the
funds are set, they are reallocated for other purposes (WSDP II p.17).
In the Dodoma region there are 72 COWSOs: 41 already registered (57%) and 31 (43%) in
process. The unregistered COWSOs are composed by: i) COWSOs that are already managing the
water schemes although the registration process is not completed (36% of all 72 COWSOs), ii)
COWSOs that are not operative during the registration process (7% of all 72 COWSOs). In the
last case, VWCs usually keep on running the water projects.
46
Graph 7: Percentage of registered and unregistered COWSOs in the Dodoma Region
In 2014, districts have registered the 49% of the total registered COWSOs (41) existing in the
whole region. Three districts did not register any COWSOs until 2014. The COWSOs planned to
be registered last year in all districts were 79 while only 25% were registered. The total number
of registrations planned in 2015 dropped with respect to last year by 9%.
In the Dodoma region the districts have different budgets for establishment and registration of
COWSOs; this affects the homogeneity of their plans. In fact, the number of COWSOs to be
registered yearly depends on the available resources. Some districts planned to register many
COWSOs last year but they reduced the number this year. Others increased the number this year;
one district plans to register the same amount as last year. The total amount planned this year
includes the COWSOs whose registration process started last year. For example in Mpwapwa
district, the 10 COWSOs planned for this year include 7 that are in the registration process since
last year. Only 3 new COWSOs are foreseen to be promoted and registered.
7%
36%
53%
4%
57%
COWSO established but not registered
and not operative
COWSO established but not registered
and managing the water service
COWSO registered and managing the
water service
COWSO registered but no directly
managing: supervising and
subcontracting PO
47
Graph 8: Percentage of planned and registered COWSOs
Interestingly, the two districts that did not register any COWSO in 2014 are the ones not having
a specific budget line for establishment and registration (Kongwa and Chemba). The third district
without separate budget is Dodoma that last year planned a very high number of registrations. It
is fair to say that districts with no dedicate budget for COWSO registration face more challenges
in planning the annual objectives as well as estimating the needed funds. Moreover, a detailed
plan with exact expenditures could speed the implementation phase and increase the
performances of the districts. Also the amount of budget dedicated to COWSOs seems to play an
important role for the registration rate: the two districts that achieved to register 100 percent of
last year plans (Bahi and Kondoa), are the ones which dedicated the highest percentages of water
budget to COWSOs (Bahi 26 percent and Kondoa 9 percent).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
COWSOs planned to be registeredin 2014/2015
COWSOs registered in 2014/2015
COWSOs planned to be registeredin 2015/2016
48
2.2.3.2 Steps of establishment and registration
In order to guarantee a smooth establishment and registration process of COWSOs, the
government prepared guidelines that describe in details all the necessary steps and the actors
involved. The guidelines divided the procedure for creating a new COWSO in three distinct
activities:
Establishment
Registration
Election of permanent committee
The establishment phase consists of ten steps. Among others, they include the presentation of the
general idea to the village assembly, the choice of which is the most suitable type of COWSO,
the drafting of constitution guided by an interim committee and final approval by the district.
The registration process consists of nine steps, starting from the village application (which shall
include, also the draft of the constitution and the minutes of meetings), to the examination of the
application by the district registrar, the payment of registration fee and the final approval with
the issue of the registration certificate.
According to the guidelines, the election of the permanent committee shall be done after the
conclusion of the establishment procedure. The permanent committee must be formed following
a gender-balanced approach and it shall have also an executive committee, according to the type
of COWSO established. On the contrary, the registration process should start before the end of
procedure for establishment; in fact, after completing constitution drafting, the interim
committee shall prepare an application letter to the district attaching also the registration form
and the fees paid.
During the interviews with the District Water Engineers, the research team asked about the
49
necessary steps for establishing and registering COWSOs. The question was open-ended, in
order to have exhaustive answers. From DWEs’ replies it is possible to highlight two main
differences from the official procedure. First, the election of the permanent committee is often
done before completing all the establishment steps. Only three districts underlined that the
interim committee has to be formed for drafting the constitution and that, only after this step,
COWSO leaders can be elected. In two cases there was no distinction between temporary and
permanent committees; while other two districts did not mention the committees at all.
Second, in DWE's answers, it is not possible to identify the last step of the establishment
procedure as it is prescribed by the guideline. In fact, a COWSO is considered established when
the District Executive Director sends a letter of approval. After this step it is possible to proceed
to the election of permanent committee. In all districts, the DWEs reported as the last step the
issue of the registration certificate, without mentioning a formal step for the conclusion of the
establishment. Therefore, the three activities (establishment, registration and election of
permanent committee) seem to be conducted without properly following the guidelines.
Graph 9 illustrates the ten official steps of the establishment procedure. They are described on
the x-axis. The bars represent the percentage of districts that implement each activity. The bars
coloured in red highlight the fact that those steps are conducted differently with respect to the
official procedure.
50
Graph 9: The ten steps of the establishment procedure and the percentages, for each step, of districts
that implement them.
The entire process is as follows:
1. The district, mainly through CWSTs, introduces the idea of COWSO to village
government (or to village water and sanitation committee). All DWEs reported this step.
2. The results of this introductory meeting will be shared with the community through a
village assembly. Six DWEs (86 percent) reported this activity.
3. The district, through the CWSTs, should illustrate to the village community different
types of COWSO and the various steps of their establishment. Thereafter, the community
should decide which type of COWSO they prefer. This step has been reported only by
one DWE (14 percent). Although it is very important to take an informed decision about
which type of COWSO should be established, the absence of this step is probably a
100%
86%
14% 14%
71%
100%
29%
43%
100%
43%
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Process steps for COWSO establishment and registration
51
consequence of the fact that the majority of actors in the rural water supply think of
COWSO as associations of water users (i.e. WCA) not taking into account all other types.
4. In the official guideline step four includes the duty for the VG to call an assembly for the
formal decision on the type of COWSO. Thereafter, the assembly elects the interim
committee responsible for drafting the constitution. In the graph, the two activities are
divided in point 4.1 and 4.2. Only one DWE reported that the VG organizes the assembly
for deciding the COWSO type. At the same time, five DWEs (71 percent) told that an
interim committee is elected. The bar in the graph is red because, actually, two districts
did not distinguish between the interim committee and the permanent one: they simply
told that COWSO leaders are elected.
5. Step five is the constitution drafting. All the interviewed DWEs mentioned this activity.
6. In the official guidelines, at this stage the interim committee should present the draft of
the constitution to the village assembly for approval. During the interviews, only in one
case it was highlighted that the interim committee presents the draft. Another DWE
reported that the committee discusses it preliminarily with the VG, which, thereafter calls
an assembly. This procedure can affect the whole process: in fact, the decision about the
COWSO constitution should be made independently from the political authorities in the
village. In the graph, the bar (29 percent) represents the answers of these two engineers.
7. This step involves the Ward. The interim committee should send the constitution to the
Ward Development Committee for approval. Only three DWEs (43 percent) mentioned
this activity.
8. After Ward approval, the drafted constitution has to be sent to the district. There, the
DED should check the application and the minutes of meetings before giving his/her
52
approval. The bar is red because all the DWEs reported to conduct this activity in
different ways with respect to the official guideline. Some of them said that the CWST is
responsible for checking the constitution; some others attributed this role to themselves or
to the Community Development Officer.
9. All the documents shall be also ratified by the district's full council. Three DWEs (43
percent) reported this step.
10. At this point the DED shall send an approval letter to the village, formally recognizing
COWSO establishment. The bar in the graph is red because all the DWEs concluded their
lists by saying that a registration certificate will be issued by the district. This confusion
is consequence of the fact that there is no clear distinction between the establishment and
the registration procedures.
Districts simplify the procedure suggested by the guidelines. Indeed, the division into three
activities (establishment, registration and election of permanent committee) for a total of twenty
steps seems too complicated. The consequence of this complex procedure is the heterogeneity
across districts. Probably, districts are just adapting to a procedure which is too complicated.
2.2.3.3 Average time and funds needed
One key issue for improving the implementation of COWSOs in rural areas is the time needed
for establishment and registration. During the interviews with DWEs, the research team asked
how long, on average, the district needs to constitute a COWSO, from the first to the last step
(i.e. registration included). The answers vary from a minimum of 48 days (Mpwapwa) to a
maximum of 90 (Bahi, Chemba and Dodoma). Time suggested by DWEs is theoretical, it is
calculated considering all necessary resources available (funds, officers, etc.); otherwise it would
be hard to consider these averages realistic: in some districts there are still no registered
53
COWSOs at all. In graph 10, DWEs answers are represented together with the amount of days
suggested by NRWSS. In fact, according to government calculations, the current process last on
average 252 days, while the proposed procedure will last 42 days. The main difference between
the two procedures is the absence of Ward level approval: policy suggests to eliminate this step
because it requires time; indeed, Ward Development Committee is supposed to meet every three
months. On the procedure suggested by the policy, the first step is called “development of draft
of constitution by founder members”. This implies that, in the proposal of 42 days, the
introductory meetings between the district and the village authority/community are not included.
Summing this additional time (which can be estimated in two weeks) to government's proposal,
the resulting days are not distant from DWEs answers.
Graph 10: Average time for COWSO establishment and registration in each district.
60 57
90
60
90 90
48
0
20
40
60
80
100
Number of Days for
registering one
COWSO
Number of days from
MoW guideline
54
Box 1. The difference between average days and effective days of activity: the case of Kondoa.
Some districts provided two different data about the necessary time for COWSO establishment
and registration. The first is already presented in graph 10: it is the average time necessary to
constitute a COWSO from the first to the last step. The second information provided by districts
is the required effective days of activities. In order to understand clearly the difference between
these two information, let us consider the example of Kondoa district. The District Water
Engineer considered 33 days of effective activities in order to establish and register a COWSO:
Introduction of COWSO to Village Council – 1 day
Village General Meeting – 1 day
Formation of constitution members – 1 day
Constitution writing – 14 days
Election of COWSO leaders – 1 day
Training of COWSO leaders – 5 days
Training of pump attendant – 7 days
Contracts elaboration and signing – 2 days
Issue the certificate of registration – 1 day
All previous days of activity sum up to 33. Yet, this cannot be considered the period in which a
COWSO is successfully established and registered. Effective days of activities do not consider
delays, problems and unforeseen events that might prolong the period. Yet, a detailed program
of the activities and the necessary days for implementing them will help in preparing budgets
and working plans. In fact, Kondoa is one of the districts that registered 100 percent of the
planned COWSO last year.
55
The following graph shows, for each district, the amount of money necessary to establish and
register one COWSO. These data were collected through a direct question to DWEs. Some of
them could not confirm an exact amount to establish one COWSO, so they provided a total
amount spent for COWSO establishment and registration in the district that was then divided by
the number of entities indicated by the engineers. Some others had a complete budget of all
necessary costs and the final total amount. As it is possible to recognize by looking at the graph,
DWEs answers are very heterogeneous.
Graph 11: Total cost, reported by DWEs, for establishing and registering one COWSO
The reported costs vary from a minimum of 600.000 TSH (Kongwa) to a maximum of 14 million
TSH (Kondoa and Mpwapwa). It is beyond the scopes of present research to investigate in
details the reasons of these discrepancies, yet it is necessary to underline that it is highly possible
that DWEs calculated these total amounts referring to different data. Yet, a brief analysis at
district level can be useful to better understand the relative magnitude of funds dedicated to
COWSOs. It is noteworthy, that in three out of seven districts, there are no dedicated budget
lines for COWSOs. DWEs referred that when they need funds they reallocate resources from the
general budget.
In the four districts that have a dedicated budget line, the funds available are not enough in three
600,000
14,005,000
2,000,000 1,715,000
5,000,000 3,000,000
14,000,000
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
KONGWA KONDOA DODOMA CHAMWINO CHEMBA BAHI MPWAPWA
Total estimated cost for establishment and registration of one COWSO
56
cases. Considering the unit cost per COWSO and the total number of registrations planned for
the year 2015, it is possible to calculate the total cost prevision. Then, the comparison of this
prevision with the funds dedicated in the budgets shows that three districts do not have enough
funds to register the planned COWSOs. Yet, it has to be underlined that this estimation can be
too severe because the districts might have considered COWSOs that are already established and
do not need the entire cost prevision. Only one district calculated the amount of budget dedicated
to COWSOs by multiplying the unit costs and the number of entities planned.
For the three districts that do not have a dedicated budget line for COWSOs it is more difficult to
do keen evaluation. Yet, after having calculated the cost prevision for each district (unitary cost
times number of COWSOs planned), it is possible to estimate the percentage of budget that they
will have to reallocate in order to establish the entities. For Kongwa, that reported a very low
unit cost, it is 4 percent of the water budget; yet, using as unit cost the regional average, this
percentage increases up to 40. In Dodoma and Chemba the funds needed are also high
percentages of the total water budgets, implying that there could be a lack of funds. It is
necessary to highlight that the government never drafted a guideline suggesting how expensive
could be to establish and register a COWSO.
2.2.3.4 Problems hindering the establishment and registration of COWSOs
The major problem highlighted by DWEs is the lack of funds for facilitating registration
activities. The districts need on average 71 days for establishing and registering one COWSO.
The whole process needs time, human and financial resources. Some districts are blaming the
central government for underprivileged allocation of budgets for COWSOs registration. One
DWE advocated that, lack of fund is the reason why the districts fail to register the COWSOs
planned yearly. Also lack of human resources is a problem for the proper implementation of the
57
strategy, as 29% of districts highlighted. In Bahi district this problem is severe. Directives from
the government insist that the water department should have 25 members, but in the district there
are only 9 officers, and 6 of them are close to the retirement.
57% of DWEs highlighted lack of awareness of villages as one of main problems. COWSOs
strategy is a new idea in rural communities and even though it was legally established in 2009,
many districts started the implementation only 2 years ago. Villagers do not understand why they
should establish COWSOs. In some cases districts go and train villagers several times but the
community does not agree with the idea. Hence, districts need extra time and funds to train and
raise awareness.
Conflicts between stakeholders are affecting 57% of the districts. Water schemes have been the
main source of revenue of village authorities for many years and, now, the introduction of new
management entities is raising a conflict of interest. Village Government can hardly accept to
change management system, mainly because they fear to lose power and control over the
revenues. In other cases, conflicts can be manifested between COWSOs and villagers: when the
entity fails to provide adequate services the villagers can influence the VG to chase out the
COWSO and to replace it with a PO. Some political leaders also reject the COWSO system only
because of different political ideologies.
58
Graph 12: In percentage, the problems reported by DWEs that hinder COWSOs establishment
and registration
Future strategies for improving COWSOs registration and performances
Since COWSOs strategy is new for many water stakeholders, 57% of districts proposed to
develop training and facilitation programs addressed to districts’ staff, as an important aspect for
future improvement of establishment and registration process. 43% of districts highlighted that,
training and frequent monitoring is a good strategy for improving COWSOs performance. Other
districts referred that government’s funds are not enough to achieve the increase of COWSOs
registrations planned. Furthermore, some districts seek assistance from international and local
organizations: for instance, TASAF – the Tanzania Social Action Fund - implements community
awareness programs in Dodoma municipal. Also MAMADO, a non-governmental organization,
supported the formation of 7 COWSOs in Bahi district last year.
100%
57%
29%
57%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Lack of fund Lack of community
awareness
Inadequate human
resources
Conflicts between
stakeholders
Poblems of COWSOs registration and establishement processes
59
Graph 13: Proposed DWEs’ strategies (in percentage) to improve COWSOs registration and
performances
2.2.4 Private Sector
2.2.4.1 Involvement of the district in the selection of Private Operators
The second part of the interviews with DWEs focused on the role of private sector in rural water
management. As we have previously shown, in the Dodoma region private operators are the
second largest group (28 percent) running water schemes. Generally, they are responsible for the
operation of the scheme and for the ordinary maintenance. According to the normative
framework, privates can act as service providers, while the property of the projects should
remain to the communities through COWSOs. Actually, private operators usually conclude
agreements with village authorities, instead of COWSOs as it should be in accordance with the
law.
The research team asked to the District Water Engineers if they received some directives from
the government on how to regulate the involvement of private operators. All of them reported
that they never received any guideline or advices; the only normative source that they mentioned
is the National Water Policy of 2002, in which it is stated that the involvement of privates (for
service delivery) should be improved and facilitated (NAWAPO 2002, p. 34). As it is shown by
57%
29% 29%
57%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Training and facilitation
programs for staffs
Raising awareness of
stakeholders
Propose assistance from
Donors
Training and monitoring
COWSOs
Proposed strategies for improving COWSOs registration and
performances
60
graph 14, the majority of DWEs (57 percent) told that the district is not involved in the private
operators’ selection conducted by villages. On the contrary, three DWEs (43 percent) reported
that they are involved. After a deep discussion about the ways in which the districts intervene in
the first steps of the selection process, it came out that all districts (also the ones that reported not
being involved) play a supervising role. The final decision about the candidate as private
manager is left to the communities; yet, districts give advice and control the procedure. In
Mpwapwa, district officers reported that they provide clarification about the private operators’
functions. For example, they suggest that contract people shall run the system with appropriate
technical skills.
Graph 14: Percentages of districts involved in the selection of POs.
Finally, the DWE of Bahi reported that they would like to increase their involvement also at
early stages of the selection in order to avoid the risk of corruption between privates and village
authorities.
43%
57%
Districts are involved in PO selection
Yes
No
61
2.2.4.2 Contracts
The Region of Dodoma has 114 recognized private operators who run schemes. 111 of them
signed contracts with village governments and just 3 with COWSOs. In 57% of districts (four out
of seven), the contracts are drafted at District level by DWEs together with legal officers. In one
case, the study found that village governments prepare a draft of the contract that will be later
revised by the district. Looking at the graph below, we can affirm that the responsible
person/office differs from district to district, in fact in the other two districts is the CWST and the
legal officer by themselves to be in charge of the activity.
Graph 15: Responsible figures for contract drafting, modification and approval
2.2.4.3 Suggestions of DWE on the signed contracts
The research focused also on contracts’ strengths and weaknesses. The interview with DWEs
revealed a serious issue: most of contracts are advantageous to Private Operators rather than
village government. The main controversy is the monthly fee paid by POs: DWEs reported that it
is generally low compared to the actual revenues collected from water supply service. Village
governments tend to appoint POs without knowing the actual productivity of the scheme.
Furthermore, when the schemes do not have tools for measuring water consumption (i.e. meters)
14%
57%
14%
14%
Responsible person/office of contract drafting
Distrcit legal officer(DLO)
DWE and DLO
VG and DWE
CWST
62
the revenue estimation is much more difficult. This could explain the Village Government’s
weak capacity of negotiation with PO. Hence, it is essential to make a prior evaluation of water
supply service's productivity (over the contract duration) before the final agreement between PO
and COWSO or VG.
Other recommendations highlighted by DWEs include:
Majority of signed contracts do not clearly identify how often machine maintenance
should be done. Some private operators run it without frequent repairs. DWEs advised
that machines should be serviced according to technicians’ opinions.
Contracts should clearly define the price of water as government recommends. This will
help to regulate POs who sell water at high price.
Contracts must also identify the specific day of the month in which POs should deposit
money in village's bank account.
Duties and responsibilities of each part must be openly explained to avoid conflicts. For
instance, it should be clear if the cost of maintenances will be covered by PO or by VG.
Contracts must be flexible according to the setting of the scheme. Factors like
geographical location, productivity of the borehole and water demand can affect
contracts' items.
District should be closely involved in contracts stipulation because most of time POs take
advantage over community's inexperience.
63
Box 2. Contract’s components: the Mpwapwa District’s case
1. Heading
Title of the contract which briefly explains the responsibilities of private operator
2. Preliminary information.
Name of signatories (village and private operator) and addresses
Identification of the kind of private: whether a company, an agent, a cooperative or a
board of trustee
Contract number and year of signing
3. Duties and responsibilities of private operator
To pay 500,000 as bail money the day of signing (refunded when VG terminates
contract not when PO terminates it).
To attend village water committee councils when needed
To use good language and positive attitude to customers
To agree the share of revenues. In this case: 39% to PO, 41% to water account of the
village and 20% for monthly maintenance.
To deposit all money in the bank account and keep pay in slip
To bring all required attachments
Sharing information about revenues and expenditures with VG
4. Duties and responsibilities of village government
To share monthly reports with DWE
To ensure proper expenditure of revenues without reallocating them to other
development activities.
To monitor VWST (Village Water and Sanitation Team)
To verify the meter readings of each DPs and auditing revenues
To receive information about revenue and expenditure from PO
64
2.2.4.4 Comparative assessment of Private Operator’s performances
District Water Engineers were asked to evaluate Private Operators’ performances compared to
other types of management. The first evaluation done was on scale from 1 to 5 (i.e. much worse
than others, worse, equal, better or much better); then, DWEs reported advantages and
disadvantages of schemes run by privates.
Graph 16 shows DWEs answers: three of them (43 percent) think that POs perform “worse” than
other types of management systems. On the contrary, four DWEs (58 percent) reported the
opposite: two (29 percent) affirmed that they are “better”, while other two are convinced that
POs are “much better”.
Graph 16: Opinion of DWEs on PO’s performances compared to other management systems.
According to the DWEs' opinion, POs are better than other management entities in collecting
revenues. They achieve to have high savings, pay regularly the fees to the villages and have
enough resources for buying spare parts: four DWEs (57 percent) mentioned this financial
advantage. Three engineers (43 percent) underlined that, when POs are managing the scheme
there is less bureaucracy: decisions are taken faster and the reparations are more efficient and
29%
29%
0%
43%
0%
PO performance compared to other management
entities
Much better
Better
Equal
Worse
Much worse
65
take less time. One DWE (14 percent) reported the schemes run by POs are more sustainable in
the long term.
On the other hand, five DWEs (71 percent) accused POs of excessive profiteering: they often pay
low fee compared to what they earn. It is interesting to note that only two DWEs among those
who evaluated POs as “worse” reported this problem; hence, the other three engineers think that
POs are generally better, even considering this factor. Three DWEs (43 percent) are convinced
that POs are less sustainable in long-term: basically because they use too much the machine
without taking enough in consideration the risks of breakdowns and the long-run maintenance.
One engineer reported that the service may get worse with POs because they can take important
decisions by themselves, like the timetable of the water supply service. Another DWE reported
that they are not able to afford high maintenance costs; while a further disadvantage reported is
that POs are less transparent about revenue information sharing.
43%
57%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Less bureaucracy, rapid decisions
and quick reparations
Good revenue collection PO are sustainable in the long
term
Advantages of PO management
66
Graph 17: Advantages and disadvantages of POs according to DWEs
Then, the interview with the District Water Engineers moved to the analysis of another important
issue: how can COWSOs and POs coexist? Four interviewees (43 percent) reported that if a
COWSO is present in the village, the PO should sign a contract with it rather than with the
village government. They explained that the contract should clearly identify the roles of each
part in the daily management of the scheme. The engineers meant that the COWSOs should play
the same role as the village authorities: this implies that the daily running of the schemes would
be under the responsibility of POs, while the COWSOs would supervise and monitor their work.
One DWE said that they could “theoretically work together”, somehow suggesting that in
practice it is more difficult. He added that sometimes the COWSOs fail to manage the schemes
and, as a consequence, the village government appoints private operators. Another engineer
highlighted the necessity of improving the regulations that establish the relationship between the
COWSOs and POs. Moreover, he added that private agents must be legally registered and known
by the Ministry of Water.
2.2.4.5 Possible future impact of private sector
Afterwards, the research team asked the District Water Engineers if they thought that the rural
water supply sector was able to attract private investments. 71 percent (five out of seven) replied
43%
14%
71%
14% 14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Not sustainable in
the long term
Good service less
guaranteed
Excessive profits PO cannot afford
high maintenancecosts
Lack of
transparency onrevenue information
Disatvantages of PO management
67
“yes”. Yet, DWEs argued that there is need of more incentives to attract private financial
resources in the sector. The Government should develop a more appropriate institutional
framework. According to the engineers, it is the lack of public financial resources that makes
private funds necessary to improve the sector. A DWE reported that he tried to invite privates to
build their own boreholes and to sell water; another one underlined that private investors are
welcome but they have to follow the national policy and the laws.
Graph 18 shows DWEs' opinions on which rural water supply sub-sectors the private sector
could profitably enter. All four areas were mentioned by 43 percent of the engineers (three out of
seven). The first is Operation & Maintenance: privates could profitably provide technical
assistance to water projects. The second sub-sector is related to the first: the private sector could
sell spare parts. DWEs also argued that privates can be consultant for water projects, providing
technical knowledge and training to the managements. The fourth sub-sector is the borehole
construction and development. Finally, some DWEs reported to have tried to build partnerships
with privates for constructing new water projects.
Graph 18: Profitable areas in rural water supply sector according to DWEs.
43% 43% 43% 43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Operation and
Maintenance
Store and sell spare
parts
Boreholes
construction
Consultancy &
Training
Possible profitable areas for privates' involvement
68
2.3 Main problems and areas of interventions
Government strategy aims at establishing and training COWSOs to ensure sustainability of rural
water projects (NRWSS, 2015 p. 35). Despite the efforts of the government to improve
management of rural water supply through COWSOs, in the Dodoma region the system is still
dominated by Village water committees (58% of the total). Most of DWEs highlighted as main
problem the lack of funds to facilitate COWSOs registration. Furthermore, the study has showed
other associated problems, including poor planning, unclear guidelines, inadequate directives and
low information sharing from central government to Local Government Authorities.
The COWSOs’ establishment and registration process needs adequate financial resources, proper
information/guidelines and trained human resources. The inadequacy of these resources can
affect the proper implementation of the plans. In the Dodoma region, only 25% of all COWSOs
planned in 2014 were registered. The study found that, some districts do not have a specific
budget line for COWSOs, which is a strong cause of the failure in achieving their objectives. On
the other hand, districts which had a separate budget line for COWSOs performed better.
Availability of information and proper guidelines is also a challenge. The directive on COWSOs
establishment and registration released in 2010 by the ministry is not very clear. Then, districts
decided to modify/adapt it in their own ways, affecting the homogeneity of procedures across
districts. Government also did not provide any guideline suggesting the cost of establishing and
registering a COWSO. Actually, each district spends different amounts: variation of budget in
COWSO registration can be influenced by various factors, including the geographical dispersion
of the area, human resources used, the efficiency of the plan and the community’s degree of
acceptability of the management model. But still the government should recommend an average
69
amount that each district should spend for registering a COWSO. This could be helpful for
proper planning and resources allocation.
Consequently, Government and districts can improve the process of establishing and registering
COWSOs by observing the following recommendations:
The Government should increase its support to LGAs for implementation of COWSOs
strategy.
Districts must develop detailed budgets for COWSOs registration and allocating
sufficient funds.
Districts should prepare proper plans with all necessary activities for the whole
establishment and registration processes, by identifying days of activities and resources
needed. This will help in planning the feasible amount of COWSOs registration per year.
The Government should revise and update COWSOs guidelines. LGAs must follow all
procedures including explaining the types of COWSOs, and let Village Assembly free to
decide what type of management they prefer. This will avoid the dominance of WCA
without knowing the possible performance of other forms.
The Government should improve the flow of information to the districts about recent
initiatives. Government could provide the documents by using physical addresses. The
mere use of internet could create problems because in some districts there is limited
network access.
The contracts between Private Operators and Village Government/COWSOs are often not
properly drafted. There should be a standard format from central government that can be
used all over the country. The contracts should highlight the average expected revenues
and costs according to the type of scheme and the dimension of the village. Moreover,
70
they should suggest the profit margin for the PO on the total revenue.
71
3. Monitoring and supervision of water schemes: Data analysis and a proposal
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Background
Complex water schemes installed in rural areas require technical expertise and regular
monitoring; experience shows that without such expertise and close follow up, breakdowns of
infrastructures and management problems are frequent.
Local governments’ capacities to monitor and support community projects are inadequate.
Moreover, communities do not have access to qualified technicians while the spare parts’
distribution chain is still too weak in rural areas. Community population and locally trained
technicians cannot face serious machine breakdown and pipe leakage. Even when funds are
available, communities wait for a long time to find technical solutions (NRWSS, 2015, p.14, 15).
Finally, in order to ensure the sustainability of rural water schemes and generally of water supply
services, LGAs’ monitoring and supervision must be strengthened and related supporting
programs must be developed accordingly.
3.1.2 Framework: laws and policy
Sustainability is a challenge in the sector of water supply and it is undisputed that there is lack of
technical and financial capacity to maintain the assets. This leads to a deterioration of rural water
systems, as a consequence of both institutional weakness and poor operation and maintenance.
Appropriate monitoring and evaluation plans are mandatory to avoid these inconveniences.
WSDP I states that monitoring is primary a role of the Ministry of Water, which fulfills this duty
through the Water Sector Working Group, a specialized team that produces an annual report on
the state of the water supply sector. Thereafter, in 2014, WSDP II attributes some monitoring
72
function to a new team called Council Water and Sanitation Team (CWST), which is responsible
for the implementation and monitoring of rural water supply projects at District level.
CWSTs are designated to “review consultants’ documentations, conduct physical inspections
through field visit and approve payments to consultants”. During the WSDP I, heads of
departments, who are also members of CWST, were not able to accomplish their duties due to
the existence of many other responsibilities. Hence, the WSDP II highlights the need of CWST’s
middle level officers (WSDP II 2014, p. 22).
Following the WSDP II, the Prime Minister’s Office for Regional Administration and Local
Government (PMO-RALG) is supposed to collect monitoring reports from LGAs, which are then
submitted to the Ministry of Water for final consolidation. The National Rural Water
Sustainability Strategy provides some additional information about the role of PMO-RALG,
which should “provide strategic support including the developing and guiding the use of tools
such as the water point mapping which will help in monitoring, report generation and ensuring
accountability for reaching targets”(NRWSS 2015, p. xiv).
Moreover, the National Strategy states that the development of performance indicators is
necessary in order to support COWSOs; and it makes a step forward preparing a monitoring
program with precise responsibilities. Here follows the main points of the program:
The existing monitoring and evaluation checklist will be reviewed, it will show quarterly
achievements and obstacles of community management of rural water supply
(COWSOs). Nevertheless, in the strategy it is not specified which administrative body
shall review the checklist.
Performance indicators will be developed at different levels: i) by MOW for monitoring
Regional Secretariats’ support services to LGAs; ii) by RS for monitoring LGA’s support
73
services to community management of rural water supply.
The LGAs will set up the criteria for COWSOs’ performance and will inform them about
these criteria.
Each COWSO will fill a monthly report and submit it to Water Engineer at the Council.
The council will consolidate the reports and submit them to the Regional Secretariat who
will then submit to the Water Sector Working Group and MOW (NRWSS 2015, p. 51).
In order to achieve sustainability and to ensure effective technical support, supervision and
monitoring of the rural water supply, the government is designing a new institutional framework.
The two ministries (PMO-RALG and MOW) agreed on establishing an overall coordination
system on geographical (zones) basis. A new department, the Rural Water Supply have been
established and structured with different teams assigned to different zone of the country. The
department is responsible to provide support to LGAs in three different areas: Technical Support,
Community Management Support and Operational Planning Support.
3.1.3 The concept of monitoring and Tanzania’s strategy
According to NRWSS (2015, p.44), the concept of monitoring refers to “a tool that measures
progress of activities during implementation, using indicators which relate to quality and
quantity at a particular time frame. Monitoring identifies activities which have been carried out
well or not. It identifies specific problems and aspects that need modification to enable
managers to allocate resources, trainings and supervision”.
Monitoring of water scheme is a key aspect for project functionality and sustainability. With a
poor monitoring and regulation of management entities’ performances, there is a high risk of
mismanagement of water supply service. Therefore, the MOW prioritizes the development of
quarterly monitoring and technical support programs, to be implemented by LGAs. Furthermore
74
it drafted a “Monitoring and evaluation plan” as guidance for an effective improvement of the
sector, highlighting priority areas of intervention and expected results, as well as distributing
responsibilities (NRWSS, 2015, p. 51).
The Water Point Mapping (WPM) surveys conducted in 51 districts in Tanzania, has clearly
shown the true extent of the sustainability problems facing rural water supplies. Nearly half
(46%) of public improved water points were found to be non-functional. Also 25% of two years
old WPs are already non-functional (Water Aid Tanzania, 2009, p. 2). Hence, data support the
idea that inadequate monitoring and supervision programs contribute to increase the number of
non-functional water points in rural settings.
3.2 Data presentation and analysis
3.2.1 Status of monitoring and supervision of water schemes at regional level
The research investigated the planning of district’s monitoring and supervision program, taking
into consideration two indicators: i) existence of monitoring plan and ii) existence of monitoring
budget. In the Dodoma region, 57% of LGAs have both monitoring plan and monitoring budget,
29% have either monitoring plan or monitoring budget while 14% have neither monitoring plan
nor monitoring budget.
In fact, the study revealed that there are poor planning and few financial resources to monitor old
water schemes, while more efforts are invested in construction, supervision and monitoring of
new water schemes. Although the relevance of monitoring and supervision budget is confirmed
in the national strategy of 2015, current resources are not sufficient and represent just a small
proportion of the district water department budget. Even though 71% of districts have a
dedicated budget component for monitoring and evaluation, seldom LGAs receive (from the
Government) and have availability of sufficient financial resources.
75
Graph 19: Illustrates the percentage of availability of monitoring plan and monitoring budget at
regional level
3.2.2Types of monitoring and supervision
In the Dodoma region, current status of monitoring and supervision of rural water schemes is
undesirably low. Lack of planning, human and financial resources are the main obstacles for a
proper monitoring.
Lack of resources drives the districts to implement monitoring program based on emergences.
This type of monitoring is done only when serious problem occurs. For instance, when there is
complete dysfunction of the water scheme. This particular case cannot be actually considered as
a monitoring model, being in contradiction with the meaning of monitoring expressed also by the
Government. Additionally, it leads to monitoring program based on schemes request. This
happens when the management entities contacts the DWE or go physically to the DWE office
seeking for assistance. Again, it can be hardly considered a monitoring model.
Periodical monitoring of the water schemes is rarely practiced. Only two districts (29%) report to
do periodic monitoring of water schemes. One district does quarterly monitoring by selecting
57% 29%
14%
Monitoring Plan and Budget
Monitoring Plan or Monitoring Budget
None
76
small samples of the villages, according to available resources. The second one has quarterly
monitoring plan but reports to face financial problems to implement it.
3.2.3 LGAs support to water schemes
What kind of support do the Districts provide to the water schemes? The collected data highlight
that all LGAs provide technical assistance. Moreover, this support represents the only substantial
service provided by 57% of Districts.
Through technical officers (water technicians), the Districts assist villages in designing,
construction and supervision of water project, providing technical advices and training to
members of management entities. For instance, when there are breakdowns or constructions of
new projects, DWE’s offices are responsible for the supervision the activities.
Financial support is inadequate, being provided by 43 % of Districts. In fact, a DWE affirms that
financial assistance is only possible when the government provides specific financial budget for
supporting rural water schemes. Other financial instruments, such as loans or credit facilities, are
not provided; neither for O&M nor for emergencies. On the other hand, in order to improve the
financial sustainability of water scheme, LGAs provide advices and trainings to communities and
management entities.
77
Graph 20: Illustrates the percentages of supports provided by the LGAs to water scheme.
3.2.4 Report and information sharing between community and the LGAs
Establishing effective and robust mechanisms of communication and information sharing among
water sector stakeholders is a central goal for improving supervision and accountability between
the communities and LGAs. Limited collaboration and networking between water actors may
affect the performance and sustainability of water schemes. For effective communication
between community and the LGA, NRWSS recommend information sharing through quarterly
reporting (NRWSS, 2015, p.46)
The study found that there are ineffective mechanisms for information sharing between
community and the LGAs. In many districts, communities are not submitting reports to the
districts. The main problem referred by DWEs is that communities are not well trained on report
writing and villages are reluctant to share information with the LGAs. A DWE highlighted that
villages submit report only when they need and ask for assistance. In another case, a DWE
reported that communities do not bring reports unless District officers go to the villages to
request and collect them.
57%
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Financial support Technical support
Support provided by District to water schemes
78
In most cases, Districts do not provide any report format, guidelines nor assistance to support
communities to fulfil the monthly report. Only two out of seven Districts provide standard
format but, even in those cases, the majority of communities do not submit the reports. For
instance, the Mpwapwa District has a report format and a good system of data collection of each
water scheme; nevertheless DWE underlined that less than 10% of the villages submit the
reports.
In Districts where standard formats of report are not available, communities share information
through bank statements, payment slips, receipts and minutes of the Village assembly. This
means that the kinds of information provided to the districts are different from village to village;
thus it is difficult to aggregate and to analyse data and information collected and to plan activity
accordingly. In addition, districts have poor access to other useful information, like opportunities
and risks of water scheme and water service management. Availability of information about
schemes status, service quality and relationship within the community are crucial to design
effective and efficient monitoring and supervision plans and prioritize periodic activities.
3.2.5 Indicators and strategies for good management of water schemes.
In order to determine if a management is good, it is necessary to check and monitor several
elements. An open question was posed to District Water Engineers to know their suggestions
about the characteristics/indicators of a good management. The following graph illustrates the
answers reported by more than one DWE.
79
Graph 21: Indicators of a good management suggested by more than one DWE.
Six District Water Engineers out of seven (86 percent) highlighted the importance of not having
frequent “technical breakdowns”, this implies that the pumping system is well functioning as
well as tank and distribution points. Proper technical conditions, operation and maintenance of
the water scheme guarantee the continuity of the service. 57 percent of DWEs, i.e. four
interviewees, suggested “adequate service”, “revenue collection” and “savings” as good
indicators. It is not easy to determine exactly when the service could be considered adequate, but
it seems clear that DWEs meant a set of conditions that guarantee a proper water supply. They
also included: water availability at distribution points, water provision for a sufficient number of
hours every day and at a proper time (e.g. not during night), an adequate level of sharing of the
relevant information about the water scheme and long-term sustainability of the water project.
“Revenues collection” and “savings” are more straightforward. DWEs showed concern about the
financial management of water schemes. If the management entity is collecting properly the
revenues, i.e. all water tap attendants deliver - on time - the exact amount of money, the risk of
financial problems decrease substantially. At the same time, the presence of savings is surely a
86%
57% 57% 57%
29%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
No technical
breakdown
Adequate service Revenue collection Savings No conflict between
management entity
and community
Indicators of good managment suggested by more than one DWE
80
good indicator of scheme management's performances. If there are savings, basically it means
that the revenues are higher than the costs, showing that the scheme is financially independent.
Furthermore, savings are necessary in case of scheme problems and breakdowns (i.e. for buying
spare parts, for paying technical assistance, etc.).
Only two DWEs, i.e. the 29 percent, suggested “absence of conflicts between the management
and the community” as a good indicator. Surely, if there are such conflicts, the sustainability of
the scheme can be hindered. For instance, if the villagers consider water price too high and they
have some alternative sources, they would prefer to take water freely from the other source. Yet,
this water can be unsafe. The engineers told explicitly about conflicts between the management
entity and the community, but the Village Government (VG) can be considered as the
representative of community (Village Executive Officer is appointed by the government but, on
the contrary, the Village Chairman is elected). If there are conflicts between the VG and the
management entity, there is a high risk for the service provision. For instance, the VG may prefer
and favour direct agreement with Private Operators, also due to personal interest like free access
to water service, than support a COWSO who should have the power of managing the water
supply service independently and, if needed, stipulating by itself a contract with PO. Again, in
case of conflict between the VG and management entity, the flow of information about scheme's
performance could be interrupted; in fact, generally, the management entities send their reports
to the VG, which, in turn, share them with the community during general assemblies. All these
kinds of conflicts can evolve into unexpected changes of the management entity that may lead to
interruption and sometimes to the collapse of the water scheme and the water supply service.
The relevance of a good relationship between the management and the village has been
underlined by DWEs in many ways. For instance, the Dodoma Municipal Water Engineer
81
suggested that the presence of “meetings and sharing of information” is a good indicator for a
proper management. The District Water Engineer of Kondoa highlighted the fact that users shall
be satisfied with the water service, while the DWE of Chemba suggested that a good indicator
could be the presence of trainings and educational activities for both communities and
management entity. Furthermore, he underlined the importance of operation and maintenance:
“there is no point in constructing new schemes if the old cannot be repaired, water coverage will
never increase. You can have the kind of management entity you prefer (COWSOs, Private
Operators, etc.), but what you really need is Operation and Maintenance”. Kongwa District
Water Engineer suggested as further element the “absence of debts”. He argued that it is very
important that schemes do not have financial burdens. This is common when the community
appoints a Private Operator as manager of the scheme: in fact, often local agents make some
infrastructural investments for repairing the scheme and, consequently, in order to payback the
investment they do not pay the monthly fee to the community for a long period.
Having precise elements that show a good management is an important tool for creating efficient
monitoring programs and finding out gaps and necessities. They help the responsible actors to
focus monitoring on specific issues, being aware of the specific state of the management. This
activity has been conducted also to understand if the DWEs’ priorities match with the indicators
developed and proposed by the research’s team in the following pages. These indicators can also
be an efficient tool for drafting strategies to improve the performances of the schemes’
management. Knowing gaps and challenges helps to identify activities which should be put in
practice in the villages.
After the question about the indicators the research focused on the Districts’ strategies to
improve the performance of schemes and management entities.
82
Graph 22: strategies of the districts to improve the performance
What clearly arises is that “training” is the most popular strategy to improve water supply
management’s performances among the districts in Dodoma (57 percent). To better understand
the specific meaning of “training” we can say that: the District of Kondoa and Kongwa meant
general training for the management of the scheme, while the DWE of Bahi and the DWE of
Dodoma identified specific training strategies. In Bahi, the water department plans training to the
management entities on how to conduct meetings and write reports (e.g. what should be
included); their priority is the information sharing. Dodoma addresses their trainings toward
operating and financial management. Preparation of specific (business) plans is also included, in
order to estimate revenues according to the quantity of water available. In order to motivate the
villages to perform better, 29% of the districts propose rewards systems. Another 29% of districts
consider field visits as a strategy, although it is not clear whether they are aimed at providing
technical support, monitoring, supervision or other issues. Finally, in the district of Chemba the
adopted strategy differs from the one of other districts: they plan to reform and adjust the stopped
project, aiming at increasing the coverage; yet, it was reported there is lack of funds for
implementing this strategy. Again it is uneasy to understand how rehabilitation, as an
57%
29% 29%
14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Training Field visits Motivation/Rewards Rehablitation of water
schemes
Districts' strategies to improve performance
83
infrastructural intervention, may improve the water supply management’s performances without
a long term program of capacity building, monitoring and supervision.
3.2.6 Challenges of schemes’ monitoring and supervision
The main challenge of implementing Supervision and Monitoring programme in rural areas is
inadequate fund. In some districts the amount of funds available for the monitoring and
supervision of old schemes is less than 10% of the annual budget of the district’s water
department. Then, taking in consideration just the new water schemes the situation is much
better. In fact, new schemes have higher and independent budget, coming from government or
donors that can be used also to implement close monitoring and supervision, at least in the first
phase. In order to face the lack of funds, LGA sought to reallocate amount of money set for
water department running costs (stationeries, bills, per diem and fuel) to implement old schemes
monitoring.
Limited collaboration and information sharing between community and the LGAs also affect
proper monitoring and supervision of the water schemes. The majority of management entities
are not submitting reports to DWE because they have not been trained and they do not know how
to prepare it. The few villages that share information do only submit minutes and log book of the
village general meetings. Sharing of information between LGAs and communities is essential for
the DWEs to monitor and evaluate trend and performances of the water schemes. Furthermore,
availability of information at District level is important for designing proper monitoring plans
and strengthening activities at village level.
84
3.3 A monitoring proposal
3.3.1 Three indicators: functionality, stability and satisfaction/communication
In order to prepare the monitoring questionnaire, the research team discussed and shared ideas
with L.V.I.A. workers active for many years in rural water supply sector where they are
responsible for training of schemes management and for the monitoring of water projects.
Moreover, two recent studies helped both in the choice of the focus points and in the elaboration
of the indicators. These are the Water Aid Tanzania report, “Management for sustainability –
Practical lessons from three studies on the management of rural water supply schemes” of
June 2009 and the L.V.I.A. “Research on Water Scheme Management System in Kongwa
and Chamwino Districts” of January 2013. The latter, an empirical study on the management of
fifteen schemes, provided some relevant information about the reasons behind the lack of long-
term sustainability of water projects. The study identified five main problematic issues:
1. Unclear roles and responsibilities: absence of official documents that clearly states
management's duties and weak chain of control.
2. Insufficient technical maintenance: lack of technical skills, spare parts and financial
resources.
3. Not appropriate money management: unawareness about expected incomes, absence of
long term economic planning, absence or incomplete recording books.
4. Low level of transparency: absence of official documents for sharing information about
scheme's performance.
5. Instability of the management system: absence of legal registration of the management,
interference of political power in the village (L.V.I.A. 2013, p. 34).
85
Present research moved from these observations in developing effective indicators for
monitoring activities. Yet, the research team had to balance the necessity of control the many
elements that affect scheme's performance, with the need of elaborating an efficient monitoring
system in order to spare time and reduce costs. Therefore, the final result is constructed upon
three indicators: functionality, stability and satisfaction/communication.
FUNCTIONALITY
The first indicator answers to the question: “is the water scheme able to provide water now?”
Functionality is established through: technical functioning of the scheme and basic economic
management. The information used as relevant proxies to assess these elements are: i) the
percentage of functioning distribution points (DP) in the water scheme and ii) the existence of a
bank account and/or book keeping activities for revenues and expenditures.
The “DP variable” – expressed in percentages– is appropriately transformed on a continuous
scale going from 1 to 5. The variable “Economic Management” is constructed by measuring if
the water scheme management does use a bank account or not and if they have financial records
of revenues and expenditures. This variable takes values 1, 2 or 3.
DP variable goes continuously from 1 to 5:
1-2 ---- from 0% to 25% of DP functioning
2-3 ---- from 25% to 50% of DP functioning
3-4 ---- from 50% to 75% of DP functioning
4-5 ---- from 75% to 100% of DP functioning
Economic management on a scale of 3 values:
1 ---- no bank account & no book keeping
2 ---- bank account or book keeping
3 ---- bank account & book keeping
86
Then, the FUNCTIONALITY indicator is calculated as:
(DP)*2 + EM
The variable DP is multiplied by two – receiving more weight - because the number of DP is
considered more important than the existence of bank account/bookkeeping for the functioning
of scheme. Indeed, a water scheme with a very good economic management but without
functioning distribution points does not provide the water service. On the contrary, a scheme
with a bad economic management but with the majority of functioning distribution points can be
unstable but, at least, it provides water. The final number – which can vary in a scale from 3 to
13 – is appropriately scaled up from 0 (lowest level) to 10 (highest level).
STABILITY
The second indicator answers the question: “will the water scheme be able to provide water in
the future?” Stability is established by: a sustainable economic management and the
strength/independence of the management entity. The information used as relevant proxies to
assess these elements are: the existence and amount of savings (i.e. revenues>costs) and the type
of management entity. The Water Aid report of 2009 crucially supported the decision of
selecting these elements as key components for a long-run sustainability of the water scheme. In
fact, as the report argues, “sustainability in the areas studied is being undermined by poor
financial management” and “the analysis of water point mapping data found that water points
managed by more autonomous entities (Water User Groups, Water User Associations, trusts and
private operators) were statistically more likely to achieve sustainability than those run by village
government through a water committee” (WaterAid 2009, p. 4; p. 16). Therefore, the variable
management entity attributes higher values to more independent managements like COWSOs
and Private Operators. Furthermore, POs who signed contracts receive higher scores due to the
87
fact that “the potential of private operators comes with a risk of excessive profiteering. A good
contract, substantial bond and regulatory support from district level reduce this risk” (WaterAid
2009, p. I).
The variable “Savings” measures the exact amount of money (in bank or in cash) saved by
management divided by the total number of DPs. In this way it is possible to prorate the total
amount of savings by the dimension of the water scheme: indeed, whether a water scheme is big
or small is presumably affecting strongly its ability to generate savings (bigger schemes should
have higher savings). Then, “Savings” is appropriately transformed in a continuous variable that
goes from 1 to 5. The second component of the indicator, the variable “Management Entity”
takes values 1, 2 or 3 depending on the type of management.
Registered COWSOs that manage directly the scheme and Private Operators that signed a
contract with the COWSO receive a score of 3.
Unregistered COWSOs (in process) and Private Operators that signed a contract with the
Village Government (VEO or Chairman) or with a Village Water Committee receive a
score of 2.
Private Operators that rule the scheme without contract, Village Water Committees and
schemes ruled directly by the village government receive a score of 1.
88
The amount of savings goes
continuously from 1 to 5:
1-2 ---- savings, starting from
the minimum amount in the
sample
2-3 ---- savings
3-4 ---- savings
4-5 ---- up to the maximum
amount in the sample
Management entity on a scale of 3 values:
1 ---- PO without contract or VWC or Village Government
2 ---- unregistered COWSO (in process) or PO with a contract
with VG/Water Committee
3 ---- COWSO registered or PO with a contract with COWSO
Then, the STABILITY indicator is calculated as:
(S)*2 + ME
The variable “Savings” is multiplied by two – receiving more weight – because a satisfactory
level of savings is presumably affecting the stability of a water scheme more than the kind of
management entity. For instance, the existence of savings will allow the management to buy
spare parts by necessity. The final number – which can vary in a scale from 3 to 13 – is
appropriately scaled up from 0 (lowest level) to 10 (highest level).
SATISFACTION/COMMUNICATION
The third indicator answers to the question: “are water users satisfied with the service and is the
water scheme management transparent in communicating all necessary information to
stakeholders?” Satisfaction and communication are established through: the opinion of a gender
balanced group of water users and the sharing of most important documents about scheme
performance among the community, the village government and the district. The variable
89
“Satisfaction” is measured asking to the selected water users their evaluation of the service
provided on a scale from one (very bad) to five (very good). Then the values collected are
averaged in order to obtain a unique number for each scheme. The variable “Communication” is
measured assessing if the management entity is sharing the information on scheme performance
with the community, the village authorities and the district. It takes value 1 if there is no sharing,
value 2 if there is either internal (community, VG) or external sharing and it takes value 3 if
there is both internal and external sharing.
Satisfaction is measured on a scale of five:
1 ---- very bad
2 ---- bad
3 ---- neutral
4 ---- good
5 ---- very good
Information sharing on a scale of 3 values:
1 ---- no sharing
2 ---- internal sharing (Village Government /
community) or external sharing (District)
3 ---- internal and external sharing
Then, the SATISFACTION/COMMUNICATION indicator is calculated as:
[(∑n
i=1Sati)/n] *2 + I n being the number of water users interviewed
The variable “Satisfaction” is multiplied by two – receiving more weight – because it is
considered more comprehensive with respect to the sharing of information. In fact, it can be
argued that the latter is an element that could influence the users' satisfaction. Nevertheless, in
order to measure the water schemes’ performance, it is important to check if the management is
sharing the information about scheme's functioning with the most important stakeholders. The
final number – which can vary in a scale from 3 to 13 – is appropriately scaled up from 0 (lowest
level) to 10 (highest level).
90
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR
The three indicators described above have been built in order to be easily compared. They are all
on a scale from 1 to 10 and they consists of two components: a first one on a scale from 1 to 5
that weights more and a second component on a scale from 1 to 3.Consequently the final water
schemes performance indicator is calculated by simply summing functionality, stability and
satisfaction/communication indicators and dividing by three (average).
In order to construct a time and cost effective monitoring tool, the research team could not
consider some interesting elements. By comparing present indicators with the problems
underlined by L.V.I.A. research of 2013, they do not consider factors such as:
- If the management is aware of the expected income that the scheme can generate;
- If the management has all relevant documents and information (e.g. a COWSO might not have
some guidelines);
- If there is a functioning chain for the supply of spare parts.
Of course, the more aspects monitored the better, yet, there is a trade-off between time/costs and
completeness. The information contained in the three indicators should be able to convey a
correct - although surely not exhaustive - idea about the water schemes performances.
3.3.2 The sample: 25 water schemes in the Dodoma region
The drafting of the monitoring tool required almost a month. At the end of this period, the
questionnaire for the water schemes and the performance indicators were ready. The
questionnaire has been structured upon the three indicators, with some additional questions on
important background information for each water schemes (population served, price of water,
existence of alternative water sources). The questionnaire is made of 13 questions for the
management entities and of 2 questions for each water user.
91
The research team was composed by four people, two of them were native Kiswahili speakers. In
order to be more efficient in the data collection the team worked separately: the first group
interviewed the water management, while the second interviewed water users. In each scheme at
least five water users were asked, following a gender balanced approach. The average time
needed to conduct the monitoring with this formula is 45 minutes.
The selection criteria for the water schemes have been different across districts. In Kongwa and
Chamwino, thanks to previous L.V.I.A. knowledge of the areas, the research team was able to
visit five water schemes instead of three. This enabled the team to conduct ta preliminary testing
of the time needed for conducting the interviewees. All other water schemes have been selected
by District Water Engineers. Before conducting the interviews, the research team asked to DWEs
to select three water schemes with different management models for the monitoring.
The following is the complete list of the monitored water schemes. They have been completed in
one month of field work.
Bahi district: Babayu, Mayamaya and Zanka.
Chamwino district: Huzi, Mgunga, Mlebe, Mnase, Muungano.
Chemba district: Magasa, Mlongia and Waida.
Dodoma municipal area: Ihumwa, Mapinduzi and Nghong'ohna.
Kondoa district: Kwayondu, Madisa and Soera.
Kongwa district: Laikala, Leganga, Mageseni, Majawanga/Moleti and Nolini.
Mpwapwa district: Chunyu, Kimagai and Kisokwe.
Before presenting the results of the monitoring through the indicators described above, it is
important to look at some statistics on the overall situation of the monitored water schemes. Here
it is crucial to note that the 25 schemes cannot be considered a representative sample of the
92
Dodoma region: first because the sample dimension is not big enough and secondly because they
were not chosen randomly, but suggested by the DWEs.
Graph 23 presents a classification of the water schemes according to the number of people
served. The first group, labelled “small”, includes schemes that provide service to villages with
less than 5,000 inhabitants. The second group, labelled “medium” includes all schemes that
provide service to villages between 5,000 and 10,000 people. The last group, labelled “large”,
includes schemes that serve more than 10.000 people. Both the first and the second group
include 44 percent of the schemes (11 water projects each), while only 12 percent of the schemes
(3 water projects) belongs to the group “large”.
Graph 23: Classification of water schemes according to the number of people served
Another interesting information about the water schemes sample is the average price charged for
one bucket (around 20/22 litres) of water. All schemes have been classified according to three
price levels:
Low: from 0 to 50 TSH per bucket
Medium: from 51 to 100 TSH per bucket
44.0%
44.0%
12.0%
Population served
Small (0 - 5.000 Inhabitans)
Medium (5.001 - 10.000 Inhabitans)
Large (> 10.000 Inhabitans)
93
High: more than 100 TSH per bucket
Graph 24 shows the research’s results. The great majority of the schemes - 80 percent, i.e. 20
schemes - set a low price for water. Only four villages (16 percent) have a water price higher
than 50 TSH and one single scheme (4 percent) set the price higher than 100 TSH.
Graph 24: Classification of water schemes according to the price per water bucket.
The last important information is about the presence of alternative water sources with respect to
the scheme. In 88 percent of the schemes, management entity reported to have availability of
some other natural water sources (the only villages that do not have alternatives are Huzi,
Kimagai and Nghong'ohna). These are in majority underground wells and seasonal rivers and are
mostly not safe. Yet, for some schemes their existence becomes crucial during the rainy season:
in Mapinduzi, Madisa, Leganga and Majawanga/Moleti the water schemes closed during rainy
season mainly because the users preferred to take water freely from the alternative sources.
80.00%
16.00%
4.00%
Price per bucket
Low (0 - 50 Tsh)
Medium (51 - 100 Tsh)
High (> 100 Tsh)
94
3.3.3 The results
Table 1 presents the results for the complete sample and for all indicators (functionality, stability,
communication/satisfaction and general performance). Water schemes are ranked by the overall
performance: from the best scheme in the first row – Nolini – to the worst in the last row –
Nghong'ona. All three indicators vary on a scale from 0 to 10.
Water management performance Indicator
Nr.
Ran
k.
District Village
Indicator of
Functionali
ty
Indicat
orof
Stabilit
y
Indicator of
Communicati
on
/Satisfaction
Indicator
of
Performan
ce
5 1 Kongwa Nolini 10.00 9.00 5.8 8.27
15 2 Kondoa Madisa 10.00 5.75 7.8 7.85
20 3 Bahi Bababyu 9.00 3.67 8.4 7.02
17 4 Chemba Waida 10.00 2.78 8 6.93
8 5 Chamwino Mnase 7.86 6.03 6.8 6.90
21 6 Bahi Zanka 10.00 3.38 7 6.79
7 7 Chamwino Mlebe 10.00 3.22 6.6 6.61
11 8 Mpwapwa Chunyu 7.87 2.37 9.2 6.48
14 9 Kondoa Kwayondu 10.00 2.92 6 6.31
16 10 Kondoa Soera 9.00 0.30 9 6.10
23 11 Dodoma
Mun.
Mapinduzi 7.33 2.48 7 5.60
3 12 Kongwa Mageseni 9.00 0.78 6.6 5.46
18 13 Chemba Magasa 6.80 6.02 3.4 5.41
19 14 Chemba Mlongia 3.60 3.77 8.8 5.39
13 15 Mpwapwa Kimagai 8.00 0.00 7.6 5.20
9 16 Chamwino Mgunga 8.20 2.50 4.8 5.17
2 17 Kongwa Majawanga/Mo
leti
8.27 0.81 6.4 5.16
4 18 Kongwa Leganga 5.80 1.60 7 4.80
22 19 Bahi Mayamaya 2.00 6.76 4.4 4.39
1 20 Kongwa Laikala 6.33 1.36 5.4 4.36
12 21 Mpwapwa Kisokwe 8.27 0.00 4.8 4.36
6 22 Chamwino Muungano 6.55 1.21 4.4 4.05
24 23 Dodoma
Mun.
Ihumwa 5.66 0.28 4.6 3.51
10 24 Chamwino Huzi 3.91 0.63 4.2 2.91
25 25 Dodoma
Mun.
Nghong'ohna 1.00 0.10 0 0.37
Table 1: Results of the indicators for the complete sample
95
The first column reports the sequential number of the villages monitored while the second one
shows the ranking according to the final Indicator of Performance. Then, in the third column it is
reported the district of the village monitored and in the fourth one the name of the village.
This table provides an exhaustive picture of the results of the proposed monitoring system. Yet,
to have a deeper idea of the data, it is useful to provide a statistical analysis of each indicator.
Table 2 shows the general performance indicator. The average of the sample (5.42) is very close
to median (5.41) – the median is the value that divides the observations into two half. It means
that half of the schemes have scores lower than 5.41 and the other half reports higher scores. The
1st quartile indicates that there are few schemes with scores lower than 4.39 (75 percent of the
schemes have higher performances). The 3rd
quartile shows that 25 percent of the schemes report
results higher than 6.79.
Indicator of
Performance
Average Min
1st
Quartile
Median 3rd
Quartile Max
5.42 0.37 4.39 5.41 6,61 8.27
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of the performance indicator
Table 3 proposes a classification of the water schemes according to the performance indicator.
Five groups resulted: in the scale from 0 to 10 each group has a width of 2.
96
Indicator of
Performance
Min Max Frequency
Frequency
%
Cumulative
frequency
Cumulative
frequency
%
Very Bad 0 2 1 4.00% 1 4%
Bad 2 4 2 8.00% 3 12%
Normal 4 6 12 48.00% 15 60%
Good 6 8 9 36.00% 24 96%
Very Good 8 10 1 4.00% 25 100%
Table 3: Classification of performance indicator in five groups
It is possible to note that majority of the villages (12, i.e. 48 percent) has a score from 4 to 6 –
the group labelled “normal”. Only three schemes report performances lower than 4, therefore
belonging to categories “bad” and “very bad”. The schemes that are classified “good” and “very
good” are the 40 percent of the sample: specifically, nine schemes (36 percent) received a score
between 6 and 8 (“good”) and only one received a score from 8 to 10 (“very good”).
It can be helpful to look at schemes performances through a bar chart. Graph 25 shows the
classification of the schemes according to the five groups described above.
Graph 25: Bar chart of the villages according to performance indicator
4.00% 8.00%
48.00%
36.00%
4.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
Very Bad Bad Normal Good Very Good
Indicator of Performance
97
Although it has to be underlined that – due to the small dimensions of the sample and a non-
random selection of the villages - the twenty five schemes in the Dodoma region cannot be
considered representatives of any average trend at district level, it can be interesting to look at
the average performances in each district. Table 4 reports the scores of all indicators according to
each district and Graph 26 shows a bar chart of the districts according only to the performance
indicator. Other two caveats are necessary: first, it should be recalled that in Kongwa and
Chamwino districts have been monitored five schemes each instead of three (implying
heterogeneity across districts). Second, in Dodoma Municipality - the district with the lowest
scores – the village of Nghong'ohna presents a very particular situation which will be further
discussed in details and so, under many aspects it should be considered an outlier. Therefore,
these results should be interpreted after having carefully considered these caveats.
Districts
Indicator of
Functionality
Indicator of
Stability
Indicator of
Communication
/Satisfaction
Indicator of
Performance
Kongwa 7.88 2.71 6.24 5.61
Chamwino 7.30 2.72 5.36 5.13
Mpwapwa 8.05 0.79 7.20 5.35
Kondoa 9.67 2.99 7.60 6.75
Chemba 6.80 4.19 6.73 5.91
Bahi 7.00 4.60 6.60 6.07
Dodoma 4.66 0.95 3.87 3.16
Table 4: Averages scores for each district. All indicators.
98
Graph 26: Average performances in the seven districts.
Now it is necessary to look at the results of the monitoring according to each indicator, this helps
in understandings which are the strong and weak points of the water schemes monitored.
FUNCTIONALITY
Table 5 exhibits the most important descriptive statistics for the functionality indicator. This
indicator is considerably higher than the general performance: the average is 7.38 (“good”) and
the median is 8.00, meaning that half of the schemes reports high scores, from 8 to 10.
Furthermore, the maximum value is 10, implying that there is at least one scheme in which all
DPs are functioning and the management has both a bank account and it does use bookkeeping.
The minimum score is 1 and it means that there are not schemes with no functioning distribution
points and neither bank account nor bookkeeping.
5.61
5.13 5.35
6.75
5.91 6.07
3.16
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
Indicator of Performance
Kongwa
Chamwino
Mpwapwa
Kondoa
Chemba
Bahi
Dodoma
99
Indicator of
Functionality
Average Min
1st
Quartile
Median 3rd
Quartile Max
7.38 1.00 6.33 8.00 9.00 10.00
Table 5: Descriptive statistics of the functionality indicator
Table 6 reports the classification of the schemes according to this indicator. It shows that 76
percent of the villages is “good” (7 schemes) or “very good” (12 schemes). In other words, in 76
percent of the schemes more than 50 percent of distribution points are functioning. On the
contrary, only 8 percent report a “normal” score, while 16 percent are in the range from “very
bad” to “bad”.3
Indicator of
Functionalit
y
Min Max
Frequenc
y
Frequency
%
Cumulativ
e
frequency
Cumulative
frequency
%
Very Bad 0 2 2 8.00% 2 8%
Bad 2 4 2 8.00% 4 16%
Normal 4 6 2 8.00% 6 24%
Good 6 8 7 28.00% 13 52%
Very Good 8 10 12 48.00% 25 100%
Table 6: Classification of functionality indicator in five groups
3 It should be underlined that the way in which functionality indicator is classified does not allow for a water
scheme to belong in the “very good” category if it has only a score one for the economic management variable. Let’s
consider a scheme that has all functioning distribution points but no bank account nor book keeping. After having
calculated the indicator and having scaled it up into the zero-ten ranking, such scheme would receive score of 8.
Therefore, the “very good” class starts from 8.01.
100
STABILITY
Table 7 displays the descriptive statistics for the stability indicator. It is interesting to note that
here the scores are much lower than “Functionality” and “General Performance”. The average
for all 25 schemes is 2.71 (“bad”) and the halves of them are below 2.48 – the median value.
There is at least a scheme that reports a null score, meaning that the management does neither
have any savings nor it has a stable or independent management. This indicator is driving the
general performance lower.
Indicator of
Stability
Average Min
1st
Quartile
Median 3rd
Quartile Max
2.71 0.00 0.78 2.48 3.67 9.00
Table 7: Descriptive statistics of the functionality indicator
101
Table 8 reports the usual classification in five groups. For the stability indicator, 80 percent of
the schemes have a score from 0 to 4, i.e. “very bad” or “bad”. Only one scheme, the 4 percent,
shows a “normal” stability indicator and the rest - 4 schemes, meaning the 16 percent – report
“good” and “very good” results.
Indicator
of Stability
Min Max
Frequenc
y
Frequency
%
Cumulativ
e
frequency
Cumulativ
e
frequency
%
Very Bad 0 2 11 44.00% 11 44%
Bad 2 4 9 36.00% 20 80%
Normal 4 6 1 4.00% 21 84%
Good 6 8 3 12.00% 24 96%
Very Good 8 10 1 4.00% 25 100%
Table 8: Classification of stability indicator in five groups
COMMUNICATION/SATISFACTION
Table 9 exhibits the statistics for the last indicator. Interestingly, “Communication/Satisfaction”
is the indicator closest to “General Performance”. The average between the schemes is 6.16
(“good”) and the median value – 6.68 - shows that the half of the schemes is evaluated “good”
and “very good”. The minimum value is zero, suggesting that there is at least a very bad scheme,
in which the water users expressed a completely negative evaluation about water service and
there is no information sharing at all. At the opposite, the maximum value is very high (9.20),
suggesting that there is at least one scheme in which water users are very satisfied and there is a
102
proper sharing of the relevant information about the performance.
Indicator of
Communication
/Satisfaction
Average Min
1st
Quartile
Median 3rd
Quartile Max
6.16 0.00 4.80 6.68 7.20 9.20
Table 9: Descriptive statistics of the communication/satisfaction indicator
Table 10 shows the classification in five groups. The majority of the schemes has high scores: 56
percent of them report values from 6 to 10, i.e. “good” and “very good”. Nine schemes (36
percent) have “normal” scores, while only 2 schemes (8 percent) report “very bad” or “bad”
results. This table suggests that this indicator shows values slightly higher than the performance
indicator and it is the closest to it.
Indicator of
Communicat
ion
/Satisfaction
Min Max
Frequen
cy
Frequency
%
Cumulativ
e
frequency
Cumulativ
e
frequency
%
Very Bad 0 2 1 4.00% 1 4%
Bad 2 4 1 4.00% 2 8%
Normal 4 6 9 36.00% 11 44%
Good 6 8 10 40.00% 21 84%
Very Good 8 10 4 16.00% 25 100%
Table 10: Classification of communication/satisfaction indicator in five groups
103
Graph 27 shows a direct comparison of the three indicators. On the x-axis there are the five
groups (very bad, bad, normal, good and very good). On the y-axis there is the frequency of each
indicator in percentage.
Graph 27: Bar chart of all the indicators classified in the five groups.
It is easy to recognize that “Stability” is scoring much worse than the other two indicators.
Furthermore, “Communication/Satisfaction” is more balanced than “Functionality” (that reports
a very high percentage of “very good”), with many “normal” and “good” schemes. The results
suggest that, in the majority of the monitored schemes, water service is functioning. This can be
confirmed by the fact that water users are mostly satisfied about water service. The situation
appears more critical looking at the stability of the schemes. This indicator is intended to
measure if a scheme is sustainable looking at the amount of savings and at the type of
management. The data collected suggest that the 25 schemes of the sample are in majority not
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
Very Bad BadNormal
GoodVery Good
Indicator of Functionality
Indicator of Stability
Indicator of Communication /
Satisfaction
104
stable, and they will probably face some problems in the future.
Table 11 and graph 28 shows data elaborated by different types of management which are
grouped as follows: the first category - labelled “COWSO” - includes both registered and
unregistered COWSOs. In the second – labelled “Private Operator” - there are all schemes
managed by privates: the ones who does not have any contract and the ones who have contract
with the Village Government, the Water Committee or the COWSO.4 The third category is made
by the schemes managed directly by the VG or a Village Water Committee. Then, the averages
scores of all indicators are calculated according to these three groups.5 The type of management
entity is a variable directly affecting the stability indicator, therefore it is necessary to construct
again the indicator eliminating the effect of the type of management. This is the grey column
labelled “Saving Index”: the exact amount of savings per DP is appropriately transformed on a
scale from 1 to 10. Differently from the stability indicator, the type of management is no longer
considered. Then a “Revised Indicator of Performance” is calculated, by simply summing
functionality, communication/satisfaction and saving and dividing by three (average).
4 In the twenty five villages of the sample there are no Private Operators appointed by a COWSO. Nevertheless, this
situation is perfectly legal and the DWE of Bahi district told that, in his district, there are Private Operators working
for COWSO.
5 It should be pointed out that these groups are constructed not taking into account the stability indicator. In fact, in
order to calculate the latter, a value from one to three was attributed to the scheme according to the degree of
independence of the management entity. Therefore, an unregistered COWSO would have received a score of 2,
while a registered one would have obtained a score of 3. For the PO it is similar: without contract the score would
have been 1, a contract with VG or VWC would have obtained 2 and only a contract with COWSO would have
received 3 points. Only the third category – VG or VWC – would have received a score of 1 in any case.
105
Indicator
Functional
ity
Indicat
or
Stabilit
y
Indicator
Communica
tion /
Satisfaction
Indicator
of
Performa
nce
Savin
g
Index
Revised
Indicator
of
Performa
nce
Performa
nce of
different
managem
ents
Fre
qu
ency
Fre
qu
ency
%
COWSO 9 36% 7.75 4.81 6.31 6.29 4.21 6.09
PO 9 36% 7.67 2.00 6.38 5.35 1.80 5.28
VWC or
VG 7 28% 6.53 0.92 5.69 4.38 0.97 4.40
25
100
%
Table 11: Classification of schemes according to the type of management and average scores
The graph below helps in understanding the performances of the three management categories.
COWSO reports higher scores in all indicators except the communication/satisfaction one
(slightly lower than Private Operators). The Private Operator group is very close to COWSO
scores for all indicators except
“Savings”. Village Water Committees and schemes managed directly by Village Government
represent the group with lowest scores for all indicators. The most relevant difference among
these three groups is in the variable “Savings”, suggesting that COWSO can achieve better
financial management and sustainability. This could confirm the idea that less autonomous
management entity like VWCs are less able to hold savings. A similar interpretation can be
offered for Private Operators: the challenges in drafting solid and effective contracts may open to
106
financial mismanagements.
Graph 28: Bar chart of the schemes classified according to the type of management and average
scores.
Yet, it has to be underlined that, due to the statistical procedure adopted, previous results cannot
be interpreted as causal relationships. Furthermore, the variable “Savings”, which is strongly
affecting the low scores of POs and VWCs/VG, is influenced by two particular schemes.
Specifically, they are the villages of Kimagai and Kisokwe, where savings are particularly low.
Kimagai village will be described in detail below. Kisokwe, in the district of Mpwapwa, has
luckily a high availability of water sources due to mountain proximity. Therefore, water is free
and no savings are generated. Kimagai belongs to the PO category, while Kisokwe to the
VWC/VG one. These two villages drive down the results of the two groups.
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
COWSO PO VWC or VG
Indicator of Functionality
Saving Index
Indicator of
Communication/Satisfaction
107
Indicator
of
Functional
ity
Indica
tor of
Stabili
ty
Indicator of
Communica
tion
/Satisfaction
Indicator
of
Performa
nce
Quanti
ty of
DP
Min
Max
Fre
qu
ency
Fre
qu
ency
%
Cumulat
ive
frequenc
y
Cumulat
ive
frequenc
y %
Small 0 5 6 24.0% 6 24% 9.13 4.25 6.47 6.62
Mediu
m 5
1
0 9 36.0% 15 60% 6.68 3.40 6.78 5.62
Big 10
1
0 40.0% 25 100% 6.95 1.17 5.42 4.51
2
5 100%
Table 12: Classification of schemes according to the number of DPs and average scores
Table 12 presents a second elaboration on the data. First, the monitored schemes are divided into
three groups according to the quantity of distribution points: small schemes have from 0 to 5
DPs, medium schemes have from 5 to 10 and big ones have more than 10. The first group
contains 6 schemes (24 percent), the second contains 9 (36 percent) and the last contains 10 (40
percent). Then, the averages scores of all indicators are calculated for each group. The last four
columns show the results. The functionality indicator is considerably higher in small schemes
than medium and big schemes, which report similar results. The stability indicator changes in the
same direction: it is lower in big schemes then medium schemes, while the higher score is given
to small schemes. For communication/satisfaction indicator small and medium categories are
108
inverted, while big schemes are again the worst group. Yet, scores of small and medium schemes
are closer than for the stability indicator, while big schemes classify again around 1 point lower
than small ones. The performance indicator reports the following ranking: “good” for the small
category and “normal” for medium and big groups. It should be underlined that data showed in
Table 12 are not presenting a causal relationship between the quantity of distribution points and
the scores of the indicators.
3.3.4 Two particular schemes: Nghong'ohna and Kimagai
There are two water schemes in the sample that are - for disparate reasons - very different with
respect to the others. Therefore, it is necessary to briefly analyse them.
Nghong'ohna
The village of Nghong'ohna, in the municipal area of Dodoma, is a big village compared to the
average counting 15,000 people which need to be supplied by water. In fact, they have a non-
functioning public water scheme; it was constructed in 2012 thanks to the financial contribution
of the World Bank. Dodoma municipality appointed a private constructor who dug two boreholes
and built a tank. Unfortunately, the constructor abandoned the project before its conclusion. In
2014 a second agent constructed the distribution points. Yet, this second constructor did not
finish the works, so the boreholes are currently not working. Nghong'ohna community
contributed with 18 million to the construction of the scheme. The village government wrote a
letter to the Minister of Water and to Prime Minister’s Office. According to Municipal officers
the problem is that now there are not enough funds to complete the works. One possible solution
suggested by the Municipal Water Engineer would be to extend the Dodoma pipeline system to
the village, but the distance is too long.
As alternative sources for water the village uses 15 private boreholes. The price for this water is
109
300 TSH/20 litres. Furthermore, there is a windmill connected to a borehole which provides
some water. It is managed by a private operator who pays 100.000 TSH per month to the village
authorities. The price of water coming from the windmill is 100 TSH/20 litres. Due to this
situation, Nghong'ohna has the lowest scores in almost all indicators:
Nghong'ohna
Functionality Stability Satisfaction/communication Performance
1.00 0.44 0.00 0.48
Table 13: The results for each indicator in the Nghong'ohna village
110
Kimagai
Kimagai, in Mpwapwa district, is a small village with around 900 people living there. The
village differs with respect to other schemes because its community does not control the water
scheme. A water committee has been formed but it is not managing the supply of water. In
Kimagai, the scheme - financed by the World Bank - is very recent: in July 2013, a private agent
started the construction works. He completed them in December 2014, but he did not hand-over
the scheme to the village yet, because he is still making some functioning tests. The water
committee and the village authorities do not know when they will have the control of water
supply; the district told them that after completing the tests they will have full control over the
system. In the meanwhile, the constructor is providing them water from the new borehole. Water
users evaluated positively the service, suggesting that water provision is satisfactory. Yet, right
now the management has to be considered very unstable. In fact, Kimagai showed a high score
for the functionality indicator, the minimum for the stability, and a high score for
communication/satisfaction.
Kimagai
Functionality Stability Satisfaction/communication Performance
8.00 0.00 7.60 5.20
Table 14: The results for each indicator in Kimagai village
3.4 Main problems and areas of intervention
There are no doubts that without a proper monitoring and supervision water schemes will
collapse. A constant check of management performances, technical problems and funds
availability to buy spare parts are among the fundamental activities in order to establish
111
sustainable water projects. The essence of monitoring consists of the idea of prevention: it means
trying to assess possible problems sources before they display their negative effects. Doing a
proper monitoring is the only way to supervise the activities at risk and to find the adequate
interventions.
In the Dodoma region, the main finding of present research is that districts misunderstood the
essence of monitoring. Although in four cases (57% of districts) they have both monitoring plans
and budgets, these activities are not effectively conducted. DWEs reported that in many cases
districts provide assistance on the basis of scheme requests (e.g. because there is an emergency).
Any periodical monitoring activity is implemented at the district level mainly due to the chronic
lack of funds: it is necessary to develop new tools in order to conduct adequate monitoring
activities with the low resources available. Furthermore, it should be clear that when funds are
not enough, the importance of good planning increases: otherwise can happen that, while facing
five emergencies the district has resources only to solve three of them.
Monitoring should guide the future supporting activities instead of being considered as a
resource to be used during emergencies. That is why the monitoring tool developed in present
research can be useful in order to create a comprehensive framework for districts in order to
develop their yearly and multi-year monitoring and supervision program. Furthermore, it would
enable the district to understand the main problematic areas (e.g. technical, financial,
communication issues) and in designing the required interventions.
A further finding from the interviews with DWEs is that the great majority of management
entities do not deliver to district comprehensive reports of schemes' performances. Some of them
provide financial information, but they do not represent a systematic assessment of the situation.
Generally, the management entity brings performance reports only when it needs assistance:
112
creating a vicious circle of delay. As a consequence, water schemes deliver reports - and districts
intervene - when it is already too late. The lack of standard formats and detailed guidelines for
communities, that are not enough trained to draft reports, are the root causes of reports absence.
Both LGAs and the central government should collaborate on the production of standard
templates. The monitoring tool developed within the present research can help in increasing the
flow of information between districts and water schemes due to its easily understandable:
management entities should not find any problems in providing the information required by the
tool.
A really effective monitoring is able to assess activities that have to be improved, to understand
problems’ roots and to guide interventions toward concrete solutions. In this framework, the
monitoring tool developed by the present research is based on the three key elements of a water
scheme. Functionality indicator monitors the technical situation: if many DPs are not working
the district should intervene. The Stability indicator assesses whether the management is able to
conduct management activities in the long term by generating savings; while the
Communication/Satisfaction indicator can inform the district on the quality of the information
flow on scheme's performances.
After having tested the monitoring tool in the 25 water schemes selected it is possible to state
that it fulfils an important task: it conveys schemes' most relevant information in a synthetic way.
Moreover, it does not require prolonged field work: as stated before the average time for the data
collection performed by four people was 45 minutes per village. The overall result regarding the
selected sample is that water schemes stability is too weak due to the fact that schemes are not
able to generate enough savings and they are run by management entities which are often in
contrast with the normative framework or are not registered. This evaluation was also underlined
113
by other researches on this issue (WaterAid 2009 and L.V.I.A. 2013): water schemes need
stronger efforts to reach long term sustainability.
At the same time the monitoring tool presents some drawbacks that have to be analysed deeply.
1. Because of the sampling methodology the present research is not able to offer strong
causal relations: monitored water schemes should have been chosen randomly and the
total sample should have been bigger.
2. Due to time constraints, the research team could not check in each village whether the
documents requested were materially present (e.g. the minutes of village meetings or
the records of bookkeeping); therefore – for future developments - it is highly
advisable to contact the management entities with adequate advance. In this way they
could have the time to bring all necessary materials to the monitoring interview.
3. The sample of water users for each scheme should be bigger than five. This is not only
a statistical necessity: to conduct better the monitoring, all different sub-villages served
by the water scheme should be visited. This implies a sample around 20 water users
(from 3 to 5 for each sub-village).
Further implementations of present monitoring tool should take into account these problems.
Moreover, the tool could be improved by looking deeper at following issues.
The link between type of management entity and scheme's performance is highly
important. Coherently with government's efforts to establish COWSOs in rural areas it
could be useful to investigate whether these types of management are performing better
compared to others. A general assessment of Private Operators' performances can also
help to guide the policy.
If implemented for a long time period, the proposed monitoring tool could provide further
114
useful insights: the performance trends for each indicator will show better results for
water management.
Trying to refine the link between the monitored characteristics and the required
interventions could be a further development of the present tool. It is like asking “why?”
to each observed indicator. For instance, why is the management entity not able to do
adequate bookkeeping? Maybe they need a further training on this activity. At the end of
such activity all relevant stakeholders would be more conscious about the actions that
will improve scheme performances.
115
4. Conclusion
The general objective of the Tanzanian Government is to improve access to sustainable water
service in the rural areas of the country. This general goal has to be implemented concretely by
all stakeholders: central Government, Local Government Authorities, village communities, and
other sector actors. In order to give effectiveness and to achieve the above mentioned objective, a
program based on the following three pillars was planned.
1. Increasing water supply coverage with new water schemes or rehabilitations of old ones.
2. Improving the management of existent schemes.
3. Strengthening Monitoring and Supervision of existent schemes.
The present research contributes to the program with an analysis at different degrees and from
different perspectives. First, it provides an overview of the situation of Monitoring in the
Dodoma region. This can - indirectly - affect the first activity because water schemes, in
Tanzania, collapse too often. A proper monitoring, guided by the principle of prevention, can
contribute substantially to decrease water schemes breakdown in rural areas. Second, the present
research focuses on improving existent systems of management for the water schemes. If we
agree that Government’s policy of COWSOs can improve the management framework, therefore
it is necessary to look deeply at the problems that hinder the process of COWSO establishment
and registration. Furthermore the research highlights that the private sector can play a crucial
role in developing effective management models for rural water projects, although a joint
institutional effort is required in order to avoid excessive profiteering. Third, this report
contributes directly to the improvement of monitoring strategies, designing model that could be
adopted by LGAs and village communities. In fact, the proposed monitoring tool for water
116
schemes goes in the direction of enhancing the control system and it takes in high consideration
the chronic lack of funds of the Tanzanian local administration.
Functionality and sustainability of rural water supply sector is very important for the socio-
economic and political development of rural areas of Tanzania. Namely, the Government of
Tanzania aims at improving rural water supply to make sure water supply projects continue to
provide effective services to meet coverage target of 71% (NRWSS, 2015, p.3). Unfortunately,
majority of the infrastructures in rural areas are old and inefficient, which makes close follow up,
monitoring and proper O&M to be highly needed. Furthermore, constructions of new water
schemes are very expensive and can absorb large part of the sector budget, while low financial
resources are invested in monitoring and supervision.
The objective of the NRWSS is to attain sustainable water supply in rural areas through
increasing number of functioning water points by 90% (NRWSS, 2015, pg.32). Different levels
of Government’s interventions are central to support LGAs in achieving such an objective.
Hence, it is recommended the allocation of adequate funds and human resources specifically for
monitoring and supervision of rural water schemes. In fact, resources available at district level
are currently not sufficient and lead the LGAs to provide support just when an emergency
occurs. To increase the coverage of water access in rural areas by investing funds just on
construction or rehabilitation of water points is not sustainable. Furthermore, the Government
should disburse funds to facilitate establishment, registration and training of COWSOs, which
are the legal entities responsible for managing water schemes on behalf of their communities.
Creating awareness and capacity among communities and management entities is also very
important for ensuring functionality and sustainability of the water projects in rural areas.
Statistically, education status of rural communities is very low; therefore in order to increase
117
community commitments and competences on water supply management, sensitizations and
capacity buildings are crucial. LGAs should develop training programs to communities on
project management, financial management, record keeping, business planning and report
writing before handling the water project to the communities. Moreover, in order to strengthen
and regulate the relations between COWSOs and private sector, LGA should draft model of
contract, provide support trough expert lawyers, improve COWSO’s contractual capacity and
ensure the COWSO’s right to contest contracts at all judicial levels. Likewise, it is essential to
monitor the management performances and to plan further actions and strengthening activities
accordingly.
Finally, the general conclusions of the research can be divided in two categories: the first about
the management entities and the second about monitoring and supervision.
Management entities
In the Dodoma region, COWSOs are still a small percentage (13) of all water schemes.
There is still low awareness about the potentiality of COWSOs: often LGAs are not
implementing the policy because they are not enough convinced/informed. So, it is
necessary to increase training activities for LGAs (as well as village communities) in
order to clearly and effectively introduce the concept of COWSO.
The role of the private sector is underestimated. The great majority of private actors in
the rural water supply framework are Private Operators. They manage water schemes but
as single individuals, while there would be other good business opportunities through the
creation of virtuous commercial networks (e.g. spare parts supply chains, etc.). On one
hand the Government should design and implement policies and programs to create a
positive environment and stimulate private sector involvement; on the other hand, the
118
Government should not underestimate the risk that, without appropriate contracts and
bonds, the private sector could get excessive profits.
The principle of community participation in the management of water projects should go
together with a stable support of the LGAs. Autonomous decision making of the villages
must not imply dereliction. The communities need more help for selecting, establishing
and registering COWSOs. Moreover, in case of POs, LGAs should provide substantial
assistance in order to avoid bad selections and unfavourable contracts.
COWSOs and the private sector can coexist. COWSOs do not have to be inevitably in the
form of Water Consumer Associations; according to each specific situation, other types
of COWSO can work better. Furthermore, Private Operators can be appointed directly by
the COWSO; this would hold together two advantages: first, COWSOs seem more
independent from village government with respect to other entities; second, POs are often
more efficient than others in the ordinary management of the scheme.
Monitoring
The current situation in the Dodoma region is not satisfactory. Almost all LGAs conduct
monitoring only when there is an emergency or a specific request, but this fact is
contradicting the concept of monitoring: an activity that should prevent problems and
emergencies.
A joint effort of all relevant stakeholders is required: monitoring must be planned in
advance, both in short and long term perspective. Furthermore, funds for monitoring
should be included in new water projects’ budgets. These funds could cover larger area
then the project one, and support monitoring program in the surrounding areas (e.g.
Ward level). Finally, LGAs should increase/plan community incentives to produce
119
detailed monthly reports (e.g. communities that regularly submit monthly report and
show good performances can apply for special water loan or other facilities).
Simple and efficient monitoring tools must be developed and then tested in order to
understand whether they are effective or not. It is not possible to launch monitoring and
supervision programs that require too much time and funds.
It is essential to keep on working on effective and low cost programs (with high cost-
benefit ratio), and to concentrate resources and efforts on feasible and crucial targets.
120
Bibliography
African Ministers’ Council on Water (AMCOW). (2011). Water Supply and Sanitation in
Tanzania – Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond.
Giné, R., & Pérez‐Foguet, A. (November 2008). Sustainability assessment of national rural water
supply program in Tanzania. In Natural Resources Forum (Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 327-342).
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Global Water Partnership. (2014). Tanzania stakeholder perspectives on a water goal and its
implementation.
Godfrey, S., Freitas, M., Muianga, A., Amaro, M., Fernadez, P., & Sousa Mosies, L. (2009).
Sustainability check: A monitoring tool for the sustainability of rural water supplies. In 34th
WEDC International Conference, Water, sanitation and hygiene: Sustainable development and
multisectoral approaches. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: WEDC.
Harvey, P. A., & Reed, R. A. (2007). Community-managed water supplies in Africa: sustainable
or dispensable? Community Development Journal, 42(3), 365-378.
Ioris, A. A., Hunter, C., & Walker, S. (2008). The development and application of water
management sustainability indicators in Brazil and Scotland. Journal of environmental
management, 88(4), 1190-1201.
121
Jiménez, A., & Pérez Foguet, A. (2008). Quality and sustainability aspects in water access
indicators: an example from Same District, Tanzania.
Jiménez, A., & Pérez-Foguet, A. (2010). Challenges for water governance in rural water supply:
lessons learned from Tanzania. Water Resources Development, 26(2), 235-248.
L.V.I.A – Lay Volunteer International Association. (2013) Research on Water Scheme
Management System in Kongwa and Chamwino Districts, Dodoma Region – Tanzania.
Pauschert, D., Gronemeier, K., & Bruebach, K. (2012). Urban Water and Sanitation Poverty in
Tanzania- Evidence from the field and recommendations for successful combat strategies. GIZ.
Dar es Salaam, GIZ.
Rural Water Supply Network. (2009). Myths of the rural water supply sector. Perspectives, 4.
Tanzania Water and Sanitation Network (TAWASANET). (2009). Out of sight and out of mind?
Are marginalized communities being overlooked in decision making? TAWASANET, Dar es
Salaam.
The United Republic of Tanzania. Ministry of Water. (July 2002). National Water Policy.
The United Republic of Tanzania. Ministry of Water. (March 2006). Water Sector Development
Programme (WSDP) Programme Implementation Manual Annex 9.
122
The United Republic of Tanzania. Ministry of Water. (July 2006). Water Sector Development
Programme (2005-2025) Consolidated Document.
The United Republic of Tanzania. Ministry of Water. (2009). The Water Supply and Sanitation
Act No. 12.
The United Republic of Tanzania. Ministry of Water. (July 2014). Water Sector Development
Programme Phase II (2014/2015-2018/2019).
The United Republic of Tanzania. Ministry of Water. (October 2014). The Water Sector Status
Report 2014 Making the End of WSDP phase-I.
The United Republic of Tanzania. Ministry of Water. (2015). National Rural Water
Sustainability Strategy (NRWSS) July 2015 – June 2020.
Water Aid Tanzania (2008). Why Did City Water Fail? The Rise and Fall of Private Sector
participation in Dar es Salaam’s Water Supply. WaterAid Tanzania, Dar es Salaam.
Water Aid Tanzania. (2009). Management for sustainability: practical lessons from three studies
on the management of rural water supply schemes. WaterAid Tanzania, Dar es Salaam.
123
World Health Organization. (2015). "Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water –2015 Update
and MDG Assessment".