Maravi

(TIMES) Ways to cement community ownership of boreholes

Ways to cement community ownership of boreholes
WITH MWEELWA MULEYA

SOME people, including members of Parliament (MPs), have questioned why community members in some areas are asked to provide financial contribution towards construction of boreholes while in other areas there is no such pre-condition or requirement.

This is a legitimate and justifiable question that requires to be answered, or at least explained.

Under the National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme (NRWSSP), the funding mechanism for construction of water points for a period of 10 years from 2006 to 2010 is spread among the following four stakeholders: the Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ), Co-operating Partners (CPs), Local Authorities (LAs), and user communities.

This programme has been costed at K923 billion for a period of 10 years out of which GRZ is expected to contribute K217bn (23 per cent), CPs K566bn (61 per cent), LAs K58bn (6 per cent) and user communities K82bn (9 per cent). The approach to funding this programme is based on two fundamental principles:

1. A sector-wide approach (SWAp), where contributions from GRZ and CPs are combined into a single account and disbursed in a nationally consistent manner and

2. Decentralisation of responsibility to local authorities.
The NRWSSP is meant to be a single national entry point for all stakeholders and players in the supply of water and sanitation facilities and services in rural areas.

To this effect, eight CPs signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with GRZ on October 22, 2008 to signify acceptance of its principles.

It is worth noting, however, that the implementation of the NRWSSP, which was launched in November 2007, is preceded by bilateral agreements between respective CPs and the GRZ that are still in force. The conditions of such bilateral agreements differ from one CP to another.

In addition to that, non-Governmental organisations (NGOs) in the Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS) sub-sector are also using varied approaches in line with their respective agreements with their CPs. This explains lack of harmony in financial contribution towards the provision of WSS facilities.

It is, however, envisaged that with the signing of the MoU between CPs and the GRZ, individual agreements and approaches by CPs and NGOs in the WSS sub-sector will begin to be aligned to the NRWSSP and by 2010, full harmonisation should be completed.

This is a challenge that needs to be seriously addressed because it may have an adverse impact on socio-political harmony.

To achieve that, willingness by the CPs and effective leadership in, and ownership of the NRWSSP by the GRZ is required.

Above all, political will and appreciation of community contribution towards construction of water infrastructure for sustainable provision of safe drinking water is paramount.

In particular, politicians may need to overcome short-term populist considerations and be magnanimous enough to explain to their constituencies that the supply of clean and safe drinking water is never free anywhere.

That like in many areas of service delivery where the Government has introduced cost-sharing measures such as user fees, the same is being applied to the provision of safe drinking water.

Community contribution towards construction of water points is also meant to instill a sense of ownership and responsibility among community members who should properly use these facilities and jealously guard them as their own properties - partly constructed out of their hard earned money.

Discussions over community contributions have been going on for some time and benchmarks have changed from 10 per cent to five per cent of the total cost of constructing a borehole to finally a flat figure of K1,500,000 community contribution per borehole.

The flat figure is meant to address the disparities in community contribution from one borehole to another because of the varying costs of constructing a borehole among different players -and these differences can really be huge.

Therefore, putting a percentage for community contribution may extremely disadvantage communities that may be served by a partner with high construction costs of a borehole - at least for the period before full harmonisation is achieved.

There have been several arguments against and for community financial contribution towards the construction of WSS facilities.

Prominent among them have been political populist ones of seeking short-term political mileage, humanitarian ones with a tendency to see and treat communities as too vulnerable and incapable of doing anything for themselves and a developmental one that aims at promoting sustainable development through community ownership of, and participation in the development processes.

The developmental approach sees vulnerable communities as capable of overcoming their challenges with support based on partnership, including cost sharing.

Balancing the act between the three approaches may be necessary but it is prudent to use a sustainable development approach that aims at empowering communities to contribute to construction and ultimately operation and maintenance of WSS facilities.

The approach whereby some stakeholders simply get into communities and start constructing water points without any form of community contribution has resulted in thousands of water points becoming white elephants after breaking down because such facilities are regarded as for free and no one but the contractor’s business to maintain and repair.

It is estimated that about 30 per cent of the existing water points in Zambia are not functioning and require rehabilitation.

There are many contributing factors to this but prominent among them are poor workmanship and lack of operation and maintenance by use communities.

The NRWSSP is addressing these problems through various interventions, including promoting community contributions towards operations and maintenance of water points.

Using a ‘hand out’ approach to providing water points may not be sustainable to providing safe drinking water in rural communities. Even in emergency situations, humanitarian services are followed by rehabilitation and reconstruction programmes for sustainable development, failure to which such services may inculcate a perpetual dependency syndrome among beneficiaries.

This is not good for development as the support the country is receiving may not be there forever. For comments and contributions, please write to mmuleya@yahoo.com

Labels: BOREHOLES, NRWSS

posted by MrK @ 11:15 PM