PEER REVIEWED Towards Achieving A Sustainable Community .

7th RWSN Forum “Water for Everyone”7ème Forum RWSN « L’eau pour tous »29 Nov - 02 Dec 2016, Abidjan, Côte d’IvoirePEER REVIEWEDwater points (GRZ, 2015).The assessment was aimed primarily at measuring the impacts WSS interventions had made to the localcommunities where these projects were implemented. Primary data was therefore collected fromhouseholds through a household questionnaire. Other sources of primary data were focus groupdiscussions (FGDs) as well as interviews with key informants. A total of 1000 households (500households per project) were interviewed in the four districts of Kapiri Mposhi, Serenje, Samfya andKasama districts – 300 household questionnaires each were administered in Kapiri Mposhi and Kasamadistricts and 200 household questionnaires each administered in Serenje and Samfya districts. KapiriMposhi and Serenje districts are in Central Province while Samfya and Kasama districts are in Luapulaand Northern provinces, respectively. Despite planning for two (2) FGDs in each district, only one (1)FGD was held in Samfya District. Therefore a total of seven (7) FGDs were held during the assessment.Stratified systematic sampling was used for primary data collection from households. The systematicapproach guided the sampling pattern for the different beneficiary groups (i.e. schools, communities,health centres, and chief palaces). Sample population in each group was proportionate to the actualnumber of boreholes that were drilled and equipped with hand pumps for each project.Community water points (boreholes drilled in communities) were entry points for each research area.Equal number of households were selected as respondents based on two aspects, namely: i) thegeographical location of the household (i.e. north, south, west and east compass bearing with reference tothe community water point), and ii) spatial location of the household (i.e. every other household, i.e. 1st,3rd, 5th etc., households). Therefore from each community water point, every other household locatednorth of the water point was sampled until the last household was interviewed. This process was thenrepeated for households located in the south, west and east of the water point respectively, until thesample population in that community was achieved.Main results and lessons learntThe majority of respondents in all the four districts (Kapiri Mposhi and Serenje (CPRWSSP); Samfya andKasama (NRWSSP)) were female. Female respondents in Kapiri Mposhi and Serenje districts made up51.8 percent of respondents while those in Samfya and Kasama districts constituted 57.8 percent. Despitethis, majority of households in all the four districts were male-headed households – 64.8 percent in KapiriMposhi and Serenje districts and 74 percent in Samfya and Kasama districts. There were 35.9 percent ofhousehold members that were above 18 years old in Samfya and Kasama districts and 33.9 percent inKapiri Mposhi and Serenje districts. Therefore it was obvious that over a third of the population weregenerally matured enough to be effectively involved in community management of their improved watersupply sources.The common form of occupation by majority of the population in Samfya and Kasama districts wasfarming in which 89.6 percent of respondents were engaged. Classified Daily Employees and sole tradingrepresented 3.4 per cent and 2.4 per cent, respectively. Other forms of employment included healthworkers, teachers and judiciary services workers. Health workers represented 0.8 per cent of respondentswhile teachers represented 0.2 per cent, so were judiciary services workers. Similarly, 84.6 percent ofrespondents in Kapiri Mposhi and Serenje districts were farmers while 12.4 percent were in trading(family businesses) and an additional 2.2 percent of respondents depended on life skills such as bicyclerepairing, bricklaying, welding and carpentry for their sources of livelihoods. Farming was typicallysubsistence in nature were families only grew enough crops for their family consumption but only soldexcess harvests.Different sources of water supply were used in all the four districts and these included boreholes,protected wells, unprotected wells and open surface water bodies. In general, some of the protected wellswere modified and fitted with India Mark II hand pump and very rarely was the windlass used. In Samfyaand Kasama districts, 68.5 percent of households collected water from boreholes for their drinkingPage 3

7th RWSN Forum “Water for Everyone”7ème Forum RWSN « L’eau pour tous »29 Nov - 02 Dec 2016, Abidjan, Côte d’IvoirePEER REVIEWEDpurposes while 16.5 percent of respondents collected their water from protected wells. In addition, 6.8percent of respondents used unprotected wells as sources of water for their drinking uses although 8.5percent of respondents used open surface water bodies as sources for their drinking water requirements.In Kapiri Mposhi and Serenje districts, however, 80.6 percent of households depended on water supplyfrom boreholes for their drinking purposes while 10.0 percent depended on unprotected wells for theirdrinking water supplies. Furthermore, 5.2 percent of respondents in Kapiri Mposhi and Serenje districtsdepended on protected wells for their drinking water supplies while 4.2 percent used open surface waterbodies for their drinking water supplies (see table 1 for sources of water supply for household uses).Table 1:UsesSources of water supply for household usesWater source types (percent)Kapiri Mposhi and Serenje districtsSamfya and Kasama districtsSurfaceSurfaceBoreh Protect UnprotecBoreh Protect Unprotecwaterbodwaterbodoleed wellted welloleed wellted e: Author’s research findings data analysis .613.14.67.7Therefore, the primary source of drinking water supply in all the four districts were boreholes, as sucheffective community-led maintenance systems was critical to guaranteeing continued operations ofboreholes for optimal service provision to the local communities.It was common for communities in all the four districts to rely on multiple sources of water supply fortheir household requirements. In Kapiri Mposhi and Serenje districts for example, 90.4 percent ofrespondents relied on between two (2) and seven (7) sources of water supply compared to 9.6 percentthat depended on only one (1) source. This situation was mirrored in communities in Samfya and Kasamadistricts where 6.8 percent of respondents wholly depended on one (1) source of water supply comparedto 93.2 percent that depended on between two (2) and seven (7) sources of water supply. Thisdependency on multiple sources of water supply by communities in the four districts indicated the lack ofreliability of water supply from improved water sources. This, therefore, showed that not all water sourceswere functioning in all the four districts. A total of 53.7 percent of respondents in Kapiri Mposhi andSerenje districts, for instance, had reportedly between one (1) and four (4) water sources abandoned intheir respective communities compared to 43.6 percent of respondent where none of water sources wereabandoned within their communities.Similarly, not all water sources were functioning in Samfya and Kasama districts. The number ofabandoned water sources ranged from a minimum of one (1) to a maximum of six (6). A total 61.2percent of respondents had reportedly abandoned between one and four water supply sources withintheir communities while 38.4 percent of respondents had reportedly abandoned none of their availablewater supply sources.There were various reasons that led to abandoning water supply sources and these included: long distancePage 4

7th RWSN Forum “Water for Everyone”7ème Forum RWSN « L’eau pour tous »29 Nov - 02 Dec 2016, Abidjan, Côte d’IvoirePEER REVIEWEDto water supply source; poor water quality; broken down water supply points (not functioning);personalization of boreholes; failure to contribute towards O&M; protected well collapsed, and dried upwater points (see Table 2 for collated summary of responses).Table 2:Reasons for abandoning water points in the four districtsReasonKapiri Mposhi and SerenjedistrictsValid ed up water pointsDeclining groundwater levelsLong distances to water pointsRestricted access; borehole personalisedPoor water quality; i.e. rusty, dirty waterWater points broken down and notfunctioningFailure to contribute towards O&MProtected well collapsedTotal280Source: Author’s research findings data analysis (2016)100.0Samfya and KasamadistrictsValid 0.32.6100.0The main reason for communities abandoning water supply points in all four districts was the breakingdown of hand pumps (55 percent of respondents in Kapiri Mposhi and Serenje districts and 46.8 percentof respondents in Samfya and Kasama districts). This was followed by the drying up of water points forcommunities in Kapiri Mposhi and Serenje districts while in Samfya and Kasama districts the secondreason was the long distance. The long distance to water supply points made 36.4 percent of respondentsin Samfya and Kasama districts not to use alternative water supply sources. The third most commonreason that forced communities to abandon their water supply sources was the poor quality of the water(see table 2).Broken down hand pumps pointed to the lack of maintenance. Maintenance of boreholes was a functionof area pump menders (APMs). APMs are volunteers from amongst the community members that weretrained in the operation and maintenance (O&M) of hand pumps, and were generally paid in kind or cashas prescribed by District WASHE Committees. Payments made to APMs by communities werefundamentally meant as motivation and not as wages. Ideally, each beneficiary community contributed tothe sustainable management of boreholes and this was mainly achieved through mobilizing households toregularly contribute towards O&M of the water point. This, unfortunately, was never the case formajority of communities but where this was done, it was often reactive in nature – i.e. contribution onlymade when a hand pump broke down. In majority of cases where communities only made thecontributions when the hand pump broke down, it was also common that such contributions were oftennot adequate to cover the full cost of repairs (spare parts and labour) and thus hand pumps were neverrepaired.Nonetheless, it was obvious that the presence of active and dedicated APMs provided long termsustainability to rural water supply infrastructure. Unfortunately, APMs were absent in majority ofcommunities in all the fours districts assessed. In Samfya and Kasama districts, for instance, only 31percent of respondents revealed that they had active and dedicated APMs in their areas while 69 percentdid not have active and dedicated APMs within their communities. The same trend was showed in KapiriMposhi and Serenje districts where 30.8 percent of respondents had active and dedicated APMs withintheir communities compared to 69.2 percent of respondents that did not have active and dedicated APMswithin their communities.Page 5

7th RWSN Forum “Water for Everyone”7ème Forum RWSN « L’eau pour tous »29 Nov - 02 Dec 2016, Abidjan, Côte d’IvoirePEER REVIEWEDBesides the absence of APMs in majority of communities, fees demanded by APMs were generally veryhigh. Majority of communities failed to meet the costs demanded by area pump menders. In Samfya andKasama districts, APMs charged as high as ZMW

Community-led management of water supply in rural parts of Zambia is implemented through the Village Water Sanitation and Hygiene Education (V-WASHE) Committees who in turn are coordinated and supported by the District Water Sanitation and Hygiene Education (D-WASHE) Committees. D- WASHE Committees are a district level committee that are part .