ASOSSA UNIVERSTY

COLLAGE OF BUISNESS AND ECONOMICS

SCHOOL OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

FACTORS AFFECTING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF RURAL WATER

SUPPLY PROJECTS: THE CASE OF ASOSSA WOREDA, BENISHANGUL
GUMUZ REGIONAL STATE

A thesis paper Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Asossa

University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master
in project planning and management.

By:Atom Mohammed ID: S111o5/10

Advisor: Belay Tizazu (PhD)

Co-Advisor:-LemesaAddisu (Msc)

June, 2021

ASOSSA ETHIOPIA
Approved by Board of Examiners

This MSC thesis has been submitted for examination with my approval as thesis advisor.

External Advisor’s Name: Belay Tizazu (PhD )

Internal advisor’s Name: Lamesa Addisu (Mcs) ____________________________

Faculty Chairman ___________ Signature ____________ Date ________

External Examiner __________ Signature ___________ Date _________

Internal Examiner __________ Signature ___________ Date _________

Declaration

I hereby declare that the study which is being presented in this thesis entitled “FACTORS
AFFECTING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS: THE
CASE OF ASOSSA WOREDA, BENISHANGUL GUMUZ REGIONAL STATE” is
original work of my own. It had not been presented for a partial fulfillment for any
educational qualification at this university or any other and in any projects by any means,
and all the resources materials used for this thesis had been accordingly acknowledged.

________________________ ___________________

Atom Mohammed Date

i
Acknowledgement

Individuals and institutions in one or another way have assisted me to carry out this study.
First and for most I would like to thank my advisors Dr. Belay Tizazu (PhD) and Lemesa
Addisu who has been helping me throughout my research and without whom the research
could not have been materialized. I have benefited a lot from their dedicated professional
assistance and constructive comments to complete this study on due time.

Next, I would like to thank Asossa woreda water desk staff members, respondents of the
study as well as enumerators for their cooperation in providing the required information and
facilitating data collection.

ii
 Table of Contents

Contents Page

Acknowledgement.................................................................................................................................i
Table of Contents..................................................................................................................................ii
Acronyms..............................................................................................................................................1
Abstract.................................................................................................................................................3
CHAPTER:-ONEINTRODUCTION....................................................................................................3
1.1 Background...............................................................................................................................3
1.2. Statement of the Problem......................................................................................................5
1.3. Objectives of the Study.........................................................................................................8
1.3.1. General Objective of the study......................................................................................8
1.3.2. Specific Objectives of the Study....................................................................................8
1.4. Research Questions...........................................................................................................9
1.5. Significance of the Study......................................................................................................9
1.6. Scope and Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................9
1.7. Organization of the Study....................................................................................................10
CHAPTER-TWO: RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................11
2.1. Theoretical Review.............................................................................................................11
2.1.1. Concept and Definition of Sustainability in Rural water supply..................................11
2.1.2. Approaches in Rural water supply...............................................................................13
2.1.3. Actors Affecting Sustainability of Water Supply Schemes.........................................15
2.2. Water Supply and Policy in Ethiopia...................................................................................26
2.2.1. Water Sector Policy.....................................................................................................26
2.2.2. Status of Water Supply and Sanitation in Ethiopia......................................................29
2.3. Conceptual Framework.......................................................................................................31
CHAPTER-THREE: METHODOLOGY............................................................................................33
3. METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................33

iii
 3.1. Description of the Study Area.............................................................................................33
3.1.1. AsossaWoreda.............................................................................................................33
3.2. Sampling Design.................................................................................................................35
3.2.1. Data source and Type..................................................................................................35
3.2.2. Selection of Sample Kebeles.......................................................................................35
3.2.3. Selection of Sample Water Supply Schemes...............................................................36
3.3. Selection of Sample Households and Determination of Sample Size..................................37
3.4. Data Sources, Type and Method of Collection....................................................................39
3.4.1. Data Sources and Type................................................................................................39
3.4.2. Methods of Data Collection.........................................................................................39
3.5. Data Analysis......................................................................................................................41
CHAPTER FOUR: -DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSION.............................................................42
4.1. Demographic Characteristics...............................................................................................42
4.1.1. Sex and Age Composition of the Respondents............................................................42
4.1.2. Marital Status and Family Size of the Respondents.....................................................43
4.1.3. Religion and Ethnicity.................................................................................................43
4.1.4. Respondents Educational Level...................................................................................43
4.1.5. Sources of Family Income...........................................................................................44
4.1.6. Social Services Needed by Respondents to be provided..............................................45
4.2. Existing Water Supply Situation.........................................................................................46
4.2.1. Water Supply Sources.................................................................................................46
4.2.2. Status of Water Supply Schemes.................................................................................48
4.3. Existing Problems to Sustainability of RURAL WATER SUPPLY Schemes.........................50
4.3.2. Managerial Problems..................................................................................................56
4.3.3. Technical Related Problems........................................................................................59
4.3.4. Financial Problems......................................................................................................63
4.3.5. Environmental Related Problems................................................................................70
4.3.6. Nature of Institutional Supports given to Community and Coordination among
Stakeholders................................................................................................................................73
CHAPTER-FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................82
5.1. Conclusions.........................................................................................................................82
5.2. Recommendations...............................................................................................................84

iv
References...........................................................................................................................................87
Appendix :- Questionnaire for Households.........................................................................................92

v
Acronyms

ADF African Development Fund

BGRS Benishangul Gumuz Regional State
BMS Board Management System
BoFED Bureau of Finance and Economic Development
BoWMERD Bureau of Water, Mineral and Energy Resource Development
CSA Central Statistical Authority
DRA Demand Responsive Approach
E.C Ethiopian Calendar
ETB Ethiopian Birr
FGD Focus Group Discussion
HDW Hand Dug Well
HH House Hold
IDRC International Development Research Center
IDWSSD International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade
IRC International Water and Sanitation Center
Masl Meters Above Sea level
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
MoWR Ministry of Water Resource
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
O and M Operation and Maintenance
ODI Oversees Development Institute
OED Operation and Evaluation Department (a department in World Bank)
PASDEP A Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty
PS Protected Spring
RWS Rural water supply
SPSS Statistical Packages for Social Scientists
SSA Sub Saharan Africa

1
SW Shallow Well
UN United Nation
WAE Water Aid Ethiopia
WAE-BG Water Aid Ethiopia-Benishangul Gumuz Branch
WatSan Water and Sanitation
WHO World Health Organization
WoFED Woreda office of Finance and Economic Development
WSDP Water Sector Development Program
WSP Water Supply and Sanitation Program
WWD Woreda Water Desk
ZWMERD Zonal office of Water, Mines, Energy and Resource Development

2
Abstract

Access to safe and adequate water is vital for preservation human health and socio-economic
development. However, it is lacking in most of rural areas of Benishangul Gumuz Regional
State in general and Asossa woreda in particular. In addition to limited provision of this
basic service in the study area, significant numbers of water supply schemes that contribute
for service coverage are also poorly managed, provide service with problems and others
malfunctioning at any time. As a result, the number of people accessed to safe water has
reduced. This study therefore, has attempted to assess factors hindering sustainability of
rural water supply schemes in Asossa woreda. In order to obtain the required information to
meet the objectives of the study, mixed sampling techniques were employed. In carrying out
the study, the researcher selected 114 household beneficiaries by using systematic random
sampling from seven water supply scheme (4 functional and 3 non-functional). As far as the
findings, the survey result found that sustaining the proper functionality of the schemes has
been one of the major problem and foreseeable bottlenecks in the study area. The study found
that 38.1% of water supply schemes are malfunctioning during the time of the survey. In
addition, most of the functional schemes are also found poorly managed and provide service
with problems. The survey result revealed that schemes are managed by communities
through water committees who are responsible for the overall management of the schemes.
Therefore, the finding call for the need to give due attention to sustaining the existing
schemes through meeting the needs of water committees, enhancing community participation
in water supply sector, capacitating the woreda water office with the necessary resources,
ensuring availability of spare parts for communities as well as need a strong coordination
among stakeholders to support the water sector.

3
CHAPTER ONE: - INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Water is one of the basic necessities for human survival and socio-economic development. It
is used for a number of purposes (i.e. for domestic, agricultural, industrial and other socio-
economic activities). Access to safe water and adequate sanitation is a universal need and
basic human right. Dessalegn (1999) stated that access to adequate and clean water will
greatly contribute to improved health and productivity. On the other hand, Kiongo (2010)
stated an insufficient access to water is not only bad for health, but also contributes to a poor
food security and a lagging social development. Women’s and girls’ bear heavy burdens in
providing water for their families and conflict over water are increasing at local, regional and
international levels. The poor are particularly vulnerable to water scarcity, pollution and
flooding. Safe drinking water and basic sanitation is of crucial importance to the preservation
of human health, especially among children. Water related diseases are the most common
cause of illness and death among the poor of developing countries.

According to World Health Organization (WHO), 1.6 million deaths of children per year can
be attributed to unsafe water, poor sanitation and lack of hygiene (World Water Council,
2010). Despite benefits of access to safe water stated above, many countries in the world
currently suffered from shortage of safe drinking water and the case is aggravated more in
developing countries including Ethiopia. There are about 1.1 billion people across the world
that do not access to safe drinking water. Many of these people live in rural areas and are the
poorest and most vulnerable. In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), 300 million people have no
access to safe water supplies approximately 80% live in rural areas
(http://www.idh.org/news/2019/IAH.rural.pdf).

The Millennium Development Goal (MDG) for water and sanitation is to reduce by half the
proportion of people who do not have sustainable access to safe drinking water and sanitation
by 2015. This means that coverage has to be increased dramatically. It is not only coverage
that needs to be increased but also sustainability of implemented water and sanitation
services indefinitely (Plan Ethiopia, 2019).

4
In Ethiopia where the majority of the population (about 85%) live in rural areas, millions of
people (about 39.529 million) are facing problems of obtaining adequate potable water
supply in 2019 (MoWR,2019:33). Similarly, in Benishangul Gumz Regional State (BGRS)
thousands of people (more than 339,000) still suffered from access to safe water supply in the
year 2007(BoWMERD, 2007:3). Regarding the problem, Dessalegn (1999) stated that
inaddition to limited provision of water supply, there has been a strong urban bias in water
supply programs and the rural areas have suffered more as a result.

By realizing the importance of supplying safe drinking water to the community, government
at different level, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and donors invest a lot of capital
every year in developing countries including Ethiopia in general and in BGRS in particular to
tackle the problem through construction of new water supply projects. However, supplying
water supply schemes alone would not contribute for communities in rural areas to have
reduced problems. The issue of functionality, utilization by intended beneficiaries and
continuity of water supply schemes to serve for long period are very important issues to be
considered. In this paper the motive of this study was assessing factors affecting the
sustainability of rural water supply projects: the case of Asossa woreda, Benishangul gumuz
regional state (Regional Profile, Facts about Benishangul Gumuz Regional State, Asossa,2007).

1.2. Statement of the Problem

According to UNICEF Zambia and the rural water supply Network (RURAL WATER SUPPLY N),
in Sub-Saharan Africa between 20% and 70% of installed hand pumps are not functioning, and in
Ethiopia about 35% of its rural installed hand pumps are not functioning. This is due to low
sustainability of the water point. Sustainability is the backbone of CMP approach. This thesis work is
supposed to find techniques, mechanisms and strategies to improve the sustainability of CMP water
points and also to identify the existing problems which are threatening the sustainability of CMP
water schemes.

The provision of safe and adequate water is becoming a critical issue for rural dwellers
without which life will be difficult, but it is often lacking in most of developing counties
including Ethiopia in general and in BGRS in particular even if sufficient water resources are
available. In BGRS, about 53.01% of the total population (35.8% of the urban and 58.64% of

5
the rural) population still suffered from access to safe water supply in the year 2007
(BoWMERD,2007:3).

Similarly, data from Asossa woreda water desk (WWD) 2020 shows that about 40% of the
total population in the woreda (50% in town and 38% in rural) were accessed to safe water
supply in 2007. Hence, 60% of the total population (50% of the town and 62% of the rural)
did not access to safe water supplies. This shows that much is still remaining to attain the full
coverage of this basic service for the people of BGRS in general and rural areas of Asossa
woreda in particular. The stated coverage in the study area was achieved due to heavily
involvement of NGOs mainly WAE-BG in the water supply development in the woreda since
2004/05.

In addition to limited provision of new water supply schemes in Asossa woreda,

sustainability of installed water supply schemes has been found crucial in ensuring the supply
and maintaining the service. Most of water supply schemes constructed in the woreda in
general and in rural areas in particular that have contributed for service coverage are also
poorly managed and significant number of water supply schemes are malfunctioning at any
time. As a result of these, the number of people accessed to safe water has declined at the
same time those without access to safe water depend on surface water sources such as
unprotected springs, rivers, streams, sand dug wells and others. With regard to unsustainable
water supply schemes and their impacts to achieve the goal of safe water supply for all on
sustainable basis, Davis and Brikke (1995) referring to WHO estimated 30-60% of existing
water supply schemes in developing countries are not operational at any time. Regarding the
non-functionality of rural water supply schemes in BGRS, data from MoWR (2019) shows
that about 30% of the schemes were non-functional at the end of the year. Available data also
revealed that out of 125 rural water schemes surveyed in the region, 67% of schemes were
not-functional (MoWR, 2003).

Even though data is lacking on current status of the existing water supply schemes in Asossa
woreda due to absence of inventory works, data from Water Aid Ethiopia (WAE) (2004:39)
indicates that about 44% of water supply schemes in Asossa woreda has been nonfunctional
in the year 2003 and the second quarter of 2004. The baseline survey conducted by WAE-

6
BG(2020 in 12 kebeles of the study area shows out of 39 water supply systems exist in these
kebeles, 6(15.4%) of them were non-functional, whereas 29(74.4%) of them 4 require minor
repair works during the survey time. The survey team also identified that most of the
functioning schemes are poorly managed and exposed to surface contamination; water user
committee exist for most of the schemes but they are no more effective to properly discharge
their responsibility. Results of key informant interview made with WWD staff members also
indicated as many RURAL WATER SUPPLY schemes are poorly managed by communities.

As a result, most of the schemes are providing serve with problems and significant number of
schemes are malfunctioning at any time. Studies conducted by individuals and organizations
in the region in water sector mainly focused on urban water supply systems. Some of these
are research conducted by Asefa (2019) that focused on urban water supply systems the case
of Asossa town; study by BIK (2003) focused on urban water supply tariff setting and
institutional capacity building; Baseline survey on water and sanitation in the region by WAE
(2004), and base line survey by WAE-BG (2020 on water supply and sanitation in Asossa
woreda. Except study conducted by Dereje (2020, assessment of RURAL WATER SUPPLY
schemes sustainability in Bambasi woreda, sustainability of RURAL WATER SUPPLY
schemes were not adequately and systematically studied in the region in general and in
Asossa woreda in particular.

In the study, the main problems to the schemes were identified as: delay in maintenance due
to the drawn of water table, lack of spare parts and toolkits, non-existence of locally available
qualified technicians, lack of technical supports and lack of community finance to undertake
operation and maintenance. Similarly, during researcher’s stay in the region for long period
of time in general and field exposure to Asossa woreda in particular, the researcher observed
many RURAL WATER SUPPLY schemes were failing in to disuse and when the schemes
are not sustainable the number of people having access to safe water have reduced. Therefore
the researcher intended to assess major problems (community, technical, financial,
institutional and environmental) related issues affecting sustainability of RURAL WATER
SUPPLY schemes in Asossa woreda of BGRS.

7
1.3. Objectives of the Study
1.3.1. General Objective of the study

The general objective of the study is to assess factors that hinder sustainability of rural water
supply schemes in Asossa woreda.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives of the Study

In its specific form, the study tried to address the following objectives:

1. To identify the main problems/bottle-necks of RURAL WATER SUPPLY schemes

sustainability in the study area.
2. To assess the nature of community participation in RURAL WATER SUPPLY
schemes development and management.
3. To identify the nature of institutional supports given to the local communities in
managing the schemes; the gaps faced by the local institution and coordination among
stakeholders in supporting sustainability of RURAL WATER SUPPLY service.

1.4. Research Questions

The study has attempted to address the following research questions:

1. What are the major factors that hinder sustainability of rural water supply schemes?
2. What contributions or roles are made by communities in rural water supply schemes
development and management?
3. What is the nature of institutional supports (government and NGOs) given to the
communities in managing the schemes properly; gaps faced by the local institution
and coordination among stakeholders to support the proper functionality of the
schemes?
1.5. Significance of the Study

This thesis study will have own significant. The mains are The results of this study might
serve as baseline information for those who are interested to conduct further research /an in-
8
depth investigation on problems to sustainability of rural water supply schemes in the area or
the region, the lessons draw from such study may contribute to current efforts by
governments and NGOs to find better policy options to address the problem of sustainability
in rural water supply schemes that contribute for better service coverage and the findings of
the study also may help in filling the gaps by identifying problems to sustainability or proper
functioning of rural water supply schemes in the region in general and in Asossa woreda in
particular and further enrich the knowledge on the issues contributing to sustainability of the
schemes.

1.6. Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study specifically focuses on assessing factors hindering sustainability of rural water
supply schemes. The study area is limited to rural areas in Asossa woreda of BGRS. The
study did not include water supply schemes in Asossa town because of its relatively better
water supply coverage and functionality. The study covers 5 kebeles from 74 rural kebeles of
the woreda where 7 water supply schemes are selected and data were generated from selected
household beneficiaries of the schemes.

Sustainability in water supply scheme is a multidimensional and dynamic concept which is

the result of the interactions of various factors (community, technical, financial, legal and
institutional as well as environmental). Because of its multidimensional nature and broad
interrelated factors, this thesis may not be exhaustive enough to encompass all the factors
related to sustainability/ or does not focused on the details of these interrelated factors due to
time and related resource factors. Rather, attention has been given to identifying major
factors undermining sustainability of rural water supply schemes. The results and findings on
sustainability problems are the reflections of the study area, which it is difficult to replicate
directly to other areas of the region. However, it might reflect problems in other areas or
woreda with similar characteristics. The other limitations of the study are the following: -

 Absence of well documented and consistent data about water supply schemes
status and related issues at woreda as well as at regional level.

9
  Since the study area is located in the rural part of the woreda, transport
difficulty was encountered as a limitation in undertaking the research as the
researcher frequently go field in different sites.
1.7. Organization of the Study

This study contains five chapters. Following this chapter, the second chapter incorporates
literature review part. Chapter three comprises methodology part that includes: background
of the region and the study area, sampling design, data sources and type, methods of data
collection and data analysis. Chapter four deals with discussion of the Factors hindering
sustainability of rural water supply schemes and related issues in the study area are
described. Finally, in chapter five conclusion and recommendations were provided.

CHAPTER-TWO: RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Theoretical Review

2.1.1. Concept and Definition of Sustainability in Rural water supply

Sustainability is a widely used term which has a variety of meanings depending on the
context in which it is used. Different scholars define sustainability differently. Abrams
(1998) cited in Lockwood (2003:10) described sustainability as: “whether or not something
continues to work over time”. This definition is similar with the definition by Moseley
(2003:20) who defined sustainability as the capacity for continuance in to the long term
future. According to Holdren et al., (1995) cited in Musonda (2004:36), a sustainable process
or condition is defined as “one that can be maintained independently without progressive
diminution of valued qualities inside or outside the system in which the process operates or
condition prevails”. It emphasizes on something that can be kept for long period of time
without significant diminution. According to IRC(2004) referring DWAF (1997,b),
sustainability in rural water supply scheme is defined as: the benefits of water supply
projects continuing indefinitely in a reliable manner at a level of genuinely acceptable to the
community it serves and close to the design parameters, without an unacceptable level of
external management, technical or financial support. It gives attention to proper functionality
of the system in providing service for long period of time for intended beneficiaries with

10
some form of supports to users. On the other hand, Bhandari et al., (2000:1) refer
sustainability in rural water supply as the ability to maintain efforts and derived benefits both
at community and agency level even after assistance (managerial, financial and technical) is
withdrawn. It emphasizes on the need to keep up the benefits from the water supply for long
period of time even without adequate support to community. Similar to this, Canon (1992:12)
cited in Musonda (2004:36) defined sustainability in rural water supply as “a continuation of
the benefits that result from the activity, with or without the program or organization that
stimulated the benefits in the first place. The source of those benefits may change but the
benefits are still available because the demand for it is strong.”

Wijk-Sijbesma (1989) also defined a sustainable system in RURAL WATER SUPPLY as the
one which is based on affordable appropriate technology and continues to deliver a high level
of water-related benefits after completion of the project. Similarly, Hodgkin (1994) cited in
Lockwood (2003:10) defined sustainability as the capacity of RURAL WATER SUPPLY
project to continue delivering a flow of benefits for a long period of time after project inputs
ceased. It emphasizes on the continuation of water supply benefits like water delivery itself,
health benefits as a result of the service, time saved, convenience and its contribution to the
livelihoods of the community after implementation of water supply project.

Carter et al., (1999:10) indicated the test of sustainability as whether the water supply
facilities are functioning and being utilized. According to Davis and Brikke (1995),
sustainability in RURAL WATER SUPPLY refers to water supply facilities being
maintained in a condition which ensures a reliable and adequate potable water supply and
that the benefits are continued to be realized for prolonged period of time. The researcher has
adapted this definition because it gives a better meaning of what is implied sustainability in
this study. This definition has given a great emphasis on reliability, adequacy of water
supply, and continued functionality of the water supply scheme in providing proper service
for intended beneficiaries for long period of time. As it is indicated above, most of the
definitions implicitly or explicitly are to mean continuity through time or describes series of
benefits resulting from implementation of water supply project.

11
 2.1.2. Approaches in Rural water supply

There are two approaches mainly used in provision of any social service to the community in
general and water supply projects in particular. These are supply based and demand driven
approaches.

i. Supply Driven

The traditional approach of service delivery is top down, supply driven. It is aiming to solve
the sector problem by building more pipes and taps. The need and preference of the
community on activities such as design, appraisal and construction are centrally decided by
government officials who have little or no contact with the community while most project
activities such as cost recovery, O and M responsibilities, control and asset ownership are 10
poorly defined and communicated with users. Thus, the potential benefits from the sector are
far from reaching and water systems used inappropriately or remain unused at all and
significant numbers of supplies were not maintained for long period of time (Muluken,
2010:43).

Similarly, evidences shows that the existing system for delivering rural water service
operated through UP JalNijan (UPJN) project in India was highly centralized,
excessivelystaffed public sector organization. UPJN`s top-down approach rarely takes
consumer preferences in to account. There is no capital cost recovery, and O and M costs are
rarely collected. Poor O and M is a major problem with about one-third of the schemes
nonfunctional at any one time (De Regt, 2010:5). Evas and Appleton (1993:23) also
identified the weakness of the supply driven approach as it is rigid scheduling of projects that
inhabits community participation and impairs long term sustainability.

ii. Demand Responsive Approach (DRA)

It has recently realized that the need to aim at sustainable functioning and use of rural water
supplies require a DRA with communities playing a crucial role in both planning and
implementing rural water supplies. The approach represents a shift from the top-down; state
centered where by government was setting the targets with little or no involvement of the

12
intended beneficiaries or communities. For a genuine DRA to RURAL WATER SUPPLY
systems, first there has to be a demand, where demand is not strong a program might try to
develop it (MoWR, 2003:148).

The DRA associates a number of issues. The provision of improved water supply to
communities should not only be based on their need, but communities’ should also take the
initiative to improve their water services. A range of technical options and service levels
should be offered to communities and their related cost implications made clear.
Furthermore, the basic principle of cost-sharing need to be specified, and community
responsibility for costs of both capital, and O and M made clear from the outset. The
involvement of communities in all steps of the project cycle will help to create a sense of
ownership. The DRA goes further by calling for the development of rules, regarding
communities’ ownership and cost recovery (MoWR, 2003). According to IRC (2004:27)
referring to Deverill et al., (2000), DRAs are all about matching systems to people with the
primary goal of achieving system sustainability.

The fundamental basis of DRA was that the sustainable water systems at a community level
can only be achieved if people are provided with the level of the service they want and are
able to pay for. In other words, sustainability requires understanding and being responsive to
people’s effective demand for water. It focuses attention on consumer demand, that is the
quantity and quality that consumers want at a given price. It requires that managerial
decisions of facilities, cost recovery, O and M should be responsive to local needs as defined
by users (IRC, 2004:49).

Despite the fact that the DRA is more time and money requiring, the advantages that it build
capacity to community members, the easiness to reach more communities and the
achievement of sustaining established facilities is more valuable(Muluken,2010:48). In
support of this, evidences showed that ongoing RURAL WATER SUPPLY and sanitation
projects have been very successful in India especially where the community driven, DRA
works (De Reget, 2010:5).

13
 2.1.3. Actors Affecting Sustainability of Water Supply Schemes

The research literatures describe many interrelated factors contributing or undermining

sustainability of RURAL WATER SUPPLY projects. According to ODI (2004:7),
performance on sustainability is often gauged by looking at a number and proportion of
functioning and non-functioning facilities. Functionality is however one dimensions of
sustainability. Keeping the water point operational for long period requires attention to
arrange of managerial, social, financial, institutional and technical issues. For example, the
preparedness of water committee in rural areas to contribute to the establishment,
management and maintenance of water points are elements which are keys to sustainability.
The commonly observed fact is that many water and sanitation programs in developing
countries have not continued to work overtime or they have not been sustainable (Carter et
al., 1999:8). They identified some of the causes of break down or non-sustainability of
RURAL WATER SUPPLY schemes. These include: communities or intended beneficiaries
may never have been convinced of the desirability of new water source in the first place; the
financial costs which communities are expected to raise as a contribution to capital or
recurrent expenses may be unacceptable, unaffordable or impracticable; communities may
never have fell ownership of the new infrastructure, and governments may have been over
stretched and under resourced, so that repairs and maintenance have not been taken place;
benefits promised at the outset of projects have failed to materialize; and even where full
community participation or management has been planned from the start, community-level
committee and care takers have lost interest. The finding addresses a wide range of factors
hindering sustainability in water supply projects.

Carter and Rwanwanja (2019:23), on their side identified some of the factors necessary to
achieve sustainability: ensuring that the community is fully involved in decision making;
building on what people already now and do; selecting appropriate technology; good quality
construction; reliable support from private sectors and others in terms of for example, spare
parts, strong community organization strengthened by appropriate capacity building; ongoing
support by an agency external to the community. Similarly, Asossa sha, et al., (2003)
identified that lack of community participation, weak institutional support, weak technical
and management capacity, insufficient and inadequate technology, insufficient water

14
facilities, distance and time required to collect water and low awareness about their uses are
some factors affecting the continued functioning and utilization of water supply systems.

Bhandari et al.,(2000) also indicated sustainability of water supply depends on various

factors like continued delivery of services, regular maintenance of the physical structure
through the participation of users, long term institutional capacity of user groups, inter
institutional support and technical soundness of the program. It emphasizes on the need of
appropriate technology which is acceptable and manageable by the community, adequacy of
water supply, existence of institutional capacity to carryout maintenance, the need of
institutional support for intended beneficiaries and the full participation community starting
from the planning phases of the water supply projects so as to make the service sustainable.

Sayi (2004:4) stated the mal-functioning of the schemes are mainly because of the full
burden of system management is placed on the community including cost recovery for O and
M. Sometimes, there may not full-participation of the community, inadequate institutional
support, inadequacy of legal and institutional frameworks, lack of skills, tool kits and spare
parts to community for carrying out O and M.

Lockwood (2003:5), indicated long term sustainability of water supply project may be
undermined by a number of factors: the lack of support to the communities to manage the
schemes, lack of affordable spare parts and technical skills to carry out preventive
maintenance and absence of training courses. In other way, Musonda (2004) identified some
of the factors that would promote sustainability of the water supply facilities in Zambia.
These include: ability of community to raise user fees, communities’ capacity to operate and
14 maintain the scheme, demand for water, existence of effective community organization, b
Carter et al.,(1999:6) referring to Abrams (1996) pointed out, “If water flows, all of the many
elements which are required for sustainability must have been put in place. There must have
been money for recurring expense and occasional repairs, there must have been acceptance
from the consumers of the service, the source supplying the service must have been adequate,
the design must have been properly done and there must have been sound construction”. It
emphasized on the necessities of adequate finance for at least cover costs of O and M,
demand for water from users, adequacy of water source, appropriate technology and design

15
to make the water supply scheme sustainable. ackup at a district level and governments
allocation of funding to RURAL WATER SUPPLY sector.

Carter et al.,(1999:6) referring to Abrams (1996) pointed out, “If water flows, all of the many
elements which are required for sustainability must have been put in place. There must have
been money for recurring expense and occasional repairs, there must have been acceptance
from the consumers of the service, the source supplying the service must have been adequate,
the design must have been properly done and there must have been sound construction”. It
emphasized on the necessities of adequate finance for at least cover costs of O and M,
demand for water from users, adequacy of water source, appropriate technology and design
to make the water supply scheme sustainable.

Komives et al.,(2019:13) stated performance of village water systems is affected by village

level pre-construction and implementation factors (e.g., demand responsiveness, participation
of communities in general and women in particular in the planning processes); post-
construction factors (e.g., type and extent of post construction support); village level water
system characteristics (e.g., technology type, age of schemes, financial management and
cost-recovery practices); village level institutional characteristics (e.g., strength, transparency
and membership of Water committee); village characteristics (e.g., measure of remoteness,
alternative water supply sources etc).

Lockwood (2003:28-29) also identified group of factors affecting sustainability of the water
supply schemes. These include: Access to or availability of spare parts, tools and equipment
for the community to carry out repairs and skilled technicians to carry out complete repairs;
availability of some form of external follow up support relating to training and support of
community management structure; existence of supportive policy environment, legal
frameworks understanding the legitimacy of water committee and clearly defined roles for O
and M; continued involvement of community: women along with men in all aspects of the
system and maintenances; existence of adequate capacity (technical, financial,
administrative); tariff collection and cost recovery to cover routine O and M of the water
facilities and a system source that contribute to produce water of sufficient quantity and
quality to satisfy users.

16
As indicted above, most of the factors identified by scholars that either positively or
negatively affect sustainability of water supply schemes shows that sustainability is a result
of many inter related factors which are internal and external to community. It informs in one
or another way, the necessary precaution to be made in water supply implementations if the
implemented water supply schemes are to be sustainable and provide appropriate services for
targeted communities.

Sustainability factors stated above from reviewing existing literatures are also related to the
one which states sustainability in water supply schemes mainly relies on interrelated factors
of community/social, technical, financial, legal and institutional as well as environmental
(ODI,2004;http://www.who.int/water.sanitation_health/hygiene/om/linking capa1.pdf1).

2.1.3.1. Community Factors

Some of the community factors in relation to sustainability of water supply schemes include:
the demand or perceived need for an improved service; the feeling of ownership, community
participation in all project phases including planning, designing, constructing and managing
the service, capacity and willingness of the intended beneficiaries to pay; management
through a locally organized and recognized group; financial and administrative capacity of
management (http://www.who.int/water.sanitation_health/hygiene/om/linking capa1.pdf1).

i. Demand for a Service

Experiences has shown that when development interventions align to the priorities of
community, the sense of ownership increases, as does the likelihood that a community will
work to maintain the results, thereby increasing the chance of sustainability (MoWR, 2003).
It was also indicated that water supply services which are more demand responsive are more
likely to be sustainable at the community level than services which are less demand
responsive (Sara and Katz, 1997 cited in Lockwood, 2003). In all cases, it emphases the need
of community members demand for improved service prior to its implementation if the
scheme has to be sustainable.

17
 ii. Community Involvement

The traditional thinking of community as a passive beneficiary to which a new system or

infrastructure have been built up it was then up to the community to use, operate and
maintain it as a best as they could has resulted in many abounded or poorly managed or
operated systems. The lack of sustainability has thus awakened the sector on the appropriate
approach of development (Bhandari et al., 2000:2). In the rural areas, the lack in the part of
the government to setup an enabling environment for the development of a system and
management of drinking water supply services through effective community participation is
seen as the reasons for the failure as far as sustainability of the system is concerned.

It is fundamental to any successful water supply scheme that the people concerned be
involved in as many stages as possible in the entire process. If due consideration is not paid
to social aspects when planning, the risk is high that the water supply system will either not
be used or it will be misused. It is essential therefore that a high degree of community
participation in rural water work is applied. In principle communities should participate in
the planning, construction, O and M, and evaluation phases of RURAL WATER SUPPLY
projects if a water supply scheme has to be sustainable (IDRC, 1981:90).

The highest potential for sustainability is achieved when the community is involved in all
phases of the project starting from planning stage. If the scheme is to operate satisfactory,
people have to recognize the need for the improved service, be able to and willing to pay for
the maintenance cost/and eventually the construction cost, and be willing to manage its
maintenance (Arlosoroff et al, 1987:3). Similarly, it was indicated that, the success of rural
water supply programs depends on the extent to which society is considered during the
planning stages. Genuine and unfailing involvement of the intended beneficiaries’ right from
the initial stages ensures the success of village water supply systems. Enthusiastically
community participation can play significant role in developing and increasing community
awareness and pride of ownership toward the village water supply system, resulting in
success and a high level of performance of the system (IDRC, 1981:92).

18
Regarding the need of community to participate in pre-implementation phases of the project,
White (1986) cited in Lockwood (2003) stated that the users can participate in the planning
phases activity such as communities can be requested to make decisions on geographical
scope of the project, integration among projects, sitting of facilities, type and design of
equipment, selection of water source, additional facilities (for watering cattle etc..), financing
water charges and timing of fetching for water.

The Midre Genet water supply scheme in Southern Nations and Nationalities People
Regional States of Ethiopia has given service for more than 17 years without interruption.
The main reasons for sustainability of the scheme is identified as the strength of WatSan
committee and external institutional support for service improvement, major repair works,
the establishment of appropriate and acceptable financing system. In addition to these, the
overall clear and favorable policy environment, community management of water and
sanitation services at both federal and regional levels and opportunities related to the location
of the Midre Genet (its accessibility and location close to the woreda and regional capital to
buy spare parts and get other services) have contributed to the success of the service (Plan
Ethiopia, 2019:12). The main factors that have contributed to sustainability of Midre Genet
water supply service are generally highlighted as follows: appropriateness of technology;
having strong community management; financial feasibility; getting adequate institutional
support; WatSan committee being a legal entity; meeting the capacity building need; women
involvement in decision making and better documentation.

The findings above are related to De Reget (2010) referring a recent review of World Bank
water supply projects by OED that sated the local community involvement in decision
making about services in implementing and managing those services is linked to greater
beneficiary satisfaction with services, and thus greater willingness to pay. Significant
involvement by local stakeholders correlates with better replicable and sustainability in
outcomes and impacts. A lesser degree of participation e.g., only providing materials and
labor is associated with a lower likelihood of sustainability.

19
 A. Women Involvement

In an endeavor to improve the whole community, the role of women has become more
prominent. As a principal user of rural water supplies, women are encouraged to participate
in the decision making and take active roles in management and maintenance activities.
Development programmes which do not involve women fail to realize their full potential
(IDRC, 1981). With regard to the need to involve women, Bhandari et al., (2000) indicated
one of the prime reasons of failures of keeping schemes sustainable is poor involvement of
women’s from the beginning stage of the project. Similarly, Evas and Appleton (1993:24)
indicated women participation is essential if systems are to be effectively used and claimed
the need of special effort to integrate women fully in to the planning, implementation and
management process in both professional and community settings.

Evidences also shows the role of women’s in sustaining the functionality of water supply
schemes. According to data from Plan Ethiopia (2019), projects in which water committee
that have more women than men show greater efficiency and sustainability than those with
more men than women. This has been a good indicator of success and demonstrates that
women take the main responsibility for household water. One community-managed project
(Dolocha) in the southern region of Ethiopia has only women as members of the water board
and committees and women’s as water sellers at water paints. This project has shown striking
success with good coverage and better sustainability.

2.1.3.2. Technical Factors

Appropriate technology selection, construction quality of the schemes, technical skills

needed to operate and maintain the system, availability and accessibility to spare parts are
also important factors contributing or undermine sustainability of water supply schemes.

i. Technology Choice and Construction Quality

The premise for technology selection was that “the technology chosen should give the
community the highest service level that it is willing to pay for, will benefit from and has
institutional capacity to sustain”(Arlosoroff et al., 1987:29).

20
Careful engineering design and construction are more important in addition to selection of
appropriate technology for poor people than for the more affluent. It may be disastrous for
people when a facility breaks down and cannot be repaired because of a fault inherent in the
design or construction. If the initial scheme was paid for from communities (users) resources,
they will probably be unable to make the effort a second time; if an outside agency helped,
the attitude is likely to be “you have had your share, no more now!”(Carter et al., 1999).

ii. Availability of Spare Parts and Toolkits

Appropriate tolls for carrying out repairs should be made available to achieve sustainability.
There is also need to ensure that spare parts are affordable, because at the moment most
communities cannot afford the cost of spare parts (Musonda, 2004:139).

To support sustainability of rural water supply schemes, spare parts and toolkits must be
available (Carter et al., 1999:10). In support of this, Komives et al., (2019:7) stated without
access to a reliable supply of spare parts and some qualified person to make repairs, water
supply schemes will not be sustainable. WAE (2004:4) also indicated lack of input suppliers
for spare parts contributes to lower continuity of water projects. Studies by Brikke et al.,
(1995:16) cited in Musonda (2004) and Davis et al.(1993) also considered availability of
affordable spare parts, capacity at community level to operate and maintain the water supply
facilities and ability of communities to contribute user fees as being critical to sustainability
of water supply schemes.

iii. Technical Skills Needed for Operation and Maintenance

The ability of the community to operate and maintain the water schemes is very important
aspect of sustainability. However, most rural communities lack technical skills to carry out
major repairs. Getachew (2002) cited in MoWR (2003:144) identified various reasons for
schemes being out of operation. Poor maintenance is the most important contributor for
schemes non functionality due to weak supportive systems, difficult access to spare parts,
lack of sense of ownership among users and lack of trained people.

21
 2.1.3.3. Financial Factors

Factors such as capacity and willingness to pay as well as cost sharing and community
financial management are likely to influence the financial sustainability of the system.
Finance becomes more and more relevant, especially in a context where communities are
being empowered with anew financial responsibilities (Davis and Brikke, 1995). In support
of this idea, Musonda (2004:139) indicated ability of communities to raise user fees is crucial
to sustainability of water supply facilities because they are used to purchase spare parts and
paying technicians for carrying out repairs. On the other hand, Bhandari et al.,(2000:4) stated
even when the community is willing to pay for and manage the upkeep of its water supply
system, the scheme may founder unless a suitable mechanism is found for collecting money,
arranging repairs and paying caretakers or mechanics. With regard to this, Evas and Appleton
(1993) stated an insufficient and inefficient use of funds for O and M restricts the reliability
of spare parts, tools and recruitment and training of component staff. A lack of accountability
in many maintenance departments leads to inefficient use of maintenance funds.

Full cost recovery is not a prerequisite for effective community management, but some
contribution from users is needed to establish commitment. As a minimum as much of the
recurrent costs as possible should be borne by the community or sustainability cannot be
guaranteed (Evas and Appleton, 1993). Failure to adequately cover the costs of improved
water supply services in developing countries has been identified as a major constraint to
achieving the goal of safe water and adequate sanitation for all on sustainable basis. In recent
years increased community financing through user payment has been promoted as a solution
(Evas, 1992).

Generally, to achieve sustainability in water supply projects, covering costs of O and M is

highly recommended by scholars. Boydel (1999) cited in IRC(2004:52) referring to evidence
from the UNDP-World Bank funded schemes also indicated that for schemes to be
sustainable, communities should pay for O and M and should make a “substantial”
contribution to capital costs (this contribution will vary from project to project, but should be
substantial enough to generate a feeling of ownership).

22
 2.1.3.4. Legal and Institutional Issues

At a national level, there must be clear policies and strategies that support sustainability of
water supply schemes after implementation of the schemes. However, this might not practical
at grass root levels. Bhandari et al., (2000) stated in the rural areas, the lack in the part of the
government to setup an enabling environment for the development of a system and
management of drinking water supply services through effective community participation is
seen as the reasons for the failure as far as sustainability of the system is concerned.

Community management of rural water supply is by no means free from problem and despite
strong investment in capacity building in many projects, a significant number of systems still
run in to problems (Lockwood, 2003:23). For rural water supply, the basic concept is that
schemes are user community based and that because full self-reliance cannot be achieved in
the rural context, support structure is required to assist the community in planning,
implementing and operating or managing its scheme (MoWR, 2003:144). Many improved
water supplies require technical back up from an external body even if the regular O and M
can be managed by communities themselves (Davis et al., 1993).

The UN call for the Decade of eighties as an IDWSS has given ample of impetus to the
sectoral development in Nepal increasing the coverage from 12% in 1980 to 37% in 1990.
The estimated coverage was aimed at 72% by the end of eight five year plan (1992-1997),
but remained at nearly 64%. Though there has been some achievements in terms of coverage,
majority of the services provided to dispersed and remote community in the rural areas of
Nepal were unreliable or even non-existent as neither the community nor the government
alone could afford to maintain by itself (Bhandari et al., 2000).

2.1.3.5. Environmental Factors

The continued functionality of water supply also depends on a reliable source and a reliable
system of obtaining water from the source. The reliability of the source is often determined
by seasonal changes. Some springs and wells may fail towards the end of the dry season
owing to a drop in the water table. This is the time when water is needed most but when
supplies are least reliable (Davis et al, 1993:26). In support of this, Lockwood (2003:22)

23
indicated one of the external factors for post-project sustainability is rather obvious, but one
that nonetheless tends to get overlooked is the sustainability of the water source itself.
Obviously, deterioration of source water quantity will be major concern in areas of low
rainfall or poor ground recharge where there is greater sensitivity to over-extraction. But
even in relatively water abundant regions of the world, the source can fail to satisfy demand
either due to population expansion or abuse of the supply for non-domestic purposes.

2.2. Water Supply and Policy in Ethiopia

2.2.1. Water Sector Policy

Before 1999, water resource development in general and provision of potable water supply in
particular have been made without any policy framework and was not well coordinated in the
country. However, since 1999 the Ethiopian ministry of water resources has formulated
Water Resources Management Policy (1999); Water Sector Strategy (2002) and Water Sector
Development Program (WSDP) (2002-2016) in the water sector to set a basis for sustainable
development and management of country‘s water resources (MoWR, 1999 and 2004).

The overall goal of the national water resources management policy (1999) is to enhance and
promote all national efforts towards the efficient, equitable and optimum utilization of the
available water resources of Ethiopia for significant socio-economic development on
sustainable basis while the national water sector strategy is thus to translate the national 23
water resources management policy into action by defining a set of medium to long-term
measurement of action plans (MoWR, 1999; 2004 and 2019).

2.1.1.1. Water Supply Policy

The overall objective of water supply policy of Ethiopia is to enhance the well-being and
productivity of the Ethiopian people through provision of adequate, reliable and clean water
supply services and to foster its tangible contribution to the economy by providing water
supply service that meet the livestock, industry and other users demand (MoWR, 1999). As a
result, a 7(seven) years Universal Access Plan (2019- 2012) and A Plan for Accelerated
Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) (2019/20-2009/10) are underway in Ethiopia to

24
provide adequate water supply facilities to achieve the MDGs related to water supply
(MoWR, 2019).

2.1.1.2. Drinking Water Supply Policy

The Water Resource Management Policy(1999:22-25) in the section of drinking water supply
clearly elAgushated detail policies on institutional, financial, technical and engineering issues
that should be considered in provision and sustainable management of drinking water supply
schemes. Some of the policies include:

 Provide subsidies to communities who cannot afford to pay for basic services on
capital costs only based on established criteria and phase out subsidy gradually;
 Enhance self-financed and total cost recovery programs in urban water supplies and 
ensure that all water supply undertakings will adequately address costs associated
with O and M and be based on “cost recovery” principles;
 Ensure responsibility, transparency, fairness and financial accountability in the 
management of water supply services so as to enhance readiness to pay and
participation by the users and communities in the financial management of systems;
 Ensure that tariff structures are site specific determined according to local 
circumstances; and rural tariff settings are based on the objectives of recovering O
and M costs while urban tariff structures are based on the basis of full- cost recovery;
 Establish “asocial tariff” or water prices neither low nor high that enables the poor 
communities to cover costs of O and M; 24
 Develop standard and criteria for the design quality control, materials and 
technologies in water supply and for O and M procedures; Regulate, guide and
manage the import of water supply technologies and materials;  Ensure that the
management of water supply systems to be at the lowest and most  efficient level of
institutional setup, which provides for the full participation of users to promote
effective decision making at the lowest practical level;
 Develop coherent and streamlined institutional frameworks at all government levels 
and stakeholders for sustainable and effective collAgushation, management of water

25
 supply at all levels by creating a legalized forum for the participation of all
stakeholder and clearly defining the relationships and interactions among them;
 Build technical capacity in terms of water source investigation, design, engineering,
water quality control, O and M, construction technology and facilities;
 Promote objective oriented training with special emphasis on
communityparticipation, administration, finance, and O and M; Assist in the
establishment and strengthening of water users associations and equip  water supply
organizations with the necessary facilities.

As it is indicated above, drinking water supply policy stipulates the conditions to be

considered in provision of water supply systems and to make the service sustainable both
in urban and rural areas of the country. The policy clearly indicated, the necessity of
institutional supports given to the community (users) and water suppliers; management of
systems at decentralized levels with full participation of the communities starting from
planning; the need of coordination among stakeholders with defined rules and
regulations; technical issues and financial(cost recovery principles).

Except on cost-recovery issues; the remaining policies stated above seems to be the same
or applicable for both in urban and rural areas. But regarding cost- recovery principle, the
provision of drinking water supply necessitates full-cost recovery in urban areas while the
rural communities are expected to cover at least costs of O and M. These might be due to
the low living standard of the rural communities and their disadvantageous due to their
location (distant area) relative to urban which are economically better off and advantages
because of their accessibility.

2.2.2. Status of Water Supply and Sanitation in Ethiopia

Despite the rich water resource availability of the county, the status of water supply and
sanitation coverage is still low in the country. According to MoWR (2019) annual report,
about 47.3% (35.479 million) of the total population of the country have accessed to safe
water supply in the year 2019. Service coverage is considerably higher in urban areas than
rural where the coverage is 78.8% (9.589 million) and 41.2% (25.89 million) respectively.

26
From the figure, one can understand how the majority of the population especially the rural
communities suffered from the service and depend on traditional or secondary sources
(rivers, streams, ponds and unprotected spring) for domestic purpose.

Available data from MoWR (2019) on sanitation coverage of the country reveals its poor
coverage. The national sanitation coverage in the year 2004 was 30.63% where the urban and
rural coverage represent 77.68% and 21.34% respectively (see in annex 1). Similarly, like
variations of water supply and sanitation coverage in urban and rural areas, there was also
regional disparity in water supply service coverage with in the country (see table 2.1 below).
The lowest coverage was 24% and 28% for Harari and Somali respectively while the highest
is 68.2% and 90.3% for Dire Dawa and Addis Ababa respectively. The remaining seven
regions’ water supply coverage lies within the range of 40-54% for the year 2019.
Furthermore, about 25% of rural water supply schemes have been reported non-functional
at the national level at the end of 2019 (MoWR, 2019:33). However, according to MoFED
(2019:128) about 30% of the schemes were mal-functioning at national level for the same
year.

To improve the poor status of water supply and sanitation, the government of Ethiopia had
now implementing Universal Access Program (2019-2012) and PASDEP (2019/20-2009/10).
The Universal Access Program which states “water for all citizens of Ethiopia” has been
underway. The target of the program is to provide safe water 15 litters/person per day with in
1.5 km for 98% of the rural population and 20 litters/person per day with in 0.5 km for 100%
of the urban population. The program also aimed to achieve 100% sanitation coverage both
in urban and rural areas through construction of sanitation facilities, sanitation and hygiene
promotion education at the end of the program (MoWR, 2019). Similarly, one of the 26
targets during PASDP is also to raise the rural population with access to potable water with
in 1.5 km from 44% to 88% and urban population from 80.6% to 92.5% within 0.5 km by the
end of 2009/10. To address the issue of mal-functioning and ensure sustainability, the goal
during PASDEP is to reduce the share of mal-functional of rural water supply systems from
30% in 2019/20 to 10% in 2010 (MoFED, 2019).

27
The programs seem more ambitious plan because of limited financial resource the country
has, as well as most of the rural communities lack the required capacities to properly manage
their schemes as supports given to them from part of implementing agencies is weak or
absent and other factors. As a result many constructed rural water supply schemes are
malfunctioning at any time.

Table 2.1. Water Supply Coverage and Percentage of Non-functional Schemes in Ethiopia
by Region in 2020

No Region Rural Urban Total % of non-functional

water supply schemes
1 Amhara 36. 80 41.5 23
2 Oromiya 40.2 87.6 46.5 25

3 SNN&P 53.0 64.5 54.0 17

4 Tigray 42.8 50.9 44.3 20
5 Afar 41.1 73.0 44.0 30
6 Somalia 21.5 60.0 28.0 30
7 Benishangul 46.0 66.2 48.0 30
Gumuz
8 Harar 29.0 21.0 24.0 30
9 Gambella 41.4 37.0 40.6 30
10 Deredawa 57.0 72.0 68.2 30
11 Addis Ababa - 90.1 90.1 -
National 41.2 78.8 47.3 25

Source: MoWR (2020).

28
CHAPTER-THREE: METHODOLOGY

3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Description of the Study Area

Asossa Woreda is one of woreda of Asosa Zone situated in Benishangul Gumuz Regional
State. It is the center of the zone as well as the region. Geographically It is found
between 34 o12'32''N and 10 o35'45''E and bordered with Bambasi woreda in the
southern, Oda-bildigilu woreda in the parts of Ethiopia, particularly in Amhara Region,
eastern, Homosha woreda in the northern, Menge woreda north eastern, Kurmuk woreda
in the north western, and republic of Sudan in the Western.

It is 667 km far from capital city of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa. The elevation of the woreda
ranges from 500-1500 meter above sea level and geographically, it is large made up of
plain from woreda of zone. The religious composition of the Woreda composed of
Muslim, Orthodox Christians, and insignificant number of protestant. The ethnic
members in the woreda is significantly Berta and Amhara (BoFED,2014).

Based on the population and Housing Census of Ethiopia projection for 2017, the total
population of Asosa woreda rural kebeles are 98,500 (49,825 males and 49,675 females)
(CSA, 2013). The total area of the woreda is 2371 km2 .The woreda comprises of 74 rural
kebeles. The 39 rural kebeles are inhabited by resettles, and the rest 35 rural kebeles are
inhabited by Berta people.

The climate condition of the woreda is characterized by humid hot weather having
distinct dry wet seasons. The temperature ranges from 14 dc-39 dc and the average
temperature is 27 dc. The rain fall pattern is mono-modal, and the area usually gets rain
starting in May and ending in October.

29
Figure2:- Map of study area

Agro-ecology, Climate and Vegetation of Asosa woreda

The average annual rain fall is more than 1200 mm. Generally, the climate of Asosa is suitable
for annual and perennial crops. The area has good vegetation covers. It is dominated with
tropical bamboo forest, acacia and other trees, tall grasses, bushes and shrubs.

Soil Condition, Land use Pattern and Farming System

Sandy soil predominates in Asosa woreda. It accounts for 60% of the soil type. Clay soil
represents 30%. The remaining 10% of soil is other type. The texture of soil can vary from
course to heavy clay which is fertile and suitable for crop production of various perennial and
annual crops. According to Asosa Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Cooperation
Office (AWARDCO), the vast majority of land about 44.4% could potentially be used for farm

30
land that is cultivable land, 12.93% of the land is covered with forest and bushes 10.31% used
as grazing land. It is only 26.32% of the total land that so far has been used for farming. The rest
6.3% is not arable land (unsuitable for farming) (BOFED 2014).

The majority of the people of Asosa woreda depends on subsistent agriculture and the farming
system is characterized by traditional and under developed technology (BOFED 2014).

Socio-Economic Activity of Asossa woreda

In the woreda, population distribution is odd not even. The area is flat and plain land which are
relatively suitable and productive support more density. Almost all the indigenous in habitat
(the Barta people) of the area are those surrounding resettlement area which are dependents on
low in put rain fed subsistence agriculture, while some are traditional hunters of wild animal
(animals/roots of trees, forages and fruits and other small scale traders (BoFED,2O14).

They mainly cultivate crops like maize and sorghum as well fruit like Mango, Banana, Papaya
and Guava and Vegetables like Cabbage, Tomato, Onion, Sweet potato, Lady- Finger and
Soyaben family etc.

Infrastructure

The transport and communication facilities rural area of Asossa are good as compared to other
woredas of the region. There is paved road which cross most of its kebeles, almost all-weather
road for more kebeles which connect with Asosa town and the neighboring woredas.

In the woreda, there are 34 primary school, 5 secondary school, 30 health post, 3 health
centers and one zonal hospital.(BoFED , 2014)

Concerning water related infrastructure, the woreda have127 hand dug wells, 142 Shallow well
and 29 protected springs, 7 deep wells a total of 305 water points which are serving the
community of the woreda (AWWMRDO , 2017).

31
.

3.2. Sampling Design

3.2.1. Data source and Type

The research design used in this study is cross-sectional where different data were collected
at appoint in time. In order to obtain the required information that were relevant to meet the
objectives of the study, mixed sampling/probability and non-probability sampling techniques
were chosen to select the sample kebeles, water supply schemes, sample households (HHs)
and participants of focus group discussion(FGD) as well as key interview informants.

Selection of Sample Kebeles.

In Asossa woreda, there are about 74 kebeles. Initially it was planned to select sample
kebeles and schemes from the whole rural kebeles randomly. As a result, the selections of
sample kebeles were made from the nearest rural kebeles. The researcher selected
purposively 5 kebeles (Ura, Agusha, Abrhamo, Bashabuda and Mengele 37) based on
accessibility, time and cost factors. Some of the kebeles are also remote and inaccessible,
unless all kebeles in the woreda are homogeneous/similar agro-ecologically; socio-economic
and cultural-settings and all kebeles are inhabited by the two ethnic group (Berta people and
the Amhara).

3.2.2. Selection of Sample Water Supply Schemes

List of water supply schemes found in the selected kebeles were also obtained from WWD
staff. Accordingly, 21 water supply schemes (16 HDWs, 4 SWs and 1 PS) exist in the
selected 5 sample kebeles. Out of these schemes, 8(7 HDW and 1 SP) were not functional
during the time of the survey.

Of the total water supply schemes selected in sample kebeles, are 7(4 functional and 3 non-
functional) schemes were purposively selected. The reason for selecting 7(30%) of the
schemes was for the sake of manageability due to time and cost factors. In addition, water
supply schemes in these areas are managed by the community. Regarding the years of

32
schemes construction as can be seen in annex 3, 14 schemes were constructed from 1994-
1998 E.C, 4 during Derg regime of which 2 of them were rehabilitated in 1994 E.C and the
remaining 3 schemes were constructed in 1992 E.C mainly for schools and health posts.

The researcher selected sample schemes out of water supply schemes that were constructed
and rehabilitated from 2000-2003 E.C. Water supply schemes that were constructed and/or
rehabilitated prior to 1994 E.C were excluded from selection of sample schemes. This was
done to reduce the effect of sustainability problem as a result of age/longer period of service
provision. On the other hand, significant number of new water supply schemes that were
constructed in the recent years (the last 1 to 2 years during the time of survey) were also
poorly managed, provide service with problems and even malfunctioning based on the
experience of the researcher’s stay for long period of time in the region in general and during
field work exposure in the woreda in particular. Because of these factors the researcher has
included water supply schemes that were constructed until 1998 E.C to assess factors
hindering sustainability of the schemes.

In one of the sample kebele (i.e. Agusha) there was no functional scheme during the time of
survey. As a result, 4 functional sample water supply schemes were selected from the
remaining 4 kebeles (Ura, Abrhamo, Bashabuda and Mengele 37) disproportionately 1 from
each kebeles because of difference in the number of water supply schemes in these kebeles as
well as to make the selection more representative by taking different kebeles. However, the
selection of one functional scheme from the respective kebeles was made using simple
random sampling with lottery method as the number of schemes in each kebeles was small.
With regard to the selection of non-functional sample schemes, 1 non-functional scheme was
selected from Agusha kebele purposively because all (3) water supply schemes exist in this
kebele were non-functional during the time of survey. The remaining 2 non-functional
schemes were selected from two randomly selected kebeles (i.e. Ura and Mengele 37).
Similarly, the selection of one non-functional sample scheme from selected kebeles was
made using simple random sampling technique with lottery method (refer annex 4, showing
list of selected kebeles and sample schemes).

33
The reason for selection of non-functional schemes was that the researcher wanted to know
major problem for scheme failure, measures taken by communities and implementing
agencies to maintain the service after the scheme failed to provide service or non-functional
at the same time to learn experience to promote sustainability of the functional schemes.

3.3. Selection of Sample Households and Determination of Sample Size

According to regional water bureau as well as Asossa WWD, the average number people or
HH beneficiaries expected to be served by protected HDW are 50 HHs (250 people), SW and
PS 70 HHs (350 People) each and Deep Well (3000-4000 people). However, as lists of HH
beneficiaries obtained from the respective water committees of the selected sample schemes
which also served as a sampling frame reveals more than average or standards set by the
local governments. From a total of HH beneficiaries of each sample scheme, 20% of them
were selected using systematic random sampling. The systematic random sampling was
found as an appropriate to select sample respondents from each scheme because of their
relatively large number and as it saves time in carrying out selection.

The reason to select 20% of HH beneficiaries from each scheme was due to homogeneity of
the sample population in terms of socio-economic, cultural-setting and all of them were from
the same ethnic group residing within similar agro-ecology. In addition, all water supply
schemes are managed by communities through water committees. Accordingly, a total of 114
HH beneficiaries were selected from 7 water supply schemes beneficiaries and used as a unit
of analysis in this study.

The primary data that would meet the research objectives were basically generated from the
responses of the HH beneficiaries (through HH survey). To supplement, complement,
validate and triangulate data obtained from the sample HHs, FGD and key informant
interviews were also made with purposively selected FGD participants from water
committees and women’s) and key informant interviewees with purposively selected from 38
water implementing agencies(from government at different levels). The researcher has
selected purposively 3 water committees (1 each from functional and non-functional scheme,
and the third from water committees that were serving for both functional and non-functional

34
schemes) whose members comprising 5-7 were contacted for discussion. This was done with
the intention that water committees have better information about problems they are facing in
sustaining the functionality of the schemes and related issues.

Similarly, two women groups were also purposively selected for discussions as women’s are
the principal users of water and associated problems they face. In addition, 8 key informant
interviewees were purposively selected from water implementing agencies at different level
(3 from regional water bureau, 2 from zonal water staff, 2 from Asossa WWD and 1 from
NGO (i.e. One Wash program). This is to get pertinent information related institutional issues
(see annex 6, lists of persons interviewed).

3.4. Data Sources, Type and Method of Collection

3.4.1. Data Sources and Type

The data inputs used for this study were both from primary and secondary sources. Primary
data were collected from sample HHs, participants of FGD and key informant interviews
made with water supplying agencies. In addition, personal observation or visits were made
by researcher.

Secondary data were also collected to complement the primary data. The major sources of
secondary data source were from government and NGOs publications, non-published
documents, annual reports, archives, books, earlier research done documents, websites etc).
The collected data involves both the qualitative and quantitative data. The quantitative data
mainly employed data obtained from HH survey while qualitative data employed FGD, key
informant interviews and personal observation.

3.4.2. Methods of Data Collection

Techniques used to collect primary data that would meet the research objectives were HH
survey, FGD, Key informant interview and personal observation.

Household Survey: Closed and open ended structured questionnaires were prepared to
generate the required information from the sample HHs. The structured questionnaires

35
prepared in English. Then after, structured interviews were employed for collecting data from
sample HHs. The researcher found structured interviews to be the most appropriate data
collection method as most of the sample population were illiterate and or unable to read and
write. It also provides an opportunity to investigate new things and reduce the probability of
non-response. However, it was time taking.

Prior to the actual data collection thorough structured interviews, the developed structured
questionnaires were pre tested to ensure the validity and clarity of the questionnaires.
Accordingly, 8 structured interviews were made with HH beneficiaries (4 from functional
schemes and 4 from non-functional schemes) area. Based on feed backs obtained, minor
adjustments were made.

To carry out structured interview, 5 enumerators were recruited and trained for two days. The
main criteria’s used to select enumerators include: knowing the local language Rutanegna
and Amharic fluently and ability to translate the languages, familiarity with the culture of the
community and being ethnically belongs to the respondents; knowing the kebeles;
educational back ground (greater than grade 9) and also based on their previous experience in
data collection. Accordingly, 2 teachers and 3 college students were recruited and trained by
the researcher to familiarize them with the structured questionnaires and the precautions to be
made during their field stay. After all, the final structured interview employed to collect data
from the sample HHs with close supervision of the researcher.

FGD: The primary data collected from the sample HHs were enriched by additional
information gathered through FGD. Accordingly, with the help of checklists/unstructured
questionnaires, discussions were held with water committees and selected women’s. For the
discussion, the researcher has used one college student who is familiar with their culture and
belongs to the same ethnic group for facilitation of discussions and translations of language
in Rutanegna and Amharic. Discussions were mainly made on different issues that are related
to water supply management and related problems undermining sustainability of their
schemes and/or reasons for failure of their schemes to provide service as well as associated
problems women’s are facing.

36
Key Informant Interviews: A key informant interview was particularly important in getting
information pertinent to the institutional aspects of water supply sector. Hence, views of
water supply agencies (heads and experts) are very important as they have a better
knowledge and experience on problems and prospects of RURAL WATER SUPPLY issues.
To obtain the views of key informant interviewees, checklists were prepared and information
was collected through unstructured interview .

Data Analysis

Both quantitative and qualitative methods of data analysis were used. The primarily data
collected from HH survey were organized, categorized based on the nature of data and coded.
The survey data were analyzed using statistical packages for social scientists (SPSS) software
version 13.0. Descriptive statistics such as percentage, ratio, frequency and cross tabulations
were used to quantitatively analyze the data. On the other hand, qualitative data obtained
from key informant interviews, FGD and personal observations were analyzed qualitatively
to strengthen data obtained from HH survey.

CHAPTER FOUR:

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSION

Understanding the socio-economic and demographic background information of the sample

population is very important to know their characteristics. As stated earlier, the size of
sample HH for this study is 114 which were selected from beneficiaries of seven developed
water supply schemes in five kebeles of the study woreda.

4.1. Demographic Characteristics

4.1.1. Sex and Age Composition of the Respondents

The following table (4.1) shows respondents’ sex and age profile. With regard to the sex of
the respondents, out of the total 114 sample households, 71(62.3%) are males while the
remaining 43(37.7%) are found to be females. Concerning the age composition of the

37
respondents, about 22(20.2%) lie in the age group of less than 30. The majority 43(37.7%)
fall between the age of 31-40 while 29(25.4%) lie between the age group of 41-50. Only
14(12.3%) of respondents are found above 50 years old. As it can see from the table, about
98(85.9%) of the respondents are found between age group of 20-50 which are mainly
considered as economically active population.

Table.4.1 Respondents by Sex and Age

Sex of the Respondent Age Group

Category Male Female Total < 20 20-30 31-40 41-50 >51 Total
Frequency 71 43 114 2 21 48 29 14 114
Percent 62.3 37.7 100.0 1.8 18.4 42.1 25.4 12.3 100.0

Source: Field survey 2021

4.1.2. Marital Status and Family Size of the Respondents

As can be seen from the table below (4.2), majority 99(86.8%) of the respondents are found
to be married, 7(6.1%) widowed, 5(4.5%) divorced and 3(3.6%) single. With regard to
family size, those household sample respondents having family size from 1-3 comprise about
20(17.5%), from 4-6 represent 29(25.4%), 7-9 comprise 42(36.8%) and those having greater
than 9 family size represent 23(20.3%). From the table, majority 65(57%) of the respondents
have greater than six family members.

Table.4.2. Respondents Marital status and Family Size

Marital Status Family Size

Category Single Married Divorce Widowed Total ≤3 4-6 7-9 ≥9 Total
d
Frequency 3 99 5 7 114 20 29 42 23 114
Percent 2.6 86.8 4.5 6.1 100.0 17.5 25.4 36.8 20.3 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2021

38
 4.1.3. Religion and Ethnicity

According to the survey result, of the respondents are found to be Berta and Amhara people
who are speakers of Rutanegna and Amharic languages and are followers of Islamic and
orthodox religion.

Respondents Educational Level

With regard to educational level of the respondents, the study found that greater proportion
about 77(67.5%) are illiterate, followed by able to read and write 18(15.8%), 12(10.6%)
grade 1-6, 4(3.8%) grade 7-8, and only 3(2.6%) are found to be grade 9-12. No respondents
were found who joined college and above. From this, it can be concluded that literary rate is
very low.

Table.4.3 Respondents by Educational Level

Educational Status Frequency Percent

Illiterate 77 67.5
Able to read and write 18 15.8
1-6 12 10.6
7-8 4 3.5
9-12 3 2.6
Junior
Total 114 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2021

4.1.4. Sources of Family Income

Respondents were asked about their main and secondary sources of family income based on
their importance. The Field survey result shows that majority 87(76.2%) and 24(21.1%) of
respondents reacted farming and traditional gold mining as their main sources of income
respectively. Others 2(1.8%) and 1(0.9%) indicated business/petty trade and government
employee respectively. Regarding respondents secondary source of family income, 57(50%)

39
replied traditional gold mining, 26(22.8%) farming, 21(18.4%) petty trade/ business, 1(0.9%)
from daily laborer. The survey result also shows that 9(7.9%) of respondents have no
secondary source of income.

Table.4.4 Respondents by Source of Income

Sources of income Main source of familyIncome Secondary source of family

Income
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Farming 87 76.2 26 2 22.8
Business/petty trade 2 1.8 21 18.4
Government 1 0.9 - -
employee
Daily laborer - - 1 0.9
Traditional gold 24 21.1 57 50.0
panning
No source of 9 7.9 9 7.9
income
Others - -
Total 114 100.0 114 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2021

As shown above, traditional gold mining is one of the most important sources of income
Next to farming, and the most supplementing sources of income for majority of the study
Population. The figures indicated below show peoples of the study area carrying out
Traditional gold mining in one of gold resource potential kebeles of the woreda(Hoha River).

4.1.5. Social Services Needed by Respondents to be provided

The respondents were also asked to indicate their needs of social services to be provided
primarily and secondly. According to the survey result shown in the table below (4.5),
41(36%) and 45(39.5%) of respondents have replied a need for health and water supply

40
respectively to be provided first. The remaining 16(14%) have preference for
education,4(3.5%) for electricity, 7(5.1%) for road, as their primary need.Similarly, with
regard to social services to be provided secondly, the survey result shows that 35(30.7%) of
the respondents reported health, 48(42.1%) water supply, 18(15.8%)education, 5(4.4%) road,
3(2.6. %) electricity, 3(2.6%) toilet/sanitation.

Table.4.5 Respondents’ Need of Social Services to be provided

Social Service Needed to be provided primarily Needed to be provided secondly

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Health 41 36 35 30.7
Water supply 45 39.5 48 42.1
Education 16 14.0 18 15.8
Toilet/Sanitation - - 3 2.6
Electricity 4 3.5 3 2.6
Road 7 6.1 5 4.4
Telephone 1 0.9 2 1.8
Total 114 100.0 114 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2021

The table demonstrates that majority of the population has great demands mainly for water
supply followed by health services relatively to other social services.

4.2. Existing Water Supply Situation

4.2.1. Water Supply Sources

The results presented in the table below are based on the main source of drinking water
supply for the respondents during the time of survey. The survey result shows that 25(21.9%)
of the total respondents use river, 16(14%) traditional HDW, 18(15.8%) protected HDW
fitted with hand pumps, 14(12.3%) SW fitted with hand pumps, 17(14.9%) unprotected
spring and 24(21.1%) from river sand dug wells. As can be seen from the table below, the
principal sources of water supply in the study area is traditional sources where about

41
82(71.9%) of the sample respondents are mainly getting drinking water from traditional
sources, while only 32(28.1%) obtained on protected sources during the time of survey.

Table 4.6 Main Source of Drinking Water for Respondents During the time of Survey

Type of water source Main water source of family

Frequency Percent
River 25 21.9
Traditional HDW 16 14.0
Traditional HDW
Protected HDW 18 15.8
Shallow Well(SW) 14 12.3
Unprotected Spring 17 14.9
Protected Spring(PS) - -
Sand Dug Well 24 21.1
Total 114 100.0

Source: - Field Survey, 2021

The majority of respondents that reported traditional water sources as their main source
ofdrinking water were due to inadequacy of water supply from their schemes (mainly for
beneficiaries in Mengele 37kebele where majority use sand dug wells from river),
frequentinterruptions of the supply(for HDW users in Abrhamo and Bashabuda kebeles) and
when water supply schemes are malfunctioning(for respondents from HDW in Ura, HDW in
Agusha and megele 37 HDW in Mengele-37kebeles) where people are mainly getting water
for domestic purpose from rivers, streams, traditional HDWs) during the time of survey.
Because respondents were asked whether they have been beneficiaries of drinking water
from developed water supply schemes or not and all of the respondents reported they
have/have been beneficiaries of protected water sources. In fact, there could be other reasons
for not using protected sources like distance of the source and unwillingness to pay for the
services.

42
 4.2.2. Status of Water Supply Schemes

As per the data obtained from the WWD, about 305 developed water supply schemes (97
HDWs, 203 SWs, 1Deep Well, 1 PS) exist in the woreda at the end of 2008 E.C. The total
number of developed water supply schemes in the studied sample kebeles were reported to
21(16 HDWs,4 SWs, and 1 PS) for the same period. Even though complete data were lacking
on status of the water supply schemes that exist in the woreda as whole, out of the total water
supply schemes exist in the sample kebeles, 8 HDW or 38.1% the schemes were not
functioning during the time of survey. Majority of functional schemes were even providing
service with problems (i.e. low yielded and frequent interruptions). As a result of failure in
schemes, many of the rural communities were not served. This finding confirms with Davis
and Brikke (1995), referring WHO that estimated 30-60% of existing water supply schemes
in developing countries are not operational at any time. The finding is also more or less
similar with the finding of Dereje (2020, where out of the total water supply schemes that
exist in Bambasi woreda of BGRS, 41% of the schemes were found non-functional.

Status of Water Supply Schemes since Construction

In this subsection, status of developed water supply schemes is described in table 4.7 below
based on views of respondents. In response to the question, “Have you ever faced the
nonfunctional problem to your water supply scheme since the time of construction?” the
survey result shows 95(83.3%) of the total replied they have faced the non-functionality
problem to their schemes while 19(16.7%) are not faced the non-functionality problem since
the time of construction. As shown in the table 4.2 below, respondents were also asked
whether or not their water Supply scheme has experienced the non-functionality or failed to
provide service since the last one year. The Field survey result indicates that 91(79.8%) of
the total respondents have faced the non-functional problem with their scheme while the
remaining 23(20.2%) have reported that their water supply scheme continuously provide
service without failure.

Out of the total (91) respondents who have faced the non-functionality problem since the last
one year, 22(24.2%) of them have reported their water supply scheme failed to provide

43
service/mal-function once, 25(27.5%) reported twice, 26(28.6%) three times and 18(19.8%)
four times. This implies that majority of the community did not get proper service from
developed schemes because of its frequent problem (e.g. about 75.8% have faced with the
problem from 2-4 times). Respondents that have ever faced the non-functional problem were
asked about the average time of schemes in state of disrepair once the schemes failed to
provide service. The survey result shows that 35(36.8%) of the respondents reported 1-2
months, 28(29.5%) 3-6 months, 22(23.1%) 7-9 months, 9(7.9%) 10 months to one year and
only 1(0.9%) replied more than a year. The majority (63.2%) of the respondents reported
their scheme is in state of disrepair for long period of time (more than 2 months). From this it
can be concluded that adequate attention was not given to maintenance and repair of water
supply schemes by concerned bodies once the schemes are non-functional. The finding is far
from the cases of Volta and 50 BrongAhafo villages of Ghana which has a well-established
system of district level support teams providing oversight and backup to the village water
committees, takes on average 18 days for the schemes in state of disrepair (Komives et al.,
2019)

Table 4.7 Nature of Water Supply Schemes Problems

Issue Respondents
Have you ever faced the non-functional Response Frequency Percentage
problem since construction? Yes 95 83.3
No 19 16.7
Total 114 100.0
Have you ever faced the non-functional Yes 91 79.8
problem since the last one year? No 23 20
Total 114 100.0
Frequency of schemes non- functionality or Once 22 24.2
fails to provide service since the last one Twice 25 27.4
year? Three times 26 28.6
Four times 18 19.8
>4 times - -
Total 114 100.0

44
Average time spent of schemes in state of 1-2 month 35 36.8
disrepair once non-functional? 3-6 month 28 29.5
7-9 22 23.1
10-12 9 9.5
>1year 1 1.1
Total

Source: - Field Survey, 2021

4.3. Existing Problems to Sustainability of RURAL WATER

SUPPLY Schemes
4.3.1. Community Related Problems
4.3.1.1. Demand of the Community for the Water Supply Service

As indicated in the literature part, development projects which are based on demand of the
end users tend to be more sustainable than those projects with less or absence of demands. In
relation to this, respondents were asked whether or not they had demand for developed water
source prior to its implementation. As shown in table 5.3 below, majority 109(95.6%) of the
sample respondents reported as they had demand for the service. The remaining 5(4.4%)
were found that they did not have demand. From this, it can be concluded that majority of
communities were aware of the benefits of water supply probably because of lack of
adequate water sources near their villages and water related problems they face from their
secondary sources prior to implementation of the scheme which in turn contribute for
communities to take care of their schemes.

In assessing who initiated to provide their existing water supply schemes, 67(58.9%) of the
respondents reported community, 18(15.8%) government, 10(8.8%) NGOs, 17(14.9%) both
community and government, while 2(1.8%) replied all in collaboration. Still in all cases,
communities were the main actors in initiating their water supply schemes to be developed.
This can help communities to have positive attitude for the developed scheme.

45
Table 4.8 Communities Demand for the Water Supply Service and Initiator to be Provide

Issue Respondents
Did you have demand for protected water Response Frequency Percentage
supply source prior to its construction? Yes 104 95.4
No 10 4.6
Total 114 100.0
Who initiated to provide your protected water Community 67 58.9
supply source? Government 18 15.8
NGO 10 8.8
Community and 17 14.9
Government
All in 2 1.8
collaboration
Total 114 100.0

Source: Field Survey 2021

4.3.1.2. Level of Community Participation

Local communities develop positive attitudes towards any development project when they
develop a sense of belongingness. In turn, sense of belongingness develops in an individual
or a community when they participate fully in the activity starting from the beginning knows
the aim and become beneficiary from the project. With regard to this, Arlosoroff et al.,
(1987:3) strongly argued that the highest potential for sustainability is achieved when the
community is involved in all phases of the project starting from planning stage.

The nature of community participation and type of contributions made by sample household
respondents are shown in table 4.9. Regarding participation of community at any one phases
of their water supply project, the survey result revealed majority 106 (93%) of sample
respondents have made participation while the remaining 8(7%) did not participate in the
water supply project. The main issue to be considered is the phases at which the community
has made participation or involved. With regarding this, (IDRC, 1981:90) highly
recommends the need of involving the community adequately in the planning, construction,
46
O and M and evaluation phases of rural water supply projects if a water supply scheme has to
be sustainable.

In assessing phases at which the community has made participation, the survey result shows
that out of the total (106) who have made participation, 4(3.8%) of the respondents were
participated during planning, 24(22.6%) during construction (implementation), 11(10.4%) in
post construction, 65(61.32%) both during and post-construction while only 2(1.9%) in all
phases. This implies that majority of the users did not participate adequately especially
during planning phases, which is the most important phase that gives an opportunity for
communities to make informed decision about the water supply (e.g. in site and technology
or scheme type selection etc). In other words, local communities’ knowledge through
experience is not considered in the planning phases which can impact on sustainability as
they were not fully participated and undermine sense of ownership to the scheme.

Moreover, almost all FGD discussants and majority of key informants from government
officials also confirmed the finding where the communities are ignored during planning and
their participation is limited to provision of road and clearing the site of the proposed new
scheme prior to the actual implementation. This is identified as failure of the implementing
agencies to consult the local community during the design. This finding also confirms with
the recommendations by (IDRC, 1981:90) which stated if due consideration is not paid to
social aspects when planning, the risk is high that the water supply system will either not be
used or it will be misused.

The survey result indicated in the table 4.9 further shows that among respondents who have
made participation, 98(92.5%) of the respondents reported their contribution by free labor
and provision of local construction materials (sand, wood, stone) during and post
construction phases while only 8(7.5%) contributed by free labor. The post construction
participation of the community is mainly limited to fencing the water supply schemes.
Surprisingly, no respondent was found that has made financial contribution during
implementation (i.e. contribution to capital cost but not fees contributed by users for O and
M). Generally, except financial contributions the communities made significant contributions
through provision of free labor and local construction materials during and post-construction

47
phases. Communities were absent in planning phase. In support of this, De Reget (2010)
referring A recent Review of World Bank Water Supply Projects by OED stated significant
involvement by local stakeholders correlates with better replicable and sustainability in the
outcomes and impacts. A lesser degree of participation, e.g. only providing materials and
labor is associated with lower likelihood of sustainability.

Table 4.9. Nature of Users’ Participation and type of Contributions made in the Water
Supply Project

Issue Respondents
Have you participated in provision of Response Frequency Percentage
water supply? Yes 106 93.
No 8 7.
Total 114 100.0
If ‘Yes’ at which phase the participation During Planning 4 3.8
was made? During Construction 24 22.8
Post Construction 11 10.4
During and post 65 61.3
Construction
In all phases 2 1.9
Total 106 100.0
Type of contribution made? Labor only 8 7.5
Financeonly - -
Local construction - -
material only
Labor and local 98 92.5
construction material
In all - -
Total 106 100.0

Source: Field survey 2021

48
Participants of FGD held with water committees mentioned that communities have high
demand for water supply service. As a result they significantly participate through provision
of local construction materials and free labor during provision of water supply. Users’
participation in pre-implementation phase was only limited to provision of road and clearing
the site of the proposed water supply scheme. They blamed the implementing agencies for
not involving or consulting the intended beneficiaries in site and scheme type and proper site
selections. Despite absence of communities in planning phases, most of the discussants
indicated it was not a critical problem for sustainability of their schemes. However, some of
them indicated its impact on sustainability of their schemes. During field visit of this study,
the researcher was also able to observe active participation of communities especially
women’s in provision of roads and cleaning the site of the proposed water supply scheme as
shown in the figure below. This has an important effect in creating sense of ownership to
communities to properly use the scheme.

Regarding the need of communities to participate in site selection of the schemes, Devis et
al., (1993) stated if improved water supplies are conventionally positioned with the
participation of the intended users, it will be more used by communities and will have a
better sustainability than water supplies that are not conventionally positioned with
participation of communities. In relation to this, respondents were asked about who made
decisions in site selections of the developed water supply schemes. The survey result shows
that 91(79.9%) of the respondents replied government as decision maker, 11(9.6%) NGO,
8(7%) both by government and community while the remaining 4(3.5%) did not certainly
know the decision maker. Based on the findings of scholars stated above, absence of
communities in site selection would have a negative impact on sustainability of the water
supply scheme as decisions were mainly made by implementing agencies.

4.3.1.3. Communities’ Sense of Ownership to Water Supply Scheme

It is obviously true that if the communities’/end users do not feel sense of ownership, the
developed water supply scheme will most probably have managed poorly, misused and the
benefits will not be sustainable. However, degree of sense of ownership to certain developed
infrastructural service depends on the degree to which the local communities are involved in

49
the whole process, level of satisfaction with the service and others. Bahabdari et al., (2000)
56 stated most of drinking water supply schemes dysfunction due to lack of ownership on the
scheme. Ownership of schemes draws users’ sentiment towards the surveillance of the
scheme as a personal property. Users’ satisfaction in yields, its location, quality, and
regularity are taken as major indicators to measure the level of ownership.

By understanding the importance of communities’ ownership, development projects started

to follow demand responsive approaches where the communities will have their own
contribution to create sense of ownership. In an attempt to create sense of ownership in rural
water supply projects, the government of Ethiopia has developed the water supply policy
which strongly recommends the need of community participation through provision of free
labor and local material during provision of water supply projects.

In assessing users’ ownership feeling to the schemes, the survey result shows that 31(27.2%)
of the respondents reported as they feel sense of ownership while majority 83(72.8%) of
them were not. The result of key informant interview held with government officials and
NGO also show weak or absence of communities’ ownership to the schemes in most cases
due to low or lack of awareness. Some of the reasons for low sense of ownership identified
by majority of FGD participants were failure of the schemes to provide adequate and
continuous service that satisfy demand of beneficiaries, inconveniency of the scheme site,
and existence of alternative traditional sources for some communities and partly due to lack
of communities’ full participation in their water supply project.

During the time of the survey, the researcher also identified some indications of weak or
absence of communities’ sense of ownership to the schemes as most of the schemes are
poorly managed, where the schemes have weak or no fences, guard, no appropriate drainage
systems, schemes are pumped the whole day by users and children; and also not protected
from domestic animals. Out of all visited functional schemes, only SW in Ura kebele has
locks and appropriate timing of fetching water (opened twice per day) and providing
appropriate service for users. This shows that weak or absence of communities’ sense of 57
ownership to the schemes is one of the reasons for poor management that in turn hinders
sustainability of the schemes.

50
 4.3.2. Managerial Problems

Water supply schemes will be more sustainable if they are managed by the communities
themselves than external bodies (government or NGOs) because communities are closer to
the scheme than external agencies. This is true when the communities are capable of
managing the schemes by taking adequate trainings on technical, financial and overall
management of the systems as well as accessed to external supports and the like.

At community level in all the sample sites, the water supply systems are managed
communities through water committee whose members are mainly 6-7 out of which 2-3 of
them are females. Members of the committee include one chair person, one secretary, one
cashier, two local technicians and two as members. During the time of field visit, the
researcher observed cases where one water committee also serves or manages two water
supply schemes.

The water committees are responsible for mobilizing community for cash and labor
contributions, overall financial and technical management of the scheme including carrying
out O and M, protecting the scheme from children and domestic animals through fencing the
schemes, fixing time of fetching, keeping its sanitation, sustain the benefits of the water
supply scheme after project completion and report to the WWD if there is any problem
beyond their capacities.

In the study area, the establishments of water committees are not legally registered by the
regional government in general and by regional water bureau including WWD in particular.
Key informant interviewees from woreda and zonal water office also confirmed absence of
legally supported water committees where accountability and transparency were absent in
financial management as some of the water committees especially the chair persons have
used the money (fees collected from users) for their own and other purposes. The implication
here is that absence of transparency and accountability in financial aspects could 58 results in
communities mistrust on water committees and discourage the communities to contribute
water fees properly that in turn limits adequacy of fees for O and M.

51
i. Problems Related to Water Committees

If rural water supply schemes are to be functional for long period of time and the benefits
from the scheme to continue, those communities who manage the scheme have to have a
financial and managerial capacities. In assessing the capability of water committees in
managing the water supply schemes, respondents were asked how they evaluate the water
committees’ capacity (see table 4.10 below). The Field survey result indicate that 61(53.5%)
of the respondents have indicated water committees were not capable of managing the
schemes while the remaining 53 (46.7%) agree on their capability. As illustrated in the table
below, respondents were also asked whether or not the water committees properly discharge
their responsibilities. Majority 68(59.6%) of respondents reacted the water committees did
not discharge their responsibility adequately while 46(40.4%) of them indicated water
committees properly discharge their responsibilities. In both cases, majority of the
respondents were not satisfied with activities of water committees.

Table 4.10. Respondents View on Capability of Water Committees to manage their

Schemes and Discharge their roles properly

Issue Respondents
Do you think water committees are capable of Response Frequency Percentage
managing water supply scheme properly? Yes 53 46.7
No 61 53.3
Total 114 100.0
Did water committees adequately discharge Yes 46 40.4
No 68 59.6

52
their responsibilities? Total 114 100.0

Source: Field survey 2021

Majority of focus group discussants from water committees also believed that they were
unable to run their roles properly due to their limited / lack of capacity and the cause can be
traced back to inadequate and even absence of practical trainings and supports given to them
from government side and absence of working manuals. They indicated as they were
assigned to manage their water supply schemes properly without meeting their needs
required for proper managing of the schemes.

On the other hand, they reported that work load they have as most of the communities in the
study area go to traditional gold mining areas as well as engage in farming activities, they
have no adequate time to look after the water points. In addition, absence of some incentives
for water committees was identified as one of the reasons not for discharging their
responsibilities properly. All of the discussants in the various form commented the merit of
providing adequate and practical trainings and supports in addressing problems of
sustainability in their water supply schemes. Similarly, the researcher was able to observe
lack of regular meeting programs from part of water committees and low educational level
for majority of water committee members/at least 4 out of 7 were illiterate in all visited sites
of the sample schemes. The implication here is that communities are not capable to manage
their schemes properly because they lack the skills and basic trainings on financial, technical
and overall management of their water supply schemes as well as absence of incentives and
workloads they have. Accordingly, such limited capacity of water committees has been
identified as one of the major factor hindering schemes to provide proper service to the
communities.

In line with the findings above, study by Bhandari et al., (2000) indicated inefficient and less
capable institution like water users committee is a prime reason why drinking water supply
schemes are not sustainable. Similarly, finding by Komives et al., (2019:15) also shows 80%
of problems in communities were an administrative or financial nature and identified the
most problems as follows: lack of appropriate tariff collection, utilization of WatSan money

53
for unrelated purposes, inappropriate and inefficient financial recording and lack of
transparency and trust of the community.

4.3.3. Technical Related Problems

Carrying out an effective O and M of water supply systems is one of the important
contributors of sustainability in rural water supply schemes because non-functionality or
failure to provide service is features of any developed water supply scheme. However,
carrying out effective O and M of water supply schemes require availability of local
technicians that have technical skills to carry out O and M including major repairs,
communities’ access to adequate spare parts and toolkits.

4.3.3.1. Availability of Local Technicians and their Technical Skills

In community managed water supply schemes, availability of local technicians that can carry
out O and M when needed is very important as rural communities are located in dispersed as
well as difficulty for local governments to carry out such repairs as they are over loaded,
under staffed and under resourced nature.

In all sites of the scheme, it is encouraging to note that each scheme or each water
committees have two local technicians (one male and the other female). However, it is true
from the theory as well as in practice that unless availability of local technician is
complemented by adequate technical skills to carry out repairs including major break downs,
availability of spare parts and equipping them with the necessary toolkits, sustaining the
services is greatly affected as it leads to poor O and M of the schemes.

With regard to technical skills of local technicians to carry out all types of repairs including
major break downs, results of Field survey indicated in table 4.11 reveals majority
107(93.9%) of the total respondents reported that local technicians did not have adequate
technical skills to carry out repairs especially major repairs. The remaining 7(6.1%) of the
total have indicated ability of local technicians to carry out all types of repairs. The cross
tabulation of the survey result shows that, of the total (7) respondents who have indicated
ability of local technicians to carry out all types of repairs, 6 out of 77 were respondents from

54
functional water supply schemes while only 1 out 37 respondents was from nonfunctional
scheme. The implication here is that, availability of technical skills of the 61 technicians have
contributed to better functionality of water supply schemes or absence of technical skills of
local technicians to carry out major repairs resulted in failure to carry out repairs/contributed
to malfunctioning. In fact, this is not the only factor.

The finding above is also supplemented by FGD held with water committees. As water
committees include local technicians in its member reported that the training given to water
committees in general and local mechanics in particular by implementing agencies on
technical issues were not adequate. Almost all of the discussants stated that since the time of
their water supply schemes construction and establishment of water committees, they have
taken training only once that lasted from 2-7days before one year of the study time; and since
then no refreshment training was given to them. As a result, they reported their inability to
carry out repairs mainly major repairs. This has been partly evidenced as all sample non-
functional water supply schemes are in state of disrepair for long period of time (7-9 months
until the time of the survey).

The study further inquired whether the local technicians were equipped with the necessary
toolkits to carry out repairs or not (see table 4.11). Majority 107(93.9%) of the total
respondents reacted that local technicians were ill-equipped. Only 5(4.4%) of them reported
that local technicians were well equipped with the necessary toolkits and 2(1.8%) of the
respondents did not know about adequacy of toolkits. This shows existences of local
technicians in each water supply scheme were not accompanied by availability of the
necessary toolkits to carry out O and M in the study area. Even though some FGD
participants from water committees indicated the ability of local technicians to can carry out
minor repair works rarely, this is impacted by absence of the necessary toolkits. Similarly,
key informant interview made with government water sector officials reveals that majority of
local technicians can carry out minor repairs but not equipped with adequate tools. From the
discussions above, one can draw a conclusion that absence of adequate toolkits to the local
technicians was one of the contributors for poor O and M of the schemes which in turn lead
to non-functionality of the schemes. This finding is related with the suggestion of

55
Musonda(2004:139) who stated that appropriate tools for carrying out repairs should be made
available to achieve sustainability.

Table 4.11 Respondents View on Ability of Local Technicians to carry out all types of
Operation and Maintenance and Availability of adequate Toolkits

Issue Respondents

Do you think local technicians have adequate Response Frequency Percentage

technical skills to carry out all types of repairs / Yes 53 46.7
maintenance? No 61 53.3
Total 114 100.0
Are local technicians well equipped with the Yes 46 40.4
necessary toolkits to carry out repairs when No 68 59.6
needed? Total 114 100.0

Source: Field Survey,2021

4.3.3.2. Availability of Spare Parts

Availability of spare parts for community is one of the important factor that contribute to
sustainability of rural water supply schemes because whenever the schemes encounter
malfunctioning, communities will get easily with in short period of time. The implication
here is that scarcities of spare parts to communities have a negative impact on sustainability
of community water supply schemes. With regard to this, Komives et al., (2019) stated that
without access to a reliable supply of spare parts and some qualified person to make repairs,
water supply schemes will not be sustainable.

In assessing availability of spare parts at community level whenever needed by communities,

109 (95.6%) of the respondents have reported that the spare parts are not readily and easily
available while only 5(4.4%) have indicated availability of spare parts. The finding shows
that communities in the study area are not accessed for spare parts. Participants of FGD from
water committees mainly from nonfunctional schemes identified lack of spare parts as a
major problem to repair their schemes whenever their scheme encountered break downs.

56
They further stated that even when they want to buy the inexpensive spare parts such as
valves, rubbers, U-seals, these were not easily available and even rarely available from
private sector or business man; it costs more than ten times the normal costs. As a result of
these, some of participants have indicated their water supply schemes are in state of disrepair
for long period of time and others as their water supply scheme is providing service with
problems.

The finding above is also supplemented by key informant interview made with regional
water bureau head, zonal water sector experts as well as Asossa WWD staff members. They
all indicated spare parts are not available at woreda and even regional level. The result of
interview also shows that neither of the regional water bureau nor Asossa WWD has
allocated budget for spare parts and ensured availability of spare parts to communities. In
addition to these, no formal private spare part providers exist in the region. From this, it can
be concluded that government or implementing agencies have not given due attention to
sustaining the schemes once installed and handed over to the users. From the above
discussions, absences of spare parts to the communities have been the main reason for
schemes not to be repaired once the schemes experienced break downs or non-functional.

4.3.3.3. Construction Quality of Developed Water Supply Scheme

As indicated in the literature part, it may be disastrous for people when a facility breaks
down and cannot be repaired because of a fault inherent in the design or construction. The
study assessed the quality of constructed water supply schemes by taking the responses of
sample households. The evaluation criteria introduced for them were poor (not good), good
(satisfactory) and very good. Based on these criteria those households who replied not good,
good and very good account for 58(50.8%), 41(36.0%), 15(13.2%) respectively. As
illustrated in the table 5.7, the cross tabulation of the survey result revealed that high
percentage of respondents from non-functional schemes 25 out of 37(67.6%) are complained
for its poor construction quality as compared to 33 out of 77(42.9%) respondents from
functional schemes site. The majority of the respondents might say this as one of the schemes
is non-functional due to poor water quality because some dead things had go in to the water
through the hole and for others poor fitting or low standards of technologies as main reason

57
for non-functionality of the schemes due to breaking of hand pumps. Generally, the
implication here is that poor construction quality is one of the reasons for schemes non
functionality.

Table 4.12. Respondents’ Opinion on Construction Quality of Schemes.

Respondents Overall Respondents Respondents by Status of Schemes (from

Opinion about functional and non-functional)
Status of Schemes Functional Not functional
Frequency % Frequenc % Frequenc %
y y
Not Good (poor) 58 50.8 33 42.8 25 67.6
Good (satisfactory) 41 36.0 32 41.6 9 24.3
Very Good 15 13.2 12 15.6 3 8.1
Total 114 100.0 114 100.0 114 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2021

During the time of survey, the researcher observed that some of the water supply schemes
especially non-functional schemes are cracked and the covers were not well fitted and
exposed the water for pollution as shown in figure below.

4.3.4. Financial Problems

4.3.4.1. Nature of Community’s Contributions to Cost Recovery

If improved water supply schemes are to be managed properly and make the benefits
sustainable, beneficiaries are expected to cover at least costs of O and M. With regard to this,
the Water Resource Management Policy of Ethiopia (1999) clearly indicated that provision
of drinking water supplies in urban areas are based on the principle of total cost recovery
programs while rural water supplies are based on the principles of covering costs of O and M
and these principles need urban tariff settings to be based on the basis of full cost recovery
and rural tariff settings to be based on the objectives of recovering O and M costs which are
considered as mandatory.

58
The amount of money needed to meet costs of O and M depends on whether the beneficiaries
pay or not and their ability to pay regularly. Unless costs of O and M are covered by
beneficiaries, the probability of water supply schemes to be sustainable is very low as failure
of water supply scheme /break down at any time is one of its features. In relation to this, ODI
(2004) identified cash flows as a major problem in many rural areas especially if the water
point breaks at wrong time.

In assessing whether the communities pay fees for the water service they use or not, the
survey result indicated in the table 4.13 shows that 111(97.4%) of the total respondents
reported they pay. Only 3(2.6%) of the respondents were found as beneficiaries but do not
pay for the service. Those respondents who did not pay are those who are locally recognized
as elders and unable to pay for the service. From this, it can be concluded that communities
are aware of why they pay water fees that can in turn positively affect sustainability of the
schemes as the fees may use for purchase of spare parts when needed.

In the study area, about 92 (80.8%) of the research respondents reported that the water fees
were set by water committee while 7(6.1%) by WWD, 11(9.6%) both by WWD and water
committee and only 4(3.5%) did not know who set the price of their water fees. However,
interview made with Asossa WWD head reveals that fees were set by water committees in
negotiation with the desk.

Regarding the amount of money payment made, the most common type of payment is one
Ethiopian Birr (ETB)/month/household in all visited schemes except for SW in Urra’ where
the beneficiaries are paying 20 cents or 0.2 ETB per Jerican or container they used to fetch
water. The survey result indicated in the table 48 also shows, of the total respondents who
have made payments, 87(78.4%) of the respondents were paying 1 ETB/month/household
while 24 (21.6%) of the respondents all from one scheme pay 0.20 ETB per Jerican. The
payment is different from others because of low yields of water supply from the SW (7-15
Jerican per day) during the time of survey but the intended beneficiaries are about 120 HHs.
Therefore the intension of such tariff settings was to generate better fees that can contribute
for cost recovery than payments in other areas.

59
With regard to fairness of payments made by users/month or per container used to fetch
water, out of the total (111) who made payments, 66(59.5%) indicated its fairness mainly
from those who were paying 1 ETB/month/household, while the remaining 45(40.5%)
reported its unfairness.

Out of 87 respondents who made payment of 1 ETB/month/household, 59(67.8%) of the

respondents were willing to pay 1 ETB, 23(26.4%) less than 1 ETB, 4(4.6%) from 1.10-2.00
ETB, and only 1(1.2%) agreed to pay from 2.10-3.00 ETB. Similarly, out of 24 respondents
whose tariffs are 0.20 Birr/Jerican, 6(25.0%) respondents were willing to pay less than 0.20
ETB/Jerican, 7(29.2%) reported their willingness to pay 0.20 ETB/Jerican and surprisingly
the remaining 11 (45.8%) were willing to pay 1 ETB/month alike payments made in other
areas of their kebele and the whole woreda (i.e. 1 ETB/ month). This implies that majority of
beneficiaries are willing to pay 1 ETB/month by indicating its fairness followed by
respondents’ willing to pay lower fees than the existing fee tariff. Only 5 respondents are
willing to pay more than what they were paying.

From the finding above, it can be concluded that the majority of beneficiaries were not able
or willing to pay more than what they were paying due to either lack of financial capacity or
dissatisfaction with their water supply. However, majority of FGD participants mainly from
water committees indicated that most of communities are able and willing to pay more for
improved service provided that appropriate service/or service that satisfy the needs of
communities.

Table 4.13 Respondents’ reaction on Financial Issues of their Water Supply Schemes

Issues and Response Respondents

Who set the price of water fees? Frequency %
Water committee 92 80.8
Government/Woreda water desk 7 6.1
NGOs - -
Water committee with water desk 11 9.6
All in collaboration - -

60
I don’t know 4 3.5
Total 114 100.0
Type of payment you made? - -
1 ETB/month/ household 87 78.4
0.20 ETB per Jerican or container 24 21.6
Total 114 100.0
Do you think 1 ETB payment you made is
fair?
Yes 59 67.8
No 28 32.2
Total 87 100.0
Amount you are willing to pay/month?
<1 ETB 23 26.4
1 ETB 59 67.8
.10-2.00ETB 4 4.6
2.10-3.00ETB 1 1.2
>3.00ETB - -
Total 87 100.0
Do you think 0.2ETB Payment you made is - -
fair?
Yes 7 19.2
No 17 70.8
Total 24 100.0
Amount you are willing to pay/ Jerican or
month?
<20centes (0.2ETB) 6 25.0
20centes 7 29.2
>20centes
1 ETB/ETB 11 45.8
Total 24 100.0

Source: Hose hold survey 2021

61
 4.3.4.2. Adequacy of Water Fees to Cover Costs of O and M

As indicated in the literature part covering costs of O and M by beneficiaries is highly

recommended if water supply schemes have to be sustainable. Evas and Appleton (1999)
indicated that as a minimum, as much of the recurrent costs as possible should be borne by
the community unless sustainability cannot be guaranteed.

In an attempt to know the views of the community concerning the adequacy of water fees
collected from users to cover all costs of O and M, the results of the survey indicated in the
table below shows that majority 102 (89.5%) of the total subjects replied for inadequacy of
fees to cover all costs related to the scheme while only 5 (4.4%) of the household
respondents all from functional schemes have agreed with its adequacy and no one has the
same saying from non-functional scheme sites. The remaining 7(6.1%) did not know whether
it is adequate or not.

Table4.14. Respondents View on Adequacy of Water fees to Cover Costs of O and M

Issues and Response Household

Respondents
Do you think fees collected are adequate to Frequency %
cover all costs of O and M?
Yes 5 4.4
No 102 89.5
I don’t Know 7 6.1
Total 114 100.0

Source: Hose hold survey 2021

Majority of the FGD participants from water committees also asserted the inadequacy of
water fees collected from users to cover all costs of O and M. They indicated existence of
poor O and M system once the scheme has encountered non-functional or other problem due
to lack of spare parts whenever need and even if it was rarely available from private sectors,
the spare parts are very expensive and unaffordable. In addition, some of the beneficiaries did

62
not pay regularly or at all for the service especially during the wet seasons as they are
accessible to alternative sources as well as during the dry season especially 7 months
between March-May when the water volume of their scheme significantly decline and even
dries up in some cases.

The results of key informant interview held with WWD staffs revealed that even though there
is an encouraging trend where the users are paying for the service, fees collected from users
in general is not adequate to cover all costs of O and M including for major repairs. This is
because spare parts are not easily available. Besides, weak or poor fee collection systems and
its management by most of water committees where some of water committees have misused
the water fees collected from beneficiaries. However, they strongly believed that fees
generated from most of the schemes can cover costs of minor repairs. During interview, it
was also indicated that some of the remotest kebeles in the woreda did not yet pay for the
water service they use but request the WWD for repairs when the schemes encounter
nonfunctional. The implication here is that, inadequacy of fees collected from users to cover
all costs of O and M are explained by absence of spare parts, poor or weak fee collection and
poor management system, existence of alternative sources during wet seasons and
inadequacy of the supply have discouraged the communities to pay regularly for the service.

From the findings above, it can be concluded that fees collected from users are not adequate
to meet the costs O and M, which in turn negatively affect sustainability of water supply
schemes in the study area. In line with this finding, study by Devis et al., (1993) clearly
stated failure to adequately cover the costs of improved water supply services in developing
countries has been identified as the major constraint to achieve the goal of safe water and
sanitation for all on sustainable basis. To indicate the lion share of covering costs of O and M
to achieve sustainability, they further stated that sustainability of water supply schemes can
only be successful if community members are able to meet the costs of O and M. However,
ODI (2004) indicated existence of dilemma over ensuring availability of adequate
community funds to cover water point maintenance cost, as people are often reluctant to
contribute towards the maintenance of a water point when the it is working (‘why do you
need maintenance money, it is working alright?’) but are equally reluctant to contribute

63
towards the maintenance of the water point when it breaks down (‘why should I pay, it is not
working and I am not getting any water?’).

From the findings above, it can be concluded that fees collected from users are not adequate
to meet the costs O and M, which in turn negatively affect sustainability of water supply
schemes in the study area. In line with this finding, study by Devis et al., (1993) clearly
stated failure to adequately cover the costs of improved water supply services in developing
countries has been identified as the major constraint to achieve the goal of safe water and
sanitation for all on sustainable basis. To indicate the lion, share of covering costs of O and
M to achieve sustainability, they further stated that sustainability of water supply schemes
can only be successful if community members are able to meet the costs of O and M.
However, ODI (2004) indicated existence of dilemma over ensuring availability of adequate
community funds to cover water point maintenance cost, as people are often reluctant to
contribute towards the maintenance of a water point when the it is working (‘why do you
need maintenance money, it is working alright?’) but are equally reluctant to contribute
towards the maintenance of the water point when it break down (‘why should I pay, it is not
working and I am not getting any water?’).

With regard to the fees collected from users being misused by some members of water
committees which in turn limited availability of fees to chemically treat their water supply
which was nonfunctional due poor water quality (bad smells); a woman one of the members
of water committee and local technician from Agusha kebele stated:

4.3.5. Environmental Related Problems

4.3.5.1. Adequacy of Water Supply from Developed Source

Increasing the quantity of water that is available and bringing the water closer to the point of
use can help productive activities. The respondents were asked about adequacy of their water
supply for users. The survey result revealed that majority 108(94.7%) of the respondents
replied inadequacy of water supply while the remaining 6(5.3%) indicated its adequacy.
Majority of participants in FGD held with water committees and women’s also indicated
inadequacy of their water supply and even dries up during the dry season due to shallow

64
depths of their schemes which is mainly constructed during the wet season (‘kiremt’). The
depth of visited HDWs ranges from 7-12 meters while SWs are reported to have depths of
42-45 meters. FGD discussants from Mengele 37kebele raised the issue of SW was low
yielding and reported to provide on average 7-15 Jericans per day while the beneficiaries are
about 120 HHs. Interviewees from WWD also indicated low yielding of the supply and even
dry ups of the developed schemes are increasing from time to time in the woreda. The
implication here 72 is that the supply is not adequate due to low ground water resource
potential probably as the woreda is located in the low land.

In addition to the above environmental related problem, data obtained from respective water
committees and WWD shows all sample selected schemes were serving more HHs than what
was recommended by regional water bureau and WWD which limited the a adequacy of the
supply for users. Similarly, it has been observed that most of functioning schemes except in
Ura SW are pumped the whole day by users and children, which without any doubt damages
the physical state and even significantly reduce the yield of the well as it has no time for
recharge as well as wastage of water during fetching where all affect sustainability as it
affects the yield.

Moreover, the other possible reasons for inadequacy of the supply for some schemes in the
study area based on researchers observation during field visit was wrong site selections
where two water supply schemes are installed closer. For example, in Abrhamo kebele it has
been observed that two HDWs were installed at a distance of 50 meters approximately.
Similarly, in Bashabuda kebele the new SW was started to developed by WAE-BG at
approximately 50 meters near to HDW which was constructed in 1992 E.C. In Mengele 37
kebele, SW and HDW were also located approximately at a distance of 100 meters which
may affect the yield of one another.

Regarding the problem of water supply inadequacy and the bulk of burden imposed on
women’s, one of the participants of FGD held with women’s in Mengele 37 kebele, who is
beneficiaries of shallow well stated:

65
During the field visit of the study, the researcher was able to observe beneficiaries of water
from developed source (i.e. SW in Bashabuda) are getting water for domestic purpose by
traveling long distances and carrying heavy loads from sand dug wells of Basha River as the
supply from their developed sources was inadequate.

4.3.5.2. Water Quality Problem

One of the important aims of providing water supply programs is to improve the health of the
communities by providing clean water that can in turn contribute productivity of
communities as compared to traditional water sources. Therefore, if implemented water
supply scheme is expected to be used by intended beneficiaries, the quality of water has to be
acceptable by users and/or better than their traditional water sources. If the water supply
scheme is not used and the benefits from that scheme do not last, the water supply scheme
can be said non-functional or not sustainable.

Regarding the non-functionality of their water supply schemes due to poor water quality and
related problems women’s are facing, 35 years old woman, one of the former beneficiaries of
HDW in Agusha kebele has stated:

“When the system was installed, we especially women were very happy because of our access
to clean water as well as its closeness to our home as compared to our traditional sources. I
would never expect our water supply scheme face a problem or non-functionality. After
serving for about one and half years, it is now malfunctioning since the last eight months and
even other developed water supply schemes near our village are also not functional. The
problem of our scheme is that the water smells badly because some dead bodies have gone in
to the water of the scheme through the crack and we have seen hairs in the water. Since then,
we turned back to our former sources where we get drinking water in a small hand dug wells
from river. I usually go to that source on average 3 to 4 times per a day for domestic
purpose. I know that our traditional sources have also quality problem but we don’t have any
options. As a result of this, children are suffering from water borne diseases like diarrhea
and others. In addition, there is no grain mail in our kebele so we forced to travel long
distances more than 10 kms to Asossa town. Moreover, we are responsible for all domestic

66
works, take care of children and also participate in productive sectors (farming and gold
mining). As a result of all these workloads, I have no any time to take rest and the only time
of my rest is during my short sleeping night that ranges from 5-7 hours.”

The implications of the above discussions show women’s are the most vulnerable to
problems related to water supply when their water supply schemes face nonfunctional or the
supply is inadequate. A woman’s saying is related to the finding of Davis et al., (1993:22).
They stated in SSA the collection and carrying of water and fuel wood over considerable
distance can result in women’s having only a few hours’ sleep a night in the dry season.

4.3.6. Nature of Institutional Supports given to Community and

Coordination among Stakeholders
4.3.6.1. Nature of Institutional Supports given to Communities in
Managing Water Supply Schemes

If communities are expected to manage their water supply schemes successfully, support
form external body especially from government part (i.e. regional water bureau, Zonal
WMERD office and WWD) should be given to communities. Support from NGOs is also
critical in sustaining the functionality of rural water supplies. Such supports may include
providing adequate training on financial management, O and M procedures, carrying out O
and M activities which are beyond the financial and technical capacities of the community,
providing spare parts to communities and/or ensuring its availability, follow-up of the
activities carried out by water committees and equipping technicians with the necessary
toolkits are the most important issues that should be given due emphasis by government and
NGOs. Because properly supported communities will have both the ability and willingness
to manage their own water schemes.

In assessing the nature of institutional supports (both from government and NGOs) given to
communities in managing their water supply systems properly, out of the total sample
respondents 109(95.6%) of them have indicated absence or inadequacy of supports from both
governmental and NGOs and only 5(4.4%) of the sample respondents all from functional
schemes reacted existence of adequate supports mainly from WWD and NGOs (i.e. Wash

67
national program -BG). However, no respondent have the same saying from non-functional
scheme sites.

Almost all FGD discussants expressed their grievance with regard to the issue of supports
given to them on part of implementing agencies after once the schemes were handover to the
communities. They were complaining the implementing agencies for their absence in
providing supports to communities and place all the burdens on the shoulder of water
committees to manage and maintain their water supply systems sustainable without giving
adequate and practical trainings on financial and technical aspects, ensuring availability and
affordability of spare parts and/ or absence of spare part storage at all level, absence of
working manual, follow-up of activities done by water committees etc. Majority of the
discussants mentioned the above factors as the major inhabiting factors in sustaining the
benefits from their developed water supply schemes. Almost all Participants of FGD from
non-functional sites identified such factors as major reasons that lead their scheme to non-
functionality as well as failure to maintain the schemes once nonfunctional. However, some
of the participants in FGD also indicated as the WWD provides spare parts whenever
available and carry out repairs freely.

Key informant interviewees from government officials also believed about the inadequate supports
they provide to rural communities because of the resource limitations they have. However, they
indicated that they provide supports like: provision of spare parts whenever available, carry out major
repairs when it was beyond the technical capacities of the local technicians, and provide trainings and
supports to the committees whenever resources are available.

The weak or inadequate supports from implementing agencies to communities was evidenced
by the researcher during the time of survey where all sample non-functional water supply
schemes were in state of disrepair for long period (more than 7 months each until the time of
survey) once the scheme has experienced heavy break downs. In addition, one HDW in
Agushakebele which was not functional due to poor water quality is not also chemically
treated. As a result, significant numbers of people are forced to use water for domestic
purpose from traditional sources. The communities were unable to maintain the systems as
the problems were beyond their technical and financial capacity.

68
A conclusion one can draw from the above discussions is that, inadequate supports to rural
communities has been one of the major threats in sustaining the proper functionality of the
developed water supply schemes as all burdens are imposed on communities to manage their
water supply systems properly including carrying out O and M, while it was evident that
most of the rural communities lack skills and basic trainings that required to manage their
schemes. Generally, the study found that the institutional supports in rural water supply are
not adequate in Asossaworeda. The finding above is in line with the recommendation given
by Carter and Rwanwanja (2019). They stated ongoing support is crucial, noting lasts
without followup support “keeping the fire burning”. Similarly, Musonda (2004:129)
referring studies by Brikke et al., (1995) stated sustainability of water supply facilities can
only be achieved if there is partnership between communities and water supply agencies as
communities will always need external support due to their limited technical and financial
capacity.

i. Problems Faced by Asossa Woreda Water office in Supporting Sustainability

of rural water supply Schemes

In BGRS, decentralization in the water sector has been started in 2000 (2004). Prior to
decentralization and establishment of Zonal WMERD office and WWD, development and
management of RURAL WATER SUPPLY systems has been done by regional water bureau.
As a result of decentralization in the water sector, power and responsibilities to develop and
manage RURAL WATER SUPPLY schemes have been given to the WWD. The roles of
regional water bureau and zonal offices are expected to provide supports to the WWD in
terms of finance and technical including provision and ensuring availability of spare parts,
carry out activities which are beyond the technical and financial capacities of the WWD,
providing them trainings to enhance their capacity to implement and properly support
management of installed water supply schemes at woreda level.

In the present decentralization of the water sector, the WWD is the closest level to provide
support service to rural communities in managing their water supply systems. Because it is
responsible for development rural water supply schemes mainly HDWs and PSs, carry out
maintenance works which are beyond the technical and financial capacities of the

69
community, ensuring 78 availability of spare parts at woreda level, follow-up activities of
water committees including providing them adequate and practical training on financial and
technical management of water supply schemes. It is generally true that the institutional and
administrative capacity of local governments in this case WWD can influence success in
water supply sectors either positively or negatively. To provide such supports or properly
discharge its roles and responsibilities, the water desk has to have qualified personnel,
accessed to reasonable resources (finance and others). However, during the time of the
survey, Asossa WWD was found institutionally limited capacity. It is manifested in terms of
the number of personnel and their qualification, financial and material availability and
transport system available for the desk.

At woreda level, there are only two experts; one O and M expert at the same time acting as
water desk head since 2000, and the second water quality control and analysis expert while
full staffing in the desk requires more experts like community mobilization, water works
study, design and supervision experts and others. Even the budgets allocated to them were
too low and showing a declining trend for the last three years.

Woreda Water office experts also reported supports from regional and zonal water offices are
limited to technical supports like provision of spare parts whenever available but no financial
support was given to the office. As can be seen in the table 4.15 below, budget allocated to
the desk significantly decline from year to year especially for recurrent budget.

Table.4.15 Budget Allocated to AsossaWoreda Water Desk since Decentralization

Year (E.C) Amount of money (In ETB)

Capital budget Recurrent Budget
2008 No data 46,000
2009 Not allocated 8,648
2010 75,000 75,000
2011 Not allocated 22,008
2012 Not allocated 22,008

Source: Woreda Water Desk, 2020

70
The above table depicts that capital budget was not allocated for most of the years and the
recurrent budget shows declining trend from 6,000 ETB in 2000 to 760 ETB in 2010. Some
of the major reasons for absence of capital and declining recurrent budget in the water sector
at woreda level were identified by WWD. The first reason was interventions made by WAE-
BG in the water sector in the woreda since 2004. As a result of this, less attention was given
to the water sector including the need for sustaining the existing water supply schemes in the
woreda by woreda administration in general and the funding office in particular. To the
opposite, government has given attention to other social services. Secondly, there was a
perception by regional water bureau that the woreda experts lack the necessary skills to
implement water supply projects. In general, with such limited resources (constraints of
finance, limited number of personnel, lack of access to material supply and transportation
services), it is difficult for the WWD to provide adequate support to communities to sustain
water supply schemes as the number of water supply schemes are increasing from year to
year and budget allocated to the sector (mainly recurrent budget) is declining from time to
time.

Despite limited institutional capacity of the WWD, the desk has made efforts in provision of
spare parts whenever available, carry out major repairs when it was beyond the technical
capacities of the local technicians, provide training for water committees, promoted
community participations during water supply provisions and establishing board
management systems in the woreda.

Generally, the Woreda water office is identified as it is understaffed, under resourced and
except one motor cycle there was no transportation service for experts to provide supports in
74 kebeles of the woreda having more than 305 water supply schemes during the time of
survey. Based on the above findings, limited institutional capacity of the desk is identified as
one of the major problem to support water supply schemes sustainability in Asossa woreda.
This finding confirms with conclusion made by Musonda (2004) referring studies conducted
by Brikke et al (2009). They stated that although local governments are recommended to be
suitable to handle rural water supply sector due to their proximity to rural communities, local
governments are unable to successfully do so because they are overburdened, underfunded
and have inadequate capacities. With regard to the limits of transportation on sustainability,

71
Carter et al., (2008:10) recommended that to support sustainability of rural water supply
schemes; appropriate forms of transport must be available.

ii. Water Supply Schemes Management System Adapted in the Woreda

As stated in the previous section of this study, water supply schemes at community level are
managed by community through water committee and communities/users contribute or pay
user fees in all sites. This section tries to assess how the schemes and fees contributed by
users are managed or saved at woreda level. As per information obtained from WWD and
WAE-BG branch heads, water supply schemes that exist in the woreda are recently started to
be managed by the board systems.

Nature of Coordination among Stakeholders Involved in Water Sector

There are different stakeholders dealing with the water sector in the region in general and in
Asossa woreda in particular. These include regional water bureau, Zonal WMERD office,
WWD and NGOs mainly WAE-BG in Asossa woreda. The existing trend in implementation
of rural water supply in the woreda is that, once the water supply scheme is developed by
implementing agencies, it has been handed over to the users/communities and communities
are the sole responsible body to manage their water supply schemes. However, literatures
indicate the need of coordinated effort that should be made to achieve sustainability in water
supply schemes because of the complexity and problems associated in managing water
supply by the community alone or implementing agency. The results of interviews held with
stakeholders head in assessing the nature of coordination made among stakeholders to
support the water sector in the study area is summarized as follows:

The regional water bureau did not adequately discharge its responsibilities in supporting the
lower governments in terms of finance and the required technical support. Regarding its
coordination with others, results of interview with the lower governments as well as NGOs
indicate its inadequacy or week coordination. The result of interviews further revealed
existence of relatively better coordination between WWD and NGO. In general all
interviewees indicated weak coordination of their staffs with zonal office.

72
Zonal WMERD office is a supportive staff whose mandates are mainly to provide technical
supports to the WWD, like carry out inventory works, water quality analysis and carrying out
O and M which are beyond the capacity of WWD. The office is not responsible to implement
new water supply projects as they are mainly limited to the regional water bureau (for SWs)
and WWD for implementing HDWs and PSs. Interviewees from the zonal office reported
that no one of the stakeholders invite them in implementing water supply schemes and
related activities like carrying out supervision, monitoring and evaluation of the projects.
They stated, their office carries out inventory works, water quality analysis and provide
technical support based on the requests from regional water bureau and WWDs.

Interviewees from WWD also complained for the inadequate supports both financial and
technical given by the regional bureau and zonal office. In relation to their coordination in
water supply projects, the WWD staff members indicated their inadequate and even absence
mainly during supervision, monitoring, evaluation and handover of water supply schemes
mainly when SWs are implemented by regional water bureau. As a result of such an
inadequate or no supervisions made during the time of construction, the quality of
construction is reported to be lower than cases where the WWD staffs have participated in
supervision. On the other hand, they have indicated their good relation with NGO especially
with WAE-BG in the woreda where all activities are carried out with the consultation and
participation of WWD staff members.

WAE-BG on its side indicated their smooth relation with the regional water bureau and
WWD where they provide technical supports, participate during supervision, monitoring and
evaluation of midterm and terminal reports of the organizations activities as well as during
handover of the schemes to the communities.

Majority of interviewed governmental officials and experts reported existence of

coordination problem amongst different actors at all level of the government offices to make
water supply schemes sustainable. It was at all level reported, lack of continues monitoring,
evaluation and supervision systems in the region due to weak coordination among
stakeholders.

73
At the woreda level there was no private sectors involved in the water sector. However, at
regional level there is water works construction enterprise which is responsible to develop
SWs and bore holes based on the agreements or contracts made with the funding agency.

Generally, from the discussions above one can understand existence of weak coordination
among stakeholders mainly from the government organizations; and NGOs have relatively
better coordination with government bodies. The existence of week or inadequate
coordination has a significant impact in hindering sustainability of water supply schemes as
most of the schemes monitoring and supervisions during construction of schemes are weak
that might lead to poor design of the system.

The study also indicated that communities have shown a good motivation in paying user fees.
However, poor or week fee collection and its management are one of the problems that
limited adequacy of water fees to cover costs of O and M. The other reason for communities’
inability to raise adequate user fees to purchase spare parts was because spare parts are
expensive and even not available. The communities are mainly able to meet the costs of less
expensive spare parts.

74
CHAPTER-FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Conclusions

The survey made to assess factors undermining sustainability of rural water supply schemes
in the study area identified a wide range of factors. In this sub section the major findings of
the study are concluded in line with the basic questions of the study.

The findings of the study generally found that sustaining the proper functionality of water
supply schemes in the study area is a major problem due to factors stated below:

The study found that communities have made significant contributions through provision of
free labor and local construction materials during and post construction phases. However,
their participation in implementation of water supply schemes is not fully addressed from the
beginning where the intended beneficiaries were absent during planning including site and
scheme type selections which might resulted in low sense of ownership.

In the study area it was encouraging to note that in all sites water supply schemes are
managed by community through water committees who are responsible for overall
management of the schemes.

The survey result revealed that most of water supply schemes are poorly managed by
communities. The reasons are identified as low sense of ownership to the schemes by
communities due to dissatisfaction with the water supply as most of the time the supply from
their scheme was inadequate, failure of schemes to provide appropriate service and
inadequate participation of communities as well as low awareness. In addition, in adequate
trainings and supports from implementing agencies for communities have also contributed
for poor managements of the schemes.

The study also indicated that communities have shown a good motivation in paying user fees.
However, poor or week fee collection and its management are one of the problems that

75
limited adequacy of water fees to cover costs of O and M. The other reason for communities’
inability to raise adequate user fees to purchase spare parts was because spare parts are
expensive and even not available. The communities are mainly able to meet the costs of less
expensive spare parts.

With regarded to technical issues, one of the prospects for sustainability of water supply
schemes in the study area was existence of local technicians in all sites who are responsible
for technical management of the schemes. However, the study found that they were
inadequately trained, lacks technical skills to carry out all types of O and M as well as ill
equipped with the necessary tools.

The other major technical issue hindering sustainability of water supply scheme in the study
area was difficulties of access to spare parts at all community, woreda level. The study
further found that none of the implementing agencies have ensured availability of spare parts
to communities. In addition, there was no spare part stocking at all levels. Both the regional
water bureau and WWD failed to allocate budget for spare parts.

The study found that once the schemes experienced heavy break down or any other non-
functionality problems, the measures taken to repair and maintain the service was almost
absent as most of the problems are beyond the financial and technical capacities of
communities. The study proved that communities whose schemes are non-functional failed to
maintain their scheme.

The survey result has examined various reasons for schemes being out of out of operation.
Poor O and M is the most important contributor and the cause can be; a lack of sense of
ownership among the users, a weak supportive system, and difficult access to spare parts, a
lack of trained people and toolkits as well as inability of communities to meet costs of O and
M. One of the prime reasons for failures of keeping water supply schemes sustainable was
due to lack or weak support systems to the community in the part of implementing agencies
after schemes are installed and handover to communities. Similarly weak coordination
among stakeholders and absence of adequate monitoring, supervision and evaluations during
construction of the schemes was found as reasons for poor construction quality and fault

76
installations which affected sustainability water supply schemes and/or poor performance in
the water sector.

The study also found that weak institutional capacity of the local government (woreda water
desk) was one of a major challenge in supporting sustainability of water supply schemes in
the study area. At woreda level, inadequate allocation of funds especially recurrent budget to
the water sector, lack of full staffing in terms of human power as well as lack of
transportation services are identified as the major factors restricted supports given to the
community to maintain the proper functionality of the schemes as well as to repair the non-
functional schemes.

Generally, the approaches in water supply in the study area focused on provision of new
water supply schemes or running for coverage without giving due considerations for
sustaining the installed water supply schemes. This was evidenced by none of the
implementing agencies had made spare parts available for communities, allocated budget
mainly recurrent budget as well as adequately prepared the community to manage their
schemes. However, WASH Ethiopia -BG has recently started to adequately prepare the
communities for overall management of the schemes with provision of trainings and closer
follows-ups and supports in their intervention sites.

5.2. Recommendations

Unless the necessary measures have taken, the results of the Field survey and field
observations in to some of the developed water supply schemes indicates that sustaining
existing water supply schemes in the study in the future would be one of the foreseeable
bottlenecks. Therefore in light of major findings, the following recommendations are
suggested.

 Improving community participations in the planning, site and scheme type selections
is needed to enhance ownership of the communities to schemes. If water supply
schemes are to be managed properly by communities through water committees,
providing adequate and practical trainings on financial and overall management of the
schemes is crucial. In addition, legalizing the water committees, clearly defining their

77
 roles and responsibilities, developing working manuals, providing some incentives in
the form of podium during trainings will help in enhancing their ongoing capacity,
motivation and commitment.

 To reduce communities’ dependence on outside help for maintenance tasks, providing

adequate and practical trainings on technical issues for local technicians is very
important. In addition, equipping them with the necessary toolkits will significantly
contribute in reducing poor maintenance systems in the study area.

 Boosting communities’ awareness on water supply schemes management through

formal and informal education will help communities to take care of their schemes.
Developing a transparent and trusted system for collection and management of user
contributions is particularly important in alleviating the mismanagement of finance
that also impacted on adequacy of user fees to cover costs of O and M and
demotivated users to pay fees regularly.

 Minimizing the problem associated with unavailability of spare parts is very important.
One way of alleviating the problem is through assessing mechanisms to find revolving
funds for spare parts at least at regional level. If such funds are made available to
purchase spare parts for communities; communities use water fees collected to purchase
spare parts to make their water supply functional whenever breakage of the schemes
that can in turn help to generate adequate fees to purchase spare parts. The other way of
alleviating the problem is by promoting private sectors and/ or creating some form of
cooperative either at woreda or regional level that can provide spare parts to the
community at reasonable price with some incentives from part of government (example
tax free).

 If sustainability of water supply schemes has to be achieved, there is a need to have

strong backup support at a district (woreda) level to support communities to manage
their water supply schemes properly. Therefore, capacitating the woreda water office
with the necessary professionals, providing adequate trainings, allocating reasonable

78
 budget especially recurrent budget and arranging some form of transportation at least
enough motor cycles has to be given due attention by concerned body.

 With regard to weak coordination among stakeholders especially in the part of

government, it is use full to review their roles and responsibilities with regard to water
supply schemes development and the necessary measures to be taken to sustain
constructed water supply schemes. Similarly, reassessing the structures in the water
sector is important because there were overlapping of roles and responsibilities between
regional water bureau and zonal office.
 Moreover, further research is needed to assess the detail impacts of community,
financial, technical, legal and institutional as well as environmental factors affecting
sustainability of water supply schemes in the study area. The other researchable area in
the study area is that, most of the communities in the study area depend on farming and
traditional gold mining as a primary and secondary source of income. Therefore,
assessing ways in which money is invested for provision of adequate water for such
people including water for gold mining and irrigation purpose is very important to
enhance productivity of communities in the sector that can in turn help to generate
adequate money for reinvesting in the water sector.

79
References

ADF (2010). Ethiopian Rural water supply Program, Appraisal Report. Available on:
http://www.afdb.org/pls/portal/url/ITEM/087154CoCA1461AEo40CooAoc3D.Acces
sed in November 2007.

Arlosoroff S., Tschanner G., Grey D., Journey W., Krap A., Langenegger O, and Roche R,
(1987). Community Water Supply: The Hand Pump Option. A joint Contribution by
UNDP and the World Bank to the International Drinking Water Supply and
Sanitation Decade, The World Bank., Washington, D.C.

AsefaDelesho (2019). The Problems and Prospects of Water Supply in Asossa Town, BGRS,
MA Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.

Bhandari B., Watanabe S., and Manandhar D.(2000). Sustainability of Community Managed
Rural Drinking Water Supply Systems in The Mid Hill of Nepal. Available on:
http://www.water_2001.de/datebank/756523053.39114.4/Sustainablity%20/OF
%20COMMUNITY%20MANAGED%20RURAL%20DRINKINK%20WATER%20
SUPPLY%20SYSTEMS%20IN%20THE%20MID%20HILL%20OF%20NEPAL.do.
Accessed on 14 November 2007.

BIK Engineering PLC (2003). Urban Water Supply Tariff and Implementation of
Institutional Capacity Building Studies, Benishangul Gumuz Regional State, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.

BoFED (2003).Regional Profile, Facts about Benishangul Gumuz Regional State, Asossa.

_______ (2019) Bureau of Finance and Economic Development, Geographic Information

Systems and Regional Information Service, Asossa, BGRS.

_______ (2020.Regional Profile, Facts about Benishangul Gumuz Regional State, Asossa.

80
_______ (2020. Benishangul Gumuz Regional State, Strategic Planning and Management
Document (1998-2002 E.C), Asossa, Amharic Version. BoWMERD (2010).Drinking
Water Supply Coverage of Benishangul Gumuz Regional State, Asossa.BGRS.

__________ (2020.Water Sector Profile of Benishangul Gumuz Regional State.Asossa,

BGRS.

__________ (2020.Bureau of Water, Mines Energy Resource Development, Strategic

Planning and Management Document (1998-2002 E.C), Asossa, Amharic Version.

Carter C., Tyrrel S., Howsam P, (1999). Impact and Sustainability of Community Water
Supplies and Sanitation Programs in Developing Countries: Institute of Water and
Environment, Cranfield University, at Silosoe, Bedford. Available on:
http://www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk/iwe/documents/ciwem13.pdf. Accessed on 29
November 2007.

Carter and Rwanwanja R,(2019). Sustainability in Community Water and Sanitation.

A Case Study from South West Uganda. .Available on:

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/lib/nsf/db900side/JBRN-73HFX2/$file/tearfund_waterdec06.pdf
. Accessed in November 2007.

CSA (2019). Ethiopia: Statistical Abstract, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Davis J, and Brikke F, (1995).
Making Your Water Supply Work: Operation and Maintenance of Small Water Supply
Systems, The Hague, International Water and Sanitation Center, Delft, The Netherlands.
Available on: http://irc.nl/redic/content/downloaded/2566/file/op29e.pdf. Accessed on 20
October 2007.

Davis J., Garry G., and Wood M, (1993). Developing and Managing Community Water Supplies.,
UK, Oxford.

De Reget J, (2010).Water in Rural Communities: International Workshop on 'African water laws:

Plural Legislative Frameworks for Rural Water Management in Africa', 26-28 January 2010,
Johannesburg,SouthAfrica.Availableon:http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/assessement/publictions/
conference_papers.htm.pdf 255kb. Accessed in October 2007.

81
DerejeAdeme (2020. Assessment of Rural water supply Schemes Sustainability: The Case of
BambasiWoreda, BGRS, MA Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.

Dessalegn Rahamato (1999).Water Resource Development in Ethiopia: Issues of Sustainability and

participation, Forum for Social Studies (FSS), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Evas E, and Appleton B, (1993). Community Management Today: The Role of Communities in the
Management of the Improved Water Supply Systems. Occasional Paper Series no.20, IRC
International Water and Sanitation Center, Delft, The Netherlands.Evas P, (1992). Paying the
Piper; An overview of Community Financing of Water and Sanitation.Occasional Paper
Series no.8. IRC International Water and Sanitation Center, Delft, The Netherlands.

IDRC (1981). Rural water supply in Developing Countries: Proceeding of workshop on Training
Held in Zomba, Malawi, August 5-1980.

IRC (2004). Beyond Domestic: Case Studies on Poverty and Productive use of water at Household
Level, IRC International Water and Sanitation Center, Technical Paper Series No.41, Delft,
The Netherlands.

Kingo J.M (2010). The Millennium Development Goal on Poverty and the Links with Water Supply,
Sanitation, Hygiene and HIV/AIDS: A case Study from Kenya. IRC International Water and
Sanitation Center, Delft, The Netherlands.

Komives K., Thorsten R., Tuffuor B., Jeuland M., Larbi E, and Whittngton D, ( 2019).
PostConstruction Support Activities and Sustainability of Rural water supply Projects in
Ghana, Draft Final Report, World Bank, Paper Presented at 33rd WEDC International
Conference. Available on:
http//:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Ghana-14sk. Accessed in
March 2008.

Lockwood H, (2003). “Post-Project Sustainability”: Follow-Up Support to Communities. Final Draft

Document. Available on: http://www.worldbank.org/watsan/bnwp. Accessed in
November.2007.

82
AsossaWoreda Water Desk (2020. Annual Report, Asossa, BGRS, Amharic version. Asossasha A,
Abera K, and Mesganaw F,(2003). Sustainability of Drinking Water Supply Projects in Rural
of North Gondar; Ethiopia. Available on: http://www.cih.uib.no/journals/EJHD/ejhdv17-
no3/92Asossasha. Accessed on 25 October 2007.MoFED (2019).

MoFED (2019).Ethiopia: Building on Progress; a Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to
End Poverty (PASDEP) (2019/20-2009/10). Volume I: Main Text. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Moseley J, (2003).

Rural development: Principles and Practice, SAGE Publications, London, Thausand Okays, New
Delhi. MoWR (1999). Ethiopian Water Resource Management Policy, BerhanenaSelam
Printing Enterprise, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

_______ (2003). Environmental Support Project Components3: National Water Supply and
Sanitation Master Plan Framework, Part A, Studied by Consultants BV in association with T
and A consultants PLC. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

_______ (2004). Rural water supply and Sanitation Programme: Regional Implementation Guidelines
for Benishangul Gumuz Regional State, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

_______ (2019).Water Sector Development Annual Report.Amharic Version. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia.

MulukenHailu (2010). Situational Assessment of Water Supply and Sanitation in Konso District:
Special Attention to Environmental Aspects. Proceedings of the 9th Symposium on
Sustainable Water Resources Development.Volume no.1.Arbaminch University, Ethiopia.

Musonda K, (2004). Issues Regarding Sustainability of Rural water supply in Zambia. Available on:
http://etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/thesis/avillable/etd-04222010-
51111/uniristricted/dissertation.pdf. Accessed in November 2007.

ODI (2004). Implementation of Water Supply and Sanitation Programs under PRSPS: Synthesis of
Research Findings from Sub-Saharan Africa, Water Policy Report No.2.

Plan Ethiopia (2019). A meta- Evaluation of Projects and Programs on Community-Managed Rural
water supply and Sanitation Services in ShemendinoWoreda, Sidama Zone, Southern Nations
Nationalities and Peoples Region, Research Report 1, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

83
_________ (2019). Community-Managed Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Services in
ShemendinoWoreda, Sidama Zone: The Case of Midre Genet, Southern Nations Nationalities
and Peoples Region, Research Report 2, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Sayi N, (2004). Rural water supply as a Stimulant of Economic Development. Available on:
http://www.erb.go.tz/3rd-AED-proceedings/sayi.pdf. Accessed on 24 January 2008.

Schouten T, and Moritary P, (2003). Community Water Community Management: From System to
Service in Rural Areas. The Netherlands, IRC International Water and Sanitation
Center.ITDG Publishing.

WAE (2004).Baseline Survey on Water and Sanitation in Benishangul Gumuz Regional State, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.WAE-BG (2019/20). Water Aid Ethiopia-Benishangul Gumuz Branch,
Annual and Baseline Report, Asossa, BGRS.

________ (2020. Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion Project Base line Survey Report
in AsossaWoreda. Asossa, BGRS.

Wijk-Sijbesma V, (1989). What Price water?: User Participation in paying for CommunityBased
Water Supply. Occasional Papers series; no.10. The Heague, The Netherlands, IRC
International Water and Sanitation Center.

WoFED (2020.AsossaWoreda Office of Finance and Economic Development, Strategic Planning and
Management Document (1998-2002 E.C), Asossa, BGRS.Amharic Version.

World Water Council (2010).World Water Forum. Available on: Http://www/water at glance/water
supply and sanitation. Accessed on 20 October 2007. Website (Internet):
http://www.iah,org/news/2019/IAH. rural water. PDF.Accessed in October 2007.

Website (Internet): http://www.iah,org/news/2019/IAH. rural water. PDF.Accessed in October 2007.

84
Appendix A : - Questionnaire for Households
Asossa University
School of Graduate Studies
College of Business and Economics
Objective: The purpose of this questionnaire is to generate relevant information on problems
to sustainability of rural water supply schemes in the region in general and in Asossa woreda
in particular.
The study is conducted for Msc Degree in project planning and management at the College
of Business and Economics of Asossa University. It is expected that the study will come up
with viable findings on problems to sustainability and will contribute to the socio-economic
development efforts by supporting governments’ attempt to increase the coverage of water
supply to all community in the long-run. The study is conducted only for the academic
/development/ purpose and the respondents and response is not deployed for other purpose. .
The information you will provide is very essential for the success of the study. Therefore,
you are kindly requested to answer all questions and give reliable and complete information
on the issues.

Instruction for Interviewer: -

1. Introduce your self

2. Inform the respondents, the questionnaire is only used for the purpose of development and
improving the living standard of the society and tell them that their name and response is not
deployed for other purpose
3. Circle their answer among alternative choices and describe the opinions of informants for
questionnaires that require explanation.

Name of interviewer_________________________
Date of interview__________________________
Interview conducted: Woreda________________
Kebele_________ ‘Got’____
Questionnaire identification no.______________
85
Thank you in Advance!!

Instruction: The questionnaire has got two parts:

1. Make a choice or circle your answer for questionnaires that has given an
alternative choice that reflects your filling.
2. Give relevant information for questionnaires that have no alternative choices
or that require explanation.

Part One: Background Information

Q1. Sex _______ 1. Male 2. Female

Q2. Age (in complete years) _____________
Q3. What is your current marital status? __________________.
1. Single 2. Married 3. Divorced 4. Separated 5. Widowed
Q4. Size of the household (family)? ______________.
Q5. Ethnic group? ______.
1. Berta 2. Amhara 3. Oromo 4. Gumuz 5. Others, specify________
Q6. Religion? _____ 1. Muslim 3. Protestant 2. Orthodox Christian 4. Catholic 5.Others,
Specify_____.
Q7. Educational Level? ____________.
1. Unable to read and write (Illiterate) 4. Junior school (7-8) Complete
2. Able to read and write 5. Secondary school (9-12) Complete
3. Primary school (1-6) complete 6.College graduate/Joined higher institution
Q8. Rank your (families) source of income in accordance with their importance?
1. Farming _____. 3. Government employee___ 5. Traditional gold Mining___
2. Business /peaty trade 4. Daily labor _____ 6. Others, Specify______
Q9.Which two most social services are you need to be provided? 1st ___and 2nd ________
(Health, Water supply, Toilet/Sanitation, Education, Electricity, Road, Telephone, Others)

86
Part Two: Existing Water Supply Situation

Q10. Are you using the same source of water for domestic purpose including for drinking
year round? 1. Yes 2. No
Q11. If your response to Q10 is “No” what is your two most or major sources of water for
domestic purpose during dry (`Bega`) and wet (`Kiremt`) season?

Water Source In Bega In Keremet

1st 2nd 1st 2nd
River
Traditional HDW
Traditional HDW
Protected HDW
Shallow Well(SW)
Unprotected Spring
Protected Spring(PS)
River
Traditional HDW

Q12.Which one is your main source of water for drinking now?

1. River 3. Protected HDW/Hand Pump/ 5. Protected spring
2. Traditional HDW 4. Sallow Well 6. Sand Dug Well 7. If other specify___.
Q13.How far do you/water collectors in your home/ have to walk to collect water from that
source? (In Kilometers_________ or in Meters __________).
Q14.How much time do you (they) spend walking to and from that water source? (In
hours_________ or in minute’s __________).
Q15. Which one is your secondary source of water for drinking at this time?
1. River 3. Protected HDW 5. Protected spring
2. Traditional HDW 4. Sallow Well 6. Sand Dug Well 7. If other specify___.
Q16 .How far do you/water collectors in your home/ have to walk to collect water from
your secondary source? (In Kilometers_______ or in meters __________)

87
Q17.How much time on average do you (they) spend walking to and from the secondary
water source? (In hours______ and in minute’s __________).
Q18. Do you still go to the secondary source of water for drinking purpose?
1. Yes 2. No
Q18.1. If your response to Q18, is “Yes”, why you do so?
_________________________________________________________________.
Q19.Who is responsible to fetch water for domestic purpose in your home mainly?
1. The husband 3.Children 5. If others, specify__________,
2. The wife 4. Both the wife and Children
Q20. What container do you use to fetch water mainly? _______________________.
Q20.1 How much of it do you need for domestic purpose during dry season (`Bega`)
___________ and wet season (`Kiremt`) __________ per day?
Q21. Are you the beneficiary of potable/clean drinking/ water supply (either of from
Protected HDW/Hand Pump, Protected spring, Sallow well and Deep well)?
1. Yes 2. No
Q21.1. If your response to Q21 is “Yes”, does the developed water supply source function
now? 1. Yes 2. No
Q21.2. If your response to Q21.1 is “No”, when was it non-functional?
____________________________________________________________________.
Q21.3.Why do you think it is non-functional?
_____________________________________________________________.
Q21.4. If your response to Q21.1 is “Yes”, have you ever faced the non-functional
problem with this water supply scheme since the time of construction?
1. Yes 2. No
Q21.5. If “Yes”, how frequent it is problematic (fails to provide service) since the time of
construction?
1. Frequent, 2. Sometimes 3. Rarely 4. If other, specify________.
Q21.6. Have you ever faced the non-functional problem with your water supply scheme
since the last one year?
1. Yes 2. No
Q21.7.If “Yes”, how many times the water supply scheme get non-functional?_____.

88
Q21.8.What do you think the problems to non functionality?
_____________________________________________________________.
Q21.9.In which season/s did you faces the problem of water supply mainly? ______.
Q22. On average for how long the scheme was instate of disrepair once non-functional?
1. For one to two months 3. For seven to nine months 5. For more than one year
2. For three to six months 4. For ten months to one year 6. If other, specify____.
Q23.How do you evaluate current status of the scheme in providing service to the intended
beneficiaries?
1. With out having the problem, the scheme is functioning properly
2. With having the problem, the scheme is providing service
3. Because of major problem/breakdown, it is not functional
4. With out having the problem / breakdown, it does not provide service because of some
reasons.
5. If others, specify__________________________.
Q24. Rank the problems to the scheme according to their severity that undermined the proper
and sustainable functioning of the water supply scheme?
Part Three:
Type of the problem Rank
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 2nd 3rd 4th
Breaking down of spare parts of the
water supply scheme
Insufficient water source
Poor management practices/
Ineffectiveness of water committees
Poor quality of scheme contraction
Lack/weak institutional support &
coordination among stakeholders
Lack of spare parts& tools to carry
out Operation & Maintenance
Lack of qualified technicians
Lack of adequate finance to afford

89
 spare parts and carry out O & M
Inappropriate technology If other
specify
If other specify

Part Three: - Community factors related to water supply

Q25.Who provided the water supply scheme?

1. Community 3. NGO 5. All in collaboration
2. Government 4. 1 and 2 6. If others, specify____.

Q26.Who initiated to provide the water supply to the community? _______________

1. Community 3. Non-governmental Organization 5. All in collaboration
2. Government 4. 1 and 2 6. If others, specify____.
Q26.1. Did you have a demand for the water supply before construction of the present
scheme? 1. Yes 2. No
Q27. In which season was the water supply scheme developed (constructed)?
1. During the dry (‘Bega’) 2. During the wet (‘kiremt’) 3.If other, specify__.
Q28.Have you participated in the provision of the water supply scheme?
1. Yes 2. No
Q28.1.If your response to Q28 is “Yes”, at which phase you participated?
1. During planning 3. Post-construction 5. In all phases
2. During Construction 4. 1 and 3 6. If others, specify___..
Q28.2.What was your contributions in provision of the water supply?
1. Labor 3.Local material/stone, sand, wood/ 5. In all
2. Finance 4.Labor and local material 6 .If other, specify____.
Q28.3.If your response to Q28 is “No”, why do you think the reason for not participating?
_____________________________________________________.
28.4. Do you fell sense of owner ship to the developed scheme? 1. Yes 2. No
Q29.Do you think the water supply is adequate to the beneficiaries? 1. Yes 2. No
Q30.Who selected the site of the new water supply scheme?
1. Community 3. NGO 5. All in collaboration

90
2. Government 4. 1 and 2 6. If other, specify____.
Q31.Had the management system put in place for the developed water supply scheme?
1. Yes 2. No
Q31.1.If your response to Q31.is”Yes”, who manages the scheme?
1. Community/water committee alone 3. NGO
2. Government alone 4. Both 1 and 2 5. If other, specify____.
Q31.2. Is/are the management body adequately perform their duties and responsibilities?
1. Yes 2. No
Q31.3. If your response to Q31 is “No”, what do you think the reason?
______________________________________________________________.
Q32.Do the community receives adequate external support service from government to
enable
them effectively manage their water supply scheme?
1. Yes 2. No
Q33.What supports did the community get from the government organizations in relation to
managing the water supply schemes to make properly functional and sustainable?
__________________________________________________________________
Q34.What supports did the community get from the NGOs in relation to managing the water
supply schemes to make properly functional and sustainable?
______________________________________________________________________.
Q35. Did the supports given to the community from government and non-governmental
organizations have some form of continuity? 1. Yes 2. No
Q36.What types of supports are needed by the community to support the water supply
scheme
functional for long period of time?
_________________________________________________________________.
Part Four: Regarding the Financial Issues of the Scheme
Q37. Who financed the developed water supply scheme?
1. Community 3. NGO 5. All in collaboration
2. Government 4. 1 and 2 6. If other, specify____.
Q38. Do you pay for the developed water supply service?

91
1. Yes 2. No
Q38.1. If your response is “Yes”, how much money you pay per month on average and/
per container you use to fetch water?
Birr/month ___________ or Birr/container you use to fetch water ______.
Q38.2. Do you think the payment is fair? 1 .Yes 2. No
Q38.3. How much money are you willing and able to pay for the service per month and per
container you use to fetch water?
Birr/month _______________or Birr/container you use to fetch water ______.
Q38.4.Do you/your family/ regularly pay for the water supply service?
1 .Yes 2. No
Q38.5. If “No”, why do you not pay regularly? __________________________.
Q38.6. If you do not pay for the water supply service, why you did so?
___________________________________________________________________.
Q39. How is the payment made for the developed water supply service?
1. All the households pay the same amount per month
2. Flat rate where varieties of payment are made for water per household based on the
amount of water used
3. If other, specify_______________________________.
Q40.Who set the price of the water fees?
1. Community alone 3. NGO alone 5. All in collaboration
2. Government alone 4.Both 1 and 2 6. If other, specify____.
Q41.Do you think the water fees collected from the beneficiaries is adequate to purchase
spare parts, pay care takers, and carry out operation and maintenance and other costs of
the scheme? 1. Yes 2. No
Q41.1.If your response to Q41 is “No”, why do you think the reason?
___________________________________________________________________.
Q42.What costs of the water supply scheme are covered by fees collected from users?
1. Only costs of minor repairs only 4.Costs of technicians/local mechanics only
2. Costs of major repairs only 5. Costs of spare parts only 7. None of these costs
3. Salary of caretakers only 6 .All costs of the scheme 8. If other, specify____.
Q43. Who manage the water fees generated/collected from the users?

92
1. Community alone 3. NGO alone 5. All in collaboration
2. Government alone 4.Both 1 and 2 6. If other, specify____.
Q44.Do you think the scheme managers have the capacity to manage the finance?
1. Yes 2. No
Part Five: Regarding Technical Issues of the Scheme
Q45. Who selected the type of the existing technology (scheme type)?
1. Community alone 3. NGO 5. All in collaboration
2. Government alone 4.Both 1 and 2 6. If other, specify____.
Q46.How do you evaluate the construction quality of the water supply scheme?
1. Not good 3 .Very good
2. Good 4. If other, specify____.
Q47. Is the technology (the scheme) easily opera table and manageable by the users?
1. Yes 2. No
Q48. Is/Are there local technician/s that has/have taken basic training to carry out repairs and
maintenance when the water supply scheme encounter problem or nonfunctional?
1. Yes 2. No
Q48.1.If your response to Q48 is “Yes”, is/are they live with the community?
1. Yes 2. No
Q48.2 Are any of them females? 1. Yes 2. No
Q48.3.Is/are he/she/they equipped with adequate tools to carry out repairs when needed?
1. Yes 2. No
Q48.4. Does/Do he/she/they have technical skill/s to handle major repairs?
1. Yes 2. No
Q48.5.If your response to Q48 is “No”, who carries out repairs and maintenance when
needed?_______________________________________________.
Q49. Are spare parts easily available at community level when needed?
1. Yes 2. No
Q50. Where does the community get spare parts to carry out operation and maintenance?
1. Purchase on market
2. Given by Regional/Zonal /Woreda water Desk(Government agency)
3. Donated by NGOs 4. If other, specify____.

93
Q51. Are spare parts affordable at community/beneficiaries level when needed?
1. Yes 2. No
Q52. Which major technical problems do the community encountered to make the water
supply scheme properly function and sustain the benefits from the supply?
1. Lack of adequate spare parts and tolls 5. All of the above
2. Inappropriate technology 6. If other, specify____.
3. Inappropriate designs/poor construction quality
4. Lack of technical skill to carry out operation and Maintenance
Q53. Do you think the water supply source now you are using has quality problem?
1. Yes 2. No
Q54. What do you recommend to alleviate the problems that the water supply is experiencing
and to make the scheme proper functional for long period of time?
___________________________________________________________________
Thank you again!!!

Appendix B :- Checklists for Interview and Group Discussions

I. Checklists for Interviewing Key Informant from Government Officials (Regional,
Zonal, and Woreda) water sectors
Date of interview_______________________________.
Name of the organization represented _______________.
Position of the respondent _________________________.
1. What are the major goals or objectives of the establishment of your organization in
relation to rural water supply?
2. What the policy stipulates about costs of water supply, cost recovery of O and M as well
as recurrent expenses?
3. What technologies do you provide mainly? Why?
4. Did the government agency adequately prepared the community to manage and sustain
their water supply schemes? (Yes/No), If `No`, what is the reasons?
5. What types of institutional supports are given to the lower governments/community in
sustaining the functionality of the schemes? And how frequent are the supports?

94
6. Are spare parts and toolkits readily available, affordable at regional/Zonal/woreda and
Community level? (Yes/No), If `No`, where do you get it?
7. Are there spare part store at regional/Zonal /Woreda and Community level? If “No”,why?
8. Are there competent private sectors who provide spare parts and able to do water supply
construction in the region?
9. What problems are faced by your organization/office to support the rural water supply
service functional for long period of time (sustainable)?
10. How do you see the coordination of your organization/office with the lower governments
and stake holders to support the service?
11. What requests are mainly reported to your office from the lower government
offices/Community in relation to water supply?
12. How do you evaluate the status of the schemes implemented by your office and others?
13. Are there well trained technicians who can carry out major repairs that are beyond the
financial and technical capacity of the community/woreda water desks?
14. What are the major problems for rural water supply schemes failure in the region/ in the
woreda?
14. What responsive measures have been taken by the regional water bureau, /zonal water
office and woreda water desk to improve the status of the schemes?
16. What are the major problems associated with the provision and management of the
schemes in the region, and at woreda level?
17. What intervention measures do you recommend to alleviate the problems and to improve
the benefits from the constructed scheme?
Thank You!!

95
III. Points of Discussion with Selected Women’s

Date of discussion_____________________.

Kebele______________”Got”__________
1. Have women’s participated or consulted in rural water supply projects? If yes, what were
your contributions, and if not, why women’s are not consulted/ participated?
2. Who is responsible to fetch water for domestic purpose mainly?
3. Where do you get water during dry and wet season?
4. Does the management of the scheme involves women’s and treats users fairly?
5. How do you evaluate the advantages of having the new scheme verses the traditional
sources?
6. Have you faced the problem with the water supply scheme non- functional? (Yes/No), If
“Yes”, what do you think the major reasons and where do you get water at that time?
7. How do you evaluate the overall performance of the scheme?
8. From your experience, what major problems are encountered in relation to water supply
schemes to make them properly functional and to sustain the benefits gained from the water
supply?
9. What do you recommend to alleviate the problem of the scheme and make it functional
for long period of time?
Thank You!!!

96