An analysis of the impact of institutional rules on rural water sustainability

 71963 UNDP-World Bank and Sanitation Program Regional Water and Sanitation Group-Eastern and Southern Africa An Analysis of the Impact of Institutional Rules on Rural Water Sustainability By Narathius ASingwiire Denis ~uhangi July, 1997 A UGANDA COUNTRY REPORT . In Collaboration with: REPUBLIC OF UGANDA ........T4. --..-...... Ministry of Natural Resources . RUWASA Project  .. Acknowledgements We wish to thank the following persons for their keen involvement in this study, support and comments made on the draft reports: Messrs~ Sam Mutono, Tom Mugoya and Jan-Erik Engstron (RUWASA). Ms. Enid Kansiime and Ms. Josephine Andama (RUWASA). Ms. Rose Lidonde (World Bank Office, Nairobi), Jennifer Sara and Travis Katz of World Bank, Washington and Charles Pendley. Messrs. Ibrahim Lutalo and Joseph Tumushabe of the Institute of Statistics and Applied Economics, Makerere University are greatly ackno'v'/Iedged for their statistical input and secretarial work respectively. All the following Research Assistants for their commendable work in data collection and processing: Nazarius Byaruhanga George Mukamba Mathias Ofumbi Doreen Kiconco Barbara Bamanya Alice Ssenkula Jane Nyangure.  ii Table of Contents Page Background and Study Objectives .................................................................................. 1 II Definition of Terms .............................................................................................................. 2 III Study Methodology.............................................................................................................. 3

IV V The Water Sector in Uganda ............................................................................................... 5 Project Descriptions ............................................................................................................ 8 VI The Uganda Study Findings .............................................................................................. 11 VII Background Information .................................................................................................... 12

The Communities .............................................................................................................. 12 The Households ................................................................................................................ 13 The Water Systems ........................................................................................................... 13 VIII Project Rules/Guidelines ................................................................................................... 15

IX X Rules for Implementation and Sustainability ..................................................................... 23 Indicators of Sustainability ............................ :.................................................................... 27 XI The Impact of Institutional Rules on RWS Sustainability ................................................... 34 XII Conclusions and Policy Recommendations ...................................................................... 37

List of Annexes .............................................................................................................................. 39 Annex 1: Questionnaires .................................................................................................. 39 Annex 2: Sample Selection ............................................................................................... 66 Annex 3: Indicator Categories and Methodologies ............................................................ 67

Annex 4: Data Tables ........................................................................................................ 74 Annex 5: Summaries of FGDs ......................................................................................... 79 Annex 6: References ......................................................................................................... 95

 iii LIST OF ACRONYMS CBMS Community Based Maintenance System DWD Directorate of Water Development FGDs Focus Group Discussions HPMs Hand Pump Mechanics LCs Local Councils MNR Ministry of Natural Resources O&M Operations and Maintenan.ce RUWASA Rural Water and Sanitation Eastern Uganda Project RWS Rural Water Supply VWSCs Village Water & Sanitation Committee WUC Water User Committee I I iv ... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The RWS Global study was launched by the UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program to analyze the impact of institutional rules on rural water supply and sustainability in six countries including Uganda. The Uganda country study was launched in November 1996 taking RUWASA I as a case study. The general objective of the study was "to evaluate the comparative impact of RUWASA rules, guidelines and applications, in terms of their responsiveness to demand, on the sustainability of rural water supply (RWS) at community level". The Uganda study sample was selected from 16 communities/LC 1s using a two-stage cluster sampling technique in the 2 districts of Kamuli and Mukono which are part of RUWASA I catchment area. In each community, 16 households were systematically sampled· from which 16 household interviews were conducted. A group interview was conducted in each community with members of WUC, while 16 water points were technically assessed using a Water Technical Evaluation questionnaire. Two FGDs; 1 female and 1 male were organized in each community, and key informant interviews were· conducted with project and sector staff. Each community was qualitatively assessed using a Qualitative Assessment Questionnaire. Finally, project documents were consulted to obtain information on project rules, while sector documents provided insights about the context RUWASA operates. Quantitative data were entered into ACCESS Software and converted into SPSS for DOS for further analysis. To establish the relationship between project rules application and demand responsiveness, and sustainability of water sources, responses under each indicator were scored on a 10 point scale. The major findings of this study were: RUWASA I (1991-1995) did not have a set of formal rules that were strictly adhered to. Thus, in general terms, RUWASA I was not implemented on the basis of a demand­ responsive approach as currently defined. All communities in the project area were eligible to get a water source and the initiative to build the water system largely emanated outside the communities. At some point (1992), RUWASA I set a pre-condition for latrine construction to precede water supply so as to encourage proper sanitation practices and behaviors. Community members did not make a choice between technology options. The technology option for each community was determined by RUWASA taking into account costs, 0 & M costs, ease of maintenance, scope of community involvement, technical quality of the source and best use of the eXisting investment resources (i.e springs). Whereas communities participated in choosing the location for the facility. they did not choose between different levels of service. Although communities contributed in-kind (labour and materials) during the construction of the water points, RUWASA I did not demand for cash contribution up-front.  v o & M are the responsibility of the users ensured through a system of locally elected caretakers. RUWASA 1 was very effective in implementing its software which involved mobilization and training of both households and WUCs inO& M. In relation to the indicators of sustainability, the following were evident: Most of the water systems had not failed, and the quality of service was considered good. However, one-third C13) of the systems had failed possibly due to defects in the nature of technology. Consumer satisfaction was generally high in all communities. 0 & M practices were also adequate as reflected by the low frequency in system failures. Financial management of the water system was overall poor in all communities as reflected by absence of operational bank accounts, fixed tariffs levied on water users and savings. Although the willingness to sustain the system was generally high, the ability to do so was questionable as majority communities reported no capacity to replace their systems once they became obsolete. There was no eVidence of capacity to deal' with major breakdowns. In terms of overall sustainability, the study results indicate a high level of sustainability of the water points at an average of 6.2 points out of the 10 point scale. In the final analysis, this study investigated the relationship between the project rules applied in RUWASA I and the indicators of sustainability using the Pearson Correlation Coefficients at a confidence interval of 99%. The results revealed positive significant correlation between overall sustainability and project initiation, informed choice, contribution of cash, training at household level. On the other hand, the results revealed a negative relationship between contribution of labour ad overall sustainability. AriSing out of the study findings, the following are the recommendations: Although the overall sustainability was found to be high, it could possibly have been much higher if communities had on their own demanded for the service. It is in this regard that we recommend that certain rules which constitute a demand-driven approach need to be put in place to guide RUWASA II to ensure high sustainability of the systems. These rules include, among others, communities initiating requests for the service, 0 & M guidelines preceding water construction, provision of information to communities on different technology options and their costs. Communities ought to be assisted in developing and implementing clear financial rules. Ad hocism in tariff payment as it is the case in RUWASA I need to be replaced with a regularized system. The caretakers who perform routine maintenance, but get poor remuneration or work on voluntary basis need to be formally contracted and remunerated for their work.  vi There is need for RUWASA to keep its monitoring presence in the communities that were served under RUWASA I, until local governments are ready to take up the challenge.  1 I. Background and Study Objectives 1.1 Background The RWS Global Study was launched by the UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program to analyze the impact of institutional rules on rural water supply and sustainability in six countries: Bolivia, Honduras, Indonesia, Pakistan, Benin and Uganda. The study was conceptualized on the premises that rural water and sanitation projects that respond to community-demand have a greater chance of being sustained by their intended beneficiaries. Although demand-driven projects appear to have greater prospects for sustainability, in many countries, government support to the RWS sector has often focussed on designing and constructing systems based on prescribed needs, with little consideration given to demand or sustainability of services (UNDP-World Bank, 1996). Consequently, many governments have been pre-occupied with constructing new facilities than to ensuring the use and sustainability of the existing facilities. It is against this background that this study was commissioned. This report presents the findings of the Uganda country report. Rural Water and Sanitation East Uganda Project (RUWASA) was selected as a focus of the study. 1.2 Study Objectives The general objective of the study was "to evaluate the comparative impact of different RUWASA rules, guidelines and applications, in terms of their responsiveness to demand, on the sustainability of rural water supply project at community level". The specific objectives included the following: 1. To assess the impact of project rules on the sustainability of rural water supply and contribute to defining better sets of rules for future projects and policy design. 2. To utilize the results of the study in shaping and monitoring RUWASA Phase II and make an input to sector policy. 3. . To contribute globally to a better understanding of the nature of demand and linkages to sustainability, and facilitating the improved design of future RWS Projects.  2 II. Definition of Terms The following constituted the major terms/concepts in this study: Demand: "The level of service - quantity and quality for which people will pay". Informed Decision: "A choice made by a group or individual with a clear understanding of the implications of that choice". The implications as conceived in this study may be in terms of: ­ investment of recurrent costs. expected participation in planning and implementation. responsibility for operation and maintenance of the water system. Project Rules "The formal prescriptions which guide the operation of a project and may establish a framework through which demand can be expressed and interpreted". Examples: Eligibility criteria. Technology and level of service option Financial policy Ownership rights Procedures for project implementation, operation and maintenance (0 & M). Sustainability "The maintenance of an acceptable level of water supply services throughout the desiGn life of the water supply system". 2.2 Basis for Project Selection RUWASA was selected on the basis of: The project is assisting rural communities in Uganda to increase access to improved water supply and sanitation. Communities in RUWASA I-participated in project implementation. • The use of participatory methodologies and promotion of sanitation as a precondition for water services in some communities formed the basis of project implementation. • Draw lessons from RUWASA Phase I and generate recommendations for integration in RUWASA Phase II. • Interest of project management in the study and hence their readiness to participate in the execution of the study. I 3 III. Study Methodology 3.1 Sampling Procedures and Data Collection Using a two-stage cluster sampling, 16 communities both preconditioned' and non­ 2 preconditioned were selected in the 2 districts of Kamuli and Mukono, 8 from each district. Although it can be recognized that the sample was rather small, it has to be noted that the geographical distribution was quite even, representing the major socio-economic peculiarities of all places. The scientific methods adopted in selecting both communities and households render the selected sample representative of the project area. 3.2 Data for the Study 1. Household Level: Using a systematic sampling design with a random start, 16 households were selected in each of the 16 sampled communities. In all. 256 household I interviews were conducted. Household interviews sought to elicit data on community role in the project, participation in project implementation. awareness and knowledge of project rules, extent of satisfaction with the service, ability and willingness to sustain the water I system. 2. Water Committee: In each of the 16 communities, a group interview was conducted with I members of the water committee to unravel their understanding of project rules/guidelines, O&M practices as well as sustainability issues. I 3. Water Technical Evaluation: All the 16 water points in selected communities were technically assessed by a trained member of the study team. Salient issues of the evaluation included the construction aspects, functionality of the system, system caretaker and financial managerrient of the system. I 4. Project and Sector Staff: These acted as key informants and provided information on project rules/guidelines. I 5. Secondary Sources: Project documents provided information on project rules while sector documents obtained from DWD provided insights about the context RUWASA operates. 6. Focus Group Discussions: In every community, 2 FGDs; 1 female and 1 male were I organized. FGDs covered such issues as community involvement/participation in the various stages of project cycle on the basis of gender, willingness and ability to sustain the water facilities and socio-cultural beliefs and practices that affect sustainability of water I sources. Care was taken to exclude members of WUCs since these had been covered under Water Committee Group interviews. I I Communities where construction of latrine was required for eligibility of water system. 2 Communities where construction of latrine was not required for eligibility of a water system .  4 7. Qualitative Assessment Questionnaire: A qualitative assessment questionnaire was administered for every community. It broadly covered the sustainability of the water system. 3.3 Data Management and Analysis All the quantitative data were entered into ACCESS software and converted into SPSS for DOS. To establish the relationship between project rules/guidelines application and demand responsiveness, and sustainability of water sources, responses under each indicator were scored on a 10 point scale • ~esponse categories which contributed positively to an indicator were 3 awarded 2 points, those that contributed neither negatively nor positively were awarded 1 point, and those that were negative were awarded no point. To obtain a total score of a particular indicator, scores of responses of individual questions for that indicator were added up. .3 The Scoring Scheme was Provided by 1WUWS (World Bank, Washington)  5 IV. The Water Sector in Uganda The Water sector in Uganda falls under the Ministry of Natural Resources. The Ministry's Directorate of Water Development (DWD) is the agency charged with the overall responsibility for water resources and supplies in rural areas and small urban centers, while the National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) is responsible for the major urban areas in the country (i.e. Kampala, Jinja, Masaka, Mbale, Mbarara, Entebbe, Tororo, "Gulu, and Lira). Goals and Objectives The Uganda government's overall policy objective for the water sector as stated in the Draft National Water Policy (1997) is: To manage and develop water resources of Uganda in an integrated and sustainable manner so as to secure and provide water of adequate quantity and quality for all social and economic needs, with the full participation of all stakeholders so as not to leave the future generations any worse off than ourselves(MNRlDWD. 1996: 6). The new Water Policy was guided by principles derived from Global Policy Declarations to which Uganda subscribes. The guiding principles include among others; recognizing the role of government as an enabler in a participatory demand-driven approach. the recognition of water as both a social and economic good, and the essential role of women in the provision. management, and safeguarding of water. Domestic Water Supply Policy Objective The Government stated policy objective in the water supply and sanitation sector is: Provision of safe water within acceptable reach and hygienic sanitation facilities, based on management responsibility and ownership by users, to 75% of the population in rural areas and 100% of the urban population by the year 2000 with an 80% - 90% effective use and functionality of facilities (MNRlDWD. 1996). The implementation of sector programmes for the rural areas is targeted at the following goals I which reflect service level criteria: Provision of a basic water supply of 20 - 25 litres of safe and clean water per capita per day within reasonable walking distance, preferably within 1.5 kms of all rural households from a public water point. Achievement of a source-man ratio of 1:300 for hand pump supplies and 1:150 for protected springs/wells in rural areas. A demand-driven negotiation approach to guide provision of rural water. If the required services are above the basic levels, water users have to pay for the services. Whereas the first two criteria were applied in RUWASA 1, the last two did not guide project implementation.  6 Sectoral Legal Issues A recent feature of Uganda's Water Sector's legal aspects has been the enactment of The 1995 Water Statute. For many years the legislation regarding the water sector was inadequate, outmoded - having been of colonial origin - and scattered under different laws, decrees and Acts. Both the segmented nature of laws as well as their content posed a constraint to the implementation of vital changes that have been initiated since 1986. The lack of clearly defined sector laws (an.d policies) was noted as one of the major drawbacks in the Sector's Development Strategy and Action Plan of 1989. The institutional restructuring which was proposed at that time could not be accommodated in the legal and policy framework that was in place. For instance, while Water Committees began to be formed in some areas as early as 1986, these had no legal identity. These and other shortcomings prompted a water sector legislation study which led to the preparation of the new Water Statute that was enacted in November 1995 (MNRlDWD, 1996). The mission which the Statute is meant to serve is stated as facilitating the devolution of water supply and sewerage undertakings to communities and community institutions such as Water . User Groups (The Water Statute, 1995;7). The Statute (7.50 [1-3]) provides for the formation of Water User Groups (WUGs) by a set of individuals or households for the purpose of collectively planning and managing point source water supply system in their area. Such a user group is also empowered to collect revenue from persons using the water supply system for the maintenance of 4 the system • The Water User Group may operate through a Water and Sanitation Committee (WSC) which would be the executive organ of the group. Where a water supply system is established by and is serving more than one user group, the Statute provides for the formation of a Water User Association (WUA) from Water and Sanitation Committees of several user groups (The Water Statute, 1995 Div.6, Art.51 [1]). Three outstanding accomplishments of the new statute can be noted. namely, (i) bringing together all the relevant legislation affecting the sector under one comprehensive document for the easy accessibility to all the interested parties in the sector, (ii) establishing a legal identity for WUGs, WSCs, and WUAs, and finally, (iii) providing for the devolution of authority over and responsibility for water supply to communities. What has to be noted. however, is that the Water Statute is silent on whether WUCs can sue or be sued. Neither does the water statute indicate whether WUCs have collective responsibility or limited liability with regard to funds they collect. , Financial Policy The 1996 National Water Policy also covers the sector's financial aspects. It stresses that public utilities should be finanCially viable. In large urban schemes (utility-operated), the tariff structure is supposed to be designed such that it covers capital, operation and maintenance costs. It also recommends a progressive tariff structure to discourage wastage and excessive consumption. Further, that mechanisms for varying tariffs with rises in costs of provision should be in place. Whereas in urban areas the tariffs should cover total capital costs, in rural and peri-urban areas, they should cover only part of the capital costs depending on the technology used. Meanwhile, all the costs of maintenance in rural and peri-urban areas are borne by the users. 4 The statute does not mention whether or not the WUGs own the water supply system or the facilities thereof. However, the National Water Policy does (see section 4.4.2a). 

7 In addition, since the decentralization of water responsibilities and the devolution of financial powers to districts, lower Local Council (LC) levels and communities, financial resources for the development of water supplies are also supposed to come from the budgets of LCs. The budgeting rules of districts are now such that they have to include in their budgets, the resources accruing from external sources, such as donors. Technology Issues Government Policy for water provision encourages the use of appropriate low-cost technologies which offer good possibilities for community participation. It recommends for rural and peri-urban areas, the use of point sources such as protected springs, hand-pump equipped shallow wells, boreholes and gravity-fed piped schemes, leaving engine driven pumps for urban areas where regular power and trained staff can be ensured. An important policy prescription is that technologies should be standardized to safeguard the community-based maintenance system, but that the technical specifications of technologies should be available in the 'public domain' to avoid monopoly situations and over-dependence on donor standards (MNRlOWO, 1996). Government Programmes in the sector are now using an approach by which communities decide the type of water facility they want. Communities are provided with information on different possible options of water facilities/technologies, indicating their advantages, disadvantages, and the costs. The communities are guided by technicians and local extension personnel to understand the working of different options, but are left to make the final selection (OWO, 1994:6). Management and Sustainability Aspects The government's policy for water emphasizes capacity-building particularly at district and lower levels in tune with the decentralization process, equal opportunities for women's participation in community management activities, and participation of the private sector in construction and actual provision of services. The Community-based maintenance system (CBMS) is qualified as the principle operation system for rural and peri-urban areas. The Role of Women Involving women in the execution of water programmes has been increasingly recognized as an important ingredient of promoting community management of water services. Government programmes and others have attempted to go beyond merely involving community members as an undifferentiated group, to ensuring that the participation of women in the planning and making decisions about water activities is raised. This is based on the increasing recognition that women, as the primary users and collectors of water, have a big stake in the quality and reliability of water supply. In some water programmes in the country, it is a requirement that at least half of all committee members should be women. Attempts have further been made to involve women in O&M, and also in the technical aspects of it, such as caretaking and repairing.  8 V. Project Descriptions The Rural Water and Sanitation East Uganda Project (RUWASA) As mentioned on page 1. RUWASA was selected for inclusion into the Global Study to represent Uganda. This section presents a brief description of the project. Project Background RUWASA Project was launched in 1991 as a stand-alone project (providing water and sanitation). It was established as a government project under the then Water Development Department (WDD) of the Ministry of Mineral and Water Resources (now Ministry of Natural Resources). Funding for the project came from DAN IDA which committed a sum of 209 million DKK (approx. U.S $ 35 million) for the project's first phase of five years. On its part, the Uganda government's contribution which was estimated at 6% of the total project cost included staff salaries and allowances, drilling equipment, workshop facilities and office space. It was planned that the project would continue for a second five-year phase upon the decision of the Danish and Ugandan governments. This has already started as RUWASA II. RUWASA I covered eight districts with an area of 21,500 sq.kms, and a population of approximately 4.18 million (about 25% of the country's total population). Project Goal and Objectives The project was set up with a long-term goal of improving the quality of life of rural communities in the project area through a sustainable reduction in water and sanitation related diseases. The Immediate Objectives: a) To establish protected water sources, sanitation facilities, and hygiene awareness in the project area, b) To reduce the burden of work involved in collecting water, c) To improve health, d) To strengthen water and sanitation sector institutions, Underpinning these objectives was the concern for sustainability which in the RUWASA project was defined as "the ability of the project outputs and objectives to be maintained after project completion". A number of strategies were adopted in order to ensure sustainability. These included: Emphasis on O&M right from the start, Using and developing existing institutions, Promoting community involvement and a sense of ownership, Promoting the role of W0men,  9 Using affordable and maintainable technology, Using an objective oriented approach (working towards the ultimate purpose than focussing too much on inputs and activities) Institutional Arrangements While the Ministry of Natural Resources is the lead Ministry, the implementation of the Project also involves other related ministries namely, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Women in Development, Youth and Culture, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, and Ministry of Local Government. At the lower levels, such as the sub-county and community levels, the institutional set up was designed to strongly embody the concept of community participation. All Water users sharing a common water source are organized into a Water user group with an elected executive, the Water User Committee. There is also a sub-county water and sanitation committee. There are two caretakers per water source, and HPMs trained after nomination by the sub-county committees. The caretakers are trained and charged with routine 0 & M. Specifically, the caretakers perform the following: . • Carry out simple repairs • Check the water systems joints for fitness and greasing • Keep the water source environs clean • Report major breakdowns for the attention of the Committee and the HPMs . The HPMs are trained and equipped to handle major repairs, beyond the care taker's ability, and carry out servicing and check ups once every 3 months for the boreholes. The project makes use of already existing institutions such as the Local Councils and the government extension system. In the case of the later, Government Community Development Workers and Health extension staff at district, county and sub-county levels are used as part of the RUWASA team in mobilization activities, education and monitoring. Project Activities and Outputs. Several activities have been undertaken by the project in pursuit of its objectives. This includes the drilling of deep boreholes, rehabilitation of existing boreholes, excavation of dug wells, hand auguring of boreholes, protection of natural springs, construction of rainwater collection units, construction of institutional pit latrines, and production and distribution of san plats for household latrines. In all, a total of 2,757 water sources had been constructed by June 1996. This is in addition to the less tangible activities such as health and hygiene education, training of water user committees, caretakers and HPMs. More than 2700 VWSCs, 67 sub-county committees, 3990 caretakers, and 28 HPMs were trained. RUWASA Policy changes over time. 

10 Up to 1992, RUWASA's I policy was to provide water without setting any condition to the communities. Between 1992-1995, communities were required to have latrines before water could be provided. Although RUWASA I (1991-1995) did not demand for up-front payment from water users, the policy has been changed in RUWASA II (1996-2001). In RUWASA II communities will make a financial contribution (up-front payment) before a water source is constructed.  11 VI The Uganda Study Findings The Uganda country study was launched in November 1996 after an agreement between the UNDP-World Bank RWS and the Directorate of Water Development (DWD) was concluded. A two-phase training workshop was organized for the study team. Thirteen participants including the Uganda Lead Consultant on the study, 7 enumerators, an International Consultant, Task Leader RWSG- ESA, staff from RWSG - WA, a Monitoring Specialist and the Socio-economic Adviser (Norconsult) from RUWASA attended the first phase workshop held in Jinja between November 27 - 3D, 1996. This was followed by a non-residential 2 days workshop for the enumerators held in Kampala. During the first phase, the team was introduced to various aspects of the study, and research instruments were pretested and modified to suit the local circumstances. Fieldwork was carried out in the 2 districts of Kamuli and Mukono that form part of the areas that RUWASA 1 covered between 1991- 1995. In all, 16 communities were randomly selected, 8 in Kamuli and 8 in Mukono. I The findings presented in this report are based on 256 household interviews, 16 water committees, 16 technical assessment instruments, Focus Group Discussions with water users, I officials of RUWASA and the Water Sector. Data collection lasted approximately 4 weeks. I I I I I I I I  I 12 VII Background Information 1. THE COMMUNITIES All the 16 communities sampled in this study were rural, predominantly agricultural, without electricity and several of them far from the main towns. All the communities can be categorized as poor with 66.0% of the interviewed respondents asserting that their main occupation was cultivation (i.e on very small scale). Several of these communities had a very poor road network. Arising out of FGDs, majority households had a monthly per capita income of less than Ug.Shs.10,OOO (Le. US$9.5) and lacked adequate food and hence could not afford the required calorie intake. With low incomes, majority households face difficulties in meeting essential basics of life such as health care and education of children. The rest of the main characteristics of the communities are shown in Table 1 below. Table 1: Community Data Community Pop. #Households # of Concentration Distance to Electricity Household 1 = Concentrated major city N=No s using the 2 = Semi (Km) Y=Yes system dispersed 3 = Very dispersed Bugabo 70 139 11 2 . 36 N Bugeywa 400 100 100 2 11 N Bukumbi 360 28 55 3 50 N Bulondo 400 180 180 3 11 N Bwigule 260 52 52 3 38 N Galiraya 190 40 40 2 46 N Kabula 160 80 80 2 15 N . KanansaikKi 400 70 70 3 56 N risiru 450 .74 74 3 63 N Kyamabale 360 100 100 2 20 N Lwamba 260 40 40 1 48 N v Muli 700 116 116 2 16 N Nalya 270 150 150 3 8 N Namalere 205 40 40 2 46 N Namavund 615 120 120 3 56 N Namayand 450 70 70 3 9 N - Table 1 shows that in majority of communities the number of persons (i.e. Pop) using the system did not compare with the official target of 300 and 150 persons per hand pump and protected spring respectively. It was clear in this study, that a single water source would be serving other neighbouring communities which did not have a protected source. On the other hand, the criteria for household concentration was based on the number of households using a water source in relation to approximate distance. Thus, majority households within a distance of <500 metres were considered concentrated, 500-1500 metres, semi­ dispersed and 1500 metres and above, very dispersed.  13 2. THE HOUSEHOLDS At the household level, 52.3% were females and 47.7% were males. Majority of the interviewed persons (67.6%) reported to be the heads of the household. The most highly educated members of the household were reported to be fathers/heads (40.6%), followed by household sons (15.6%), then mothers (14.5%), and daughters occupying the last position (7.4%). This is typical of Uganda rural communities where gender discrepancies in education exist with many more males accessing formal education than females. Table 2: Households Descriptive Data Highest Level of Education Achieved by f Member of Household Head of Female Male Household None Attended Completed Attended Completed Attended Primary Primary Secondary Secondary University 134 122 173 31 82 53 55 32 3 (52.3%) (47.7%) (67.6%) (12.1%) (32.0%) (20.7%) (21.5%) (12.5%) (1.2%) I Majority households (87.9%) reported having at least a member who had attended primary and above. Only 12.1 % of the households reported no member who had ever attended school. 3. THE WATER SYSTEMS The study findings reveal that RUWASA's intervention in providing water responded to the rural communities priority need for safe water. Before project implementation, 65.6% of the sampled population collected their drinking water from a traiditional source (non-improved public well) and 16.8% collected water from rivers, unprotected springs and swamps. Only 9.8% collected water from a protected source (an improved public well). After project implementation, majority (87.7%)collected their drinking water from protected sources. All the water systems in selected communities were functioning. I I I I I  14 Table 3: Water System Description Community Age Description of Type #HH using (Years) System the source Bugabo 3 Repaired SG 11 Bugeywa 3 New BH 100 Bukumbi 3 New BH 55 Bulondo 3 New BH 180 Bwigule 3 New BH 52 Galiraya 3 New BH 40 Kabula 3 Repaired OW 18 Kanansaike 4 New BH 70 Kirisiru 2 New BH 124 Kyamabale 3 Repaired SG 15 Lwamba 3 New BH 40 Muli 3 New BH 116 Nalya 2 Repaired SG 50 Namalere 3 New BH 40 Namavundu 3 New BH 120 Namayandha 3 New OW· 70 SG - Spring BH - Borehole OW - Dug well All the boreholes had been installed by RUWASA and were relatively new while the springs had been newly rehabilitated. This could therefore have implications on a study of this nature (i.e sustainability) since not much time has elapsed to clearly assess community ability to sustain the water systems. It has to be noted that RUWASA 1 officially closed at the end of 1995. I I 15 VIII Project RuleslGuidelines In this section, we discuss whether and how the project rules of demand-responsiveness and those of implementation and sustainability were applied in RUWASA I. One important observation that needs to be mentioned at the outset is that RUWASA I did not have a set of formal rules that were strictly adhered to. Only latrine construction (discussed in the sub-section on eligibility) was at some point used as a precondition for eligibility. The rest of the requirements were initiated during project implementation and can best be described as guidelines whose absence did not mean denial of service. Rules of Responsiveness to Demand Three categories of rules relating to demand responsiveness are considered; community selection and prioritization criteria, technical options and service levels, and financial policy. The discussion of each starts with the basic principle underlying the rule, as stipulated by UNOP - World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, then a description of the official rules/guidelines and the scores for each community in relation to demand and sustainability aspects. 1. Community Selection and Prioritization Criteria "Eligibility rules for participation in the project should be broad enough that eligibility does not, by itself, guarantee that every eligible community will receive service during that particular period. II "Services should follow, not precede, community initiative in seeking the improvement. " Eligibility In RUWASA 1, all communities in the project area were eligible to get a water source. At the same time communities were being mobilized by the project to adopt proper sanitation practices especially latrine construction. Thus, in the initial days of project implementation, RUWASA 1 simultaneously provided water and mobilized communities to construct latrines. However, latrine construction did not pick up as required by RUWASA. As a result, RUWASA I changed its approach for the communities that had not been covered, and set a pre-condition whereby sanitation had to precede water construction. The minimum latrine requirements for a community to be availed safe water were: • At least 10% observed increase in latrine coverage with sanplats at the household level for community members. • At least 70% observed increase in latrine coverage with sanplats at the household level for community leaders. Communities where the sanitation condition was set were thereafter referred to as "pre­ conditioned" communities. It has to be noted that the latrine condition was not linked to the sustainability of the water sources, but rather to stimulate increased latrine coverage in the area with an anticipation of reducing sanitation related diseases. . Before the construction of water facilities would start, mobilization and sanitation promotion would take an average of six months, and the indicator of readiness was the sanitation coverage .  ,... 16 In both non-preconditioned and preconditioned communities, RUWASA 1 initiated guidelines for the benificiary communities to ensure proper 0 & M of the systems and hence sustainability. As reported in the interviews with the project staff, the guidelines included: • Formation of a Water User Committee (WUC) • Selection of caretakers (1 male and 1 female) to ensure routine maintenance of the source • Setting of by-laws to ensure proper use and maintenance and guard against mismanagement of the facility. • Signing of agreement with a hand pump mechanic who would carry out the repairs and servicing of the water system. • Practice of proper hygiene behaviour to avoid disease transmission. In addition to the above guidelines, RUWASA 1 asked communities to participate in the project by meeting certain requirements such as providing locally available materials and labor. Majority households (78.5%) and 68.8% of community water committees reported that construction of latrines, collection of funds, collection af materials, provision of labor where necessary, were required by RUWASA during the implementation of the project. Females FGDs similarly pointed to participation of community members in project implementation. Project Initiative In practice, communities did not apply for the water systems. The study findings indicate that only 12.9% thought that the idea to build a water system was from the community (a committee, neighbor, or community group), compared to 27.7% and 25.0% who thought it was from RUWASA and LCI/III officials respectively. Similarly, 50.0% of water committees contended that the initiative to build the water systems originated from RUWASA. However, 59.0% of the households reported that they, or a member of their households took part in the decision to build a water system. This implies that while the project idea did not originate from the community, community members were invited to participate, and or decide whether to take the project or not. When cornmunities were scored for project initiation, the resulting scores also show that the source of the project idea came from outside the community, with the highest community score being only 6.71. Table 4: Score of Project Initiation (SPI) Community SPI *Bugabo 4.06 Bugeywa 4.45 *Bukumbi 5.23 Bulondo 6.56 Bwigule 5.15 Galiraya 2.73 

17 Kabula 6.71 *Kanansaike 5.93 Kirisiru 2.10 *Kyamabale 2.73 *Lwamba 5.70 *Muli 5.31 Nalya 5.93 Namalere 5.00 Namavundu 3.51 Namayandha 5.85 * Non-Preconditioned Communities It has to be noted that although the idea to build the water systems was external to the communities, RUWASA devoted much time and resources in the early stages of project implementation sensitizing and mobilizing the people. The low SPI scores notwithstanding, all communities expressed that water was their most priority need at the inception of the project. Prioritization Between Sub-projects The findings show that no other kind of projects besides water were offered to the people as reported by 74.4% of the household respondents. This is expected since RUWASA is a stand-alone project, in which case the question of prioritization between sub-projects could not arise. Nonetheless, majority from both the household and community interviews (84.8% and 75.0% respectively) reported that water supply was their most pressing need before RUWASA's intervention, a factor that would positively influence sustainability of the water sources. 1.2 Analysis - Eligibility and Prioritization In all, it is clear that RUWASA 1 was not directly guided by consumer-demand during project implementation. However, the intensive mobilization and sensitization campaigns, which took, six months could have generated demand for the service among communities. 2. Choice of Technical Options and Service Levels "Communities should be actively involved in selecting service levels. A range of technical options and service levels should be offered to communities, and their related cost implications made clear. " Choice of Technical Options Community members did not make a choice between technology options. The technology option in each commllnity was determined by RUWASA depending on the costs involved and the hydrogeology of the area. Thus, only 19.5% and 16.4% of the households and communities reported choosing between alternative water sources/systems and alternative technology options respectively. FGDs for both males and females also indicated that no choice was made between technical options by community members. According to the project officials, the selection of technical options by the project took into account costs, 0 & M costs, ease of maintenance, scope of community involvement in  18 both construction and 0 & M, technical quality of the source and best use of the existing investment resources, i.e. the protected sources. While the current water policy emphasizes that communities should be served with a technical option of their choice, this was not a rule in RUWASAI since the water policy had not been formulated by then, nor has it been passed by parliament. Choice of the Location for the Facility Majority community members (81.3%) contended that they were involved in choosing the location for the facility. Similarly, 92.3% of community committees indicated that community members had participated in choosing the location of the water facility. FGDs similarly indicated that community members were involved by the project in siting especially for the borehole. However, the final decision would' rest with the project . technicians depending on the hydrogeology of the area. With regard to springs, communities would only select between the existing springs on which one to be protected. Determination of Service Level Majority (76.2%) reported that their communities did not choose between different levels of service compared to 16.8% who claimed that they did. Service levels were determined oli the basis of domestic water supply policy whereby a borehole is ideally meant to serve 300 people, and a protected spring 150 people. The population of consumers in some communities exceeded the designated one because of people from neighboring communities without a protected source drawing water from the source constructed by the project. There was evidently a low degree of demand-responsiveness in relation to technical options and levels of service and hence very little indication of community decision-making based on informed choice. A big number (70.7%) reported that they were not informed about the costs involved, and 24.5% did not know whether they were informed, compared to only 4.8% who claimed that they were informed. Results from FGDs for both males and females clearly indicated that communities did not have a choice regarding the type of system design. Similarly, the indicator scores for informed choice as shown in Table 5 are very low. . Table 5: Indicator Scores: Informed Choice {SIC) Community SIC Bugabo 3.54 Bugeywa 2.91 Bukumbi 3.50 Bulanda 4.58 Bwigule 4.58 Galiraya 4.27 Kabula 4.93 Kanansaike 4.51 Kirisiru 3.57 Kyamabale 3.95 Lwamba 4.61 Muli 4.89 Nalya 5.31  19 Namalere 4.54 Namavundu 5.17 Namayandha 4.30 3. Financial Policy "Principles of cost-sharing should be specified and community responsibility for costs made clear at the outset. These principles should aim at negotiated cost-sharing arrangements in which the community chooses the levels of service for which it is willing to pay." In RUWASA I. communities contributed in-kind (labour and materials). RUWASA did not require cash contribution up-front which could have been a plausible indicator for measuring communities demand for the water service. However, the community's responsibilities for operation and maintenance costs were made clear from the beginning. as reported by 68.8% of the communities. Consequently. RUWASA's financial policy did not have a bearing on the determination of the service levels nor the technology options. The contributions in cash mentioned by households and communities were not meant for construction. The funds raised were channelled into buying food for feeding the project staff during construction while the balance would be reserved for subsequent 0 & M. Table 6 shows the approximate amount paid by each household in different communities. Table 6: Contribution to Capital Investment, by Community Community **Cash Ug.Shs. Labour (Days) Household *Bugabo - 3 Bugeywa 2500 2 *Bukumbi 300 6 Bulondo 2000 3 Bwigule - 7 Galiraya 500 7 Kabula - 30 *Kanansaike 500 4 Kirisiru 1000 14 *Kyamabale - 21 *Lwamba - 3 *Muli 1000 3 Nalya - 30 Namalere 300 30 Namavundu 500 3 Namayandha - 2 ** Exchange Rate: 1 US $ = UG. Shs 1050 (July, 1997) The varied cash contributions made by the communities is a reflection of non-official financial policy by the project concerning the water users. Similarly. where cash and labor  20 contributions were made, they were not standardized and hence the variations from community to community. In most of the non-preconditioned communities no cash was contributed. It should also be noted that material contributions would at times be commuted to cash contributions. System Costs System costs varied on the basis of the technology options with the biggest part coverd by the project Table 7 shows the system costs per technology and contributions made by the communities. Table 7: System Costs and Percentage Contribution of Total Construction Costs (Hardware) Technology Option Borehole Protected Spring Dug Well Total cost of water system construction (Hardware) (Ug.Shs) 7,352,000/= 1,042,200/= 3,212,000/= Project contribution (%) of the total construction cost 96.0% 74.86% 91.9% Community Contribuiton (%) of total cost 4.0% 25.14% 8.1% Cost of construction. per capita (based on the No. of people connected to the system), 24,506/= 6,9481= 10,758/= Source: Project Staff/Project Records The borehole technology was the most costly. and attracted least contribution from the community. This least contribuiotn as regards the borehole was expected as most of the materials to construct a borehole could not be mobilized locally in the communities. Even the manual labour that is often available in communities was not very much required in the construction of the boreholes. In the case of springs, we note that communities contributed a quarter of the total costs in form of sand, stones and labour, a fact also revealed in both female and male FGDs. Female community members reportedly contributed more than males. The contribution was possible since all materials were available in the communities. Details of community contribution are shown in Table 8 below. I 21 1 Table 8: Details of the Community Contribution to Construction Costs Technology Option T23 - T25 Borehole Protected Spring Drug Well Percentage of the total cost 4.0 25.14 8.1 Contribution • • Cash Unskilled labor - 70% - 30% - 60% · · Local materials 20% 60% 30% Others ~ 10% 10% 10% . Value of total Community contribution, per capita serviced. Source: CalculatIons by Project OffiCIals 9801= 1,737/= 8601= Table 9: Total Costs of the System (Hardware & Software) Technology Option T24 - T25 Borehole Protected Drug Well Spring Total cost of the system (including administration overhead, software, hardware) 9,587,0001= 1,182,400/= 5,085,0001= Total cost of the system, per capita serviced including adminstration overhead, software, hardware 31,956/= 7,8821= 16,950/= Although all communities contributed in form of materials and labor, not all contributed in form of cash. As earlier noted, even where cash contributions were involved they were not meant for physical construction. As Table 10 shows, scores for cash contributions were very low, and even then not in all communities. It must be emphasised that this could have been as a result of RUWASA's policy not to require any up-front payment from the communities, but not absolute community failure to contribute cash towards the construction.  22 Table 10: Score of Cash Contributions (SCOC) Community SCOC Bugeywa 2.00 Bulondo 2.00 Bwigule 3.00 Galiraya 3.00 Kabula 3.00 Kirisiru 3.00 Kyamabale 2.00 Nalya 2.00 Namalere Namayandha 3.00 3.00 . Although the community cash contributions were low especi.ally for boreholes, it must be recognized that they require much more attention and high costs to maintain on the part of the communities. In relation to labor contributions, all communities made contributions during the construction of the water sources. Since there was no policy by the project on the amount of labor to be contributed, there were variations in labor contributions by different communities, and in low proportions as Table 11 shows. Table 11: Score of labour Contribution (SCOl) Community SCOl Bugabo 2.00 4.00 Bugeywa 4.00 Bukumbi 3.00 Bulondo 4.00 Bwigule 1.00 Galiraya 1.00 Kabula 4.00 Kanansaike 1.00 Kirisiru 2.00 Kyamabale 4.00 lwamba 4.00 Muli 3.00 Nalya 1.00 Namalere 3.00 Namavundu 1.00 Namayandha Both Tables 10 and 11 indicate low scores, i.e. all communities scored less than 5 out of the maximum 10 point score. However, it can be noted that although the labor scores are low, it is still encouraging that communities still contributed during construction and hence a possibility that they can be called upon to contribute whenever need arises. 

23 IX Rules For Implementation and Sustainability Construction and Supervision All construction work in RUWASA I was initially (for about the first three years out of the five) undertaken by the project staff. In the latter years, however, a system of sub­ contracting to private firms was adopted. This was, however, only limited to the construction of protected springs. From the community interviews, 68.8% reported that their communities/committees participated in the "supervision" of the construction work against 31.3% who said they did not. In actual sense, the "supervision" reported by communities merely referred to observation of work in progress. Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance are the responsibility of the users. The performance of these responsibilities is ensured through a system of locally elected caretakers who carry out routine maintenance, including greasing of the pump, and cleaning the water environs, a committee which supervises the caretakers and collects the contributions, and area-based hand-pump mechanics who are called upon to take care of breakdowns. RUWASA I required communities that were to be assisted to first elect water committees. It was found out in household interviews that RUWASA had sensitized the users about their roles in 0 & M. Majority (83.6%) reported that they knew what their responsibilities for 0 & M entailed. The responsibilities included gentle pumping of the water, i.e. not to bang the handle, keep the source free of animal use, not to allow children to play at the water source, general cleaning of the water environs. The caretakers ensure that these responsibilities are adhered to. There was no difference in the proportions of males and females with regard to what their responsibilities for 0 & M entailed Backstopping support was provided by RUWASA staff, district staff and social mobilisers (extension staff) to communities in form of household and water source visits, as well as during community and WUC meetings. This kind of support continued after construction in form of monitoring visits. Community Development and Training Training in RUWASA I was provided at two levels; • At the community level where training was open to all adult community members. • At the committee level where all the 6 WUCs members were trained. With regard to the community level, a half (50.4%) of the household respondents reported that they, or their family member participated in training sessions related to the water system, with 89.9% of those who attended, asserting that they remembered the topics covered in the training. and majority (95.3%) rating the training sessions as useful.  24 Table 12: Training Water Committee Received Training (# of communities) 16 # Members Trained 96 Household Received Training (% of Household) 50.4 Remember Topics (% of HH Receiving Training) 89.9 On all water committees, both males and females were represented with exception of Namayandha where all members were females. All communities were, therefore, required to have a water committee with a mandatory requirement of having women on such committees. Community level training/information dissemination was carried out through drama, home visits, and community meetings. Specific to the training of committees, the training themes were: • Identification of community problems • Sanitation issues (Faecal disposal) • Hygiene education which included: faecal disease transmission, the faecal barriers, the safe water chain. • Gender issues • Operation and maintenance (prevention of breakdown, maintenance of cleanliness) • User committee roles and responsibilities • Planning Training of committees was carried out in a two day training session facilitated by the sub­ county social mobilisers, with support from district staff. Study results indicate that all committees (100%) were trained. This is corroborated by the scores of training of water committees where all communities except 1 scored the maximum of 10 points.  25 Table 13: Score of Training, Water Committee (STC) Community STC Bugabo 10,00 10,00 Bugeywa 10,00 Bukumbi 10,00 Bulondo 10,00 Bwigule 10,00 Galiraya 10.00 Kabula 7.50 Kanansaike 10.00 Kirisiru 10.00 Kyamabale 10.00 Lwamba 10,00 Muli 10.00 Nalya 10.00 Namalere 10.00 Namavundu 10.00 Namayandha Results of the study indicate that all members of the committees (100%) were trained in O&M as compared to 41% households, Similarly, 87,5% committees were trained in administration and financial management as opposed to 28.5% households. Whereas 100% of committees were trained in sanitation and hygiene education, only 44.1 % of households claimed so. A half of the committees (50%) were trained in organization and leadership, while 25% claimed to have been trained in design and construction. Scores for training of households were generally low for all communities as Table 14 shows. Table 14: Score of Training Household (5TH) Community STH Bugabo 4.60 1.95 Bugeywa 4.53 Bukumbi 4.06 Bulondo 3.82 Bwigule 1.87 . Galiraya 6.25 Kabula 3.43 Kanansaike 2.42 Kirisiru 4.84 Kyamabale 5.39 Lwamba 4.14 Muli 5.85 Nalya 3,35 Namalere 5.39 Namavundu 3.43 Namayandha  26 Asset Ownership RUWASA has as one of its strategies, promoting a sense of ownership among the user communities. The questions about the users' perception of asset ownership revealed a high feeling of 'sense of ownership' from both the household and the community interviews. All communities (100.0%) and 80.9% of the household respondents thought that the water system belonged to them, i.e. the users. This sense of ownership apparently referred to the responsibilities of 0 & M of the system. . 

27 X Indicators of Sustainability In this section, the findings relating to the five indicators of sustainability that were used in the study are discussed. The discussion of each indicator is preceded by a statement of the rationale for the particular indicator. The five indicators are; Physical condition of the water source and quality of service, Consumer satisfaction, Operation and maintenance practices, Financial management, and Ability and willingness to sustain the water supply system. Physical Condition and Quality of SelVice Rationale: A water system kept in poor physical condition and delivering a poor service is less likely to be sustained over its design life than one kept in good physical condition and delivering a good service. Results: The questions about the quality of service offered by the improved water systems generally pointed to a good performance. Most of the water systems (62.5%) had not failed in the one year preceding the study, compared to 37.5% which had failed between once and three times, majority of which were boreholes. Given the fact that almost one­ C1 third 3 ) of the systems had failed, and that these were relatively new systems, it could imply some defects in the nature of the technology. None of the systems had failed up to four or more times. In all, 38.5% rated the performance of their systems as good, compared to 53.8% who rated them fair, and only 7.7% rated them as bad. The physical condition scores are also on the higher side of the scale as shown in Table 15.  28 Table 15: Physical Condition Scores (SPC) Community SPC Bugabo 6.00 4.00 Bugeywa 6.00 Bukumbi 6.00 Bulondo 8.00 Bwigule 8.00 Galiraya 4.00 Kabula 6.00 Kanansaike 8.00 Kirisiru 4.00 Kyamabale 6.00 Lwamba 8.00 Muli 8.00 Nalya 8.00 Namalere 8.00 Namavundu 6.00 Namayandha The environs/surroundings of protected springs and dug wells tended to be poorly maintained than for the boreholes. Women being the active members in cleaning water sources are culturally prevented from stepping in the water source (spring). According to FGDs, there is a cultural belief especially among the Baganda (Le. the region where Mukono is located) that women are not supposed to step in the drainage and waste water as to prevent their menstrual blood from leaking into the water which is abominable in the Kiganda culture. This could possibly explain why most protected springs are not kept clean as boreholes. Consumer Satisfaction Rationale: It is expected that consumers highly satisfied with their water system will be more willing to sustain it than those that are dissatisfied. Results: The household interviews and FGDs revealed a high level of user satisfaction with the water systems. Majority of the households (70.3%) had since the installation of the water system not used any other source, or if at all, only irregularly, compared to 18.4% who used some other source regularly, and 7.0% seasonally. Of those who continued using other sources, long distances to the improved source (40.6%) and problems of water quality (24.6%) were the most frequently given reasons for the continued use of alternative sources. A big percentage of the households (77.7%) reported that they were very satisfied with the water yield at their sources, and equally high proportions rated the water color (84.0%) and  29 water taste/flavor (78.1 %) as good. Isolated cases of dissatisfaction were reported in Bugeywa where water users complained of being too many for the only water source Table 16: Consumer Satisfaction Scores (SCS) Community SCS Bugabo 7.34 2.34 Bugeywa 6.91 Bukumbi 7.69 Bulondo 5.58 Bwigule 6.87 Galiraya 8.39 Kabula 8.35 Kanansaike 5.85 Kirisiru 7.57 Kyamabale 8.35 Lwamba 8.78 Muli 8.04 Nalya 6.40 Namalere 8.32 Namavundu 7.89 Namayandha Operation and Maintenance Practices Rationale: Good Operation and Maintenance practices are considered essential requirements for system sustainability. Results: The communities and households surveyed were found to have reasonably good O&M I practices reflected by the low frequency of system failures, quick response to repair breakdowns, presence of O&M personnel and easy access to tools, spare parts and accessories. Of those who reported failed system in the last one year, half (50.0%) reported that breakdowns took only one day to repair, compared to 16.7% that took two to five days, and 33.3% took six or more days. Only one community (7.7%) was unable to undertake all the required repairs during the past year. With the exception of two communities, the rest of the communities (87.5) had a caretaker and a treasurer/administrator, and 75.0% of the communities thought their caretakers were sufficiently trained to undertake their job. Majority communities (93.8%) reported that the perspnnel needed for technical assistance to repair the system was usually available when needed, and claimed to have never had problems in getting spare-parts.  30 Table 17: Operations and Maintenance Scores (SOM) Community SOM Bugabo 6.95 3.47 Bugeywa 4.78. Bukumbi 1.95 Bulondo 7.60 Bwigule 7.82 Galiraya 8.91 Kabula 3.69 Kanansaike 7.39 Kirisiru 5.86 Kyamabale 5.00 Lwamba 6.30 Muli 6.30 Nalya 7.82 Namalere 6.73 Namavundu 7.39 Namayandha Financial Management Rationale: It is expected that strong financial management (i.e. setting appropriate and flexible tariff levels, ensuring adequate collection rates) will increase system sustainability. Results and Analysis: Financial management of the water systems was overall poor with majority of non­ preconditioned communities scoring poorer than the preconditioned communities. The results of the study further reveal the following common features among communities: There were no operational bank accounts for the water systems, although there was a treasurer on each committee. Bank accounts were opened in the early days that followed the commissioning of the project, but have since become dormant. There was no fixed tariff levied on water users over a defined period. Tariffs are only levied when there is a breakdown of the system. The amount paid by users in such circumstances is dependent on the amount of money that has to be incurred in repairs. From both interviews and FGDs it was clear that tariffs can only cover minor repairs. For major repairs, communities thought that the project will always intervene. There were no savings as funds are only collected whenever there is a breakdown, or need to have the system serviced. • In light of the above, it is, therefore, not surprising that the Financial Management scores (SFI) were generally low as Table 18 shows. 

31 Table 18: Financial Management Scores (SFI) Community SFI Bugabo 6.15 Bugeywa 4.23 Bukumbi 1.53 Bulondo 4.23 Bwigule 5.76 Galiraya 4.23 Kabula 5.38 Kanansaike .00 Kirisiru 3.46 Kyamabale 4.23 Lwamba .76 I'vluli 1.53 Nalya 4.23 Namalere 6.92 Namavundu .00 Namayandha 5.00 • Ability and Willingness to Sustain System Rationale: The user-community's ability and willingness to keep the system in good working condition is central to achieving this objective. Results: The questions regaraing the consumers' ability and willingness to sustain their water systems yielded mixed results. Overall, 38.3% of the households had never paid anything. Of those who paid, majority (56.3%) rated the price they contribute for the maintenance of the system as fair, 24.3% thought it was expensive, compared to 19.4% who thought it was inexpensive. Majority of those who had ever paid, 70.8% reported having never had difficulty in paying the contributions, while 26.4% had experienced difficulties. Regarding the community's financial capacity to maintain the system over the next ten years, the household interviews yielded different results from the community interviews, with the majority in the former (57.4%) contending that they had the capacity, while 43.8% in the latter thought they did not. These findings have to be taken with care as the users could have had insufficient knowledge of possible costs over 10 years to judge meaningfully whether or not they have the capacity to sustain the system. In both household and community interviews, majority (56.3%) and (75.0%) respectively thought their communities had no capacity to replace their systems once they became obsolete. A high proportion (66.0%) of the households expressed willingness to pay more than they were paying in order to finance improved service. In relation to what the money  32 paid was used for. 91.6% of the household respondents asserted that it was used for O&M expenses. Analysis Willingness to sustain the system was generally higher in communities with protected springs or dug wells than those with boreholes. Only Kyamabale as Table 19 shows presented an exceptional case. Willingness to sustain a given technology option seems to be influenced by the costs of the technology in question. Most communities thought that sustenance of the borehole technology would be beyond their reach especially where major repairs are involved or complete replacement, if the system became obsolete. Table 19: Willingness to Sustain the System Scores . Community SWL Bugabo 5.84 2.90 Bugeywa 5.00 Bukumbi 6.00 Bulondo 2.59 Bwigule 2.53 Galiraya 6.28 Kabula 5.00 Kanansaike 2.37 Kirisiru 3.81 Ky'amabale 6.40 Lwamba 6.18 Muli 7.15 Nalya 5.12 Namalere 6.00 Namavundu 6.34 Namayandha OVerall Sustainability Overall, the study results indicate a high level of sustainability of the water pOints. Surprisingly when overall sustainability was scored (See Taole 20), preconditioned communities had a low score compared to non-preconditioned communities. Whereas all communities reported water as their priority need, it could also be possible that the magnitude of need differed among communities which could have an influence on the overall sustainability. In terms of overall ranking of sustainability vis-a vis technology options, the borehole technology scored low compared to protected springs and dug wells. This corroborates the earlier results where majority household and community results indicated no capacity in communities to replace the w~ter systems once they became obsolete. 

33 Table 20: Overall Rankings of Sustainability (SST) Community SST Bugabo* 6.57 Bugeywa 2.73 Bukurnbi* 5.80 Bulondo 6.61 Bwigule 4.35 Galiraya 4.87 Kabula 7.23 Kanansaike* 6.38 Kirisiru 4.31 Kyamabale* 5.61 Lwamba* 7.09 Muli* 7.30 Nalya 7.48 Namalere 5.93 Namavundu 6.97 Namayandha 7.03 Average 6.02 *Non-preconditioned I I 34 XI. The Impact of Institutional Rules on RWS Sustainability The relationship between the project rules applied in RUWASA and the indicators of sustainability were tested using the Pearson Correlation Coefficients at a confidence interval of 99%. With the exception of "training of committees", each of the rest of the indicators of demand-responsiveness were tested against each of the indicators of sustainability. Training of committees was not tested because all the communities surveyed had all their committee members trained making the scores for this indicator uniform in all communities. It must be observed in this study that it may be too soon to meaningfully judge the sustainability of the water systems which are not more than five years old as was the case in RUWASA I. All in all, considering the overall sustainability in relation to rules, the results revealed positive significant correlation between: Project Initiation and Overall Sustainability Informed Choice and Overall Sustainability Contribution of Cash and Overall Sustainability • Training at Household level and Overall Sustainability On the other hand, the results revealed a negative significant relationship between contribution of labor and overall sustainability. The results concerning the relationship between the indicators of demand -responsiveness and individual indicators of sustainability reflect the following: 1. Project Initiation High scores of project initiation were found to be more likely positively related with high levels of; Consumer Satisfaction • Willingness to Sustain water system The above implies that communities where people participated in the decision to build a water system. and where they perceived the source of the project idea as originating from within the community, they are more likely to be satisfied with their water system and hence more willing to sustain it. However, high scores for project initiation were negatively correlated with O&M practices. No significant relationship was found between project initiation and physical condition of the water source, as well as the financial management practices. 2. Informed Choice Among the indicators of demand-responsiveness, informed choice was found to be having the closest relationship with sustainability. positively correlating Significantly with three of  35 the sustainability indicators at a level of 0.001. The three sustainability indicators that tested positively related to informed choice were; • Physical condition of the water system • Consumer Satisfaction • Willingness to sustain the water system. No significant relationship was found between informed choice and O&M practices nor with financial management practices. 3. Contribution of Cash Communities which scored high on the contribution of cash towards the construction and maintenance of the system were found to have; Better O&M practices Better financial management practices. This implies that where community members are required to pay cash contributions, they are more likely to be keen to ensure that their money is put to. good use. On the other hand, a negative relationship was found to exist between cash contribution and willingness to sustain the water system. No significant correlation was found between cash contribution and the physical condition of the water source. 4. Contribution of Labor Surprisingly, an inverse relationship was found between labor contribution and sustainability both in the overall, as well as in the individual indicators of sustainability. Communities which scored highly on labor contributions were more likely to have; Dissatisfied consumers • Poor O&M practices • Poor financial management practices Similarly, no significant correlation was found between labor contribution and physical condition of water source nor with willingness to sustain the system. 5. Training of Committees This was not tested as the committee training scores were uniform in all the communities studied. Training at Household Level Training at household level was found to be positively significantly related to; Consumer satisfaction • Willingness to sustain the water system. There was no significant relationship between communities whose members reported more training at household level with the physical condition of their water sources, nor with their operations and maintenance practices, nor with their financial management practices. 

36 6. Gender Analysis . Overall, results from both questionnaire interviews and FGDs indicate no significant differences between men and women in their participation in project activities. However, women tended to contribute more than males towards building the systems, while men participated more in training sessions than women. I I I I I I I I 37 XII Conclusions and Policy Recommendations I In general terms, RUWASA 1 was not implemented on the basis of a demand-responsive approach as currently defined. Eligibility was not pegged to any strictly followed rules and the idea to build the water systems largely originated from outside the community. What is evidently clear in this study of 16 communities is the high sustainalibilty level despite the fact that the project was not demand-driven. The lesson we learn in RUWASA I 1 is that if water is a priority need for communities, ensuring effective software and hardware implementation by the project together with clearly thought 0 & M guidelines can contributed to high levels of sustainability. The ability and willingness to sustain the water systems. and the overall rankings of sustainability in RUWASA 1 ought to be understood in the context of the short period that the water systems have been operating (i.e all systems were relatively new), and no major breakdown had occured. Further, it oLlght to be recognized that RUWASA 1 officially closed at the end of 1995, indicating that project influence is still strong. It is, therefore. not very clear as to whether communities will sustain their systems in the next 10 years I without external assistance. . In light of the study findings. recommendations have been put forward which can help RUWASA 11 in project implementation especially the sustainability of the water systems. It is also hoped that the recommendations can contribute globally towards a better understanding of the nature of demand and linkages to sustainability. and facilitate the improved design of future RWS projects. Eligibility and Prioritization Criteria I Although the overall sustainability was found to be high. it could possibly have been much higher if target communities had on their own demanded for the service. Certain rules that constitute a demand-driven approach need to be put in place to guide RUWASA II if high sustainability levels have to be registered. These include: • Communities initiating requests for the service. • 0 & M guidelines discussed under "Eligibility" to precede water construction • Provision of information to communities on different technology options and their costs. This would enable communities make an informed choice. Financial Policy Communities ought to be assisted in developing and implementing clear financial rules. Ad hocism in tariff payment i.e to pay as to when the system breaks down needs to be replaced with a regularised system (monthly, quarterly, bi-annully or annually. This will ensure constant savings and hence regular operation of the system. Accumulated savings can as well enable the community replace the system once it became obsolete without external support.  38 Operation and Maintenance Although most sytems were generally well maintained, others indicated deficiences in maintenance especially the cleaning of the systems environs. The routine maintenance had been left to caretakers who are either poorly remunerated or work on voluntary basis. Caretakers need to be formally contracted and officially remunerated for their work. A portion of tariff raised should be designated for paying the caretakers. Follow-up in RUWASA I There is need for RUWASA to keep its monitoring presence in the communities that were served under RUWASA I, until local governments are ready to take up the challenge. In the long-run, (Le. after 5 years), RUWASA might need to carry out a study to assess how the water sources are performing. I 39 ANNEX I: QUESTIONNAIRES HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE Name of the Interviewer Project Name: RUWASA Village name and water source # ---------------------­ This questionnaire should be administered to one adult member of the household. The enumerator should introduce himself/herself to the individual and explain that you are a researcher and would like to ask them some questions about their water system. Explain I that you hope that the experiences they share with you will help the people who provide these type of systems to learn how to better serve communities in future. Explain that there are no right or wrong answers for any of the questions you will be asking, and that I you ask only that they answer the questions as best and as honestly as they can, based on their own perceptions and experiences. I GENERAL INFORMATION Interviewee Information I H1 Sex H2 Age --­ a. female b. male H3 Are you the head of the household? H4 How many people live in this a. Yes ---- b. No ---- household? ------­ HS What is the main occupation of the HSa Occupation of spouse I a. head of the household Civil Service, government employee b. Petty trade a. Civil Service, government employee I c. d. Cultivator (works own land) Private company employee b. c. Petty trade Cultivator (works own land) e. Craftsman d. Private company employee I f. g. Agricultural laborer or farm worker Pensioner e. f. Craftsman Agricultural laborer or farm worker h. Others ---------- g. Pensioner I i. None h. I. Others -------­ None H6 Who is the most highly educated H6a What is the highest level of education I member of the house (currently living there)? obtained? a. Did not go to school I a. b. father Mother b. c. Attended primary school Completed primary school c. son d. Attended secondary school  40 d. daughter e. completed secondary school e. other f. Attended University f. none g. completed University h. Other type of school ISSUES RELATED TO WATER H7 Is there any organization or committee H8 What type of organization or in your community in charge of water? committee is it? a. Yes a. Water committee b. No (go to question #14) b. LC I c. LC III d. LCV e. Others .~.-.--- H9 Do you know the names of the Hi0 Are you, or someone in your family, a members of the organization or member of the water organization or committee? (mark yes only if they can committee? list at least two names) a. Yes, I am a. Yes b. Yes, someone else is b. No c. Yes, more than one Who are they? d. No 1. ------­ 2. _­ ----_ ...... 3. ------­ 4. -------­ H11 Are you, or someone in your family, a H12 Are you satisfied with the job leader of any other community performed by the water organization organization or committee? or committee? a. Yes, I am a. Yes b. Yes, someone else is b. No c. Yes, more than one d. No H13 Did you, or someone in your family, d. Improved public well (w or w/out hand participate in selecting the members pump of this organization or committee? e Improved spring catchment (no a. Yes, I did system) b. Yes, someone else is c. Yes, more than one f. Improved rain water collection d. No g. Non-improved private well H14 Which is your current source of drinking water (primary source)? h. Non-improved public well a. House connection (gravity, i. river, spring irrigation canal pumped ...) j. Non-improved rain water b. Public stand pipe k. Purchase from vendor ., 41 c. Improved private well (w or w/out I. Other hand pump) SITUATION BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER PROJECT H16 How long does it take to fetch water H16a How much time do you spend (per trip) before the improved water fetching water (per trip) now? system was built (i.e. how far did you have to walk and wait to collect water a. Less than five minutes and return)? b. Between five and fifteen minutes c. Between 15 and 60 minutes a. b. Less than five minutes Between five and fifteen minutes d. More than 60 minutes c. Between 15 and 60 minutes d. More than 60 minutes H17 Did you have to pay for your drinkin~ H18 Whose idea was it to build the water water before the water system was system? built? a. Yes a Water committee/ neighbour/community group b. No b. RUWASA C. d. LC1/LC3 Extension worker e. Others H19 Before the water system was f. H2O I don't know Who informed you that you could constructed, did you know that the receive this help? community could receive help from outside the village? a. Water committee/Member of the community I a. b. Yes No b. c. The project Local government d. Others I H21 Before the construction of the water e. H22 I don't know If there was another priority, which project, was water supply your most one was it? I important need, or would you have preferred something else? a. b. School Health clinic c. Road I a. b. preferred something else water most important d. e. Latrine/sanitation Electricity c. preferred water and something else f. Other--­ I d. equally don/t know g. Don't know H23 Were you offered other kinds of H24 why did the community decide to I projects besides a water system build the water system? " 42 a. Yes a. Need (health, distance, etc.) b. No b. Not to loose opportunity for funds c. I don't know c. d. Community did not decide Other , H25 Do you use the water system (or use H26 Did you or any member of your family wells) on a regular basis? participate in the decision to build the water system? a. Yes b. No (Go to Question H91) a. Yes b. No c. I don't know H27 Did RUWASA ask any requirements H28 Did the community choose between from you before providing alternative water sources for your assistance? water system (Le. river, spring, well)? a. Yes (mark only if they can name a. Yes some below) b. No b. No c. Don't know d. Options not possible What were the requirements? a. Latrines b. Collect funds ­ c. Materials H29 Did the community choose between H30 Did the community choose between different technology options for your different levels of service (Le. the water system (i.e. borehole, spring, number of people per facility, dug well, improving traditional household v. public connections? service)? a. Yes a. Yes b. No b. No c. Don't know H31 Did the community participate in H32 With whom did you discuss the choosing the location of the facility? location of the service? a. Someone from the community a. Yes b. RUWASA b. No c. LCIor LC3 d. Others---­ e. More than one of these H33 If you had options or choices, how did H34 If you had options or choices, were you learn about them? you informed about their costs? a. Meetings a. Yes b. Brochures b. No c. House visits c. Don't know d. Informal discussions e. Others-­ f. Don't know, not applicable  43 H35 Did you know what your H35a What were these responsibilities? responsibilities would be for the operation and maintenance of the -------------------------­ water source? ----------------------------- a. Yes b. No ----------------------------­ H36 Did you or any member of your family H37 Who made the final decision about participate in the decision of what the type of water system that was type of water system to build? built? Yes a. A member of the community a. b. c. No Don't know b. c. Government (LC1, LC3) RUWASA d. Don't know e. Other H38. Were you happy with the final H39 Did you or your household have to decision? contribute anything to build the water system (Le. labor, money, materials) a. Yes b. No a. Yes c. Don't know b. No (Go to H46) c. Don't know H40 If you contributed cash, how much did H42 Vehicle, animals to carry materials you contribute to the water project? -- a. Yes b. No H43 Materials H41 How many days of work or labor did a. Yes b. No you or someone in your family contribute to the water project? H44 Food I a. 1-7 days a. Yes b. No b. 8-14 days H45 Others--­ I c. d. 15-30 days More than 30 days H46 Do you know the total cost of the e. None water system? How much? (correct I f. Others amount to be filled in by enumerators prior to interview based on RUWASA data): I a. b. Yes (if correct) No (if not correct) H47 Do you know the total value of your H48 have you or any member of your I a. household contribution? Yes family participated in training sessions related to the water system b. No I a. b. Yes No (Go to H59) I H49 a. In how many training sessions did you/they participate 1-2 H50 Do you remember the topics covered in the training sessions?  44 b. 3-5 a. Yes c. More than 5 b. No (Go to H56) What were these topics? (Mark each topic mentioned) H51 Operation and maintenance H52 Administration a. Yes b. No a. Yes b. No H53 Hygiene H54 Construction a. Yes b. No a. Yes b. No H55 Others --------- H56 How do you evaluate these training sessions a. Useful b. Fair c. Not useful CONSUMER SATISFACTION H57 Now that you have the water project, H58 How many other sources of water do do you use more or less water in your you continue to use (for domestic house use)? a. More a. 1 or more, regularly b. Less b. 1 or more, seasonally c. Same c. o or not regularly H59 Why do you use other sources of H60 Are you satisfied with your water water? yield? a. Water system is not reliable a. Very b. Too far b. Somewhat c. Quality of water c. No d. Others H61 do you have water every day of the H62 How many hours per day is water week from the improved source? available from the improved source? a. Yes a. Less b. No b. 7-12 hours c. Depends on season c. 12-23 hours d. 24 hours c. depends on season H63 Are you satisfied with the number of H64 Are you satisfied with the quantity of hours per day water is available water you receive from the improved a. Yes source on a weekly basis b. No a. Yes c. Depends on season b. No c. Depends on season H65 What do you think of the color of the H66 How do you rate the flavor/taste of water? the water a. Good a. Good b. Fair b. Fair 

45 c. H67 Bad Do you think it is safe to drink the c. H68 Bad In general, how do you rate the water without boiling it or using service provided by your water chlorine? source? a. Yes a. Good b. Bo b. Fair c. H69 I don't know Are you giving new uses to the water. c. Bad H70 How much do you pay each year for since you have the improved water a your water? ------ (mark for none, b source? for 3,000, don't know) a. Yes b. No If they do not pay, go to H75 What are the uses? -----­ H71 a. What do you think of the price of the amount you contribute? Expen~ive H72 Have you ever had difficulty to pay a. this contribution? Yes b. c. Fair Inexpensive b. c. No I don't know/sometimes H73 Do you know what the money you H74 What does it pay? a. pay is used for? Yes a. Operation and maintenance of the system b. No b. Pay caretakers c. d. to build another water source when the present one becomes old all of the above e. I don't know H75 If there was a very serious problem H76 Do you think that the community with the water system, where would would have the necessary funds to I the community get the funds to pay for the repairs? build a new water source when this one becomes obsolete? a. From the yearly contribution a. Yes I b. c. An additional household contribution A contribution from the local government b. c. No I am not surell don't know I d. e. Donations from outside the community More than one f. Others -------­ I H77 Do you think that the community will H78 To whom does the water source have the financial capacity to keep belong? I a. the system working over the next 10 years? Yes a. b. c. Community LC I LC 1\ I b. c. No Don't know d. e. f. District government RUWASA Others -­ g. I don't know I H79 How many times has the water H80 How long did the breakdown last? -­  46 source failed in the last year? -----­ What do you think should be improved in the water source? H81 Are you willing to pay more than you H82 do you have to stand in line for long pay now for improved service? time to collect the water? a. Yes a. Yes b. No b. No c. I don't know/depends c. Sometimes d. Don't know Note: if the family does not receive the water from a public stand pipe or hand pump, go to H84 How many households share the question #H85 same spring or pump? -----­ H85 Do you have a latrine H86 Was the latrine constructed before or a. Yes, traditional after the improved water source? b. Yes, SANPLAT a. Before c. No (IF NO, STOP) b. After H8? Have you had any problems with the H88 If so, what are they? latrine? a. Yes ------------------­ b. No --..----------------­ Note: The following questions are only for people who are NOT connected to or do not use the water system H91 Why are you not using the water H92 would you like to be able to sue the system? system? a. Yes a. I don't want it, the traditional source is b. No good enough. b. too expensive H93 Do you know what you need to do to c. I was not offered the service have access to the system? d. The network doesn't reach my. a. Yes house/there are other technical b. No problems e. I am new to this community H94 Would you be willing to pay to have f. Don't know access to the system? g. Others --------- a. Yes . b. No I I  47 COMMUNITY LEVEL QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire should be administered to the members of the water committee (or other organization in charge of managing the water system). The enumerator should explain to the committee members that you are researchers, and that you are collecting information related to their water system. Explain that you hope that the experiences they share with you will help the people who provide these type of systems to learn how to better serve communities in the future. Explain that there are no right or wrong answers for any of the questions you will be asking, and that you ask only that they answer the questions as best and as honestly as they can, based on their own experiences. Project refers to RUWASA Water system refers to improvements made to the community water supply through the project (also includes wells, hand pumps ...) Note: If no consensus is reached, leave answer blank I Name of the Interviewer(s): I Project Name: RUWASA District: Community name, number of source: --------------------­ Community Code (1-15, as determined by RWS Study) ----­ OBSERVATION C1 Type of organization or committee C2 Are the water user committees responsible for managing the recognized by the govemment community's water system: a. Yes a. b. c. Water committee LC 1 LC 3 b. c. No Don't know I d. e. LC5 Other -------­ C3 How many members does it have ---­ C4 How many female members -----­ I C5 How was the water committee C6 How often does the water committee selected? meet? I a. b. c. Elected by the community Selected by the LC 1 Other a. b. c. Yes, every month Yes, every other month Yes, every 3 months d. Only when necessary e. Dopes not meet regularly C7 Since this initiation, has the water C8 Has the water committee called a committee changed any of its general meeting of the community members? during the last 6 months? a. Yes a. Yes  48 b. No b. No C9 In what month and year was the C10 In what month and year was the water project requested? construction of this project started? --------------- --------------- C11 In what month and year did the C12 Before the construction of the water construction finish? system, was there any other need --------------------- that your community wanted more than water? a. Yes b. No (answer h to C13, skip to C15) c. Don't know (answer g to C13, skip to C15) C13 What was it? C14 - Skip a. School b. Child care centre C15 why did the community agree to build c. Health centre the water system? d. Road a. perceived need e. Electricity b. opportunity f. Other c. imposed/community did not decide g. Don't know d. Don't know, other h. None C16 Whose idea was it to build the water C17 How did you know that you could get system? help to build this project? a. Water committee a. visit by RUWASA staff b. Member of the community b. municipal govtlleaders c. LC1 c. radiolinformation campaig n d. RUWASA d. didn't know, just appeared e. We don't know e. extension agents f. Other ------- f. Other ------­ g. more than one C18 Do you know where the money that C19 Did the community have to meet any financed this project came from? requirements in advance in order to receive project assistance to build a a. Yes (can name) water system? Mark answer only b. No (can't name correctly) after asking the following: C20 Did you choose between alternative What were those requirements? (mark all water sources for your water system that apply) design? (spring, borehole, wells) 1. Organize water committee a. Yes Y--- N ----­ b. Not applicable 2. Provide money c. No Y - N ----­ 3. Provide land C21 Skip (enter b) Y-- N ---­ 4. Provide materials or labor Y --- N-­ C22 Skip (enter b for data entry) 5. Prepare proposal or request Y --- N­ C23 Did you participate in choosing the 6. Participate in training location of the facilities? Y - N ---­ a. Yes 7. Build latrines  49 ..: b. Not applicable Y ---- N ~-- c. No 8. Other -----­ 9. None or don't know a. Yes (can name 50% of requirements) b. No (can't name) C24 Were you informed of the costs of C25 If different sources were possible, any of the different options offered which was preferred by the (Le. sources, technology, location) community? a. Yes a. Protected spring b. No b. Handpump c. Well C26 Did you consider the cost of the d. C27 Others ---­ Skip (enter c for data entry) options in your final decision? a. Yes b. No c. Not applicable C28 Was the type of water system C29 If the type of water system selected selected the one that the community was not what the community wanted, wanted? why did the community undertake Yes (Go to question 30) thew work? a. b. c. No Don't know a. b. It was imposed on us To take advantage of a funding opportunity I c. To accept recommendations given to us, we were convinced d. govemment decision I C30 do you know the approximate total e. C31 Other Is your community responsible for cost of this water system? (correct operating and maintaining the water I a. amount is --) Yes (amount said is correct) a. system before it was constructed? Yes b. Don't know or amount is incorrect b. No I C32 Was the community aware of its C33 Did each household in the community responsibilities to ensure the contribute money to the water I operation and maintenance of the water system before it was constructed? system, when it was first built? If yes, how much ----­ a. Yes I b. c. Partially aware No I C34 How many days of work per household did the community C35 Was there any other type of contribution? contribute to this system, on a. Yes I average? ---- b. No List ------------­ C36 What was the approximate value of C37 (Skip, enter b for data entry) I the total contribution of the community? (including cash, land, C38 Did the water committee (or  50 - , - - ­ labor and materials) -------- (leave community) participate in the blank for don't know) supervision of the construction of the water system a. Yes b. No C39 Was the water committee (or C40 Were members of the water community) responsible for managing committee trained during the project funds for construction? implementation? a. Yes a. Yes b. No b. No (Skip to C48) C41 How many members of the water C42-47 In what subject were they trained? committee were trained? (do not C42-47. Mark "Yes" for all that a. ---men apply) b. ----women C42 Operations and maintenance a. Yes b. No C43 Admin.lfin. management C44 Sanity/hygiene education a. Yes b. No a. Yes b. No C45 Organization and leadership C46 Design and construction a. Yes b. No a. Yes b. No C47 Others ----- C48 did the community participate in any training? a. Yes b. No (Skip to CS8) C49 How many members of the C50 How many of them were women community were trained? ----­ CS1-56 In what subjects were they trained C52 Administration a. Yes b. No C51 Operations and maintenance a. Yes b. No C53 Hygiene education a. Yes b. No C54 Organization and leadership C55 Design and construction a. Yes b. No a. Yes b. No C56 Other ------- C57 How do you evaluate the training sessions a. Useful b. Fairly useful c. Not useful Why: (text) ---------­ ---------------------- 

51 PRESENT CONDITION OF WATER SYSTEM C5B How many people are involved in C59 is there a water system caretaker managing and operating the water a. Yes system? ----- b. No C60 Is there a treasurer or administrator? C61 Are these employees paid a. Yes b. No a. Yes b. No C62 Do you think that the caretakers are C63 to whom does the water system sufficiently trained to perform their belong? job? a. Water committee a. Yes b. LC1 or LC3 b. No c. RUWASA c. Don't know e. Individual households tOthers, don't know C64 In general, how do you rate the water C65 Which are the main problems with the system performance? operation and maintenance of the a. Good water system? b. Fair a. None c. Bad b. Technical operational c. Water shortage d. Financial e. More than 1 of above f. Other C66 How many times has the system C67 Has the community been able to failed in the last year (not counting undertake all required repairs during regular preventive maintenance the past year? tasks, use average)? a. None have been required a. 0 b. Yes b. 1-3 c. No c. 4 or more C6B When the system breaks down, how C69 Are there any provisions in place to many days does it take on average to control the water quality repair? a. 1 a. Yes b. 2-5 b. No c. 6 or more C70 How many households are there in C71 Has the quality of the water the community that do not receive decreased since you first started service from the project? ------ using the water system? a. Yes Why do they receive no service? b. No ------------------------ ------------------------ C72 Has the quantity of the water C73 Is the quantity of water produced by decreased since you first started the system enough for the using the water system? community? a. Yes a. Yes  52 b. No b. No C74 If the users are contributing, what is C75 Who decided on the amount? the average amount annual charged a. Community members per connection (user)? b. Project staff, govt., other ----------- c. Water committee (wI or wlout assistance) d. Community with water committee e. Others C76 Which expenses are covered by the C77 What percentage of the water system annual fee? users pay their annual payments? a. Part of operational costs a. From 1 to 20% b. all operational costs b. From 21 to 50% c. O&M (includes repairs) c. From 51 to 80% d. O&M and expansion d. From 81 to 100% e. O&M and water system replacement e. I don't know and/or community savings f. Other C78 is the service cut-off for non-payment a. Yes b. No C79 Do you have problems to get spare C80 Do you have problems obtaining tools parts and accessories to work on the water system? a. Often a. Often b. Sometimes b. Sometimes c. Seldom/never c. Seldom/never C81 If there were a major breakdown with C82 If you needed technical assistance to the system, would you be able to repair the water system, do you know finance all repairs with funds available who to go to? within the community? a. Yes a. Yes b. It depends on the situation b. No c. No c. Maybe d. Don't know If so, who? -------­ C82a Is this person usually available when C83 Do you think that the community has needed? the capacity to ensure the proper a. Yes operation of the water system over b. No the long-term (say, the next 10 c. Don't know years)? a. Yes b. No c. Don't know C84 Do you think the community has the capacity to replace the system when it becomes old? a. Yes b. No c. Don't know 

53 Interview Record:

Participants Women Men Total

Active in meeting Other

Other  54 ANNEX TO COMMUNITY QUESTIONNAIRE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS Inorma f 't f Ion b ase d on d'IScUSSlons WI'th th e community Activities (Check if undertaken) Responsible Agency and Comments Pre-construction Duration: i Promotion of project Community organization Formation of water committee Hygiene education Discussion of technology options and levels of service Water system design and selection of option Training in construction Request for project Approval of project '" Water Committee training in: Construction Duration Contractor selection Construction of water system Construction supervision Water committee training in: Community training in: Water system hand-over Post-Construction Duration Water committee training in: I Community training in: Long-term technical assistance I I 55 I WATER SYSTEM ASSESSMENT I The information collected on this form must be closely verified for accuracyll! I Project Name: RUWASA Community/village name and water point ---------------­ I RWS Study Code: --------­ A. Community Data I T1 Total population: a. ----- men b. ---- women I T2 Total number of households: -----­ T3 # of houses served by the water system provided through this project: --­ I T4 Classification of poverty levels (according to national statistics): a. very poor I b. poor c. medium I T5 Housing density: a. concentrated b. semi-dispersed c. very dispersed I T6 Distance from the nearest town (district capacity): ---Km I T7Travei time from the nearest town (district capital): --- minutes in car T8 Does the community have electricity? I a. Yes b. No I B. Water System before the Project T9 What was the water situation before the project? I a. Traditional unimproved source (no external assistance) b. Partial improvement (i.e. spring protection, hand pump in school...) c. Complete project (Le. water system, numerous hand pumps) I Brief description of the previous system: (consider: coverage, reliability, 0 & M arrangements, when built, by whom, type of system...) I I  56 C. Water System build through Project Assistance: T10 Description of system: a. New complete system b. Rehabilitation or expansion of an existing system c. Total replacement of an existing system d. Partial new system T11 Source: a. River b. Spring c. Borehole (deep well, not hand-dug) d. Dug well e. Rain water f. Other surface water (lake, reservoir...) g. Extension of existing water system Description of system components: consider: source, pumping system, storage tank{s), distribution network, # of people served, distances. Use a village map. Levels of services provided T12 Public stand pipes: Number -----­ T13 Protected springs: Number ----­ T14 Handpumps or open wells: Number ----­ T15 Rain water catchments: Number - ­ T16 Other: -------­ Who was not served and why? (include numbers, technical and financial reasons, demand) Other works built through the project Other works built by the community after the project: Consider: system expansion D. Water System Costs (data to be collected from project and/or community files. based on availability) Hardware on Iv: T17 Total cost of water system construction: ------­ T18 Project contribution (% of total construction cost): ---------­ 

57 T19 Community contribution (% of total construction cost): -------­ T20 Other contribution (% of total construction cost): -------­ T21 Source of other contribution (if applicable): ----------­ T22 Cost of construction, per capita (based on the number of people actually connected to the system): --------- (total cost/number of users) Details of the community contribution to construction cost: Percentage of the total project cost: --------­ Contribution per household: Cash --------­ Unskilled labour: ----­ Local materials: ------­ Others: T23 Value of total community contribution, per capita serviced (including cash, labour,

land, materials and other): ------- (for multiple systems, use average) . T24 Total cost of the system (including administration, overhead, software, hardware): ­ -------- note if information is not available. T25 Total cost of the system, per capita serviced (including administration, overhead, software, hardware): ------ (for multiple systems, use average). T25a Was the community paid? a. Yes b. No

Unit Cost analysis: This analysis requires the review of the construction contract Item (all appropriate materials should be included) Unit Unit Cost Item Cost Materials: cement Materials: pipe Materials: Materials: Materials: Materials: Materials: Skilled labour: Unskilled labour  58 Item (all appropriate materials should be included) Unit Unit Cost Item Cost System design Supervision . Administration E. Water System Evaluation (by Observation) T26 Are there any possibilities of contaminating the water source(s): (open access, animals, etc.)? a. Yes b. No T27 Are efforts in place to preserve and protect the water source{s)? T28 Is there a chlorinator system (or other water treatment system)? a. Yes, working b. Yes, but not working, or not in use c. No T29 Is there a water quality control program and are samples taken periodically? a. Yes b. Yes, but only at initial hand-over system c. No, water quality has never been tested T30 Are any of the system components (open wells, masonry works, etc.) contaminated? a. Yes b. No T31 . Water colour (use average for wells) a. with colour b. without colour T32 Turbidity of the water (use average for wells) a. murky water b. clear water T33 Quality of construction of the water system (take average for wells): a. Good b. Average c. Poor  59 T34 Is the water systemlhandpump working a. Yes b. No T35 If it is not working, is it being repaired? a. Yes b. No Ifyou answered NO to the two prior questions, go to question #T44 How long has it not been working, T36 Are there serious defects in the construction of the water catchment or wells? (cracks, leakages, well too shallow, spring box not well designed, etc.) a. Yes b. No T37 Are there serious defects in the masonry works (tanks, aprons, etc.) a. Yes b. No Note: Answer T38-T41 for water systems only. For open wells, hand pumps and spring protection, go to T42 T38·T41 Skip Answer T42-T43 for wells, handpumps, rain water and spring protection facilities. T42 Does water flow at the first pumping action (for pumps), does it flow when the tap is first open (spring protection), is the bucket and pulley system working (for open wells), for rain water is there water in the tank? I a. Yes, all pumps/wells/tanks b. the majority of the pumps/wells/tanks c. No I If no, reason I G. Legal Matters I T44 Who owns the land on which the water source(s) is/(are) located? a. Community, individual households (for wells), water committee, or I b. c. municipality Owner unknown Private property; permission required to visit I d. Private property with concession to community  60 T45 Skip T46· Who owns the water system a. Legal recognition: community, individuals (for weils, water committee, municipality b. No legal recognition: community, individuals, water committee or municipality c. Unclear d. Other I. Technical Capacity of the Hand Pump Mechanic (Evaluation based on Interview) ­ Number of people in charge of managing the system (mechanics. plumbers, etc.) T47 Are the mechanics paid a salary? a. Yes b. No c. No applicable, household management T48 Were the mechanics hired based on their technical capacity a. Yes b. No c. Not applicable T49 Have the mechanics (or individuals) received training to operate the system? a. Yes b. No T50 do you consider the mechanics (individual households) capable of operating and maintaining all aspects of the system? (consider frequency of visits, preventive maintenance, training, etc.) a. Yes b. Somewhat c. No T51 Do the mechanics have access to tools and parts? a. Yes b. No T52 In case the mechanic does not have access, does he know where he/she can obtain the tools? a. Yes b. No  61 T53 Has the mechanic performed a large repair or important expansion to the system? a. Yes b. No T54 If the mechanic does not know how to fix a problem, does he/she know where to find help? a. Yes b. No T55 Does the mechanic have available the technical designs/blueprints of the system? a. Yes b. No T56 Does he/she have written instructions on how to operate the system/pump? a. Yes b. No Analysis of the Financial Feasibility of the System 3 (a) Average annual payment charged: ----- (per m , if possible) (b) Total of annual fees collected (consider number of houses connected): ---­ Worksheet to analyze financial situation (for surveyor use only) REVENUES EXPENDITURES Tariff collected Grease To be collected Stationery connection Salaries Reinstallation spare parts Interest fee Transport I Donations Others Administrative costs Materials Food I Entertainment Others Total I Prior balance I Monthly revenue Total Expenditures I Grand Total  62 AVAILABLE Cash Bank Total available J. Flexibility and Validity of the Tariff T57 Who established the present annual payment level? a. Community b. Community and another institution (or individual) c. An institution or individual, without the commodity d. Don't Know T58 Based on what criteria a. System operational cost b. Other criteria or don't know T59 Is there a different structure for different users (or different consumption rates)? a. Yes b. No T60 Has the payment level ever been modified in order to cover the real costs of system operation? a. Yes b. No c Not necessary, it was set correctly T61 What costs are covered by the payment structure? (assuming collection rate is 100%). a. Operation, maintenance and savings to replace the system b. Operation, maintenance and savings for major repairs to the system c. Operation, maintenance without significant savings d. Operation but no maintenance e. There is no tariff f. does not cover operation T62 Does the water committee sanction poeple (cut off) when they do not pay? a. Yes b. No T63 For the new users, is there a start-up fee? a. Yes b. No · 63 K. Financial Management T64 Is there an accountant or treasurer in charge of financial management? a. Yes b. No T65 Did he/she receive training? a. Yes b. No T66 Do you think that he/she is capable of managing the system finances? a. Yes b. No T67 Is there a bank account? a. Yes b. No T68 If there is no bank account, is there any other place to keep and administer the funds? a. Yes b. No T69 Are periodic financial statements or reports produced? a. Yes b. No T70 Are these reports/statements shared with the system users? a. Yes b. No L. Financial Analysis T71 Percentage of users who have paid their annual fee a. more than 90% b. from 50 to 90% c. less than 50% T72 Is it possible to cover all the operations and maintenance costs with the fee collected? a. Yes b. No  64 T73 With the resources available, is it possible to cover all the operations, maintenance, repairs and expansion costs? a. Yes b. No T74 Has:it been necessary to resort to other means to collect funds from the community to pay for repairs to the system or to perform other community improvements? a. Yes b. No T75 Could the replacement of the water system be financed entirely by the community? (taking into account the cost of the work and a 10% depreciation per year) a. Yes b. No  65 RWS GLOBAL STUDY Qualitative Assessment of Community Questionnaire {QQ} Community Name: Community Code: Write 1-2 pages, summarizing the impressions of the survey team 1. Do you feel that the project responded to community demand (why or why not)? Consider: did the community choose to participate or was the project imposed? did the community want a new water system? was the community able to choose its preferred level of service? did the community know its responsibilities for operation and maintenance? did the community actively contribute to the project? 2. Did all the members of the community participate? If not, who was excluded and why? Consider: individual household women as individuals as a group poorer and richer segments of the population which groups/individuals were most influential in making decisions 3. Do you think that the water system is sustainable? Why or why not? Consider: physical condition of system quality of service consumer satisfaction ability to operate and maintain the system organizational, financial, technical, rules and enforcement mechanisms willingness to maintain the system I 4. How effective was the project in implementing the software and hardware of the project: I Consider: providing information promoting participation of all community members listening to the community I undertaking training and hygiene education designing and construction the water system being cost effective I what could have been done better 5. What were the major problems encountered during project implementation? I 6. Any other comments I· 1 66 ANNEX 2: SAMPLE SELECTION • Community Selection 1 A list of communities that had been provided with water by the project was obtained from RUWASA. The lists were up-dated to include communities with the following parameters: 1. Existence of the water pOint constructed by RUWASA. 2. Typical rural communities, Le. all urban or peri-urban communities were eliminated. 3. Communities with water pOints/systems of between 2-5 years old. This rendered several communities in Mukono district ineligible for inclusion into the study as water points had been constructed during 1996. • Steps Using a systematic sampling design with a random start 16 communities; 8 in Mukono and 8 in Kamuli were selected to represent the entire project area. All these communities were rural, and majority fairly far from the main towns of Kamuli and Mukono. Before project implementation all communities surveyed did not have access to protected water sources. 1 I I I I  67 ANNEX 3: INDICATOR CATEGORIES ! • Decision to Participate 1.3 Results on the Ground- Project Initiative in RUWASA I basically originated outside the beneficiary communities as Table 1 shows. Table 1: Whose Idea Was it to Build the Project I H 18 Inside Local Govt Don't Know Community Project Other I TOTAL 33 (15.7%) 71 (33.8%) 64 (30.5%) 13 (6.2%) 29 (13.8) I I Source: Household Questionnaire Other priorities (besides water) and other Projects offered . . Although project initiative did not originate Inside the community, majority respondents I contended that besides water they did not have any other serious pressing need. At the time of the water -system construction, water was of the utmost priority for most communities in the project area. In this regard, RUWASA I being a stand-alone project no other kinds of projects besides a water system were offered to the beneficiary I communities. Table 2: Did you Have Other Kinds of Projects Besides a Water System? Were I you Offered Other Kinds of Projects Besides a Water System? Other Priorities Other Projects Offered I H 21 H23 Yes No Unsure Yes No Unsure I Overal Total 12 (4.8%) 217 (86.1%) 23 (9.1%) Overall Total 13 (5.1) 225 (88.2%) 17 (6.7%) I Source: Household Questionnaire Household Participation in the Decision to Build the Water Project. I Table 3: Did you or any Member of your Household Participate in the .. t 0 B UI'Id th e Pro -ect? DeClslon . . I H26 Yes No Unsure Overall Total 151(61.6%) 86(35.1%) 8(3.3%) I Source: Household Questionnaire  68 Informed Choice 2,3 Results on the G"round Choice in Level of Service Household Participation in What Type of Project to Build Table 4: Did you or Any Member of Your Household Participate in the " deClslon 0 f wh at T , t t 0 B UI'Id ~peo f PrOJec H36 Yes No " Unsure Overall Total 60 (24.7%) 174 (71.6%) 9 (3.7%) Household perception on who made the final decision about what type of system to build Table 5: " Who Made the Final Decision About What Type of Project to Build H37 Member of Community Local GovtJ Don't Know Community Leaders Project Other Overall 8 (3.3%) 44 (18.1%) 166 (68.3%) 11 (4.5%) 14 (5.8%) Total - Knowledge of Requirements ,

69 Table 6: Financial Contribution to Capital Investment, by Community (C33fT03 and C34) Community Cash (Ug,Shs.) Labour Household (Days) Bugabo - 3 Bugejwa 2,500 2 Bukumbi 300 6 Bulondo 2,000 3 Bwisule - 7 Gabanya 500 7 Kabula .: 30 Kanansaike 500 4 Kirisiru 1,000 14 Kyamabale - ~ 21 'It Lwamba 3 Muli 1,000 3 Nalya - 30 Namalere 300 30 Namavundu 500 3 Namayandha * 2 Source: Water and Technical Question I Responses in regard to financial contribution to capital investment by community varied from community to community. The same responses were also obtained in connection I with labour contribution. In general, however, at least all communities contributed labor. The financial contribution in communities where it was made was not meant to cover construction costs but rather 0 & M. I I I I  70 SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS • Physical Condition Results: Table 7: Physical Condition of Systems YES CATEGORIES I Percentage of Rehabilitated System (T10) 4 (25%) Defects in Catchment or Wells (T36) 0(0%) Defects in Masonry (T37) 2 (12.5%) Exposed Pipe Leakages (T38) o (O%) Leaking Standpipes (T39) 0(0%) Insufficient Pressure in all Parts (T41 ) 0(0%) Possibilities of Contaminating Water Source (T26) 1 (6.3%) Contaminated system Components (T30) *8 (50%) Source: Technical Evaluation of Water System * Was difficult to technically evaluate. The findings might not be representing the actual picture. . • Consumer Satisfaction In general, community members talked highly of their water and hence consumer satisfaction was. quite high. Majority noted that they had water everyday of the week (95.1 %) and felt confident to drink water without boiling (86.9%). Results: H57 - H68 Table 8: Do you have Water Everyday of the Week H61 Yes No Unsure Overall Total 233 (95.1%) 7 (2.9%) 5 (2.0%) Table 9: Perceived Safety to Drink Water Without Boili!1g H61 Yes No Unsure Overall Total 213 (86.9%) 27 (11.0%) 5 (2.0%) I I 71 Majority respondents (73.4%) noted that ever since they got the water facility they were using more water in their homes. I Table 10: Do you Use More or Less Water in Your Home? H57 More Less Same Overall Total 179 (73.4%) 10 (4.1%) 55 (22.5%) Source: Household Questionnaire Table 11: Are you Giving New Uses to the Water? I H69 Overall Total Yes 67 (27.5%) No 177 (72.5%) I The study findings indicate that using more water was not positively related to the new uses of the water. Majority households (72.5%) indicated that they were not giving new uses to the water. I Operation and Maintenance I Results Breakdown and Repair Time I Of all the 16 communities only 6 (37.5%) reported that their water system had atleast failed 1 - 3 times in the last one year. The rest of the communities had not experienced any I failure. System Operators I Fourteen (14) of the 16 communities had a water system caretaker. Bukumbi and Namayandha were the only communities which did not have a water caretaker at the time of the survey. I Committee members of the 12 communities were of the view that their water system caretakers were sufficiently trained to perform the job. All the caretakers had received I some training in system operation and maintenance. No major repair was reported in all communities that .had been performed by the water I system caretakers. Water system caretakers are not trained to handle major repairs, for immediately above them are the water hand-pump mechanics who operate at the sub­ county level. I  72 Table 12: Has the Operator Performed a Large Repair or Important Expanslon t 0 the SiyS tem T53 Yes No Overall Total 11 (68.8%) 5 (31.3%) Source: Technical Questionnaire Financial Management Results Table 13: % Cover Cover Repair! Cash Savings Community Todate O$MT72 Expansion (T73) i Bugabo NA NA Bugeywa YES YES Bukumbi NO NO Bulondo YES NO Bwigule YES NO Galiraya NO NO Kabula NO NO Kanansaike YES YES Kirisuru YES NO i ! . Kyamabale NA NA Lwamba YES NO Muli YES NO Nalya NA NA Namalere YES NO Namavundu NO NO Namayandha NO NO Willingness to Sustain the System Results: I· I 73 I Table 14: Perception of Ownership H78 Community LC 1 District RUWASA Others Don't I Govt v Know Overall I Total 207 (85.9%) 2 (0.8%) 5 (2.1%) 3 (1.2%) 9 (3.7%) 15(6.2%) I Table 15: Perception of Tariff Level Expensive Fair Inexpensive I H71 Overall Total 35 (24.3%) 181 (56.3%) 28 (19.4%) I I I I I I I I I I I I I. 74 ANNEX 4: DATA TABLES Table 16: Water Committee Descriptive Data Members Female % of HH who could name at least 1 Community member Bugabo 2 93.8 Bugeywa 7 4 53.3 Bukumbi 6 3 68.8 Bulanda 9 5 81.3 Bwigule 7 3 54.5 I Galiraya 7 3 54.5 Kabula 6 ·2 80.0 I Kanansaike 8 3 81.3 Kirisuru 7 3 81.3 Kyamabale 6 3 63.6 Lwamba 7 3 78.6 Muli 6 6 87.5 Nalya 5 2 92.9 Namalere 6 3 66.7 Namavundu 7 3 93.8 Namayandha 7 5 56.3 I  75 Table 17: Perception on source of Project Initiative Community Inside Local Don't Community RUWASA Govt. Other Know Bugabo 8.3 66.7 16.7 ~ 8.3 Bugeywa 15.4 53.8 23.1 ~ 7.7 Bukumbi 20.0 50.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Bulondo 25.0 25.0 50.0 ~ - Bwigule 7.1 28.6 42.9 - 21.4 Galiraya - 30.8 53.8 7.7 7.7 Kabula 28.6 14.3 28.6 7.1 21.4 Kanansaike 16.7 - 50.0 8.3 25.0 Kirisiru 7.1 42.9 21.4 14.3 14.3 Kyamabale 15.4 61.5 23.1 - - Lwamba 6.7 33.3 33.3 13.3 13.3 Muli 9.1 36.4 36.4 - 18.2 Nalya 35.7 7.1 28.6 - 28.6 Namalere 14.3 35.7 28.6 7.1 14.3 Namavundu 26.7 40.0 20.0 6.7 6.7 Namayandha 14.3 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.4 I. 76 Table 18: Perception on Ownership (H78) Community Inside Local Don't Community RUWASA Govt. Other Know Bugabo 75.0 - - - 18.8 Bugeywa 75.0 - - 8.3 8.3 Bukumbi 92.9 - - - 7.1 Bulondo 87.5 - 6.3 - 6.3 Bwigule 85.7 - 7.1 7.1 - Galiraya 85.7 - - 7.1 7.1 Kabula 93.8 - 6.3 - - Kanansaike 87.5 - - 6.3 - Kirisiru 78.6 - 7.1 7.1 7.1 Kyamabale 81.3 6.3 - 6.3 6.3 Lwamba 87.5 - - - 12.5 Muli 81.3 12.5 - 6.3 - Nalya 81.3 - - - 18.8 Namalere 100.0 - - - - Namavundu 87.5 - - 12.5 - Namayandha 93.3 - - - 6.7  .. 77 Table 19: Perception on Where to get Money for Repair (H7S) Community Tariff Additional Local Other . Contribution Govt. Outside Bugabo 56.3 25.0 - 6.3 12.5 Bugeywa 10.0 50.0 10.0 20.0 10.0 Bukumbi 7.1 85.7 - - 7.1 Bulondo 25.0 62.5 6.3 - 6.3 Bwigule - 83.3 - - 16.7 Galiraya 10.0 60.0 20.0 - 10.0 Kabula 12.5 75.0 - - 12.5 Kanansaike 26.7 60.0 6.7 6.7 - Kirisiru - 63.6 9.1 - 27.3 Kyamabale - 90.9 - 9.1 - Lwamba 6.3 81.3 - 12.5 - Muli 7.7 84.6 - 7.7 - Nalya 18.8 81.3 - - - Namalere 7.7 84.6 - 7.7 - Namavundu 6.3 87.5 6.3 - - Namayandha 6.7 73.3 13.3 - 6.7 Information Dissemination RUWASA 1 disseminated water and sanitation related information through several modes. These included a radio play broadcast focusing on water and sanitation, locally organized drama activities, project printed posters/ leaflets, community meetings and interpersonal communication through household visits by the project social mobilizers.  78 Table 20 Physical condition Score Card) Community Age Defects in Defects in I Exposed Leaking Insufficient Yrs Catchment Masonry I Pipe stand Pressure or Wells Leakages pipes in all parts Bugabo 3 NO NO Bugeywa 3 NO NO Bukumbi 3 NO NO Bulondo 3 NO NO Bwigule 3 NO NO Galiraya 3 NO NO Kabula 3 NO NO Kanansaike 4 NO YES Kirisiru 2 NO NO Kyamabale 3 YES YES Lwamba 3 NO NO Muli 3 NO NO Nalya 2 NO NO Namalere 3 NO NO Namavundu 3 NO NO Namayandha 3 NO NO I I I I I I · 1 79 ANNEX 5: SUMMARIES OF FGDs 1 COMMUNITY NAME: KANANSAIKE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN FGD: 8 men; 6 women Main Features in the Social Map 1 • Male FGD Area sparsely populated • Female FGD Area sparsely populated • Households near the water source • Household near the water source 1 • Availability of alternative water sources T able I: DeCISlon ° ° M ak InQ Process O 1 PRO,JECT CYCLE Male Focus Group Discussion Female Focus Group Discussion Male Female Both Male Female Both 1 Choice of Technology Choice of Service level - - - - - - - - - - - - Siting - - 8 2 - 4 1 Construction TRAINING - - - - - - Health/Hygiene promotion - 2 6 - - 6 1 Administration O&M - 4 - - - 4 - - - - - 6 Financial Management - - - - - - 1 COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION Cash 3 - 5 - - - Labour 3 - 5 - - 6 - - - - 1 Materials Time 5 - 8 3 - - 6 6 1 Table II: Water SourceslWater Uses Male Focus Group Discussion Female Focus Group Discussion 1 Drinking water S HP OW RW 8 PS HP OW RW 6 Cooking 8 6 I Bathing Brewing Business Activities 8 7 8 1 . 6 5 3 1 3 1 Construction Animals 7 6 1 3 2 3 = S Protected spring HP =Hand Pump OW = Open well RW =Rain water 1 Table III: Consumer Satisfaction -'--'.;..;...;....;.;.;..;.--,----':: Female Focus Group Discussion Male Focus Group Discussion 1 -Q=-~t'-~--=7-~--~2~--+----1~--+-- 6 uan Ity Satisfied S ifferent Indifferent Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Quality 8 6 1 Time Distance 3 3 3 3 2 2 6 3 3  80 COMMUNITY NAME: BUGEYWA -NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN FGD: 8 Men; 10 Women Main Features in the Social Map Male Female • 1 Borehole • 1 Borehole • Household semi-dispensed • Household semi-dispensed • Trading centre • Trading centre Table I: Decision Making Process Male Focus Group Fer;nale Focus Group PROJECT CYCLE Discussion Discussion Male Female Both Male Female Both Choice of Technology - - - - - - Choice of Service level - - - - - - Siting 5 - 3 - - 10 Construction TRAINING - - - - - - Health/Hygiene promotion - 3 5 - - 10 Ad ministration - - - - - 10 O&M 4 1 3 - - - Financial Management - - - - - - COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION Cash 8 - - - - 10 Labour 3 - 5 - - 10 Materials 2 - 6 - - 10 Time 5 - 3 - - 10 Table II: Water Sources/Water Uses Male Focus Group Female Focus Group Discussion Discussion S HP OW RW PS HP OW RW Drinking water 8 10 ·Cooking 8 10 Bathing 8 10 Brewing 8 10 Business Activities 8 10 Construction 8 10 Animals 8 10 S = Protected spring HP = Hand Pump OW = Open well RW = Rain water Table III: Consumer Satisfaction Male Focus Group Discussion Female Focus Group Discussion Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Quantity 3 4 1 4 - 6 Quality 8 - - 10 - - Time- - - 8 1 1 8 Distance - - 8 3 1 6 · 81 COMMUNITY NAME: BULONDO NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN FGD: 8 Men; 8 Women' Main Features in the Social Map Male Female • 1 borehole and a seasonal stream • 1 borehole • Most households with latrine Table I: Decision Making Process Male Focus Group Female Focus Group PROJECT CYCLE Discussion Discussion Male Female Both Both Choice of Technology Choice of Service level Siting, 8 8 Construction 8 8 TRAINING Health/Hygiene promotion 8 8 Ad ministration 8 8 O&M 8 8 Financial Management 8 8 COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION Cash 8 8 Labour 8 8 Materials 8 8 Time 8 8 Table II: Water SourceslWater Uses Male Focus Group Female Focus Group Discussion Discussion S HP OW RW PS OW RW Drinking water 8 8 Cooking 8 ~ 8 Bathing 8 8 Brewing 8 . 7 1 Business Activities 8 7 1 Construction 8 5 3 Animals 8 7 1 S =Protected spring HP =Hand Pump OW = Open well RW =Ram water Table III: Consumer Satisfaction Male Focus Group Discussion Female Focus Group Discussion Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Quantity 8 8 Quality 8 8 Time 8 5 3 Distance 7 1 7 1  82 COMMUNITY NAME: BWIGULE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN FGD: 8 Men; 9 Women Main Features in the Social Map Male Female .• 1 Borehole • 1 Household, ponds and unprotected wells • Most households with latrine • Most households with latrines • A few households a bit join from the source T able I: .. DeClslon Ina Process Mak" Male Focus Group Female Focus Group PROJECT CYCLE Discussion Discussion Male Female Both Male Female Both Choice of Technology - - - - - Choice of Service level Siting 2 - - - 1 - - 6 1 7 Construction - TRAINING Health/Hygiene promotion - 8 9 Administration - 2 7 O&M 1 7 Financial Management 1 7 COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION Cash 1 7 7 2 Labour 1 7 9 Materials 4 4 5 4 Time 5 3 4 5 Table II: Water SourceslWater Uses Male Focus Group Female Focus Group Discussion Discussion . S HP OW RW PS HP OW RW Drinking water 6 2 9 Cooking 7 1 9 Bathing 7 1 8 1 Brewing 7 1 6 3 Business Activities - - - - Construction 7 1 4 5 Animals 6 1 1 3 6 S = Protected spring HP =Hand Pump OW = Open well RW =Rain water Table III: Consumer Satisfaction Male Focus Group Discussion Female Focus Group Discussion - Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Quantity 8 9 Quality 7 1 9 Time - 1 7 2 7 Distance - - 8 9 COMMUNITY NAME: NAMAYANDHA  . 83 I' NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN FGO: 8 Men; 10 Women Main Features in the Social Map Male Female • 1 Dug well and neglected open well • 1 Dug well not centrally located • An agricultural area • Several households with latrines • 1 Major feeder road • Very dispersed households Table I: Decision Making Process Male Focus Group Female Focus Group PROJECT CYCLE Discussion Discussion Male Female Both Male Female Both Choice of Technology - - - - Choice of Service level - - - - Siting - - - - Construction - - - - TRAINING Health/Hygiene promotion - - 8 10 Administration - - - - O&M - - - - Financial Management - - - - COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION Cash 8 10 Labour - - 8 10 Materials - - 8 10 Time - - 8 10 Table II: Water SourceslWater Uses Male Focus Group Female Focus Group Discussion Discussion S OW OW RW PS DW OW RW Drinking water 8 5 3 2 Cooking 8 101 Bathing 8 0 Brewing 8 10 Business Activities 8 Construction 8 6 4 Animals 8 10 S =Protected spring OW =Dug well OW = Open well RW =Rain water Table III: Consumer Satisfaction . Male Focus Group Discussion Female Focus Group Discussion Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied SatisFied Indifferent Unsatisfied Quantity 8 - - 7 2 1 Quality 6 2 7 7 - - Time 5 3 8 8 - 2 Distance 6 - 8 8 ~ - 2 COMMUNITY NAME: GALIRAYA o J\ DTII""rI 1\ .. ,.,....,. I ... "'''1"\. n "- A ___ n \ A / _____ _  84 Main Features in the Social Map Male Female • 1 Borehole, 5 dams and a river • 1 Borehole, a dam and river • Farther distance from the borehole about 3 • Area predominantly agricultural km; but with most homes in the radius of 1/2 km Table I: . Decision Making Process Male Focus Group Female Focus Group PROJECT CYCLE Discussion Discussion Male Female Both Male Female Both Choice of Technology - - - Choice of Service level - - - Siting 1 - 8 Construction TRAINING Health/Hygiene promotion 1 7 8 Administration O&M 8 8 Financial Management COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION Cash 8 8 tabour 8 8 Materials 8 8 Time 8 8 Table II: Water SourcesJWater Uses Male Focus Group Female Focus Group Discussion Discussion S HP OW RW PS HP OW RW Drinking water 8 2 - 6 .Cooking 8 1 2 5 Bathing 6 2 2 4 2 Brewing ­ 4 4 2 5 1 Business Activities - - - - - Construction 6 2 1 7 - Animals 2 6 i 1 ! 7 - S =Protected spnng HP =Hand Pump OW = Open well RW =Rain water Table lll: Consumer Satisfaction Male Focus Group Discussion Female Focus Group Discussion Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Quantity 2 4 2 5 7 Quality Time 8 2 - 3 - 8 - 2 - 3 6 Distance 8 - - 4 1 3 COMMUNITY NAME: KABU\-A  85 NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN FGD: 8 Men; 8 Women Main Features in the Social MC!P Male Female • 1 Borehole, and water pqnds • . 1 borehole • A few households abit far from the source • Drug shops and aid posts (2 kms) • Concentrated population • Drug shops and aidposts Table I: Decision Making Process Male Focus Group Female Focus Group PROJECT CYCLE Discussion Discussion Male Female Both I Male Female Both Choice of Technology Choice of Service level Siting 3 5 3 1 4 Construction TRAINING Health/Hygiene promotion 2 2 4 3 5 Administration O&M 2 1 5 3 5 Fihancial Management COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION Cash . 2 6 8 Labour 2 6 8 Materials 2 6 8 Time 4 4 8 Table II: Water SourceslWater Uses Male Focus Group Female Focus Group Discussion Discussion S HP OW RW PS HP OW RW Drinking water 8 8 Cooking 8 8 Bathing 8 8 Brewing 8 8 Business Activities 8 - Construction - 8 Animals 8 8 S =Protected spring HP =Hand Pump OW = Dug Well RW =Rain water Table III: - Consumer Satisfaction

Male Focus Group Discussion Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Female Focus Group Discussion Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied

Quantity Quality Time 7 5 5 1 2 1 1 2 - 8 8 6 2 Distance 4 - 4 7

 86 COMMUNITY NAME: BUGABO NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN FGDS: Main Features in the Social Map Male Female • 1 Protected spring • 1 Protected spring and several • Farthest distance from the source about 1 unpprotected springs . km • Most household concentrated around the spring Table I: Decision Making Process Male Focus Group Female Focus Group PROJECT CYCLE Discussion Discussion Male Female Both Male Female Both Choice of Technology ~ - - - - Choice of Service leyel - - - - - Siting 2 6 - - - Construction - - 4 - 4 TRAINING Health/Hygiene promotion - 8 - 3 5 Administration O&M 1 7 1 - 7 Financial Management. 2 6 2 - 6 COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION Cash - Labour 8 1 - 7 Materials 4 8 - - 8 Time 4 - - 8 Table II: Water SourceslWater Uses Male Focus Group Female Focus Group Discussion Discussion S HP OW RW PS HP OW RW Drinking water 8 8 8 Cooking 8 8 8 Bathing 8 8 8 Brewing 8 8 7 1 Business Activities 8 8 7 1 Construction 3 5 3 5 5 3 Animals 3 5 3 5 7 1 S =Protected sprmg HP =Hand Pump OW = Open well RW = Ram water Table III: Consumer Satisfaction Male Focus Group DisclJssion Female Focus Group Discussion Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Quantity 8 - - 8 - - Quality 8 - - 8 - - Time 8 - - 8 - - Distance 8 - - 6 2 -  87 COMMUNITY NAME: NAMALERE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN FGD: 8 Men; 8 Women Main Features in the Social Map Male Female • 1 borehole, swamp, l. Kyoga • 1 Borehole, swamps and lake • Farthest from the source about 2 dms Table I: Decision Making Process Male Focus Group Female Focus Group PROJECT CYCLE Discussion Discussion Male Female Both Male Female Both Choice of Technology - - - - - - Choice of Service level - - - - - - Siting 2 - 6 2 - 6 Construction TRAINING - - - - - - Health/Hygiene promotion - - 8 - - 8 Administration O&M 1 - 7 - - 8 Financial Management COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION Cash 6 - 2 2 2 4 Labour - - 8 2 - 6 Materials - - 8 - 2 6 Time 2 - 6 2 - 6 Table II: Water Sources/Water Uses ,­ Male Focus Group Female Focus Group Discussion Discussion PS HP OW RW PS HP .. OW RW , Drinking water 8 8 Cooking 8 8 Bathing 8 8 Brewing 6 2 7 1 Business Activities - 7 1 Construction 2 6 7 1 Animals - 8 7 1 S =Protected spnng HP =Hand Pump OW = Open well RW =Rain water Table III: Consumer Satisfaction Male Focus Group Discussion Female Focus Group Discussion Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Quantity 3 3 2 8 - - Quality 8 - - 7 1 - Time - - 8 - 3 5 Distance 4 - 4 8 - -  88 COMMUNITY NAME: MUll NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN FGDS: 9 Men; 8 Women Main Features in the Social Map Male Female • 1 borehole, and a swamp • 1 Borehole and a big swamps • A lot of coffee and banana shambas • Farthest distance from the borehole 1 km • Concentrated population • A good number of households without latrines Table I: Decision Making Process Male Focus Group Female Focus Group . PROJECT CYCLE Discussion Discussion Male Female Both Male Female Both Choice of Technology - - - - - - Choice of Service level - - - - - - Siting 3 - 6 2 - 6 Construction - - - 1 - 7 TRAINING Health/Hygiene promotion - - - - - 7 Administration - - 9 - - 7 O&M - 1 8 - - 7 Financial Management - - - - - 8 COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION Cash 6 - 3 - - 8 Labour - - 9 - - 8 Materials - - 9 - - 8 Time 5 5 4 - - 8 Table II: Water Sources/Water Uses Male Focus Group Female Focus Group Discussion Discussion S HP OW RW PS HP OW RW Drinking water 9 8 Cooking 9 8 Bathing 7 2 8 Brewing 7 2 8 Business Activities 8 1 7 1 Construction 5 4 5 4 Animals 1 7 1 i 5 3 S ;; Protected spring HP ;; Hand Pump OW;; Open well RW;; Ram water Table 111: Consumer Satisfaction . Male Focus Group Discussion Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Female Focus Group Discussion Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Quantity 9 8 Quality 8 1 8 Time 2 1 6 7 1 Distance 3 - 6 7 1 . 89 COMMUNITY NAME: NALYA NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN FGD: 8 Men; 8 Women Main Features in the Social Map Male Female • 1 Protected spring • 1 Protected spring • Most households with latrines • Most households in a radius of 1 km from • Fartherest household from the source the source about 1 km away Table I: Decision Making Process Male Focus Group Female Focus Group PRO,JECT CYCLE Discussion Discussion Male Female Both Male Female Both Choice of Technology - - - - - - Choice of Service level - - - - - .­ Siting 8 2 - 6 Construction TRAINING 2 6 2 - 6 Health/Hygiene promotion 2 2 4 1 7 Administration O&M 1 2 5 3 - 5 1 Financial Management COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION Cash 1 6 - 7 2 2 - 6 Labour - - 8 - - 8 Materials - - 8 1 - 7 Time 2 - 6 4 4 3 1 Table II: Water Sources/Water Uses Male Focus Group Female Focus Group Discussion Discussion S HP OW RW PS HP OW RW Drinking water 8 - - 8 Cooking 8 - - 8 Bathing 8 - - 8 Brewing 8 - - 8 - 1 Business Activities Construction Animals 6 6 1 - - 1 1 6 1 1 1 8 8 8 S =Protected spring HP =Hand Pump OW = Open well RW = Rain water Table III: Consumer Satisfaction Male Focus Group Discussion Female Focus Group Discussion Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Quantity Quality 8 8 8 8 Time 2 1 8 I Distance 7 1 3 4 1  90 COMMUNITY NAME: LWAMBA NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN FGDS: 9 Men; 8 Women Main Features in the Social Map Male Female • 1 Borehole and 5 unprotected wells and • 1 Borehole and unprotected well swamps • Most households without latrines • A few households far from the source with • Several unprotected wate(sources farthest at 2 km • Farthest distance to the borehole estimated 1 1/2 kms Table I: Decision Making Process Male Focus Group Female Focus Group PRO..IECT CYCLE Discussion Discussion Male Female Both Male Female Both Choice of Technology - - - Choice of Service level - - - Siting 9 - 8 Construction 9 - - TRAINING 9 Health/Hygiene promotion 9 1 7 Administration 1 7 O&M 9 1 1 Financial Management 9 1 COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION Cash Labour 9 2 6 Materials 9 - 8 none 9 6 - Table II: Water Sources/Water Uses Male Focus Group Female Focus Group Discussion Discussion S HP OW RW PS HP OW RW Drinking water 9 - 8 Cooking 6 3 8 Bathing 4 5 8 Brewing 4 5 8 Business Activities - - 7 1 Construction 2 7 6 2 Animals 1 7 1 4 4 S :::: Protected spnng HP :::: Hand Pump OW :::: Open well RW:::: Rain water Table III: Consumer Satisfaction Male Focus Group Discussion Female Focus Group Discussion Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Quantity 9 - 8 - - Quality 9 8 - - Time - 3 6 8 - - Distance 3 - 6 7 - - COMMUNITY NAME: KYAMABALE . 91 NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN FGDS: 8 Men; 8 Women Main Features in the Social Map Male Female • A protected spring and a stream • 1 Protected spring • Farthest distance about a km • Agricultural activities • Majority households with latrines • Most housholds with latrines Table I: Decision Making Process Male Focus Group Female Focus Group PROJECT CYCLE Discussion Discussion Male Female Both Male Female Both Choice of Technology - - Choice of Service level - - Siting 2 6 Construction 4 4 6 2 TRAINING Health/Hygiene promotion 8 2 6 Administration O&M 2 6 1 7 Financial Management COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION Cash labour 8 Materials 8 Time 8 Table II: Water Sources/Water Uses Male Focus Group Female Focus Group Discussion Discussion S HP OW RW PS HP OW RW Drinking water 8 8 Cooking 8 8 Bathing 8 8 Brewing 8 8 Business Activities 8 8 Construction 4 4 8 Animals 4 4 8 S =Protected spnng HP =Hand Pump OW = Open well RW =Ram water Table III: Consumer Satisfaction I Male Focus Group Discussion Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Female Focus Group Discussion Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Quantity 5 - 3 1 5 2 I Quality Time 3 3 3 4 2 1 1 3 4 1 3 4 Distance 4 4 - 6 - 2 I COMMUNITY NAME: NAMAVUNDU  92 NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN FGDS: 8 Men; 8 Women Main Features in the Social Map Male Female • 1 Borehole • 1 Borehole • Farthest distance from the borehole about • Farthest distance from the source about 1 a mile away 1/2 away. • All households with latrines • Peasantry SUbsistence farming Table I: Decision Making Process Male Focus G';d Female Focus Group PROJECT CYCLE Discussion Discussion Male Female Male Female Both Choice of Technology - - - Choice of Service level Siting - 1 - - 7 1 7 Construction - - TRAINING Health/Hygiene promotion - 8 1 7 Administration O&M 2 6 2 6 Financial Management COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION Cash 3 6 8 Labour 4 4 8 Materials 8 1 7 Time 4 4 8 Table II: Water SourceslWater Uses Male Focus Group Female Focus Group Discussion Discussion PS HP OW RW PS HP OW RW Drinking water 8 Cooking 8 8 Bathing 4 4 8 Brewing 4 4 4 4 Business Activities 8 4 4 Construction 8 2 6 Animals 8 2 6 S =Protected spnng HP =Hand Pump OW = Open well RW =Rain water Table III: Consumer Satisfaction Male Focus Group Discussion Female Focus Group Discussion Satisfied Indifferent· Unsatisfied Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Quantity 6 2 6 2 Quality 8 8 Time 4 2 2 6 2 Distance I 5 3 - 6 2 COMMUNITY NAME: KIRISIRU  93 NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN FGDS: 8 Men; 8 Women Main Features in the Social Map Male Female • 1 Borehole, a dam, seasonal swamps an • 1 Borehole, a dam and several open wells unprotected well and a big swamp • Farthest distance from the borehole about • The area predominatly agricultural a mile away • Most households with latrine about 1 1/2 km Table I: Decision Making Process Male Focus Group Female Focus Group PROJECT CYCLE Discussion Discussion Male Female 80th Male Female 80th Choice of Technology - - - - - - Choice of Service level - - - - - - Siting 2 - 6 3 - 5 Construction - - 8 - - 8 TRAINING Health/Hygiene promotion - - 8 1 - 7 Administration - - - - - O&M - - 8 2 - 6 Financial Management COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION 8 5 3 Cash 8 2 6 Labour 8 - 8 Materials 8 2 6 Time Table II: Water Sources/Water Uses Male Focus Group Female Focus Group Discussion Discussion S HP OW RW PS HP OW RW Drinking water 8 7 1 Cooking 7 1 I Bathing Brewing 8 6 2 4 3 2 5 2 Business Activities - - - - I Construction Animals 4 4 3 1 5 7 S = Protected spring HP = Hand Pump OW = Open well RW = Rain water I Table III- Consumer Satisfaction Male Focus Group Discussion Female Focus Group Discussion I Quantity Satisfied 8 Indifferent Unsatisfied Satisfied 8 Indifferent Unsatisfied Quality 8 8 I Time Distance 8 7 1 8 8 COMMUNITY NAME: BUKUMBI  94 NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN FGDS: 8 Men; 8 Women Main Features in the Social Map Male Female • 1 Borehole. an unprotected open well • 1 Borehole, a pond • Sparsely populated area • A good number of households without • Numerous agricultural activities latrines • Very dispersed population • Farthest distance to the source 1 1/2 kmd away Table I: Decision Making Process Male Focus Group Female Focus Group PRO,JECT CYCLE Discussion Discussion Male Female Both Male Female Both Choice of Technology - - - - - - Choice of Service level - - - - - - Siting 4 - 4 - - 8 Construction - - - - - -. TRAINING 8 - - - Health/Hygiene promotion 3 - 5 - - 8 Ad ministration - - 4 1 - 7 O&M 4 - Financial Management COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION Cash 4 - 4 4 - 4 Labour > 1 - 7 - - 8 Materials 1 - 7 - - - Time 2 - 6 - - - Table II: Water SourceslWater Uses Male Focus Group Female Focus Group Discussion Discussion S HP OW RW PS HP OW RW Drinking water 7 1 8 Cooking 7 1 8 Bathing 8 - 8 Brewing 8 - 8 Business Activities - - 8 Construction 7 1 8 Animals 7 1 8 S = Protected spring HP = Hand Pump OW = Open well RW = Rain water Table III: Consumer Satisfaction Male Focus Group Discussion Female Focus Group Discussion Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Quantity 8 - 8 - - Quality 8 - 8 - - Time 5 3 6 - 2 Distance 5 3 5 1 2 I. " Annex 6 1 Uganda Global Study I December 1996 . 1. Objectives of the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): To facilitate open discussions on the main points of the study. • Demand Responsiveness • Consumer Satisfaction • Sustainability For each of the Water User Committees sampled out the focus groups will be divided into two groups of men and women. The groups will consist of8 to 15 members each. The study team should request for privacy to ensure an ideal focus group discussion. 2. Guidelines for the FGDs! • Introductions • Explain purpose of the meeting/study objectives • • Request to divide the members into two groups of men and women Each group should comprise of at least 8 members but should not exceed 15 members • Request for privacy. It will be necessary to devise a way of controlling community participation, if the tools are indeed to be used as FGDs tools. Hence there is need' for a limited number of men/women per group. 1 • Introduce each tool one at a time following the prepared guidelines below. • AllowlFacilitate discussions keeping in mind the objective/purpose of using each tool • Aim at ensuring the purpose of using each specific tool is achieved prior to conclusion • However do not prolong the use of any tool more than it stretches. Therefore gauge the development of the discussion and keep the time proposed for each tool in mind. • It will be useful to divide and define each research members' role. For instance one could facilitate, while the other observes and takes notes and the third person provides the necessary assistance in presenting the tool. 3. Tools Four major tools based on the PROWWESS/SARAR Methodology will form the basis for discussions. These tools include Social Mapping, Decision Making Process, 'Vater SourceslWater Users and Impact on the quality ofUfe. Utilizing participatory methods the tools will be used to facilitate discussions and generate the collection of qualitative data based on gender. 1  96 Mapping Purpose: To gather information about the community in tenns of water sources, sanitation facilities, households andJor any other issues or aspects. To act as an ice breaker and an entry point in the community Audiencerrarget Group: Two Focus Groups (MenIWomen) Time: 30 minutes to 2 hours Materials: Newsprint, Makers, Scrap material. Procedure: Provide the group members with materials Invite the group members to use the materials or any other items to make a map/representation of their community Based on the Map and how the group members have described their community invite discussions on specific issues, e.g. water supply, sanitation and particular women's concerns. Let the people create the map with minimal interference from the facilitators and outsiders or non group members Task: Ask the community to draw a map of their community/village Initiate discussions on specific issues e.g. water sources, usage, distance, house holds, women's concerns etc., Rose Lidonde RWSG-EA December 7, 1996 I 97 I Decision Making Tool I Purpose: The Decision Making tool (newly designed) aims at understanding the degree of participation in the decision making process of the I project cycle, with respect to gender. Audiencerrarget Group: Two Focus Groups (MenIWomen) Time 2 hours Materials: The tool consists of a set of pictures or a list of steps envisaged in project cycle levels. These pictures include the project initiation 1 phase; choice of technology and service levels; siting; construction; community contributions, in terms of cash, labor, materials, time; operation and maintenance and training. The picturesllists should be 1 placed in the pocket chart as illustrated below. I Project Cycle Men Women Both Choice of Technology • • • Choice of service level Siting • 1 Construction • • 1 Training • Hea1thlHygiene promotion • Operation and Maintenance • Administration • Financial Management Operation and Maintenance 1 Community Contribution • cash • • labor • 1 • materials • Time • Procedure: Arrange horizontally the pictures or written lists representing the various steps in the project cycle on the left hand side of the pocket chart. Arrange the top row with pictures of men, women or both. Rose Lidonde RWSG-EA December 7, J996  98 Explain and agree with the respective group on the various stages that took place and what the different gender pictures represent. The number cards placed will depend on the detail and level of complexity desired by both the study team and as established with the group members in terms of what actually exists or takes place. Place the pocket chart in a place that is accessible but also where voting can be done confidentially. Illustrate how the balloting is performed by placing a slip of paper in the pocket (or container) to indicate choice on who participated in the decision making process. Remove the slip after the demonstration. The participants should vote one at a time. If the entire group wants to vote, organize the voting accordingly. When the voting is complete, ask one of the group members to volunteer to remove the voting forms and tabulate the results. Discuss the patterns that emerge and record the findings. Engage the group into discussions about the meaning of these findings. Task: Ask for at least six volunteers to perform the voting. Ask them to vote according to what h~ppened during the Project cycle. Give them enough ballots (slips) so that they can vote on what their perceptions are in terms of who participated in the decision making process of the respective steps ofthe project cycle (men, women or both). Ask one of the group members to assist in tabulating the information and record the findings. Facilitate discussions in terms of who participated in the decision making process. How did they participate? Why the others did not participate? ,Using beans ask the group members to indicate how many participants in respect to the tabulated data/information? Record the findings. How has this influenced Sustainability of their project Rose Lidonde RWSG-EA December 7, 1996 I. 99 I Pocket Chart-Water SourceslWater Uses I Purpose: To assess and analyze what the communities situation is in regard to water sources/water uses BEFORE and AFTER Project I . intervention Audiencerrarget Group: Two Focus Groups (MenIWomen) Time: 1 to 1112 hours l\laterials: Pocket chart consists ofrows of paper or cloth pockets, usually 4-6 horizontally and 6-10 vertically. A set of pictures is attached on the above pocket representing areas in which data is needed. If desired, pictures can: be attached down the left hand side to indicate other variables. Materials used in this exercise include three to ten sets of cards/pictures depicting water sources (e.g. river, well, pump etc.) and on the vertical row pictures depicting water uses such as cooking, washing, brewing, watering animals, business (water vendors or income generating activities), building, irrigation. Note: A pocket chart could be substituted by using cans or pots placed on the ground under the pictures or drawing a matrix on the ground. Paper slips, leaves or seeds can be used for voting Protected Spring Hand pump Open Well Rain harvesting Drinking Water Cooking Bathing Washing clothes Brewing Business activitie Construction Animals Procedure: Place a set of cards across the top row of the pocket chart depicting water sources (river, well, pump etc.) Down the left hand side of the chart, place the pictures/cards depicting different water uses (cooking, washing etc.) The number Rose Lidonde RWSG·EA December 7.1996  100 of cards placed will depend on the detail and level of complexity "desired by both the study team and as established with the group members in terms of what actually exists or takes place. Place the pocket chart in a place that is accessible but also where voting can be done confidentially. Explain to the group that the pocket chart can be used to determine how different sources of water are used by the community. illustrate how the balloting is performed by placing a slip of paper in the pocket (or container) to indicate choice or preference. Remove the slip after the demonstration. Task: Ask for six volunteers to perform the voting. Ask them to vote according to what happened before the Project intervention. Give them enough ballots (slips) so that they can vote on how they use each source of water. The participants should vote one at a time. If the entire group wants to vote, organize the voting accordingly. When the voting is complete, ask one of the group members to volunteer to remove the voting forms and tabulate the results. Discuss the patterns that emerge and record the findings. Engage the group into discussions about the meaning ofthese findings. For instance why do so many (too few) prefer one source of water over another. Is the sample representative of all the people in the community. Do preferences have any effect on health and well being? Are there seasonal differences? When the voting is complete, ask the group members to vote according to what has happened After Project intervention. When the voting is complete, ask one of the group members to volunteer to remove the voting forms and tabulate the results. Discuss the patterns that emerge and record the findings. Engage the group into discussions about the mell:ning of these findings. For instance are there any differences since project intervention in terms of sources used and for what purposes. Do preferences have any effect on health and well being? If so what are these? Ensure you do not lead the discussion. Conclude the exercise. Rose Lidonde RWSG-£A December 7, 1996 I. 1- 101 Consumer Satisfaction I Purpose: To assess the impact on people's life in terms of the water quality, quantity, time and distance. These could be done in respect to the I previous water sources and later with the current source. I AudiencefTargct Group: Two Focus Groups (MenIWomen) Time: 1 hour I Materials: Pocket Chart, slips, makers, cans/pots, beans, match sticks Quantity Quality Time Distance Procedure: Place a set of cards horizontally on the left hand side of the pocket chart depicting quality. quantity, Time and Distance. Place on the top row ofthe chart pictures reflecting happy. not so happy. Explain to the group that the pocket chart can be used to determine whether people are satisfied with the quality, quantity, time taken to draw water and the distance to and from the water supply after project implementation. Illustrate how the balloting is performed by placing a slip of paper in the pocket. Remove the slip after the demonstration Task: Ask for six volunteers to perform the voting. Ask them to vote according what they perceive the water qualitv, quantity, time and distance taken to draw water is. What was the situation before Project intervention? What is the situation after project intervention? Give them enough ballots (slips) so that they can vote on how they use each source of water. The participants should vote one at a time. If the entire group wants to vote, organize the voting accordingly. Rose Lidonde RWSG-EA December 7, 1996  102 -When the voting is complete, ask one of the group members to volunteer to remove the voting slips and tabulate the results. Discuss the patterns that emerge and record the findings. Engage the group into discussions about the meaning of these findings. For instance what was the situation before project intervention? What is the situation now. Is the sample representative of all the people in the community. Has this had any effect on their health and well being? Are there seasonal differences? Rose Lidonde RWSG-EA December 7. 1996  1