A Case Study of Awi Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia

The effectiveness and sustainability of donor assisted rural water supply projects: A case study of Awi zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia

MSc THESIS

BISHAW ANAGAW

FEBURARY 2016

ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA

The effectiveness and sustainability of donor assisted rural water supply projects: A case study of Awi zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia

BISHAW ANAGAW

A thesis submitted to the department of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering, Arba Minch Institute of Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Hydraulic and Hydropower Engineering

Arba Minch University School of Graduate Studies February, 2016

CERTIFICATION

I, the undersigned, certify that I have read and here by recommended for the acceptance by the Arba Minch University a thesis entitled: The effectiveness and sustainability of donor assisted rural water supply projects: Case study of Awi Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia in partial fulfillment for requirement of degree of Master of Science in Hydraulic and Hydropower Engineering.

------

Dr.Ing Bogale GebreMariam

(Advisor)

Date------

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis work and have not been presented and will not be presented for any degree in any university

Bishaw Anagaw

Signature: ------

APPROVAL PAGE We, the undersigned, members of the Board of Examiners of the final open defense by 27/02/2016 have read and evaluated his thesis entitled “The effectiveness and sustainability of donor assisted rural water supply projects: A case study of Awi Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia”, and examined the candidate’s oral presentation. This is, therefore, to certify that the thesis has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master Science in Hydraulic and Hydropower Engineering at Arba Minch University

Dr. Ing. Bogale GebreMariam ------

(Advisor) Signature Date

Member of Examination Board

1. Dr. Sirak Tekleab ------

(External Examiner) Signature Date

2. Dr. Ing. Kinfe Kassa ------

(Internal Examiner) Signature Date

3. Mr. Adane WoldeMedehin ------

(Chairperson) Signature Date

4. Mr. Demelash Wondimagegnehu ------

(SGS Coordinator) Signature Date

5. ------

(Department Head) Signature Date

iii

ABBREVIATIONS AZWRDD Awi Zone Water Resource Development Department ANRS Amhara National Regional State ACSI Amhara Credit and Saving Institution BoEFD Bureau of Economic and Finance Development BoWIED Bureau of Water, Irrigation and Energy Development CDF Community development fund CMP Community managed project BoWRD Bureau of water resources development CSA Central statistics Authority DSP Developed spring E&S Effectiveness and sustainability FINNIDA Finland international development agency GIS Geographical information systems GTP Growth and Transformation Plan HDW Hand dug well MDG Millennium Development Goals MoWIE Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Electricity NGO None Governmental Organization O&M Operation and Maintenance PCA Principal Component analysis RWSS Rural water supply and sanitations UNDP United Nation Development Program UNICEF United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund WaSH Water Sanitation and Hygiene WASHCo Water Sanitation and Hygiene Committee WB World Bank WHO World Health Organization WMC Water management committee

WSP Water Supply program

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Above all I thank Almighty GOD and His mother St. virgin Marry for guidance and grace up on me during in my works and in all my life. My heartfelt thanks goes to my mother W/ro Guday Tamir and my father Kes Anagaw Endalew who have contributed the lions share in the success of my life yet.

Very special thanks to my advisor Dr. Ing Bogale GebreMariam for his valuable guidance, encouragement, suggestions and constructive comments from the initiation to the completion of this research work with close support and relationship during the study period.

My great acknowledgment also forwarded to Mr. Mamaru Ayalew Moges, Lecturer and PhD candidate at Bahir Dar University, for his valuable guidance and comments during the research work.

I would also want to acknowledge Amhara Regional State Bureau of Water, Irrigation and Energy development for giving chance and full sponsor of my post graduate study.

My kind thanks goes to my sister Shashe Anagaw and her husband Mr. Yeshiwas Alamirew from Canada and my brothers Abiot Anagaw and Messeret Anagaw for their support in every way to complete my study.

Special thanks to all staffs in Awi zone water resources development main department, Ankesha, Banja and Guagusa woreda water resources development offices and respondent communities during data collection. Lastly, my thankfulness goes to many institutions, individuals and all friends who have helped me in providing required data on the subject matter of the research work and in encouraging my effort in many aspects of study.

ABSTRACT Sustainability of water supplies is a key challenge, both in water resources and service delivery. The main objective of this research work was evaluating current service level, identifying factors of poor effectiveness and sustainability and pointed out remedial solutions of donor assisted rural water supply projects in Awi zone, Amhara, Ethiopia. The study mainly focused on the physical and technical concern of the schemes. Three sample woredas: Ankesha and Guagussa Woredas financially assisted by Community managed project (CMP), and Banja Woreda supported by World Bank (WB) were selected by purposive sampling. A survey was carried out with 80 households in 25 water points (hand dug wells and developed springs) constructed by donors in 2012. The water points were selected randomly and data gathered by questionnaires, interviews, site investigations. The collected data was scored and analyzed using project approach and performance frameworks within numXL 1.6 software. Then the scored data standardized through PCA was converted to effectiveness and sustainability index using multiple linear regression equation for each samples. Sample points were ranked according to the index and spatially mapped with Arc GIS 10.1 using kriging interpolation method. Factors such as demand driven approach, community participation, training, technology were factors before and during implementation. Cost recovery condition and donors support for operation, maintenance and management were also post project factors of effectiveness and sustainability problems. 56% samples resulted as effective and sustainable projects but not enough. 20% of the sample water points categorized as poorly effective (nonfunctional) and not sustainable because of poor project approach and performance. This non-functionality rate was less than the Amhara Region for non- functionality rate (24%). From the result 24% of sample projects fall under effective and sustainable schemes with little improvements. CMP projects have greater E&S index results than World Bank projects that implies CMP schemes are more successful than World Bank projects. Further improvements on the factors could result effective and sustainable projects.

Keywords: Effectiveness, sustainability, Awi zone, donor, rural water supply performance

CONTENTS

CERTIFICATION ...... I DECLARATION...... II APPROVAL PAGE ...... III ABBREVIATIONS ...... IV ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...... V ABSTRACT ...... VI LIST OF FIGURES ...... IX LIST OF TABLES ...... X 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 General...... 1 1.2 Statement of the problems ...... 2 1.3 Objective of the study ...... 2 1.4 Significance of the study ...... 2 1.5 Scope of the study...... 3 1.6 Thesis organization ...... 3 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA...... 4 2.1 General...... 4 2.2 Geographical location and demography ...... 4 2.3 Schemes ...... 7 2.4 Donors in the study area ...... 7 2.4.1 Community Managed Project (CMP) ...... 7 2.4.2 World Bank Water and Sanitation program ...... 10 3 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 11 3.1 Project effectiveness ...... 11 3.2 Project sustainability...... 11 3.3 Effectiveness and Sustainable rural water supply projects ...... 11 3.4 Project approach and sustainability ...... 13 3.4.1 Context ...... 13 3.4.2 Basic principles for a project approach ...... 13 3.5 Project performance and sustainability...... 18 3.5.1 Operation ...... 18 3.5.2 Maintenance ...... 18

vii

3.5.3 Management ...... 19 3.6 Previous related studies globally ...... 19 3.7 Previous studies in the area ...... 20 4 MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 21 4.1 Research design ...... 21 4.2 Target population ...... 21 4.3 Sampling procedures ...... 22 Woreda and water point selection criteria ...... 22 Sample Size ...... 23 Sampling procedures ...... 24 4.4 Data collection ...... 24 4.5 Methods for measurement of effectiveness and sustainability ...... 25 4.5.1 Framework of project approach ...... 25 4.5.2 Project performance framework ...... 25 4.5.3 Scoring guidelines ...... 26 4.5.4 Numerical Analysis for Excel software ...... 27 4.5.5 Multiple linear regression Model ...... 28 4.5.6 Spatial mapping in Arc GIS 10.1 ...... 29 4.6 Data Analysis ...... 30 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ...... 31 5.1 Characteristics of respondents ...... 31 5.2 Result of effectiveness and sustainability index ...... 31 5.2.1 Water projects approach and performance framework scores ...... 31 5.2.2 Creating effectiveness and sustainability index ...... 36 5.3 Water supply projects Effectiveness and sustainability ...... 40 5.4 CMP assisted projects ...... 44 5.5 World Bank Assisted Water projects...... 45 5.6 CMP&WB projects effectiveness and sustainability Comparison ...... 45 5.7 Factors for project poor effectiveness and sustainability ...... 46 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 48 6.1 Conclusions ...... 48 6.2 Recommendations ...... 49 7 REFERENCES ...... 50

viii

ANNEXES ...... 52

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Location map of the study area ...... 6 Figure 2.2: Funding mechanism and implementation of CMP (WSP, 2010) ...... 8 Figure 3.1: Problems related to sustainability of rural water projects (Fonseca, 2003) ...... 13 Figure 5.1: Spatial Map of effectiveness and sustainability index values ...... 39 Figure 5.2: Effectiveness and sustainability factors of the study area ...... 41 Figure 5.3: Developed spring without maintenance (Photo by researcher, November, 2015) 43 Figure 5.4: Physical protection status of schemes in the study area (Photo by the researcher, November, 2015) ...... 43 Figure 5.5: CMP Projects Effectiveness and sustainability level ...... 44 Figure 5.6: World Bank projects effectiveness and sustainability level ...... 45 Figure 5.7: CMP and WB projects effectiveness and sustainability comparison ...... 46

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Plan Cameroon case study results of sustainability (Joanne de, 2005) ...... 19 Table 4.1: Selected sample sites ...... 22 Table 4.2: Classification of sub sub indicators (UNDP-WaSH, 1999) ...... 26 Table 4.3: Indicator grading for range of classification based on UNDP-WaSH Program interpretation. (UNDP-WaSH, 1999) ...... 27 Table 5.1: Education level of respondents ...... 31 Table 5.2: Project approach framework effectiveness and sustainability factor scores ...... 33 Table 5.3: Project performance framework effectiveness and sustainability factors score ..... 35 Table 5.4: PCA standardized and fitted scored data ...... 36 Table 5.5: Effectiveness and sustainability ranking of samples ...... 38

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Water evidently plays a very important role in the development of rural and urban areas. Whatever the living standards may be, supply of safe and adequate water supply dose not only reduce the numerous diseases caused and transmitted by polluted water but is very often the first step towards other development activities. More than 700 million people still lack ready access to improved sources of drinking water nearly half are in sub Saharan Africa. This figure and realities demand that break the silence and expand awareness of what needs to be done. The challenge of water for all is one that has taken on renewed interest through the declaration of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), which has, the specific target, of reducing by half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water by 2015 (WHO, 2014)

About 84% of Ethiopian populations live in rural areas. For sizable proportion of the rural population, the major sources of drinking water are unprotected springs, ponds, rivers, and hand dug wells which are exposed to contamination caused by human beings, livestock, wildlife and uncontrolled flooding. The safety and quality of drinking water is further in jeopardy as the culture of open defecation has been socially accepted and widely practiced in most of the rural settings and partly in urban areas as well. As a result, the prevalence of water borne diseases has increased at alarming rate. Rural safe drinking water supply provision has commenced in Ethiopia during the late 1950s. Since then, efforts have been made to provide safe drinking water for rural areas although there was more focus on urban water supply before two decades. This condition coupled with other factors, has contributed a lot for the low level of safe drinking water supply provisions of the country until quite recently. Access to safe drinking water has been improved from 19% in 1990 to 78.5% (MoWIE, 2013). Therefore the effectiveness and sustainability of the rural water supply projects for the purpose design needs to be addressed before implementing projects. So the effectiveness and sustainability of the sample projects in the study area was evaluated with project approach and performance frameworks.

1.2 Statement of the problems In Ethiopia national and regional governments, donors, local and international NGOs and other concerned organizations invest large sums every year for the implementation of rural water supply projects. However, construction of water projects does not help if they fail after a short time. In order to make the investment in water supplies more effective, failure rates of these systems should be reduced. Effectiveness and sustainability problem became challenges for project success of design period. The main issues that lead to initiation of this research are factors such as community participation during planning and design, scheme type selection, project management and donors affect the effectiveness and sustainability of most donor assisted rural water supply projects; these are not studied in-depth in the Awi zone.

1.3 Objective of the study The main objective of the research is to investigate the factor affecting the effectiveness and sustainability for donor implemented water supply projects in rural Ethiopia. The specific objectives include the following:

1. To evaluate the current service level of rural water supply projects in Awi zone 2. To identify the main factors for effectiveness and sustainability problems 3. To recommend solution for better effectiveness and sustainability of donor-assisted projects

1.4 Significance of the study The study is important in identifying and understanding reasons for failure operation of donor support projects below the expectation design period. The knowledge could therefore provide important information for decision makers and policy designers in water supply projects. The study would forward possible mitigation measures and recommendations for donors, government, private and non-governmental organizations to address and integrate in prior project implementation. This can be integrated to project to design and implement the projects in sustainable way for benefit of the community.

1.5 Scope of the study The focus of this study is on water supply projects constructed in rural part of Awi zone. It has a primary focus on effectiveness and sustainability of donor assisted rural water supply projects specifically hand dug wells and developed springs. The study mainly focused on the physical and technical concern of the schemes with less attention on sanitation and hygiene aspects.

1.6 Thesis organization The first chapter of this particular thesis paper describes the back ground of donor assisted rural water supply in which general view of the core issues of the paper is discussed. It is followed by a statement of the problem, objectives, significance of the study and scope of the study. Chapter two presents a description of the study area, schemes and donors in the study area. The third chapter reviews literature pertinent to rural water supply effectiveness and sustainability. In chapter four, methods and materials; data collection, research design and sampling procedures and method of data analysis are presented. The fifth chapter presents the main findings and discussions. Chapter six presents conclusions on findings and recommendations. The last part chapter seven contains references.

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

2.1 General Ethiopia is the most populous land locked nation in the world located in the horn of Africa covering an area of 1.0 million km2. It is one of the poorest countries in the world with population of 90 million (CSA, 2014) making the second most populous in Africa. The nation’s economy is mainly dependent on rain fed agriculture. The country consists of nine regional states and 2 special city administrations. Amhara national regional state is one of the regions with the population of about 21 million. The region comprises 3 major river basins mainly Abay basin. Amhara region is also divided in to 10 zones of which Awi is one of 10 zones of Amhara regional national state.

2.2 Geographical location and demography The Awi zone is located in Amhara national regional state bordered by West Gojjam zone in east, North Gonder zone in north, Benishangul Gumuz regional state in west and Oromia regional state in southern. Geographically the administrative zone is positioned between latitudes of 10°38'-11°04' and longitude of 36°17'-37°16'. The zonal administrative capital, Injibara is found at about 112 km from regional capital Bahir dar and 452km North West of Addis Ababa. Awi zone is at an elevation range of 800-3100 meters above mean sea level. The area ranges from moist dega to kola agro climatic conditions. The map of study area is indicated in Figure 2.1 below (AZWRDD, 2015)

The population of Awi zone is about 1, 176,657 of which 90% are rural dwellers, and is growing at an estimated annual growth rate of over 1.98% (CSA, 2014). The scattered settlements and freely expansion are characteristics of the area. This has burdened and already inadequate infrastructure and caused social and economic problems associated with insufficient water supply. Deficiencies in water supply services have resulted in social unrest.

Banaja woreda is one of 8 rural woredas of Awi zone. It was named after significant mountain in the woreda mount Banja and it is bordered on the south by Ankesha woreda, on the west by Guangua,woreda on the north by Fagita woreda and on the west by the West Gojjam zone. Water bodies including Zengena Crater Lake, Zingini River, Ayu River, Gilgel Abay River are flowing throughout the year. Based on Figures published by CSA in 2014 this woreda has an estimated population of 93,709 of whom 47, 581 are women. Awigi (Agaw) and Amharic languages are spoken in the woreda. The majority of inhabitants practiced

Ethiopian orthodox Christianity with 99.87%. According to Banja woreda report document of 2014 the actual and access coverage of Banja woreda is 116.2 % and 72% respectively.

Ankesha woreda is one of 8 rural woredas of Awi zone. It is bordered on the south by West Gojjam,zone on the west by Guangua woreda, on the north by Banja woreda and on the west by the Guagussa shikudad woreda. Water bodies including Tirba Crater Lake, Kulanti River, Ayu River, Dandini River are flowing throughout the year. Based on Figures published by CSA in 2014 this woreda has an estimated population of 221,896 of whom 114,165 are women. Awigi (Agaw) and Amharic languages are spoken in the woreda. The majority of inhabitants practiced Ethiopian orthodox Christianity with 97.74%. According to Ankesha woreda water resources development office report document of 2014 the actual and access coverage of the woreda is 90 % and 71% respectively.

Guagussa shikudad woreda is one of 8 rural woredas of Awi zone. It is bordered on the south by West gojjam zone on the west by Ankesha woreda, on the north by Sekela woreda and on the west by the Burie woreda. Water bodies including Fetam River, Zingini River are flowing throughout the year. Based on Figures published by CSA in 2014 this woreda has an estimated population of 97,240 of whom 50, 509 are women. Awigi (Agaw) and Amharic languages are spoken in the woreda. The majority of inhabitants practiced Ethiopian orthodox Christianity with 99.74%. According to Guagussa woreda water resources development office report document of 2014 the actual and access coverage of the woreda is 85 % and 68% respectively.

Figure 2.1: Location map of the study area

2.3 Schemes In Amhara region there are 12242 functional 3009 nonfunctional hand dug wells (HDW) & developed springs (DSP) schemes. Functional schemes constitute about 76% of the total water supply schemes. The no functionality rate in the region was 24% (BoWRD, 2012). In rural areas of Awi zone water supply is provided with different methods depending on the water available, type of source, etc. Almost all schemes have been developed with financial support of donors, such as government of Finland named as Community managed project (CMP, World Bank, millennium development goals support. In the area there are about 2043 hand dug wells, 508 developed springs. 411 hand dug wells and 53 developed springs were nonfunctional in the study area (AZWRDD, 2015). Unprotected sources of water have been also used commonly for water supply for drinking, animals and other domestic purposes.

2.4 Donors in the study area The following donors have been involved in the study area supporting implementation of rural water supply schemes. Finish International Development Agency (FINNIDA) now named as Community Managed Project (CMP), World Bank, African Development Bank (ADB) donors. The majority of the study area has been aided by CMP and WB donors.

2.4.1 Community Managed Project (CMP)

FINNIDA (Finish International Development Agency), is implementing community managed approach in the financing, construction, long term maintenance of improved water points in the Amhara region of Ethiopia in general specifically in Awi zone Amkesha, Guagussa and Guanguwa woredas. The CMP financial approach is summarized in Figure 2.2 below. The sources of fund is from Finnish government. Funds are transferred to Amhara National Regional State Bureau of Finance and Economic Development (ANRS, BoFED). The funds are distributed to the woreda (administrative district) office of Finance and Economic Development Office for (1) capacity building training exercises (2) implantation, and (3) running costs and ACSI (Amhara Credit and Saving Institution) specifically for construction of new water supply projects.

In communities water and sanitation committee (WATSANCOs) are formed and responsible for entire development stage including planning and implementation and long term operation and maintenance of the water schemes. These committees apply to woreda water office for implementation of these low tech schemes includes construction of hand dug well (HDW) or

7 developed springs. The communities are required to finance at least 15% of implementation costs and contribute local labor and materials.

Figure 2.2: Funding mechanism and implementation of CMP (WSP, 2010) Community Managed Projects guide line steps

Step 1 Funds committed

Funding commitments are needed from government and its development partners. This requires an enabling environment with policies and guidelines in place for the CMP approach. With community managed project (CMP) approach, communities are responsible for the planning, implementation and maintenance of water schemes

Step 2 Financing channel established

CMP routes money directly to communities and requires an appropriate financing channel to be established. In most cases funds are routed through government’s finance bureau at regional level to Micro Finance Institutions (MFI) or Amhara Saving and Credit Institution (ACSI) in this case. With their extensive branch structure in all woredas these MFIs can quickly and efficiently transfer money to communities.

Step 3 Approach promoted

Communities need to be informed about CMP approach, the opportunities it provides and the responsibilities. Woreda water officers promote the approach and generate interest among the communities.

Step 4 Communities organize and plan Where communities are interested in developing a water scheme through a CMP approach they needed to organize themselves. The communities elect a water, sanitation and hygiene committee (WASHCo). Each WASHCo takes responsibility to develop a plan for their water scheme. In most cases the technology choice is a hand dug well and simple protected spring. With CMP approach the time needed for construction work is reduced.

Step 5 Training and private sector development

In parallel to the organization and planning of communities, training is organized for communities and local artisans. Support is given to develop local private sector enterprises and supply chains. This include well diggers, masons that line wells and build headworks or spring protection works, and suppliers of hand pumps and materials.

Step 6 Approval

The plan developed by the community is assessed at woreda level with an initial desk appraisal followed by a field visit and field appraisal. Any revisions needed to design are negotiated. After approval by woreda WaSH team, a funding agreement is signed and the funds can be released to the communities. In CMP approach, communities contribute a minimum of 15% in cash or kind, and the rest is transferred to a local WaSH committee through a micro finance institution.

Step 7 Community contribution

Communities are required to raise a cash contribution that is equivalent to one year’s maintenance costs of a hand pump (approximately 1000 ETB) which is then placed in a savings account at MFI. This cash contribution is not used for construction costs but provides and initial fund for operation and maintenance.

Step 8 Construction funds released

Funds are released to the community by ACSI instalments to a separate construction account. There are typically 3 instalments: first to start works second to procure a hand pump and third for purchase of remaining construction materials needed.

Step 9 Construction

Communities construct their own systems purchasing the materials and contracting the services that they require such as local artisans

Step 10 Completion

Once the water scheme is complete, a celebration and public audit are carried out focusing on transparency and accountability of WASHCo.

2.4.2 World Bank Water and Sanitation program

The World Bank water and sanitation program is a multi-donor partnership administered by the World Bank to support poor people in obtaining affordable, safe and sustainable access to water and sanitation services. The program has been harmonized with other donors and named as one WaSH since 2013. The WIF sets out the four guiding principles for the OWN Programme around with the government of Ethiopia and development partners have agreed to work. These are: (i) Integration; (ii) Harmonisation; (iii) Alignment and, (iv)partnership. OWN-P’s activities will stem from three overarching Pillars: 1) creating an enabling environment, 2) maximising availability and efficient use of human resources to create demand for better WaSH services and, 3) capacity development for improved delivery of WaSH services, Implementation, of OWN-P , through all 4 implementation mechanisms, will be in line with these principles and pillars and will entail working towards:

. One planning system – with linked strategic and annual WaSH plans at each level . One budgeting system – reflecting all WaSH-related investments and expenditures . One financial management system – with consolidated accounting and reports . One procurement system – with agreed common standards and procedures aligned to the government system . One information system – with essential data updated and accessible at each level . One monitoring & evaluation system – with common indicators and consolidated analysis

3 LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 Project effectiveness Effectiveness is, if the water service provides the intended population with the quantity and quality of water specified by their needs and the capability of the management organization is matched to the size and complexity of the system. The specific ways in which project effectiveness may be measured for the case study by comparing time spent hauling water before and after the infrastructure improvements and by the degree reduction in water rationing during the dry season (November – April). Some of variables influencing effectiveness are frequency of breakdowns in the system, time taken to repair the breakdown, seasonal variation in water supply, users’ satisfaction with water pressure and user’s perception on quality of water supplied.

3.2 Project sustainability Sustainability can be defined as meeting the need of present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Hodgkin, 1994). The concept of sustainability is used in many contexts and with widely different meanings. Some popular applications of concept of sustainability are global sustainability, environmental sustainability, sustainable agriculture, economic sustainability, sustainable development, and sustainable benefits, Sustainability of water supply and sanitation projects (Mihelcic et al. 2003) highlighted that sustainable development refers to the design of human and industrial systems to ensure that humankind’s use of natural resources and cycles do not lead to diminished quality of life due either to losses in future economic opportunities or to adverse impacts on social conditions, human health, and the environment.

3.3 Effectiveness and Sustainable rural water supply projects Before giving a definition of a sustainable rural water service, firstly two subjects related to sustainability must be discussed. This is in the first place the time-schedule of sustainability and in the second place the environmental aspect. The first distinction between several definitions referring to sustainability is the interpretation of the lifespan. If water supply is being looked at as a project, sustainability might be defined as the maintenance of an acceptable level of services throughout the design life of the water supply system (Travis,

1998). This means that the facilitator only implements a water system for 10 years or 20 years or whatever the designed life may be.

For the purpose of these research the definition of Brikke (2002) is used for defining sustainability of water supply and sanitation projects. This definition takes into account all aspects required for sustainable water system and makes the requirements already operational

A water and sanitation service is sustainable when: (Brikke', 2002)  It is functional and being used  It is able to deliver an appropriate level of benefits (quality, quantity, convenience, continuity, health) to all  It continues to function over a prolonged period of time  Its management is institutionalized  Its operation, maintenance, administrative and replacement costs are recovered at the local level  It can be operated and maintained at local level with limited but feasible external support  It does not affect the environment negatively

The definition doesn’t really go into the financial management required to recover costs. Since finances are often a problem in community-managed water systems, it is important to have a good understanding of this term. (Brikke', 2002) States that financial management is effective when managers are able to budget the revenues and expenditures over defined periods of time, collect user fees, keep financial information and records and control and monitor the financial performance of the enterprise.

In almost all literature about rural water supply you will encounter the term willingness to pay. It plays a key-role in sustainability and is often called a variable that can be influenced by certain project approaches. In fact, many of the approaches to strengthen sustainability are meant to strengthen the willingness to pay. Willingness to pay can be described as the decision taken under a situation of free choice to spend some of the available resources on a service or good. In general the willingness to pay is an expression of the willingness to contribute in cash, but also in kind. Willingness to pay can lead to a vicious circle of no financial capacity, no maintenance and a further declining willingness to pay. Figure 3.1 shows an interpretation from this vicious circle (the colored boxes) and aspects that might cause this circle based on literature (Fonseca, 2003). 12

Figure 3.1: Problems related to sustainability of rural water projects (Fonseca, 2003)

3.4 Project approach and sustainability

3.4.1 Context

It is assumed that the used project approach is an important clarifying variable towards the sustainability of a system. Besides this, external factors like poverty or education level might also give an explanation for the sustainability of a system. An important difference however is that the project approach can be used to strengthen the sustainability of a project, while external factors are given or more difficult to influence in a project.

3.4.2 Basic principles for a project approach

3.4.1.1 Appropriate technology

The quality of construction is crucial for sustainability (Travis, 1998) state that the choice of a technology is not the only factor determining sustainability, but that it can have a significant impact. The technology choice should not only be made based on the cheapest solution, but

13 also on the availability of spare parts and the costs of operation and maintenance. If local solutions and/or local materials are available, they are preferable since it will eliminate the problems with spare parts.

3.4.1.2 Participation

(Musch, 2001) Describes three dimensions of participation in water projects: decision making; execution; costs and benefits. Full participation consists not only of a contribution in cash and kind, but also of participation in the decision-making and the benefits. To facilitate all these dimensions of participation there are a lot of participatory methods available.

3.4.1.3 Training

Participation requires training on household- and committee level. At committee level the training should provide the needed competences to keep the system operational. (Rojas 2001) mentions that an assessment of the management capacity before a project starts is crucial. If capacity building activities appear to be too complex, it might prove necessary to choose for another technology. This also indicates the needed training to run the service efficiently. Training should provide committees with technical information about how to prevent major problems, to operate the water system and repair parts. Further the committee should receive the needed financial and managerial training, especially those skills related to budgets, organizing bills, collection, recording expenses and revenue, monitoring, and applying sanction (Brikké and Rojas, 2001). With regard to financial training of the committee Netshiswinzhe (2000) mentions a problem. Financial training of the water management committee has mainly focused on basic bookkeeping. The result is that committees don’t have the capacity to do financial planning, for example, to recalculate tariffs and deal with non-payment. Training should broaden the local level of financial management capacities instead of focusing on the individual.

3.4.1.4 Demand-driven approach

A demand-driven approach plans and designs a project taking the point of view and desire of communities as a starting point. It is effective when implemented in a participatory way (Brikke & Rojas, 2002). Implementation of a project with a demand-driven approach in a participatory way is wrongfully often called demand-responsiveness. The concept of demand,

14 the impact and implications of a demand-approach and what it takes to facilitate demand will be discussed in this sub-paragraph.

When Sara J. & Katz T. (2008) proved that there’s a significant correlation between the extent of demand-responsiveness and sustainability, they define demand-responsiveness as the allowance of consumer demand to guide key-investments. A project is less or more demand responding to the degree that users make choices and commit resources in support of these choices. This involves that users prioritize their needs; it links the willingness to pay with the level of service and allows the community to make informed decisions. In this view demand-responsiveness implies that community members have choices and understand the implications of these choices.

In summary a project that tries to respond to the demand of all the users is called a demand- driven project. This implies that users have choices and understand the implications of these choices. This approach appears to lead towards a more sustainable system Sara J. & Katz T. (2008).

3.4.1.5 Cost recovery

There are several points of view to what extent costs should be recovered at local level. This subparagraph will at first discuss what water is, why people should pay for it and what the link is with sustainability.

Economic good vs. basic need During the 1990s water and sanitation professionals reached a global consensus about the appropriate approach towards water projects. Where the traditional approach focused on the design and construction of rural water systems, the new approach focuses on water as an economic good. Approaching water, as an economic good, requires that there should be a careful look at the consumer demand. They state that someone values a service if he or she wants to give another valuable source for this service. From this point everybody should pay for water, just like they pay for other services they value.

Just like economists, environmentalists also encourage the vision to see water as an economic good, since this will encourage conservation and protection of water resources. Social scientists emphasize however that water is a basic need and fear the economic approach will threaten equality. Water professionals prefer to see drinking water both as a social and economic good. This involves that beneficiaries should not pay for the water but for the

15 service to provide safe water. Water is in this view rather a commodity than an economic good (Brikké and Rojas, 2001).

The concept and relevance of cost-recovery Netshiswinzhe (2000) concluded that most of the issues threatening sustainability are related to cost-recovery. To ensure prolonged sustainability there needs to be money for maintenance and replacement. This view assumes that these costs should be recovered by the community, or in other words that the community should pay for their water. Strasser (2000) summarized several reasons why people should pay for water. Sound arguments for payment are that it is impossible to provide everybody with water for free or to provide more people from water it is necessary that people pay for water. Further, providing some people for free whereas others don’t have access to water is dishonest or might enlarge inequality. In the context of sustainability it is said that payments increase a sense of value and commitment among users, which might affect the sustainability positively. Another argument is that subsidies discourage cost-effectiveness and the development of low-cost solutions. (Brikké and Rojas 2001) view it as a fact that the trend is that some costs should be recovered. The advantage of a discussion about how and what is that it forces the facilitator and the community to optimize costs, search for other funds, service efficiency, effective financial management and the setting of an appropriate tariff.

3.4.1.6 Support for O&M

Support O&M indicates the efferent of facilitator to provide assistance in planning, monitoring and execution of O&M. The first sub indicator for this is the existence of monitoring system which meant to monitor the performance of effectiveness and sustainability. The other ones are related to the fact whether the facilitator gives assistance planning, materials coaching and training.

Definitions of some terms

From the chosen definition Brikke (2002) three indicators for a sustainable water system appear: operation, maintenance and management. These indicators imply that

1. Facilities are operational and benefits all the users; this means that the facilities are (now and in the near future) technically in a good condition as well as the environment around the facilities, so that it always delivers a satisfying color, quantity and quality of water at an accepted distance to all the intended beneficiaries, so that they can benefit from a better health.

2. Facilities are maintained; this means that most of the spare parts, tools and means to keep the system operational are available in the community that capable and available caretakers know and fulfil their responsibilities, so that facilities are monitored and cleaned regularly and all (preventive) maintenance is carried out.

3. Finances are managed; this means that a capable and trusted water management committee has been elected by the community and is institutionalized, So that they can set an appropriate tariff system that covers administrative, operation, maintenance and replacement costs (based on the cost-sharing arrangements), so that fees are collected and finances accounted, managed and controlled, so that facilities continue to function over a prolonged period of time.

The definition also requires that the facilities will ‘continue to function’. This implies that that in operation, maintenance and management also future aspects are already taken into account. These aspects are for instance budgeting for future repairs, possibilities for extension and financial planning.

Strengthen the sustainability can be done by applying a certain project approach that enhances sustainability. The elements of a sustainable approach are summarized in six aspects. These aspects are each one of the indicators for the assessment of the sustainability of the different project approaches. Some basic principles for the implementation of a sustainable water project are:

1. Appropriate technology, which involves quality of design and construction and the possibilities to maintain the technology. 2. Participation, which involves the degree to which all community members contribute and are involved in execution, decision-making, costs and benefits.

3. Training, which involves awareness at household level and competences at committee level to keep the system operational.

Further there are some specific aspects of a project approach that can strengthen the sustainability further. Although all these aspects are also part of the mentioned aspects, they are focusing on very specific requirements.

4. Demand-driven approach, which involves specifically that part of the participation process concerning the providence of information and choices at household level in project design, which is aggregated into a choice at community level. 5. Cost-recovery, which refers to the extent to which all costs are part of a discussed cost-sharing strategy. 6. Support O&M, which involves the support of the facilitator after implementation in providing needed material, assistance, knowledge etcetera. 7. Operation, a system is operational when it is functional and provides appropriate benefit to all users 8. Maintenance, refers to management of the service that is needed to keep the system operational 9. Management, refers to management of financial management and institutional framework that is required to keep the facilities operational over prolonged time.

3.5 Project performance and sustainability

3.5.1 Operation

A system is operational when it is functional and provides appropriate benefits to all users. An appropriate benefit is for instance a good quality and quantity of water. Information about the condition of the facilities and environment is mainly obtained from observations and sanitary inspections (Joanne de, 2005)

3.5.2 Maintenance

Maintenance is the key to keep project system operational. This is in the first place the execution of activities like cleaning, monitoring and repairs. To make maintenance people

18 need to active to be responsible and organized and resources like knowledge, money, tools and spare parts needed. So project timely maintenance plays important critical role in sustainability. (Joanne de, 2005).

3.5.3 Management

Management refers to the financial management and institutional frame work that is required to keep facilities operational. It is assumed that for effective financial management the committee needs to calculate, plan, collect and account well but the community have also need to pay. The sustainable financial management in a given water point could assure the timely management of projects which assures the scheme sustainability (Joanne de, 2005).

3.6 Previous related studies globally The research carried out in Cameroon, West Africa entitled as “Sustainability of Rural Water Supply Systems: Assessment of gravity water systems implemented by Plan Cameroon in the Northwest Province of Cameroon” investigated the factors of sustainability for cases of two counties; Mbemi and Bamali water projects. The result showed that for Mbemi the demand response approach was 55.56% while 35.56% for Bamali projects. Participation was 65.63% and 59.38% for Mbemi and Bamali projects respectively. Support for O&M was also poor scored for two project sites as 14.58% and 14.17% for Mbemi and Bamali respectively (table 3.1).

Table 3.1: Plan Cameroon case study results of sustainability (Joanne de, 2005)

No Indicators (%) Plan Cameroon projects Mbemi Bamali 1 Technology related 43.75 48.96 2 Participation 65.63 59.38 3 Training 49.48 47.92 4 Demand driven approach 55.56 35.56 5 Cost recovery 29.17 33.33 6 Support O&M 14.58 14.17 7 Operation 59.26 46.15 8 Maintenance 39.58 18.75 9 Management 58.33 40.48

The results indicated that the sustainability of Mbemi water projects were more sustainable than projects in Bamali because of the Plan Cameroon implementation experience was advanced (Joanne, 2005).

3.7 Previous studies in the area Previously, there was no study found on the sustainability of rural water supply in the study area. But there are studies at vicinity woredas such as Demeke, (2006) examined “Determinants of household participation in water source management in Achefer woreda, Amhara Region, Ethiopia”. The study examined socio economic, institutional and exogenous factors which affect household’s participation in management of water projects. It was found that house hold demand for sustainable water services are positively affected by users’ participation during project design and implementation, advocacy provided by the project and greater house hold income (Demeke, 2006). Awoke, (2012) investigate “Assessment of challenges of sustainable rural water supply: Quarit woreda, Amhara Region, Ethiopia.” The study investigated the level of community participation in project sustainability and nature of institutional support after project completion. The finding of the study is the difference in functional and nonfunctional water service was involvement of local leaders. The more local leaders’ involvement, also functionality improved (Awoke, 2012). Selamawit, (2007) studied “Evaluation of technical sustainability of rural water supply projects in Amhara: Case study in South Wollo zone.” The study elicited the technical problems of projects related to design and construction evaluation as the nonfunctional rate of 22% (Selam, 2007).

4 MATERIALS AND METHODS

This part of thesis work included both desk and field investigation for the gathering of important data in order to achieve the research objectives. The desk work was carrying out the essential literature review on effectiveness and sustainability problems of rural water supply projects. The data collection included topographic maps, water resource potential, planning, site identification, detail study, design, construction materials, construction supervision and maintenance data of selected projects.

The field data collection included observing the structure, confirmation of secondary data collected at the desk work, data from questionnaires and discussions. The data sources were Amhara region water resource bureau, Awi zone water resources development department, woreda water development offices, CSA, donors such as CMP& WB, committees of the water points, discussion and interviews with beneficiary households.

4.1 Research design

The scheme out line or plan that is used to generate answers to research problems is research design. This study employed descriptive survey. According to Churchill K. (1991) descriptive study is appropriate where the study seeks to describe the characteristics of certain groups, estimate the proportion of people who have certain characteristics and make predictions. Orodho, (2004) notes that the choice of the descriptive survey research design is made based on the fact that in the study, the research is interested on the state of affairs already existing in the field and no variable would be manipulated.

This choice for descriptive design in this study was based on the fact that this study sought to identify the factors that influence effectiveness and sustainability of donor assisted rural community based water projects in Awi zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia. Three woredas (Ankesha, Banja and Gugussa shikudad) formerly supported with CMP and World Bank were selected purposively based on the large good experiences of CMP and WB and existence of non CMP and WB projects. This projects were initiated at different approaches.

4.2 Target population

The study population constituted inhabitants of the three woredas of Awi zone; Ankesha guagussa, Banja and Guagusssa shikudad woredas. The study also involved the parties during

21 the project implementation; the water committees, supervisors, donors and government bodies. The population of Awi zone were 1,176,657 of which the three woredas selected for this study account 412, 846 (CSA, 2014). The study focused on 25 hand dug well and developed spring projects.

4.3 Sampling procedures

Woreda and water point selection criteria

Awi zone consists of 8 woredas namely Dangila, Banja, Fagita lekoma, Jawi, Guanguwa, Zigem, Ankesha and Guwagussa shikudad woredas. However Ankesha, Banja and Guagussa shikudad woredas were selected using purposive sampling method. The sample woredas were selected purposely based on the following criteria:

1. Population: the three woredas consist almost half the population of the study area (Awi zone) 2. The donor assistance: donors such as CMP and World Bank financed largely in these woredas. 3. The completion time: The schemes constructed in 2012 were selected in sampling for effectiveness and sustainability evaluation

The sample water projects were randomly selected from the above sample woredas assisted with CMP (Ankesha and Guagussa woredas) and Banja woreda from World Bank. 25 water points both hand dug well and developed springs were selected (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Selected sample sites

No. Sample project Woreda Gott Donor Project type 1 Yimali-1 Ankesha Yimali CMP HDW 2 Awosa 02 Ankesha Buya CMP DSP 3 Berie Ankesha Sostu Tirba CMP DSP 4 Buya center Ankesha Awussa CMP HDW 5 Awosa 01 Ankesha Buya CMP HDW 6 Dekuna Ankesha Dekuna Dereb CMP DSP 7 Gurji Ankesha Tirba CMP HDW 8 Tsatsafi Banja Bata WB HDW 9 Kesmender Banja Chewsa WB HDW

No. Sample project Woreda Gott Donor Project type 10 Amberasta Guagusa Amber CMP DSP 11 Azmach Guagusa Azmer CMP HDW 12 Chaba Banja Chaba WB HDW 13 Asayta Guagusa Asyta CMP HDW 14 Akyta Banja Akyta WB DSP 15 Zingini Banja Zingini WB HDW 16 Yardesta Ankesha Tulta CMP HDW 17 Chibachbasa Ankesha Chibach basa CMP HDW 18 Gashena Banja Gashena WB DSP 19 Abo Banja Abo WB DSP 20 Bida school Banja Bida WB HDW 21 Erob gebya Guagusa Erobi CMP HDW 22 Agomado Guagusa Aguamd CMP DSP 23 Zufari Banja Zufari WB DSP 24 Chewassa Banja Chewsa WB HDW 25 Brayta Guagusa Zeresa CMP DSP

Sample Size

Three wordas having the total population of 412, 846 (CSA, 2014) were chosen where the water point chosen and taken as woreda based samples. This study intended to collect data from communities residing in the selected woredas and specifically around the water projects. A mix of both probability and non-probability sampling methods was combined to achieve maximum reliable responses for triangulation of themes.

A sample from households was collected because a household was taken in this study as an appropriate unit providing reliable information regarding the objectives of the study. (Van Dalen 1979) lists three factors to determine the size of an adequate sample are (1) the nature of the population, (2) the type of investigation, and (3) and degree of precision desired. The formula for estimating the sample size and a table for determining the sample size based on confidence level needed from a given population for this study was based on (Krejcie and Morgan 1970) as indicated below in Equation (1)

푋2 푁푃 (1−푃) 푆 = (1) 푑2 (N−1)+푋2 P(1−P) where: S is required sample size, N is the total number of population in three woredas, P is expected portion of people who are expected to have participated in interview (since this is unknown, a 50% value was chosen as this yields maximum sample size), d is confidence interval (±10%) and X is standard variate from a normal distribution (at 95% confidence level, X=1.96)

According to the above formula the sample size obtained was 384. And the average family size was 4.8 (CSA, 2014) then dividing sample to family size giving a minimum of 80 HH interviewed.

Sampling procedures

The study used a combination of both probability and non-probability sampling techniques. The probability sampling techniques included cluster sampling procedure, simple random sampling and systematic sampling procedure. To collect data cluster sampling was applied where the settlements were not evenly distributed but settled in clustered households near the water projects. To start with, sample random sampling was applied within the clusters to randomly choose the first house hold for managing the questionnaires. Once the first household was randomly identified, systematic sampling procedure was used to collect data through questionnaires in the subsequent households within the cluster. The systematic procedure was continually applied where the settlements exist in some linear order.

4.4 Data collection

The first data obtained was the general projects and community characteristics. This study used the combination of both quantitative and qualitative research methods a pre-tested structured questionnaire was used to collect surveys. The questionnaire had covered information on the following important issues which were crucial for sustainability of the water projects including (i) socio economic characteristics of the respondents, (ii) demand responsiveness and sustainability factors of the services, (iii) type of participation of beneficiaries, (iv) issues of cost sharing and recovery, (v) community training and awareness creation, for the service provided, (vi) physical condition of the water supply points under study, (iiv) willingness of the beneficiaries to sustain the system, and (viii) repair and maintenance issues for the water supply services.

A field observation using a structured checklist was done in 25 sample water points focusing on physical condition of the scheme, level of protection, construction quality and protection mechanisms. A focus group discussion was conducted with water committee members, woreda water staffs, community leaders and cultural association leaders to collect qualitative data using a structured questionnaire guide and note taking (Annex A)

Secondary data also collected from concerning water resources development offices focusing on planning, water resource potential or discharge of the source, site identification criteria, detail study, design, construction supervision documents as well as maintenance aspects. Additional data was taken from donors’ reports.

4.5 Methods for measurement of effectiveness and sustainability

The UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program (1999) developed frame works which focuses on measurement of effectiveness and sustainability indicators of rural water supply at community level. The indicators capture the key aspects of effectiveness and sustainability: the usage and performance of the infra structure (technical), the effectiveness of village level institutions (institutional), adequacy in cost recovery (financial) and participation (social). The frameworks are; project approach frame work & project performance framework. The recorded scores were analyzed using numXL 1.6 (the excel adins based model) and effectiveness and sustainability index was developed for each sample water point.

4.5.1 Framework of project approach

The project approach indicators aimed at indicating to what extent the project approach used by donor enhance sustainability. The indicators were based on the several theories that were divided in several sub-indicators and sub-sub-indicators. The indicators are demand-driven approach, participation, training, technology, cost-recovery, and support operation &management.

4.5.2 Project performance framework

The performance of a project was the indicator of effectiveness and sustainability of a system after implementation. This framework was used to measure post project implementation contributing factors ranging from poor to excellent performance. The indicators considered includes were operation, maintenance and management.

4.5.3 Scoring guidelines

Both project approach and performance frame works of indicators were divided into indicators, sub indicators and sub sub indicators. Information obtained from different sources such as site investigations, interviews, questionnaires were used to fill different sub sub indicators. These indicators were formulated in a way that the presence and working out of this was supposed to have a positive effect on effectiveness and sustainability of the projects. Six indicators, twenty four sub indicators and seventy seven sub sub indicators for project approach framework were considered. In addition three indicators twenty three sub indicators and sixty five sub sub indicators for project performance framework were used for detail scoring (Annex B).

Because of the community opinion was subjective a five point scale was used. The final result was scored with index because of index easy to understand the results. And towards every sub sub indicator scored between 0.00 and 1.00 (Table 4.2). The weighted average score of sub sub indicators together formed the score of sub indicator and the sub indictors formed weighted average as score of each indicators. The final value of effectiveness and sustainability was interpreted according to UNDP-WaSH interpretations (table 4.3).

Table 4.2: Classification of sub sub indicators (UNDP-WaSH, 1999)

Score Classification Meaning 0.00 Very bad Element is absent or very bad 0.25 Bad Element is there but executed or perceived badly 0.50 Average Element is average, not good nor bad 0.75 Good Element is good but improvements can still be made 1.00 Very good Element is worked out and/or perceived very well

Table 4.3: Indicator grading for range of classification based on UNDP-WaSH Program interpretation. (UNDP-WaSH, 1999)

Classification Grading of the indicator and sub indicator results 0.00-0.25 Unsustainable scheme because of poor approach and performance 0.25-0.50 Elements of sustainability, but not enough 0.50-0.75 Quite many elements of sustainability, but improvements can still be made 0.75-1.00 Sustainable scheme because of excellent project approach & performance

4.5.4 Numerical Analysis for Excel software

Numerical Analysis for Excel (NumXL) is a time series analysis add-in for Microsoft excel developed by (Spider, 2014). NumXL provides a wide variety of statistical and time series analysis techniques, including linear and nonlinear time series modeling, statistical tests and others. Principal component analysis (PCA) within numerical analysis for excel (numXL) was used to standardize the data based up on the most meaning full parameters in the entire of data set with minimum loss of original information for each sample water points.

Computation of PCA

Given a data matrix with p variables and n samples, the data are first centered on the means of each variable. This will insure that the cloud of data set is centered on the origin of our principal components, but does not affect the spatial relationships of the data nor the variances along our variables. The first principal components (Y1) is given by the linear combination of the variables X1, X2, …, Xp

푌₁ = 푎₁₁푋₁ + 푎₁₂푋₂ + ⋯ + 푎₁푝푋푝

Or, in a matrix notation

푌₁ = 푎₁푇푋

The first principal component is calculated such that it accounts for the greatest possible variance in the data set. Of course, one could make the variance of Y1 as large as possible by choosing large values for weights α11, α12, …, α1p. To prevent this, weights are calculated with the constraint that their sum of squares is 1.

푎²₁₁ + 푎²₁₂ + … + 푎²₁푝 = 1

The second principal component is calculated in the same way, with the condition that it is uncorrelated with (i.e perpendicular to) the first principal component and that it accounts for the next highest variance.

푌 = 푎₂₁푋 + 푎₂₂푋 + 푎₂푝푋푝

This continues until a total of p principal components have been calculated, equal to the original number of variables. At this point, the sum of variance of all of the principal components will equal the sum of the variances of all of the variables, that is, all of the original information has been explained or accounted for. Collectively, all of these transformations of the original variables to the principal components is

푌 = 퐴푋

Calculating these transformations or weights requires a computer in this case NumXL 1.6 model for all but the smallest matrices. The row of matrix A are called the eigenvectors of a matrix, the variance covariance matrix of the original data. The elements of an eigenvectors are the weights aij, and are also known as loadings. The elements in the diagonal matrix the variance covariance matrix of the principal components, are known as the eigenvalues (Steven, 2008)

4.5.5 Multiple linear regression Model

Multiple linear regression attempts to model the relationship between two or more explanatory variables and a response variable by fitting a linear equation (2) to observed data. Every value of the independent variable X is associated with a value of the dependent variable Y. The relation between the dependent variable (effectiveness and sustainability) and independent variables (factors) was related and has been used for creating index of each water points and future predictions. Data analysis of multiple linear regression was used in Excel 2013 (Fox, 1997)

푌 = 훽 + 훽₁푋₁ + 훽₂푋₂ + 훽₃푋₃ + 훽₄푋₄ + 훽₅푋₅ + 훽₆푋₆ + 훽₇푋₇ + 훽₈푋₈ + 훽₉푋₉ + 휺 (2)

Where Y= Effectiveness and sustainability index of sample projects

β= intercept, β1, β2, β3, β4, β5, β6, β7, β8 & β9 =coefficients of factors, =residual value

X1, X2,…, X9

X1= demand approach, X2= Participation, X3= Training, X4= Technology, X5= Cost recovery,

X6= Support O&M, X7= Operation, X8= Maintenance X9=Management

4.5.6 Spatial mapping in Arc GIS 10.1

Spatial mapping was done using spatial analysis technique in Arc GIS 10.1. A very basic problem in spatial analysis is interpolating spatially continuous variables from point samples. Three commonly used interpolation methods to model spatially distribution from point data are Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW), spline and ordinary kriging.

The IDW is simple and intuitive deterministic interpolation method based on principle that sample values closer to prediction location have more influence on prediction value than sample values farther apart. Using higher power assigns more weight to closer points resulting in less smoother surface. Major disadvantage of IDW is “bull’s eye” effect (higher values near observed locations and edgy surface. Spline is deterministic interpolation method which fits mathematical function through input data to create smooth surface. It works best for gently varying surface like temperature. Unlike IDW and spline kriging is method based on spatial auto correlation. It uses semivariogarm that captures the spatial dependence between samples by plotting semi variance against separation distances. The premise of any spatial interpolation is that close samples tend to be more similar than distant samples. The main advantage of kriging interpolation is exceeds the minimum and maximum point values to interpolate.

4.6 Data Analysis

The data collected using the questionnaires, interviews, discussions and field investigation on sites were scored using the project approach and project performance frameworks for pre project and post project implementation conditions respectively. The recorded scores of indicators were standardized and analyzed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) in numXL 1.6 version. Spatial map was prepared using Arc GIS 10.1 with kriging method of interpolation.

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

5.1 Characteristics of respondents About 46% of the respondents interviewed were men and 54% were women. This was intentionally made to incorporate the responsibility of women is higher than men in water related issues. The age of respondents interviewed ranged from 22 to 74 years with an average of 48 years. Table 5.1 below describes education level of the respondents in the study area. The majority of respondents’ household compositions (67.8%) was not educated meaning they could not write or read or did not attend formal education. About 1.2% of the composition can write and read without having formal education in schools. The remaining 30% included those attending or interrupted education at primary, high school, preparatory or college level.

Table 5.1: Education level of respondents

Education level Percentage (n* = 384) Write and read /non formal education/ 1.2 Primary 16.2 High school 8.3 Preparatory 5.8 College 0.7 Not educated 67.8 *n = the total indicates number of respondents

5.2 Result of effectiveness and sustainability index Effectiveness and sustainability indicators were developed from interviews from community, technical woreda water office staffs and WASHCo committees at community administrative level.

5.2.1 Water projects approach and performance framework scores

The effectiveness and sustainability of rural water supply projects depends on the pre project and post project activities. Project approach activities were scored with water supply project approach frame work formulated by UNDP-WaSH program.

Project effectiveness and sustainability indicators such as demand driven approach, participation, training, technology, cost recovery, and support O&M, operation, maintenance and management were focused as the main factors of the analysis. The sub sub indicators were scored from 0.00 (poor) to 1.00 (excellent) and scores of indicators formed (Table 5.2 & 5.3).

Table 5.2: Project approach framework effectiveness and sustainability factor scores

No Sample name Code Demand approach Participation Training Technology Cost recovery Support O&M score Score (PA) score (TR) score (TC) score (CR) score (SP) (DR) 1 Yimali-1 HDW 0.70 0.77 0.67 0.55 0.44 0.27 2 Awosa 02 DSP 0.65 0.74 0.62 0.5 0.41 0.22 3 Berie DSP 0.75 0.79 0.67 0.49 0.2 0.21 4 Buya center HDW 0.65 0.7 0.59 0.44 0.4 0.25 5 Awosa 01 HDW 0.62 0.71 0.57 0.47 0.38 0.2 6 Dekuna DSP 0.71 0.74 0.67 0.46 0.12 0.22 7 Gurji HDW 0.55 0.65 0.51 0.44 0.39 0.18 8 Tsatsafi HDW 0.66 0.64 0.57 0.46 0.23 0.14 9 Kesmender HDW 0.57 0.68 0.52 0.41 0.35 0.15 10 Amberasta DSP 0.54 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.33 0.2 11 Azmach HDW 0.66 0.69 0.44 0.33 0.11 0.13 12 Chaba HDW 0.61 0.64 0.31 0.32 0.25 0.13 13 Asayta HDW 0.47 0.46 0.42 0.44 0.2 0.11 14 Akyta DSP 0.55 0.56 0.28 0.29 0.19 0.17 15 Zingini HDW 0.55 0.58 0.46 0.22 0.10 0.07 16 Yardesta HDW 0.44 0.47 0.39 0.30 0.08 0.09 17 Chibachbasa HDW 0.33 0.34 0.55 0.32 0.10 0.09

No Sample name Code Demand approach Participation Training Technology Cost recovery Support O&M score Score (PA) score (TR) score (TC) score (CR) score (SP) (DR) 18 Gashena DSP 0.46 0.36 0.27 0.21 0.17 0.15 19 Abo DSP 0.46 0.32 0.21 0.15 0.21 0.10 20 Bida school HDW 0.33 0.34 0.20 0.18 0.10 0.15 21 Erob gebya HDW 0.33 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.11 0.08 22 Agomado DSP 0.32 0.22 0.28 0.11 0.05 0.03 23 Zufari DSP 0.29 0.27 0.10 0.13 0.07 0.08 24 chewassa HDW 0.28 0.22 0.15 0.15 0.06 0.05 25 Brayta DSP 0.18 0.11 0.19 0.09 0.01 0.01

Table 5.3: Project performance framework effectiveness and sustainability factors score

No Sample site name Code Operation Maintenance Management score (OP) score (MT) score (MG) 1 Yimali-1 HDW 0.70 0.66 0.47 2 Awosa 02 DSP 0.67 0.60 0.45 3 Berie DSP 0.68 0.55 0.39 4 Buya center HDW 0.68 0.54 0.39 5 Awosa 01 HDW 0.66 0.54 0.38 6 Dekuna DSP 0.65 0.53 0.34 7 Gurji HDW 0.71 0.50 0.36 8 Tsatsafi HDW 0.67 0.44 0.33 9 Kesmender HDW 0.60 0.42 0.35 10 Amberasta DSP 0.62 0.39 0.31 11 Azmach HDW 0.55 0.35 0.29 12 Chaba HDW 0.57 0.39 0.30 13 Asayta HDW 0.56 0.38 0.31 14 Akyta DSP 0.50 0.35 0.30 15 Zingini HDW 0.50 0.33 0.29 16 Yardesta HDW 0.49 0.32 0.28 17 Chibach basa HDW 0.47 0.27 0.27 18 Gashena DSP 0.45 0.25 0.27 19 Abo DSP 0.44 0.24 0.25 20 Bida school HDW 0.43 0.21 0.26 21 Erob gebya HDW 0.41 0.23 0.25 22 Agomado DSP 0.41 0.24 0.25 23 Zufari DSP 0.29 0.22 0.24 24 Chewassa HDW 0.29 0.21 0.23 25 Brayta DSP 0.27 0.20 0.22

5.2.2 Creating effectiveness and sustainability index

The data taken from questionnaires, interviews, discussions and field investigation were scored, standardized and analyzed using numXL 1.6 software Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and formed fitted values (Table 5.4).

Table 5.4: PCA standardized and fitted scored data

No. samples DR* PA TR TC CR SP OP MT MG 1 Yimali-1 0.69 0.79 0.68 0.56 0.48 0.26 0.75 0.62 0.44 2 Awosa 02 0.64 0.72 0.64 0.52 0.43 0.23 0.71 0.58 0.42 3 Berie 0.75 0.82 0.68 0.50 0.24 0.20 0.70 0.53 0.37 4 Buya center 0.65 0.72 0.55 0.47 0.40 0.23 0.68 0.54 0.40 5 Awosa 01 0.62 0.69 0.58 0.47 0.37 0.21 0.66 0.52 0.39 6 Dekuna 0.74 0.79 0.65 0.46 0.17 0.18 0.67 0.49 0.35 7 Gurji 0.57 0.63 0.54 0.44 0.37 0.20 0.63 0.50 0.38 8 Tsatsafi 0.63 0.67 0.60 0.43 0.20 0.16 0.63 0.46 0.34 9 Kesmender 0.56 0.60 0.51 0.41 0.30 0.18 0.61 0.46 0.36 10 Amberasta 0.56 0.60 0.51 0.40 0.29 0.17 0.60 0.45 0.35 11 Azmach 0.66 0.66 0.44 0.32 0.09 0.14 0.56 0.37 0.29 12 Chaba 0.60 0.60 0.35 0.30 0.21 0.17 0.55 0.38 0.31 13 Asayta 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.35 0.20 0.12 0.54 0.39 0.32 14 Akyta 0.56 0.55 0.30 0.27 0.21 0.16 0.51 0.34 0.30 15 Zingini 0.53 0.52 0.43 0.29 0.07 0.10 0.51 0.33 0.27 16 Yardesta 0.46 0.45 0.42 0.28 0.09 0.09 0.48 0.32 0.28 17 Chibach basa 0.35 0.34 0.50 0.31 0.10 0.06 0.47 0.32 0.28 18 Gashena 0.45 0.42 0.23 0.21 0.18 0.13 0.45 0.29 0.27 19 Abo 0.41 0.37 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.12 0.41 0.26 0.26 20 Bida school 0.39 0.35 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.10 0.41 0.25 0.26 21 Erob gebya 0.33 0.28 0.24 0.18 0.12 0.08 0.39 0.24 0.25 22 Agomado 0.30 0.25 0.28 0.18 0.05 0.05 0.37 0.22 0.24 23 Zufari 0.31 0.24 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.07 0.34 0.18 0.23 24 Chewassa 0.28 0.21 0.17 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.34 0.18 0.22 25 Brayta 0.17 0.10 0.20 0.11 0.02 0.01 0.30 0.15 0.21

DR*= Demand approach, PA= Participation, TR= Training, TC= Technology CR= Cost recovery SP= Support O&M, OP= operation, MT= maintenance, MG= Management

Nine factors were identified as factors of effectiveness and sustainability of donor assisted rural water supply projects in the study area. The multiple linear regression model developed with data (Table 5.4). The P value in the result was less than 0.05 for factor participation in analysis and indicated that it was most critical factor. (Annex C) attempted to predict the effects using the following Equation (3). Multiple linear regression with a fitted line was expressed using the linear equation:

푌 = 0.063 − 0.219푋1 + 0.384푋2 + 0.145푋3 − 0.062푋4 + 0.069푋5 + 0.236푋6 + 0.173푋7 + 0.235푋8 − 0.132푋9 (3)

The coefficients (β1, β2…β9) in the equation (2) was also calculated using matrix method and resulted the same E&S index values with equation (3) above. (Steven, 2008)

푌₁ 푋₁₁ 푋₁₂ … 푋₁₉ 훽₁ 푌₂ 푋₂₁ 푋₂₂ … 푋₂₉ 훽₂ ( ) = ( ) 푋 ( ) ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ … ⋮ ⋮ 푌₂₅ 푋₂₅₁ 푋₂₅₂ … 푋₂₅₉ 훽₉

Y₁, Y₁, Y₃…Y₂₅ are E&S index values, X₁₁,…, X₂₅₉ are values of table (5.4)

Using the matrix 푌 = 푋ℎ

The coefficients (h), β1, β2… β9, calculated as

h = (푋푇푋)−1 ∗ (푋푇푌) (4)

The following coefficient values were obtained β1, β2,…, β9= -0.123, 0.273, 0.158, -0.120, 0.051, 0.226, 0.281, 0.159& 0.065 respectively. The equation developed as

푌 = −0.123푋₁ + 0.273푋₂ + 0.158푋₃ − 1.20푋₄ + 0.051푋₅ + 0.226푋₆ + 0.281푋₇ + 0.159푋₈ + 0.065푋₉ (5)

The parameters X₁, X₂, …, X₉ are the same described in equation (2) above

The effectiveness and sustainability index (Table 5.5) of each water supply sample was developed from fitted and standardized data (Table 5.4) with multiple linear regression Equation (3) or equation (5) developed with matrix method. The same result of E&S were obtained in equations (3&5). The samples effectiveness and sustainability was also mapped

37 with Arc GIS 10.1 with kriging method of interpolation (Figure 5.1). The result of index rank showing the effectiveness of the project during completion and effectiveness over time is sustainability. The index was converted to percentage for easily understanding.

Table 5.5: Effectiveness and sustainability ranking of samples

No. Sample name Code Effectiveness and Effectiveness and sustainability index sustainability index (%) 1 Yimali-1 HDW 0.59 59 2 Awosa 02 DSP 0.55 55 3 Berie DSP 0.54 54 4 Buya center HDW 0.52 52 5 Awosa 01 HDW 0.51 51 6 Dekuna DSP 0.51 51 7 Gurji HDW 0.48 48 8 Tsatsafi HDW 0.47 47 9 Kesmender HDW 0.45 45 10 Amberasta DSP 0.44 44 11 Azmach HDW 0.40 40 12 Chaba HDW 0.39 39 13 Asayta HDW 0.38 38 14 Akyta DSP 0.36 36 15 Zingini HDW 0.35 35 16 Yardesta HDW 0.33 33 17 Chibach basa HDW 0.31 31 18 Gashena DSP 0.30 30 19 Abo DSP 0.27 27 20 Bida school HDW 0.26 26 21 Erob gebya HDW 0.24 24 22 Agomado DSP 0.22 22 23 Zufari DSP 0.19 19 24 Chewassa HDW 0.19 19 25 Brayta DSP 0.15 15

Figure 5.1: Spatial Map of effectiveness and sustainability index values

5.3 Water supply projects Effectiveness and sustainability From the index values (Table 5.5) of the effectiveness and sustainability the highest index was recorded 0.59 for Yimali HDW. According to scores interpretation (Table 4.3) the high index values lied between 0.50 and 0.75 and was interpreted as “Quite many elements of sustainability, but improvements can still be made” and a sample scheme with smallest index value that was 0.15 for Brayta DSP lied between 0.00 and 0.25 so could be interpreted as poor sustainable scheme.

The results of the project approach and performance are summarized in Figure 5.2. Two aspects of project approach; these were demand approach and participation outperformed better than other indicators based on effectiveness and sustainability index. From project performance analysis only operation indicator had better index result. Cost recovery and donors support for O&M were almost absent. Most of other aspects were contributed for poor sustainability. So sustainability was not considerable aspect of many water projects in the study area. For every indicator the score is discussed as follows.

1. Demand driven approach

The sub indicators (Annex B) of these factor tried to investigate the sources of project initiation, priority among other infrastructures. From the results the projects were considerably driven by communities. This showed that the community already started the project by their initiation. CMP with 59% had relatively better contribution for community initiation than World Bank with 43% (Figure 5.6). From sub indicators record, the support for committee development was also had great contribution for demand driving project starts. The donors’ contribution for demand driven approach was only 51% (Figure 5.2) that could indicate this indicator as main factor for project effectiveness then later sustainability problems.

2. Participation

As indicated in indicator results the involvement of the communities on empowerment in supervision and monitoring, contracting and supplying, contribution in cash and materials were recorded as average. Even though participation played pioneer role for effective and sustainable it was 51% (Figure 5.2) because of this the community was not empowered to execute the projects by themselves, the participation in the project implementation was not the highest. The community had willing to contribute towards the project, which had positive

40 influence on effective and sustainable project. Even though community had fewer attitude towards their individual contribution of participation, the donors informed about the projects.

0.60

0.50

0.40

1.00) -

0.30

0.20 Index (0.00 Index score

0.10

0.00 DR PA TR TC CR SP OP MT MG E & S score 0.51 0.51 0.42 0.32 0.20 0.14 0.53 0.31 0.37 (index) Effctiveness and sustainability Indicators

Figure 5.2: Effectiveness and sustainability factors of the study area

3. Training

Training was main indicator of pre project approach. In the study area the training given to the beneficiaries was below the average 42% (Figure 5.2) this was including training household levels and committee level in O&M activities, O&M costs.

4. Technology

Here technology referred about guidelines for site identification, feasibility study, design, construction quality control, expertise, spare parts. Though donors tried to control the quality of the infrastructures officially with woreda water office experts, the guide lines were difficult especially for hand dug wells. The feasibility study and design was fixed by regional water bureau and not flexible with their specific sites. The analyzed result showed 32%

(Figure 5.2) which technology was contributing for effectiveness and sustainability of projects.

5. Cost recovery

As cost recovery refers the extent of covering all the cost of the project; project costs, O&M costs, extension costs, rehabilitation costs and other costs. It played a very important role in project sustainability. The cost recovery in the study area was 20% (Figure 5.2) which was very poor. So the sustainability of project was influenced by this indicator.

6. Support O&M

The monitoring, action planning, assistance, providence of materials such as spare parts & O&M tools, coaching. From the analysis result it was indicated as 14% (Figure 5.2). It was almost none in spite of its contribution to project sustainability.

7. Operation

This indicator as a factor was including technical state of a scheme and its whole accessories, environment, quality & quantity of water, distance from the source point, seasonal continuity and access condition. From the result (Figure 5.2) it was indicated that the operation was above average than other factors (53%).

8. Maintenance

Maintenance activities started from cleaning activities included capability of care takers, tools & spare parts shop available care takers, money available for maintenance, timely maintenance done, regular monitoring and repairs. There was poor or no maintenance timely activities (Figure 5.3). The recorded result also indicated as 31% (Figure 5.2).

Figure 5.3: Developed spring without maintenance (Photo by researcher, November, 2015)

9. Management

The biggest problem with project sustainability was lack of management. The awareness among users to sustain the projects was below average (37%) (Figure 5.2).

Figure 5.4: Physical protection status of schemes in the study area (Photo by the researcher, November, 2015)

The sustainability of water supply point was higher in those fenced water points with adequate doors and keys. All failures in physical protection was indicator of poor management for sustainability. Poor physical protection allowed illegal entrance (Figure 5.4)

5.4 CMP assisted projects The community managed project approach guide line was oriented with the beneficiaries themselves so the activities were clear before and after implementation. The problem in the study area was implementation efficiency during practical applications. The indicators recorded was below the average for technology, cost recovery, support for operation and maintenance, maintenance, and Management (Figure 5.5).The reason for better result was fund availability for spare parts. CMP has revolving fund collected from community and the woreda economic and finance office bought spare parts with woreda water office technical assistance.

0.70 0.60

0.50 1.00) - 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10

Index (0.00 Index score 0.00 DR PA TR TC CR SP OP MT MG Index 0.59 0.64 0.56 0.43 0.26 0.18 0.62 0.47 0.35 value Effectiveness and sustainability

Figure 5.5: CMP Projects Effectiveness and sustainability level

5.5 World Bank Assisted Water projects In the study area the project initiation was demand driven theoretically by WB guidelines, practically it was below the average (43%). The community participation was also 40% contributing for overall failures of the schemes. All the factors identified in this thesis work including training, cost recovery were below the expected, support for operation and maintenance, operation, maintenance and management were below the average value (Figure 5.6)

0.50 0.45 0.40

0.35 1.00) - 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15

0.10 Index (0.00 Index score 0.05 0.00 DR PA TR TC CR SP OP MT MG index values 0.43 0.40 0.29 0.22 0.15 0.10 0.45 0.29 0.27

Effectiveness and sustainability indicators

Figure 5.6: World Bank projects effectiveness and sustainability level

5.6 CMP&WB projects effectiveness and sustainability Comparison Theoretically a community managed project was after all more participatory, since these projects were initiated, planned, managed, monitored and evaluated by community members. Comparing these objectives with the hypothesis that a higher degree of participation leads to a more effective and sustainable projects, it seemed logical that CMP approach had a positive influence on sustainability. As indicated from data analysis result (Figure 5.7) CMP projects were more effective and sustainable projects than projects supported by World Bank. The community ownership sense for CMP was confidentially contributed better results. In CMP the revolving fund from the community was contributing for better management of the projects. There were some indications of providing maintenance tools for simple

45 maintenance works to WASHCo care takers. The problem was the training given to care takers was not enough to maintain at community levels.

For all nine factors considered, WB projects with less index implies that the WB guidelines and overall project cycle activities is less workable in comparison with CMP ones.

0.70 0.60

) 0.50 1.00 - 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10

Index (0.00 Index score 0.00 DR PA TR TC CR SP OP MT MG E&S index(CMP) 0.59 0.64 0.56 0.43 0.26 0.18 0.62 0.47 0.35 E&S index(WB) 0.43 0.40 0.29 0.22 0.15 0.10 0.45 0.29 0.27

Effectiveness and sustainability indicators

Figure 5.7: CMP and WB projects effectiveness and sustainability comparison

5.7 Factors for project poor effectiveness and sustainability From factors analysis result (Figure 5.2) the 9 indicators of a project effectiveness and sustainability was determined. These main factors with their level in the study area were demand driven approach (51%) which was less than Plan Cameroon for Mbemi (55.56%) and greater than for Bamali (35.56%), Participation (51%) was also less than the two projects; Mbemi (65.63%) and Bamali (59.38). Factors including training (42%), technology (32%), cost recovery (20%), support O&M (14%), operation (53%), and management (37%) had less than index records for Plan Cameroon projects (Joanne de, 2005) but greater index score than Bamali (18.7%) for maintenance (31%) of the study area.

Based on the result the sum of the above factors contributed for poor or excellent project sustainability. In the case of this research work 56% samples resulted as effective and

46 sustainable projects but limited improvements. 20% of the sample water points categorized as poor effective (nonfunctional) and not sustainable because of poor project approach and performance. The non-functionality rate was less than Amhara national region rural water supply projects implemented by government, donors and local & international NGOs which was 24% (ANRS BoWRD, 2013) and one third (25%) for sub Saharan countries non functionality rate (UNICEF, 2013). The 24% of sample projects fall under effective and sustainable schemes with little improvements. Compared to study result carried out in South Wollo zone, Amhara region as 22% (Selamawit, 2007) in the area it has better result of 20%. Rural water sustainability of CMP projects have greater E&S index results than WB projects implies CMP schemes are more successful than WB projects.

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusions This study elicited the main factors why rural water systems have become ineffective and unsustainable after less time than designed period in Awi zone. The concept and guidelines of the donors seemed more theoretical because of the index recorded in the study area was not indicated even a single water point as 75-100% sustainable. Relatively best scheme was recorded as the effectiveness and sustainability index value of 0.15-0.59.

In the study area the application of donors guide line was not fully implemented because of less community participation. The participation practically indicated that it was nearly average (51%) for both donors. This was also consequences of real community demand driven approach problems (51%). The interest of the community for the projects were not initiated inside themselves but with high motivating meetings with woreda water office experts.

Improvements needed for effective and sustainable projects in the area by improving each sub sub indicators. CMP approach were more effective than World Bank supported projects because of community involvement in all steps of guidelines The technology factor including selection and construction quality was also one of poor sustainability factor as only the community leaders involved with poor construction supervision which accounted 32%.

Less support for operation and maintenance from donors and cost recovery problems of almost all projects were the main reasons for schemes failure. It was also found that the maintenance problem was impacted by flack of awareness and less cost recovery and capital for post management of the schemes.

The majority of water supply systems (hand dug well and developed springs) were still functional installed before two and more years. 20% of the sample schemes became nonfunctional but this seemed small percentage it was loss of large capital as the schemes number increased. This nonfunctional rate was less than the regional rural water supply non functionality rate of 24% and South Wollo zone (22%) because of the study area was better in ground and surface water resources potential and the relatively donors (CMP and WB) approaches.

6.2 Recommendations Based on this study to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of the water supply projects, the following recommendations needed to be addressed.

1. When the role of project initiation and selection of service level options, site identification, planning and technology are in the hands of communities rather than well informed woreda experts and local leaders. Communities should be considered as consumers and the design should address their demand. 2. In the study area there was a gap of design, construction quality and supervision activities. The Amhara regional water bureau, the woreda water office donors give more attention for material selection, construction quality and supervision. The design is fixed for hand dug wells and developed spring at regional level so that it is not flexible for site specific implementation. The capacity must be built for woreda experts in design and modification of the schemes depending on site specific criteria. The local artisans should be trained well about construction material properties, construction quality control. 3. The sustainable project also could be derived by awareness and participation of households tentatively from project start to completion. Communities should be provided with continuous house hold training in operation, maintenance and management as well as sanitation and hygiene to improve the effectiveness of the water supply projects. 4. The improvement of sub sub indicators before and after project implementation in the study area could increase the effectiveness and sustainability of schemes. 5. CMP guide lines are more within the community and implementation on the ground could gain better results.

7 References Arne M. (2001). The small gods of participation. Encshede: university of Twente, Netherlands Awi Zone Water Resource Development Department (AZWRDD). (2015). Annual report. Injibara, Ethiopia

Awoke Z. (2012). “Assessment of Challenges of Sustainable Water Supply: Quarit Woreda, Ethiopia”, Master thesis, Bahir dar university, Bahir dar, Ethiopia

Brikke J. and Rojas M. (2002). Key factors for sustainable cost recovery: in the context of community managed water supply. IRC International water and sanitation center.

Buhl-Nielson E. (2010). Mainstreaming the Community Development Fund Financing Mechanism. Water and Sanitation program (WSP). Washington DC

Bureau of Water Resources Development (BoWRD). (2012). Annual report. Bahir dar, Ethiopia

Central Statistics Agency (CSA). (2014). Central Statistics Authority yearly population projection 2014. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Churchill K. (1991). Research Design in Occupational Education, Oklahoma University

Demeke A. (2006). “Determinants of Household Participation in Water source Management: Achefer, Amhara Region, Ethiopia.” Master thesis Bahir dar University, Bahir dar, Ethiopia

Fonseca, C. (2003). Financing and cost recovery. University of Nairobi, Kenya

Fox J. (1997). Applied regression analysis, linear models and related methods. Newbury Park, Canada

Hodgkin, J. (1994). The sustainability of donor assisted rural water supply projects. Washington DC, United states of America: DC press.

Joanne de K. (2005). Sustainability of rural water supply systems assessment of gravity water systems implemented by Plan Cameroon in the Northwest province of Cameroon.

Krejcie, R V, & Morgan, D W. (1970) Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurments.

Mihelcic, J.R., J.C, D.R Shonnard. (2003). Sustainability Science and Engineering. Environmental Science and Technology 37 (23) 5314-5324

Ministry of water, Irrigation and Energy (MoIE), (2013). Ethiopian Water Sector Strategy. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Musch, A. (2001). Community participation. Enschede: University of Twente, the Netherlands

Orodho J. (2004) Techniques of Writing Research Proposal. Nairobi, Kenya, Masada publisher

Sara J. and Katz T. (2008) Making rural water supply and sanitation sustainable: A report on the impact of project rules. UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program.

Selamawit T. (2007). “Evaluation of technical sustainability of rural water supply projects in Amhara region: Case study of South Wollo.” Master thesis. Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia

Spider B. (2014). Numerical Analysis Excel Model (NumXL 1.6). Spider Financial Corp. Chicago Illinois, USA

Steven M. (2008). Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Department of Geology, University of Georgia, Greek, Athens

Strasser B. (2000). Keeping the water flowing financial analysis of infrastructures, operation and maintenance of a rural water supply system: Wageningen: Wageningen university

Tadesse A. (2013). Rural Water Supply Management and Sustainability. Awassa: Awassa printing press

Travis J. (1998). Making Rural Water Sustainability. New York University, Axis printing press

UNDP-WaSH (United Nations Development Program Water Sanitation and Hygiene), (1999) Monitoring Sustainability: VIP-Way- a ground level experience. South Asia (India): UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program

WHO (World Health Organization), (2014). Millennium Development Targets. New York www.Spiderfinancial.com (accessed on August 25, 2015)

ANNEXES

Annex A-Questionnaire Questionnaires

The following questionnaire is part of a research work, which is being conducted to know the “The effectiveness and sustainability of donor assisted rural water supply project case study of Awi zone”. Answers to the questions will be used as a part of the efforts to find a solution to effectiveness and technical sustainability problems of schemes. You are kindly requested to fill the questionnaire as truly as you can and your answer will be taken in confident. Choose the answer and encircle and explain where it needs. THANK YOU FOR YOUR RELEVANT RESPONSES!!

Questionnaires for project approach and performance frameworks

1. Community member interviews

Name------

Project name & type------

Woreda ------Keble ------Got ------Date ------Respondent’s age------Education level------R. Gender ------1. Source of water for household ------. Hand dug well . Spring . Bore hole . Shallow well . Other (specify)

Demand-driven approach

DR1_Who initiated the project?

DR1_Did you also want this project?

DR1_Was this project your first choice?

DR2_Who decided the technology, number and location of hand dug wells, developed springs and the source?

DR2_Who decided what you should contribute?

DR2_Who decided how the management should be arranged?

DR3_When you made choices did you know what you should contribute during implementation?

DR3_Did you know that the community is responsible for O&M?

DR3_Did you know what kind of contribution is required from you after implementation? (Cash and kind)

Participation

PA1_Did you elect the PMC (project management committee)?

PA1_Who is the owner of the facilities at the moment?

PA2_What did you contribute in money before and during the project?

PA2_How many hours did you work during project implementation?

PA2_Were you paid for this in any way?

PA2_How did you contribute in material?

PA2_Was the ongoing of the project presented during community meetings?

PA2_Were the contribution of different parties also presented?

PA2_Was presented what was required from the community (time, money)?

PA2_Do you know what different parties agreed about responsibilities?

PA3_Did the project give equal opportunities to men and women?

PA3_Did the project give equal opportunities to all groups in the village (rich, poor, ethnic)

PA4_Did you when the institution of CBO, planning, taking over, evaluation took place?

PA4_Did you visit these activities?

PA4_Where you able to give your opinion?

Training

TR2_Why did you want a water system?

TR2_What do you know about hygienic collection, transport and use of water?

TR2_Do you know how a tariff is calculated in general, which costs?

TR2_Do you know what kind of maintenance is required to keep the system operational?

TR2_Did you attend a training on operation, maintenance and hygiene & sanitation?

TR2_If yes, what did this training involve?

Operation

OP3_Is the water quality always good?

OP3_Do you know if someone is measuring the quality?

OP3_Is the area around the hand dug well and developed spring always clean?

OP4_Is the quantity of water enough for you?

OP4_Are there any appointments/limitations about the quantity of water you can use?

OP5_Has the water a good color?

OP6_How far do you have to walk for water?

OP6_How far did you walk before?

OP7_Is the health of you and your children better with this water source?

OP7_What do you have to do to use the water proper?

OP8_Is their water all day?

OP8_Is their water all year round?

OP8_How often did facilities break down and for how long?

OP9_Does everybody from the community use the water facilities?

OP9_Do people also use other water?

Maintenance

MT1_Do you ever help or clean around the hand dug wells, developed spring, catchment or reservoir?

MT1_If necessary would you help?

MT2_Do you know who are the caretakers?

MT2_What is your opinion on the caretakers? Capability/availability?

MT6_How often do the caretakers look after the facilities?

Management

MG1_Did you vote for the members of the WMC?

MG1_Did you also vote for functions?

MG1_Do you think the proportion of man and woman is right?

MG1_Do you think the different types of ethnic groups are presented enough? (If there are different ones)

MG1_Do you think these people are trustful and capable?

MG2_What can the WMC do if you are not paying you user fees?

MG2_Is the WMC able to cut off service or call a meeting?

MG3_Who are currently member of the WMC?

MG3_What are the responsibilities of the WMC?

MG3_Does the WMC present how they use the fees?

MG3_Do you know when and for what the WMC uses the money?

MG3_Do you know if you are allowed to take a glance at the books?

MG3_If allowed, would you use this opportunity?

MG4_How often does the WMC collect the fees?

MG4_Do you always pay your fees immediately?

MG4_Why do you or not?

MG7_Do you know if another body audits the WMC?

MG8_Is everybody in the community paying the same amount?

MG8_Are people also contributing in another way than money?

2. Committee interviews

Name------

Project name & type------

Woreda ------Keble ------Got ------Date ------Respondent’s age------Education level------R. Gender ------Demand-driven approach

Code Questions

DR1_Who and how was the project initiated?

DR1_Was this project the first priority in the community?

DR2_Did the WMC and/or the community participate in decisions in the design (source, technology, number and location)?

DR2_Was there a choice for WMC and community in what and how the community contributed and how local management should be arranged?

DR2_Did you also make choices in the time planning of the project?

DR3_Did you know from the beginning the contribution of the community?

DR3_Did contribution also depend on the design wanted by the community?

DR3_Were the responsibilities (O&M and implementation) of the community clear from the beginning?

DR3_Did you know from the beginning which training activities were required?

DR3_Did this knowledge (responsibilities, contribution) also influence your choices?

Participation

PA1_What were the responsibilities of the PMC during implementation?

PA1_Did the community elect this PMC?

PA1_Who is the owner of the facilities at the moment?

PA2_What did the community contribute in cash and kind before and during implementation?

PA2_Was it difficult to mobilize the community?

PA3_Was the financial policy of donors clear?

PF5_Were there any conditions/obligations related to the financial assistance?

PA3_Did the PMC present ongoing, finances and needed contribution present during community meetings?

PA4_Did all parties involved fulfill appointments about completion date, mobilization and contribution?

PA4_Were responsibilities of donors and community always clear divided?

PA5_Were contribution in the project equal for everybody?

PA5_Were events, meetings accessible for the whole community (equity)?

PA6_Were institution of CBO, planning, taking-over, evaluation participatory activities?

Technology

TC2_Who controlled the quality during the project?

TC2_Is the project implemented as designed?

TC3_Who did feasibility studies, design and construction?

TC3_Do these people have experience with this kind of projects?

Training

TR4_Which training-activities did you visit?

TR4_What did these training involve?

TR3_Have you been trained in the functioning and responsibilities of a committee?

TR3_Have you been educated in what to do if people don’t want to pay?

TR3_Have you been educated on technical and financial monitoring?

TR3_Have you been educated in the accounting of the fees?

TR3_Have you been educated in how and when to use money?

TR3_Have you been educated in how you should calculate and set the tariff?

TR3_Have you been educated on budgeting?

Cost-recovery

CR1_What kind of costs were initially recovered by the community?

CR1_Which costs are covered by the user fees?

CR2_Has been their discussion on recovery of costs by the community?

CR2_Did the community also look for other resources for recovery?

Support O&M

SP1_Does donors monitor or provide a monitoring system?

SP1_What does this monitoring involve?

SP2_Did donors help with planning of O&M?

SP2_Is planning still going on based on monitoring?

SP3_Are people from donors available for technical or managerial help when needed?

SP4_Did donors provide tools for maintenance and spare parts?

SP4_Did donors provide some IEC (Information, education and communications) materials to be used after project completion?

SP5_Is training available for new people?

SP5_Do people of donors discuss the going on of O&M?

Operation

OP6_How far do people averagely walk for water?

OP6_How far did they walk before?

OP7_Do people know how to use water properly?

OP7_Who looks after the cleanliness around the water points?

OP8_Is the water available during the whole day?

OP 8_Is their water all year round?

OP8_How often did facilities break down and for how long?

OP9_Does everybody from the community use the water facilities?

OP9_Do people still use other facilities?

Maintenance

MT1_How often are the water points and catchment and cleaned?

MT1_Does the community contribute in cleaning activities?

MT1_Is it difficult to mobilize people for this work?

MT1_Do the people who contributed have any advantage?

MT2_Who is responsible for maintenance?

MT2_Is this person always available?

MT2_Does this person have a plumber background?

MT3_Are there also other persons who can do this?

MT3_Are there persons who can help in complex problems?

MT4_How are the caretakers paid for their work?

MT4_Did it ever happen that there was not enough money for maintenance?

MT6_How often are facilities checked?

Management

MG1_Which people are members of the WMC and what are their functions?

MG1_What are the election procedures?

MG1_Do you think the proportion of man and woman is right?

MG1_Do you think the different types of ethnic groups are presented enough? (if there are different ones)

MG2_What can you do if people are not paying their user fees?

MG2_Are you able to call the community together directly for a meeting?

MG3_How often do you meet each other?

MG3_Are you making records of these meetings?

MG3_Are all the members of the WMC always presented?

MG3_How often and how do you present your activities towards the community?

MG3_Are people allowed to take a glance through the financial records?

MG4_Did you make agreements about how, when and who collects the fees?

MG4_How often do you collect the fees?

MG4_How long does it take to get all the money?

MG5_How often are you budgeting and recalculating the tariff?

MG5_What are the savings at the moment?

MG5_For which purpose will this savings be used?

MG6_Are there agreements about where to keep the money, who can make money available and for what?

MG6_Does the treasurer have a financial background?

MG6_Did the treasurer receive training?

MG6_How often is the treasurer updating the books?

MG6_How often is money brought from a bank account?

MG6_Who has access to the bank account?

MG7_Are their people who are checking the books?

MG7_How are you controlling revenues and expenditures?

MG8_How is the tariff calculated for a community member?

MG8_Is it also possible to contribute in kind?

MG8_Does the tariff recover the replacement etc. costs?

3. Technical interviews

Name------

Project name & type------

Woreda ------Profession------Date ------Respondent’s age------Education level------R. Gender ------

Demand driven approach

Code Questions

DR1_Who initiated the project?

DR1_Was this project the one most wanted?

DR2_Did you discuss the design with the person who made the design?

DR2_Who decided the technology, source, number and location of hand dug well, developed spring?

DR2_Who decided the type of management and the contribution?

DR3_Did you know about different costs of options?

DR3_Did you know about the different implications for maintenance?

DR3_Did you know about responsibilities and training when you choose the project?

Participation

PA1_Who was responsible for supervision of the project?

PA1_Did you make any agreements with suppliers/contractors or something?

PA1_Who was responsible for the monitoring of planning, materials, and construction etcetera?

PA2_What did the community contribute?

PA2_Did they also provide skilled labor?

PA3_Was the community acquainted with the ongoing of the project? How?

PA3_Did you have a clear idea about your responsibilities during the project/ after the taking over?

PA4_Are all agreements fulfilled by all the parties? (Completion date, delivery of materials etc)

PA5_Did you join the planning, evaluation, taking over etcetera?

Training

TR4_What kind of training did you receive?

TR4_Which topics were discussed?

TR3_Have you been trained in the costs of O&M?

TR3_Have you been trained in how to solve common problems and do repairs? How?

TR3_Do you know how to protect the source against contamination?

TR3_Did you have training on tree planting?

TR3_Do you know how to protect against erosion around water points?

TR3_What kind of preventive maintenance is required? Been trained?

TR3_Have you been trained in how to measure water quality?

TR3_Have you been trained in what to do if the water quality is not alright?

Technology

TC1_Was the design restricted by guidelines?

TC1_Did this reduce flexibility?

TC2_Who controlled the quality of design, materials and labor?

TC2_Where there any construction problems?

TC2_Is the construction implemented as designed?

TC3_What kind of person did design and study feasibility?

TC3_Did people in the community have expertise with this kind of projects?

TC3_Did other people involved have experience with this kind of projects?

Support O&M

SP1_Did donors provide a systematic approach to monitor the facilities?

SP1_What were told to be important aspects of monitoring?

SP2_Did donors provide a planning for activities to be done?

SP3_Are people from donors still available after completion of the project?

SP3_Did donors provide maintenance tools and some spare parts?

SP4_How do you train new caretakers?

SP4_Do you still meet the engineer from donors? (For coaching)

Operation

OP2_Are there any environmental threats towards the environment at the moment?

OP3_Are people sometimes complaining about the color, quality or quantity of the water?

OP3_Are there any things possibly threatening the quality of the water?

OP4_Is there always enough water?

OP4_Will there be enough water in the future?

OP7_Is the water at the hand dug well proper used?

OP8_Is water provided all day and all year round?

Maintenance

MT1_How often and by whom are (the areas around) hand dug well and developed spring, cleaned?

MT1_Does the community help? Why not?

MT3_How many persons are available for maintenance?

MT2_How are tasks divided between caretakers?

MT2_Is it always clear who does what?

MT2_What kind of technical experience and education did you have?

MT2_Are you always available to solve problems? And the others?

MT3_Where can you get technical assistance?

MT4_How long does it usually take before you get money to repair something?

MT4_Who do you have to ask for it?

MT4_How are you paid? Satisfied about loan?

MT5_What kind of maintenance (repair) activities has been done until now?

MT5_How long did it take before the repairs has been done?

MT5_Did you do it by yourself or someone from outside?

MT6_Do you have tools to measure water quality and quantity?

MT6_How often do you measure it?

MT6_How often do you inspect the physical condition of the pipes etc.?

MT7_Are there some spare parts (pieces of pipes, tap heats) in the community?

MT7_Do you know where to get that and other things?

Management

MG3_How often does the WMC meet?

MG5_Who is budgeting future repairs?

MG5_Does the WMC discuss future planning? Rehabilitation, extension…

MG7_Are you monitoring expenditures?

Annex B-Project approach & performance framework indicators, sub and sub sub indicators sample scored for kesmender HDW 1. Project approach framework indicators, sub and sub sub indicators

1 Technology 0.410 Code Sub indicator Score Explanation TC1 Guidelines 0.125

1.1 Insure quality of 0.250 Officially the demand of a feasibility study infrastructure 1.2 flexibility 0.000 Every project has no own feasibility study TC2 Quality 0.500 2.1 design 0.250 Failures in design, no soak ways 2.2 construction 1.000 Better than design 2.3 implemented as designed 0.250 Several changes TC3 Expertise 0.750 3.1 Design 0.750 Done by technicians provided by donors 3.2 Construction 0.750 Many experienced people available TC4 Role maintenance 0.250 4.1 Costs 0.000 Not part of feasibility studies Not part of study or consideration, but 4.2 Spare parts availability 0.500 available little consideration since there are no soak 4.3 Intensity 0.250 ways 2 Participation 0.680 Explanation Sub indicator PA1 Empowerment 0.583 1.1 Supervision and monitoring 0.500 Only weekly supervision at project site 1.2 Contracting and supply 0.500 f.s. is arranged by donors and community 1.3 CBO elected by community 1.000 p.c. is elected by community per function 1.4 Ownership 0.250 Low sense of ownership inside community PA2 Contribution 0.500 2.1 Cash contribution 0.250 Community contributed 15% 2.2 Kind contribution 0.750 All labour and local materials PA3 Transparency 0.667 Payment of skilled labour was averagely 3.1 Financial policy 0.500 unclear 3.2 Responsibilities 1.000 Quite known Information was not always communicated 3.3 Presentation to community 0.500 well PA4 Efficiency 0.666 4.1 Completion in time 0.750 Completed fast, but finishing left 4.2 Fulfillment of agreements 0.750 finishing work was left before handing-over 4.3 Smoothness participation 0.500 mobilization dificulties

PA5 Equity 1.000 5.1 Gender sensitivity 1.000 women in p.c. with same tariff No differentiation in tariff, only extra payment 5.2 Socio-economic sensitivity 1.000 if not working 5.3 Benefits whole community 1.000 Everybody benefits PA6 Participatory activities 0.667 6.1 Planning 0.500 Discussed during community meetings only Evaluation during community meeting, which 6.2 Evaluation 0.500 was input for donors 6.3 Taking over 1.000 involved in preparations 3 Training 0.520 Sub-indicator TR1 Household level 0.500 1.1 Sanitation and health 1.000 There has been quite extended trainings 1.2 O&M activities 0.500 Part of hygiene and sanitation training 1.3 O&M costs 0.000 No training on financial aspect Effectiveness & awareness

TR2 household 0.513 About 70 people attended the first one, also 2.1 Attendance 0.750 been a second one 2.2 Awareness hygiene 0.550 people are aware 2.3 Awareness O&M 0.250 Not really clear idea about O&M Aware that it takes money, but not about how 2.4 Awareness costs 0.500 a tariff is calculated TR3 Committee level 0.563 3.1 Sanitation & health 0.500 Done through community training No special training for caretaker or practical 3.2 Operation & maintenance 0.500 part 3.3 Management & Average, but missing communication aspects communication 0.500 Very basic, not enough about financial 3.4 Finance & administration 0.750 planning TR4 Effectiveness committee 0.500 4.1 Received topics 0.500 Average effectiveness Several people didn't attend, though executives 4.2 Attendance 0.500 did 4 Demand driven approach 0.570 Sub indicator DR1 Initiation of the project 0.917 1.1 Source of request 0.750 donors offered help community started help 1.2 Priority/importance 1.000 Very important, pressing problem 1.3 Demand expressed by High need at household level HH 1.000 DR2 Choice at house hold levels 0.250 2.1 Technology 0.000 technicians made choices left

2.2 Location of water points 0.500 Some discussion took place p.c. already existed, m.c. partly donors, partly 2.3 Local management 0.500 community 2.4 Contribution 0.000 Determined by donors DR3 Informed decision 0.542 3.1 Project responsibilities 0.750 clear to everybody 3.2 Project contribution 1.000 Clear from the beginning Known that training would be part, but number 3.3 Training activities 0.500 unknown 3.3 Maintenance Known that community was responsible responsibilities 0.750 3.4 Maintenance activities 0.000 Quite unknown what maintenance involved 3.5 Maintenance contribution 0.250 Contribution at the beginning 5 Cost recovery 0.350 Sub indicator CR1 All costs 0.208 1.1 Project costs 0.000 not recovered by community 1.2 O&M costs 0.500 Supposed to be recovered by the community 1.3 Extension costs 0.250 Paid by community members 1.4 Rehabilitation costs 0.000 Not recovered 1.5 Maintenance of done by community partially and donors CBO's 0.500 1.6 Other costs 0.000 Not recovered CR2 Strategy 0.500 Only institutional framework and decision 2.1 Planning 0.500 made 2.2 Practice 0.500 Only service efficiency 6 Support O&M 0.150 Sub indicator SP1 Monitoring 0.083 Not systematic, but CDF keeps an eye on the 1.1 Monitoring by facilitator 0.250 facilities 1.2 Monitoring system provided 0.000 Not part of training or provided No systematic approach to measure 1.3 Monitoring sustainability 0.000 sustainability

SP2 Action planning 0.000 2.1 Initial planning 0.000 No planning suggestions made 2.2 Ongoing planning 0.000 No ongoing planning, based on monitoring SP3 Assistance 0.167 3.1 Managerial assistance 0.250 not give full assistance 3.2 Technical assistance 0.250 The engineer from donor might be available 3.3 Accessibility of assistance 0.000 no assistance SP4 Providence of materials 0.333 4.1 Spare parts 0.250 Some parts left from construction

4.2 O&M tools 0.500 some simple O&M tools from CMP 4.3 Monitoring tools 0.000 Monitoring tools are not available 4.4 IEC materials 0.500 IEC been done, but without providence SP5 Coaching and training 0.083 5.1 Technical coaching 0 No technical coaching 5.2 Managerial coaching 0.000 M.C didn't receive managerial coaching 5.3 Ongoing training 0.250 There has been several community trainings

2. Project performance framework indicators, sub and sub sub indicators

7. Operation 0.600 Sub indicator Technical state 0.416 1.1 Physical condition pumps 0.250 Cracks and not clean 1.2 Physical condition of HDW&DSP 0.500 leakage, some uncovered 1.3.Physical conditions HDW&DSP 0.500 All in use, no soakaways Environment 0.250 2.1 Sanitary inspection catchment 0.250 Risk is high

2.2 Sanitary inspection HDW&DSP 0.250 Risk is 6 resp 7/10, which is high Water quality 0.250 3.1 Laboratory results facilities 0.000

3.2 sanitary inspection 0.250 Risk is averagely 7/10, which is bad Satisfied, but sometimes muddy during rainy 3.3 User satisfaction 0.500 season Quantity water 0.750 4.1 Comparing to design 1.000 More than design 4.2 Future 0.750 System can be extended easily 4.3 User satisfaction Not always enough water at last in HDW/DSP 0.500 Distance 0.875 5.1 Comparing to before 0.750 Improved for whole community 5.2 User satisfaction 1.000 Everybody is satisfied about distance Health and hygiene 0.583 6.1 Improvement of health 0.250 not recognized by all users 6.2 Laboratory results household 0.750 which is good 6.3 Use at HDW&DPS 0.750 Depending Continuity 0.830 7.1 Day continuity 1.000 Lower pressure during afternoon

No regular cut offs during the week, only for 7.2 Week continuity 0.750 maintenance Water all year round, but lower pressure at sp 7.3 Year continuity 0.750 during dry sea Access 0.875 8.1 For whole community 1 Whole community provided 8.2 Use of other sources 0.750 rivers use for wash clothes 8. Maintenance 0.420 Sub indicator Cleaning activities 0.500 1.1 Regularity at More than four times a year catchment area 0.500 1.2 Regularity at When dirty or monthly HDW&DSP 0.500 1.3 Participation Through community work at c.a. and at community 0.500 HDW/DSP Organization 0.67 2.1 Internal clearness Chairman and caretaker are most responsible 0.750 2.2 External clearness 0.750 Almost everybody knows caretakers 2.3 Capability Many experience and followed all trainings 0.500 Back up 0.375

3.1 More caretakers Officially one, but work is done by three 0.500 3.2 Technical assistance There are people in the village 0.250 Money available 0.166

4.1 Availability of money Until now enough, but not for future and 0.500 4.2 Payment of caretakers 0.000 problems in past 4.3 Satisfaction about finances 0.000 Not done Maintenance done 0.625 5.1 Time 0.500 1 day to 2-3 days 5.2 External input 0.750 No need for external assistence Monitor facilities 0.416 6.1 Regularity of monitoring 0.500 Mostly done No appropriate tools for monitoring water 6.2 Monitoring tools 0.250 quality or quantity 6.3 Completeness of All facilities, but not thoroughly examination 0.500 Tools and spare parts 0.670

7.1 Repairs Tools and spares available in community 0.750 7.2 Cleaning Tools available in community 0.750 7.3 Accessibility of shops 0.500 Not asked 9.Management 0.350 Sub indicator Constitution 0.416

1.1 Election per function No new election of m.c., only election of p.c. 0.250 1.2 Representation of users No children, people no executives 0.250 1.3 Trust by community almost everybody trusts the m.c. 0.750 Authority 0.375 Call meeting 0.250 Through council 2.1 Set tariff 0.500 In general meetings probably

2.2 Sanction Not directly, but through traditional council 0.250 Communication 0.333

3.1 Committee meetings Executives are there, but members seldom 0.250

3.2 Presentation of activities 0.250 Done once officially until now Most people know several executives and 3.3 Acquaintance of committee 0.500 people in quarter Collection 0.417 4.1 Agreements how, when, Available who 0.500 4.2 Regularity of collection Said to be monthly but not consequently done 0.250 4.3 Efficiency of collection 0.500 Only 15% Budgeting 0.083 5.1 Periodically budgeting No idea's about revenues and expenditures 0.000 5.2 Savings 0.250 5.3 Future vision and planning 0.000 Planning is done ad hoc Financial accounting 0.500

6.1 Agreements how, when, who Agreed that book-keeping is done by f.s. 0.250 6.2 Functional bank account bank account for m.c. 1.000

6.3 Capabilities of responsible Visited training, but no financial experience 0.250 Monitoring and Control 0.416 council are checking, most m.c have idea about 7.1 Supervision committee 0.750 this Attending meetings, checking book-keeping, 7.2 Functioning of supervision 0.500 not at qaurter level 7.3 Monitor and control No indicators for monitoring and control indicators 0.000 Tariff mechanism 0.250 Differentiation between household and men- 8.1 Tariff differentiation 0.500 women 8.2 Pay in kind possibility Not yet, maybe in future 0.000 8.3 Correspondence with costs Until now not enough money, based on costs 0.250

Annex C Multiple Linear Regression

SUMMARYOUTPUT

Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.9998972 R Square 0.9997944 Adjusted R Square 0.9996710 Standard Error 0.0023140 Observations 25

ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F Regression 9 0.39051968 0.043391076 8103.410508 5.45E-26 Residual 15 8.032E-05 5.35467E-06 Total 24 0.3906

Standard Lower Upper Coefficients Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% 95.0% 95.0% - Intercept 0.063 0.041999771 1.50336451 0.153505608 -0.026379428 0.15266136 0.026379428 0.15266136 DR -0.219 0.186894738 -1.17107356 0.259837067 -0.61722419 0.179489218 -0.61722419 0.179489218 PA 0.384 0.157010866 2.443111381 0.027409666 0.048934295 0.718255774 0.048934295 0.718255774 - TR 0.145 0.137584237 1.055397703 0.30794668 -0.148047772 0.438459948 0.148047772 0.438459948

- TC -0.062 0.26678289 -0.232185169 0.819532205 -0.630577301 0.50669124 0.630577301 0.50669124 - CR 0.069 0.082915335 0.832601423 0.418129224 -0.107694427 0.245765278 0.107694427 0.245765278 - SP 0.236 0.232123474 1.016227936 0.325633024 -0.258869114 0.730649831 0.258869114 0.730649831 - OP 0.173 0.157472961 1.098969093 0.289108104 -0.162587754 0.508703589 0.162587754 0.508703589 - MT 0.235 0.18277333 1.285865999 0.217986217 -0.154550121 0.624594142 0.154550121 0.624594142 - MG -0.132 0.171350161 -0.7688551 0.453915763 -0.496967669 0.233480778 0.496967669 0.233480778