‘Own key’ Arrangements for water & sanitation: Looking at Uchira, Tanzania

A widespread remedy to the historical pitfalls of water & sanitation provision and the ensuing call for contextualised approaches has been community management or ‘own key’ arrangements (Drangert et al. 2002:354). This approach has been particularly emphasised within wider ‘grassroots development’ narratives since the late 1990s but has roots in colonial development practice (see British propaganda film Daybreak inUdi, 1949). It is particularly advocated in rural settings, where state or private involvement might be especially lacking. For this reason, it has become the preferred policy across much of rural sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The basic principles of operation conclude that the best manner of provision is one in which the community has a principle role not only as project consultants, but also as long-term managers (Harvey & Reed, 2006:365). That being said, the sustainability of such applications remains woefully inadequate with estimates suggesting that up to 35% of rural water systems in SSA are defective (2006:366). Specific reasons for these failures are plentiful but typically centre around issues of motivation, training and maintenance costs (Carter et al. 1999:294). A common problem is that rural communities are unable to afford the initial investment to construct such infrastructure. Thus, they are often supported through one-time government or NGO funding but are henceforth expected to bear any maintenance costs themselves. However, once donors move on, many communities struggle without adequate management training and a dedicated maintenance budget. These issues are often intensified by problems of motivation. As I have previously mentioned, this is particularly pertinent for sanitation. If people do not recognise a need for facilities then how can they be expected to use them? Never mind paying to have them repaired. Issues such as these also stem from a perceived lack of ownership. Communities are unwilling to step in to manage or repair systems that have been built by others – they feel it is not their responsibility. Thus, management schemes try to overcome this by actively engaging the community in initial construction – either through physical labour or financial payment. The thinking being that communities will work harder to maintain something they have built themselves and perceive as theirs.

Thus, it is clear that community managed water & sanitation schemes are susceptible to a variety of difficulties and can be challenging to get right. The remainder of this post will examine the case of Uchira village in Tanzania:

Location of Uchira village. Source GoogleMaps.

The village of Uchira is situated in North-Eastern Tanzania, close to Mt Kilimanjaro and the border with Kenya. The majority of residents are subsistence farmers who depend upon cattle raising and rain-fed agriculture (Cleaver & Toner, 2006:211). In the face of an insufficient state run water supply, the Uchira Water Use Association (UWUA) was set up in 2001, with funding from the German NGO, GTZ. The water project involved repairing existing gravity fed pipes, installing taps and the construction of an office building. This was done with labour and resource contributions from the villagers themselves (2006:211). The system is managed by the UWUA, staffed by professionals and with a board made up of villagers who have paid the necessary membership charge. Non-members are not able to participate in management decisions but are able to purchase water for a small fee. There is a 50:50 gender requirement for UWUA representatives that appears to have been observed (2006:213).

In general, villagers of Uchira are happier under the community-managed system (Ibid). Indeed, the now year-round water availability has exemplified the village as a success to be replicated. That said, Uchira has suffered from tension regarding disagreements amongst community members. Despite construction involvement, full community participation has been lacking due in part to lack of interest and part to the membership charge. Taking management authority takes time and money – something that the poorer residents of the village are not able to give. Thus, they are priced out of the decision making process. Issues of water tariffs further exacerbate problems, with some villagers refusing to pay for something they consider as rightfully theirs. Without enforcement capacity, it has been difficult for UWUA to deal with this and some villagers tend to pay more than others.

The case of Uchira illustrates the difficulty of evaluating multiple outcomes of community based water management (2006, 216). Altogether, the project was successful; yet, some community members have been empowered at the expense of others. This highlights that community management schemes are particularly susceptible to stagnation through traditional asymmetries of societal power. Here it has been economic power but others also fall foul on axis of age, religion and particularly gender. In its 50:50 pledge, UWUA was commendable but too often women are overlooked in decision-making processes.

To read further I recommend taking a look at the ‘Myths of the rural supply sector’ by the RWSN.