|
|
|
| R Number: R7136 | 
|
| Contractor: Gamos Ltd | |
| Dates: 1 April 1998 to 31 December 1999 | |
| The project will consider three case studies in Southern Africa of water provision for large rural ressetlement populations in drought prone areas. It will compare and contrast approaches investigating elements of a successful handover to local government and communities. | |
| Executive Summary |
| Objectives |
|
Goal
Purpose Outputs |
| Methodology |
|
The project is undertaking a thematic comparison of three case studies in Southern Africa. This is for the practical objective of identifying common elements of a successful exit strategy for resettlement programmes that have introduced new water supplies particularly those dependent on deep bore systems. The three programmes have each respected government standards and introduced water pumps according to the dictated specifications. They have trained the community in maintenance procedures, organised the communities to lobby local government for spares, created precedence of good maintenance and ensured as far as is possible access to parts etc. However there are some variants in the approach. In some cases male members of the community have been trained. This has advantages in that male local government officials find it easy to dialogue with the representative. It also has disadvantages in that the trained person will migrate in order to find work. In other cases, the programmes have trained groups of women to do the maintenance. These groups are more stable than their male counterparts but find difficulty accessing local government. This is only one example of the slightly different approaches. We believe we need to learn about the impact of these differences on the overall programme. The programmes currently offering co-operation to the project are:
However, due to the changes in security in Angola, a new programme is being identified for inclusion in the project. The first visit to Mozambique was undertaken. 15 communities in Gaza Province were surveyed. These communities had water points installed between 1992 and 1997 by the NGO World Relief. In each community interviews were undertaken with key informants and groups of users. Key informants included water committees, water maintenance person(s), local authorities (President of community, Treasurer, etc). District authorities were also interviewed. 15 communities in Vilankula were also interviewed. These communities had water points installed between 1992 and 1997 by the NGO Care. The process for these interviews was identical to the Gaza province ones. |
| Results |
|
There are a number of issues arising from the findings. These currently include:-
Preliminary analysis of the interviews seems to indicate a varying commitment to ownership and maintenance of the water points (as expected). However of some surprise is the comparison between the "emergency" phase water points and the "development" phase points. Care during the "emergency" phase offered to drill for water to communities with very little predrilling dialogue. Then as an evolution of their programme they introduced a "development" phase where considerable predrilling discussion took place with the community. The community were asked to collect money to purchase the handpump head, and only when the community had purchased the head was the drilling undertaken. In theory one would expect a much greater ownership and commitment to the water point from the latter development phase communities than from the emergency phase ones. However during the development phase, the Care workers spent some time in discussion/extension/animation with the emergency phase communities, encouraging them to take up ownership of the water point (set up water committees, etc). Preliminary analysis seems to indicate that this post drilling dialogue was as effective in stimulating ownership as the predrilling dialogue and financial requirements. Ownership and commitment seem to be far more linked to pre water point conditions than to the fine detail of the process of participation and dialogue. |
| Conclusions |
|
The current findings provide good information for achieving the outputs. Providing a suitable substitute to Angola can be found there are no foreseeable reasons why the outputs and purpose cannot be achieved. There may be some delay to final completion date, possibly three months (Mar 99). |
| Further Information |
| Collaborating Organisations |
|
World Relief, Mozambique |
| Contact Details for Further Information |
| Dr SJ Batchelor Gamos Ltd 152 Cumberland Road Reading Berkshire RG1 3JY
Tel: 0118 9267039 |