Not a numbers game - making policy formaximum impact and sustainabilityby Richard C. Carter, Desta Demessie, and Magus MehariGeneral policy statements about improvingaccess to safe drinking-water are not enough.Objectives must be precise, user-centred andverifiable, with a strong emphasis on 'software'.

Guiding principles for well-handpump water-supplyprogrammesOverall aimsThe aim of such projects and programmes is to bring about health improve-ments, and reductions in time and effort spent in water hauling. These bene-fits are to be achieved through increased consumption of water, of satisfac-tory quality, from sources close to the users' homes. These goals should beachieved at acceptable capital and recurrent costs.Specifically, the objectives should he:• to bring about per capita daily consumption of 15-25 litres, of which aminimum of 15 Iitres per head per day should be used in the home;• to provide one well and handpump for every 250 users;• to reduce time spent in water-hauling to a maximum of one woman-hourper day;• to bring about significant improvements in water-hauling technology;• to achieve a water-quality target of less than 10 faecal coliforms per 100mlat the point of use;• to achieve pump downtimes of no more than 2 per cent (7 days per year);• to supply these services at a per capita capital cost of no more than £ 15:• to supply these services at a per capita recurrent cost of no more than £ Iper year.

ETHIOPIA'S KALE HEYWET (Wordof Life) Church (KHC) has been run-ning a rural, community water-supplyprogramme since 1986. Beginning withspring-capping and the construction ofgravity schemes, and diversifying intowater-well drilling and handpumpinstallation, the programme quicklydeveloped a strong capability in water-source construction and maintenance.By the early I990s, the programme hadan enviable record both in terms of thenumber of sources its technicians con-structed annually, and the number ofpeople served.

It is this successful track recordwhich, recently, has made possible acloser partnership between KHC andthe main external donor (the UK-basedTear Fund), a partnership whichfocuses on maximizing programmeimpact and sustainability.

Tear Fund initiated evaluations of theprogramme in 1990 and again in 1995.Even before the second of these evalu-ations, there were concerns abouteffectiveness and likely sustainability.There was little doubt that the pro-gramme was achieving valuable out-comes in terms of numbers of newsources constructed, but were peoplereally spending less time collectingwater? Was the water being used betterquality? Had their health improved?And would their new sources continueto function for the foreseeable future?In other words, was the programmehaving a real - and sustainable -impact?

preserve water quality between thepoint of supply and the point of con-sumption?• What should be the designated percapita water quantity available?• What measures will be taken toencourage increased actual usage ofwater up to this?• How close is 'a reasonable distance'?• Will any measures other than closerproximity be taken to alleviate the bur-den on water carriers?

These are all issues of programmestrategy, which a clearer statement ofobjectives would make explicit.

In a 1996 report, the authors set out amuch more specific set of programme

The more specific the ohjectives (~f awater-supply programme, the greaterits chalices of success.

QlCl~(5UQlo.!!li:iiQi1::I1lU"0

iii'.I:I,gII:

KHC aimsLike many water-supply programmes,KHC stated aims focused firmly onnumbers of sources constructed, ratherthan on impact, and which were inher-ently difficult to verify or evaluate.KHC's aimed to 'provide safe drink-ing-water and to improve quantity andquality of water available within a rea-sonable distance of the users'. Thisstatement begs a number of questions:.What, precisely, should be the water-quality target? (What does safe mean?)• What measures will be taken to

objectives (for handpump projects)which (a) are focused on the users andusage of water, rather than the supplier,and which (b) are much more readilyverifiable in the absence of pre-projector baseline data.l

The purpose of phrasing programmeobjectives in this manner is to focusattention on impact, not just on the out-puts (new sources) produced by the pro-gramme. For example, the programmemay design and construct sources whichcan supply 20 litres per head per day of

good-quality water, but, if the con-sumers only use half this quantity, and ifthey contaminate it between the sourceand the point of consumption, it isunlikely that they will realize any signif-icant health benefit (although closerproximity may mean that they spendless time and energy hauling water).Studies have demonstrated that the qual-ity of water consumed in the home canbe significantly poorer than at source,and also that consumers often do not uscthe designated quantities of water.

WATERLINES VOL. 16 NO.3 JANUARY 1998 21

The actual numbers shown in the boxon page 21 are debatable, and shouldbe determined locally; in Ethiopia wehave agreed several variations. What isimportant here is the principle of set-ting user-centred, verifiable targets.

Emphasis on softwareBy phrasing programme policy in termsof outcomes for the user (or impact), it4uickly becomes clear that far morethan hardware is needed to achieve suc-cess. There is an English proverb whichsays 'you can lead a horse to water, butyou cannot make it drink'. In commu-nity water-supply programmes, one canconstruct well-engineered sources, butthat does not guarantee that people willgain the maximum benefit from them.Health and hygiene education, buildingof management capacity in the commu-nity, training, and maintenance all takeon at least as much importance as the'hardware' of water supply.

In a recent workshop, KHC water-programme staff acted out dramaticsketches to illustrate this point; one ispresented in the box opposite.

There are many other reasons whynew waterpoints may not be adoptedwith immediate enthusiasm and used to

their full potential:• an unfamiliar taste;• inconvenience (eg clothes washing);

Getting the full pictureAmarech was a very shy young woman.She watched with interest when thedrilling rig came to her village, and mar-velled at the speed with which it foundwater. She watched from a distance as thehandpump was installed, and the concreteapron constructed. She watched, but wastoo shy to help, as others in the communitybrought stones and fencing material to pro-tect the area around the pump. [Actressgazes from afar]

Very early one morning, as she wasgoing to the usual stream to fetch water,long before the other women were up,Amarech thought she might try the newhand pump. She had seen her neighboursgoing there, and had heard the projectcommunity-workers telling them that thewater from the handpump was cleanerthan that from the stream. When no onewas looking she thought it might be safeto try the new water. [Actress looksround furtively, then goes to pump]

Amarech had never handled such amachine before and, at first, was notsure what to do. She had seen herneighbours using it and knew that the

• despite easier access, there may beno great incentive to use more water;• children may continue to suffer fromdiarrhoea (picked up from sourcesother than dirty water); or• users are asked to pay.

Community education should help toovercome these initial objections, andto change lifetime habits, but it is along and time-consuming process.

StakeholdersIn any NGO-operated communitywater-supply programme there arelikely to be four sets of stakeholders orparties with an interest in theprogramme: the communities (vil-lages/towns/districts) with all theirvariety and internal complexities, theimplementing agency (in this caseKHC), the Government, and the for-eign donor or donors. Each stakeholderhas a slightly different idea of what heor she wants from the programme.

The usual community priority is bet-ter access to water - time-saving;while the implementing agency wantsto report success in terms of results;both numbers of water sources andbeneficiaries. This may be the Govern-ment's preoccupation too, but oftenwith an additional political agenda.The donor's aims - usually complex- include health, time-saving, andcommunity empowerment, as well asbeing able to report back to its con-stituency - focusing on the number ofnew sources, and people served, andvalue for money.

handle went up and down and watercame out of the spout. [Actress examinespump from all angles, then starts topump]

Very carefully, she raised and loweredthe handle: up and down, up and down.But no water came out. She pumped for10 long minutes, always afraid thatsomeone would come along and tell hershe was doing it wrong. Finally she gaveup, and went down to the stream instead.There she would get water as she hadalways done, from the muddy pool bythe fig tree. [Actress pumps, increasinglydesperately - no water]

What Amarech did not know was thatjust the day before, a small part insidethe pump had broken. The caretaker hadreported it to the committee, and thecommittee chairman had sent a messageto the drilling crew who were still work-ing nearby. The pump would be fixedlater that day, but because Amarech didnot know this, she would not trust thenew machine to give her water. Shewould stick to what she knew - themuddy pool by the fig tree. [Actressshakes her head over the pump]

22 WATERLINES VOL. 16 NO.3 JANUARY 1998

Should pro[?rammes spread themseleves thinly - or concentrate their activities on achiel'ill[? tur[?etsfor felver people?

These viewpoints need notbe in conflict. What isimportant is that the variousmajor stakeholders under-stand each other's, the pres-sures on them, and that aserious attempt is made tobring all the points of viewinto line. This may requireadjustments on all sides, andeducation of all parties. Butultimately there must be aconsensus that 'success' isjudged in terms of sustainedbeneficial impact on theconsumers of water. Thenumbers game is not an ade-quate measure of success.

Sustai nabilityIt is now widely recognizedthat, for beneficial impact tobe sustained, the communitymust have a major stake inthe ongoing success of theirwater supply - they mustbe highly motivated. Sec-ondly, for hardware to con-tinue to serve its purpose formany years, the local peoplemust have a good deal ofcontrol over the upkeep ofthe technology, but it mustalso be able to call on helpwhen needed; a wellthought-out and functioningmaintenance system needs

to be in place. And thirdly,given that any engineeredwater-supply system costsmoney to maintain, and thatneither governments norNGOs are in a position tofinancially support anincreasing portfolio ofwater-supply schemes, afunctioning system of costrecovery from the commu-nity needs to be in place.

These three links - moti-vation, maintenance, andcost recovery - form achain, the strength of whichdetermines programme sus-tainability. If anyone linkshould fail, then the chainwill break.

Unknown factorsSome important issueswhich determine programmestrategy remain unknown.For example, where water-users presently only con-sume about three or fourIitres per head per day(where water sources arevery distant, involvinground-trips of up to fourhours), we simply do notknow the shape of the rela-tionship between potentialhealth benefits and increasedconsumption. Is it better for

the programme to spreaditself thinly, and increaseconsumption to, say, 8 litres,or to concentrate its activi-ties and achieve the target of20 Iitres for fewer people?This issue was raised morethan 25 years ago byresearchers in East Africa,2and remains unanswered.

The issue of water qualityin the home, and contamina-tion between source andpoint of use, also needs fur-ther research, although find-ings to date would suggestthat even more emphasisshould be placed on hygieneeducation in the community.

The issues discussed inthis article reflect some ofKHe and its main externaldonor's continuing explo-rations of programme policyand strategy. Much remainsto be done before pro-gramme software matchesthe hardware. Many otherwater and sanitation pro-grammes would benefit fromsimilar processes of policyand strategy development, tomaximize their impact andincrease their likelihood ofsustained operation.ReferencesI. R. C. Carter, S. F. Tyrrel and P.Howsam (1996). 'Stmtegies for

hamlpump water-supply programmesin Icss-develoJred countries'. }mlnwlof Ihl' Charll'll'd IIISlilulioll /,( U'