Multiple Use Services (MUS)IRC Synergy week – 22 June 2012

Agenda

9.00 – 9.15: Introduction, opening and explanation of objectives

Keeping the water flowing (video)

9.15 – 9.45 Block 1: New research evidence: a reminder on MUS and new research evidence on extent and cost-benefits of multiple-use services, and the relation between MUS and sustainability of services (Stef Smits)

Discussion: how to include MUS into the frameworks for sustainable service delivery?

9.45 – 10.15: Block 2: MUS practices:

Guidelines for planning and providing multiple-use services (Marieke Adank)

10.15 – 10.30: Coffee break

10.30 – 12.00: Block 3: Institutional opportunities and barriers for scaling MUS:

• Overview of entry points and scaling pathways; results of the Rockefeller Foundation study (Stef Smits)

• Scoping study on MUS in Ethiopia (John Butterworth)

• Domestic-plus approaches in Ghana (Marieke Adank)

• NREGA and multiple-use of water in Kerala, India (Kurian Baby)

Discussion: how can we analyse the opportunities and barriers for scaling up MUS? What else could IRC do to take MUS forward?

Block 1:

A reminder and new research evidence

A reminder: what is MUS?

• A livelihood-based approach towards water services provision, that takes people’s multiple water needs (domestic, productive), with the view towards improving health and livelihoods in an integratedmanner, often combining multiple sources for multiple uses

Where does MUS come from?

• Recognition of de facto MUS

– “unplanned” uses and causes of “vandalism” in water supply

– The potential these could make to cost-recovery and human well-being

– De facto use of irrigation systems for drinking water supplies and other uses

– Captured in series of case studies

• Proactively planning and catering for multiple uses

– Research into MUS modalities

– Collecting evidence

– Various pilot projects

– Guidelines for implementation

• Promoted by organizations from both WASH and irrigation sectors

What does MUS look like?

• Four types:

– Domestic-plus: climbing the water ladder

– Irrigation-plus: add-ons for access

– Self-supply: promoting household investments for multiple use

– Community MUS: participatory planning for different water uses, without any pre-set priority

Evidence of use of water

• De facto use of rural water supplies is almost universal

• But, depends on availability of alternative open water sources

• In Kenya: 71% use water for productive activities, but 54% use piped water for this

percentage of rural users, using point sources for productive purposes (n= 1032)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Northern - East Gonja

Ashanti - Bosomtwe Volta - Ketu South

litre

s p

er

pe

rso

n p

er

day

Dry season water use

Median

Lower Quartile

Upper Quartile

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Northern - East Gonja Ashanti - Bosomtwe Volta - Ketu South

% o

f re

spo

nd

ants

Use of water sources for productive uses

% Formal for Productive

% Informal for Productive

% informal for domestic

Benefits of MUS: user level

• More livelihood benefits than ‘single-use’ services (Renwick et al. 2007)

– $25-$70 / capita / yr net

– Additional $125-$350 / yr for family of 5

– Above 20 lpcd, each additional lpcd generates $0.5 - $1 / yr of income

• Particularly high impact for intermediate levels of service

• Non-monetary benefits

– Health

– Food security and nutrition

– Reduced vulnerability and diversification of livelihoods

– Social equity and empowerment

• Low, but not lowest, income category most dependent on productive use but in absolute terms, high, but not highest, income group benefits most

• In Kenya 11% of total HH income earned through piped water

Benefits of MUS: services

• High correlation between the extent of MUS and performance and sustainability of water services: – no damage of unplanned uses, anticipating competition between

users

– income for cost-recovery and professionalization of service providers

– if more water is more reliably available, more incentive to use it productively

– Ownership and maintenance in case of self-supply

• Senegal: high productive use systems had, on average, greater technical sustainability than low systems, but similar financial sustainability

• Chicken or egg?

Benefits of MUS: services

In Senegal, extent of productive use associated

Greater # of duties undertaken by water committee

More experienced water system operators

Greater % of HHs making upfront cash contributions for system construction

Greater likelihood that community initiated construction of water system

Source: Hall et al. 2012

What are the costs?

• Incremental costs:

– Higher levels of service

– Transaction costs of more participatory approach

– Opportunity costs: more for some, or some for more

• Evidence:

– Particularly for piped systems, the incremental costs are low (5-15% additional costs) – e.g. Bolivia, Honduras, Senegal, Nepal

Cost-benefits

• For the majority of systems, the theoretical financial benefits from piped-water-based productive activities are greater than the estimated incremental costs of system upgrade

• If all the potential net benefits were used to repay the incremental costs, these would be recovered in approximately 1-2 years (Senegal, Kenya)

Source: Hall et al. 2012

Context matters

• High water use correlated with:

– Greater HH wealth, often associated with percentage of HHs receiving remittances

– Greater % of HHs with at least one literate member

– Shorter distances to nearest paved road/city (Senegal), poorer road conditions (Kenya)

Conclusions

• Extent of productive use of water positively associated with better performing supplies –so that more and more reliable water is available

• But needs incremental investments, which in theory can be easily earned back

• Benefitting poor people, but not the poorest

• Questions

• Discussion: implications of these research findings for service delivery approach

Block 2

MUS practices

Block 3

Institutional opportunities and barriers for scaling MUS

Scaling up MUS

• 4 entry points or models for MUS have developed over the past few years

• Each with their own characteristics, potential and barriers

• Basis for identifying scaling pathways

Domestic-plus

Characteristics:- Providing higher levels of service,

for new infrastructure, or in expansion and rehabilitation

- Strengthening community management

- Add-ons, like cattle troughs, community gardens

How to:- Structured planning approach- Bringing in livelihoods perspective

in all phases of the project cycle

Examples

• Zimbabwe: guidelines for livelihoods-based planning in rural areas (with UNICEF)

• Ethiopia: new community-based WASH and nutrition (with UNICEF) and accelerated self supply

• Honduras: pilot projects with gravity-fed piped schemes, using structured planning approach (also in other Latin American countries)

• Nepal: gravity-fed schemes in middle hills

Irrigation-plus

Characteristics

• Providing water services for other needs than crop production through infrastructure adjustments and management reforms– Add-ons to improve access, e.g. cattle ramps

– Provision of water in bulk for formal drinking water supplies

– Conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water

How to:

• MASSMUS methodology (FAO) for large canal irrigation schemes– Assessing multiple uses of water in schemes, and the value generated

through these

– Recognise and address these in canal modernization efforts and management reforms

Example: Krishna Western Delta (India)

Canal irrigation supplies domestic water for millions of people

through:

• Bulk supply to towns and cities

• Conjunctive use of ground water

• In-stream uses

Assessing these to address them in modernization plans

Unprotected

Semi-protected

Rope pump

Handpump

(communal)

Motorised

pumps

Self-supply

• Users climb the water by gradually improving their facilities

• Needs support through:

– Supply chain development

– Market development

– Targeted subsidies

– Technology development

• Participatory planning in water projects or water components in participatory programs

• Own priorities for sustainability• Empowering communities

linked to local government • Combining multiple sources

Community-based MUS

Scaling up: barriers and opportunities

• Each of the 4 entry points has its own potential and barriers• Mainly institutional limitations: mandates and financial frameworks• Example: domestic-plus:

Market potential: is 1-2 Billion people (60% of poor have assets that would benefit from MUS)

Opportunities• Improving service levels• Higher return per dollar invested

Observed barriers and concerns:• Use of high quality water for uses that do not require that• Investing in higher levels of service vs providing basic supplies for unserved• Sector targets and performance indicators• Capacity for livelihoods-based planning

Scaling pathways

Making MUS models more robust

• Clear definition of service levels

• Targeting to address inequality

• Clear criteria to measure performance

• Relation between sustainability and extent of MUS

• Culminating in MUS service delivery models

Scaling pathways

Scaling

• Increased awareness and advocacy to identify and address limitations in policies, norms and standards

• Building upon existing sector programmes to leverage public and private finance

• Concentrating in a few areas/countries where there is heat to generate a critical mass

Scaling internationally

• MUS Group: 12 Core members and 350 individual members on the mailing list

• Group activities: – Advocacy– Information sharing and knowledge

management– Promoting innovation and research

• Successes– Information base established and joint

concept development– Adoption of the concept and approach by

some international organisations (USAID, FAO)

• Challenges– Differentiated targeting of messages to key

audiences– Establishing relation with bilateral donors

Conclusions

• MUS started off as recognizing reality – now moving into:– Structured implementation

– Overcoming institutional barriers

• Approach with high potential to improve livelihoods of the poor (but not the poorest?) and sustainability of services

• Wealth of case examples and pilot experiences, culminating in standardized guidelines

• Still, opportunities to make the models more robust and fit to different contexts

• Sharing and learning is key – but need to differentiate messages more