Organizational Evaluation of COCEPRADIL

Home , La Virtud, Lempira Department, Mapulaca

December 2011 December

Honduras Lempira,

FORUM WATER SANITATION & ACCOUNTABILITY

Franz Rojas and Christie Chatterley

SUMMARY

The positive impacts of water and sanitation interventions cannot be realized if services don‟t continue over time. Unfortunately funding decisions are rarely made based on an organization‟s ability to support long-term solutions, as independent evaluations of service longevity are typically unavailable. The Water and Sanitation Accountability Forum hopes to close this gap by providing funding organizations with information from an independent source, while at the same time promoting cross-organizational learning by including participants from multiple organizations.

The first Accountability Forum focused on the evaluation of COCEPRADIL (Central Committee for Water and Comprehensive Development Projects in Lempira), a local NGO in Lempira, Honduras that has been implementing water and sanitation programs for over 20 years. Over one week in December 2011, we and peer organizations evaluated COCEPRADIL based on 22 criteria of likelihood of long-term service provision. Though this first Forum served as a pilot for the criteria and the evaluation process (including survey instruments and study format), the evaluation of COCEPRADIL provided valuable information on their credibility as an organization as well as lessons that can be shared from both their successes and current challenges.

The evaluation included programmatic and organizational criteria. For the program evaluation, we visited four communities, selected randomly from the 159 projects implemented by COCEPRADIL since their inception in addition to pilot testing surveys in a community selected by COCEPRADIL as exemplary of their work. The overall organizational evaluation included review of their plans, financials, and reports, as well as face to face interviews with their leadership and partnering communities.

COCEPRADIL has shown exceptional work in an extremely challenging sector. As one Forum participant from another organization expressed, they are “la joya en la corona” (the jewel in the crown) and provide a positive example of program implementation. Based on the criteria used in the Accountability Forum, they met all basic expectations for sustainability in 21 of 22 categories and met exceptional expectations in eleven of these. Extreme threats to sustainability were not identified in any category. Based on 66 possible points if all exceptional expectations are met in all categories and 44 points if basic expectations are met in all categories, COCEPRADIL received an impressive 53 (80%). According to the criteria established, this means that on average, they exceed basic criteria to be recommended to donor organizations.

Their successes include the fact that systems installed 20 years ago are still functioning and being used. Local water boards are in place and in all communities we visited, households were paying monthly tariffs and boards had positive bank accounts that had increased over the past two years. The communities‟ sense of system ownership is very high: we were told by one water board “we are all engineers and plumbers here”, and they were very confident in their ability to find spare parts and fix breakdowns. COCEPRADIL staff attribute their success to extensive training with communities upfront, during and post-implementation.

Though there were many successes observed, there are some areas that need to be addressed. Access of water services for new households is scarce. The connection fee is prohibitively expensive for many families. The high cost encourages households to participate upfront, including extensive labor contributions (around 70-90 days per family), but leaves new

families without an obtainable option. Additionally, in some communities, water continuity is a challenge and water cuts can last days or weeks while repairs are being made and during the dry season. A further challenge is that communities do not have financial capacities to replace aging systems.

COCEPRADIL seems to be addressing the challenges over time and have shown their ability to support long-term service provision. For example, COCEPRADIL is currently conducting a pilot project with meters since at this time most communities are adverse to them.

Bottom line: future funding for COCEPRADIL is highly recommended, particularly for software such as trainings which are often challenging to secure funding for, yet are key to COCEPRADIL‟s continuing success.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Why an Accountability Forum? ...... 1 What is the Accountability Forum? ...... 2 Why COCEPRADIL? ...... 2 Scope of the Evaluation ...... 2 Information on Honduras...... 2 Background of the Organization ...... 3 Organizational Model...... 3 Water System Design ...... 4 METHODS AND TOOLS ...... 5 Organization Information ...... 5 Community Selection...... 5 Interviews with Water Boards ...... 6 Interviews with Community Members ...... 6 Inspections of Infrastructure ...... 6 Household Observations ...... 7 Rationale for the methods used ...... 7 RESULTS ...... 10 Candelaria (community selected by COCEPRADIL)...... 10 Congolón System ...... 10 Cholunquez System ...... 11 Project characteristics in each community ...... 12 Summary of Household Observations ...... 13 Evaluation Results ...... 14 A. Organizational Structure ...... 15 B. Water Service ...... 18 C. Sanitation ...... 20 D. Hygiene Education ...... 22 E. Project Design and Construction ...... 24 F. Water System Long-term Operations and Maintenance ...... 26 G. Water Source Protection ...... 28 H. Community Commitment and Local Project Management ...... 29 Summary ...... 31 CONCLUSIONS ...... 32 CITATIONS ...... 35

APPENDICES ...... 36 Appendix A: Photos ...... 36 Community of San Francisco ...... 38 Community of Sosoal ...... 40 Community of San Andrecito...... 42 Community of Celilac/Coyolar ...... 44 Appendix B: Raw Data ...... 46 COCEPRADIL Management Interview ...... 46 Community Water Board Interviews...... 50 Community Focus Groups ...... 65 Household Observations ...... 77 Appendix C: Disagreement with Conclusions from Participants ...... 82

INTRODUCTION Why an Accountability Forum?

Access to water and sanitation is intimately linked to poverty reduction. Poverty is multidimensional, involving interrelated aspects that influence the welfare of people. Water and sanitation are included in this social agenda through the Millennium Development Goals and have been declared as a Human Right by the United Nations. .

The improvement of water and sanitation services, particularly in rural areas, is therefore necessary. While building infrastructure can help address the immediate need for access, building the capacity of communities, local governments, and the local private sector to provide water and sanitation services over the long-term is often overlooked. Thus, the accountability and responsibility of implementing organizations – both to the customers (aka beneficiaries) and to donors is of vital importance.

Numerous studies show that many water and sanitation projects fail within a few years of implementation, particularly in rural areas: In Loreto Region, Peru, it is estimated that 66% of water systems function and 42% provide potable water, while 15% of latrines are considered usable (Calderon 2004). In a study of eleven countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, a range of 35-80% (depending on the country) of rural water systems were identified as functional (Sutton 2004). In Tanzania, 54% of 65,000 water points nationwide are operational; 75% of points that are only two years old (WaterAid 2009). It is estimated that 60% of new latrines (0-2 years) are being used in rural Ghana (Rodgers, Ajono et al. 2007).

Common reasons for failed operation include: Technical problems during planning, design or construction. Common issues include inadequate projection of population growth, inadequate design parameters, the use of low quality materials, and poor construction procedures. Lack of community ownership. When systems are not planned or constructed with high levels of community participation, it is likely that services will not adequately respond to local needs, desires and cultural beliefs or will be seen as something foreign. Inappropriate implementation model. When organizations structure implementation into a particular model, apart from cultural practices, it may reduce the long-term capacity for community management. .

Based on the above, financial institutions and donors should ensure that funds are allocated effectively and efficiently and include consideration of long-term management. The Accountability Forum lays the groundwork for the identification and qualification of credible implementing organizations within the water and sanitation sector in order to support funding agencies‟ consideration of lasting service provision.

What is the Accountability Forum?

The Water and Sanitation Accountability Forum is a new initiative born from Water1st‟s belief that until long-term functionality of interventions affects organizations‟ ability to find future funding, monitoring and evaluation activities are unlikely to be a high priority for many organizations. The overarching aim of the Forum is not to “out” poor implementers, but to encourage strong implementation and provide an opportunity for organizations to demonstrate that they are delivering on promises. The Forum includes four objectives within this overarching aim:

1. Motivate and incentivize monitoring and evaluation of projects using a common framework 2. Provide independent evaluation to donors that focuses on programming, not simply finances 3. Provide a platform for cross-organizational learning and networking for field staff 4. Help organizations learn how to monitor and evaluate

This first Accountability Forum offers an opportunity to pilot evaluation tools and methodology, as well as gather feedback from participants on the process.

Why COCEPRADIL?

COCEPRADIL was selected as the organization to be evaluated in the first Accountability Forum because they were willing to offer themselves to be evaluated, they have a reputation as a strong implementing organization (it was hoped that the first Accountability Forum would be a positive one), and they have a creative model that was felt may be of interest to others.

Scope of the Evaluation

The main objective of the evaluation is to determine if the organization is credible and has used funding to support projects that are providing long-term services. Basically, we asked, “Based on their existing body of work, is funding this organization a good investment?”. This is not an impact or sustainability study, though insights into these themes emerged during data collection.

In response to the goal to create a platform for cross-organizational exchange, a reasonable timeframe for field staff to attend was needed. For this pilot Accountability Forum, a week was given for preparation meetings, data collection and wrap-up. Though a week is not a substantial amount of time for a field-based study, independent evaluators and Forum participants felt that this was sufficient time to respond to the main objective of the study and to allow for full participation of field staff from other organizations.

Information on Honduras

Honduras has a population of about 7.8 million with 3.8 million in urban centers and 4 million living in rural towns. It is one of the most impoverished countries of Central America with nearly 60% of its population living below the national poverty line, 23% living below the international

2 poverty line (< $1.25/day) and a Human Development index of 0.625 compared to the Latin America average of 0.731 ((UNDP 2011).

According to the Joint Monitoring Program (JMP), water service coverage is 85% at the national level; 95% in urban areas and 77% in rural (WHO/UNICEF 2010). Sanitation coverage is 71% with 80% in urban areas and 62% in rural zones. These data mean that around one million Hondurans still lack access to water and almost two million people still lack access to improved sanitation. Furthermore, these data do not take functionality into account and based on the sustainability studies previously mentioned, there is likely a much smaller percentage of the population with access to reliable services for the long-term.

The Lempira Department is one of 18 departments in Honduras and is located in the western part of the country. This department has the highest proportion of rural inhabitants than any other. According to the last census, there is a population of about 300,000 of which 284,000 live in rural areas.

Background of the Organization

The Comité Central de Proyectos de Agua y Desarrollo Integral de Lempira (the Central Committee for Water and Comprehensive Development Projects in Lempira, or COCEPRADIL) is a local NGO based in Candelaria, Department of Lempira, Honduras. COCEPRADIL has been implementing community gravity-fed water systems for over 20 years and to date have constructed more than 160 systems in 16 municipalities of the Lempira Department (Figure 1). This area serves approximately 10,000 beneficiary families and a population of 40,540.

Figure 1. Geographic Area of Organizational Model COCEPRADIL

COCEPRADIL is a grassroots social organization composed of various levels of water management boards, as shown in Figure 2. The highest governing body is the General Assembly of Delegates, whose functions include electing members of the Central Board. There are nine regional boards (COREPRADIL) governed by the Central Board and then finally there are the community-level water management boards, all of which are part of COCEPRADIL.

Management of the water systems is based on a “junta de juntas” (“board of boards”) model where each community has a local water board that receives training and support from one of the regional water boards and then COCEPRADIL offers support and training to these regional water boards as well as directly to communities.

General Supervisory Assembly of Board Delegates

Central Board

9 Regional Boards for Water and Integrated Development (COREPRADIL)

Community Water Management Boards

Figure 2. Organizational model of COCEPRADIL operations

Water System Design

Each community water system consists of a spring catchment, gravity-fed transmission line to a tank, and piped distribution to household taps. This type of system can be more expensive in terms of capital costs required to lay piping over long distances between the water source and community storage tank or treatment plant. However, because it is a gravity based system, the operation and maintenance costs are quite low and this type of design is common in rural areas of Honduras.

Sanitation Design

COCEPRADIL promotes on-site sanitation including requiring household toilets for water project participation, providing designs and subsidizing construction at the start of the water project. COCEPRADIL typically promotes on-site sanitation consisting of pour-flush toilets connected to deep covered seep pits. They are usually constructed outside of the home, but on the families‟ property. Figure 3 illustrates examples of the toilet installations promoted by COCEPRADIL in the area.

Figure 3. Toilets in Communities of Lempira

METHODS AND TOOLS

The evaluation included: Presentations by and detailed interviews with managers of the implementing organization (COCEPRADIL) Site visit to a community the organization selects as exemplary of their work Selection of four communities at random Interviews with the water boards in each community Two focus groups1 with residents in each community2 Inspection of the water service infrastructure (e.g., water catchment, storage tank, pipeline, etc.) Visits to several homes in each community to observe household infrastructure and discuss water and sanitation services.

Survey questions and evaluation criteria are based on Water1st International‟s evaluation tools and input from multiple implementing organizations in the water and sanitation sector. This first Accountability Forum served as an opportunity to pilot ideas for criteria. Those presented here are still undergoing modifications based on feedback from key actors in the sector and will likely be revised prior to the next Forum. Despite the possibility of criteria revision, the criteria used here do offer an opportunity to look at key areas of COCEPRADIL‟s work and highlight areas going well and areas in need of improvement. Criteria are grouped into eight main categories: organizational structure, water services, sanitation, hygiene education, design and construction, operations and maintenance, water source protection and community commitment and management. Evaluation tools were pilot tested during the site visit to the community selected by COCEPRADIL; the town of Candelaria. After pilot testing, the instruments were revised by the independent evaluators based on observations and Forum participant feedback. The instruments used were not considered all-inclusive and Forum participants were welcome to ask further questions after the focus group discussions or during household visits. When possible and with consent given, interviews and focus group discussions were audio recorded.

Organization Information

During the first day, COCEPRADIL staff and community water board representatives presented their program to Forum participants. Staff members were asked questions from participants during this time. Additionally, over the course of the week the evaluators conducted approximately 7 hours of interviews and document review with COCEPRADIL staff.

Community Selection

COCEPRADIL provided a list of the 159 community water systems they have implemented since inception. The list was confirmed with donor organizations. Eight community names were

1 Focus groups were conducted by the independent evaluators or field staff from local NGOs who had experience conducting focus groups prior to the Forum. Each discussion was audio recorded and notes were taken by multiple people in each group in both Spanish and English (with the help of a translator). 2 Due to time limitations, only one focus group was conducted in the community of San Francisco.

5 randomly selected from the list of projects3. Four communities that included long drives and 4-8 hours walking each way were removed because for this first evaluation only two days were allotted to visit projects.4 The remaining four communities selected had water and sanitation projects built 17-20 years ago. Additionally, COCEPRADIL was asked to select one community that they thought best reflected their work. They selected the small town of Candelaria, where the COCEPRADIL headquarters are located. The town‟s water services are managed by two water boards: one for each of two water systems that were constructed at different times. The site visit in Candelaria allowed Forum participants to not only familiarize themselves with COCEPRADIL‟s model, but also provided an opportunity to pilot test the questionnaires and data collection methodology.

Interviews with Water Boards

Forum participants were organized into two groups each led by one of the independent evaluators. Each group consisted of approximately 10-15 people including field staff from various NGOs and local groups, representatives from funding organizations, a COCEPRADIL representative, and a translator. Because this was the first Accountability Forum, funders were present to provide their feedback on process improvements; however funders will typically not be present during evaluations.

The water board interviews were held with most or all members of the current (and sometimes past) water board. The discussion included questions regarding financial management, operation and maintenance, rules and regulations for use, future planning and water source protection. We also reviewed water board records including bank balances, maintenance expenditures and status of household fee payments, secretary meeting notes with meeting frequency, and legal documents related to the water system and source.

Interviews with Community Members

Focus groups were held with 8-25 community members. Though some groups were larger than ideal, participation was open to any community member not currently on the water board and no one was turned away. Questions discussed included satisfaction, reliability (including response to breakdowns), quality, quantity and payment of water service, hygiene education, and typical sanitation service in the community.

Inspections of Infrastructure

The evaluation process included visits to a water source, community tanks and distribution lines to investigate construction quality and evidence of long-term water source protection such as reforestation, fencing and evidence of maintenance. We visited the water source for two of the

3 Ideally, the community list would include project completion dates to allow us to select a range of project ages in order to observe programming changes over time. We hope to include this in the next Forum. 4 It is hoped that future Accountability Forums will be able to include all projects for possible evaluation, even the most remote.

6 four communities, which was the same source as one of the systems in Candelaria. Additionally, we assessed the community water tank in three of the four communities5.

Household Observations

For household observations, groups of two to three people visited several homes that were representative of the local geographic area (i.e. community center, upper areas and lower areas). In total, 35 households were visited, ranging from two to sixteen homes in each community.6 Only households that participated in the project were included in the study, though other homes were informally visited during the study.

After each day of data collection, group members met to present their findings and impressions from the day in order to check consistency and complement information gathered by each person/group. At the end of each meeting, the group came to a consensus about the successes and challenges of the project in the community visited that day.

All results in this report are backed up with evidence from multiple sources including community water board members, community members, organization staff and observation of documentation. Quantitative data from household observations were analyzed using SPSS 19 (IBM). Qualitative data from focus groups and in-depth organization interviews were analyzed in comparison tables to investigate differences between communities and between household, water board, community, and organization responses.

Rationale for the methods used

For a week-long study (and in most research) a decision needs to be made between gathering in-depth information versus the inclusion of a greater number of communities in order to complete the study within resource limitations. Based on the desire for in-depth information it would be challenging to include sample sizes that would offer statistical significance, and qualitative methods such as focus groups are considered a valid technique for this type of social research.

For this study, the ability to collect in-depth information from a large number of stakeholders in each community was prioritized over gathering a small amount of data from more communities. This decision meant that only four communities were included in the study, five including Candelaria (selected by COCEPRADIL where we piloted survey tools). This is a small number of cases and there are some limitations associated, but the selection of fewer cases and the use of more qualitative methods are considered advantageous over quick quantitative-based survey methods considering the study and Forum objectives for the following reasons:

5 It is hoped that in future Accountability Forums, more time will be allotted for assessment of all water sources and conduction lines. 6 In the future, it is hoped that a representative homes will be visited in each community to conduct observations

Qualitative, in-depth approaches allow for the inclusion of contextual and rich data. It is difficult to capture what is going on in each community through quick numeric surveys. The removal of contextual information from an evaluation that includes many variables which cannot be controlled can lead to misinterpretation of results.

Information beyond the project status for the day of the visit is desired. In order to gather complete information from multiple stakeholders on project performance and satisfaction over the project lifetime, in-depth interviews are needed.

The ability for each research group to spend an entire day in each community allows time for informal conversations to get to know community members outside of interview and focus group questions. This typically makes community members feel more comfortable and respected and provides time for community members to voice their opinions in their own time and to share information they feel is important.

Case study approaches are acknowledged as a robust research method7 where variables cannot be controlled and when trying to answer questions of how and why, such as how and why an organization‟s work is successful or not. Without this contextual information it may be easy to assume an organization‟s work is poor or exemplary without understanding the full picture which may reveal otherwise.

In-depth case knowledge enhances participant learning on how and why a project is successful or not.

The number of cases needed for case-based research depends on the certainty desired for the results, much like deciding between a p<0.5 or a p<0.001 significance limit in statistical methods. Yin (2003) suggests 3-4 cases if you have a straightforward question to answer and do not demand an excessive degree of certainty and 6, 7 or more cases if your question is subtle or if you want a high degree of certainty. For this study, the independent evaluators and participants agreed they felt comfortable making a conclusion based on the five cases included (four selected at random plus one example case selected by COCEPRADIL). There was a high level of agreement between cases in this study, though additional cases may need to be added for studies where results vary substantially between cases.

The rigor of the research design is enhanced through the following tactics that address the four common tests of social science methods8:

Construct Validity is addressed by using multiple sources of evidence including community member, water board and organizational staff interviews, direct observation and document review. Furthermore, having multiple people on the research team investigate the same questions will identify conflicting information gathered on the same question by multiple people.

7 See Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 8 See Kidder, L. & Judd, C.M, (1986). Research Methods in Social Relations (5th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. pp. 26-29.

Internal Validity is addressed through pattern matching between data collected from each community and pre-defined characteristics of a credible implementing organization agreed upon by multiple organizations in the water and sanitation sector.

External Validity is addressed through replication logic between cases (communities) included in the study. Conflicting data between cases are noted within the results.

Reliability of the research is addressed through the use of clear protocol that can be easily repeated. Because this study was a pilot, there will likely be changes to the protocol before the next Accountability Forum, but the methods used here are clearly noted and repeatable so that another group conducting the same study would identify the same results.

RESULTS

Candelaria (community selected by COCEPRADIL)

In Candelaria, there are two water systems (one from the Congolón source and the other from the Cholunquez source) which were constructed at different times. Each system is managed by its own water board, though the two water boards coordinate their activities and there is good communication between them (especially since there are some users connected to both systems). Water service coverage in Candelaria is virtually 100%. Sanitation coverage is likely just as high, though we have insufficient data to determine a reliable percentage.

Congolón System

Congolón was the first system and included 70 households. Construction began in 1990 and concluded October 1991. After a few years, a second construction phase included a water treatment plant including multi-stage filtration and expansion of the water catchment. There are currently 168 households and 10 public facilities, such as hospitals, connected to the system. The user fee was 3 Lempira per month initially and is now 60 Lempira per month to cover the cost of two hired plumbers and maintenance needs. There is a very low default rate, likely because there is a culture of social commitment and they have a regulation to cut service (with an additional fee to reconnect) if payment is not made. The water board consists of seven members, where at least three must be women. The connection fee for new users is 18,000 Lempira, while children of original “beneficiaries” pay half that (9,000 Lempira). A remarkable aspect of the project is that the town owns most of the Congolón watershed (60 manzanas, approximately 60 hectares) and they have reforested and fenced out grazing livestock to protect the source for the long-term. Visiting the Congolón source, we saw a stark difference between the protected watershed and the surrounding farmland; the focus on water source protection and long-term water provision was evident.

Figure 4. Congolón Water Treatment Plant

Cholunquez System

The Cholunquez system was constructed in response to demand from 30% of the population of Candelaria, who were not connected to the Congolón system. Currently, there are homes connected to both systems, with 105 households connected to the Cholunquez system. The capacity is 250 households. The system includes intake from the Cholunquez River and a spike in water turbidity is seen during the winter months. Due to the contamination inherent in most surface water sources and the spike in turbidity, the Cholunquez system uses a multi-stage filtration water treatment plant. Management of the system is similar to Congolón, including the same tariff of 60 Lempira per month and cost to new users and offspring of users.

Further water treatment, including Ultraviolet Disinfection, is conducted separately from the Cholunquez water treatment plant and 20 L bottles of high quality potable water is available for 6 Lempira to families connected to the Cholunquez system and 12 Lempira for families not connected to the system. Income generated from this service is 10,000 to 12,000 Lempira per month (USD 500 to 600).

Figure 5. Cholunquez Water Treatment Plant and Separate Water Disinfection System

Project characteristics in each community

Of the four communities randomly selected to visit during the evaluation, two are part of a regional aqueduct that services 16 communities. The communities visited are situated near the end of the conduction lines. The systems were 17-20 years old and all were gravity-fed. All communities have increased tariffs since project implementation and had a savings account for repairs and for a small portion of eventual system rehabilitation. Tables 1 through 4 show the details of the project in each community.

Table 1. Water System Characteristics Community Year Built Service Type System Components Metered Chlorinated Celilac-Coyolar 1991 Shared water catchment, San Francisco 1991 Gravity-fed Conduction line, community No No San Andrecito 1994 water tank, distribution to homes, “pila” in each home Sosoal 1994

Table 2. Financial Community Savings (Lempira) Savings (Lempira) Initial Tariff (L/mth) Current Tariff (L/mth) (Nov 2009)* (Nov 2011) (year) Celilac-Coyolar 178,970 5 25 San Francisco 163,866 257,380 2.5 15 San Andrecito 96,000 5 25 Sosoal 61,000 (short-term) 5 20

Table 3. Access to Water and Sanitation Services Community Connection fee Connection # HH # HH not % HH % HH total for new fee for Connected Connected connected but with no residents relatives no sanitation sanitation (Lempira) (Lempira) 16,000 – 28,000, Celilac- depending on 10,000 27 12 3-7% Coyolar agreement San Francisco Not accepting new users 60 50 (wells) 0% 20% San Andrecito 12,000 - 15,000 5,000 27 8 0-15% 23-34% 9% Sosoal 18,000 9,000 67 10 (observation)

Table 4. Characteristics of Water Boards Community # Members # Women Rotation Member Meeting Frequency System Compensation Celilac-Coyolar 5 2 San Francisco 5 1 Everyone Monthly San Andrecito 7 3 takes a turn No Sosoal 7 1

Summary of Household Observations

Results of household observations of sanitation and water services are listed in Figure 6. Most homes have well-functioning and very clean toilets. Provision of soap and toilet paper was not observed at about 20% of homes however. Water storage was very common, but almost 20% did not keep their water storage containers covered, a potential for contamination and a breeding ground for mosquitoes. Leaking taps were identified at 48% of homes and may have a substantial impact on water continuity and management in the communities.

Toilet Functions 91%

Toilet Used 94%

Toilet Clean 91%

Toilet Smells Clean 97%

Toilet Covered or Water Sealed 84%

Soap at Basin 79%

TP in Bathroom 81%

Water Storage Covered 81%

No Leaking Taps 52%

Figure 6. Results of Household Observation Surveys

Evaluation Results

In accordance with the methodology described, the evaluation does not solely depend on interview questions or information provided by COCEPRADIL, but includes a triangulation of information obtained from the community water boards, the state of infrastructure, focus groups with community members (“beneficiaries”), and random inspection of household facilities. The evaluation criteria used are presented below (Table 5):

Table 5. Criteria used for the evaluation Key Domain Criteria A. Organizational 1. Collaboration or coordination with other water and sanitation organizations structure 2. Organization is concerned with improving water & sanitation program quality 3. Organization is sustainable and maintains solid business practices B. Water Services 4. Water system post-construction 5. Water fee payment 6. Water board policies C. Sanitation 7. Most people in the community have access to a sanitary toilet 8. Toilets are well-used in a sanitary manner & users are satisfied with the toilets 9. Users have replacement strategy for toilets not connected to sewage system D. Hygiene 10. All households in community have convenient access to a safe water supply Education 11. Household water use is sufficient to meet all needs for consumption/hygiene 12. Households demonstrate increased health and hygiene awareness over time E. Project design 13. The community has legal authority for the water source and water system & construction 14. Water quality is tested and treated appropriately 15. Water system is appropriately designed and well-constructed 16. Toilets/sanitation system is appropriately designed and well-constructed F. Water system 17. System is well-used and users are satisfied with the system Long-term O&M 18. Repairs are addressed quickly and system undergoes routine maintenance 19. User fees are paid by beneficiaries & system is financially self-supporting G. Water source 20. An active water source protection or environmental education component protection exists in the community H. Community 21. Community makes a financial contribution to the capital cost of the project commitment & 22. A competent local water board is created and functions effectively management

Each of the criteria evaluated includes a series of questions and/or requests for documents to verify results. Each sub-criterion/question is used to determine the scoring of each variable using a qualitative color scoring according to the following:

Red Extreme problems encountered – “do not fund” Organization does not meet all of the basic expectations listed for the metric – Yellow “caution” Organization meets all the basic expectations listed for the metric, but does not Green meet all the high/exceptional expectation criteria – “going well” Organization meets or exceeds all criteria for high/exceptional expectations in the Blue metric – “above and beyond”

The following provides a brief summary based on the criteria evaluated including evidence (based on questions asked during the study) of where COCEPRADIL met expectations in order to inform the qualitative color scoring method described.

A. Organizational Structure

It was clear that over the 22 years that COCEPRADIL has been working in the region, they have become familiar with or have collaborated with the principal public/private organizations in the region. They also have formal agreements with municipalities in the area which are required to contribute to each project.

Their 2006-2011 Strategic Plan lays out their mission and specific goals and they evaluate their projects biannually based on 16 parameters of sustainability including organizational, financial and technical. Additionally, COREPRADIL (the regional COCEPRADIL offices) monitor flow rates and functionality every three months. They had recently visited one community during the study and the local water board reported the flow rates they measured. Their work has been independently evaluated by Emory University‟s Center for Global Safe Water (Freeman 2006) and COCEPRADIL seems to have addressed (or working toward) the major concerns laid out in the report which included poor land management in the area above the water source, that the watershed land is not owned by most communities and a lack of connection between communities and COCEPRADIL. During our evaluation we noted a large focus on watershed management, Ideally, the community list would include dates to allow a selection of projects of varying ages to facilitate observation of project changes over time. There are still issues to be addressed, particularly the connection between communities and COCEPRADIL (some community members mentioned that they didn‟t understand COCEPRADIL‟s role and hadn‟t received a response when they sent them a request for help), but they are aware of the challenges and there was evidence that they took the recommendations seriously and are working toward improving.

Review of their 2010 annual bank statement showed a positive balance of income over expenditures and standard banking practices were observed, though the last independent audit they were able to show us was from 1995. They receive funding from various donors, but we do not consider their annual funding to be “stable”.

Metric: Coordination with other water & sanitation organizations (public or private) Expectation Result Evidence Organization knows principal COCEPRADIL listed various organizations in their public/private organizations in the presentation and mentioned them during the interview. region involved in water and sanitation projects. Organization is aware of national COCEPRADIL provided the National Law and water laws and their application to mentioned some concerns on water rights as part of the types of projects implemented former debates and clarifications after the new Law

Basic was approved. They also explained government design requirements. Organization has an informal Reports showing other organizations listed as partners relationship with other public/private (e.g. “plan de manejo de la microcuenca „Cerro organizations involved in water and Congolón‟”, 2010), meeting minutes with other sanitation projects in the region. organizations. Organization has a formal Example: Contract with the Municipality of La Virtud

relationship with other public/private (400,000 Lempira) for the construction of water projects organizations involved in water and in the town of Trinidad. High sanitation projects in region or is a member of water/sanitation network Score: blue

Metric: Organization is concerned with improving water and sanitation program quality Expectation Result Evidence Organization has internal standards They have 16 parameters of sustainability including to define a "successful" and organizational, financial and technical. "sustainable" project. Organization has had the opportunity COCEPRADIL received training from several to learn from observing another organizations multiple times over their lifetime: CRS, st Basic organization's work. Water for People, WaterPartners International, Water1 Organization conducts evaluations of Projects are evaluated biannually based on 16 its own projects at least 2 years after parameters completion. Organization has an ongoing Their Strategic Plan for 2006-2011 shows a clear plan structure to improve program quality for improving program quality. Their pilot project to and has made specific changes in introduce meters is another example of how they are project implementation or internal focused on program improvement.

operations in the last two years.

Organization has had an evaluation See (Freeman 2006) for example

High of its water and sanitation projects conducted by another organization. Organization is involved with the 1 Lempira from each household‟s monthly water tariff communities upon project completion goes to COCEPRADIL. The community then has for 2 years access to spare parts, tools and on-going training. Meetings with COCEPRADIL are held once per year. Score: blue

Metric: Organization is sustainable and maintains solid business practices Expectation Result Evidence Organization has an annual budget They have an annual budget that is approved by the General Assembly at the end of January each year. Organization tracks income and 2010 bank statement

expenditures and has a bank balance that exceeds liabilities

Organization is legally registered in They have Statutes that show they are registered as an Basic the country where it is operating. official NGO Organization has a mission 2006-2011 Strategic Plan includes mission statement. statement and by-laws or equivalent By-laws are found in “Estatutos del comité central pro agua y desarrollo integral de lempira.” Organization tracks income and 2010 bank statement expenditures according to standard accounting practices and has a bank balance that exceeds liabilities Organization undergoes an annual 1995 was the last audit observed audit of its finances

Organization produces an annual They use software (FUNDEMUN) to create financial financial statement/report statements each year including income and balances. High Organization has stable annual COCEPRADIL mentioned challenges of unstable funding funding Organization has an elected COCEPRADIL management is elected by the general governing body assembly every 4 years Organization has specialists in They have minimum staff to administer COCEPRADIL. relevant fields (finance, engineering, They have a roster of specialists to work with, community development, education) depending on the project and its needs/complexity. Score: green

B. Water Service

Water services are well managed at the local level including well functioning community water boards consisting of five to seven community members that rotate every year to include all households in the community. Almost all households are regularly paying the water tariff and all water boards visited have positive and increasing bank accounts. However, the amount collected is insufficient to cover a major breakdown. Households that originally participated in the program, including financial and extensive labor contributions (70-90 days per household), have access to well-managed water services. For new homes, however, the connection fee it is prohibitively expensive for most families and many are left without service access. This is challenging because COCEPRADIL wants to encourage participation upfront and if future connection is simple/inexpensive, there is no incentive for families to contribute and participate at the start of the project; a step that may be key to the high levels of community sense of ownership we observed. Some creative programming may be needed to overcome this double bind so that initial participation in the project is encouraged without neglecting new families or families that decide they would like to participate down the road.

Two of the four communities reported water scarcity issues, including the prohibition of new connections due to insufficient water. Based on water flow calculations at the community tank, water scarcity issues may be more a problem of improper water use and leaks in the system, though further monitoring of flow rates would be needed to confirm this. This is likely not a system design issue as leaky taps were found in 52% of households and misuse by households such as watering gardens or the dirt road in front of their home to keep dust down were observed during site visits.

Metric: Water system post-construction

Expectation Result Evidence Is there a water board made up of Each community has a board of 5-7 members. The community members to govern the CEP (comite ejecutor de proyectos) conducts yearly water project? trainings with the boards regarding how to determine tariff structures and establishing rules. Are the water board members Elections are held yearly on a volunteer basis in chosen regularly and with community rotation so that households take turns participating in participation? the board. Every household must participate. There is

Basic no rule regarding women participating on the board, but it is promoted and typically boards include 1-2 women. COREPRADIL elections are held every 2 years COCEPRADIL elections are held every 4 years Does the organization train the water There are yearly trainings held by COREPRADIL for 5 board members? days with board members.

N/A High Score: blue

Metric: Water fee payment

Expectation Result Evidence Are households charged a user fee Yes. The tariff is usually 20-30 Lempira per month per

for using the system? household. Does the organization provide It is a cultural norm to pay off all debts from the year in

guidance regarding enforcing the December, though most households pay monthly and Basic payment of water fees? each water board has a service suspension rule to enforce regular payment Does the organization provide There is some information regarding expected costs to sufficient guidance for setting water consider but we did not observe a detailed spreadsheet

fees? to help communities determine costs. They say they

help communities plan for operations and maintenance

High expenses and to have 50% of the total original cost saved in 20 years, but we didn't see evidence of these calculations. 20-30 Lempira per household per month is insufficient to save this amount. Score: green

Metric: Water Board policies

Expectation Result Evidence The organization promotes Yes, this is discusses in their training material used for community self-reliance for future yearly community water board trainings. Training upgrades. (recommend building a material was observed.

Basic surplus in a savings account)

The water board ensures regular It is common for water boards to promote rotation and participation of members of the general participation of the community in the board.

community in the Board Focus groups participants (in all communities visited)

mentioned a democratic rotation.

High The water board has a policy to Costs of connection for new-users are prohibitively increase water coverage in expensive for many households. Further, in 2 of the 4 accordance with growth and demand communities, new users were not being accepted due of the population? to reported water scarcity issues. Score: green

C. Sanitation

COCEPRADIL promotes on-site sanitation including requiring household toilets for water project participation, providing designs and subsidizing construction at the start of the water project. Though we observed that most people (at least 80%) have access to clean, well-functioning toilets, coverage was not 100%. New water system users are required to construct a latrine as part of the requirements to gain access to the water system. In these cases, they are seeking funds from the municipality to support construction. In each community, most residents are satisfied with their sanitation service.

Households that did not participate in the project were less likely to have a sanitary toilet. As in the water access to new households mentioned above, creative programming may be needed to support and encourage sanitation access at all households in the community without compromising the incentive of families to participate upfront. This is of particular concern with regard to sanitation which affects everyone in the community when a portion of homes do not have access. The communities visited were quite rural however and complaints of neighbors‟ lack of toilet access were not mentioned. There was a clear demand for toilets however, particularly for indoor sanitation so that families don‟t have to go outside at night for reasons of safety and comfort.

Metric: Most people in communities have access to a sanitary toilet Expectation Result Evidence Organization encourages 100% of Educational manuals and advocacy documents community members to build and use observed sanitary toilets Organization has a design standard Observed in Technical Manual for Plumbers

Basic for toilets More than 60% of households have Household observations access to a sanitary toilet More than 80% of project households Based on families that have a water connection, at

have access to a sanitary toilet least 80% have access – see Table 3.

High More than 80% of total households in When all families living in the community are the community have access to a considered, some are below 80% - see Table 3. sanitary toilet Score: green

Metric: Toilets are well-used in a sanitary manner and users are satisfied with the toilets Expectation Result Evidence 75% of the toilets constructed are 91% of household toilets observed were clean, 91%

clean, functioning properly, being were functioning properly, 94% were being used, 84% used as toilets, and covered (water were covered. seal or other physical seal) Basic More than 70% of households report There were mixed responses during focus groups, being satisfied with the toilets though most reported satisfaction, likely well over 70%. 90% of the toilets constructed are 91% of household toilets observed were clean, 91% clean, functioning properly, being were functioning properly, 94% were being used, but

used as toilets, and covered (water 84% (less than 90%) were covered. seal or other physical seal) High More than 90% of households report There were mixed results in the focus groups and some being satisfied with the toilets families mentioned they would prefer indoor toilets for safety during the night and when it‟s raining. Score: green

Metric: Users have a replacement strategy for toilets not connected to public sewage Expectation Result Evidence

More than 75% of households can describe what they will do when the It was clear from all focus group discussions that toilet needs to be replaced (e.g. when Basic everyone had a clear idea of what they would do when the pit on a VIP fills up) their pit filled up. Some had plans to install a septic More than 80% of households can tank. In one community, 8 focus group participants had describe what they will do (or have already dug another pit to replace one that was full.

High done) when the toilets needs to be replaced (e.g. pit fills up) Score: blue

D. Hygiene Education

The majority of homes in each community have household water taps which typically provide water 24 hours per day allowing for hygiene practices to be realized. In some communities there were down times lasting up to 15 days; most homes had sufficient water storage, but this likely had a negative impact on water use for hygiene purposes as households were cautious of water uses. The water systems were designed to provide 35 gallons/capita/day and when the water systems are functioning properly they usually provide sufficient water flow for all homes, other than a few that have been built since the project installation that were constructed in higher areas. Soap was observed at the wash basin in 79% of the homes visited. 81% of homes have covered drinking water storage. There were mixed responses regarding water treatment practices: stored boiled water was observed covered on the stove in a number of homes, but focus group participants reported that some people drink directly from the tap. They did note that they didn‟t notice any health issues among children because of their water. Particulate matter and in one home, a worm, was observed from the tap however and household treatment should be considered particularly since there is no chlorination at the community water tank. Unfortunately, water quality was not tested as part of this evaluation.

Metric: All households in the community have convenient access to a safe water supply

Expectation Result Evidence 75% of households in the community Observation of random samples of homes in each have access to water every day, community show that most (over 75%) have household within a 15 minute round trip walk water taps

Basic (including queuing and container filling time) All households in the community There were frequent water cuts in some of the have access to water 24 hours each communities due to insufficient continuity of water day for house taps, or during (likely due to unauthorized uses at the household level) reasonable operating hours for public and/or system breakdowns, typically due to broken taps located within a 15 minute round pipeline where pipes cross under the road. trip walk (including queuing and container filling time) When the water system is If system maintenance lasts longer than household

undergoing maintenance, households stored water provisions, water sources include shallow

boil/chlorinate/treat their water supply wells and river water and homes report treating at least

High to make it safe while waiting for the water collected from the river. In daily practice, maintenance activities to conclude. water from the system is not always treated and some people in the focus groups mentioned they are not accustomed to chlorinating/boiling. The water from the system appears clear, but particulate matter and in one home, a worm, were observed from the water tap; evidence of contamination in the system. Particularly since communities do not chlorinate water at the community tank, household treatment should be conducted. Score: green

Metric: Household water use is sufficient to meet all needs for consumption and hygiene

Expectation Result Evidence Water system is designed to provide Designs show calculations based on 35 g/c/d (132 l/c/d) at least 50 liters per capita per day for old systems and 25- 30 g/c/d (95-114 l/c/d) based (l/c/d) on national standards. There is evidence that more than Many people mentioned several uses of water for

Basic 60% of users have increased water hygiene purposes and stated this was a difference from use for hygiene purposes pre-project. Water uses included: drinking, hygiene, cooking, cleaning the house, and washing clothes. Water system is designed to provide Design for 35 g/c/d (132 l/c/d) for old systems and 30

at least 100 l/c/d g/c/d (114 l/c/d) based on national standards There is evidence that more than See minimum standard above. Many community High 80% of users have increased water members mentioned (unsolicited) an increase in water use for hygiene purposes use for hygiene purposes as a benefit of the project. Score: blue

Metric: Households demonstrate increased health and hygiene awareness over time Expectation Result Evidence More than 60% of households have Soap was observed at the wash basin in 79% of the soap present households visited

More than 60% of households have a At households visited, 81% of homes have covered covered drinking water storage water storage container

Basic More than 60% of households report Community members gave mixed responses during either boiling or chlorinating their focus groups. It was agreed that most households drinking water either boil or chlorinate their drinking water, but not all. Stored boiled water was observed in some households cooling in a covered pot on the stove. More than 80% of households have soap present More than 80% of households have a 81% of homes visited have covered water storage covered drinking water storage

container More than 80% of households report Community members gave mixed responses during High either boiling or chlorinating their focus groups. It is likely less than 80%. drinking water Animal access to the house is 61% of homes observed had a fence or other way of prevented in more than 80% of preventing animal access to the house households Score: green

E. Project Design and Construction

In many cases, the community (or group of communities) owns the land surrounding the water source which allows them to maintain water quality and secures the source water for the future. During selection of the source water site, COCEPRADIL tested water quality; however water quality has not been tested regularly (if at all) since then. Water systems were designed to last more than 20 years including a projected population growth rate of 3.5%.

The designs used are all high quality and meet engineering design standards. The systems were built with locally available and high-quality materials such as PVC (SDR 13.5) and steel pipe which is used in high pressure or rocky areas. A full-time COCEPRADIL contractor oversees all construction. The fact that the 20-year-old systems we visited were still functioning well is testament to the high quality design and construction as well as training and expertise of local plumbers and availability of local supplies.

Metric: The community has legal authority for the water source and water system Expectation Result Evidence Community has documentation of the Some communities (or groups of communities) have legal process it went through to purchased the micro-watershed for their water source obtain permission for the water and in other cases they have agreements with land source and system owners for long-term use and environmental protection. Unfortunately we did not have sufficient time to observe

Basic documentation, but triangulated responses from the water board interview, community focus group, and COCEPRADIL were in agreement that communities had either ownership or agreements with land owners.

Community is the owner or has a See previous long-term concession for the use of

High the water source Score: blue

Metric: Water quality is tested and treated appropriately Expectation Result Evidence Initial water quality of source water Design protocol includes testing of source water quality. (bacteriological and chemical) is An example of testing results from a project was tested and meets country water observed.

Basic quality standards

Water quality (bacteriological and They do some water quality monitoring but there is no chemical) is tested annually against specific timeline/frequency

country water quality standards If standards are not met, community None of the communities visited chlorinate their water High takes appropriate steps to remedy before distribution. Some households chlorinate, some the situation and bring water quality boil, others drink directly from the tap. They did mention back to acceptable standards that they do not have issues with illness however. Score: green

Metric: Water system is appropriately designed and well-constructed Expectation Result Evidence Water system is sufficient to meet the Systems are designed for 20 years including an needs of the community for at least assumed population growth of 3.5% if there is no 20 years specific growth data. Water flow measurements at the community tank indicated sufficient water quantity, though further monitoring data is needed. Water system is designed and Systems observed have lasted longer than 20 years. constructed to last at least 20 years Systems have a design lifetime of 20 years and there is good quality construction. Water system is a closed system Interviews with COCEPRADIL and direct observation, (through water seals on well-heads, including screens on tank openings. capped springs, or other methods, doesn‟t allow contamination inside) Water system components can be Community water board members identified a hardware

Basic found in-country and community store in Candelaria and COCEPRADIL‟s spare part members are aware of where storage as each having everything they need. If both replacement parts can be found and places do not have something at the moment of need, their approximate costs they know they can find everything in San Pedro Sula or Tegucigalpa. They were able to give costs of various parts. Parts observed were all common and easily found in Honduras. System is designed (considering All users have household taps pressure & number of taps) so that once users arrive at a tap they do not have to spend more than 5 minutes waiting in line & filling their container Appropriate/good quality materials Systems have lasted over 20 years. PVC (SDR 13.5) are used for water system is used except in high pressure or rocky areas where infrastructure steel or iron pipe is used.

Organization uses a set of water These are included in their Plumbers Manual system design standards High Construction management and A full-time COCEPRADIL contractor works with a part- oversight are vigorously implemented time engineer and part-time education specialist throughout construction. The COCEPRADIL contractor is responsible for ensuring system is built per design. Score: blue

Metric: Toilet/sanitation system is appropriately designed and well-constructed Expectation Result Evidence Sanitation system is isolated from the Households visited showed the latrines far away from water source water taps Sanitation system is designed for On-site sanitation was built by each participating family 100% of community members to use as a requirement of the water system installation.

Basic Toilet is designed and constructed to Household observation/interviews: all toilets have last at least 2 years before needing lasted longer than 2 years. replacement Toilet is designed and constructed to Household observation/interviews: all toilets have

last at least 5 years before needing lasted longer than 5 years. replacement High Organization uses a set of toilet These are found in their Plumbers Manual design standards Score: blue

F. Water System Long-term Operations and Maintenance

All original participants in the water system installation are still using the system. Most report being satisfied, though in two of the four communities there were complaints of frequent cuts and insufficient quantity of water. Water board members or hired plumbers conduct routine maintenance monthly, including cleaning the community tank,. System breakdowns, usually caused by broken pipes especially those that lie under the road, often last much longer than 48 hours. Typically the water board calls a meeting to discuss a repair plan, then travels to Candelaria to collect materials, and then they work together to fix the problem. This process can often takes days or weeks and having a small supply of replacement pipes and PVC glue could facilitate faster repairs.

Though a common complaint in two of the communities was insufficient water quantity, most people were averse to installing meters. Several community members voiced concern about malfunctioning meters reading air (this seems to be a misconception) resulting in unfairly high water charges. The reluctance to install meters may also be from households that use large quantities of water for non-human uses (e.g., coffee farming, livestock) even though this is not allowed. COCEPRADIL is currently undertaking a pilot project with meters in one community; results of that work could help to dispel the misconceptions behind meters among some households and improve water usage in other communities.

In all communities we visited all or almost all users were regularly paying their water tariff based on visual inspection of the treasurer‟s records and observing receipts in households. In some cases, households would pay for several months in advance and in other cases a couple months behind based on growing seasons or waiting for remittance from family members abroad. In all cases, communities reported that all money owed was paid by December each year as is the custom in this area. Everyone was aware of what would happen if water bills were not paid, but this had not happened in any of the communities as all payments were always submitted by December at the latest and almost always monthly.

Metric: Water system is well-used and users are satisfied with the system Expectation Result Evidence More than 75% of community Based on the sample of communities visited members use the water system

More than 75% of users report being Most community members (all in two communities and Basic satisfied with the water system most in the other two) mentioned their satisfaction More than 90% of community Although it was observed that some homes do not have

members use the water system water access, they make up less than10% More than 90% of users report being Despite the majority being satisfied, at least 10% High satisfied with the water system mentioned discontinuity affecting regular supply and concern about the increasing frequency of interruptions. Score: green

Metric: Water system repair issues are addressed quickly and water system undergoes routine maintenance Expectation Result Evidence Water system components are Water board and COCEPRADIL staff interviews: the inspected and maintained on a community water boards monitor systems monthly

regular basis including cleaning tanks. This was confirmed by observation of tanks, where were exceptionally clean and well-maintained, especially considering their age. Basic Water system is repaired within 48 hours of breakage

Piped water systems are metered to One community mentioned a leak inspection program help identify leaks but without meters, this was limited to visual inspection of the community tank. Additionally, many of the homes

visited had leaking taps making it challenging to identify leaks in the distribution line. Most households don‟t High want to install meters. They report mistrust in the readings with a fear that they will measure air through the system as well. COCEPRADIL is trying a pilot project with meters in a new community. Score: yellow

Metric: User fees are paid by beneficiaries & system is financially self-supporting Expectation Result Evidence More than 75% of households Observation of the water board treasurers‟ account regularly pay a water bill/user fee books showing almost all families paying on a regular

basis, with a very few paying their total every few months depending on growing seasons. Water bills were also observed during household visits Basic More than 75% of households are Community focus groups and water board interviews. aware of specific consequences Everyone was able to describe the process of when the water bill is not paid notification and finally the water line being cut. More than 95% of households See basic expectation above.

regularly pay a water bill/user fee More than 90% of households are See basic expectation above High aware of specific consequences when the water bill is not paid Score: blue

G. Water Source Protection

One of COCEPRADIL‟s greatest strengths is their focus on watershed management. Many communities own the land above and containing the water source and reforestation is evident as well as protection from livestock with the use of fences and watchmen.

At the taps, water uses are restricted to human-use (consumption, bathing, basic cleaning), but this was not effectively enforced by local water boards and in many communities water was observed being used for non-permitted uses.

Metric: An active water source protection or environmental education component exists in the community Expectation Result Evidence Water board members demonstrate a Water board interviews: described reforesting, fencing knowledge of the water cycle and off the land to protect from livestock and agreements how human activities affect the with farmers above the source regarding their use of

availability and purity of water pesticides and other chemicals demonstrating their supplies knowledge of the influence of human activities on their water supply. Basic The quality and quantity of the source Water board members all say they have not seen a water has been maintained for 5 change in water quality since construction 17-20 years years or more ago. The water does get more turbid during the rainy season, but this has not changed over the years. The quality and quantity of the source Quality of water source is similar or better than the water has been maintained for 20 beginning due to watershed protection measures years or more (reforestation, limiting households and farming above the source, and restricting livestock). Water quantity changes are difficult to measure, especially with possible effects of climate change. However, watershed protection seems to be a central focus of

COCEPRADIL (All water boards are aware of the

importance and include protection measures in their

regular agenda) High The water board has determined Water board members were all able to list allowable allowable uses of water from the water uses including bathing, drinking, cooking, and project and effectively monitors and household washing, while watering gardens and using enforces these issues the water for livestock was not permitted. The efficacy of monitoring and enforcement was questioned however as residents were observed watering the dirt road in front of their home and gardens with water from the water system. Score: green

H. Community Commitment and Local Project Management

Communities contributed a substantial portion of the total project costs including cash, 70-90 days of labor for each family, and local materials. All water boards we visited had clear financial records and positive bank accounts, though they do not have independent financial audits. In every community, having at least one woman on the board is mandatory and boards were complying. Every community reported satisfaction with their board and almost everyone in the community had served on the board at some point. All communities have monthly meetings with the board and other community members to discuss policy decisions and meeting minutes were observed in all cases.

Metric: Communities makes a financial contribution to the capital cost of the project either up-front or over time (i.e. a loan), through cash and/or in-kind contributions Expectation Result Evidence Community contributes 10% of the Typically, communities pay around 40-55% of total project capital cost through cash (up project costs including cash for the topography study

front or over time via a loan) and/or and design (and sometimes material transport), labor in-kind contributions (usually 70-90 days per family), and local materials, For projects in the past 8-10 years, final expenses and who Basic provided them are read aloud at system inauguration. Cash contributions were confirmed through observation of project budgets and water board interviews. Community contributes 25% of the See previous project capital cost through cash (up

front or over time via a loan) and/or

in-kind contributions

High Loans to communities have a default Direct subsidy from donors and a counterpart rate of less than 10% contribution from the community (in cash and kind) are NA the main sources of financing. We did not hear of households taking out loans to pay their contribution. Score: blue

Metric: A competent local water management board is created and functions effectively Expectation Result Evidence Board members have received The CEP (comite ejecutor de proyectos) conducts training to prepare them for their yearly trainings with the boards regarding how to roles (e.g. accounting, leadership) determine tariff structures and establish rules. Board meets regularly and has Minutes of monthly meetings were observed in each minutes of past meetings community Users are satisfied with the board In all communities, every household takes turns participating on the board and many found this question

Basic humorous Board tracks income and In all cases, accounting books were observed and there expenditures and has a bank balance was a positive bank balance in each case including that exceeds liabilities increased savings over the past 2 years. Women have held positions on the Each board interviewed included at least one woman. Board At least 25% of board positions are There was 1 woman on each board interviewed with 5 held by women members, and 2 in the board interviewed with 7 members, indicating 20-28%. Community members said at times there are 2 women on board with 5 members and 3 on boards with 7 (as we saw in Candelaria), increasing the percentage to 40% and the average is likely over 25%. Board is increasing savings towards Every water board visited had savings and some were a savings goal for future saving it in a Cooperative to gain interest, upgrades/expansions. demonstrating basic financial schemes to increase revenue Board is representative of the Water board interviews and community focus groups:

community and users are satisfied Every household is required to serve on the board in

with the board rotating fashion. Everyone reported satisfaction. High Board enforces collection of fees by Water board interviews, community focus groups, and water system users informal household visits: the treasurer of each board collects fees during monthly assemblies and conducts house visits if payments are not made at the meeting. Evaluations of Board accounts are A local assembly is conducted every month where the conducted, either by the community water board informs the community about savings, or other body. default payments (if any) and operations and maintenance activities for the month. Water management board makes Water board interviews and community focus groups: policy decisions (e.g. increases in decisions are made at monthly assemblies by a water use fees, connection fees for community vote. new users of the water system) Score: blue

Summary

Key Domain Variable Score 1. Collaboration or coordination with other water and sanitation organizations blue A. Organizational 2. Organization is concerned with improving water and sanitation program quality blue structure 3. Organization is sustainable and maintains solid business practices green 4. Water system after construction blue B. Water 5. Water fee payment green Services 6. Water board policy green 7. Most people in the community have access to a sanitary toilet green C. Sanitation 8. Toilets are well-used in a sanitary manner and users are satisfied with the toilets green 9. Users have replacement strategy for toilets not connected to sewage system blue 10. All households in community have convenient access to a safe water supply green D. Hygiene 11. Household water use is sufficient to meet all needs for consumption/hygiene blue Education 12. Households demonstrate increased health and hygiene awareness over time green 13. The community has legal authority for the water source and water system blue E. Project design 14. Water quality is tested and treated appropriately green & construction 15. Water system is appropriately designed and well-constructed blue 16. Toilets/sanitation system is appropriately designed and well-constructed blue 17. System is well-used and users are satisfied with the system green F. Water system 18. Repairs are addressed quickly and system undergoes routine maintenance yellow Long-term O&M 19. User fees are paid by beneficiaries & system is financially self-supporting blue G. Water source 20. An active water source protection or environmental education component exists green protection in the community H. Community 21. Community makes a financial contribution to the capital cost of the project blue commitment & 22. A competent local water board is created and functions effectively blue management

Assuming each variable is of equal weight, there are 11 variables where COCEPRADIL meets high expectations (blue), 10 variables where they met the basic standards (green) and only one (1) where they are considered as below basic standards (yellow). They meet at least basic standards for 21 of the 22 criteria.

Based on numeric scores of blue (3), green (2) and yellow and red (0), COCEPRADIL scores 50 points out of a possible 66 if high/exceptional expectations were all met in all categories.

Qualitative Score Quantitative Score Blue 3 points Green 2 points Yellow 0 point Red 0 point Maximum score possible if all high expectations are met 66 points Maximum score possible if all basic expectations are met 44 points COCEPRADIL Score 53 points (80%)

CONCLUSIONS

The first Water and Sanitation Accountability Forum focused on the evaluation of COCEPRADIL, a local NGO in Lempira, Honduras that has been implementing water and sanitation programs for over 20 years. Over one week in December 2011, COCEPRADIL was evaluated based on 22 criteria of likelihood to provide long-term services as an indication of money well spent by donor organizations.

Evidence shows systems installed approximately 20 years ago are still functioning and being used. From a sustainability perspective, probability of economic sustainability seems high based on extremely high rates of regular fee payment that cover operating costs and generate savings for future repairs, renovations and upgrades. In the social dimension, community knowledge and involvement with the water system is high as shown by one community and echoed by others in the statement “we are all engineers and plumbers here, including men and women alike”. There is high community participation in monthly meetings and well as participation on the water board as members between households and this water management structure has been working for decades. Further evidence of satisfaction lies in the very high rate of timely tariff payment. From an environmental perspective, COCEPRADIL and communities‟ concern for watershed management is impressive and commendable. There are a number of communities that own the land that contains their micro-watershed and others are currently in the process of purchasing land or have agreements with land owners. The reforestation, fencing and other land management efforts reflect the importance placed on water resource quantity and quality.

Though there were many successes observed, there are some areas that need to be addressed. The connection fee for new households is prohibitively expensive for most families and many are left without water and/or sanitation services. This is challenging because COCEPRADIL wants to encourage participation upfront and if future connection is inexpensive, there is no incentive for families to contribute and participate at the start of the project; a step that may be key to the high levels of community sense of ownership we observed. Some creative programming may be needed to overcome this double bind so that all families in the community have access to services without compromising initial project participation. Additionally, in some communities, water quantity is insufficient and water cuts can last days or weeks. A further challenge is a lack of financial planning for the end of design period (extensions) or for the system lifetime. Communities do not have enough saved to fund a new system and planning for loan strategies and/or government subsidy programs may be needed.

In summary, key successes and challenges are presented below:

Successes:

Up to 20 years later the water systems are functioning Organization: Still have functioning water boards and people are still paying Ownership: water boards say: “we can make repairs”, “we don‟t need outside help” Participation: All community members participate in the local water board

Maintenance: water boards have made the repairs necessary to date. Community members and/or the local plumber have skills and knowledge to make repairs and know where to go for parts. Design: clearly sufficient to support 20+ years Financial: Very nearly 100% of community members pay the water tariff and communities have growing savings accounts. Education: Training has been effective. Many community members remember the 5 training sessions from 17-20 years ago.

Challenges:

Coverage: the water system does not reach some homes. Usually the families that did not participate upfront, either by choice or because they are new to the community, have to pay double (or more) the cost for beneficiary relatives, independent of their economical status. It is understandable to encourage families that did not want to be part of the initiative to pay the equivalent of the monetized labor families contributed during project construction, but it should be not higher than that. Also, a policy is needed when new families arrive to the community. Water reliability: Insufficient continuity and very frequent water cuts in 2 of the 4 communities Water conservation: Communities are interested in quantity-based tariffs, but don‟t trust meters. Meter introduction may take time. Monitoring and evaluation: Seems limited – COCEPRADIL‟s capture of lessons learned from old projects is not systematized. Political: There are potential water conflicts with other communities and limited government involvement/support for some projects, especially for regional water systems. Further integration with the municipalities is needed. Coordination with COCEPRADIL: There were some complaints of community requests to COCEPRADIL and COREPRADIL going unanswered. Long-term service provision: There is not a clear plan for post-20 years. Things are functioning now, but increasing population and resource scarcity may challenge these services. System replacement: Some communities expect external non reimbursable funds to renew water systems for the next 20 years – no plan for reconstruction at community or government-level. There is also confusion between design period and infrastructure lifetime. Projects are usually designed for 20 years but that does not mean water systems have to be renewed after that period of time. Education: Training programs could provide more emphasis on building women‟s leadership qualities since they are the main caretakers and most directly affected by household water and sanitation services. Funding: COCEPRADIL‟s funding has dropped recently and this presents challenges to ongoing services/intervention.

Though still facing a number of challenges, COCEPRADIL has shown exceptional work in an extremely challenging sector and, according to the criteria established, they receive an impressive 80%, or a status of “green approaching blue”. This means that on average, they exceed basic standards and fulfill criteria to be recommended to international organizations for future funding.

Funding Not Funding Highly Recommended Recommended 

Extreme Some Basic High Expectations Problems Expectations Met Expectations Met Met Identified

Finally, donors should consider the financial support of “soft” needs, such as training and monitoring, as these were seen as important factors to COCEPRADIL‟s success and an area that they report can be challenging to secure funding for. Additionally, interaction with local municipalities and regional/national authorities as well as clear documentation of lessons- learned (not just successes) should be encouraged by funding organizations. COCEPRADIL has supported almost 160 projects in 20 years and organizational improvements should be encouraged and supported beyond the addition of funding for new infrastructure.

Kampala and Lima, January 2012

CITATIONS

Calderon, J. (2004). Agua y Saneamiento: El Caso del Peru Rural, ITDG Oficina Regional para America Latina.

Freeman, M. C. (2006). Water Partners International Community Water Systems Sustainability Evaluation. Lempira, Honduras Atlanta, Center for Global Safe Water.

Rodgers, A. R., L. A. Ajono, et al. (2007). "Characteristics of latrine promotion participants and non-participants; inspection of latrines; and perceptions of household latrines in Northern Ghana." Tropical Medicine & International Health 12(6): 772-782.

Sutton, S. (2004). Preliminary desk study of potential for self supply in sub-saharan africa. , UK SC: WaterAid and the Rural Water Supply Network.

UNDP (2011). Human Development Report 2011: Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All, United Nations Development Program.

WaterAid (2009). Management for Sustainability: Practical lessons from three studies on the management of rural water supply schemes. Dar es Salaam, WaterAid Tanzania.

WHO/UNICEF (2010). Joint Monitoring Program 2010 Report: Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water, World Health Organization and the United Nations Children Fund.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Photos

Community of San Francisco

Community of Sosoal

Community of San Andrecito

Community of Celilac/Coyolar

Appendix B: Raw Data

COCEPRADIL Management Interview

Question / Observation Response Organizational Structure Organization knows the principal public/private organizations in the region Some meetings with CARE, CARITAS, etc. No formal agreements involved in water and sanitation projects. (min) Organization is aware of the national water laws and their application to Yes, they are aware. They feel new national laws present them with opportunities. They have also adopted the types of projects implemented by the organization.(min) some internal by-laws. Organization has an informal relationship with other public/private We observed meeting minutes kept by the secretary. organizations involved in water and sanitation projects in the region (min)

Organization has a formal relationship with other public/private organizations involved in water and sanitation projects in the region or is a member of water and sanitation network (high) Organization has internal standards to define a "successful" and Organizational, technical and financial sustainability. Projects are evaluated based on 16 parameters every 2 "sustainable" project. (min) years. Community water boards monitor systems monthly including cleaning tanks. COREPRADIL (Regional) Organization has an ongoing structure to improve program quality and has monitors flow rates and functionality every 3 months. made specific changes in project implementation or internal operations in the last two years. (high) Organization has had the opportunity to learn from observing another Yes. Emory study in 2006. organization's work. (min) Organization has had an evaluation of its water and sanitation projects conducted by another organization. (high) Organization conducts evaluations of its own projects at least 2 years after On-going informal evaluation. Mostly through juntas and COREPRADIL, but COCEPRADIL oversees. completion. (min) Organization conducts evaluations of its own projects at least 5 years after completion (high) Organization is involved with the communities upon project completion for Feedback from community members. 2 years (min) Organization is involved with the communities upon project completion for at least 5 years (high) Organization conducts a thorough baseline study of community conditions We saw Water Partners study example. (min) Technical Folder with designs. Organization conducts a thorough baseline study of community conditions, There is a qualified contractor for construction records data, and uses data for assessment of outcomes (high) Organization has an annual budget Observed. Organization tracks income and expenditures (min) Monthly bank reports. There is an administive person who organizes. They have an account for each project. Organization tracks income and expenditures according to standard accounting practices (high) Organization is legally registered in the country where it is operating. Legally registered as an NGO and propery is registered under COCEPRADIL. Organization has a bank balance that exceeds liabilities. (min) They report that it is positive every year. We saw 2010 and it was positive by XX (see document on CD) AND Organization has stable annual funding. (high)

Organization has a mission statement and by-laws or equivalent They have a strategic plan for 2006 - 2011. The juntas participated in the planning (1 rep from each) and the organizational management documentation. (min) plan includes Organization has a 3-plus year strategic plan (high) Organization produces an audited annual financial statement/report. (min) No. Plans to do in Jan/Feb 2012. The last one was in 2009. The last one we observed was 1996?? Organization undergoes annual audit of its finances as well as over all managerial performance by independent external auditing firm selected through transparent and participatory way. (high) Organization has specialists in relevant fields (finance, engineering, No. They contract different specialists depending on the project and try and hire local people when possible. community development, hygiene education) (high) Their staff includes a director, an administrator, a secretary and a watchman. The labor is all done by beneficiaries and the junta Organization has a design standard for toilets. (min) They have a pour-flush toilet design based on SANAA design including a seep pit not directly underneath the Organization's design standard for toilets meets national standards and latrine. < 1 m3 internationally accepted criteria (high) Organization uses a set of water system design standards. (min) PVC in all places except high pressure zones where it is steel. 1/2" wall. ?? networks Organization's design standard for water systems meets national Franz looked over designs standards and internationally accepted criteria (high) Water Is there a water board made up of community members to govern the Yes, each community has a board of 5-7 members to manage the system. The CEP (comite ejecutor de water project? proyectos) conducts yearly trainings with the boards regarding how to determine tariff structures and establishing rules. How are the water board members chosen? Elections are held yearly on a volunteer basis in rotation so that households take turns participating in the board. Every household must participate. There is no rule regarding women participating on the board, but it is promoted and typically boards include 1-2 women. COREPRADIL elections are held every 2 years COCEPRADIL elections are held every 4 years Does the organization train the water board members? Yes, there are yearly trainings held by COREPRADIL for 5 days with board members. Are households charged a user fee for using the system? Yes. The tariff is usually 20-30 Lempira per month per household. What guidance does the organization provide for setting water fees? There is some information regarding expected costs to consider but we did not observe a detailed spreadsheet to help communities determine costs. They say they plan for O&M expenses and to have 50% of the total original cost saved in 20 years, but we didn't see evidence of these calculations and 20-30 Lempira is insufficient to save this amount What guidance does the organization provide regarding enforcing the Only a little. It is a cultural norm to pay off all debts from the year in December. payment of water fees? Does the organization promote community self-reliance for future Yes, this is discusses in their training material used for yearly community water board trainings. Training upgrades? (recommend building a surplus in a savings account) material was observed. Sanitation What is the toilet design promoted by your organization? Why did you Pour-flush toilets to a seep pit. They started with pit latrines in 1988, but communities preferred water based decide on that design? services. They have considered EcoSan in locations with limited water supply but most communities prefer to use water. The project includes the toilet fixture. How many toilets were in the community at baseline? Baseline?? Now all homes included in projects must have a pila and a latrine/toilet. What is the plan for when the toilets need to be replaced? Homes dig a new hole when the seep pits fill up. What is the organization's goal for sanitation coverage? 100% is the goal. Currently, very few families in the communities they work do not have access. Hygiene Education

Did you integrate health education training? Yes. 5 themes are discussed in 5 meetings with the communities: 1 before construction, 3 during, and 1 after. Each training is 3-5 days each. They are not mandatory, but everyone in the community is welcome. Training materials were observed. How many houses had animal access at baseline? Basically 100% - it was a rare idea before to separate animals from homes. Now almost everyone does though there are always a few who don't. What are your project goals for hygiene education? For 100% of homes to have a latrine/toilet, pila, good hygiene practices. Says health posts also report fewer illnesses now. Project Design What quantity of water are water systems designed to provide (per capita They were designing for 35 gallons/person/day. They now design for 30. The government regulation is 25 as a per day)? minimum. All systems are design for 20 years assuming a 3.5% annual population growth rate. Water system is a closed system. Yes, including screens on tank openings. (Franz notes?) Appropriate/good quality materials are used for water system Evidence: systems have lasted over 20 years. PVC (SDR 13.5) is used except in high pressure or rocky areas infrastructure. where steel pipe is used. (Franz notes - Spark?) Where are system parts and materials purchased from? All materials are purchased in bulk in Tegucigalpa or San Pedro Sula and kept in locked storage containers at the COCEPRADIL training center. The same parts are available at local hardware stores in Candelaria. Construction management and oversight is vigorously implemented (high) A full time COCEPRADIL contractor works with a part-time engineer and a part-time education specialist throughout the construction. The COCEPRADIL contractor is responsible for ensuring that the system is constructed per design. Water source is sufficient to meet the needs of the community for at least Designs are for 30-35 gall/c/d for 20 years based on 3.5% population growth. 10 years. (min) Water source is sufficient to meet the needs of the community for at least 20 years. (high) Long-term O&M Do you still communicate with the communities? COREPRADIL technicians visit communities every 2-3 months to measure water flow. Community water boards meet together in their region with COREPRADIL every month. A representative from each water board attends a general meeting with COCEPRADIL and representatives from all other boards 1-2 times per year. COCEPRADIL also offers support to communities and regional boards when needed. What other resources are established for the communities to assist them asesoria. Every year community water board treasurers receive financial training from COCEPRADIL. The in the long-term management of their project? COREPRADIL financial staff reviews community water board budgets. They are looking into the idea of having a fund for lending to communities. Technical advice and spare parts are also available to communities as part of the 3 Lempira paid per family each month - 2 L for COREPRADIL and 1 L for COCEPRADIL. What is the long-term vision for access to water, toilets and improved To guarantee that all families have access to safe water, and sanitation. They are hoping to improve water hygiene practices for the beneficiary communities? quality. They have a design for chlorination in the distribution tanks, but communities do not want to use them. Reasons include difficulties regulating amount of chlorine in the water, aversion to chlorine for health reasons (fear of cancer, stomach problems) and water is often used for agriculture and other uses where they do not want chlorine in the water. They are searching for solutions to this, but currently do not have microbiological water quality results. They currently promote and teach household water treatment including chlorination and boiling. Water Source Protection Is there a water source protection or environmental education component Yes, it is part of the 5 training modules, including constructing fences around watersheds and reforestation. of your water project? Have you monitored to determine whether your program has been Yes, water flow is measured 3-4 times per year from all watersheds. The community water boards also measure effective in preventing change in the quantity of water since the project the flow once per month and note the flow in their records. was constructed?

Have you monitored to determine whether your program has been They only measure basic things. There is a lab, but it is not being used. Water testing is very expensive out effective in preventing change in the quality of water since the project was there. Fecal coliforms are not tested. A health promoter monitors health in the communities. constructed? External Factors Do any of your donors require community contribution? Yes, all of them. Typically, communities pay around 40-55% of total project costs including cash for the topography study and design (and sometimes material transport), labor (usually 70-90 days per family), local materials, For projects in the past 8-10 years, final costs are who provided them are read aloud at system inauguration. Project budgets were observed to confirm contribution of XX (see documents on CD). Do any of your donors require local / national government contributions? Yes, most of them require cash from local government. COCEPRADIL aims for a government contribution of 20% in cash. Typically, mayors are given a list of materials and they purchase them directly. Local government signatures are included in project expense documents. Project budgets were observed to confirm government contributions What proportion of your funds can you use flexibly? Idea of flexible funding not clear to org, but they report 5-8% of project funds are usually allotted for administrative work which is fairly flexible. They can also usually solicit for changes in funding allotments. They will not implement a project if they can't secure funds for software - they see the software as key to their success. They say a lump sum would be better, but currently funds are earmarked. Is there a difference in the sustinability of projects funded by different No, but they plan and discuss with donors before each project to ensure that implementation runs as they feel is donors? needed. Community Commitment Does the organization require a Check all that apply: All. For SANAA projects, cash contributions are not required, but SANAA projects are rare. There is a community financial contribution to Labor requirement for land owners to sell or donate land to the community - requirement to be community owned. the project. Cash Meals for organization staff Lodging for organization staff, Spring/water source purchase Local materials Other contributions - describe Does the organization require the community to have legal right to use the Yes, the community must own the water source. They need authority of the local government. COCEPRADIL is water source? in process of obtaining legal documentation. Do the communities own the water system? Donor documents say community is owner and responsible for system. This is also read aloud at system inauguration.

Community Water Board Interviews

Contribución económica de la comunidad WCC1 Cual fue el tipo de Marque todos los que aplican: Marque todos los que aplican: Everyone works on the President – it started with Lots of community contribution contribución de la  Trabajo / Mano de Obra No-  Trabajo / Mano de Obra No- construction. 8% of the project CRS. He was young then, including cash (paying for comunidad en el Calificada (97 Tareas) Calificada cost was in cash. We heard the community provided transport of materials, etc), 2.5 proyecto?  Efectivo.  Efectivo. contributed local materials, labor, attended workshops, -3 months of labor for each  Comidas para empleados  Comidas para empleados labor, transportation by mules food and beverage for family, and local materials. de la organización. de la organización. /horses for cement as well. meetings. Maria – beneficiary High levels of involvement  Hospedaje para empleados  Hospedaje para empleados The cement was paid for by for second project, which upfront. de la organización. de la organización. other sources. started 2000. New project  Materiales locales, Piedra  Materiales locales, Piedra here in municipality. Giving Arena, Madera. Arena, Madera. labor for new project, training  Actividades para ingresos.  Actividades para ingresos. courses. Community Cual fue el aporte Trabajo – Mano de Obra Trabajo – Mano de Obra Labor, united community to lay contributed sand, stone, Labor, but cash contribution is más frecuente? Si (tareas). (tareas). Para la Línea de pipe, dig trenches. 77 days of gravel. Those families with not insignificant. hubo aporte en 10% del Costo en Efectivo lo conducción hubo aporte de 70 labor from each family for the husbands worked. President – efectivo, de cuánto? puso la comunidad con apoyo tareas y para el tanque de main line. we became part of an Algunos tuvieron que del Gobierno Municipal. almacenamiento y redes de organized community. 2003- prestarse dinero? De No recurrieron a préstamos 90 tareas, en total 160 tareas 2004 the second project came quien? pues la Alcaldía les apoyó con por familia. on line. Contributions towards el aporte en Efectivo. COCEPRADIL, unqualified WCC1d Cuanto en total 15 mil – 16 mil por Aporte de No se recuerdan el costo toda They recall 24 million lempiras labor, local materials, stone. Varies and difficult to get significo el aporte de cada Familia Beneficiaria. la Obra y no hicieron el total cost from donors with 8% This area doesn‟t produce actual numbers or la comunidad en el No se recuerdan cuanto costo ejercicio del total de aporte. additional cost contributed much sands. Basic percentages since projects are costo total del toda la Obra y por ello es difícil from community contribution was in work. Q. so old, but values mentioned proyecto? (porcentaje sacar un % de Aporte por Do you remember the value of include: 8% of project, 15,000- o monto de dinero) parte de la Comunidad. your work? No Q. do you 16,000 L per family, 24 million remember total cost of the first L from community. project? Second project? We have information, but not in my memory. 17 beneficiaries in first project. New project 800,000 Lempiras. All beneficiaries are from community. “I‟ve been here four years, came here from another area. Assembly decided on new water board.”

Manejo del sistema de agua

SAN ANDRECITO COYOLAR/CELILAC SAN FRANCISCO SOSOAL Summary Question/ 15 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 15 Dec 2011 # Observation Interviewer: Franz Interviewer: Franz Interviewer: Christie Interviewer: Luis Notes: Franz Notes: Franz Notes: Susan, Christie Notes: Susan, Christie WC1 Existe una Junta de Si Existe Sí Yes Yes Yes Agua formada por miembros de la comunidad para administrar el proyecto de agua? WC2 Cómo se seleccionan Se seleccionan por Votaciones Se seleccionan por Votaciones Before used to recruit people. Take turns. Every household All communities use a rotating los miembros de la en Elecciones durante las en Elecciones durante las Now we take turns. Election must participate in rotation. If model with some elections for Junta de Agua? Con Asambleas. Asambleas. for certain positions. someone doesn‟t want to be certain positions. que frecuencia se Los cargos con voluntarios, Son 5 miembros en total, 3 se follow up Q. How often does on the board, they have to realizan elecciones? incluso los fontaneros, todos y mantienen un periodo más y 2 board change? Each year. make a deal with someone to Son cargos todas hacen actividades de se renueva, así aseguran Voluntary, not paid. Depends take their turn. voluntarios o fontanería. continuidad. Se eligen de dos on age, even if only one pagados? Hay Las elecciones se hacen cada formas: por orden alfabético, person in household. "Not posibilidad de 2 Años, y se reestructuran las peor si existe algún miembros always the case; I'm a senior reelección? Juntas Directivas. Se pueden que se ofrece de voluntario, citizen and I have to be here." reelegir, pero no ha ocurrido también se acepta.. (one guys says chuckling) antes a todos y todas les ha tocado servir en la JAA. Las elecciones son cargo por cargo, la Asamblea es la que elije. Si la Asamblea no se pone de acuerdo, entonces entre los directivos salientes se ponen de acuerdo y ellos nombran a los nuevos miembros por designación directa. Esa es una norma interna de la comunidad. Cuantas personas 3 Mujeres y 4 Hombres. Hay 5 en total, una mujer en el 5 7 5-7 members with 1-3 women conforman la junta bastante rotación de directivos Comité. Ninguna mujer ha sido 1-2 women always (currently There always needs to be at on average. actualmente? per no han tenido problemas todavía Presidente 1, past board 1) least one woman. They say Cuantas mujeres? en los traspasos. some communities have more women than men. Needs to be an odd number. They [CRS?] told us there always need to be an odd number. [says secretary] Cuentan con Tienen un Reglamento Tienen Estatutos y un Yes. Balanced books, register Yes All have rules and regulations estatutos? Qué tipo Interno? No lo saben Reglamento Interno que les of payments Agreed upon by everyone. and meeting minutes and are de libros de registros Tienen como referencia el de dio de modelo COCEPRADIL, Control of payments received, very organized. llevan? COCEPRADIL basado en el que ha sido publicado por expenses, purchases we COCEPRADIL also provided a de ERSAPS que fue ERSAPS (regulador). make, pipe, valve, control of book of statutes. distribuido por COCEPRADIL? Tienen además (se constató) income monthly. Building a Tienen un Libro de Actas, un Libro de Actas, Libro de house where we will meet.

SAN ANDRECITO COYOLAR/CELILAC SAN FRANCISCO SOSOAL Summary Question/ 15 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 15 Dec 2011 # Observation Interviewer: Franz Interviewer: Franz Interviewer: Christie Interviewer: Luis Notes: Franz Notes: Franz Notes: Susan, Christie Notes: Susan, Christie Libro de Tesorería (Entadas y Tesorería (Entradas y Have receipts from Salidas), Libro de Salidas), Libro de Roles de COCEPRADIL here. Fiscalización, Libro de Tareas trabajo (planillas), Libro de del Coordinador (no lo asistencia a las reuniones de mostró). Hay un libro de la Asamblea. borrador de las Actas. WC5 Se cobra una cuota Si se Cobra. Sí Yes Yes Yes in all de usuario a los hogares por utilizar el sistema de agua? WC6 Cuanto es la cuota? L. 25.00 (lempiras) Mensuales. L. 25.00 (lempiras) al mes. 15 L/mth 20 L/mth 15-25 L/mth 3L/mth goes to COCEPRADIL (1L) and COREPRADIL (2L) WC7 Quien recoge esta La tesorera recoge cada La Tesorera recoge las cuotas Board Treasurer The treasurer. There is a list of The treasurer in all cuota? Con que Segundo domingo del Mes acompañada del Fiscal, cada we all pay every one or two beneficiaries (67), Last communities. Monthly. frecuencia? aprovechando que se tiene la dos meses, en las reuniones months Sunday of every month we Asamblea Mensual de de la Asamblea de usuarios. collect. Everyone needs to be usuarios. paid up by December this year. Can pay for whole year in January. Some pay monthly, some pay at beginning upfront and others at end of every year. WC8 Qué tipos de pagos Efectivo. Sólo se paga en Efectivo. Sólo se paga en Cash Cash. Have to justify if you Cash. son aceptados? Efectivo. Efectivo. really cannot. Haven‟t had any Otro – describa cases where that‟s the case. Even if a poor person couldn‟t pay, we all contribute to that person. WC9 Mantiene un libro de Si, es el Libro de Entradas y Sí, es el Libro de Entradas y Yes. Kept by the treasurer keep monthly registry of who Yes. registro de los pagos? Salidas. En el mismo libro Salidas. pays and who doesn‟t. pero por aparte lleva el Showed us the book – cash registro de los 27 usuarios y book – income & expenses. sus pagos. WC10 Qué porcentaje o Es mínimo, todos pasan Todos están al día. All – 60 families Two people are behind in Very nearly all. There is high cuantas familias están solventes. Lo más que se payment waiting for remittance confidence that those behind al día con sus pagos? queda alguien es un mes y en from their family members will pay by end of the year at raros casos dos meses. living outside the country. the latest as is the cultural They pay at the end of the norm to pay off all debts by year. December each year. WC11 Qué sucede cuando No se ha dado el caso de que No se ha dado el caso, pero if people don‟t pay, first we We send two notes. By the Warnings and then water cut. un hogar deja de alguien no quiera pagar, si está previsto que la Tesorera send them a note. If they third note we would cut water pagar una cuota? Y alguien se atrasa por falta de con el Fiscal avisen en público can‟t pay there are different supply. Haven‟t had to cut eso ha sucedido en el dinero, se le permita que los que no pagan y eso genera activities they can do to anyone‟s water off. For pasado? pague al siguiente Mes. Si presión. Si aun así no contribute. There is an annual example, if I have to pay in

SAN ANDRECITO COYOLAR/CELILAC SAN FRANCISCO SOSOAL Summary Question/ 15 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 15 Dec 2011 # Observation Interviewer: Franz Interviewer: Franz Interviewer: Christie Interviewer: Luis Notes: Franz Notes: Franz Notes: Susan, Christie Notes: Susan, Christie eso sucediera, ellos aplicarían pagase, el Reglamento work plan that includes basic January and I don‟t pay until el Reglamento que tienen que contempla el Corte de Agua. sanitation inspections and 2-3 December, no fine for late estipula corte de Agua. fundraising activities each payment. After three months if year. There is one person who we still owe money, the doesn‟t pay. He doesn‟t live treasurer sends a note. 10 here, and is renting his house days to pay; if don‟t pay, cut out. There are several factors off. There are two families – he doesn‟t live here and no- who are in the US. Someone one is in charge of his house. looking after their houses. He doesn‟t come back to talk Made an agreement with them to us. He owes his time for the to pay at the end of the year. board. We lost touch with him But at the end of the year, entirely. everything is paid for. Cuáles son los gastos Materiales: Cemento para Compra de materiales como Repairs Materials for repairs, plumber‟s Materials and labor (if have a que se pagan con los enchapes y reparaciones, tuberías, seguetas, salary to repair and clean tank. hired plumber) for repairs. ingresos de la cuota? tubería para cambios en zonas pegamento de PVC, y los donde se dañó, candados viajes de miembros a para proteger las estructuras, capacitaciones. Además, de la flotadores de CRC, transporte cuota, un 2% se va a de materiales en Bestias. Corepradil y 1% a Cocepradil. Para ahorro para la ampliación o reposición del proyecto. Una parte se manda para CORREPRADIL y COCEPRADIL. Gastos de Viaje de directivos a gestiones o reuniones. Cuando se comenzó el proyecto si se hicieron viajes a la Capital, pero ahora viajan dentro del Dpto. Apartan lo WC13 Las cuotas son El Presidente Piensa que no Consideran que sí.. Fees not sufficient; we have Up to now, yes, but as Mixed. Some say no, but all suficientes para cubrir es suficiente. Tienen un fondo de Ahorro de not been able to increase them population grows more bank accounts are positive. los costos? Existe Tienen un fondo de Ahorro (el L. 178.000. though. [follow up Q: why not?] demand for water. Now not algún fondo de de Caja) pensando en un different levels of income, we enough. We have enough for reserva para nuevo proyecto,, tienen L. are all very poor. Can‟t maintenance but have to have reparaciones, 61,419.00 en la Cooperativa. increase the tariff. some fixed savings to replace reemplazos y Lo demás o diferencia a los 96 every structure ever built. Only ampliaciones del mil lo tienen acá como fondo There is a savings account enough for maintenance. sistema? para reparaciones y para though with a positive and Don‟t have 50% to save operación del sistema de increasing balance replacement. We do have a agua, gastos varios. reserve. Some goes to petty De ese fondo que mantienen cash. Some fixed savings; en la comunidad, se hacen have some operating

SAN ANDRECITO COYOLAR/CELILAC SAN FRANCISCO SOSOAL Summary Question/ 15 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 15 Dec 2011 # Observation Interviewer: Franz Interviewer: Franz Interviewer: Christie Interviewer: Luis Notes: Franz Notes: Franz Notes: Susan, Christie Notes: Susan, Christie préstamos entre beneficiarios expenses, some for future. Q. con Tasa Accesible del 2% how much in reserve? 60,000 Mensual (24% Anual). El Lempiras. monto máximo que han dado es de L. 4000. WCC2 Se cobra una cuota Tienen un Acuerdo que para Sí, el nuevo punto (conexión) Always has been a connection No room for new beneficiaries. Yes, 2000 – 18,000 Lempira. para conexión cuando un hijo de Beneficiario el costo puede costar L 18.000 o más fee. We can‟t give water to If you want to it could be. Some communities say they existen nuevos del Pegue es de L. 5,000. para un externo, y además everyone who needs it. Fee is Secretary – we have to make would need to run some usuarios que quieren Si no es hijo de Beneficiario, debe pagar el costo de los 1000 Lempira to an analysis of tank / water calculations on the water ser parte del sistema? entonces el costo aproximado materiales para que la red COCEPRADIL, 1000 Lempira supply. If enough, could do so availability before allowing new Cuánto cobran? es de L. 12,000, pero seguirá llegue a su domicilio. (se to water board. No new if assembly is in agreement. users. Como se decide este variando según el costo de la contrapone con la opinión de connections allowed; because Would be 18,000 Lempira for costo? vida. la comunidad de que se cobra not enough water. Rivers dry new person. 8000 Lempira El costo por beneficiario era hasta L 25.000) up in the dry season, no other per connection for existing de L 16 mil, entonces los Tienen un Acuerdo que para sources available. Other towns beneficiaries. What we charge educadores proponían al inicio un hijo de Beneficiario el costo like Gualcinse oppose us for is nonqualified manpower. que para nuevos pegues del Pegue sea menor, del getting more water from cobraran el doble de ese valor, orden de la mitad. Congolon. We contributed pero no han aplicado ese money to a water survey but principio, por el costo de la lost the money. “The person vida. En la práctica ese monto who took it must have eaten it” es negociable entre la JAA y el says Maria. nuevo usuario. Al pagar ese monto del Pegue, el cual sólo incluye el derecho al agua, los materiales y la instalación corre por cuenta del comprador del pegue. WCC4 La comunidad es Si son Dueños, pues ellos Sí son dueños. Sienten que la Don‟t have formal title on Yes, have sales title in files in Yes in all cases. They feel dueña del sistema de sienten que son los línea de conducción, el tanque hand, but have copies of the office. 250 km2 sold to the complete responsibility for the agua? responsables de cuidarlo, de almacenamiento y las bill of sale. Have to use a water board. systems and have maintained dicen que tienen un Acta de redes son de la comunidad. lawyer to get a copy of them on their own for nearly Entrega de parte de Tienen un Acta de Entrega de original. The land might not 20 years in some cases. COCEPRADIL, pero no lo parte de COCEPRADIL have been fully owned by tienen la JAA, sino un those who sold it to us. (??) beneficiario, no se pudo Yes we own the source but we revisar ese documento. El don‟t administer primer secretario que tuvo la JAA los tiene guardados en un cajón especial. Tienen problemas con una finca de café en una propiedad privada cercana a la Fuente de Agua y les está afectando con la contaminación. No

Planeación WCP1 Quien decide sobre El primer Reglamento lo El primer Reglamento lo The assembly decides the The bylaws / regulations are a COCEPRADIL or the General los reglamentos para proporcionó COCEPRADIL, proporcionó COCEPRADIL, bylaws. [Follow up Q With product of the consensus of Assembly for some things and el uso del agua? pero es la Asamblea la que pero es la Asamblea la que what frequency do the bylaws 180 water boards; to modify the community agrees decide sobre las decide sobre los cambios. change? ] These are the same them would require other 180 together for others. autorizaciones para Usos del bylaws from CRS [showed a reps to agree. Agua. book]. Depending on needs for water. Still expecting a new project, we have paid for it (2 years ago). Signed an agreement with mayors to find a new source of water. Still pending. Leonel (from COCEPRADIL) told us we‟ll start a new project with SANAA February 15. 1600 Lempiras per family were paid for a topography study to the CORREPRADIL (regional arm of COCEPRADIL). It was “lost” we hope that there won‟t be further lies. [further information on this: the CORREPRADIL hired a consultant who wasn‟t approved by SANAA.] “We have lost confidence in the process.” This project is 20 years old and needs to be repaired. WCP2 Cuáles son los usos El único uso permitido es para El uso permitido es para Only human uses. Not for Water is for human Human uses only: drinking, permitidos para el Beneficio en el Hogar: beneficio en el Hogar: para animals, unless very poor, consumption only. Can‟t use cooking, bathing, cleaning agua de parte del Bañarse, lavar ropa, trastes, beberla, para bañarse, lavar then you can use for one cow, for vegetable garden, other proyecto? oficios de la casa, aseo ropa, trastes, oficios de la one horse. uses. Project in future to filter personal, para tomarla, lavar casa, y aseo personal. gray water for reuse. trastes, se puede usar para

SAN ANDRECITO COYOLAR/CELILAC SAN FRANCISCO SOSOAL Summary Question/ 15 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 15 Dec 2011 # Observation Interviewer: Franz Interviewer: Franz Interviewer: Christie Interviewer: Luis Notes: Franz Notes: Franz Notes: Susan, Christie Notes: Susan, Christie regar algunos palos y ciertas plantas, pero sin pasar a una huerta (un par de palos si, cultivos no), para lavar la casa o aseo general de la casa. WCP3 Existen usos del agua Para huertas o riego agrícolas Sí, no se permite dar de beber Haven‟t had any unpermitted Water only for human use. If Yes, for any non-human uses. no permitidos? no se puede usar, para lavar al ganado del agua del uses. Supervisor committees we hear about someone using Not for plants, animals, etc. vehículos se permite pero sistema, y tampoco para la go out and check on the for other consumption we send cuando hay agua suficiente construcción de viviendas de valves. them a note? (sin manguera). Para regar la familias que no sean de un calle no es permitido, a menos familiar de un Beneficiario. que haya un patio frente a la casa para matar el polvo. No es muy común que la gente riegue la calle con el agua del sistema. Lo que menos se permite es que se use para riego de huertas o cultivos. WCP4 Que sucede si no se Si se diera el riego en la calle Si es beneficiario, se le They would cut the water, but The secretary or president They would receive a warning cumplen? se permitiría si fuera para comunica que se le cortará el this has never happened. takes the note to the house. and it would be discussed at proteger la salud de los niños. servicio. Si no es beneficiario, During monthly assembly the monthly meeting. [this Si una persona no cumple la se le corta el servicio al que lo meetings, neighbors talk about does not seem to be regulated prohibición de regar una está ayudando. what people are doing, and we very closely] huerta, aunque no se ha dado try to fix it then. el caso, lo que harían primero es un llamado de atención y en caso extremo un corte del agua. WCP5 Cuantos usuarios Actualmente abastecen 27 41 familias hay en ambas 60 families. 5-8 people per Now? Just 67 using it [84 27-67 families pueden ser familias y en Marzo hacen localidades. Ahora se da agua family (some 10-12; some families shown on abastecidos por la controles de válvulas para que a menos gente (Dijeron 27 y have 1 or 2 people). Because COCEPRADIL‟s list of fuente de agua? el agua pueda llegar a las otro miembro aumentó un par of water scarcity, assembly communities.] 45 families in zonas altas de la comunidad de familias) adopted a policy to make original project increased 5%. (cierran el agua en la noche). water available to 30 houses Many families moved in to high Piensan que no podrían darle one day, and 30 houses the areas. Restriction on water agua a más familias, con la other day. They close the flow not because of water cantidad de agua que tienen valve to the distribution tank at source flow but because no ahora. Podrían darle pegue a night so we can fill up the tank. piping. los 8 sin conexión, pero 105 gallons per minute at the tendrían que comenzar a water source at the beginning medir el agua. of the project. The same Algunos de los que no están water source is covering 560 conectados al sistema, es beneficiaries. Q. how many porque en el momento que se houses without connections?

SAN ANDRECITO COYOLAR/CELILAC SAN FRANCISCO SOSOAL Summary Question/ 15 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 15 Dec 2011 # Observation Interviewer: Franz Interviewer: Franz Interviewer: Christie Interviewer: Luis Notes: Franz Notes: Franz Notes: Susan, Christie Notes: Susan, Christie construyó el sistema no 11 hamlets in San Francisco. estaban en la comunidad. Cerro Colorado has 30 homes, but only 5 connected homes. Buena Vista has 27 families, only 3 are beneficiaries (connected to water system). Other families use wells, but not springs. WCP6 Cuando se necesitará Ya en este momento quieren Ya quieren hacer gestiones When the project started, we Now. Q. is there a plan for They all feel they could use an aumentar la comenzar a hacer gestiones para renovar o ampliar la had enough, not as much now. that? We have an idea but no expansion now. [without capacidad del para renovar o ampliar la capacidad de sus sistema de Must collect water 1 day to use date. Studies of the new metering there is no incentive sistema? En qué año? capacidad de sus sistema de agua for the next day. Some source have been done but to save water however and agua (anexar otra fuente para houses have big families. can‟t execute the project. there may be plenty] abastecer a las 8 familias Pipes break in the faltantes, y mejoras en el transmission system, leaks on sistema actual). main conduction line. They can fix here today and tomorrow it breaks in another place. That‟s why they are getting less water. Pressure / load break values – can‟t close them down because pipes will break. WCP7 Qué recursos estarán En primera instancia tienen el Tienen el fondo de ahorro que Major repairs – if they are easy We have 61,431 Lempiras in Board bank account, disponibles para fondo de ahorro que posee la posee la comunidad, como to do, we fix rapidly. For reserve; of that 47,000 is COCEPRADIL, can also ask aumentar la comunidad. Piensan que ese contraparte. example, the road fixing savings and 14,691 is petty SANAA for help. capacidad? fondo podría servir para hace equipment went by recently, cash. Q. how much would the la ampliación y para mejorar el and we had to fix the pipe. new project be? No cost sistema de agua actual. One week ago, had another estimate yet. 7 km [of pipe?] – problem. It has been difficult. more than 1 million Lempiras. Not from lack of maintenance, Water would come from but because it was broken by Congolon. the bulldozer. Pipes do break because they‟ve finished a useful life. Follow-up Q How many days a year do you have water. “Half the year we have water.” Q how many years has it been like this? Since about 10 years ago. Used to have water in every house, all day long. Now only three hours per day. Q. is it a system or a source problem? There are more beneficiaries

Protección de la fuente de agua

WCSP2 Quien se encarga de Toda la comunidad es Las 16 comunidades que se The community. There is a We take care of it. Avoid fires; The communities. la protección de la responsable de la protección abastecen de la misma fuente. watchman that all 16 fence it in – no animals. All cuenca? de la Fuente: Cada 15 días se Ahora se está coordinando communities pay to watch over we‟ve done is make sure no hace una gira a la montaña con el Proyecto Mi Cuenca, the source/land. They used to fire, fence. 2800 square por parte de una cuadrilla (un donde cada comunidad pay 4 L/mth to him, but meters fenced in. We need to par de personas van a la designan un Coordinador. stopped paying in February purchase more land. If we can fuentes y LC y otra pareja va because they say he doesn‟t buy more high lands where the al TD y RD) no tienen do anything. water is produced, should be guardabosque sino que cada able to do it. 15 días viajan a la fuente. WCSP1 Hay algún plan o No tienen un Plan escrito, sólo Sí, tienen un Plan de Yes, reforestation plans that No. through the Mi Cuenca Somewhat. There are programa de los roles de gira y Actividades que les ha includes all 16 communities [my watershed] program, we reforestation programs, but a protección de la mantenimiento. ayudado COCEPRADIL, ahí that own the land. can partially work on clear plan doesn‟t seem to be cuenca? Podrían hay una copia. intervention in place. explicar. WCSP4 Qué medidas se No hay problemas de ganado Se dan Talleres a los que Keep animals out, don‟t use It‟s fenced, no animals Keep animals out, plant trees, planifican usualmente aguas arriba, pero si hay una viven en la cuenca alta. chemicals above the source, allowed, no dwellings. make agreements with home para prevenir una finca de café. Hay riesgo de everyone living above source [someone else contradicts] owners above source about potencial contaminación por excretas has to have a latrine Yes there are dwellings. All sanitation and chemical use. contaminación (como humanas de personas que have latrines. Through CRS / bacterias y químicos) pasan por esa zona. COCEPRADIL there was

SAN ANDRECITO COYOLAR/CELILAC SAN FRANCISCO SOSOAL Summary Question/ 15 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 15 Dec 2011 # Observation Interviewer: Franz Interviewer: Franz Interviewer: Christie Interviewer: Luis Notes: Franz Notes: Franz Notes: Susan, Christie Notes: Susan, Christie de la fuente de agua? Están buscando maneras de program for that [latrines?]. encontrar una solución del Real problem, they are above problema de la finca de café. catchment. WCSP5 Se utilizan En la finca de café si, hay un Antes se utilizaba, ahora No Q. are crops grown near the Some. They have agreements pesticidas/herbicidas potrero cercano también. sienten que ha reducido source? Yes. Coffee. At the with some people and trying aguas arriba de la bastante beginning, was more pesticide with others. fuente? use. But talked to owner of that land and told him he was contributing to pollution of our source. This man is not using as much in that area now. WCSP7 Qué está haciendo su La principal idea es comprar la Concientización: colaboran Yes. No animals in the area Reforestation and protection of Purchasing the land and comunidad para tierra en la zona de recarga. con la siembra de árboles. above the spring, no chemical the source reforestation asegurar que su products used on the land. No fuente de agua [new?] human inhabitants; the continuará ones who are there already proporcionando have latrines. Will also supply cantidades them with water so they can adecuadas de agua take any extra water they have para cumplir con las and put it into the system. necesidades de la comunidad? WCSP9 La Junta de Agua es No son dueños del terreno. No Sí, consideran que las 16 Yes and have agreements with Yes and have agreements with Some. Where they are not dueña de la tierra en obstante, sí cuenta con un localidades son las dueñas. nearby land owners other landowners owners, they are trying to el área de aportación Escrito firmado con el dueño purchase the land. de la fuente de agua? de los terrenos donde se Si no, existen encuentra la Fuente, para su convenios con los uso. Dicha copia la tienen dueños? guardada con un antiguo miembro de la Directiva de la JAA. WCSP1 Ha cambiado la □ Recibimos más agua ahora  Recibimos menos No. In rainy season, more During the last 20 years, water Only changes seem climate 0 cantidad de agua □ Recibimos menos agua agua ahora sources of water (but dirty). has changed. Other rainy change related. durante los años ahora We collect rainwater, use seasons not as copious. Most desde la finalización □ No, se mantiene la cantidad small wells (pozos) at home. critical months are March and del proyecto? de agua con las variaciones April – the worst. Water levels normales entre verano e go down. [seems like a climate invierno. change issue[ WCSP1 Ha cambiado la Relatan que la calidad del Consideran que ha mejorado, No change over time. it is dirty The quality has been the same No changes in any community 1 calidad de agua agua no ha cambiado, ni mejor antes había un “90% de heces in the winter. The road above for 20 years. Some years the durante los años ni peor. fecales, ahora debe haber un the water source causes water flow is not as much, desde la finalización 40%”. turbidity. No filtration. depends on rainy season. del proyecto? Favor explicar.

Operación y Mantenimiento

WCOM1 Cuál es el Son las cuadrillas con sus Para la línea de conducción We all agreed to do it and If a problem inside the house, If it is in the house, it is the procedimiento para roles los responsables de regional, entre 4 Comunidades figured out who will do it. For we fix it. Shut off the valve; homes responsibility. For the realizar reparaciones? hacer las reparaciones. Se se ponen de acuerdo para su example, at one house the our responsibility. The rest of system, they all meet and organizan por cuadrillas, los mantenimiento. Ya del tanque man puts a stick with a flag the system, the procedure is to decide what to do or call the que les toca el rol del mes de a la red, los beneficiarios se outside his house to show the call for the fontanero plumber responsible for the las dos parejas por cada 15 organizan por cuadrillas. road machines where the (plumber). Anybody can tell system. días (8 personas en el mes). Estos revisan y hacen reporte pipes are so they won‟t break the plumber that there are Estos revisan, analizan y de lo que hay que hacer y la them when they fix the road. repairs needed. He gets paid hacen reporte sobre los daños Junta convoca a todos para 500 Lempiras/ month. y sobre lo que hay que hacer trabajar en conjunto Available 7 days / week but y la JAA convoca a todos para (Asamblea). only works when needed (?). trabajar en conjunto He also cleans the tank once (Asamblea), se hace una per month. In the rainy planeación y entre todos se season, he cleans it every 12 hace el trabajo. days. Cleans growth around Este llamado para toda la it. asamblea se hace cuando el daño en el sistema es muy grande. WCOM2 Poseen las Tienen Herramientas y Tienen Herramientas y No inventory of spare parts. If All the accessories plumber They have all the tools needed herramientas y materiales para las materiales básicos para las we need adhesive, would buy needs, he has. The tools he and know where to go for repuestos necesarios reparaciones: Tubos y reparaciones: (piocha, palas, it myself and get reimbursed at uses are owned by the water more. para realizar válvulas que no tengan, los barras, pericas,…alguna the next meeting. board. reparaciones en sus compran en Tomalá (a 1 hora válvula o tubo que no tengan, sistemas de agua? en carro o 3 horas lo compran en Mapulaca caminando). (localidad cercana)

WCOM3 Donde se encuentran Generalmente en Tomalá Generalmente en Mapulaca Get from the hardware store. Buy in the hardware store. In hardware stores of los repuestos que han Lempira COCEPRADIL has pipes they [types of things we buy] department capitals or comprado? give for free (because they pay Adhesive, pipes, problems COCEPRADIL. fee to COCEPRADIL). Last with valves. time they gave me more than I needed. We pay 3 Lempiras

SAN ANDRECITO COYOLAR/CELILAC SAN FRANCISCO SOSOAL Summary Question/ 15 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 15 Dec 2011 # Observation Interviewer: Franz Interviewer: Franz Interviewer: Christie Interviewer: Luis Notes: Franz Notes: Franz Notes: Susan, Christie Notes: Susan, Christie of the 15 Lempira we collect from households to COCPRADIL. 2 L of the 3L goes to the CORREPRADIL (regional) and 1 L to COCEPRADIL WCOM4 A qué distancia van Numero (distancia) Esta a 6 km, es cerca. Can buy in Candelaria Always can get spare parts; 1-4 hours by car. This could be para comprar 1 hora en carro y 3 horas anything that COCEPRADIL sometimes go to Gracias [town much higher for the repuestos? caminando (+/- 16 Km) doesn‟t have. – 3-4 hours away], wherever communities that we were cheaper unable to visit due to long distances walking and driving to get there. WCOM5 Cuánto cuestan? (de Pegamento PVC: 2 panas de Los tubos cuesta de acuerdo a 40 Lempira for 21 feet of 1/2 20,000 Lempira per valves; All were able to give examples ejemplos de pegamento son L. lo siguiente: de ½” y 6 m está inch pipe. 120 Lempiras for 1- 180,000 Lempira for 2-inch of costs and were very repuestos Qué Tubería: 3 - 4 lances de tubos a L 45; de ¾” y 6 m está a L inch pipe pipe 21 feet. knowledgeable about system necesitan comprar) de 1”, 1 ½”, de 2”, etc 85 y de 1” y 6 m está a L 100. needs. Según demanda o por tipo de Las válvulas de compuerta daño ocurrido. están a L 360 la de 1 1/2”. WCOM6 Han realizado Si han realizado, en Caja Sí, frecuentemente Yes Always Yes, in all. reparaciones a su Rompe Carga, Cajas de sistema de agua Válvula, dos válvulas durante el año? flotadoras en CRC en RD. WCOM7 Si se han realizado Numero (días). 3 días se Uno grave fue un derrumbe en Days without water – up to 5-8 6 hours last break while 6 hours - 8 days reported reparaciones durante estuvo en seco. Congolón, que demoró 30 días days when water pipes break. restoring. 1 day when road el transcurso del año, en repararse; en otro caso no HG (iron) tubing, we can‟t machine broke pipe. durante cuánto tiempo llegaba agua a una zona de la repair. We can fix PVC but estuvo fuera de localidad y se buscó el COCEPRADIL doesn‟t have in función el sistema de problema y se encontró que stock. We have to buy agua mientras se había una piedra en la red que someplace else, more hacía la reparación? la tapaba, eso demoró una expensive. semana. WCOM8 Si se realizaron En la CRC, cambio de Del fondo de ahorro salen los Burst pipes. Distribution lines A lot of pipe repairs. Water Burst pipes are most common reparaciones en el flotadora, empaques malos en recursos para las reparaciones have been worn through in 20 leaks – not every day. 6 times as well as changing valves transcurso del año, válvulas de control. El fondo importantes. years of use. per year minimum we do and other parts as they go describa el (los) sale del dinero que manejan repairs bad. Repairs are usually quite tipo(s) de en la comunidad. frequent – 6 times or more per reparaciones, cuando year. The funding for repairs , y como se pagaron comes from the bank account los repuestos, or families will contribute to the repair separately in some cases. WCOM9 La comunidad/ el si la comunidad lo ha Sí. Todos están formados Don‟t need anyone from He needs some tools. Need Yes, he is very capable. fontanero pudo realizado, todos están como fontaneros. outside, we can solve our own two large spanners (wrenches) Community members felt very realizar todas las formados como fontaneros, problems. to change the nuts on the big confident about their ability to reparaciones? actualmente se les está valves. Haven‟t needed to do repair their system on their

WCOM1 Si la comunidad /el No. Las reparaciones si se No. Las reparaciones si se NA Have not had to ask for They have made all repairs 0 fontanero no pudo hicieron por parte de la hicieron por parte de la outside help themselves. hacer todas las comunidad, e apoyo que han comunidad y se organizó reparaciones, por qué pedido a COCEPRADIL es en cuadrillas de 7 si es necesario. no se pudo y se tuvo algunos materiales- que recurrir a la ayuda externa para reparar el sistema? WCOM1 Mantienen Están enlazados con Sí, con COCEPRADIL una Each month we meet with Yes, with COCEPRADIL and Yes – they all say they are 1 comunicación todavía COCEPRADIL a través del vez al mes. COCEPRADIL. They maintain COREPRADIL connected to COCEPRADIL con la organización CORREPRADIL, unidos como a relationship with through COREPRADIL. ejecutora? familias. COCEPRADIL. 60 beneficiaries meet each month. WCOM1 Alguna vez le piden a Hubo una ocasión, cuando Sí, a COCEPRADIL se piden Not yet No, we do ourselves, not a Most have not had to ask for 2 la organización tenían pocos fondos al inicio tubos, y algunos materiales. , large cost. We pay a help. One community did ejecutora ayuda para que recurrieron a y la medición de la fuente de membership fee, so have the request help last year and was reparar sus sistemas COCEPRADIL para hacer agua. right to ask for some small given cement and some piping de agua o para reparaciones. Todavía el año assistance. We haven‟t asked from COCEPRADIL. ampliar el sistema de pasado recibieron ayuda de for a valve, but we could ask agua? COCEPRADIL con cemento them when we need big para hacer un cruce de tubería repairs with no means to pay en el río. for. Petition to CORREPRADIL. If they don‟t have capacity, CORREPRADIL asks COCEPRADIL. If they have materials, they will donate. Small problems we have to fix ourselves. For example, problems two months ago, torrential rains COCEPRADIL fixed that problem (a donation). We pay 2 Lempira to CORREPRADIL, 1 Lempira to COCEPRADIL [per family, per month]. They use to strengthen our organization. But no workshops since ? had five workshops – basic sanitation, administration,

OBSERVACIONES

WCO1 Revise la existencia Si existen. Hay uno de Si existen. Se revisaron los Yes. The treasurer showed Yes. The treasurer showed All have de los libros del tesorería y uno de Fiscalía que Libros de Actas, de entradas y them to us. them to us. registro de ingresos, coinciden en los datos. salidas, de aporte de trabajo, gastos, la lista de los entre otros (ver foto) beneficiarios, etc. WCO2 Si es afirmativo, están la mayoría están pagando, en Sí, la mayoría están pagando. Yes, there was evidence in the Yes, there was evidence in the Almost all families are current los hogares pagando Diciembre 2011, sólo 3 books that almost all families books that almost all families on payments. las cuotas? personas no han pagado, a were paying on time and those were paying on time and those Noviembre sólo 1 persona no that were late were eventually that were late were eventually Pagó. paid. paid. WCO3 Los ingresos Se observan pocos Egresos Existe un monto de ahorro de Yes. For the past 2 years, they Yes. For the past 2 years, they Yes, all have an increasing provenientes de las en los últimos meses, los L 178.000 have been able to save based have been able to save based savings. cuotas exceden los ingresos sobrepasan los on the tariff collected and on the tariff collected and gastos? (en otras egresos y hay un fondo de expenses. expenses. They have a short- palabras, existe un Ahorro. El excedente indicado term and long-term account. excedente en una está ahorrado en la cuenta de ahorros o Cooperativa Río Grande efectivo almacenado Limitada de Tomalá, Lempira. en alguna parte?) WCO5 Qué ha sucedido con Lo mantienen en la Increasing Increasing Increasing la cantidad ahorrada cooperativa con miras a la Nov 2011: 257,380 L durante los dos ampliación del sistema de Lo utilizan para reparaciones Nov 2009: 163,866 L últimos años? agua. mayores. WCO8 Verifique si la Junta Aseguran que se tiene el Acta Aseguran que se tiene el Acta Not able to observe. They say Not observed All say they have, but not posee un titulo o de Entrega pero que alguien la de Entrega, no se pudo COCEPRADIL has and they observed papeles legales que tiene archivada, no se pudo constatar. would need to arrange with a demuestran la observar el Acta. lawyer to get the document propiedad del since it‟s owned by 16 proyecto / la fuente de communities agua / etc. WCO9 Verifique si existen Si hay un Libro de Actas, las Sí, hay un Libro de Actas. Yes, huge books of rules, Yes, huge books of rules, All have actas de las juntas primeras Actas son del 1996 y regulations and meeting regulations and detailed 97. minutes. meeting minutes. WCO4 En caso de existencia No Aplica. No hay piletas públicas NA NA NA de piletas públicas, Pero en as casas visitadas cuánto tiempo hay agua en todas con buena esperan los usuarios presión. en la fila para llenar

WCO7 Verifique si hay sitios No se pudo hacer el recorrido No. Si bien no se pudo hacer community water tank was community water tank was The community tanks are very abiertos de posible por la hora. En las visitas a un largo recorrido por la red de observed to by very clean, observed to by very clean, well-maintained and clean, but contaminación en el las casa se observaron fugas distribución. well-maintained and covered well-maintained and covered there are some leaks in the sistema de agua en algunas casas, en las properly. properly. systems. calles no se observan fugas en el sistema. WCO6 Está protegida la n o se pudo observar. No se pudo observar. Yes, the water source is Unable to visit source For source that was visited, it fuente de agua de la protected, fenced and there was very well-managed with agricultura / uso por are substantially more trees reforestation, fencing and a animales/ growing in the source area guard. deforestación? compared to surrounding.

Community Focus Groups

SAN ANDRECITO COYOLAR/CELILAC SAN FRANCISCO SOSOAL COYOLAR/CELILAC 15 Dec 2011 SAN ANDRESITO SOSOAL 14 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 15 Dec 2011 14 Dec 2011 Facilitator: Franz 15 Dec 2011 15 Dec 2011 # Question Facilitator: Franz Facilitator: Luis P Facilitator: Luis P Summary Facilitator: Jorge Notes: Marlon, Gloria, Facilitator: Jorge Facilitator: Luis Notes: Franz Notes: Susan, Christie Notes: Susan, Christie Notes: Mara Kirk, Wendy Notes: Leonel Notes: Mara (recorded) (recorded) (recorded) (recorded) Sistema de Agua HH1 Están Sí pero: Sí pero: Si están satisfechos Si de manera general, Mixed. It‟s not regular. Yes Si = unanimidad. El Mixed, but satisfechos Hay muchos -Existen fugas en las con el sistema de debería haber Last time it was down Only problem is the agua nos sirve para mostly con sus desperfectos en los redes agua, todos (as) ampliación p nuevas for 15 days. high parts of the todo, es un líquido satisfied. sistema de tubos y líneas de -En Invierno hay poca conexiones, sequia en community where the importante. Antes nos Some water agua? conducción, por agua. verano, no propiedad water doesn‟t reach. tocaba ir hasta el rio, shortage travesuras de la gente de cuenca, no ahora tengo el agua issues during Hemos llegado a pasar protección de la en la casa. Ahora repairs. hasta 2 ó 3 semanas cuenca (Hay tenemos agua para sin agua consciencia ambiental, lavar la ropa. Ha No nos permiten relacionan tala con mejorado la higiene, acceder a nuevas falta de agua), la la salud, el ambiente, fuentes de agua en tubería no es capaz, nivel de vida. Campolón y la demanda a crecido HH2 Está No siempre, tenemos No todos los días se Tienen agua durante Merma en Febrero, Different amounts at No. Si. Todo el tiempo No. disponible el muchos problemas, tienen agua, en marzo- todo el año, sólo Marzo, Abril, durante different times. In In the high part, the (las 24 horas), y Downtimes agua nos ha tocado trabajar abril se tienen de 8 a 9, cuando hay algún estos meses solo en la winter there is more. water comes and goes. disminuye en verano when water siempre que como fontaneros en la felizmente tenemos desperfecto falla, pero mañana. El resto de (especialmente en is not lo necesitan? parte alta en los pilas (almacenan). si no tienen agua las los días hay agua las Abril); 90% (es 10% available. Durante todo últimos 6 años 24 horas. En los 24 Horas. En Invierno de las personas de la Most homes el año? Y El tanque de meses de Febrero – hay interrupciones es parte alta hace). have todo el día? almacenamiento se Abril de cada año baja por derrumbes. substantial abre 1 o dos veces al la cantidad, y eso water día afecta a la parte alta storage. de la comunidad. A los de la parte baja les llega todo el año. La fuente de agua está a 2 y medio horas caminando. HH3 Les llega No, hay gente que Se tienen pilas en las El agua es suficiente Una pila de 20 galones Yes, but we can‟t have Yes No es suficiente. Hay Mixed but suficiente llena pilas grandes que se almacena el salvo esos meses se llena en 15 min any more households We get enough water agua que no falta se mostly Yes. agua ahora? agua del día donde la cantidad caudal es 1.33gpm on the system with adequate alcanza a traer. La the flow is disminuye. El sistema pressure. There was a tubería es pequeña y good and viene de un manantial lot of water before [at es necesario people can en una montaña y la beginning of project]. reconstruir el sistema. fill up their bajan por gravedad. The population keeps storage Tienen 27 familias growing. quickly.

conectadas, empezaron 290 familias en el sistema original. Como la población va creciendo, hay familias que no están conectadas, se requiere anexar otra fuente de agua, pues hay demanda de familias no conectadas y que quieren comprar su punto de agua, hablamos de al menos unas 8 familias que no se conectaron al inicio, y hay muchos hijos de beneficiarios además de,los 7 hijos de beneficiarios que se han anexado con el tiempo. Las 8 familias agarran agua de nacimientos pequeños y del río Gualpil. HH4 Alguna vez Sí, utilizamos agua de Sí, utilizamos agua de No usan agua de otra Rio Gualpil, algunos In the summer, people Yes Si. Nacimientos, Sometimes utilizan otra las lluvias que las lluvias y en algunos fuente, salvo cuando nacimientos sometimes wash A few. If we don‟t get pozos están 2 from fuente de recogemos en algunas casos vamos a la hay problemas usan clothes in the river. water from the system, kilómetros de rainwater or agua cisternas que hay en la quebrada. agua dl río Gualpil, Usually there is we are dry. Takes 1 distancia river or diferente? En comunidad o bien de la cando hay enough stored at hour to get water shallow qué casos? quebrada desperfectos en el homes to get through somewhere. We have wells. Y de dónde? sistema de agua. No downtimes, otherwise fallen apart, we don‟t Usually ha ocurrido muy there are shallow have organization. We stored water seguido sobretodo springs/Wells but far had scoop holes is enough cuando la maquinaria for some people before. The water was de la carretera daña (having trouble very dirty. We got our los tubos y cundo hay understanding my water from the river. mucha lluvia que les notes here) Q. Do you use daña algunas tuberías rainwater? No. What por rotura de tubos. people do is have a También hay casos en little private system to que algunas personas process water. les daña algunas válvulas de aire o dejan abiertas válvulas de control.

Nuev Que les Se siente pesada, en En Verano vienen El agua es clara, huele La Mejor, no es turbia, Sometimes it does Yes, in the rainy Tenemos problemas Usually o parece la invierno viene sucia, clara, pero en invierno bien, el sabor es de no olor, no sabor have a smell, but season the rainwater en la zona de great. Rainy calidad del con lodo y en algunos viene sucia, con algo agua dulce. Viene normally it is fine. In picks up dirt. [notes on recarga. La lluvia season agua? A momentos hemos de tierra. Pero no directo del manantial y the winter it gets turbid. this sentence were arrastra sedimento, presents veces es llegado a sentirle olor a huele, y sabe bien. en la toma de agua garbled] The intake varia cuando hay some turbia? Huele veneno que utilizan hay un filtro. box has another época lluviosa. turbidity bien o mal? algunas personas allá problem – more El sabor? arriba (en la fuente) contaminated. Problems with washing clothes. Not as effective to chlorinate turbid water. Yes but we clean tank so water in house is cleaner. Each month we clean the tank. In the past 2 members cleaned the tank and looked for broken tubes. Q Does it taste good? Yes, we like it. “Don‟t know if it‟s good or bad. Someone from Mexico might have a problem.” Our source is in a forest. In the city of Gracias, the water looks yellow. In the lower parts of the village the water tastes more salty. Q. is the water clear, doesn‟t smell bad? Yes, hopefully we‟d know if there was a dead animal in it. HH5 Pagan una Si Sí Si Si Si Yes Si All yes cuota para utilizar el sistema de agua? HH6 Si pagan una Pagan 25.00 lempiras Pagan 25 lempiras L.25.00 (Lempiras), la Cantidad 25 (lempiras), 15 L/month even if 20 L/month 20 Lempira 15-25 L/mth cuota, cuanto cada mes cada mes, o 50 pagan de manera 4 corepradil, 2 service is down for part Holding a connection y cada lempiras cada dos mensual. De los 25 L, cocepradil of the month for the future costs 10 cuando la meses 3 L quedan en el Lempira per month. Q. pagan? CORREPRADIL y L. 1 how does that work? van a COCEPRADIL, There is a branch to quedan l. 21.00 en la the house with a cap, comunidad. reserving a connection.

Some families have done this. Not everyone in the focus group. HH7 Quien recoge El dinero lo recibe el El dinero lo recibe la La Tesorera recoge la Se cancela en reunión The board treasurer The board treasurer. La junta de Agua. En The board la cuota? tesorero durante la Tesorera durante la Tarifa con apoyo del comunitaria mensual, collects the fee at the There is a meeting at Asambleas treasurer in Como se sesión (reunión de reunión con todas las Fiscal. En el pasado registro de pagos es monthly meetings. the end of each month, mensuales. El all cases recoge la todas las personas personas beneficiarias, han tenido también en cuaderno llenado and everyone pays tesorero da un recibo. cuota? beneficiarias), que que se realiza cada tesoreros hombres. La por la tesorera. there. There is a Generalmente paga a realizan el primer mes. cuota se recoge en el receipt book. final de año (todas las domingo de cada mes segundo domingo de cuotas) cada mes aprovechando la Asamblea mensual de usuarios. La tesorera lleva un libro de control de pago HH8 Todos pagan Si todos pagan la Sí todos pagan la Todos pagan la cuota Todos Yes. If people get Yes. If people don't Hay casos especiales Basically la cuota? cuota, pero si alguien cuota cada dos meses. mensualmente y si behind, they will pay one month, they Hay un reglamento. everyone Cuantos no lo hace en la sesión Si alguien no paga en alguien de los 27 se usually pay the next pay the next. We do 67 beneficiarios (20 pays. Usually beneficiarios después tienen que ir a la reunión, después atrasa, entonces en el month. let people do that but Lempiras); 38 puntos on time pagan la casa del tesorero para debe ir a la casa de la siguiente mes debe must pay end of year. futuros (5 Lempira) depending cuota pagar Tesorera a pagar. ponerse al día. on growing mensualment season and e? Hay remittance algunas que payment pagan en schedules. diferente All pay by periodo? end of year HH9 Toman No ha sido necesario Primero hay una Lo más que se retrasa Multa de 25 Lps, There is a family where If someone misses, Todos pagan. Hay Most have acciones si tomar medidas fuertes llamada de atención y es un mes y en la they cut the service at they send a note. If reglamento que se never had alguien no contra alguien, hasta se presiona a quien no siguiente Asamblea the entry point (before they don‟t pay on time, aplica a los usuarios. this happen, paga la ahora, si alguien no paga Algunos pocos pagan the house). they have to pay a fine but the cuota? paga su cuota lo que adelantado por año. of 10 Lempiras. Q. if general Cuáles? se hace es que se le Hasta tres meses se they don‟t pay, would actions are recuerda el reglamento permite un retraso en you cut off the to give y si no van a las el pago del agua, si a connection at the warnings and sesiones los tres meses no ha house? Yes. Q then cut the injustificadamente lo pagad alguna familia, Would they have to water line. sancionan con 50.00 entonces le cortan el pay to reconnect? lempiras servicio del agua. Yes. Pay fees to date, Previo al corte se le pay the plumber. Q. envían notas, se hacen Who cuts? The visitas domiciliares y si plumber. It has never al llegar los tres meses come to that. Not no ha pagado common. Normally if entonces proceden a they can‟t pay this cerrarle la válvula de month, they pay the control. next. [or we ask them

No ha habido casos de to?] clean the tank. If cortes de agua por there is a problem with haber llegado a los 3 the line we hire a meses de retraso. plumber, paid for by Según los participantes the treasurer. Plumber no ha ocurrido un caso would do water cuts. donde hayan tenido Inside the house que recurrir al corte. problems, we have to take care of on our own. The plumber would deal with water problems at the school or clinic. HH10 Cuanto Pagaban 5:00 lempiras En 1990s se pagaba L. 5.00 / Mes en el año Cuota inicial 3 Lps, 2.5 Lempira / month 5 L/month 5 Lempira/mes, ahora 2.5-5 L/mth pagaban y ahora pagan 25:00 5,0 lempiras y ahora 1996. Poco a poco se Actual 25 Lps, hay 15 Lempira / month 20 L/month 20 Lempira/mes. at beginning. cuando lempiras, las pagan 25,0 lempiras, han dado los aumentos consciencia de que es Fee increased because Decision of every Subió porque These comenzó el explicaciones que han los aumentos se en la tarifa, Cuando se necesario incrementar of repairs and cost of board; depends on aumentaron los projects are proyecto? Y recibido es que ha explican en la dieron los incrementos debido a que la vida materials. Q. Is the fee each community. costos de los 15-20 years cuanto habido devaluación de Asamblea y se de la Tarifa, les han del proyecto se esta okay, not okay? materiales, pago de old. Every pagan la moneda, que han aprueba ahí la nueva explicado que s acortando Consensus is yes it‟s fontanero, cuota a community ahora? Les aumentado los costos tarifa. requiere tener dinero okay. Some COCEPRADIL. changes fees explicaron y que se tiene que para mantener el discussion of based on las razones cumplir con el aporte a sistema de agua y household repairs. community de cada COCEPRADIL porque están decision. aumento? conscientes que en el Cuáles? futuro necesitan reponer el proyecto. Han escuchado ahora que las instituciones sólo ayudan con la mitad de la ayuda, entonces necesitan tener un ahorro. HH14 ¿Se Si, en la línea de Si, en la línea de Este año si, solamente Si, han hecho Yes Yes. Pipes under the Si. 10 reparaciones al Yes, all realizaron conducción se hacen conducción varias donde una máquina reparaciones continuas Cut for about 5-8 days road. The problem is año, especialmente communities reparaciones casi semanalmente. El veces. Piensan que pasó haciendo una (en Tubos y Bombas), Frequency is about the road grading en invierno. Cortes have made durante este servicio de agua se ha han tenido como 5 brecha, se reparó el de 4 a 5 dias ha sido la monthly but varies. machine. Q. are pipes parciales (7 veces en repairs in the año? Cuánto suspendido hasta un cortes largos durante tanque rompe carga mayor interrupción, en Water does not flow uncovered? In the al año) past year tiempo se máximo de 8 días, el año. también. este año han sido unas when they are making rainy season, the soil and have cortó el pero en promedio por 6 a 7 veces. repairs. washes away and had the agua? cada reparación son 4 uncovers the pipes. capacities to Cuantas ó 5 días que falta el Q. monthly fee covers do this on veces del agua repairs but you chip in their own. año hubo extra? Yes, when cortes por needed. reparaciones ?

HH15 Si hubo Para abastecerse de A un jaguey Cuando la máquina Durante interrupciones They use stored water Water was stopped for Los cortes se Usually cortes agua han recurrido a (mannatial9 que queda daño la tunería, se va al rio. collected while the repairs. One woman – anuncian y las stored water. durante el algunos pozos a ½ hora, y lo utilizan entonces estuvieron 5 system is running. right away I lose water; personas se Sometimes año, donde privados o a la para bañarse, pero los días son agua, y There are some if any problems in the aprovisionan de agua. private wells fueron a quebrada si tiene vecinos del jaguey sacaban agua del Río, shallow wells and the line, because I am right or purchase conseguir agua. Para beber la cada vez dejan menos cerca de los river also, but most are near the highest part. I bottled agua? compran embotellada ir a bañarse. nacimientos de unas able to store enough to store water in the water. quebradas. Ellos get through downtime. house, I don‟t go esperaron que pasara somewhere else. Q. el trabajo de la has water been máquina para hacer la available 24 hours a reparación para lo cual day since it started? usaron tuberías que Yes. [this seems tenían en existencia en contradictory – they la comunidad, pero may be referring to mientras tanto halaban stored water] agua desde pequeños nacimientos cercanos. Educación Sanitaria HHE1 Han recibido Al inicio del proyecto Sí, cuando comenzó el Recibieron 7 Talleres Si, de parte de Yes, by CRS. But if Yes. At the beginning Si. Muy poca Yes, all. For capacitación recibieron bastantes Proyecto, de de Capacitación, Cocepradil, las people sold property of the program 1991. frecuencia. En el most it has en capacitaciones, eran COCEPRADIL trabajaban durante el capacitaciones no se without the water 2004 se recibió la been a long saneamiento talleres mensuales y día (de 3 am a 3 pm), a han recibido este año. rights, the package of última (junta). time though. e higiene? las recibían de las 4 comenzaban con education that came There is a Con que COCEPRADIL los procesos de with the project didn‟t lack of on- frecuencia? capacitación y llegaban happen again [no going De Quien? a veces hasta las 9 refresher training] training. CRS PM. Esta capacitación Younger people have and fue durante la not had training. COCEPRADI construcción del L have done proyecto, después de most the la construcción del training. sistema de agua, no hayan recibido más capacitaciones formales, pero si han recibido visitas de COEPRADIL HHE2 Sobre qué Saneamiento básico: Cómo mantener Saneamiento Básico, Preparacion de Home cleanliness, One woman said there La salud de mi Training has temas? (para hervir el agua para aseada la casa; en no como Operar y Alimentos, Limpiezas, personal cleanliness, was specific training for familiar, se mantiene. covered a el evaluador: beber, sobre el aseo desperdiciar el agua; Mantener el sistema de saneamiento basico: water treatment. women. Basic Saneamiento básico, wide variety hábitos personal, sobre el aseo en hervir el agua antes agua, uso eficiente del tratamiento del agua Everyone taught sanitation, including administración. or hygiene higiénicos, de la casa, uso de la de beberla; en poner agua, Medidas de (Purificacion), proper use of latrines. cleaning the house, Micro cuencas, issues with conservación letrina, separar los cloro: 1 gota por litro, Higiene en la casa y en A few people were cleaning tanks, clean organización, some del agua, uso animales de las etc. la comunidad, taught a little financial home, separate mantenimiento del financial del jabón, personas en la casa Cloración domiciliar del planning. animals, keep it clean, sistema. training to a uso de las Agua, manejo de la use chlorine, trash few people. letrinas, basura en la casa y la cans, use toilets, how mantenimient comunidad, Se to clean bathroom, how

o, etc.) organizó un grupo de to clean bowl. Clean monitoreo con every 2-3 days, always miembros de la have a trashcan in the comunidad, para bathroom, burn toilet supervisar el paper. Not all the cumplimiento de las focus group prácticas de participants were there saneamiento en el for the training. Hogar. Repello de las casas y mantenerlas limpias, controlar las chinches y otros insectos. Sobre bañarse todos los días, lavarse las manos. Aprendieron a usar una gota de cloro por cada litro de agua, pero ya no le hacen prefieren hervirla HHE4 Para qué Para beber, cocinar el Water inside house, One man: Drinking Lavar ropa, bañarse, For human usan el agua aseo personal y de la washing clothes, water is kept separate. preparar alimentos. uses. [we del sistema? casa drinking, not using for We store and Huertos familiares, observed garden, not for crops or chlorinate. Another beber, aseo personal use on animals. woman: we drink from gardens and the faucet. We have dirt road as Higiene personal, lots of family members; well] Beber, Preparacion de hard to store. Another Para lavar ropa, alimentos, Beber a person: chlorine tastes bañarse, para cocinar Animales, Para riego bad, affects my alimentos, para regar (Poco), OBS_ hay stomach, I don‟t like it. algunos árboles o consciencia que regar Another person: better plantas en la casa, puede afectar to chlorinate – of Para lavar cosas, ropa, para tomar disponibilidad en course depends how para bañarse,.. sequias much you put in it. HHE5 El agua que No, Sí, algunos la hierven. Si/No: Llenan cantaros No. generalmente, No Yes. All year. (I think No. Algunas familias Mixed. Some beben, ¿la con el agua, algunas solamente en they were confused on la cloran, SODIS, o always treat, toman familias la hierven ocasiones. this question and not hervir (15 minutos others drink directamente antes de ponerla en el sure this means they ebullición). Para from tap and de la pila? cántaro, cuando la are drinking untreated cloro: un gotero o 5 don‟t report toman de la llave water…??) gotitas por galón o 1 illnesses. directamente, y no se gota por litro. enferman. La mayoría relata que la hierven, pero algunos dicen quela toman como sea (o sea cruda).

HHE6 Si tratan su Nota al entrevistador: Tipo de tratamiento: la Nota al entrevistador: Nota al entrevistador: Some people Yes. We chlorinate. Hervir por 15 minutos. If treat, agua para Importante no ayudar a hierven o la ponen al Importante no ayudar a Importante no ayudar a chlorinate, some boíl. Q. Where do you get Uso cloro líquido. usually with beber, que contestar a menos que sol (SODIS) contestar a menos que contestar a menos que (note: unclear if this is chlorine? The water chlorine, tipo de sea necesario: sea necesario: sea necesario: always done or if done board buys chlorine SODIS or tratamiento Tipo de tratamiento: la Frecuencia: Tipo de tratamiento: Tipo de tratamiento: by all) from treasurer. Use boil. realizan? hierven o la ponen al La mayoría dicen que Hervir el agua, asolear water to wash clothes, Siempre sol Hervir: por cuánto la hierven. el agua, bathe; not for animals, tratan su tiempo? 20minutos Frecuencia: except chickens. Not agua para Frecuencia: cada día (minutos) La mayoría de las Frecuencia: Casi cows. Some families beber? Usa cloro: Qué tipo de veces la toman cruda, siempre do have livestock but Hervir: por cuánto cloro utiliza? Cloro directo de la llave. they are in pastures. tiempo? 15 minutos en líquido Algunos dicen que la Hervir: por cuánto promedio (minutos) hierven siempre y sólo tiempo? 10 a 15 Usa cloro: Qué tipo de una persona refiere (minutos) cloro utiliza? no que la clora, usando Usa cloro: No cloro líquido. Hervir: por cuánto tiempo? 60 (minutos) para que hierva bien. Usa cloro: Qué tipo de cloro utiliza? Líquido del comercial (solo una persona) Usan fogón de leña. Servicio de Saneamiento HHT1 Qué tipo de Letrinas con una fosa Letrinas con tasa El sistema que más Letrina lavable Some have septic Latrines and pour flush Tasa campesina: Mix of flush sistema de séptica campesina y fosa usan son las Letrinas, Domiciliar tanks, others have pit toilets. “Tasa lavable, con pozo or pour-flush saneamiento séptica aunque hay algunos latrines. Campesina”. Q. Last resumidero. Pila, to septic tienen? nuevos que ingresaron longer? Yes. Can be resumidero. tanks and pit (evaluador: al sistema y compraron made of concrete too, latrines. letrina, su punto de agua y but easier just to buy tanque están pendientes de them. Q. are all séptico, hacer su letrina en este outside? Yes. Q. some EcoSan) momento. Son por lo inside? Yes menos 4 casas de la [contradictory] Inside zona baja que no we call private not tienen letrina pero ya latrines. Q. Why? están en procesos de Depends on the construirse. Han resources that people estado haciendo have. The indoor gestiones para cubrir toilets are more con letrinas a todos los secure. Q. Are there que no tienen (Los PF problems here? Yes, y los no conectados al for example, one man Sistema). Para ellos went out at night and de nada sirve pues was killed. We don‟t siempre se contamina. open the door at night. De los 27 hay 4 que no Q. What time do you tienen letrina aún, 3 de go to sleep? 9 pm.

los nuevos si tienen. We used to go to bed Más los 8 que no están earlier before electricity conectados al sistema was available. de agua. HHT5 Qué van a Nunca se ha llenado Hacer otro hoyo… Las fosas sépticas no Reportan que hasta la 8 families have dug a Everyone has the Se limpia y recite All hacer alguna, si se llenara se han llenado aún o fecha a nadie se le ha new pit in the past 10 same pit they started enlozarla communities cuando el construirían otra y la por lo menos no lo han llenado la Letrina, years because the old with. Water soaks in (generalmente). Se report what pozo de la conectarían a la letrina notado. Ellos creen cuando la actual se pit was full. quickly and sediment selló e hizo uno they would letrina se que el suelo ayuda a llene se realizara otro stays. No one has nuevo. do – dig a llene? que el agua se agujero para llevar changed pit. The pits new pit or consuma rápido y por hasta ahí los sólidos. are 3 meters deep. install a eso no se han llenado, Very deep. Q. what septic tank. los suelos son would you do if the pit There is permeables. Nadie ha filled? Would make evidence that tenido que cambiar su septic pits. They these actions fosa, pero cuando explained how to add a have been ocurra, están septic tank….that you done in conscientes que tienen redirect pipe, etc some que hacer otra Fosa y communities tienen espacio para hacerlo. HHT6 Están Sí, evita las moscas, Sí, no huele. Los que Todos está satisfechos Si, menos Mixed. Mixed. Si. Antes se hacía al Mixed. satisfechos es privado para las participaron en el con la Letrina, no contaminación, Problem when there aire libre. Hay un Issues during con su personas proyecto recibieron refieren problemas del are heavy rains. Q. lugar y sentarse más rain and sistema de tazas, los nuevos han mal olor. Everyone happy with cómodo. Hay menos security saneamiento tenido que comprar la toilet outside? There contaminación. Hay issues at ? Por qué? taza a 300 lempiras. are negatives for toilets más higiene. night for outside. At night we latrines. don‟t feel secure in this Most like area. If you have an their facilities indoor toilet, no one‟s and say they going to hit you over are private, the head with a stone.” clean and Also a nuisance to go keep flies to an outdoor toilet in away. heavy rains. HHT7 Todos los Casi todos, hay como Sí, el Proyecto incluía Hay 4 familias que Todos los que tienen No. Not everybody has No 67 Familias. Es un Most have, hogares 2 ó 3 personas que no agua y saneamiento están conectadas al agua entubada tienen a toilet. Those with Some people here requisito. but some not tienen un tienen sistema de agua pero letrina, los que no less water in the house don‟t. Q. Is the custom yet. There is sistema de no tienen Letrina y hay tienen agua no tienen do not have. 20% of with a new house to still some saneamiento 8 familias no letrina. Los que tienen the families do not make a latrine? Yes, open en la conectadas al sistema letrina hacen sus have (312 families in immediately. defecation in comunidad? que tampoco tienen necesidades a campo the community). some parts. Cuantos que Letrinas. abierto. En Andresito Not common tienen agua se estima que unos 8 and in rural no tienen un hogares no tienen areas. sistema de Letrina. saneamiento ?

Manejo del sistema de agua HH11 Están Sí, nos entendemos Sí, se elige cada año, y Si están satisfechos Si, consideran que la Yes. Most have been Yes. It‟s good. Q. Si. En las reuniones Yes. All are satisfechos bien y nos gusta que para la representación con su Junta de Agua. junta de agua trabaja part of the water board Everyone participates? mensuales se puede satisfied. con la Junta los cargos son del COREPRADIL Los 5 directivos bien. at some point. If we No. One in the focus sustituir a los de Agua? rotativos cada dos años. trabajan bien, si no weren‟t happy we group has not miembros de la junta trabajaran bien no would tell participated but her de agua. Todos los estuvieran bien COCEPRADIL Q. who husband has. Another usuarios tienen que organizados como lo here was on the water guy was on the board. participar en la Junta están ahora. board? The majority Q. what would you de Agua. Cada 2 raised their hands. change about the años se cambia la Anyone that doesn‟t board if you were in Junta de Agua. have time to be on the charge? [no answer] board has to find Q. would you have someone to replace meetings more often, them and work out a pay more? Are they deal with them. fulfilling their responsibility? Do you have to prod them to do their jobs? Answer: all these people on board who don‟t do the job but basically satisfied. Q. have you seen another board who is better or worse? We think good work is being done here. Están Sí, porque lo Sí, está bien Si están satisfechos, Estan satisfechos, pero Yes. This is low for Yes. Q. is the fee fair? Si. Estamos Yes. They all satisfechos discutimos y llegamos aunque cuando se ha que están conscientes some and high for Yes, it‟s “little, not conscientes que agree upon con la cuota a un acuerdo para subido, algunos se han que esta baja others, but it was much.” There are tenemos que pagar la tariffs at de agua? tener esa cuota opuesto, pero al decided upon as a some rich people who cuota. Hay otras community explicarles que se consensus at could pay a lot more. contribuciones para meetings necesitan el dinero community meetings. One guy said, 50 mantener el sistema y para asegurar un fondo Lempiras is fair. For limpiarlo. para reponer el example, 50 Lempiras sistema, entonces los for water for a month; que se oponen when a bottle of water aceptan la nueva tarifa, is 12 Lempira. el último incremento lo [different opinions] hicieron hacen dos Currently 20 people años, al final todos who can‟t pay. Some estuvieron de acuerdo. are poor. There are Están satisfechos con people for whom 50 el sistema y con sus Lempira is a lot. Q letrinas, entonces, no should people who use hay mucha oposición a a lot of water pay esa tarifa aunque sabe more? Yes, fair. Q. que tras comunidades would you agree with a pagan menos. system where people

who use more pay more? If you charge by volume, will be hard to pay. We live near a dirty stream with no clean water. [lots of discussion] the older man said “It‟s a lie that people would bring water by hand.” Q. If you had a high fee, you would probably use less water, you would probably use less water. Wouldn‟t necessarily pay more than you do now. I know a community here with little water. Our advantage here is we have water 24 hours probably from the beginning. Not a problem with people not having water. Otras Notas También se les -¿Qué pasa cuando They have interest in 6 people from 7 participantes en preguntó sobre los alguien nuevo quiere use-based tariffs, but community, including 1 grupo focal (3 costos de la conexión conectarse? Debe they are skeptical woman in the focus mujeres, 4 hombres) - de agua, siendo sus cumplir los requisitos about meters and also group. beneficiarios del respuestas: que estipula el ask “who would install proyecto de agua. Nuevos usuarios Reglamento, entre and manage the Hubo dos proyectos. deben pagar entre ellos pagar el derecho meters?”. 25.000 a 30.000 al Pegue, mantener el lempiras, pero si es sistema, construir la They are looking for hijo(a) de beneficiario, Letrina, pagar la tarifa, funds for a new es mucho menos etc system, but there may (mencionaron inclusive -Cuando son hijos de be some 5.000 lemipras). los Beneficiarios, antes misconception that we se pagaba al inicio L. are donors and the 3000 /punto, pero exact need is unclear. ahora cuesta L. 5000 para ellos. Para alguien externo cuesta L. 15,000.00, el último caso pagó L. 12,000, tuvo que hacer un sólo pago, pero se puede hacer por plazos. La

75 tarifa es igual que los demás pues ya tiene derecho al servicio al haber comprado el punto de agua. -Estos Montos son decididos no por la Junta, si no que se discute en Asamblea. -Hasta la fecha están contentos con el servicio, incluso el nuevo usuario que compró su pegue hace unos 5 meses que ha migrado desde el Departamento de Copán. -Lo que les preocupa es que ya faltan 4 años para ir haciendo un nuevo estudio para renovar el sistema de agua…

Household Observations

Entrevista Hogareña realizada por: Comunidad: Nombre del Hogar:

Normas Pregunta Pregunta / Observación Posibles Respuestas Vinculadas Numero C4 HHO1 Verificar si funciona el sistema de saneamiento

C4 HHO2 Hay señales de que no se usa el inodoro? (anote sus observaciones) C4 HHO2a Está siendo utilizado? (anote sus observaciones)

C4 HHO3 Está limpio el sistema de saneamiento? (anote sus observaciones) C4 HHO4 Tiene mal olor el sistema de saneamiento? Si/No C4 HHO5 Está cubierta la taza o tienen un sello de agua Si/No que funciona? G6 HHO6 Si hay un pozo o manantial de agua cercano al Si/No sistema de saneamiento, verificar si la distancia es mayor de 30 metros. D1 HHO7 Si se crían animales (gallinas, cerdos, vacas), existe un cerco para evitar estos animales en la casa? D7 HHO8 Hay jabón en los lavamanos? Y papel higiénico en los baños? D8 HHO9 Si hay un recipiente de almacenamiento de agua Si/No en el hogar, está cubierto? F2 HHO11 Algunas de las llaves gotean cuando están cerradas? E6 HHO12 Hay drenaje suficiente para las aguas grises?

E6 HHO13 Esta expuesta la tubería plástica en alguna parte Si/No del hogar? B13 HH5a Podría ver su último recibo de agua? □ vieron el recibo □ no vieron el recibo

Raw Data

Plastic Piping Toil>3 WatSt Expos BowlC 0mWa Fence Soap ToilPa WatSt orage SuffDr edCo WatBil Intervie ToilFu ToilUs ToilCl ToilS ovWat tSourc PrevA AtBasi perinB orage Contai TapLe ainag mpou lObser ID wer Date Comm nc ed ean mell Seal e nim n R Cov ner aks ePila nd ved Notes 1 Franz, 15- San Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes . Yes Cooki Yes Yes No . Johnny, Dec- Andresito ng pot Ostillo, leonel, Wendy, Gloria 2 Franz, 15- San Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes . Yes Yes . No No No . Johnny, Dec- Andresito Ostillo, Wendy, Gloria 3 Group 2 14- Celilac Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes . Fence: chickens yes; pigs no; water Dec- boiled /the lid is a little dirty; taps - no water now; exposed pipe "sil en la pila" 4 Group 2 14- Celilac Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Clay No Yes No Yes Fence: no fence, though house is Dec- jugs raised up 3 steps, so not as easy for animals to come in. Chicken ran through house.; No handwashing station near toilet. Two clay jugs for storing water, one covered with dirty plate. 5 Group 2 15- San Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes . No No Yes No . No fence; animals (dogs) in house, Dec- Andresito drink. ducks/chickens nearby water contai ner 6 Group 2 15- San Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No . . . . Yes No . Dec- Andresito 7 Franz, 15- San Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cover No Yes No . Johnny, Dec- Andresito ed Ostillo, plastic leonel, bucket Wendy, Gloria

8 Sara & 15- Sosoal Yes Yes Yes No Yes . Yes No Yes . NA No No . . 25 yrs in community; 11 yrs on Michael Dec- water system. Water always available, less quantity in dry season. Previous to system used spring. Source 2km distant. Now used only for processing coffee. Quota 20L/month; everyone pays. Never served on junta de agua in 11 years; has an indoor servicio, clean, no odor, everything in good order; boils water for drinking, cooking, puts into container in reefer - did not observe covering; no animals inside; pila good 9 Sara & 15- Sosoal Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes . NA Yes . No . 35 yrs in community; quota same Michael Dec- story; pila tap drips; latrine outside but no inspection; diffident attitude so did not press for info 10 Sara & 15- Sosoal No . . . . . Yes Yes Yes No NULL . No Yes . No latrine at all. 1 1/2 year on Michael Dec- system; located at top of hill; no water for 3 days now, but expect tomorrow IF houses below didn't use too much; can access only at night; pays standard quota; no standard pila; supply pipe 1/2" plastic tubing into 10 gal plastic bucket; soap, everything clean; house wooden shack; also well kept; bathing at bucket pila; no grey water drain; chickens wander at will. Occupants mother and young daughter formerly lived below - for some reason had to leave; no doubt involved social backstory; clearly no receiving benefits for which paying; 3 other houses in immediate area also with same intermittent, low volume service 11 Sara & 15- Sosoal ...... Yes Yes . NULL No No No . 17 yrs in community; all water Michael Dec- outside house; quota same story; no chemical treatment of water, uses boiling and SODIS, stores in sealed plastic container; always water available; latrine, pila good, good grey water drainage; chickens in and out

12 Sara & 15- Sosoal Yes Yes Yes No Yes . No Yes Yes Yes NULL Yes Yes No Yes 15 yrs on system; always water, Michael Dec- less volume in dry season; no other source; quota paid annually in Dec; pila clean, ok drain, tap leaks, soap available; treat water with SODIS; chicken outside only 13 Sara & 15- Sosoal Yes Yes No No Yes . No No No . NULL Yes No Yes . 3 yrs in house (pulperia on square); Michael Dec- previously live in hills, always problem with water supply, now not; generally slovenly dwelling, only clean area is store front porch; no views inside; outdoor pila dirty, tap drips, no soap, bad drain to ditch behind house with dirty standing water; no TP in latrine, is used; numerous hoses in use; making roof tiles and adobe bricks; treat water with chlorine drops and boiling; children not so clean; trashy house and grounds 14 Jennifer 15- Sosoal Yes Yes Yes . Yes . Yes Yes Yes . NULL Yes Yes No . For "toilet clean": "Estaban banando Kessler Dec- se" ; flush toilet and pretty pila on ceramic. Old concrete pila is used to wash coffee. "Madre: no darán la factura en el momento de cancelar porque se terminaron" 15 Jennifer 15- Sosoal Yes Yes Yes No Yes . No Yes Yes Yes bucket Yes Yes Yes . "balde con llave 8 gotas chloro / 5 Kessler Dec- gal" clean with 5 drops chlorine per 5 gallons; population is growing in the high area. Water for one day. Big house with a huge drying patio. "Riego por mariposa de café en bolsa"; two flush toilets 16 Jennifer 15- Sosoal Yes Yes Yes No Yes . Yes Yes Yes Yes bucket No Yes No . 1 drop chloro per liter; does not Kessler Dec- need water; I was with the project when it started 17 Jennifer 15- Sosoal Yes Yes Yes No Yes . No Yes Yes Yes NULL Yes Yes No . water storage: "hiuvan"? Two times Kessler Dec- a month the water fails for 1-2 days. Don't know why. Recently came again. Another bathroom has not worked for 3 months. Only fails when they wash the tank. Water failed one time for three days. "Seria buena tuer una comite de asco. del tanque y de las usas lo hon probado pero no funciono 18 Jennifer 15- Sosoal Yes Yes Yes No Yes . No Yes Yes Yes NULL Yes Yes No . water storage: "hiuvan"? Aqui no Kessler Dec- falta agua; paso 2 dias que no habia agua"

19 Group 1 13- Congolon Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes bottle No No Yes . Dec- water 20 Sara, 14- San Yes Yes Yes No Yes . Yes Yes Yes No NULL . Yes Yes . can't tell if tap leaks; no water Michael, Dec- Francisco Jennifer 21 Sara, 14- San Yes Yes Yes No Yes . Yes Yes Yes Yes drums . Yes No Yes can't tell if tap leaks; pipes burst / Michael, Dec- Francisco fail often; but the community repairs. Jennifer Each time 8 days 22 Sara, 14- San Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes pot Yes Yes No Yes Michael, Dec- Francisco Jennifer 23 Sara, 14- San Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes pots & No Yes No . Michael, Dec- Francisco bottles Jennifer 24 Sara, 14- San Yes Yes Yes No Yes . No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Michael, Dec- Francisco Jennifer 25 Luis 14- San Yes No ...... Yes They haven't been using toilet, Dec- Francisco because they haven't had water for the past month (and latrine is blocked), observed water bill for 15 Lempira. 26 Luis 14- San Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No 2 pilas Yes Yes No Yes Dec- Francisco 27 Luis 14- San Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes . Dec- Francisco 28 Luis 14- San Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dec- Francisco 29 Luis 14- San Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes rain Yes Yes Yes . Dec- Francisco water 30 Luis 14- San Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No habia agua. 2 meses sin tener Dec- Francisco servicio 31 Luis 14- San No No No No No Yes . No No No . No Yes . No pagan. No habia agua. 3 letrinas Dec- Francisco (1 sin taza, 2 mal estado) 32 Luis 14- San Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Dec- Francisco 33 Luis 14- San No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No . No Yes Yes No habia agua Dec- Francisco 34 Luis 14- San Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes No Yes . No Yes Yes No habia agua Dec- Francisco 35 Luis 14- San Yes Yes Yes some Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes The whole caserio for these 6 HH Dec- Francisco what observations, is 27 HH, 5 connected to water system. Have not had water service for 2 months.

Appendix C: Disagreement with Conclusions from Participants