Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting

Installation in Kashongi, Uganda Findings and Recommendations for the Sustainability

of IRWH Installation

Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation

Progressive Health Partnership, Duke University

2

Table of Contents

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Organizations

Project Background

Research Thesis

Methods

Research Findings

Interviews with Key Informants

Focus Summary Report

Household Survey Summary Statistics

Tank Holder Survey Summary Statistics

Regression Analysis of Survey Data

Research Key Points

Tank Committees

Demand Management

Funding

Sensitization of the Community

Recommendations

Actions to be taken by MMHF and PHP

Appendices

A- Key Informant Interview Transcripts

B- Focus Group Transcripts

C- Regression Analysis Tables

D- Work Done by DukeEngage

E- Household and Tank Holder Survey Forms

F- Photographic essay

G- Bibliography

3

Abstract

In this paper, the long-term sustainability of Institutional Rainwater Harvesting (IRWH)

tank systems is investigated through performing field research on the IRWH tank system

built by the Progressive Health Partnership of Duke University and the Mayanja

Memorial Hospital Foundation in Kashongi Sub-county, Uganda. IRWH tank systems,

being a communal water source built by agencies external to the community, have had a

long history of being difficult to manage as compared to Domestic RWH (DRWH) tanks,

leading to problems with the funding, maintenance and repair. Solutions to these

problems were constructed after research conducted using surveys of households and

owners of existing tanks, interviews with key informants, and focus groups with both

local community members and current water-user committees. A key finding was that the

local community was able to raise its own funding for the maintenance and repair of the

tanks, and that the willingness of a community to support an IRWH tank system relied on

factors such as the strength of community institutions, perceived potential impact of the

tank and socio-economic conditions of the locals. Based on the results of the research, it

was found that factors influencing the sustainability of the IRWH tank system were local

management and maintenance systems, the presence of shrewd water demand

management, community sensitization, and the role played by the NGO in mastering

intangible aspects of community dynamics.

4

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank several people and groups; without them this research project would

not have been possible.

First of all, I would like to thank Dr Benon Mugerwa, the Executive Director of Mayanja

Memorial Hospital Foundation (MMHF), and the staff of the Foundation. They have

given me invaluable support in providing logistics, opportunities with the local

community in Kashongi, and with much encouragement throughout my project. Special

thanks goes out to Jordan Bateisibwa, the Project Manager of the Rainwater Harvesting

Tank project, who has helped me coordinate many aspects of both fieldwork and office

work.

Next, I would like to thank the Progressive Health Partnership (PHP) for spearheading

the project to build rainwater tanks in Kashongi. They have rendered life-changing

service to the people of Kashongi, and I am honored to be part of this project. Special

thanks to Joshua Greenberg, who provided much valued advice in shaping the direction

of my research. Thanks also to Eddie Zhang, who invited me onboard, for giving me this

treasured opportunity.

Moreover, the DukeEngage team and their ground coordinator Jacques Slaiher have been

indispensible during the course of this project. The DukeEngage team provided me with

groundwork that they had done in the two months they worked in Kashongi, and I relied

on much of this prior work in my research. Kudos goes to Mr. Slaiher, who helped me a

great deal with the day-to-day aspects of living in Uganda.

The members of my survey team- Becky Kemigisha, Bob Ashabahebwa, Gabriel

Nuwagaba, Mbabazi Zam and Joram Amanya- were crucial to helping complete the

massive field research phase of the research. Without their knowledge of the field,

translation skills and cheerfulness, covering so much ground in such a short period of

time would have been beyond reach.

Edward Kung, one of my lecturers in Econ 139 - Econometrics, was extremely patient

and helpful in providing technical advice regarding the regression analysis.

Professor David Schaad, my faculty mentor from Duke University, gave much-needed

guidance during both the preparation and research phases. His experience with water-

related projects gave me much insight, and helped me avoid blind spots with my research

methods.

Last but not least, very special thanks to Alma Blount and the staff of the Hart Leadership

Program. It would be an understatement to say that this project would not have started in

the first place without their guidance, training and funding. I am more grateful than you

know for this opportunity.

5

Introduction

1. Organizations

The Progressive Health Partnership (PHP) is a student-led organization from Duke

University, USA, which focuses on global health issues.

Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation (MMHF) is an NGO based in Mbarara

that has been prominent in providing health-related services such as HIV testing to

the local community, since 2008.

PHP and MMHF have jointly cooperated on two projects, the Safe Motherhood

Program and the Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) project. The former provides services

such as ultrasound scans and prenatal advice to pregnant women in the rural

Kashongi sub-county, while the latter aims to build public rainwater harvesting tanks

to alleviate water deprivation in the same area.

DukeEngage is a program under Duke University that focuses on giving students

opportunities to provide service to communities around the world.

6

2. Project Background

When a team from PHP went to Southwest Uganda in the summer of 2009 to conduct

a maternal health project, they found that community members in Kashongi Sub-

County almost unanimously complained of poor access to and quality of water as

their most urgent need, frequently expressing the problem in terms of its detrimental

effects on children. Children often bear the burden of carrying water for domestic use,

spending several hours a day in drudgery and rendering them unable to go to school.

The poor quality of water also greatly impacted health and mortality rates. PHP then

applied for and received a $180,000 grant to build a system of over 70 Institutional

Rainwater Harvesting (IRWH) tanks throughout Kashongi, with the partnership of

MMHF. For the second year running, PHP brought a team of DukeEngage students

to run both Safe Motherhood and Rainwater Harvesting projects.

The team has conducted baseline surveys of more than 2000 randomly sampled

households in Kashongi, E. coli. and coliform tests of household and water source

samples, and focus groups with the community. The team also ran a water and

sanitation education campaign. Construction of 38 tanks has started as of the summer

of 2010, and the remainder of the tanks will be completed in the summer of 2011.

Optimizing Rainwater Harvesting Installation in Kashongi, Uganda is a research

project investigating the sustainability of IRWH tank systems based on the

experiences with RWH and other water source system management, and has been

undertaken with the collaboration of PHP, MMHF and DukeEngage.

This project‟s aim is first to provide solutions to the problem of the sustainability of

the IRWH tank system in Kashongi, in order to preserve its effectiveness in providing

a clean water source to the severely water-deprived residents of Kashongi.

The project‟s second aim is to answer the broader question of what it means to make

an IRWH tank system effective in the long-term. There is very little research

literature on IRWH systems; many IRWH projects fail due to difficulties in

management, and as a result, many NGOs switch over to Domestic Rainwater

Harvesting (DRWH) (Thomas and Martinson 1-160). By providing key insights into

the various issues facing IRWH tank systems, this project aims to fill this gap in

research literature, thus aiding water-based NGOs who are involved in or considering

providing IRWH systems for their beneficiaries, thus reaping the potential benefits

IRWH systems can bring if it is managed well and sustained. This is especially

crucial given the increased attention being given worldwide to the rising importance

of RWH systems around the world, and the role it can play in solving water

deprivation issues globally (Helmreich and Horn 118-124).

7

Research Thesis

How does Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation (MMHF) ensure the long-term

sustainability of the Institutional Rainwater Harvesting (IRWH) Network it has set up,

and the water it provides? How can management, maintenance and funding

mechanisms be set up for the continued effectiveness of the RWH project, given

physical, economic and social limitations?

8

Methods

9

Methods

1. Focus groups

Five focus groups were conducted with the intention to discern information regarding

the current management of water sources in Kashongi. Participants within each of the

focus groups were from the same parish, but from different villages. Some focus

groups consisted of general community members, others of different water-user

committees, and the rest of a mix of both. Five of the seven parishes were picked after

consultation with the project manager from MMHF; Rwenjubu, Kitabo, Byanamira,

Kitura and Mooya, while Rwanyangwe and Rwemamba were left out. CVCs were

employed to recruit the participants; for the first 3 parishes, they met us in the sub-

county meeting hall after local primaries were held. For the latter 2 parishes, we met

them in parish public buildings designated by their respective CVCs. In each focus

group, it was ensured that no one else was around so that each group could feel free to

voice their opinions honestly. Each focus group member was compensated for travel

expenses at the end of the focus group.

2. Interviews with Key Informants

Interviews were held with key informants that held important and relevant

information. They were contacted through email or the phone, and informed

beforehand of the nature of the interview. Key informants that were identified as

having RWH tanks on their premises were surveyed regarding their experiences with

the tank during the interview.

a. NGOs involved in Institutional Rainwater Harvesting (IRWH)

projects

Two NGOs were interviewed; African Community Technical Service (ACTS),

a Canadian Christian organization that has been working in other districts in

western Uganda, and the Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Program, a

local church-based organization that was the largest RWH-related group in the

nation. The respondents of each NGO, Mr. Tim Specht and Reverend Reuben

Byomuhangi, were interviewed in their respective offices in Ruharo and

Kabale.

b. Sub-County Chief, Kashongi Sub-County

The Sub-County Chief of Kashongi, Edward Rwanyima, is a civil servant

appointed by the government to oversee the running of the sub-county, and is

responsible for all government actions in the area. As a representative of the

government, he was interviewed on his opinion on the actions that should be

taken on the sustainability, management and funding of the tanks. He was also

10

interviewed as a key informant in charge of 2 rainwater tanks located in the

sub-county office.

c. Byembogo Leaders- Chairperson of Local Council 1 and Councillor of

Local Council 3

Byembogo village is hailed as the Model Village in Kashongi. ACORD, an

NGO that runs a program that does cost-sharing with villagers for the

construction of DRWH tanks, chose to start with Byembogo due to its

distance from major local water sources such as dams. Groups of villagers

were organized to build tanks collectively, where villagers would pool their

resources to build tanks on their houses in turns. They would share the tanks

in the meantime, thus this arrangement has some resemblance to an IRWH

system. Their local leaders were contacted through the phone, and then

interviewed outside the sub-county meeting hall.

d. RWH Tank Contractor

Asiimwe Justus is one of the contractors who are responsible for the

construction of the tanks commissioned by PHP. He is a trained mason, and

has prior experience constructing tanks, as well as other water and sanitation

facilities such as latrines. He was contacted through the telephone, and was

interviewed regarding questions on tank construction and maintenance, costs,

and volume of repairs.

e. Tank Holders

Key informants that owned IRWH tanks in their premises were identified by

PHP in an exercise to map water sources in Kashongi. These included school

head teachers, church leaders, health workers, and other public officials. They

were surveyed regarding tank characteristics, management of the tanks, and

demand management of the water. Several public tank holders that were not

included in the PHP mapping exercise were identified, and surveyed.

Furthermore, several private tank owners were identified and surveyed as well.

They were pointed out by CVCs and several respondents in the household

survey. A total of 38 tank holders were interviewed.

3. Surveys of Households

PHP conducted a baseline survey of more than 2000 households regarding their

financial, water and sanitation situation. From this survey, 81 households self-

identified as using RWH tanks that were located outside of their household during

either the dry or rainy season. Such households were assumed to use water from

either IRWH tanks or from neighbors. These households were included in this round

11

of surveys regarding the sustainability of IRWH systems; however, when actually

surveyed, a number of them indicated that they had never used RWH tanks before. It

is unclear why the discrepancy had arisen. In another set of households, CVCs were

mobilized to identify additional households in their respective parishes who used

RWH tanks located in public buildings, or in a neighbor‟s residence.

In these surveys, households were either surveyed in their homes, or the household

head was invited by the CVC to be surveyed in public buildings located in their

village, or in a neighboring village. The latter group would be compensated for travel.

Also, a small number of respondents were pointed out by owners of tanks, and

surveyed in their village trading centers.

A total of 116 households were surveyed.

12

Research Findings

13

Research Findings

1. Interviews with Key Informants

a. Mr. Tim Specht, Director, of African Community Technical Services

(ACTS)

Mr. Specht was interviewed on his experience with IRWH projects. He

mentioned that most of the problems with his previous projects were with the

intangible dynamics of each community, and that there was a great need for

the NGO to spend time building trust, resolving hostility, and creating

understanding about the tanks through discussions with the community and its

leaders.

He also spoke of solutions to the problems IRWH projects face. Firstly, sign a

contract with stakeholders to hold them accountable. Secondly, engage in

massive upfront education and sensitization of the community. This can be

done through testimonials of people who benefitted through previous IRWH

projects, touring of the technology. This will persuade the community to see

the health and economic benefits of the tank, build transparency and trust, and

increase willingness to pay for access to clean water. Also, speak with the

whole community before acting so that you are seen as working for the whole

community, and as a mediator.

Furthermore, he spoke of how he knows that communities in the village do

have enough funds to keep the tank maintained indefinitely; it is just a matter

of convincing them that it is worth it.

b. Reverend Reuben Byomuhangi, Deputy Program Coordinator,

Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Program

The Diocese of Kigezi (KDWSP) has much experience with the construction

of RWH systems, and Rev. Byomuhangi spoke on aspects of IRWH that are

needed to boost rates of success.

First of all, the technology and the approaches used in implementation must

be adapted to local geography and varying community situations. KDWSP

ranks communities according to need, and maximizes resources by pulling out

of communities that are uncooperative.

He also spoke regarding the structure and duties of tank committees, which

are essential to ensuring the effective management of the tanks. Selection of

14

the right committee members through elections is key; they must be focused

on community development, and live close to the tanks and to the local

community. Reelections should be held every few years to drop ineffective

members. Committees should formulate a constitution, by-laws and other

rules regarding community funding and water use. They should anticipate

future problems so as to be prepared for crises.

Rev Byomuhangi also advocated a hands-off approach, and let committees

decide what is best for their own communities. The only guideline he wished

to see was that special provisions be made for marginalized populations.

c. Mr. Edward Rwanyima, Chief of Kashongi Sub-county

Chief Rwanyima, as the leader of the local government, spoke of how the

government was unable to fund the maintenance and repair of the tanks, and

that communities should take ownership of the tank by funding and managing

them themselves.

The tank committees should meet regularly about once a month. They should

also call meetings with the community, and discuss how to split the cost of

maintenance. Enough money should be collected before repairs are needed.

They should hold a tank commissioning where they sensitize households

around the tanks to show them that they own the tanks.

The committees should also create collection schedules, and to only allow

essential use of the water such as drinking and cooking if the dependant

community is large.

He also suggests doing a Domestic RWH (DRWH) tank scheme in the future,

such as the one ACORD is doing. In such a cost-sharing scheme, funds are

used to subsidize households in a 60/40 split.

d. Mrs. Kavundi Beretha, Councillor LCIII , Mrs Faith Guma,

Chairperson Byembogo, LC I

The community leaders of Byembogo described the tank construction process

in Byembogo, the impact the tanks had had, and the problems they have faced

thus far.

18 of the 45 tanks built by ACORD were individual tanks, but the rest were

built in a group-sharing scheme. One of the problems they faced was that

residents were reluctant to form tank committees because not all of them had

15

tanks at that point. Also, ACORD did not monitor the construction of the

tanks, leading to some contractors and residents trying to cut corners on

materials, leading to tanks that spoilt quickly. Furthermore, quarrels

happened because some people in the group fail to bring their share of the

money. Disputes also arose due to some marginalized groups not being able to

join tank groups. However, during the dry season, people who share their

water with those who did not have tanks.

Mrs Kavundi and Mrs Guma felt that transparency in committees was key,

and they needed to write accountability reports monthly. Moreover, the tank

committees needed to be trained on how to manage the water, and then spread

the knowledge to the community.

e. Mr. Asiimwe Justus, Rainwater Tank Contractor

Mr. Asiimwe was trained under a program organized by KDWSP, and has

started contracting water tanks in both Kashongi and Kikatasi sub-counties.

He is the only contractor in Kashongi, but has trained 3 other masons that he

works with in tank construction.

He constructs 40 tanks per year on average, and has built 135 tanks in total. 23

of these tanks are private. He also builds soak pits for existing tanks. He

provides maintenance tips to his clients usually, but for the PHP tanks, he will

wait for a chance to pass the maintenance advice on to the tank committees

directly.

Repair costs range from 700,000 shillings for replacing the top cover of a

20,000 liter tank, to 20,000 shillings for a soak pit, to 50,000 shillings for taps.

The cost of repairing tank walls depends on the extent of the damage.

16

2. Focus Group Summary Report

a. Key points from Community Members

On Water-user Committees:

Current water-user committees are receiving mixed results; some of them are

effective, but some of them are not active.

The community wants water-user committees to have representatives from

each village, so as to ensure that their rights are taken care of, and to have

someone nearby to contact in case of problems.

Corruption is a very real threat, and the community is extremely concerned

about the possibility of the elected water-user committees being corrupt,

especially when large sums of money are collected to fund maintenance and

repair

The community appreciates the idea of having 2 CVCs taking on a

supervisory role over all the committees in a parish to ensure accountability.

The newly elected tank committees should have members who are seen as

being faithful in their respective villages. Their duties should include:

o Creating a constitution, and by-laws that would guide the usage of the

tanks

o Guarding, and protection of the tank by building fences

o Collecting funds for maintenance

o Supervision for equal distribution of water

o Control of tank services

o Cleaning of the tank, and around it by clearing grass.

o Sensitizing the community on aspects of the tanks‟ maintenance and

usage

They would like school head teachers, water-user committees and the local

people to all be educated on the maintenance of tanks, so that they will

understand how it is like.

They are also willing for the tanks to be taken over by the schools should the

community fail in their management of the tanks.

o Note: set some service level thresholds for the definition of a failure in

management.

17

On Tank Usage:

The community members are worried that tanks built in schools will only be

readily available to families living around it; other families will still have to

travel long distances for the water

They prefer students not to use water from the public tank, but will still allow

them to fetch since the children are theirs.

Also, the community is ready to adopt strict demand management practices

such as using the water only in the dry season in order to avoid water scarcity.

o In the rainy season, most households already have access to rainwater

from their own rooftops, so they should not be getting more water

from the tank.

Community members would pay for maintenance of the tank, but not per unit

of water they obtain from the tank.

There must be equal distribution of water; the rich cannot get more than the

poor.

There should be by-laws to guide the usage of the tanks. For example, a rule

can be set by the committees that each household can only use 2 jerry cans a

day.

o Any household that requires more than 2 should pay for the extra

water that they use, and this money will go towards the maintenance

and repair of the tanks.

o Note: This would be like a tier-based fee structure that is commonly

used

o Note: This amount can be varied through the season e.g. households

are only allowed 1 jerry can in the rainy season; for any extra they

have to pay.

Community members would like to demonstrate that they are cooperative; for

example they had participated in communal labor for the tanks by helping to

get materials for the construction of the tanks, as well as water to keep in tank

for prevention of cracks

18

b. Key Points from Water-user Committee Members

On the Structure of the committees:

Every tank should have a water-user committee

Water-user committees have the general structure of:

o A chairperson

o A vice-chairperson

o A treasurer

o A secretary

o 2 caretakers

The committees want one of the members to be the leader of the

establishment where the tank is built e.g. school headmaster. The other 5

members would be elected by the community

The committees would have the backing of local government, such as the

Local Council 1 Chairperson (LC1) at the village level, and the LC5

chairperson at the district level.

The LC1 chairpersons should and would have the power to penalize those

who refuse to pay up for maintenance of the tanks, such as giving them

fines. This system is already being carried out in some villages for

collection of fees for boreholes and other water sources.

On the Duties of the Committees:

Water-user committee members feel that they are not aware of how to

carry out their duties

o They feel like they need to be sensitized and trained on how to

use and maintain their tanks, so that they can pass this

information on to others as well.

As a result, water-user committees face many challenges in doing their

work.

Committee members made the point that the group that built the tank

should step in to sensitize the community on how to use the tank water,

especially for stricter rules such as a limit of water per day, even if the

rules are decided upon by the committee. This is because the people will

not believe people on the water committees, and they will require

outsiders to step in.

o Note: this follows what was echoed in interviews with ACTS. In that

interview, it was mentioned that the NGO needs to constantly

communicate with the community and the community leaders

19

On the Usage of the Tank:

Committee members feel that there should be a timetable for the fetching of

water so that the collection would be orderly

Also, there should be a calculation to estimate the amount of water each

household should collect.

They feel that water from the tank should only be used for drinking during the

dry season.

20

3. Household Survey Summary Statistics

a. Household Characteristics, by Parish

Parish Variable

Number of

Observations

Mean

Value

Standard

Deviation

BYANAMIRA

Household

Size 9 5.444444 1.589899

Uses a

Rainwater

Tank 9 0.444444 0.527046

Uses an IRWH

Tank 9 0.333333 0.5

Considered

Constructing a

Tank 9 0.666667 0.5

Breadwinner

Income 9 1722.222 1394.433

KITABO

Household

Size 17 7.117647 3.551098

Uses a

Rainwater

Tank 17 0.588235 0.5073

Uses an IRWH

Tank 17 0.470588 0.514496

Considered

Constructing a

Tank 17 0.764706 0.437237

Breadwinner

Income 16 5572.25 9682.87

KITURA

Household

Size 23 7.304348 3.322578

Uses a

Rainwater

Tank 23 0.434783 0.50687

Uses an IRWH

Tank 22 0.363636 0.492366

Considered

Constructing a

Tank 23 0.434783 0.50687

Breadwinner

Income 23 3784.348 4861.412

MOOYA

Household

Size 11 6.454545 1.967925

Uses a

Rainwater

Tank 11 0.454546 0.522233

Uses an IRWH

Tank 10 0.5 0.527046

Considered

Constructing a

Tank 10 0.7 0.483046

21

Breadwinner

Income 11 2227.273 2158.045

22

RWANYANGWE

Household

Size 12 6.083333 2.503028

Uses a

Rainwater

Tank 12 0.75 0.452267

Uses an IRWH

Tank 11 0.181818 0.40452

Considered

Constructing a

Tank 12 0.75 0.452267

Breadwinner

Income 12 3333.333 2699.607

RWEMAMBA

Household

Size 9 10.33333 6.614378

Uses a

Rainwater

Tank 9 1 0

Uses an IRWH

Tank 9 0.777778 0.440959

Considered

Constructing a

Tank 9 0.888889 0.333333

Breadwinner

Income 9 8777.778 15732.35

RWENJUBU

Household

Size 35 8.6 6.730964

Uses a

Rainwater

Tank 35 0.657143 0.481594

Uses an IRWH

Tank 35 0.4 0.49705

Considered

Constructing a

Tank 33 0.757576 0.435194

Breadwinner

Income 35 9403.8 23114.87

Total

Household

Size 116 7.551724 4.804608

Uses a

Rainwater

Tank 116 0.603448 0.491304

Uses an IRWH

Tank 113 0.415929 0.495077

Considered

Constructing a

Tank 113 0.690266 0.464444

Breadwinner

Income 115 5776.774 14267.62

Figure 1

23

b. Distribution of Usage of Tank Water

Figure 2. The majority of respondents used water from the tank only for potable uses, such as drinking,

cooking, hand washing and bathing, in that order of frequency. A small number of them used it for non-

potable purposes such as cleaning the house. For those that indicated „Other‟, a large proportion used the

water to wash their clothes. This is encouraging, because it means that respondents do know the value of

the water and use it appropriately. This is likely due to the fact that they have to either pay for it, or receive

it in limited quantities from an institution.

c. Impact of Existing Tanks on Respondents, by Parish

Figure 3. Note: Although increase in water quality is high across the board, we see that for some parishes,

there is a negative impact of tanks in terms of time spent and distance travelled. This indicates that there are

many respondents who are willing to spend a large amount of time travelling long distances just to get

clean water from the RWH tanks. For Kitura Parish, though, one of the respondents had an anomalously

large distance travelled and time spent collecting water from the RWH tank. The surveyor was questioned

about the anomaly. Apparently, the respondent goes to great lengths to travel 10km away to Ibanda to

collect water, and spends roughly 12 hours doing so. This greatly distorts the figures shown, and thus the

observation was dropped.

.931

.492.540

.594

.018 0

.207 .212.171

0.2

.4.6

.81

Drinking Bathing

Handwashing Cooking

Animals Agriculture

Cleaning Other

Non-potable use of water

02

46

8

BYANAM

IRA

KIT

ABO

KIT

URA

MO

OYA

RW

ANYANGW

E

RW

EM

AM

BA

RW

ENJU

BU

mean of dectimespentcolwater mean of incwaterqual

mean of decdisttravelled

24

d. Willingness to Pay for Tank Water

Figure 4. This graph describes the mean and median amounts a household is willing to pay per 20-litre

jerry can of water from the tank, as a percent of their household breadwinner‟s daily income. This would

serve as an indicator of the maximum value of clean water to a household, taking into account not only the

higher quality of water experienced but also the distance travelled and time spent to collect the water. The

disparity between the mean and the median amounts serves as a rough indicator of how much variance

there is between respondents.

Astonishingly, we see that households are willing to pay up to 15% of their daily income just for 20 litres

of clean water.

13.2222 12.5

2015

17.752

6.66667

24.1802

10 10.0972 10 10.4306

3.25

15.2733

9.09091

05

10 1

520 2

50

51

0 152

0 25

05

10 1

520 2

5

BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA

MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA

RWENJUBU

Mean Percent of Daily Income Median Percent of Daily Income

Graphs by parish

As a Percentage of Daily Income, By Parish

Max Amount Willing to Pay for 20-Litres of Water

25

e. Willingness to pay for Yearly Tank Maintenance

Figure 5

32911.1

5000

12558.8 10000 8704.763000

14363.6

4000

12416.7

5000

25444.420000

16579.4

8250

15860.2

5000

010,0

0020,0

0030,0

0040,0

00

010,0

0020,0

0030,0

0040,0

00

010,0

0020,0

0030,0

0040,0

00

BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA

MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA

RWENJUBU Total

Mean Amount Median Amount

Graphs by parish

By Parish

26

Willingness to Pay, terms of Percentage of One Month’s Income

Figure 6. These graphs show the respondents‟ willingness to pay for yearly tank maintenance, first as the

raw amount, then as a percentage of a month of their income, where a month income is calculated by

multiplying the breadwinner‟s daily income by 30. The figures shown seem to be relatively high; as we can

see from the graph below, some respondents demonstrate abnormally high willingness to pay high, with

some going as high as more than 300% (willing to pay 3 months worth of income for tank maintenance).

This may reflect the respondent‟s inability to make proportional estimation, as the surveyors pointed out.

On the other hand, many respondents indicated the importance of clean water to them; therefore, the

abnormally high percentages should not be discounted as well.

Again, the disparity between the mean and median amounts reflects the amount of variance between the

willingness to pay of respondents. Since the data reflects that a small handful of individuals earn

disproportionately more than the other individuals, some going up to 50 or 100 times more, we shall take

the median value as the more accurate figure.

The key figure here to take note of is the overall median amount willing to pay for the maintenance of the

tank: 5000 shillings. This seems to be a sound figure, since it is roughly 4 days of the median income in

Kashongi. Yet, with this figure, 20 families that rely on an IRWH tank would be able to raise 100,000

shillings per year, for example. This seems to adequately meet the recommended guideline of a yearly

maintenance, cleaning and repair fee of 7% of the initial cost of building the tank, which stands at about 1.7

million shillings(Thomas and Martinson 1-160).

01

02

03

04

0

me

an

of w

illpa

yyea

rta

nkm

ain

asp

ctm

on

thin

c

BYANAM

IRA

KIT

ABO

KIT

URA

MO

OYA

RW

ANYANGW

E

RW

EM

AM

BA

RW

ENJU

BU

27

f. Distribution of People or Groups Contacted for Maintenance

Problems

Figure 7. This graph shows the distribution of people/groups that community members approach when

they encounter problems with the main water source. Note: For a small number of cases, the surveyors

reported that in a few initial cases they asked respondents to report the person they contacted for problems

with the tanks that they used.

We see that a large percentage of respondents do not approach anyone when they encounter problems with

their main water source. This might reflect the community‟s lack of faith in water-user committees, which

corroborates with focus group findings. The remainder is relatively equally spread amongst the water

management committees, a person responsible for maintenance (usually the owner of the source, if it is a

private well), and the local government (LC 1 chairperson was the most commonly contacted).

0.1

.2.3

Fra

ctio

n

OTH

ER0

NO

BO

DY

NO

BO

DY 2

WATE

R M

ANAG

EM

ENT C

OM

MIT

TEE

PERSO

N R

ESPO

NSIB

LE F

OR M

GT

PERSO

N R

ESPO

NSIB

LE F

OR M

GT

OUTS

IDE M

AIN

T. WORKER

OUTS

IDE M

AIN

T. WORKER

LOCAL

GO

VT

LOCAL

GO

VT

MAYO

R

MAYO

R

TRADIT

IONAL

LEADER

TRADIT

IONAL

LEADER

RELI

GIO

US L

EADER

RELI

GIO

US L

EADER

OW

NER O

F WATE

R S

OURCE

OW

NER O

F WATE

R S

OURCE

OTH

ER

28

Figure 8. We see a disparity between the performances of water committees between different parishes.

The best performing committees would be in Rwanyangwe, and the committees with the lowest scores

would be in Byanamira. The disparity between parish water-user committee reflects a troubling

inconsistency, and there is a need to find out what are the practices of each committee that result in this

difference in performance. This also gives evidence for an argument that measures should be taken to

provide training to strengthen performance consistently through different regions.

g. Strength of Community Institutions

Figure 9

0.2

.4.6

.81

BYANAM

IRA

KIT

ABO

KIT

URA

MO

OYA

RW

ANYANGW

E

RW

EM

AM

BA

RW

ENJU

BU

Effectiveness of current main source water user committees

mean of have you ever contacted this person or group before?

mean of was the person or group helpful?

mean of was the problem solved?

mean of Do you know whether anyone else has contacted them?

.889.667 .667

.889 .778

.111

.882 .765 .7651 1

.235

.696 .696 .789.957 .913

.043

.818 .818 .909 1 1

.455

.8 .75 .75 .833 .75

.417

1 1 1 1 .889

.222

.771 .714 .735.971 .914

.343

.807 .75 .784.956 .904

.259

0.2

.4.6

.81

0.2

.4.6

.81

0.2

.4.6

.81

BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA

MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA

RWENJUBU Total

Discuss Water Issues with Neighbours Village Meeting in the Past Year

Village Meeting Attendance Village Cooperative in the Past Year

Household Participation in Cooperative Village Health Fund in the Past Year

Graphs by parish

By Parish

29

4. Tank Holders Survey Summary Statistics

a. Survey Respondent Characteristics

Figure 10. The majority of existing tanks were located in schools, due to government programmes. The

private tanks in Byembogo (Rwenjubu Parish), where ACORD chose to build its tanks, were group tanks

located in homes, and were usually shared by several households. The private tanks located outside

Byembogo were commercial tanks, where the owner would sell water from the tank to other community

members.

School Place of Worship

Health Centre Private

Type of Establishment

BYANAMIRA KITABO

KITURA MOOYA

RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA

RWENJUBU

Location of Respondents by Parish

30

b. Tank Characteristics

Figure 11

Figure 12. The majority of existing tanks are built by the local district government, and then a sizeable

percentage of tanks are self-built. Most of the tanks are 10,000 litre tanks; this is the most common by far,

followed by capacities smaller than 10,000 litres.

0.2

.4.6

.81

0.2

.4.6

.81

0.2

.4.6

.81

BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA

MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA

RWENJUBU Total

Self Built Government

NGO Campaigner

Community Other

Graphs by parish

By Parish

Who Built the Tank

01

02

03

04

05

0

Pe

rcen

t

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000tank1_whatisthecapacityofthetank

Distribution of Tank Capacities

31

Figure 13

.4

.6

0

.5 .5

0

.25

.625

0

.333

.667

0

.7

.2

0

.667

.333

0

.688

.188 .125

.538.385

.038

0.2

.4.6

.80

.2.4

.6.8

0.2

.4.6

.8

BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA

MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA

RWENJUBU Total

Ferrocement Plastic

Other

Graphs by parish

By Parish

Distribution of Type of Tank

32

c. Tank Management

Figure 14. Note: Many committees, especially in schools, were not specifically for the tank, but rather

general committees that took care of the entire establishment, including the tank. Such committees would

meet several times a year, and would act whenever they receive a report regarding the status of the tank.

Most committees had about 6 members, which was a standardised number throughout the sub-county. The

frequency of meeting per year varied, but most of them met less than 5 times a year, which was very

troubling. A benchmark set by KDWSP was once a month, which is a far higher number.

Figure 15

d. Funding

010

20

30

40

Perc

ent

0 5 10 15 20

Number of Committee Members

010

20

30

40

50

Perc

ent

0 5 10 15 20 25

Frequency of Committee Meetings per Year

0.2

.4.6

.81

Types of People on Existing Tank Committees

Leader of Establishment Member of Establishment

Night Watchman Student/Child

Member of Community

0.2

.4.6

.81

Duties of Existing Tank Committees

Meeting Repairing Tank

Cleaning the Tank Collecting Funds

Mobilising Community Other

33

Figure 16. Note: Funding from the private owner of the tank is the most common source of responses

labelled “Other”.

For the establishments that are schools, they are supposed to be funded quarterly (once every 3 months).

Hence, responses that contain values higher than this reflect lags in government response time that

negatively impact the establishment‟s ability to act on problems, in this case should a tank require repair.

0.2

.4.6

.81

0.2

.4.6

.81

School Place of Worship

Health Centre Private

Government Establishment

Community Other

Graphs by whattypeofbuildingisthis

Grouped by Type of Establishment

Source of Funds for Maintenance

.1.05

.45

.2

.1 .1

1

1

0.5

10

.51

-2 0 2 4 6 -2 0 2 4 6

School Place of Worship

Health Centre Other

Density

Graphs by whattypeofbuildingisthis

In Months

Time Taken for Government Funds to Arrive

34

e. Maintenance and Repair

Figure 17

Figure 18. We see that the highest frequency of cleaning occurs twice a year. This is consistent with

expectations, since the most efficient way to clean the tank is to do so before the start of every rainy season,

which happens twice a year.

Note: It is very likely that the respondents over-report the number of times they clean the tank. For example,

a respondent who was a school teacher in one of the primary schools indicated that the tank had never been

cleaned since she had arrived, and that it gave bad water. However, the headmaster of the same school

responded in another encounter that the tank was cleaned many times a year. The responses might indicate

the respondent‟s benchmark frequency of cleaning rather than the true number of times they clean the tank.

1 10

10 0

32

0

21

0

4

10

1 10

8

5

3

02

46

80

24

68

02

46

8

BYANAMIRA KITABO KITURA

MOOYA RWANYANGWE RWEMAMBA

RWENJUBU

1 Contractor 2 Contractors

3 Contractors

Graphs by parish

Frequency, by Parish

Number of Contractors Known

02

04

06

08

0

Pe

rcen

t

0 2 4 6howoftenisthetankcleanedayear

Frequency of Tank Cleaning Per Year

35

Figure 19

Figure 20. The inside of the tank is the most commonly cleaned area; since this is the area which the water

has the greatest length of exposure to, it has the largest impact on the taste of the water. Respondents often

clean around the tank as well, and by this they mean the water collection area, as well as clearing nearby

vegetation.

01

02

03

04

05

0

Pe

rcen

t

0 1 2 3 4

Number of Ways Respondents Know How to Maintain a Tank

0.2

.4.6

.81

Areas of the Tank that are Cleaned

Tap Inside of the Tank

Gutters Around the Tank

Other

36

f. Negative Impact of Community Usage

Figure 21

Figure 22

43.33

30

16.67

10

01

02

03

04

0

Pe

rcen

t

0 5 10 15 20 25howmanyhousefromthecommunityuse

Number of Households which use the Establishment's Tank

.5

.857143

.5 .5

.666667

.5

1

0

1

.428571.5

.333333

0

.333333

0.2

.4.6

.81

0.2

.4.6

.81

School Place of Worship

Health Centre Private

Disruption Experienced Class/Work Interrupted

Need to Supervise Community Noise

Other Disruption

Graphs by whattypeofbuildingisthis

Proportion, by Type of Establishment

Disruption Caused by Community

37

Figure 23. Disruption faced by the establishment during the collection of water by the community is a

good indicator of the problems they face as the host of an IRWH tank, and thus how likely they are willing

to cooperate. In the next graph, the ability of the establishment to overcome the disruption is shown:

Figure 24

05

01

00

05

01

00

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40

School Place of Worship

Health Centre Private

Pe

rcen

t

howoftendoesthisdisruptionoccurpGraphs by whattypeofbuildingisthis

Per Week

Frequency of Disruption

05

01

00

05

01

00

NoNo Yes Sometimes NoNo Yes Sometimes

School Place of Worship

Health Centre Private

Pe

rcen

t

doyoufindsolutionstoovercomethesGraphs by whattypeofbuildingisthis

Ability to Overcome Disruption

38

39

Regression Analysis of Survey Data

40

Regression Analysis of Survey Data

Regression Analysis provides the means to determine the presence, strength and

reliability of relationships between different variables. Survey data from the household

and tank holder surveys were analysed to investigate exactly which factors play a role in

determining indicators of tank sustainability, and how these factors affect the indicators.

The value of coefficient of the independent variable (on the left-hand side of the equation)

determines the strength of the correlation. The direction of the sign (positive or negative)

determines whether the variable positively or negatively affects the dependant variable

(indicator variable on the right-hand side). The statistical significance of the variable

determines how reliable the finding is; for example, a significance level of 10% indicates

that there is just a 10% chance that the relationship is just due to error. In other words,

there is 90% confidence.

The benchmark of 10% significance is used instead of the usual 5% significance to

determine statistical significance, because of the subjective nature of some of the

questions. For variables that have a *, this indicates a 10% significance level; ** indicates

5% significance; *** indicates a 1% significance. Thus, the more stars there are, the more

reliable the finding. A + indicates a 15% confidence level, which indicates 85% reliability.

Note that the relationship could go either way; in other words, the cause/effect

relationship is not definite, and the indicator variable could be the cause of the change in

the left-hand variable.

The first analysis performed using a multiple regression model, and tests for the

relationship between the willingness of community members to pay for the maintenance

of the tank. This is the key indicator as to whether the tank is sustainable, as it measures

how willing community members are in supporting the tank, and in turn whether the tank

will receive sufficient funding for maintenance and repairs. From this analysis, we can

determine which other factors are significant in influencing community support of the

tank.

The second analysis is a binary probit regression model for the probability of a school

sharing its tank with the community. A probit regression measures the probability of the

dependant variable having a positive outcome, which in this case refers to the school

sharing its tank. This gives us information on what factors influence the likelihood of a

school being cooperative, and in turn affect the chances of a school compromising on its

promise to share the tank with the community in the future.

The third analysis is also a binary probit regression model that measures the effect of

various indicators of the strength of community institutions on the effectiveness of

existing water-user committees. Other respondent characteristics are also controlled for.

41

The last model is a multiple regression model that tests the various factors influencing

how often a tank breaks down, an indicator of the long-term functionality of the tanks.

This would give us a basis to determine how influential certain establishment

characteristics are in determining tank sustainability, controlled for tank characteristics.

For more detailed analysis, and also for the results of various equations tested for each

indicator, please refer to Appendix C.

The format of this regression analysis was constructed with reference to similar literature

regarding econometric analysis of rainwater harvesting systems (He, Cao and Li 243-

250).

42

1. Willingness and Ability for Indigenous Funding

Willingness to Pay = -6.7TankWater + 1646UseIRWH + 0.76Income***

+ 31.4MonthlyWaterUse*** + 1588WaterQual* – 20.39WaterQual^3 +

+ 3838TimeSpent* + OtherEffects + 4187ProblemSolved+ + ε

Dependent Variable

Willingness to Pay = How much respondents are willing to pay for the yearly

maintenance of a public tank, in Uganda Shillings (2200 SHs = 1USD).

Household Characteristic Explanatory Variables

TankWater = How much respondents are willing to pay for 20 liters of clean water from

the tank

UseIRWH = Dummy variable (1 for Yes, 0 for No) indicating whether respondent

currently uses an institutional public tank e.g. at a school or church.

Income = The family‟s breadwinner daily income, assuming a day has 8 working hours.

MonthlyWaterUse = How much water the respondent‟s household consumes, per month

in 20-litre jerry cans.

Tank Impact Explanatory Variables

WaterQual = Increase in self-ranked water quality when using tank water, compared to

their original water source

WaterQual^3= WaterQual raised to the power of 3.

TimeSpent = Decrease in time spent when using tank instead of old water source

OtherEffects = Positive effects respondents experienced from using tank water, other

than distance travelled and increase in water quality. The detailed figures are included in

Appendix C

Community Institution Explanatory Variable

ProblemSolved = Dummy variable for whether problems with the respondent‟s main

water source were solved by relevant community institutions.

ε = The error term that is unaccounted for by the regression 1. Note: only respondents who have previously used a tank before are included in

this regression.

2. Note: one outlier with anomalously large values for distance travelled and time

spent was dropped, because the respondent indicated that she regularly went to

great lengths to travel 10km away to Ibanda to collect water, and spends roughly

12 hours doing so. This greatly distorts the regression, and thus was not included.

43

The dummy variable for whether a respondent relies on water from an institution is

statistically insignificant. Thus, although the coefficient is positive at 1646 shillings, it is

likely that this can be ignored, which in turn means that whether respondents previously

used a private tank or institutional tank has no effect on their willingness to pay. The

same goes for the variable for willingness to pay for tank water. Although it seems that

the latter variable might be significant intuitively since a higher value on tank water

would mean a higher willingness to pay for its maintenance, some respondents indicated

that because they were already willing to pay for tank maintenance, they were not willing

to pay for tank water. Thus, the correlation here is unclear, and the value of tank water

will be captured in other variables.

Income here is statistically very significant, and very strongly correlated with willingness

to pay for tank maintenance. The coefficient of 0.76 indicates that for every increase in

the respondent‟s income by 1 shilling, the respondent is willing to pay an extra 0.76

shillings for tank maintenance.

We see that with every unit of increase in self-ranked water quality when using the tank,

the respondents are, on average, willing to pay an extra 1589 shillings for the

maintenance of the tank. There is a slight decrease in the willingness to pay when the

increase is already high (i.e. when improvement in water quality increases from 8 to 9,

there is a lower effect on willingness to pay as a unit increase from 3 to 4) as can be seen

by the slightly negative coefficient on Increase in Self-ranked Water Quality3; this is

expected, since there is diminishing returns, and other factors come into play. These

findings mean that respondents whose prior experience with tanks gave them an increase

in water quality are much more willing to support it than respondents who have not. This

in turn means that as the community starts to experience real benefits from an increase in

water quality due to the tank, they will grow to become more supportive even if they are

unwilling to contribute at first. Thus, we should expect any initial resistance to paying for

tank maintenance to lessen as time passes.

In the last regression, we added the variable Was the Problem Solved, referring to

whether problems the respondents raised to the water-user committees were solved. This

variable is an indicator for the effectiveness, or perceived effectiveness of the water-user

committee. We see that a positive response has a very strong effect on willingness to pay;

for respondents that indicated that the problems were solved, they were willing to pay

more than 4000 shillings extra, almost double the median willingness to pay amount.

Although this variable has a p-value that is slightly above our benchmark for statistical

significance, it should not be discounted. This likely indicates that how effective current

water-user committees are have an effect on how much respondents are willing to support

the new tanks. From this, we can also infer that the perceived effectiveness of future tank

committees will have an effect on how willing community members are to support the

tanks; if they feel that committees are incompetent or corrupt, they will not put in money

to ensure that the tanks keep going.

44

2. Potential Institution Cooperativeness Analysis

Probability of Sharing Tank= -0.0605DaysDry***+

1.73NumberTanks** + 2.67NumberHouseholds** + 0.223Requests ***-

0.0704Disputes* + ε

Dependent Variable

Probability of Sharing Tank = The likelihood that a school shares its tank with the

community.

Institution-Specific Explanatory Variables

Days Dry = The number of days in a year that the tank goes dry.

NumberTanks = The number of tanks a school has.

Institution-External Explanatory Variables

NumberHouseholds = The number of households that live within 500 meters of the

school.

Requests = The number of requests for tank water the school gets from the community

per month.

Disputes = The frequency of disputes the school has with the community over water

from the tank.

ε = The error term that is unaccounted for by the regression Note: The observations including other types of tanks are removed from this

regression. Private tanks are either commercial tanks which are definitely shared,

or tanks in Byembogo, where group tanks are built and there is huge community

pressure from local leadership to share tanks. Thus, including these observations

would bias the findings. Analyzing only schools is also advantageous, because the

majority of PHP tanks will be located in schools.

We see that the number of days the tank is dry has a strong, statistically significant

correlation with the probability of the school sharing its water with the community. We

can easily surmise why this happens; the school, seeing that its water supply runs out

quickly, would tend to refuse any sort of assistance to the community. This provides a

very strong argument for strict water demand management, since we can foresee a

situation whereby schools, after obtaining the tanks that run dry quickly when the

community shares them, renege on their end of the bargain. Or at least, becomes

uncooperative with sharing the tanks.

The number of tanks the school has is also controlled for. This not only accounts for how

much water the school has, but also how much water the school appears to have. It is

45

likely that for schools with more than one tank, they would find it less easy to get off

sharing tanks with the community by pleading a lack of water.

The logged variable account for the number of households close by has the strongest

correlation value. This would give us the insight that schools are strongly affected by

community pressure to share tanks; this is corroborated with the variable for how often

the community asks for water. A second explanation is that schools with many

households nearby are likely to draw a large proportion of their students from these

households. Since many parents are members of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA),

the school would face additional pressure to be seen as being considerate of the students‟

and their families‟ welfare.

The variable for how often households ask for water is also an indicator of the level of

need experienced by the community. We can infer that communities that are desperate for

water would ask more frequently, and the school, knowing the need of the families,

would find some way to share the tank water efficiently.

Although it is not statistically significant at a 15% level, we also see a negative

correlation of how often the community has disputes with the school over water, with the

likelihood of the school shares its tank. Rather than disputes causing the likelihood of

tank sharing to drop, the relationship is probably turned around; schools that don‟t share

their tanks with the community experience a much higher chance of having disputes with

the community. This is expected information, but it is one that bolsters our intuition. This

supports findings from interviews with the school staff that the community becomes

extremely hostile towards schools that do not share their tank; for example, a school

reported that farmers in the vicinity of the school refused students to collect water from

ponds on their land, even confiscating their jerry cans. In other reports, schools tell of

instances where community members would maliciously sabotage the school tank when

refused permission to draw tank water.

This gives us extra incentive to ensure that schools are willing to, and more importantly,

able to share their tanks with the community to prevent a deterioration of community

relationships.

46

3. Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Water-user Committees

Probability of Water Source Problem Solved = 3.02Contacted*** +

1.14DiscussWater*** -1.59CommMeet*** - 0.0459MeetParticipation +

1.81Cooperative*** + 0.112HealthFund – 0.078RankWater + ε

Dependent Variable

Probability of Water Source Problem Solved = Dummy variable for whether the

problem with the respondent‟s water source had been solved by the relevant community

institution.

Respondent Characteristic Explanatory Variables

Contacted = Dummy variable for whether the respondent had contacted the person or

group that was in charge of the water source

DiscussWater = Dummy variable for whether the respondent discusses water and

sanitation issues with his/her neighbor

MeetParticipation = Whether the respondent or his/her household members had

participated in the meeting

Community Institution Explanatory Variables

CommMeet = Dummy variable for whether there was a community meeting in the

respondent‟s village in the past 12 months

Cooperative = Dummy variable for whether a cooperative was organized in the

respondent‟s village in the past 12 months

HealthFund = Dummy variable for whether a health fund was organized in the

respondent‟s village in the past 12 months.

Water Quality Explanatory Variable

RankWater = Respondent‟s ranking of his main water source, on a scale from 1 to 10,

with 10 being the lowest quality.

ε = The error term that is unaccounted for by the regression

We see that whether the respondent has previously contacted the community institution in

charge of the water source is controlled for in this regression, and has a strongly positive

and statistically significant effect, as expected.

Indicators of the relationship between the strength of various community institutions and

the probability of the water source problem being solved seem to give mixed results.

DiscussWater and Cooperative are both positively correlated, which seems to indicate

that the presence of strong community relationships does result in an increase in the

effectiveness of the water-user committees. However, CommMeet has a strong negative

correlation, which seems to contradict this inference. The reason behind this is uncertain,

47

and is likely attributable to the correlation between CommMeet and the other

independent variables.

MeetParticipation, HealthFund and RankWater are statistically not significant.

Furthermore, the coefficient of RankWater is very low, indicating that it has very little

effect on the effectiveness of the community. This may indicate that whether the water

source problem is solved is more dependant on the effectiveness of the committee rather

than the severity of the problem with the water source. Most responses for HealthFund

were negative, and the lack of variability in the answers is likely to be the reason for the

low statistical significance. MeetParticipation probably simply has low correlation with

whether the problem was solved.

48

4. Factors Affecting the Long-term Functionality of Tanks

Frequency of breakage = -0.266Contractors – 0.369NumberMaintain +

2.16TankCement*- 0.258FreqClean + 1.94CommunityUse + +

HowTankBroke + 0.373TankAge** -2.86PrivateSchool*** +

0.373FreqComm* + ε

Dependent Variable

Frequency of breakage = Frequency of tank breakage per year

Maintenance Support Explanatory Variables

Contractors = Number of repair contractors known (must know a name or contact

number)

NumberMaintain = Number of ways respondent knows of how to maintain a tank

Tank Characteristic Explanatory Variable

TankCement = Dummy Variable for whether the tank is a Ferrocement tank. Variables

for other types of tank are omitted from this regression because of the dummy variable

trap; all the other tanks are plastic tanks.

FreqClean = Frequency of tank cleaning per year.

CommunityUse = Dummy variable for whether the tank is shared with the community

HowTankBroke = Dummy variables for how the tank was broken. These include „Own

Use‟, „Community Use‟, „Students Playing‟, „Accidental‟ and „Other‟. Detailed figures

are included in Appendix C.

TankAge = Age of the tank in years

School Characteristic Explanatory Variable

PrivateSchool = Dummy variable for whether the school was a private school. A

negative answer indicates a public, government-funded school.

FreqComm Frequency of tank committee meetings per year.

ε = The error term that is unaccounted for by the regression Note: This regression only includes schools in order to more clearly analyze the

effect of tank committees. For analysis that includes all types of establishments,

please refer to Appendix C.

The variables Contractor and NumberMaintain both have relatively high negative

coefficients, indicating that with an increase in both variables, the frequency of breakage

decreases. This provides evidence to show that the presence of a network of maintenance

support systems, as well as widespread knowledge of how to maintain the tank does have

an effect on how often the tanks break down. Thus, there is a need to foster an increase in

the availability of contractors. However, with the low statistical significance, it may be

possible that these findings are not reliable and are influenced by high standard deviation.

49

This is probably firstly because the questions asked were not precise indicators, and

secondly because respondents gave inaccurate answers on the number of ways they knew

how to maintain the tank.

The type of tank seems to have a strong correlation with the frequency of breakage;

however, since both ferrocement tanks and plastic tanks obtain similar positive

coefficients, we may conclude that neither of them has more of an effect on frequency of

breakage. On the other hand, other types of tanks, namely masonry tanks, decrease the

frequency of breakage.

An increase in the frequency of cleaning has a small positive, but statistically

insignificant effect on frequency of breakage. This could potentially mean several things,

but the most likely explanation is that it is insignificant. Several respondents have

indicated that they know the optimum number of times the tank has to be cleaned, but

often times this is not followed through in practice. The blur between indicating the

optimal frequency of cleaning and the actual frequency is likely to be the reason for the

unexpected result.

An interesting finding is that establishments that share their tanks with the community

experience a very strong, positive and statistically significant increase in the frequency of

breakage. This is, of course expected; the more people use the tanks, the more likely it is

to break, especially when respondents have indicated that the community often handles

the tank very poorly. This has several implications. First of all, since the tanks accessible

to as many community members as possible, the tanks are likely to experience high

breakage rates unless community members are trained on how to handle the tanks well.

Thus, any community education programs regarding the tanks need to involve a training

component on how to use the tanks well.

The age of the tank, unsurprisingly, has a strongly positive and statistically significant

correlation with the frequency of breakage. However, the most interesting findings come

from the last 2 variables: whether the school is private or public, and how frequently the

school tank committee meets. A school that is private has a massively decreased

frequency of tank breakage as compared to a public school. A possible reason for this is

that private schools have more money than public schools, and are thus more able to

spend money to maintain the tank. Another factor, one explained by the survey, is that for

public schools, there are long delays in getting funds from the government. This sharply

reduces the ability of the public school to respond to tank problems, and thus result in the

aggravation of the damage.

The frequency of tank committee meetings acts as a proxy for the motivation level,

responsiveness and effectiveness of the tank committees. This has a moderate, but

statistically significant effect on the frequency of tank breakage. This provides evidence

for the importance of the management committee in the sustainability of the tank, and

supports the argument that tank committees should be made to meet more frequently.

50

Research Key Points

51

Research Key Points

Tank Committees

• Elections

Elections should be held for water committees so that the people get to decide on which

representatives will speak for them on the committee. Re-elections should be held every

few years so that ineffective and inactive members of the committee will be dropped

(Rev. Byomuhangi, Interviews with Key Informants).

• Structure

• Representation

Every village should have their own representative on the committee, as far as possible,

or at least someone who stays in a neighboring village. Proximity has a high value

because committee members need to be easily accessible to residents, in order for

reported problems with the tank to be easily solved (Focus Group Summary Report).

This is especially true for the chairperson; should he/she be far away, it will be difficult

to be present for all activities and meetings, compromising the effectiveness and

responsiveness of the committee (Rev. Byomuhangi, Interviews with Key Informants).

• Presence of the Institution

The leader of the establishment (e.g. school headmaster, church pastor), chairman of the

management board, or another member of the establishment (e.g. teacher or church

deacon) should be on the tank committee. This is to ensure that the lines of

communication between the institution and the committee are kept open. Also, it would

be recommended for the LC 1 chairperson to be only the committee, so as to ensure a

level of enforcement in terms of rules of tank usage and maintenance fee collection. The

other members of the committee will be elected.

• Training

Existing water-user committees have indicated that one of the reasons why they are

unable to act is because they are not sure of what their duties are, and they would like to

be sensitized as to what they are. Therefore, it is crucial for them to be trained and

educated on various aspects of tank management, especially aspects which might not be

commonsense knowledge. In this way, they will be able to pass on this information to

other community members as well.

A handbook of guidelines should be published and made available for the reference of the

tank committees. A committee guidelines document created by the DukeEngage team in

Uganda is available in Appendix D.

52

• Duties

• Constitution

The newly elected water committees need to formulate their own constitution, by-laws

and other management tools. They will then communicate these to community members.

• Meeting

Committees should be encouraged to meet as often as they can. This will help them to

anticipate future problems rather than wait for and manage crises, which greatly boosts

their level of responsiveness and in turn reduces the frequency of tank breakage.

• Collection of Money

From the various sources investigated, there is a consensus that funds for the repair and

maintenance of the tanks should come from the community, and committees should

mobilize the community in collecting these funds. Committees should decide what

beneficiaries should contribute and how often, based on estimates of how much yearly

maintenance of the tank would cost and how many households use the tank. The

guidelines given for a ferrocement tank is 7% of the original cost per year (Thomas and

Martinson 1-160).

A financial accounting system should be set up, where money is collected, and clear

records of how much money is collected and used (Interviews with Key Informants).

• Repair of the tank

Committees would monitor the tanks, repair them if broken, report breakages that are too

big, and manage the usage of water from the tanks.

• Sensitization of Community

One of the duties of the committee must be to sensitize the community with regards to the

workings and usage of the tank. This is crucial to canvassing understanding and support

from the community, and in turn to the sustainability of the tank. Methods and

approaches to sensitization will be further elaborated upon.

• Transparency

• Prevention of Corruption

Corruption is a very real threat, according to the community members. There is a

possibility that any funds that are collected and not accounted might be embezzled.

Ensuring the community‟s faith in the tank committees is of paramount importance or

else they will be reluctant to contribute their funds, and support the tank.

• Measures for Accountability

Committees should write written reports monthly on:

o Water that is left in the tank

o Repairs needed

53

o Funds left

o Quarrels

o Distribution

o Cleaning of tank

(Byembogo Community Leaders, Interviews with Key Informants)

• Oversight

The Community Volunteer Counselors (CVCs) will play a supervisory role in overseeing

the committees in their respective parishes (Their detailed duties are explained in

Appendix D). This idea is supported by the community and by current water-user

committees, since this measure ensures accountability, transparency, and the continued

working effectiveness of the tank committee over time.

• Enforcement

Currently, water-user committees of sources such as boreholes and dams have the

backing of Local Councils (LC1s), where fee collection can be enforced, and where

community members who refuse to pay can be penalised. This ensures fairness in equal

payment amount community members.

Demand management

1. Strict Management of the Water

Given the size of the tank and the size of the community it is expected to support, it is

likely that it will have a very low level of reliability (number of days it contains water).

This would have a strong effect on the likelihood of the establishment cooperating with

the community, as can be seen from the regression analysis. The community supports the

proposition that the water should be strictly managed in order to provide sufficient water

for as many community members as possible, and for long as possible.

2. Dry Season Usage

For certain communities, especially those that are much larger or are in closer proximity

to the establishment with the tank, they may find it necessary to limit water use during

the rainy season, and allow more usage during the dry season. This is because during the

rainy season, community members can easily collect rainwater from their own rooftops,

and the need for the tank isn‟t as great. Should the tank water be extensively used during

the rainy season, it will be dry during the dry season when need is the greatest. Thus,

rationing of the water is needed even if it somewhat compromises on water availability

during a large portion of the year. However, it should be noted that the tank would fill up

from the constant rainfall during the rainy season, and this should still be maximised by

the community.

54

3. Scheduled Collection Times

Each tank should have its own timetable for collection, as set out by the tank committees,

depending on what type of institution the establishment is, and the ability of the

committee. For example, a committee for a tank in a school might decide to set collection

times during games period, where water collection would not disrupt classes, but not

during the evening where there would be nobody to supervise collection.

4. Equal Provision to all Community Members

A big concern that community members have is that tank water will not be equitably

distributed. For example, rich residents would take precedence over poor residents in

getting water, even though it is supposed to be meant for equal access. Such perceived

unfairness will result in hostility within the community, and loss of support for tank use.

Thus, the tank water cannot be seen to be „sold‟, and fees collected for each unit of water.

This is also an issue when tanks are built in communities where households are sparsely

distributed, and a centralised institutional tank is not easily accessibly to everyone.

5. *Tier-based demand management system

A basic amount of water should be allocated for each household‟s use. This amount

should be decided by the individual tank committees based on community demand.

Households that decide to increase their usage beyond this basic amount of water should

be charged a fair sum. In this way, every household is guaranteed access to clean water,

but there is flexibility to provide for households that require more water while

maintaining a level of regulation. This system is regularly used in determining the prices

of piped water in other countries for the same reasons (Wong 1)

For example, a tank committee may decide that each household can collect 2 jerry cans of

water per day. Any household that decides to collect more than that will pay 100 shillings

per jerry can, and again up to a certain cap to prevent abuse.

6. Special Provisions

There should be extra provision made for marginalized groups such as HIV/AIDs patients,

children, the elderly and widows. This is because they are groups that suffer most from

water deprivation, in terms of waterborne disease, difficulty of travel and drudgery from

labour. Even during the dry period, they should have water set aside for them.

Funding

1. Cost Sharing with the Community

55

Communities that are more invested in their tanks through the provision or funds, labour

or materials are much more likely to take responsibility of the tanks, thus ensuring its

sustainability. According to ACTS, IRWH project that have little to no cost-sharing often

fail in the long-run due to a lack of concern and relegation of responsibility by the

community.

2. Community-based Funding of Maintenance and Repair

According to the Sub-county Chief of Kashongi, sustainability means the community

having its own money to maintain and fix their own tanks without needing outsiders to be

present. Through the analysis of the surveys, it can be seen that it is very likely that this

definition of sustainability can be upheld in Kashongi, and this should be the primary

means through which tank maintenance is supported. The finding that DRWH tanks can

be supported by an individual household (Sturm et al. 776-785)also adds weight to this

recommendation, since the burden of funding is spread across many families.

According to ACTS, it is possible for the community to provide its own funds for

maintenance, but the problem is convincing them that it is worth the money in terms of

the payback it will give them. There is a need for strong community institutions to follow

up through enforcement, since volunteer payment is difficult to enact in practice. Also,

the more self-interest is involved, the more likely the community members are in

cooperating.

3. Institution-based Funding of Maintenance and Repair

For communities that, for whatever reason, fail to provide for the maintenance of the

tank, the establishment holding the tank will take over the responsibility of providing

funding. However, if the institution itself pays for the maintenance and repair of the

tanks, they will expect to take the lion‟s share of the water.

56

Sensitization of the Community

Upfront education and communication

Before starting an IRWH system, the community needs to first be engaged in

discussions to hear about their needs and concerns. Afterwards, there needs to be

communication with them about the decisions that have been made so as to clear up

any misunderstandings. This will do much to greatly reduce hostility and resentment

against any perceived unfairness.

Spreading Knowledge about Tank Maintenance and Repair Costs: Touring

the Technology

The community needs to be exposed to the technology behind the tanks. There can be an

exhibition of the tanks at each village after the tank construction is complete. Firstly, this

helps them understand how the tanks work and how they should be used. This will reduce

incidence of breakage due to community usage, which is a big factor in the frequency of

tank breakage as seen in the regression analysis.

Secondly, this clears up misunderstanding about how the tanks are employed. For

example, during focus groups community members did not understand tanks were to be

built at public buildings like schools in order to harness the large roof area available.

Furthermore, the cost of parts of the tanks like the taps, gutter, and first flush system can

be clarified. This promotes transparency with the community, and helps them to

understand where the cost of repair comes from.

Helping Community to perceive Need and Benefit

o Canvassing Support

Widespread discussion needs to happen, and this can best be done in town hall meetings

where a large portion of the village community is present. The key is to have opinion

leaders of the village present; bringing them onboard means that even if not everyone is

present, favourable opinion of the tank will be spread.

o Testimonials

People need to be convinced that their money is well-used before they are willing to

contribute for tank maintenance. The best way to do this is to bring in community

members from other IRWH projects who have benefitted from the program. These

community members can then share how the tank has benefitted them in terms of not

only health, but also economic savings from medical bills.

57

Recommendations

58

Recommendations

Continued Monitoring

There is a need to constantly monitor the tanks and their management even after

construction has been completed. The reliability of the tanks in terms of number

of days it contains water per year, the service level of the tank in terms of how

many households are served, and type of water demand management being

employed and the physical condition of the tanks need to be taken note of. This is

crucial, because if any of these indicators of performance are compromised, both

the likelihood of the establishment sharing the tank with the community, and the

long-term support of the community for the tank will decrease, resulting in a

severe curtailment of the tank‟s sustainability. Thus, the NGO need to set aside

funds for continued project monitoring.

Having said this, it is crucial for the NGO not to be seen as still being overly

present, as this will result in a decrease in the willingness of the residents to take

full responsibility of the tanks. This is termed the dependency syndrome, where

community members rely fully or partially on external bodies for the management

of their water resources, even though they are the sole beneficiaries of the

resource. Furthermore, efforts to mobilize the community to become stakeholders

will not be successful, as it will be seen as a thrusting of unwanted responsibility

by the NGO. (Gupta 131-147). Thus, there is a very fine line to walk between

the two extremes of working on a purely project basis, and being completely

removed from the community after construction, and micro-managing the system.

To overcome this, the NGO should begin to set up a sub-county wide monitoring

and evaluation team that is elected by the community to start taking over the role

of the NGO after several years, when the community management system has

begun to mature (Byomuhangi )

Community Volunteer Counselors (CVCs) as Supervisors

The CVCs are a tremendous resource because of their knowledge of the local

situation in their respective parishes, and their ability to mobilize the community

due to their networking with local leaders. Employing and training them to be

supervisors of the IRWH tank system will reap big benefits in terms of tank

sustainability because there will be a measure of accountability from the tank

committees when they report to the CVCs, consistency in tank committee

performance across villages, and decrease in corruption and ineffectiveness due to

transparency.

Committee Guidelines and Management Training Program

59

The effectiveness of the committee has a great effect on the functionality of the tanks, as

can be seen from both the focus group findings and the survey data analysis. Thus, they

will need to be trained on various aspects of tank management, including:

o Tank Maintenance Tips

o Demand Management Assessment. For this aspect, the committee can be

trained to use the Simple Supply-side calculation method (Doyle K, FAU -

Shanahan Peter and Shanahan P ) in order to determine how much water

each household should get, and during which season.

o Water Distribution Techniques

o Fund Collection and Assessment

o Report Writing

Thus, it is recommended that there be a significant training phase conducted for the

committees after the members have been elected, to go through their responsibilities, and

to train them in how to undertake them. For an example of a committee guideline

document, refer to Appendix D Tank Committee Guidelines.

Fostering Maintenance Support Systems

MMHF should work to support the increase in the number of contractors who know

the working of RWH tanks well. This will result in increased availability of repair

services to the tank holders, and thus decrease down time. Also, with more

contractors, prices charged for repair will decrease, making it cheaper for tank

committees to repair the tank.

MMHF can take the step of identifying masons from Kashongi sub-county and

surrounding sub-counties can be identified, and sent to RWH training programs, such

as the ones organized by the Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Program.

Programs such as these will do much in terms producing contractors like Mr.

Asiimwe Justus who are very well-versed in adopting the right technologies to

different communities, and have a level of excellence in tank construction and

maintenance. Furthermore, this produces a ripple effect of having other masons who

are trained in the technology, like what Mr. Asiimwe did.

Selection of Phase 2 Tank Sites

In the analysis of school potential cooperativeness, we see that private schools have a

major advantage over public schools in terms of keeping their tanks from breaking

down. This should be a consideration in the selection of school sites, since the

frequency of breakage is a major factor in the sustainability of the tank. We may find

that in schools that are unable to or less willing to support the tanks, tanks will

become non-functional after a few years of service.

60

However, a point to take into consideration is that because public schools may have

less money than private schools, they may face a greater need in terms of ability to

provide sanitation facilities to their pupils. This is a big factor; in interviews, schools

note how parents would move their children to other schools based on whether the

school had adequate water and sanitation facilities like a RWH tank.

Intensive Sensitization

It is very necessary for MMHF and PHP to step in with sensitization in several forms.

The first step is to educate and train the CVCs, who are the supervisors for each

Parish. The CVCs will then have the capability to hold sensitization meetings with the

community during tank commissioning ceremonies, town hall discussions with local

leaders, and tank exhibitions meant for touring the technology, and to showcase

testimonies from people from previous IRWH projects.

The next step is to sensitize tank committee members in tank knowledge, and give

them the responsibility of passing on this knowledge to their respective village

community members. This is important; since they perform the daily running of the

tank, they will have the greatest exposure to the community, and thus the biggest

opportunity.

However, it is insufficient to rely on the CVCs and the tank committees to perform

the sensitization. In focus groups, water-user committees indicated that the

community might not give them full trust because they are also part of the community

and might have vested interests. The committees requested that the built the tanks

should play a big role in helping to sensitize the community, especially on harder

aspects such as collection of fees and water use restrictions.

Contract Signing

The final recommendation is to sign a contract with all parties involved with the tank.

Firstly, this includes establishments who receive the tank. This ensures that they do

not renege on their promise to share their tanks with the community, a very real

possibility should scenarios highlighted in the regression analysis occur. Secondly,

this includes tank committee members, to ensure that they fulfill their roles as key

management of the tanks. Lastly, CVCs, as supervisors of all the tank committees in

each parish, should be included. This covers all the management bases.

This step is crucial to MMHF and PHP, because it ensures consistency as time goes

on. Should it be found that any stakeholder fails to keep their end of the bargain, they

can be taken to account for the benefit of the whole community. This also ensures that

MMHF is seen as upholding its promised level of service to the community, an

essential component in maintaining the trust of the community.

61

62

Appendices

63

Appendices

Appendix A

Key Informant Interview Transcripts

Water-based NGO: African Community Technical Services (ACTS)

Water-based NGO: Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation

Programme (KDWSP)

Community Leadership: Sub-County Chief, Kashongi Sub-County

Community Leadership: Byembogo Leaders- Chairperson of Local

Council 1 and Councillor of Local Council 3

Rainwater Harvesting Tank Contractor

64

Key Informant Interview Transcript

Water-based NGO

Respondent: Mr. Tim Specht, African Community Technical Services (ACTS)

Interviewer: Jason Wong

Date: July 26th

2010

Time: 1500 to 1730

Location: ACTS compound, Ruharo.

About ACTS:

1. Canadian Christian NGO that works with providing water

2. Mainly works with Gravity Flow Systems (GFS), but has been supplementing

their GFS systems with IRWH tanks from 2 years ago.

a. GFS systems rely on laying pipes to carry water from large water sources,

powered only by gravity. Simple and cheap system to employ.

3. ACTS started DRWH systems recently.

4. ACTS receives funding from the Canadian government, but for the allotted

projects does not carry out any sort of ministry work. They work with the

Christian objective of promoting harmony, peace and wellbeing of the

communities they work with.

5. They conduct workshops to meet with political groups, tribes, churches etc

Recommendations made for Institutional Rainwater Harvesting (IRWH) projects

Get the institution or community to cost-share, or by providing goods and services

if they cannot pay cash.

o For example, they can provide the materials such as rocks, bricks and dirt,

and help with labor. Sometimes a little cash.

Set up a strong management system. Discussion is very important in creating this.

The community must trust the institution that it will work with the community

(note from Jason: this isn‟t always present in Kashongi. Some community

members in focus groups have expressed sentiments that the schools will not

share water with the community)

o The community must see the benefits of the IRWH come back to them

The more time spent with the community, the more trust will be built. A lot of the

success of an IRWH project comes from the intangibles

As a third party, you can work to overcome trust issues inherent in a community.

This must be made an objective.

Show the community a vision. Then, assist them.

There needs to be monitoring of the project after the construction is

completed. You need to show them that you are staying in the community for the

long-term.

o The program needs to build in funds for monitoring.

65

Get the water committees that are formed to come up with their own constitution.

Set up a whole financial system; how money is collected, how is the collected

money recorded etc.

There needs to be massive, large-scale reaching out to the community. Focus

groups are good, but they are too limited in size.

Problems faced in previous IRWH projects

25,000 liter tanks were built.

In some instances, communities will perceive unfairness in how the project was

implemented e.g. placement of tanks etc. This will result in hostility within the

community.

Also, some villages might be unwilling to cooperate despite the whole community

deciding to go ahead with the project. This might just be due to internal dynamics

within the village where villagers have disputes with each other, and don‟t want to

work together

The government doesn‟t have the resources to follow up with whatever they build.

They leave it to the user to maintain the system, and thus it is unlikely to get

funding from the government.

Most times, the institution finishes up most of the water, and there isn‟t much left

for the community. In all the projects Mr. Specht has seen, only 30% of

institutions share water with the community.

Solutions to problems

Speak with the whole community before speaking to individual groups; there is

a need for upfront sensitization (education and communication). This will first

get everyone‟s opinions before deciding how to proceed.

o Afterwards, leave it to local leadership to overcome groups that are not

cooperating

Also, it is crucial for the NGO to be viewed as working for the whole

community.

Sign a contract with all the stakeholders, including what they have agreed to

beforehand. This will prevent them from backing out or shirking from their

responsibilities, thus jeopardizing the whole project.

There is a need to talk to people multiple times. When disputes or internal

squabbles arise, come in as a mediator and straighten things out. Be prepared to

do this multiple times.

Funds for monitoring the project as it progresses needs to be built into the

budget.

Funding

66

It is possible for the community to provide its own funds for maintenance

o Mr. Specht made the point that for many people, it is not necessarily true

that they don‟t want to pay money for clean water because they can‟t

afford it. They still do go to bars and such to buy waragi (locally produced

gin), and just 500 to 1000 UGX a month per family (equivalent to about

25 US cents) can sustain repairs for a tank indefinitely. The problem is

convincing them that it is worth the money in terms of the payback it will

give them.

o He has seen widows groups that get together to pool money to pay. This is

coming from an extremely marginalized section of the population.

Intensive sensitization

a. Work with the sub-county to sensitize locals

b. People need to be convinced that their money is well-used.

2. There is a Ugandan Law that says that if a water system is installed, it has to be

maintained

3. Any project needs to be long-term to be successful; it needs to last for more than

just a few months

Volunteer payment is difficult

o If a volunteer payment system is set up, a lot of follow-up is required

to ensure that people pay

o Also, the more self-interest is involved, or the more an individual has

invested in the tank, the better cooperation will be

Also, if the institution itself pays for the maintenance and repair of the tanks, they

expect to take the lion‟s share of the water

For most government sources of funding, they build the tank and expect the user

to maintain the system. It is very unlikely that the government has funding to

maintain the tanks.

Mr. Specht has heard of funding for the Kigezi Diocese from USAid, but it was

strictly for education purposes.

Also, he has heard of WaterAid providing funding for some projects

Recommendations for Sensitization

1. Sensitize the community to help them perceive the need, and to see the benefit

they can gain.

a. Show them that paying some money a month for water can save them

40000 UGX to 50000 UGX a year in medical fees

2. Do presentations at current project areas, where you bring in people from

previous projects to provide testimonials of how safe water has helped them.

These testimonials must include details such as how much the person saved from

medical fees by not having to see the doctor etc.

3. This would be very convincing, and give the community more reason to take a

greater stake in their tanks. Hearing economic reasons for drinking safe water

instead of dirty water would also convince them to pay for access to clean water

67

4. Key point: Get the whole community to do discussions, perhaps in trading

centers. This is very important. Get the opinion leaders and major stakeholders

onboard with the ideas that are being raised, and then leave it to them to spread

the word. This will help a great deal with massive sensitization.

a. Sensitization should reach out to the children as well, since they are the

future. Having this ingrained in them will make things much easier when

they grow up. They also will have a say in the family.

5. Hold meetings with water committees

6. Give the locals a tour of the technology. For example, show them a tank,

demonstrate to them the moving parts such as the first flush system that might

break easily. Then, they can be showed what each piece costs, how it works, and

thus where would repair costs come from. This will help them understand the

technology involved in the tank better, and also lets them know what they are

contributing towards in terms of repairs.

7. This all leads back to having transparency with the locals

What is the impact of RWH systems?

8. RWH systems deliver clean water that has strong documented health

improvements. Dysentery, intestinal worms and other waterborne disease have

been reduced by 90 to 98% in the area

Cost Benefit Analysis

a. RWH doesn‟t have as great an impact per dollar spent compared to a

technology such as GFS. This is because it cannot reach out to as

many people, and is more expensive.

a. However, GFS doesn‟t work in many places, while RWH is the

only technology available that can work because it collects

water directly from the sky

b. Also, RWH systems are much easier to monitor because they

are a point source as compared to GFS systems, which has

kilometers of piping.

b. The target service level is to provide people with access to clean water

within a radius of 500m from their homes.

Ending Comments

c. The end goal is to create a system that is pay-as-you-go. This refers to

a water system that has people paying for the water they use. This is

easy to create in an urban setting, but not so easy in the village.

a. Mr. Specht has only seen 2 examples of this before, where

there are monitored taps built in the trading centre, with people

68

paying to get water. They have huts/shelters built over them,

and have people overseeing their distribution.

d. NGOs need to keep doing follow-ups with the community

69

Key Informant Interview transcript

Water-Based NGO

Respondent: Reverend Reuben Byomuhangi, Deputy Programme Coordinator, Diocese

of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Programme

Interviewer: Jason Wong

Date: July 30th

2010

Time: 4.30pm to 5.15pm

Location: Kabale Town, Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Programme Office

About the Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Programme

The Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Programme is the largest NGO in

Uganda that deals with rainwater harvesting systems. They have their own

masons, and build 12 tanks of 20,000 litre capacity, 100 of 4,000 litre capacity,

and 500 smaller tanks

They organize a 6-week programme every year to train artisans, gathered from

around the country, in the selection of tank technology in different situations, and

in the construction and repair of these tanks.

The Need for RWH Systems

Gravity flow systems have become increasingly ineffective due to falling water

tables.

As a result, the Ugandan Government has started to grudgingly admit that RWH

is a possible option, as compared to its previous position that RWH is a waste of

money.

RWH is catching on fast

The Effectiveness of an IRWH System

For the success of an Institutional Rainwater Harvesting System, you cannot

have a straight guide, like a telephone guide, that tells you what to do from A

to Z and expect that to solve the problems you face

The success of an IRWH system is very much dependent on the characteristics

of the individual communities, such as terrain, rainfall, populations etc.

o There is a need to have a deep understanding of RWH and the local

situation

The technology and approaches used must adapt to the local conditions

The Kigezi Diocese ranks communities according to need and population, and

then enters communities that are high on their list.

Some projects have much slower than expected progress.

70

For communities that are uncooperative, the Kigezi Diocese simply withdraws.

They do this to conserve resources, and meet their targets.

Tank Committees

Elections should be held for water committees

o Always get the residents of the villages as the committee members

o Elect members who are active, and have a demonstrated passion for and

focus on community development

o Re-elections should be held every few years so that ineffective members

of the committee will be dropped

The committee chairperson especially needs to be someone who fulfils all the

above requirements. If he is far away, he will consistently be absent from

activities and meetings.

Committees should formulate by-laws, constitutions and other management tools

They should be encouraged to meet as often as they can. This will help them to

anticipate future problems rather than wait for and manage crises.

Committees should decide what beneficiaries should contribute, and how often

for the tank

Some committees are not effective because they expect benefits, and when they

do not receive them, become inactive.

Demand Management

Demand management depends on the size of the tank and the size of the

population

It is not a good idea to dictate how much water should be given out from the tanks,

and the way it is given up. This should be left up to the committees to decide. It is

not possible to set rules and expect people to obey them like how they would to

the police.

However, one a rule that Reverend Byomuhangi would like to make to the

committees is that there should be extra provision made for marginalized groups

such as HIV/AIDs patients, children, the elderly and widows. Even during the dry

period, they should have water set aside for them. This should be the only

guideline.

Funding

71

1. The government publishes calls for proposals in the newspapers every 6 months.

They are willing to fund good proposals from organizations that are on the ground

and working well.

Community Sensitisation

The community needs to know that they own the facility, from day 1. They should

not expect people to come and fix the taps or repair the cracks for them when the

tank breaks down.

If community members know how much water they need, they will then be

willing to pay for the water.

The community also needs to be sensitized on how climate change, population

growth and HIV/AIDS directly affect water and sanitation issues, and how they

are implemented.

Ending Comments

The Kigezi Diocese is interested in the handbook. They would like to look at, debate or

correct any findings, and see if they corroborate with their own findings on the ground.

They are also in the process of creating documentation for their work, and will soon be

hiring a documentation officer to record all the steps of what they do. This will enable

them to also create a handbook that can be shared with the wider community with regards

to RWH systems.

72

Key Informant Interview transcript

Sub-County Chief

Respondent: Rwanyima Edward

Interviewer: Jason Wong

Date: August 11th

2010

Time: 12:17pm to 13:02pm

Location: Kashongi Sub-County, Sub-County Office Headquarters

Mr Rwanyima appreciates the help with the tanks; they fill the gap in terms of

proving water to the community

He feels that he has a few opinions to share with regards to the tanks PHP is

building:

The water-user committees should call the members who use the tank, and tell

them how much it costs. The committee will then decide how to split the cost,

based on the households.

Money should be collected beforehand, not just during a crisis

If the number of users is big, committee should create a schedule for collection.

Also, in such cases the water can only be used for drinking and cooking. Only

essentials will be allowed. Arrangements should be made e.g. each household can

only collect 2 jerry cans a day.

It is not a good idea to collect money for the collection of water e.g. a certain

amount per jerry can. This will make people feel like they are buying water, and

that is bad compared to the approach of collecting money for the maintenance of

the tanks.

Only a few will be able to use the tanks. The committee will have a problem

regulating use. He suggests using future money to build domestic tanks, and doing

a 60/40 split with households.

The is being done by ACORD in Byembogo, where they help groups of

community members build tanks one household at a time, then rotates to

another household in the group. He feels that is approach is very good.

However, ACORD is not large enough to cover all the villages in Kashongi.

He also feels that it will be tiresome for the committees to keep the tank open

everyday, even with rules and guidelines. To overcome this, he suggests having

children bringing small jerry cans to school, and taking water back to their homes.

Sustainability of the IRWH system is having money. The community must have

their own money. You cannot have other people (MMHF, government etc)

73

coming in to provide money for maintaining tanks. The community must provide

their own money, to feel responsible for the tanks.

There should be regular meetings of the community, about once a month. There

should be a commissioning of the tank, with the households who stay around the

tank. Then, you sensitise them to realize that they are the ones who own the tanks.

74

Key Informant Interview transcript

Byembogo Local Leaders

Respondents: Mrs Kavundi Beretha, Councillor LCIII

Mrs Faith Guma, Chairperson Byembogo, LC I

Interviewer: Jason Wong

Translator: Joram Amanya

Date: August 11th

2010

Time: 12:17pm to 13:02pm

Location: Kashongi Sub-County, Sub-County Office Headquarters

45 tanks of 7000-litre capacity were built in November 2008 by an NGO,

ACORD.

o For houses that wanted a higher capacity, they would top up with cash.

18 out of 45 tanks were individual tanks, while the rest were group tanks. Group

tanks were built by a system whereby community members would self-organise

into groups, and they would all pool money together to build tanks. They would

build on one house, and then rotate until all the houses had tanks.

ACORD chose Byembogo because of its distance from the communal dam that

served as a main water source for most villages in Rwenjubu Parish

Also, it had first tried Kashongi II village, but it was not cooperative. Thus, it

moved.

Management

Even group tanks are personally managed, by the person whose house has the

tank.

ACORD told the community about tank committees, but they were reluctant to

form committees. This is because some people still didn‟t have tanks, and thus

were reluctant

Committees would monitor the tanks, repair them if broken, report breakages that

are too big, and manage the usage of water from the tanks.

The owner of the tank would repair any breakages with his own funding.

Problems Encountered

Some tanks are spoilt because they tried to enlarge the tank without getting more

material.

Also, sometimes contractors get poor quality sand for some tanks, resulting in

inconsistency in the quality of the tanks.

ACORD did not monitor the contractors, which was a mistake on their part.

75

Quarrels happen when some people in a group fail to uphold their end of the

bargain. They do not bring their share of the funds required to build the tanks for

the other people in the group.

Certain people in the village do not have money even to join a group. Some

groups try to include widows and other marginalized groups by using them to

contribute stones and gravel, and the labour for obtaining these materials.

o But other marginalized groups, such as the poor, complained why the

same was not being done for them.

1. There is a large time gap between the building of tanks for different groups.

2. During the dry season, people who don‟t have tanks would beg those who did

have tanks for drinking water. The water is shared with them; however, there

is a shortage, especially during the dry season.

Opinions on Public Tanks

3. Water committees need to be trained on how to manage their water, and then

they will go sensitise the people.

a. They should mobilize funds from the community for repair of public

tanks.

4. Committees should write written reports monthly on:

a. Water that is left in the tank

b. Repairs needed

c. Funds left

d. Quarrels

e. Distribution

f. Cleaning of tank

76

Key Informant Interview transcript

Tank Contractor

Respondent: Asiimwe Justus

Interviewer: Joram Amanya

Translator: Joram Amanya

Date: August 11th

Location: Kashongi Sub-County, Rwemamba Parish

How did you get started as a contractor for tanks?

He is a trained mason, and he used to get government contracts e.g. for building staff

houses, classes and latrines. Kiruhura district selected 1 contractor from every sub-county,

and trained them from Kabale rainwater centre in 2007. Note: This is likely to be

referring to the Diocese of Kigezi Water and Sanitation Programme‟s training services.

Since then, he started contracting water tanks in both Kashongi and Kikatasi sub counties

at the household level.

How many contractors are there in Kashongi?

He is the only one, but he has trained 3 others that he works with.

How many clients do you see in a year?

He constructs 40 tanks on average. On top of this, he provides soak pits covered on top

with stones for the water that overflows during fetching.

What maintenance tips are there for tanks?

o Cleaning around the tank, to avoid stinking after. The water can be

stagnant in the grasses around the tank.

o Not to plant trees near the tank. The tree roots can create cracks in the tank.

o Monitoring to observe the leakage points

o Cleaning inside the tank, the gutters and the sealed end pipe at least thrice

a year i.e. before the rainy season. The sealed end pipe requires people to

disconnect the pipe.

o Using a first flush system

Do you tell your clients the tips?

Yes, he does, but for PHP tanks, he thinks that it will be done to the committees.

Which parts need repair, and how much does each part cost to repair? o Tank walls: this depends on the extent of the damage

o Top Cover of the tank: removing all of it costs 700,000UGX for a 20,000

litre tank

o Soak Pit: 20,000

o Taps: 50,000

77

Where do most of your requests come from?

Most of them come from Kiruhura District

How many tanks have you built, and how many in a year?

Around 135 tanks, 40 a year.

How many are private tanks?

23 Private tanks.

Additional Comments:

He said that it would be better on opening days for him to meet the tank committees to

give them the tips on how to maintain their tanks.

78

Appendix B Focus Group Transcripts

Rwenjubu Parish

Kitabo Parish

Byanamira Parish

Kitura Parish

Mooya Parish

79

Focus Group Number 1

Rwenjubu Parish

Recording 5

Interviewer: Jason Wong

Translator: Joram Amanya

Transcriber: Becky Kemigisha

Participants in this focus group are all general community members from Rwenjubu

Parish. None of them sit on water-user committees. All names and contact numbers were

recorded in a document located in the premises of Mayanja Memorial Hospital

Foundation.

Questions from the community

Participants: Who will keep doing the maintenance of the tanks?

o Jason: The community

What capacity of the tanks will be built?

o 20,000 liters

Is the community going to select its own committee member for the tanks under

construction?

o Yes

Interview

1. Jason: How do you feel about the water committees you have in your community?

Participants: Committees were selected but are not active

Committee members are selected from only one place in a parish, so most villages stay

far away from the committee members, and are not helped at all( for shallow wells).

Suggestion: each village should have a representative committee

2. What do you feel about each tank having its committee?

That is ok

3. What about 2 CVCs supervising your selected committees?

Very good

3. Are there any other reason besides the already mentioned issues why the

committees are not active?

Tank problems and when soliciting for maintenance fees, the community fails to

contribute.

When the committee is active, the tank will still be properly maintained even if the

community doesn‟t contribute anything.

80

4. So, is funding a problem like maintenance and repair?

Yes.

5. Give ideas like how we can get money for maintenance

Fight corruption in the water committee (authorize the committee by all means to

be as honest as possible)

Tanks are being put on public buildings so there should be a person selected to

guard the tank.

Looking for faithful people

Choose a person to stay at the tank so that every one takes an equal amount of

water like the rest- Equal distribution of water

However, during the rainy season every one traps water from their roofs, so it is kind of

hard for sufficient supervision during the rainy season.

The tanks built on schools will only sustain the families neighboring the school. And

most people are scared of never reaching the school tanks for water, and are afraid of the

long distance.

6. Is there any way to decide how to distribute the water apart from setting tanks on

schools?

May be if they can agree with PHP and MMHF such that on every 40 households, they

build a tank.

The problem is the limit of the tanks we are building

They agree with each other not to use tank water during the rainy season, but to wait for

the dry season to avoid water scarcity.

7. Do you have more ideas of how to go about this because in the survey we did we

found out that most of the people who have tanks; they get dry before the end of the

dry season?

Wait for the dry season to avoid water scarcity

8. Do you have suggestion of how you can inform others about this good idea?

The committee can decide on that.

9. So they are giving the committee the powers to do that?

No, that will keep the water for themselves

10. What powers would you like the committees to have?

Collecting funds for maintenance and supervision of equal distribution of water.

; control tank services.

11. Besides that, is their any thing else they would like to see the committee do?

Protection and cleaning of the water source, like slashing (cutting grass) and fencing.

81

Some schools have tanks and pupils use a lot of water. Are they allowed to encroach

on public water after their tank is empty?

The pupils school use their water. They prefer them not to encroach on the public tank

but they will be allowed to fetch though, since the children are theirs.

12. If you found the school without a tank, would you allow them to fetch from the

community tank?

Yes

13.How is the water quality of the water you are fetching from dam?

Very poor

14. Would you be willing to pay for water from the tank?

Yes, but as a contribution for maintenance. They can agree with each other and the

chairman on how to pay

15. How reliable is the government as concerned with water

They form our own local government, so they will try to do their best in managing their

water

16. How open would you be to say by coupons distribution of five for each so that

every time you go to fetch water you present a coupon?

When you are near the tank you need more coupons than that one who is far

May be if they are given two coupons a day, they utilize that water very well.

17. Is that a good idea?

Yes

18. How much water does your household use every day?

For the dam water for other uses and tank water for drinking

19. Don't you think that your committees will help you in future?

Yes

20. So how much water should each family get a day?

Five jerry cans a day.

Participants: After this construction, are there more future plans of more tank

construction?

May be the foundation and PHP will in future but I don’t know.

82

Focus Group Number 2

Kitabo Parish

Recording 6 and 7

Interviewer: Jason Wong

Translator: Joram Amanya

Transcribers: Joram Amanya

Participants in this focus group are from Kitabo Parish. The focus group consists of a mix

of general community members and water-user committee members, including one who

sits on a primary school tank committee.

Participants: They all use dam water

The water they use don‟t have committees but some valley dam water users select some

one to control it in term of protection and to keep the children away such that they should

not drown because those wells are deep. And even not to wash their clothes near the

water.

Jason: How is the tank committee structure at Akatenga P/S?

Participant: Their committee had a problem: what made it inactive is because the school

is the only one that oversees the tank. Therefore, they think that the local people should

have a representative on the committee

What can they do because of long distances?

May be to add them another tank

So we did a base line survey and it’s the one we are going to use as a basis for

selecting areas to give tanks

The people in schools limit them on water therefore what can they do?

How to over come the problem:

Sensitising the head teachers to give them enough water and tell them that tanks are for

both schools and communities

Where do you want tanks to be built?

If we can construct big tanks in villages, not in schools that are bigger to satisfy them

Putting tanks in the villages with calculated distances such that all people can access the

water

So the places we put up the tanks were not the right ones?

They reacted that they were right places because it was good to first consider their

children and that they will be considered later. But the tanks are not enough.

We are building 70 tanks. Therefore, if we are to build more tanks, then it means

that they will be little in size. How would you react to that?

83

The big tanks would help them when we put them in schools and churches so the medium

sized tanks would be put in villages which would not necessitate very big tanks.

What is the structure of the committees in Akatenga primary?

Chairman who is the head teacher, vice chairman general secretary who is any teacher, a

treasurer who is any one near the school and 2 ex officials who are the chair person Lc1

and any other person from the community

It should be functional, only that they are not there during the holidays since the school

authorities are not around, and they can‟t hand over the keys

Opinions on power sharing or any change in the committee?

One‟s view was that the keys should remain with the treasurer because it‟s the only way

to get water therefore there is need to sensitize the committees on that.

They should give the key to the immediate neighbor such that any one who wants to fetch

should come pick the key and after fetching brings it back to that person.

One challenged them that the tanks were given to the schools not to the communities,

therefore the schools were doing their work.

How to access the tanks, funds to maintain them, repair them in case of any

problem?

Chairperson Lc1 and the head teacher should be responsible for the tank and the treasurer

should be some one near the school.

What people would they like to manage their water?

If the tank is near the school then the committee should be comprised of the people near

it because they can easily notice a problem in a short period of time.

Another respondent supported the above statements.

What if the people who are far also complain that they want to take part on these

committees?

They will explain to them that the responsibility lies on the people who are near the tanks

that will be during the meeting.

They all agreed on that

Who should be in charge of repairing the tanks?

The responsibility will be with the chairman and the committee members to sensitise and

mobilize the funds from the local people which are for repairing the tank

Those schools that have tanks they call tank users in form of general meeting and they

contribute funds to repair the tanks and so as to the wells

Those who resist paying will be made to pay fines.

84

One of them who was a chairman LC1 said that for him, he has the power and authority

to do that.

There should be equal distribution of the tanks, as one of the respondents said that the

distances will be too long for some people.

Joram told him that we needed big roofs to collect enough water that was another reason

as to why we were looking for public buildings which are bigger.

Would you prefer to collect much water a day and the water lasts shorter or to use

little water and the water lasts for long?

They replied that they would prefer to use less water and it lasts longer

How much water do you use a day? You can all react to that.

One said that it can take them a jerry can of water in 3 days only if they are using it for

drinking.

Another one said that they can use like 4 jerry cans if they are to use water for all

purposes.

How do you look at it if you used tank water for drinking only?

They agreed with the idea but one of them said that sensitization to the communities is

important.

Who should be in charge for sensitization?

It would be better if we carried sensitization ourselves (people from MMHF and Duke)

because for them (local committees), people can‟t believe in them as they do for us. They

used a term of „the new eye”. For example, sensitise that there should be a limit of 2 jerry

cans after 2 days.

That can take a lot of time before we come back. How are you going to go about it?

The water committee should make constitution, and then call the people in a general

meeting. Then, they would explain to them how to go about that.

You agreed on access and management of tank. What if we say that water should

be used by children only?

One of them said that since they are already told that water is theirs, it would not be good

to them.

Another one said that people have already invested a lot of energy well knowing that the

tanks are for them. That is they do communal work, even when collecting the materials

for tank construction. Therefore, it would only work if they explained to them that this

water is for children, and you are giving the old people theirs.

85

How are you going to handle the case where schools already have their own tanks?

How are you going to differentiate the water?

One of the respondents said that the tanks we built are bigger; therefore, they should only

use their water, and not encroach on the school‟s water. They can only do so with the

authority from the school authorities.

They asked whether it was important to keep some water in the tank because one person

told us that it is needed for the tank not to develop cracks.

The answer was yes you need to do that.

Do the tank contractors give you other tips on how to maintain the tanks?

They also told them to protect the tanks from animals‟ interference.

Participant Question 1: Since we told them that we targeted public buildings to collect

more water, why is it that we are using only one side of the roof?

Joram tried clarified to them that the roofs are enough and the one side will be enough to

collect the water.

Participant Question 2: Can I top up some money in case you are building the tank on my

home such that you can build a bigger one?

There is no tank that is going to be built at the homes; all the tanks are public tanks.

What are your opinions on the fact that in other districts, people don’t take charge

of the tanks in terms of ownership? How are you going to go about that?

The reply was that if the communities can‟t take charge then the schools will do it.

To show that the people are willing to cooperate, what the contractor told them that they

should fetch water for the new tanks, they did it willingly

One respondent said that before you go you should first visit the head teachers and chair

persons and local people to educate and explain to them about maintenance of tanks such

that they can go and tell others by calling all of them at the sub county.

They had wished this education to be at every place you have built a tank. But others

tried to inform him about time which is the limit but we would wish it to happen like that.

More explanation was given that they shall be educated by the community volunteer

counsellors on tank openings.

86

FOCUS GROUP Number 3

Byanamira Parish

Recording 8

Interviewer: Jason Wong

Translator: Joram Amanya

Transcriber: Mbabazi Zam

Participants in this focus group are from Kitabo Parish. Some of them are general

community members, 3 of them are on dam committees, and 1 of them sits on a school

tank committee. All names and contact numbers were recorded in a document located in

the premises of Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation.

Jason: Are any of you involved in water committees?

Participants: School tank committee –Byanamira Modern P/S

Dam water committee, so they are 3

Do any of you use rain water tank at home?

No one

What do you know about the water committee, I mean those on the rainwater tank

committee?

There are many challenges, like the gutters were not fixed well.

Water is not filtered well before it goes in the tank

The tanks are not well cared for e.g. they are always bushy; do not slash around the tanks.

That is his experience as a committee member.

Is there anything else that makes these water committees not to be good?

Because they are not aware of what should be done.

Do you think that there is what can be done to help them know, is there any

sensitization/ training needed to be aware about that.

Yes that when we sensitize them about how to use our own tanks then they can how to

maintain other tanks so it‟s a good idea to help these water committees so that they can

also help others on how to maintain their water tank.

What do you think about people who should be on these water committees?

That usually children play with the taps heads and spoil it and so you find that water

cannot be accessed. Also, another thing is that the tank should be protected because

animals encroach upon the tank.

Is there any other thing to know how the tanks can be managed? One the respondents gave an example that it will be hard for people who stay far away to

access the water, since most of the tanks are constructed on schools and churches, so it‟s

of great advantage to those who stay nearby. There was also a reaction by one of the

87

members that is should be gazetted or fenced to protect it from being reached by people

and animals.

That the discussion is for their own benefit so they should get more involved to share

ideas on how to maintain these tanks since the tanks is for them the community so they

are trying to help them

Those tanks also can be constructed far away from people‟s households and so end up

being destroyed without their knowledge.

So you mean that where the tanks are that is on schools and churches, there are no

people who stay around or nearby? Another question is can any of you build your

own tank and then destroy it yourself? A respondent said that people are not the same,

so you that are here can go back and help those people know that these tanks are theirs

and so if they destroy them it‟s them who are losing out on getting tank water. The

respondent was saying that as you construct the tanks, you should also help them to

construct wells.

A question was posed to them by Joram that how can a person contrast for you are a

house and them come sweep the house for you? They should take it as a blessing that

someone would come all the way from USA to built tanks for them even though they do

not know them, and are not even related to them.

How the community can contribute to the managing of tanks, what views/ ideas do

you have concerning the maintenance and repairs of these tanks in case there is a

problem with the tank? The respondent says a committee will be appointed, which will be the one to take charge

in case there are any repairs needed on the tank. They will take the initiative to collect

money from those using the tank so as to do the repairs. Also, on the day of opening the

tanks, we should go there and try to sensitize them on how to use those tanks.

So you have managed to make your own water committee; who are the people on

the committee? There is chair person, vice chair person, secretary, treasurer and 1 member.

Have this committee already worked on some of these problems?

They say no because most of the tanks are new and so nothing has been done yet. That

the old tanks never had committees until they were spoilt; that‟s when they had to put up

those committees to help out.

If there are people who do not want to pay for the tank repairs what would you do? That they would use the money which the other people contributed and those who refuse/

fail to pay they leave them. But that has not happened yet, and even then, there are more

school tanks.

What kind of powers should the water committee have?

88

That there should be equal distribution of water between the households; if its 20litres for

each, let it be so that it‟s not the rich who are taking more than the poor. Also, there

should be by-laws to guide them e.g. if it‟s 2 jerry cans, those who need more should be

charged, so that those fees can be used for the repair and maintenance of tanks. The water

tank was agreed to be collected/ fetched during the dry seasons since in wet season most

of the households have rain water.

Who will be responsible for the collection of money /funds for the repairs of the tank? The whole water committee should be responsible for that not only the chair person to

take the initiative of collecting the funds.

According to the research it was found out that most tanks run out of water in wet

season, and in the dry season they have no water. So what should we do to overcome

this kind of problem? That they will make sure that water will be drawn only in the tank when it‟s in the dry

season only.

Respondents asked: What happens to those who have no schools or churches to build

there tanks? Answered by, asking them to write down their names, phone contacts

and villages since he did know which village they are from and in case there is any

need they will be able to contact them. The reason why they are using the public

buildings is tap more water.

Ended but giving them a highlight that a discussion always allows everybody to

participate and so should always feel free to participate not particular people to do that.

89

Focus Group Number 4

Kitura Parish

Recording 9

Interviewer: Jason Wong

Translator: Kanyebaze Taracis

Transcriber: Becky Kemigisha

Participants in this focus group are all members of different water-user committees from

Kitura Parish. None of them are general community members. All names and contact

numbers were recorded in a document located in the premises of Mayanja Memorial

Hospital Foundation.

1. How do you maintain your water sources, and what problems do you face with

that water?

-Running water in the rainy season falls into their water sources with a lot of dirt, trash

and diseases.

-Water from the dams is also shared by animals like cattle

2. So all the water sources dry during the dry season, in all places?

Yes, because we don‟t have underground water and even the sources we have are

little.And more to that, the water in existence is contaminated by animals and people who

fetch while stepping in the source.

How do you access the water?

People access water free with no payment.

3. How do you over come the problem of dirty water?

We hired a watchman to guard he water source and prevent people from stepping in the

water and animals form drinking from the water source.

4. Where does the committee get funding for the watchman?

They collect funds from the market place like twice a year like 24,000/= shillings every

year.

5. How the people pay for maintenance of dams, would they be willing to pay for

repair and maintenance of tanks?

They are never willing to pay. They need a lot of sensitization.

6. How would you like the sensitization to be carried out?

Through LCs and some water management committees around.

7. What should the tank water committee look like?

It should have a Chairman, vice chairman, secretary, treasurer, and two care takers.

90

8. Should each tank have a committee?

Yes

9. What kind of strength does the committee have?

It is empowered by the government like the LC 5 Chairman at the district level.

10. What kind of duties does the committee have, do they move in the community to

collect money?

They have by laws from the society so if one neglects the law, they are charged by the

government.

11. What will the committee do for the tanks?

To know their duties, they have to first know the number of tanks and their

capacity to know how they can look after them.

The tanks will be 20,000 litres concrete tank and the committee will decide who will

use the tank. They will construct on public buildings first like schools, churches and

health centres.

Qn. You are constructing tanks on public buildings first, will the local community come

in to be part of the tank committees?

Our idea is that the community will elect people to be on the committee and the first

will be the head teacher and the other five will come from the community.

13. Are there any ideas on how to make the management committee better?

It will be up to the member of the committee to enhance respect between the community

and the people.

Committee should take the responsibility to sensitize the community.

Have a time table for the usage of the tank so that the community should fetch when

students go home and students fetch during class time for effective usage of water in the

tank.

The builders of the tank should first come in to teach the community about the usage of

the tank. And there after the responsibility will be left to the committee.

14. What else can be done to make sure that the water for the tank should be

utilized efficiently? By making a timetable for fetching water and estimate how much water is conveniently

required for a family depending on the number of the household.

But the worry is that the size of the tank will also affect the water to be supplied.

They are also suggesting that the water should be strictly used for drinking during the dry

season.

91

Qn. For how many people is one tank built for?

The committee will decide.

Qn. How many tanks per parish?

Like ten tanks each parish.

What will be the distribution of the tank?

Public Buildings like schools, churches and health centres.

92

Focus Group Number 5

Mooya Parish

Recording 10

Interviewer: Jason Wong

Translator: Joram Amanya

Transcriber: Becky Kemigisha

Participants in this focus group are all members of different water-user committees from

Kitura Parish. There were 5 participants. None of them are general community members.

All names and contact numbers were recorded in a document located in the premises of

Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation.

1. Jason: How do you find, use and maintain your water sources?

Participant: Shallow wells contain salty water, the dams carry rainy running water, hard

to use and maintain. And though shallow well water is clear, being salty makes them

prefer the use of dirty dam water.

Is there any question on how to use tank?

We are still waiting for how you will construct the tank

QN Is one tank going to be enough for a village?

We shall start with public buildings first on public buildings and there are some

cells that don’t have schools.

2. How much water per home?

Two jerry cans

The committees that they are going to set up will help them

3. What is the opinion on how the water should be distributed?

They support the suggestion of two jerry cans per day.

4. Who will be in charge of the committee members?

After constructing the tank, we will hand over to the community and it will decide on

how to look after the tank. They will make a Rota (a daily routine) and each member will

be given duties and days to work. The committee will choose a committee three people to

remain active throughout and do repair.

5. How possible will it be to collect money from the community and how willing will

they be to pay money?

According to how people long for good water, they would be willing to cooperate in

funding for the tank.

6. Does everyone agree with this?

Yes.

93

7. How about how to maintain the tank?

The committee will include defence which will ensure protection and good handling of

the tank.

It has worked with boreholes successfully and so it will for the tanks. And collecting

2000 shillings with keeping the records.

8. Do you collect 2000 from every user?

Yes. The government also gives a hand for water source conservation and maintenance.

So after constructing tanks, they will be handed over to the community committee

members. To make the tap more secure they will buy a pad lock to lock the tap.

Making a fence around the tank and leaving some water in the tank in the dry season to

avoid getting cracked.

9. What material will be used to make a fence?

Pole and wire mesh

People destroy the taps because they are not theirs personally, so it is very important to

let the people fully understand that the tank is theirs.

Suggesting that the local people should be linked with the heads and incharges of the

public buildings where the tanks have been constructed so as to have easy access and

distribution of water.

94

Appendix C

Regression Analysis Tables

Note: The benchmark of 10% confidence is used instead of the usual 5% confidence to

determine statistical significance, because of the subjective nature of some of the

questions.

1. Willingness and Ability for Indigenous Funding

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Amount

Willing to Pay

for Tank

Maintenance

Amount

Willing to Pay

for Tank

Maintenance

Amount

Willing to Pay

for Tank

Maintenance

Amount

Willing to Pay

for Tank

Maintenance

Amount

Willing to Pay

for Tank

Maintenance

Amount

Willing to

Pay for

Tank Water

-3.846 -3.967 -3.155 -6.571 -6.704

(5.999) (5.393) (7.341) (4.629) (4.479)

Use of

Institutional

Tank

1038.0 743.3 490.1 1022.3 1645.5

(4865.4) (4904.0) (4688.9) (4805.5) (4746.6)

Daily

Income of

Family

Breadwinne

r

0.856***

0.862***

0.837***

0.767***

0.760***

(0.102) (0.140) (0.130) (0.117) (0.124)

Increase in

Self-ranked

Water

Quality

144.5 589.7 806.1 1400.6* 1588.4

*

(294.1) (533.5) (501.2) (685.4) (778.3)

Decrease in

Distance

Travelled

when Using

Tank

-1695.1**

-3220.2**

-2780.0***

(572.6) (971.1) (718.2)

Decrease in 5753.4**

5126.4**

4908.8**

3743.8**

3838.4*

95

Time Spent

when Using

Tank

(1662.3) (1493.4) (1663.9) (1561.7) (1638.4)

(Increase in

Self-ranked

Water

Quality)^2

-77.20 -93.35

(114.3) (96.41)

Monthly

Household

Water

Consumptio

n, in 20-litre

Jerry cans

63.75***

52.32**

26.25**

31.36***

(14.08) (17.65) (9.855) (8.367)

Effect of

Using

Tank-

Reduction

in Disease

5154.0 6161.6 6146.1

(5762.5) (6732.3) (6877.9)

Effect of

Using

Tank-

Reduced

Chances of

Rape

767.6 3445.8 2487.2

(5488.2) (7813.4) (8418.4)

Effect of

Using

Tank-

Reduced

Chances of

Robbery

8455.1 8384.9 8716.3

(9502.1) (10250.1) (10031.2)

Effect of

Using

Tank- Other

-4760.6+ -4198.9

+ -5362.2

*

(2592.3) (2540.2) (2550.2)

96

(Increase in

Self-ranked

Water

Quality)^3

-17.79+ -20.39

+

(10.65) (11.87)

Problem

with Main

Water

Source

Solved

4187.0+

(2509.7)

_cons 8514.2* 1416.5 -1138.4 -2018.9 -5465.4

(4199.9) (6620.2) (9792.1) (7915.9) (7230.2)

N 71 71 71 71 71

R2 0.382 0.440 0.485 0.448 0.455

Standard errors in parentheses + p < 0.15,

* p < 0.10,

** p < 0.05,

*** p < 0.01

Final Equation:

Willingness to Pay = -6.7TankWater + 1646UseIRWH + 0.76Income*** +

1588WaterQual* – 20.39WaterQual^3 + + 3838TimeSpent* + Other Effects +

31.4MonthlyWaterUse*** + 4187ProblemSolved+ + ε

In the first regression, willingness to pay for clean water from the tank, reliance on an

existing tank, reliance on an institutional tank, family breadwinner income, and the

impact of existing tanks in terms of change in water quality experienced, distance

travelled and time spent collecting water.

In the second regression, we add variables to account for how much water a household

consumes, and also a quadratic variable for the change in water quality experienced to

check for an improvement in p-value.

In the third regression, dummy variables for other effects of using the tank, such as a

decrease in occurrences of disease and robbery while collecting water. We see an

increase in the p-value of the variable for willingness to pay for tank water when

dummies for other impacts of tank use are added. This is likely to be because of

imperfect collinearity; the other benefits experienced from using the tank are probably

already captured in the willingness to pay for tank water. The R-square value does

increase significantly; this is likely mostly due to the effect of „Other‟, which is

negatively correlated and statistically significant.

97

The difference in the coefficients of decrease in distance travelled and decrease in time

spent gives us a basis for interesting analysis. Both of them have strong correlation, and

are statistically very significant. We would expect them to be similar, since they seem to

both be indicators of the benefits experienced from using a tank. However, decrease in

distance travelled has a negative relationship with willingness to pay for tank

maintenance, while decrease in time spent is has a strongly positive effect.

This is very puzzling at first. However, a few explanations can be offered at closer

inspection. Firstly, they may explain the conflict between the experience of real benefits

of having a tank leading to increased willingness to pay, versus the decrease in

willingness to pay due to already having a tank nearby. The second explanation that may

be offered is the interplay between distance travelled and time spent. When the distance

travelled is far to the previous water source is far yet the time spent is little, as with some

respondents who indicate that they own a bicycle or with respondents who travel easy

roads to get to their water source, the combined effect is to have a less positive impact on

willingness to pay. This makes sense, since this means that it didn‟t cost the respondent

very much at all to travel to his/her previous water source.

On the other hand, for respondents who indicated a large amount of time spent for a

shorter distance, the combined effect would be to have a greater positive effect on

willingness to pay. This would naturally mean that the respondents found it very difficult

to get to their water source, and would be willing to pay for a tank in exchange for all that

trouble.

Upon performing a regression of decrease in distance travelled with decrease in time

spent, we find that they are highly correlated. In the fourth regression, we remove the

variable for decrease in distance travelled. This decreases the R-square value significantly,

but is expected because of the removal of imperfect collinearity. Also, we replace

(increase in water quality)2 with (increase in water quality)

3, which gives us improved p-

values for increase in water quality in general.

In the final regression, we add a dummy variable for whether problems with the

respondents‟ main water source were solved by the relevant institutions in charge of

water. We see a strong positive correlation, but one that is statistically significant only at

the 15% significance level.

98

2. Potential Institution Cooperativeness Analysis

Note: Only schools are included in this regression

(1) (2) (3)

Tank Shared

with

Community

Tank Shared

with

Community

Tank Shared

with

Community

Tank

Shared with

Community

Number of

Days Tank

is Dry

-0.0378* -0.0264

** -0.0605

**

(0.0166) (0.00809) (0.0178)

Number of

Tanks

1.281 0.837 1.725**

(1.212) (1.174) (0.540)

Number of

Households

within

500m

0.450

(0.318)

Ln(Number

of

Households

within

500m)

1.467+ 2.666

**

(0.852) (1.084)

Frequency

of

community

requests for

water per

month

0.223***

(0.0363)

Frequency

of disputes

over water

per year

-0.0704

(0.0568)

99

_cons -0.437 -0.685 -2.459+

(2.733) (3.093) (1.275)

N 26 26 26 Standard errors in parentheses + p < 0.15,

* p < 0.10,

** p < 0.05,

*** p < 0.01

Final Equation:

Probability of Sharing Tank= -0.0674DaysDry*** + 2.289NumberTanks*** +

0.791NumberHouseholds** + 0.103Requests ***- 0.117Disputes* + ε

The observations including other types of tanks are removed from this regression. Private

tanks are either commercial tanks which are definitely shared, or tanks in Byembogo,

where group tanks are built and there is huge community pressure from local leadership

to share tanks. Thus, including these observations would bias the findings. Analyzing

only schools is also advantageous, because the majority of PHP tanks will be located in

schools.

In the first regression, the only independent variable that is statistically significant is the

number of days the tank is dry. When the distribution of how many households was

graphed, we see that it is very skewed. Thus, in the second regression we use the natural

log of the variable instead, which gives us greatly improved p-values. Interestingly, the p-

values for how many days are the tank dry is also improved as well. In the last regression,

we add variables for how often the community asks for water, and how often disputes

over water occur. Only the former is statistically significant (and highly so).

100

3. Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Water-user Committees

(1) (2)

Problem with

Main Water

Source Solved

Problem with

Main Water

Source Solved

Problem with

Main Water

Source Solved

Respondent

Contacted

Relevant

Authority in

Charge of

Water Source

2.770***

3.019***

(0.519) (0.614)

Discusses

Water and

Sanitation

Issues with

Neighbours

1.270***

1.135***

(0.331) (0.335)

Community

Meeting in the

Village in the

Past Year

-2.141***

-1.588***

(0.642) (0.306)

Respondent or

Household

Member

Participated in

Meeting

0.870 -0.0459

(0.706) (0.334)

Cooperative in

Village in the

Past Year

1.379***

1.805***

(0.365) (0.465)

Health Fund in

Village in the

Past Year

0.283 0.112

(0.296) (0.304)

101

Self-ranked

Water Quality

from Main

Source

-0.0783

(0.0613)

_cons -3.441***

-2.838***

(0.352) (0.471)

N 114 96 Standard errors in parentheses + p < 0.15,

* p < 0.10,

** p < 0.05,

*** p < 0.01

Final Equation:

Probability of Water Source Problem Solved = 3.02Contacted*** +

1.14DiscussWater*** -1.59CommMeet*** - 0.0459MeetParticipation +

1.81Cooperative*** + 0.112HealthFund – 0.078Rankwater + ε

102

4. Factors Affecting the Long-term Functionality of Tanks

Regression involving all Tank Holders

(1) (2) (3)

Frequency of

Tank

Breakage per

Year

Frequency of

Tank

Breakage per

Year

Frequency of

Tank

Breakage per

Year

Frequency

of Tank

Breakage

per Year

Number of

Repair

Contractors

known

(might not

include

name or

contact)

0.305

(0.283)

Number of

ways to

maintain a

tank known

-0.0683 -0.0715 0.302*

(0.142) (0.159) (0.148)

Ferrocemen

t Tank

0.338 0.921 -1.209

(0.651) (0.708) (0.658)

Plastic Tank 0.127 0.249 -2.828***

(0.630) (0.639) (0.333)

Frequency

of tank

cleaning

0.0879 0.0520 -0.0186

(0.140) (0.238) (0.190)

Tank

Shared with

Community

0.782 0.769 0.0517

(0.444) (1.201) (1.639)

Number of -0.0610 -0.211

103

Contractors

Known

(With

Names or

Contact

Number)

(0.279) (0.389)

Age of the

Tank in

Years

0.226**

0.508***

(0.0695) (0.101)

Tank

Broken by

Self-Use

0

(.)

Tank

Broken by

Community

Use

4.399***

(0.677)

Tank

Broken by

Students/Ch

ildren

0

(.)

Tank

Broken

Accidentall

y

3.961***

(0.876)

_cons -1.348* -2.041 -3.476

*

(0.640) (1.276) (1.482)

N 52 48 44 Standard errors in parentheses * p < 0.10,

** p < 0.05,

*** p < 0.01

Note: Amongst the dummy variables for how was tank broken, „sabotage‟ and „other‟

excluded because of the low number of observations.

104

Regression involving only schools

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Frequency of

Tank

Breakage per

Year

Frequency of

Tank

Breakage per

Year

Frequency of

Tank

Breakage per

Year

Frequency of

Tank

Breakage per

Year

Frequency

of Tank

Breakage

per Year

Number of

Contractors

Known

(With

Names or

Contact

Number)

0.143 0.198 -0.184 -0.266

(0.376) (0.432) (0.461) (0.456)

Number of

ways to

maintain a

tank known

-0.139 0.192 -0.269 -0.369

(0.166) (0.267) (0.242) (0.372)

Ferrocemen

t Tank

4.046***

0.431 1.220+ 2.160

*

(0.792) (0.539) (0.698) (1.092)

Plastic Tank 3.878***

(0.748)

Frequency

of tank

cleaning

0.0934 0.248 -0.0786 -0.258

(0.214) (0.156) (0.250) (0.359)

Tank

Shared with

Community

0.705* 0.0931 1.267 1.944

+

(0.294) (0.784) (0.786) (1.024)

Tank

Broken by

Self-Use

0

(.)

105

Tank

Broken by

Community

Use

3.076***

(0.638)

Tank

Broken by

Students

2.202+

(1.285)

Tank

Broken

Accidentall

y

2.274*

(1.015)

Age of the

Tank in

Years

0.338***

0.373**

(0.0838) (0.112)

Private

School

-2.857***

(0.741)

Frequency

of Tank

Committee

Meetings

per Year

0.373*

(0.159)

_cons -4.676***

-3.269**

-2.291+ -3.579

*

(0.371) (1.321) (1.249) (1.538)

N 37 35 34 29 Standard errors in parentheses + p < 0.15,

* p < 0.10,

** p < 0.05,

*** p < 0.01

Final Equation:

Frequency of breakage = -0.266Contractors – 0.369NumberMaintain +

2.16TankCement*- 0.258FreqClean + 1.94CommunityUse + + HowTankBroke

(dummies) + 0.373TankAge** -2.86PrivateSchool*** + 0.373FreqComm* + ε

106

We find that often times the respondent claims to know a certain number of contractors,

but cannot name them. Thus, from the second regression onwards we instead use only the

number of contractors they can name. From the regression, we see that real number of

contractors has weak correlation, probably because the competing effect of knowing

more contractors resulting in lower frequency of breakage, and the fact that the

respondent would know more contractors because the tank had spoiled more frequently.

The number of ways the respondent knows of how to maintain the tank has a strongly

negative correlation with the frequency of breakage, as expected. This provides a strong

case for intensive education of tank committees with regards to tank maintenance,

especially since it is ambiguous how much tank contractors pass on their knowledge to

the tank owners and committees.

107

Appendix D

Work Done by DukeEngage

1. Tank Committee Guidelines

Guidelines for Rainwater Harvesting Tank Committees

The following are suggested guidelines to ensure the sustainability of the Rainwater

Tanks which you have been elected to preserve for the benefit of your community. These

tanks are fully and wholly the responsibility of your committee, and the water they

provide belongs to the community. Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation, the

Progressive Health Partnership and Duke University will NOT take any responsibility for

the management and repair of the tank. Thus, it is essential for each committee to create

an effective and reliable management structure. Your community is relying on you for the

provision of this much needed tank water.

Suggested General Guidelines

Goals of Committee

1. Ensure that water from the tanks is equitably distributed

2. Budget water efficiently to last throughout the dry season

3. Ensure that the water from the tanks is of good quality

4. Ensure that the tanks are well maintained and repaired promptly

5. Ensure that tanks, gutters, roof tops, and surrounding areas are cleaned regularly.

This should ideally happen twice a year- once before each rainy

season. 6. Make special provision for needy groups. This includes widows, the elderly,

young children and HIV/AIDS patients. They should have water set aside for

them, especially during the dry season.

Responsibilities of Committee

Meeting regularly, preferably once a month.

Creating a committee constitution and by-laws that are communicated to the

community. This ensures that committee and community members understand the

responsibilities of the committee, and the rules of using the tank

Funding

Soliciting funds for the maintenance, repair and cleaning of the tank. Committees

should decide the amount to be collected per household based on estimated yearly

cost of maintenance (7% of initial tank cost) and on the number of households

using the tank.

Demand Management

Communicating with the community to determine out how best to use the tank

water including:

108

o How and when water will be collected. A timetable for collection that is

agreed upon should be created. Either committee members or a designated

member of the establishment (e.g. school teacher) should be present to

ensure smooth distribution of water.

o If any organization such as a health center or school should be given

priority for using tank water.

o How much water each person/family can take.

Several demand management strategies are suggested, and may be adopted and

adapted by the committees as need requires:

o Tier-based demand management system A basic amount of water should be allocated for each household‟s use. This

amount should be decided by the individual tank committees based on

community demand. Households that decide to increase their usage beyond

this basic amount of water should be charged a fair sum.

o Varying Seasonal Use

Community members may be allowed to draw water according to seasonal

needs. For example, a community may decide they want to use 2 jerry cans a

day during the rainy season, and 1 jerry can a day during the dry season.

o Dry Season Usage

For communities that have many people using the tank, it may be necessary to

be very strict on water usage, and only allow use during the dry season, or

during emergencies.

o Adaptive Demand Usage

A certain fixed amount is allowed when the tank is between one-third and

two-thirds full. When the water level increases, the fixed amount can be

increased; when water level decreases, below one-third full, the fixed amount

is decreased.

Implementing and enforcing the rules of using the tank that the community has

decided upon. Committees should refer to Local Council 1 (LC1s) for

enforcement, should rules not be followed.

Maintenance

A person should be appointed to hold the primary responsibility of cleaning

the tank. They must ensure that the tanks are cleaned twice a year, during

both dry seasons. The cleaning includes:

o Washing out the tank

o Clearing out the first flush pipe

o Clearing out the gutters

o Cleaning the surrounding area around the tank

o Cleaning the roof.

109

Sensitization of the Community

Transparency and Accountability to the Community

o Reports should be written monthly on:

Water that is left in the tank

Repairs needed and costs

How funds are used, and how much is remaining

Distribution methods

Tank Cleaning and Maintenance

o These reports should be made public to the community for checks

Education and Communication

Meetings and discussions should be held with the community to spread

knowledge about the tanks and to canvass support:

o Tank usage, so that they will not damage the tank during collection

o Tank maintenance, cleaning and repair costs of each part of the tank

o Sensitization on savings on healthcare and other benefits of the tank,

so that they are more willing to pay for tank maintenance.

Suggested Specific Guidelines

Located at School

The water in the tanks must be made available for members of the community.

Any decisions should be made in consultation with the Headmaster of the school

or a representative of the school. It is important to maintain a good relationship

with the school, so that community access to the water is not affected.

If it is appropriate, you might consider ensuring a member of the school‟s

administration is part of the committee, to ensure consistent and healthy

communication and collaboration between the school and the committee.

It is important to set up a timetable for water collection that is widely

publicized within the community to prevent congestion and confusion. People

should encourage to collect in the morning before school, and during breaks

within the school day (games time, lunch breaks). Collection after dark or

late in the evening should be discouraged as this is dangerous, and it is

harder to monitor.

You need to make sure that these times when tank water will be available is

frequently and accurately relayed to the community so that they feel they have

sufficient access to the tank.

If congestion becomes a severe problem, consider limiting visits per household to

once daily.

Have a responsible individual (i.e., a committee member, a teacher, or a trusted

member of the community) present when water is distributed

The taps of the tanks should be locked when not in use. Be sure to lock them

overnight.

110

The hatch of the tanks should be locked at all times except when cleaning is

conducted, particularly if the tank is located in a school, where the risk of smaller

children drowning is high. Ensure that the school is not allowing children to

access the tank unsupervised at any time.

The school should be prepared to set aside funds to repair the tanks, but only if

the community is not able to provide funds.

An alternative to hiring a cleaning crew is to implement a water and sanitation

club in which pupils appointed by the water and sanitation teacher help clean the

tanks before every rainy season.

Be attuned to the needs of the community to prevent schoolchildren and

community members from intentionally damaging/vandalizing the tank.

Encourage active community involvement and interest in the tank, Consider

involving the PTA and some influential parents. This might help in the long run

with management issues, fundraising issues, and general maintenance.

Located at Place of Worship

1. Mostly same as with schools

2. The committee must discuss their policy regarding the use of water at large

events such as weddings, funerals, church conventions etc. We would suggest

you discourage these events using the tank water as it is not easy to limit.

3. Collection at a place of worship could be held throughout the day, as long as there

is supervision. Church administration in conjunction with the Committee should

decide what the most convenient collection schedule is and publicize this to the

community. The committee should have frequent communication with the church

administration so that everyone is on the same page.

4. Discuss when the water should be “turned on” and “turned off” and ensure that

this is most appropriate for the needs of the community

5. Discuss some times of the day/times of the month that will be appropriate for

community members to collect water, which will not interfere with the

church’s schedule. Collection of water after dark or in the late evening

should be discouraged because this can be dangerous and it is difficult to

monitor and control the collection.

6. Discuss with church administration who is in charge of minor repairs and

maintenance . Ensure that this person is aware of their responsibilities.

7. As with schools, consider having some members of the church administration run

for a committee position, to ease communication and create an efficient

relationship between the community and the church.

8. It might be sensible to decide early on how to approach the issue of funds. If the

church is willing to consider using some of their funds for minor repairs or minor

maintenance, set guidelines for this use before the need arises. If the church is

unwilling to use their own funds, then ensure that everyone understands this, so

that there is no miscommunication. Then look into other possible methods of

fundraising. Having a back up plan incase of an emergency repair would be

sensible.

111

9. If many people decide to collect after Sunday services, there may be severe

congestion. It may be wise to suggest alternative times, or allow for collection

both before and after the service.

Located at Health Centre

Your committee needs to make a decision regarding the specific use of the

water. Your committee is entirely in charge of these decisions. They are your

responsibility and your community is relying on you for the efficient

management of the tank. You would need to outline the boundaries of use. Would the Health Centre be permitted to use the tank water in a different manner

to the rest of the community? How would you deal with people who came to the

health centre for treatment and asked to take water with them? It is important that

these rules and boundaries are instituted and consistently reinforced by the

committee.

Seeing as local health centers tend to be understaffed, it would not be sensible for

the responsibility of tank management to be delegated to a health worker, nurse,

doctor, or midwife. Look into alternatives within the community so that the best

possible management is achieved.

GENERAL CHECKLIST FOR COMMITTEES

1. Finance □

2. Repair responsibilities □

3. Collection timetables □

4. Safety □

5. Equal Access □

6. Special Provision □

112

The Community Volunteer Counselor’s (CVC’s) Role as Committee

Supervisor

The Community Volunteers Counsellor (CVC) will act as the supervisors of the elected

committees for the rainwater harvesting tanks. The CVCs are not a member of the

committee; they are solely monitoring bodies. They will not regularly attend meetings.

They act purely as an aid and a resource to the committee. Please know that these tanks

are still your responsibility. In each Parish, two CVCs will be responsible for the

supervising the committees. Their role is as follows:

Facilitate the election of the tank committees

Oversee and monitor the committees

Support the committee

Help create committee laws and regulations

Ensure that committee responsibilities are being followed

Replace members that leave the committee

Communicate with the chairman of the committee

Help facilitate community financing of tanks for repair, cleaning, and

maintenance

Report major problems to Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation (MMHF)

Ensure that the needs of the community are being met

113

Appendix E

Household and Tank Holder Survey Forms

Institutional Rainwater Harvesting Sustainability Survey for Households (July 2010)

Progressive Health Partnership/Duke University and Mayanja Memorial Hospital

Foundation

IDENTIFICATION

Household ID……………………….

Respondent Name_______________________________

Respondent Line Number………………………

Household Head Name___________________________

Sub-County____________________________________

Parish_________________________________________

Village________________________________________

Cluster ID……………………………………….

GPS Coordinates – RECORD UP TO 15 DECIMAL POINTS

S: E:

INTERVIEW VISITS

1 2 3

DATE:

SURVEYOR ID:

RESULT:

Month Day

Year

Month Day

Year

Month Day

Year

114

Institutional Rainwater Harvesting Sustainability Survey for Households (July 2010)

Progressive Health Partnership/Duke University and Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation

RECORD DATE

AND TIME OF

NEXT VISIT

REQUESTED BY

RESPONDENT.

Month Day

Year

Hours Minutes

Month Day

Year

Hours Minutes

INFORMED CONSENT

The informed consent script has been read and the

respondent has agreed to participate in the study.

_____________________________

Surveyor‟s Signature

RESULT CODES

1 COMPLETED

2 NO HOUSEHOLD MEMBER AT HOME OR NO

COMPETENT RESPONDENT AT HOME AT

TIME OF VISIT

3 ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD ABSENT FOR

EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME

4 POSTPONED

5 REFUSED

6 DWELLING VACANT

7 DWELLING DESTROYED

8 DWELLING NOT FOUND

9 OTHER______________________________

(SPECIFY)

RECORD THE START TIME

Hours Minutes

115

INSTRUCTIONS: AFTER REACHING AN

APPROPRIATE HOUSEHOLD, ASK TO SPEAK WITH

THE HIGHEST-RANKING MEMBER.

Replaced with:

SECTION A: HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

1. How many people are there in your household?

Abantu abari omukayawe nibangahi ?

□□

2. Do you rely on an institutional rainwater harvesting tank for

water?

No koresa za tanka za abingi kugira ngu obase kubona

amaizi?

Tick YES only if household ever draws water from a public

building. TICK NO if the household draws from a

neighbour‟s or private tank. If the tankj is the household‟s

main source, please write “Main Source”

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

3. What is water from the tank used for?

Amaizi gomu tanka nogakozesaki?

DRINKING…………………………...1

BATHING…………………………….2

HANDWASHING…………………….3

COOKING…………………………….4

ANIMALS (NP)...…………………….5

AGRICULTURE (NP)..………………6

CLEANING (NP)...…………………...7

OTHER _______________________ 8

(SPECIFY)

Q

4. Does your household own its own rainwater tank?

Ekayawe eine tanka ya maize nge njura?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

Has your household ever considered building a rainwater

harvesting tank to collect water?

Enka yawe yaragizireho ekitekateko kyo kombeka tanka

yamaizi nge njura?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

DON‟T KNOW……………………998

Do you know of other households in the community who

have ever considered building a rainwater harvesting tank to

collect water?

Haine eka oyorikumanya omukyaro kyanyu

eyaratekatekireho okweyombe kyera tanka ya maizi nge

njura ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

DON‟T KNOW…………………….998

5. How much does the breadwinner in the family get paid for a

day of work, on average? (Each day is considered to have 8

working hours)

Omuntu oine entastya omuka, nasha shurwa nka sente

zingahe omu izoba ?

□□□□□

6. How many households live within 500m of this household?

(estimated)

Namaka anga hi agarikutura hahi ne kayawe(500m)? □□□ DON‟T KNOW……………………998

SECTION B: IMPACT OF TANK

1. How far away is the tank (in metres) ?

Hariho orungyendo ruri kwingana ke kuhika

ahatanka(omu metres) ? □□□□

116

2. How much water do you collect from the tank each day (in

litres)?

Notaha amaizi garikwinganaki omutanka buri zoba(omu

litres) ?

□□□□

3. How long do you spend collecting water each day?

Nikukutwarira obwire buri kwinganaki kutaha amaizi

omutanka buri izoba ? □□

4. Rank the quality of the water from the tank (from 1 to 10).

Gyeragyeranisa oburungi bwamaizi kuruga omu tanka

( from 1to 10)

1 is best quality, 10 is the worst quality.

□□

5. What water source did you use before you started using the

tank (for general use, not just clean water)?

Okaba nokoresa amaizi gamuringo ki otakatandikire

kukoresa aga tanka ?

PIPED WATER………………………1

TUBE WELL OR BOREHOLE……...2

DUG WELL

PROTECTED WELL……………31

UNPROTECTED WELL………..32

WATER FROM SPRING……………4

TANKER TRUCK…………………..5

SURFACE WATER (RIVER/

DAM/LAKE/PONDS/

STREAM/CANAL/

IRRIGATION CHANNEL)……..6

BOTTLED WATER…………………7

OTHER: _______________________96

6. How far away is this source (in km)?

Hariho arugyendo rurikwinnganaki kuhika ahamaizi

aga ? □□

7. How long did you spend getting water from this source ( in

hours per day)?

Kikaba nikikutwarira obwire burikwingana ki okutaha

amaizi aga (in hours per day) ?

□□

8. Rank the water quality of this source (from 1 to 10).

Gyeragyeranisa oburungi bwa gamaizi(from 1 to 10) □□

9. Has getting water from the tank helped your household in

any other way besides water quality and distance travelled to

get water?

Hani okutaha amaizi omutanka oku kyahwerire

ekayawe omugundi muringo gutari ogwa amaizi

marungi hamwe norugyendo rurigwa rwo kutambura

kutaha amaizi ?

REDUCED DISEASE……………….1

REDUCED CHANCES

OF RAPE…………………………….2

REDUCED CHANCES

OF ROBBERY………………………3

OTHER_____________________ 96

Q

10. Do you use other sources together with the RWH tank?

Nobasa kuba nokoresa agandi maize hamwe nag a tanka

yenjura ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

11. Is this the same source as the one you used before getting

the tank?

Aga nigo maize gamwe nka gu wabaire nokoresaho

enyima ya tanka ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

12. If not, what source is it?

Kyaba kitari ekyo okaba nogataha nkahi ?

PIPED WATER………………………1

TUBE WELL OR BOREHOLE……...2

DUG WELL

PROTECTED WELL……………31

UNPROTECTED WELL………..32

WATER FROM SPRING……………4

TANKER TRUCK…………………..5

SURFACE WATER (RIVER/

DAM/LAKE/PONDS/

117

STREAM/CANAL/

IRRIGATION CHANNEL)……..6

BOTTLED WATER…………………7

OTHER: ______________________96

SECTION C: COMMUNITY-LEVEL INSTITUTIONS

When there is a problem with your main water source,

whom do you tell or ask for help?

Habaho ekizibu kyona ahumurikutaha amaizi,

nimumanyisa oha ahabwo buyambi ?

NOBODY…………………………….1

WATER MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE……………..……..2

PERSON IN THE COMMUNITY

RESPONSIBLE FOR

MAINTENANCE………...………3

MAINTENANCE WORKER FROM

OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY…4

LOCAL GOVERNMENT……………5

MAYOR………………………………6

TRADITIONAL LEADER…………..7

RELIGIOUS LEADER………...…….8

OTHER _______________________ 96

(SPECIFY)

DON‟T KNOW…………………….998

Have you ever contacted this person or group before?

Warabasize kugamba ninga kumanyisa ogumuntu nari

egi gurupu enyimaho ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

DON‟T KNOW…………………….998

Was the person or group helpful?

Ogu muntu nari gurupu haine eki yakuhwerire ho?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

DON‟T KNOW…………………….998

Was the problem solved?

Ekizibu kikahwa?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

DON‟T KNOW…………………….998

Do you know whether anyone else has contacted this person

or group for a problem related to your water source?

Haine omuntu wena owu orikumanya awaburize

ogumuntu nari gurupu ahabizibu ebikwatirine na amaizi

ganyu ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

DON‟T KNOW…………………….998

Do you ever discuss issues related to water, sanitation, or

hygiene with your neighbors?

Hariho obu muri kuganira aha bikwatirine ne bya maizi,

obuyonjo, hamwe na bariranwa bawe ?

YES…………………………………...1

NO…………………………………….2

Do you know whether, in the last 12 months, a community

meeting has occurred in this village?

Nobasa kuba nomanya omu mwaka oguhwaire, haba

harabiremu orukiko rwabataka ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

DON‟T KNOW…………………….998

During the last 12 months, did you or another member of

your household participate in a community meeting?

Omumwaka oguhwaire , iye nari owo mukayawe, haine

owaragire omurukiko rwabataka ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

Do you know whether, in the last 12 months, people in this

village have worked together in a cooperative?

Nobasa kuba nomanya omumwaka oguhwaire, abantu

bo mu kyaro baba baine enkoranga emwe ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

DON‟T KNOW…………………….998

During the last 12 months, did you or another member of

your household participate in a cooperative?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

118

Omumwaka ogwenyi oguhwaire, iye nari owe haine obu

mwayejumbire omunkoragana nabataka omukyaro eki

?

Do you know whether, in the last 12 months, people in this

village have formed a health fund?

Omumwaka gumwe oguhwaire, haine abantu

bomukyaro kyanyu barundi neho esente zokuyamba

ebyamagara ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

DON‟T KNOW…………………….998

Is there a committee or group in the community that is

responsible for maintenance of this rainwater tank?

Hari ho akakiko nari gurupu omukyaro eki eine

obuvunanizibwa aha kureberera egi tanka ya maize ge

njura ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

DON‟T KNOW…………………….998

How would you assess the effectiveness of the committee?

Iwe akakakiko kamaizi noreba enkora yako erweta

ahabuhereza bwa maize ga tanka yenjura ?

EXCELLENT…………………………1

GOOD…………………………………2

FAIR…………………………………..3

POOR…………………………………4

DON‟T KNOW…………………….998

Are you or another member of your household a member of

any of these groups, and do you or the other household

member participate in their meetings?

Iye nari owe ekayawe ondijo, haine ori omu za gurupusi

kandi iye nari oweka hari ho ri kwejumbira omu nkinko

zebyaro ?

IS A MEMBER………………………1

PARTICIPATES IN MEETINGS

AND OTHER EVENTS………….2

NO MEMBERSHIP OR

PARTICIPATION………………..3

What are the issues dealt with by this group?

Nibintuki ebi gurupu egi eri kukora ho?

CHECK ALL MENTIONED.

CONSTRUCT WATER SUPPLY…...1

CONSTRUCT PUBLIC

LATRINES……………………….2

CONSTRUCT PRIVATE

LATRINES……………………….3

FUNDRAISING…………………...…4

USER FEES…………………………..5

MAINTENANCE OR REPAIRS…….6

SPARE PARTS……………………....7

CLEANING………………………..…8

WATER SHED/SOURCE

PROTECTION……………..…….9

WATER RIGHTS/ACCESS………...10

WATER DISTRIBUTION…………..11

IRRIGATION SYSTEM…………….12

OTHER _____________________ 96

(SPECIFY)

DON‟T KNOW…………………….998

SECTION D: WILLINGNESS TO PAY ASSESSMENT

1. How much water does your household consume (per month in

20-litre jerry cans?) Eka yawe nekoresa amaizi gari kwi

nganaki (per month in 20 liter jerry can ?) □□□□

2. How much are you willing to pay for the maintenance and

repair of the tank you are using (per year in UGX)?

Iye bobasa kushashura sente zingahe ezo kureberera

zatanka (per year in UGSH)

*Randomize starting point. Take the ID number of household,

minus 1, and then multiply by 100. If starting point is

accepted, increase by 100 UGX intervals until respondent

rejects the number. Record the last accepted number. If initial

starting point is rejected, decrease by 100 UGX intervals until

□□□□□□

119

respondent accepts. Record the last accepted number.

3. Has anyone approached you to ask you to pay for the

maintenance and repair of the tank?

Hariho omuntu wena owa kuhikire ari kukushaba sente

zo kureberera nano kukuma gye za tanka ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

4. If yes, how often have they asked you ( per year)?

Yaba nikwe, niki batwarira bwireki kukubuza (per year) □□□□

5. If you were asked to pay for clean water, would you be

willing to pay?

Kuwokushabwa kushashura sente zamaizi gatanka,

okagashashura oine okwikiriza ? (Note: clean water in

general)

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

6. If you were willing to pay, would you be willing to pay

_____UGX for 1 20-litre jerry can of water (in UGX)?

Kuwo kuba nobasa kushashura, okashashura sente

zingahe…………UGX for 1 20 liter jerry can of water

(UGX)

*Randomize starting point. Take the ID number of household,

minus 1, and then multiply by 100. If starting point is

accepted, increase by 100 UGX intervals until respondent

rejects the number. Record the last accepted number. If initial

starting point is rejected, decrease by 100 UGX intervals until

respondent accepts. Record the last accepted number.

□□□□

120

SECTION E: Interview Evaluation

WHAT IS YOUR EVALUATION OF THE ACCURACY OF

RESPONDENT‟S ANSWERS?

EXCELLENT………………………..1

GOOD……………………………......2

FAIR……………………...……...…..3

NOT SO GOOD………………...…....4

VERY BAD…………………….……5

WHAT IS YOUR EVALUATION ON THE SERIOUSNESS

AND ATTENTIVENESS OF THE RESPONDENT?

EXCELLENT………………………..1

GOOD……………………………......2

FAIR…………………...………...…..3

NOT SO GOOD………..……....…....4

VERY BAD……………...……..……5

WHAT QUESTIONS DID RESPONDENT FIND

DIFFICULT, EMBARRASSING, OR CONFUSING?

_______________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

WHAT QUESTIONS DID INTERVIEWER FIND

DIFFICULT, EMBARRASSING, OR CONFUSING?

_______________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

WHAT QUESTIONS DID RESPONDENT SEEM

INTERESTED IN?

_______________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

RECORD THE TIME.

:

Hours Minutes

121

Institutional Rainwater Harvesting Sustainability Survey for RWH Tank Holders (July 2010)

Progressive Health Partnership/Duke University and Mayanja Memorial Hospital Foundation

IDENTIFICATION

Tank ID……………………….

Respondent Name_______________________________

Respondent Line Number………………………

Local Leader Name___________________________

Sub-County____________________________________

Parish_________________________________________

Village________________________________________

INTERVIEW VISITS

1 2 3

DATE:

SURVEYOR ID:

RESULT:

Month Day

Year

Month Day

Year

Month Day

Year

RECORD DATE

AND TIME OF

NEXT VISIT

REQUESTED BY

RESPONDENT.

Month Day

Year

Hours Minutes

Month Day

Year

Hours Minutes

INFORMED CONSENT

The informed consent script has been read and the

respondent has agreed to participate in the study.

_____________________________

Surveyor‟s Signature

RESULT CODES

10 COMPLETED

11 NO ESTABLISHMENT MEMBER PRESENT OR

NO COMPETENT RESPONDENT PRESENT AT

TIME OF VISIT

12 ENTIRE ESTABLISHMENT ABSENT FOR

EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME

122

INSTRUCTIONS: AFTER REACHING THE PUBLIC

BUILDING, ASK TO SPEAK WITH THE HIGHEST-

RANKING LOCAL LEADER.

NOTE: QUESTIONS MARKED WITH „Q‟ NEED

TO ALSO HAVE ANSWERS MARKED ON THE

QUALITATIVE DETAILS SECTION.

SECTION A: GENERAL INFORMATION AND LOCATION CHARACTERISTICS

No. Question Answer Comments

1. What type of building is this?

SCHOOL…………………………..1

PLACE OF WORSHIP……………2

HEALTH-CENTRE……………….3

OTHER:_____________________ 4

2. What is the name of the location? NAME:

3. Contact Number

□□□□□□□□□□

4. How old is this establishment (in years)?

Ekyombeko eki kyahitsya bwiire ki? □□

5. How many tanks are located here?

Harimu tanka zingahi omumwanya ogu? □

6. How many households live within 500m of this

establishment? (estimated)

Ni amaka nka angahi agarikutura omumwanya gwa

entambwe 500 okuruga aha?

□□□

SECTION B: SPECIFIC LOCATION CHARACTERISTICS

Section B1: Schools

1. Is this a private school or a public school?

Eishomero eri ni eryabantu ninga erya gavumenti ?

PRIVATE……………………….1

PUBLIC…………………………2

2. What is the enrolment of this school?

Mwiine abaana bangahi omwishomero eri ? □□□

3. What was your school enrolment before the tanks were

installed? (Write down why enrolment increased/decreased)

Eishomero rikaba ryiine abaana bangahi tanka

etakagiireho?

□□□ Q

4. How many staff members are part of the school?

Nibangahi omubakozi abarikutura abarikutuura

aheishomero? □□

5. How many teachers stay at the school?

Ni abashomesa bangahi abarikutuura ahaishomero? □□

6. How many students stay at the school?

Ni abegi bangahi abarikutuura aheishomero? □□□

RECORD THE START TIME

Hours Minutes

13 POSTPONED

14 REFUSED

15 TANK HAS BEEN ABANDONED

16 ESTABLISHMENT DESTROYED

17 ESTABLISHMENT NOT FOUND

18 OTHER______________________________

(SPECIFY)

123

Section B2: Place of Worship

1. How many people attend this place of worship regularly?

Ni abantu bangahi abarikushabira omumwanya ogu

burijo ? □□□□

2. What was your attendance before the tanks were installed?

(Write down why attendance increased/decreased)

Mukaba mwiine abantu bangahi tanka zitakagiireho? □□□

3. Does the pastor stay at/near the church?

Omuriisa natuura omumwanya ogu ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

4. How often do you hold functions outside of regular services

(per year)?

Haine obumurikutunga emikoro endiijo etari yaburiijo ? □□

5. How many people attend these functions on average?

Ni abantu nkabangahi abarikwetaba omumikoro egi ? □□□□

6. Do you serve them water from the tank?

Nimubaha amaizi agarikuruga aha tanka ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

7. How much water do you use at such functions (in hundreds

of liters)?

Nimukozesa amaizi garikwinganaki ahamikoro egi ? □□□□

Section B3: Health Centres

1. How many patients do you see a week?

Nimureeba abarweire bangahi omusande □□□□

2. How patients were seen per week at health centre before the

tanks were installed?

□□□

3. How many staff members work at the health centre?

Mwiine abakoozi bangahi ahirwariro eri ? □□

4. Is the health centre understaffed?

Mwiine abakozi bakye ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

5. Do the health workers stay at/near the health centre?

Abashaho nibatura ahirwariro ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

6. How many stay at/near the health centre?

Nibangahi abarikuturaho ? □□

SECTION C: SPECIFIC TANK CHARACTERISTICS

REFER TO ATTACHED TABLE

SECTION D: MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE

1. Do you have a committee that oversees the management of

the tank?

Mwiineho akakiiko akarikureberera tanka ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

If NO,

go to

D11

2. Who are the committee members?

Nibantuki abari ahakakiiko aka ?

LEADER OF ESTABLISHMENT…...1

MEMBER OF ESTABLISHMENT….2

Q

124

RECORD ALL MENTIONED.

NIGHT WATCHMAN……………….3

STUDENT/CHILD………….………..4

MEMBER OF COMMUNITY……….5

3. How many members are there on the committee?

Akakiiko kariho abantu bangahi ? □□

4. How often does the committee meet (per year)?

Akakiiko nikabugana emirundi engahi omumwaka ? □□□

5. What are the duties of the committee?

Emigasho yakakiiko aka niyo eha ? MEETING □

REPAIRING TANK □

CLEANING TANK □

COLLECTING FUNDS □

MOBILISING COMMUNITY □

OTHER:_____________________ □

Q

6. Where do funds to maintain/repair the tank come from?

Esente zokureberera tanka nimuziiha nkahi ? GOVERNMENT □

ESTABLISHMENT □

COMMUNITY □

OTHER:_____________________ □

Q

7. If the funds come from government sources, how long do

they take to arrive (in months)?

Esente zaaba niziruga omu gavumenti nizitwaara bwiire

ki kubahika (omu myeezi) ?

□□

8. Do you know how to maintain the tank?

Nimumanya okureberera tanka ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

9. Name the ways which you would maintain a tank

Gamba emiringo eyimurikubasa kurebereramu tanka

*Write down the number of ways respondent mentions

□□

Q

10. How many repair contractors do you know of?

Nomanya abantu bangahi abakugaruraho tanka

yacweka ? □□

11. Can you name a specific contractor, should major repairs be

needed?

Nobasa kungambira oworikumanya ngu nabasa

kugigaruraho kuyakucweka ?

NAME 1: YES………………………..1

NO…………………………2

NAME 2: YES………………………..1

NO…………………………2

NAME 3: YES………………………..1

NO…………………………2

12. How often is the tank cleaned a year?

Tankamugiyonja emirundi engahi omumwaka ? □□□

13. Who cleans the tank?

Nooha orikugiyonja?

LEADER OF ESTABLISHMENT…...1

MEMBER OF ESTABLISHMENT….2

125

NIGHT WATCHMAN……………….3

STUDENT/CHILD………….………..4

MEMBER OF COMMUNITY……….5

14. Which areas of the tank do you clean?

Nimuyonja bicweka ki bya tanka ?

TAPS……………….…...1

INSIDE TANK……….....2

GUTTERS………..…......3

AROUND TANK……….4

OTHER………..………...5

SECTION E: IMPACT OF THE TANKS

1. Where did you obtain water from before you got the tank?

Mukaba mwiiha nkahi amaizi mutakabwiine tanka ?

PIPED WATER………………………1

TUBE WELL OR BOREHOLE……...2

DUG WELL

PROTECTED WELL……………31

UNPROTECTED WELL………..32

WATER FROM SPRING……………4

TANKER TRUCK…………………..5

SURFACE WATER (RIVER/

DAM/LAKE/PONDS/

STREAM/CANAL/

IRRIGATION CHANNEL)……..6

BOTTLED WATER…………………7

OTHER _______________________ 8

2. How far away was the source (in km)?

Ahi mwabiire nimwiiha amaizi hakaba nihinganaki

( omu km)? □□

3. Were there any problems with the water from this source?

Ago maizi haine obuzibu obugabiire gaine?

CHECK OFF ALL THAT APPLY

TASTES BAD……………………….1

DISCOLORED/DIRTY……………..2

GERMS/CAUSES DISEASE.……....3

SHARED WITH ANIMALS………..4

INSECTS………………………….…5

PEOPLE STEP IN………………..…6

OTHER _______________________8

(SPECIFY)

Q

4. Were there any problems with the water from the rainwater

tank?

Haine obuzibu obwamiizi ga tanka garabaretiire?

CHECK OFF ALL THAT APPLY

TASTES BAD……………………….1

DISCOLORED/DIRTY……………..2

GERMS/CAUSES DISEASE.……....3

SHARED WITH ANIMALS………..4

INSECTS………………………….…5

PEOPLE STEP IN………………..…6

OTHER _______________________8

(SPECIFY)

Q

5. Where do you obtain water from when the tank runs out?

Nimwiiha nkahi amaizi agomutanka gahwamu?

PIPED WATER………………………1

TUBE WELL OR BOREHOLE……...2

DUG WELL

PROTECTED WELL……………31

UNPROTECTED WELL………..32

WATER FROM SPRING……………4

TANKER TRUCK…………………..5

SURFACE WATER (RIVER/

DAM/LAKE/PONDS/

STREAM/CANAL/

IRRIGATION CHANNEL)……..6

126

BOTTLED WATER…………………7

OTHER: _______________________ 8

6. How far away was the other source (in km)?

Hakaba nihinganaki (omu km)? □□

7. Were there any problems with the water from this other

source?

Amaizi ago gakaba gaine obuzibu bwoona?

CHECK OFF ALL THAT APPLY

TASTES BAD……………………….1

DISCOLORED/DIRTY……………..2

GERMS/CAUSES DISEASE.……....3

SHARED WITH ANIMALS………..4

INSECTS………………………….…5

PEOPLE STEP IN………………..…6

OTHER _______________________8

(SPECIFY)

Q

8. If you share the water from the tanks with the community,

has there been any disruption to your work when the general

population comes to get water?

Mwaba nimukozesa amaizi aga nabantu boona, hiine

okukyabateganiise ahamirimo yanyu abantu aba

kubarikwiija kutaha amaizi?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

9. How is your work disrupted?

Nikibateganisa kita omumirimo yanyu?

CLASS/WORK INTERRUPTED…….1

NEED TO SUPERVISE COMMUNITY

MEMBERS……………………………2

NOISE………………………………...3

OTHER _______________________8

(SPECIFY)

Q

Give us

some

examples.

10. How often does this disruption occur (per week)?

Okuteganisibwa oku nikubaho emirundi engahi

omusande? □□

11. Do you find solutions to overcome these disruptions?

Nimuronda emiringo yokumaraho okuteganisibwa oku?

YES…………………………………..1

SOMETIMES………………………...2

NO……………………………………3

Q

How do you

overcome

this

disruption?

SECTION F: DEMAND MANAGEMENT

7. What is water from the tank used for?

Amaizi agumurikwiiha omu tanka nimugakozesa ki?

NON-POTABLE USES OF WATER MARKED AS NP.

DRINKING…………………………...1

BATHING…………………………….2

HANDWASHING…………………….3

COOKING…………………………….4

ANIMALS (NP)...…………………….5

AGRICULTURE (NP)..………………6

CLEANING (NP)...…………………...7

OTHER _______________________ 8

(SPECIFY)

Q

8. *Check Y if the water is used for non-potable purposes

(MARKED AS NP).

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

9.

How much water is drawn out from the tank each day (in

liters?)

Amaizi agari kutahwa omutanka burizoba nigingana ki? □□□□

10. Who decides how much water to give out?

Noha ori kusharamu amaizi gokutaha okugari

kwingana?

COMMITTEE………………………...1

COMMUNITY REQUEST…………...2

LEADER OF ESTABLISHMENT…...3

127

OTHER _______________________ 8

(SPECIFY)

11. What is the process for decision?

Nitwazaki erikugyenderwaho kusharamu amaizi

gokutahwa?

CONSENSUS BY COMMITTEE……1

VOTING BY COMMITTEE…………2

CONSENSUS BY COMMUNITY…...3

VOTING BY COMMUNITY………...4

CHAIRMAN OF ESTABLISHMENT

DECIDES……………………………..5

LEADER OF ESTABLISHMENT

DECIDES……………………………..6

OTHER _______________________ 8

(SPECIFY)

Q

Give

details

12. How is water distributed?

Amaizi nigahebwa gata?

FIXED AMOUNT…………………….1

NO LIMIT………………………….....2

VARIES WITH SEASON………….....3

VARIES WITH WATER LEFT IN

TANK…………………………………4

OTHER _______________________ 8

(SPECIFY)

Q

13. How many people from the establishment use water from

the tank from the establishment?

Ninka bantu bangahi abari kutaha amaizi omutanka

etekatekirwe ?

□□□

14. Is water from the tanks shared with the community?

Amaizi gomu tanka nigatahwaho nabandi bantu bo

mukyaro eki ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

If NO,

go to

F10.

15. How many people from the community use water from the

tank?

Ni abantu bangahi abomukyaro eki abarikutaha amaizi

gomutanka?

□□□

16. Does the tank go dry?

Amaizi gomutanka hariho obugarikuhwamu?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2 If NO,

end this

section.

17. How many days a year is the tank dry?

Namazoba angahi agu tanka erikuba ehwiremu amaizi

omumwaka? □□□

SECTION G: RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMMUNITY

1. Does the establishment have disputes with the community?

Hine nkoku abarikukoresa amaizi baine oku

batarikwetegyerezana nabantu bomukyaro eki ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

If NO,

go to G3

2. How often has your establishments had disputes with the

community (in a year)?

Nikitwara obwire buri kwinganaki abu orikutaha nabo

amaizi barikugira emparana nabantu bomukyaro enki ?

□□□□ Q

3. Disputes over water from the tank?

Emparana zamaizi gomutanka ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2 If NO,

go to G5

4. How often do disputes over water from the tank occur ( in a

year)?

Nikimara bwire ki emparana zamaizi gomu tanka

zikubaho(omumwaka)?

□□□□

5. Does the community ask for water?

Abantu bomukyaro eki nibashaba amaizi ?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2 If NO,

go to G7

128

6. How often does the community ask for water (in a month)?

Nikitwara bwire burikwinganaki abantu bo mukyaro eki

kushaba amaizi ? □□□

7. Do parents/community members contribute money to the

establishment?

Abazaire na bantu bomukyaro eki nibarundana sente

zoku yamba abari kutaha amaizi?

YES…………………………………..1

NO……………………………………2

If NO,

go to G9

8. What percentage of parents/community members contribute

money?

Nimuhendo ki gwa bazaire/ abantu bo mukyaro eki

abari kurundana sente ?

□□

9. What percentage of parents/community members attend

meetings organized by the establishment? (PTA meetings,

functions etc)

Nimuhendo ki gwabazaire /abantu bomukyaro eki

barikuza omunkiiko ezi tebekanisibwe abatahi bamaizi ?

□□

10. On average, how far away do pupils/community members

stay (in km)?

Okutwariza hamwe abantu bomukyaro eki nibatura

ahari kwi nganaki kuruga ahatanka yamaizi eri ?

□□□

129

QUALITATIVE DETAILS

For questions marked with a „Q‟, please record any answers given that are not captured by the answer format

given in the previous sections.

SECTION D

4. Who are the committee members?

Abakakiiko abo nibaha?

7. What are the duties of the committee?

Emirimo yakakiiko ako niyo eha?

8. Where do funds to maintain/repair the tank come from?

Esente zokureberera/okukanika tanka niziruga nkahi?

14. Name the ways which you would maintain a tank

Gamba emiringo eyiwakurebereramu tanka

SECTION E

3. How would you rate the quality of this water (on a scale from 1 to 10)? (Write other attributes described)

Okarenga ota oburungi bwamaizi.

4. How would you rate the quality of the water from the tank (on a scale from 1 to 10)? (Write other attributes described)

7. How would you rate the quality of this water (on a scale from 1 to 10)? (Write other attributes described)

9. How is your work disrupted? Give us some examples.

11. Do you find solutions to overcome these disruptions? How do you overcome this disruption?

SECTION F

1. What is water from the tank used for?

130

5. Who decides how much water to give out? What is the process for decision?

6. How do you decide how much water to give out?

SECTION G

2. How often has your establishments had disputes with the community (in a year)?

Other Questions

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

131

SECTION L: Interview Evaluation

WHAT IS YOUR EVALUATION OF THE ACCURACY OF

RESPONDENT‟S ANSWERS?

EXCELLENT………………………..1

GOOD……………………………......2

FAIR……………………...……...…..3

NOT SO GOOD………………...…...4

VERY BAD…………………….……5

WHAT IS YOUR EVALUATION ON THE SERIOUSNESS

AND ATTENTIVENESS OF THE RESPONDENT?

EXCELLENT………………………..1

GOOD……………………………......2

FAIR…………………...………...…..3

NOT SO GOOD………..……....…....4

VERY BAD……………...……..……5

WHAT QUESTIONS DID RESPONDENT FIND

DIFFICULT, EMBARRASSING, OR CONFUSING?

_______________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

WHAT QUESTIONS DID INTERVIEWER FIND

DIFFICULT, EMBARRASSING, OR CONFUSING?

_______________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

WHAT QUESTIONS DID RESPONDENT SEEM

INTERESTED IN?

_______________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

RECORD THE TIME.

:

Hours Minutes

132

SECTION C: SPECIFIC TANK CHARACTERISTICS

Tank Number Skip Pattern 01 02 Is the tank functional? If YES, go to

C3. If NO, go to

C2

YES………..1

NO…………2

YES………..1

NO…………2

If non-functional, how

long has it been non-

functional?

RECORD IN DAYS.

□□□□ □□□□

What is the capacity

of the tank (in liters)? □□□□□□ □□□□□□

How old is the tank (in

years)? □□ □□

Who built the tank? SELF_BUILT…………….1

GOVERNMENT…............2

NGO………………...........3

CAMPAIGNER………….4

COMMUNITY……...........5

OTHER_______________8

SELF_BUILT…………….1

GOVERNMENT…............2

NGO………………...........3

CAMPAIGNER………….4

COMMUNITY……...........5

OTHER_______________8

What type of tank is

it?

FERRO-CEMENT……….1

PLASTIC………………...2

MASONRY……………...3

UNDERGROUND……….4

OTHER_______________8

FERRO-CEMENT……….1

PLASTIC………………...2

MASONRY……………...3

UNDERGROUND……….4

OTHER_______________8 Has this tank been

broken before?

If YES, go to 8

If No, end

SECTION C

YES………..1

NO…………2

DON‟T KNOW………8

YES………..1

NO…………2

DON‟T KNOW………8

How was it broken? OWN USE…………….….1

COMMUNITY USE……..2

STUDENTS PLAYING……..…….........3

ACCIDENTAL..……........4

SABOTAGE……………...5

OTHER_______________8

OWN USE…………….….1

COMMUNITY USE……..2

STUDENTS PLAYING……..…….........3

ACCIDENTAL..……........4

SABOTAGE……………...5

OTHER_______________8

Which part required

fixing?

TAP……………….….1

TANK WALL……......2

GUTTER…………......3

PIPE………………….4

OTHER………..……..5

TAP……………….….1

TANK WALL……......2

GUTTER…………......3

PIPE………………….4

OTHER………..……..5

How often has it been

broken before? □□ □□

*Calculate frequency

of breakage per year:

Incidents divided by

years

□□ □□

How much have

repairs cost in total?

(in UGX)?

□□□□□□ □□□□□□

How much do you

estimate it will cost to

perform repairs per

year?

□□□□□□ □□□□□□

133

134

Appendix F

Photographic Essay

People

On the bus to Mbarara Town

Children playing in the school field.

135

Getting punished.

Curious.

136

DukeEngage carrying out the Water and Sanitation Education Campaign.

137

How to Wash Your Hands 101

138

A boy collecting jerry cans of water using his bicycle.

139

Surveying a household, but parents were not around.

Focus Group

140

Golfing on the green.

141

Buildings

Hut in the Savannah

A self-constructed private tank in Kabushwere Village

142

Trading center on the way to Mbarara Town.

143

Post-class procession.

A church.

144

A primary school building

Sub-County Town Hall

145

On Lake Bunyonyi in Kabale

An Institutional Rainwater Harvesting tank built outside a health center. The tank was left

broken for several years.

146

Gravel, sand and cement used for building the foundation of the new tanks.

Fitting in the outlet pipe into the wet cement foundation

147

Wrapping a bamboo mat around the wet tank wall to keep its shape.

A tank fenced by the school to prevent illegal usage of and sabotage by community

members.

148

Rural Landscape

A large, cactus-like plant that thrives in dry conditions.

Cattle of the Bahima tribe grazing on the land.

149

Shallow well used for drinking and other purposes.

A larger communal dam. The water is pastel-green with scum containing runoff from

trash around the countryside.

150

Local government construction of RWH tanks.

Deep ruts in the village pathways prevent easy access to larger vehicles like cars.

151

Waterfall in Fort Portal

Crater Lakes of Fort Portal.

Many thanks to Ritza Calixte, who helped pick the photographs for use.

152

Appendix G

Bibliography

Works Cited

Byomuhangi, Reuben. "Adapting Water Management to the Consequences of Climate Change(Focusing on

Rainwater Harvesting and Other Technologies)the Diocese of Kigezi Rainwater Harvesting Case".

Ecumenical Water Network Conference, Entebbe, Uganda, Entebbe. Diocese of Kigezi Water and

Sanitation Programme. Web. 08/29/2010.

Doyle K, FAU - Shanahan Peter, and Shanahan P. "The Impact of First Flush Removal on Rainwater

Quality and Rainwater Harvesting Systems' Reliability in Rural Rwanda FAU - Doyle Kelly." - ASCE

Conf.Proc.2010 May 16;371(41114):52-52Print.

Gupta, R. K. "Water Governance in Gujarat State, India." International Journal of Water Resources

Development 20.2 (2004): 131-47. Print.

He, Xue-Feng, Huhua Cao, and Feng-Min Li. "Econometric Analysis of the Determinants of Adoption of

Rainwater Harvesting and Supplementary Irrigation Technology (RHSIT) in the Semiarid Loess

Plateau of China." Agricultural Water Management 89.3 (2007): 243-50. Print.

Helmreich, B., and H. Horn. "Opportunities in Rainwater Harvesting." Desalination 248.1-3 (2009): 118-

24. Print.

Sturm, M., et al. "Rainwater Harvesting as an Alternative Water Resource in Rural Sites in Central

Northern Namibia." Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 34.13-16 (2009): 776-85. Print.

Thomas, T. H., and D. B. Martinson. "Roofwater Harvesting: A Handbook for Practitioners." Technical

Paper Series 49 (2007): 1-160. Print.

Wong, Jason. "It's Time to make Water Cost what's it's Worth." Bachelor Duke University, 2009. Print.

153

General References

Garcha, Jasdeep. "The Socio-Economic Viability of Tankas for Marginalized Village Populations." (2008):

1-51. Print.

Mbilinyi, B. P., et al. "Indigenous Knowledge as Decision Support Tool in Rainwater Harvesting." Physics

and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 30.11-16 (2005): 792-8. Print.

Ngigi, Stephen N. "What is the Limit of Up-Scaling Rainwater Harvesting in a River Basin?" Physics and

Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 28.20-27 (2003): 943-56. Print.