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.
No comments:
Post a Comment