rubric for grading the cophp ghana anemia case · web viewwithout proper water governance, both...

Kiana Rahni Public Health 490 Paper 2: Community Hydro-politics Hagopian 0

Communities and Hydro-politics:

A case-study review of how Ugandan communities distribute water access

Kiana Rahni

Public Health 490

9/1//2019

Prof. Hagopian


Introduction:

As the world’s most abundant resource, water is a necessity for cooking, agriculture, and

household activities that define aspects of everyday life. Despite its importance, the United Nations

Development Program estimates that one in four people around the world will be impacted by water

shortages by 2050 (Watts, 2018). With the goal of understanding how water is allocated,

distributed, and accessed, this report will focus on case studies and interviews relating to how

conflicts impacting water distribution are managed in three types of communities in Uganda: a rural

fishing village at the Kiyindi landing site, the Kamwokya slum near the Christian Caring

Community, and the Mulago-Kubbiri community in the urban city-center in Kampala, Uganda. Key

areas of analysis included the role that finances, organizational infrastructure, and policy have on

easing access and lessoning water related conflicts and health concerns. Inconsistent access to safe

sources of water forces individuals to seek alternative means of water access, often using

unimproved water sources that contain bacteria, runoff, and vectors that pose risks to human health

(Klug, 2018). Without proper water governance, both water quantity and quality are at risk.

Understanding the mechanisms for determining water access across communities in Africa will

inform future initiatives centered around health promotion. (Fig. 1).

Background:

In 2010, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 64/292 recognizing clean

drinking water and sanitation as essential to the realizations of human rights. (UN General

Assembly, 2010) Access to water is an integral part of the Sustainable Development Goals

particularly SDG 6 (access to clean water and sanitation for all.) The recognition of the importance

of water has informed the creation of Uganda’s most important governing document, it’s

constitution. Water is protected in the Constitution of 1995 as an important natural resource, listed

as a fundamental social and economic right in Section 8 and Section 9B. The Ugandan government

has committed itself to “taking all practical measures to promote a good water management system

at all levels” in Section 21 of the Constitution (Uganda Constitution, 1995).

Despite it’s established importance, functionality of water infrastructure and access to safe

water resources has remained a challenge in Uganda for decades. Broadly in Sub-Saharan Africa it

is estimated that of the 60,000 handpumps installed annually, one-third are nonfunctional (Banks

and Furey, 2016). In Uganda specifically, The Ministry of Water and Environment reports from

annual performance reviews estimate that one fifth of water points are not functioning (Ministry of

Water and Environment, 2018). This lack of functionality can be attributed to technical breakdown,


low yields, system age, absence of user fee collection, and lack of access to technical support (Klug,

2018). When not repaired, these setbacks lead to abandonment and at times water resources remain

nonfunctional for more than five years (Tsimpo- World Bank, 2018). In addition to challenges

relating to functionality, many areas in Uganda lack access to improved water sources with only

77% of urban residents receiving access from protected resources or pumps, compared to 70% of

rural residents (Ministry of Water and Environment, 2018).

To address water related challenges, Uganda has practiced and implemented two methods of

water governance-geographically separated and centrally managed. Water governance includes the

“range of political, social, economic, and administrative systems in place that regulate development,

maintenance, and management of water resources and provision in society” (GWP, 2002). Pre-

colonial era governance was overseen by tribe leaders, elders, and kingdoms that used local rules,

and social connection to mobilize support and financial contributions to local water source

maintenance (Asingwire, 2008). During the colonial-era, water management became a state-

controlled enterprise run by colonial leaders who prioritized access near settlements and centers for

trade (Naiga, 2015). This system carried over into the post-colonial/independence era featuring

“supply-driven” approaches to water management aimed at increasing socio-economic development

through removal of pre-conditions for water access on behalf of communities. The central

government thus continued to hold responsibility for water provision and determined its access and

distribution from the center (Naiga, 2015).

In the 1980’s, pressured by donor communities who pushed for democratization and

decentralization, Uganda began to institute a set of reforms that distributed power to local leaders

who, for the first time, were able to participate in water-related decision making (Crook, 1998).

These “demand-driven” or “community-based” systems decentralized governance to Water User

Committees (WUC’s) “that were responsible for planning and implementation of water projects”

(Naiga, 2017). In a two-part system, communities are required to work together to demand water

and decide on the technology, while empowering Water User Committees to manage community

funds collected for construction and maintenance (Breslin, 2003).

Methodology:

To best understand what we can learn from empirical examples of community-based water

management, this report focused on community points of water access as the standard unit of

analysis. Interviews, conversations, and presentations were conducted across three communities in

Uganda each featuring a unique pathway to water distribution. These communities included one


with a long-standing water access point created during the supply-driven era (Mulago-Kubbiri

neighborhood), a fishing village with Water User Committee-negotiated access points (Kiyindi

Landing Site), and a slum area in Kampala managed by a local church (Kamwokya Slum near the

Christian Caring Community). At these locations, spanning urban, rural and slum areas

respectively, interviews and discussions were conducted providing qualitative evidence for analysis.

Key questions and observations focused on three key themes of discussion: financing,

organizational infrastructure/leadership, and policy. Specific questions included describing the

sources of water within a community (piped, boreholes, protected springs, unprotected springs), the

pattern of distribution of the water sources in the community (population size, location in the

community, costs), and the types of community oversight bodies in charge of managing water

supplies. Observations included the visual quality of the water, the topography, evidence of runoff,

or encroachment near the aprons (the impermeable surface around a water system that keeps water

from soaking into the ground.) Multi-level literature reviews were used to capture information from

all levels of decentralized water management in Uganda. Literature-based evidence was derived

from reports from the World Bank on water and sanitation, sector reports from the Ministry of

Water and Environment and local reports of the water service system.

Limitations:

There are several limitations to the qualitative data collected in this study. Without approval

from an IRB, conversations and presentations were not recorded verbatim or collected with written

consent. Answers and recordings were thus subjective and may not reflect all possible points of

decision making. In the case of Mulago-Kubbiri, the water source was said to be installed in the

early 1980’s. Because of the long timeline, inaccuracy in recollection may have influenced data

collected regarding negotiation of water access points. Additionally, case study sites were selected

based on the pre-determined travel itinerary of the public health study abroad program. As such,

these locations do not represent a randomly selected sample of community locations and may lead

to misclassification bias. This report also made no mention of water quality. At every site, users

noted they boiled water before consumption. Further analysis of biological features of quality may

be pertinent to discussion of water distribution and equity.

Findings:

A review of conversations and presentations can be found in Fig. 2. Despite national

initiatives and policies that seek to provide equitable access to water, sources in all three case

studies noted discrepancies in convenience, consistency of access, and quality of water depending


on an individual’s financial resources. In Kiyindi, community members could pay the WUC’s to

divert piped water to private homesteads often at the expense of the water table for community

sources. Other examples in Kamwokya and Kubbiri include those who cannot afford purchasing or

contributing to water funds resorting to accessing water in areas that are known to be of lower

quality. Early leadership was found (particularly in the case of Kamwokya and Kiyindi) to be

important for construction and quality of water resources. When WUC’s and their partners

collaborated with the local community regarding construction of water access points, the sources

were more likely to be protected and less likely to be encroached upon or threatened by runoff. As

time went on, sources from both Kiyindi and Kubbiri noted that WUCs became less active and

consistent in the community, which lead to inconsistent contributions to maintenance at Kubbiri. At

Kiyinidi, both the WUC and the Fisherman’s Association prioritized education as a necessity for

safe water access. Both organizations established local bylaws that reinforced expectations of use

and were used as principles for water safety education. Kamwokya’s community created bylaws in

partnership with local community leaders, government, and partner NGOs which governed water

usage and management responsibilities. At Kubbiri, the lack of limits to access and 24 flow of water

was not stated to be limited or monitored by the WUCs.

Discussion:

Previous literature on water management systems in Uganda tells us that the challenges

outlined in this report are not unique to the areas surveyed. Just as a lack of payment was mentioned

in interviews at Kubbiri, another study found that 52% of surveyed households in rural Uganda

reported they had never made any form of payment to a WUC (Etongo, 2018). One cause of this

inconsistent contribution has been attributed to the unfavorable view of WUC members in

communities. Oftentimes, social relationships might be at risk causing WUC members to be

“reluctant to destabilize friend and family connections, chase debtors and subject themselves to

abuse while carrying out voluntary duties (van den Broek, 2015). Other possible explanations

include observations of the tensions between “realities of intra-community social organization and

relations and popular views about the proper role of the state in service provision” (Golooba‐

Mutebi, 2012). Many people believe that it is simply the central government’s place to contribute

towards maintenance.

The underlining causes of this animosity however seem to be addressed through proper

planning and clear leadership. As infrastructure and leadership improve, communities begin to

believe in and support actors within the water management system (Fig 3A/3B). Without good


leadership, WUCs suffer from lack of respect or cooperation that further undermines their desire to

get their job done. Literature on the use of early implementation of “process design” found the

process was an important opportunity to “build confidence, find early consensus, and establish clear

ground rules for the substantive [conflict] mediation” (Nakayama, 2015). Researchers have also

focused on capacity development as the key requirement for successful demand-driven

management. Citing the importance of internal drivers of capacity, a study from EuropeAID found

that external support is also necessary for “influencing a proactive policy process on water

governance [and] financial support.”(EuropeAID, 2009). The article goes on to write through

training and capacity development activities, external policy can “catalyze, initiate, and help shape”

internal policy (EuropeAID, 2009).

Of the three case studies mentioned in this report, Kamwokya exhibited a management

system that featured the most functional infrastructure (no current broken infrastructure), best

protections of water sources (no encroachment,) and best systems in place for water maintenance

(defined committees in charge of collecting funds.) Despite the challenges of serving a population

of 40,000 in the slums of Kampala, the success of their water management program empirically

highlights the importance of well-defined process design creation early in the development of water

infrastructure systems. Clear objectives and a collaborative culture define Kamwokya’s system

which promotes community buy-in and support. Communities with faith in the arbiters of the

management system produce a feedback loop of better water management and better health (Fig. 3A

& 3B). On the opposite end of the spectrum, Kubbiri’s lack of consistent and reliable personnel has

led to an expectation of water use without regard for sustainability or worry about impacts of

flooding or runoff. The goal of solving the challenges of functionality, lack of access, and ensuring

sustainable systems requires effective and respective leadership that remains active, consistent, and

accountable. Unfortunately, these systems are not consistent throughout surveyed areas. Here water

users rarely engage in communities’ processes leading to user to misunderstand the role of

government and WUCs in community water access.

Equity:

When water is poorly managed, water levels may fall leading to water becoming expensive or

inaccessible. In cases like these, individuals often resort to alternative, free, and often lower quality

unprotected water resources that meet their needs. Without proper up-front planning, water can

become a threat to health in a community. In the case of Kiyindi, conflicts of interest resulted from

monetary incentives that diverted water from sources created at the community center to private


home connections. Here, power disparities were emboldened by financial capacity. Those who had

money had water- a contradiction to the equitable policies promoted by the central government. A

strength of this report is the discussion of how incentive structures and lack of accountability have

failed the most vulnerable populations that government policies seek to serve.

Recommendations for the future:

Current challenges across case studies showcased a difficulty in implementing policy due to

lack of coordination and cooperation among groups in charge of water management. Given current

national institutional structure, both the Kiyindi and Kubbiri could work to adopt the collaborative

methods of Kamwokya which featured the most sustainable model of management outlined in this

essay. The initial introduction of a community organization that collaborated with National Water

and Sewage on land surveying, held community meetings for discussion of water access point

locations, and distributed responsibility among community leaders lead to the creation of a team-

based system that promoted accountability and empowered local leaders to accomplish their goals.

In the short run, this method of collaboration will be necessary for protection of water sources.

Despite movements toward a community-based management system, Uganda’s water

management remains a complicated enterprise with lofty goals muddled by redundancy between ten

government departments, four agencies, and regional, district, and community level actors (Fig. 4).

As one lecturer during our program put it “everyone is doing everything, and no one is doing

anything.” If Uganda wants to put responsibility in the hands of those on the frontlines of water

management, the country will need to restructure its framework of decision making to put greater

responsibility in the hands of local community members. Decentralization policy will require

decentralization of funds and responsibilities. This change will no doubt require high-level

government attention to how water management policy can be streamlined and clarified. This

process of transferring responsibility, however, may help solve the implementation and leadership

challenges relating to inconsistency of institutional actors and social repercussions of WUC

members due to lack of mandates.

Lastly, at both the Kiyindi and Kamwokya sites, education was an important part of water

management. Emphasis and resources were put towards safe water usage and best practices. In

conjunction with greater community involvement in key water-related instances of decision making,

conversations and education around the community role and individual responsibility towards water

system maintenance may help produce greater support of WUC leadership and community actors in

the future.


Conclusion:

Within the context of challenges in functionality and improved water access, this report

aimed to provide examples of how communities in Uganda negotiated water access and delegated

distribution. This paper successfully identified the role of financing, organizational leadership, and

policy in ensuring success of system of water management. Despite these learnings, key barriers

still remain. Progress in the field of water management will require a dedication to collaboration

and planning early on in addition to more clear delegation of water management responsibilities at a

national and community-level. These areas for improvement will both streamline water distribution

and access as well as ensure that health and access to water is a protected priority for years to come.


Appendix:

Figure 1: Government action, water, and human health

Figure 2: Table of findings from 3 case study sites

Results of water and sanitation interviews and conversations across case study sites

Location Source Summary of findings

Kiyindi

Landing Site

(Rural site) in

Kiyindi,

Uganda

Leader of Association

of Fishers and Water

Users

-The village offers both community water access

points via gravity pumped channels and private

home water connections

-Individuals who live in areas that are not conducive

to gravity-delivered water systems can pay fees to

divert water sources

-This diversion may lead to a lower water table for

those downstream

-When water levels are low, community members

often resort to drinking, bathing in, and cooking with


water from Lake Victoria (a known polluted water

resource)

-Water councils determine maintenance and can

determine locations of water access points. They

have become less active after construction

-Despite well established policies regarding water

usage, many individuals practice run-off producing

behaviors including open defecation, dumping, and

bathing in water resources

-Educational programs have been created by Water

User Committees in partnership with the

Fisherman’s Associations to discourage open

defecation and encourage safe use of water resources

Mulago-Kubbiri

Neighborhood

(urban) in

Kampala,

Uganda

Water users at urban

community near

Mekerere

-This community of homes was built around pre-

existing water sources according to elderly water

user

-One water user made note that the protected spring

was created in the early 1980’s and is maintained by

the local Water User Committee

-Run-off has become a problem after establishment

of the water access point. A cow farm is located

approximately 200 feet north of the water resource,

causing runoff from fertilizer and feed during

rainstorms

-The particular resource features a gravity-piped

protected well that flows into a pool of water thigh-

deep. A channel connected to the water access area

has been built to allow the constantly flowing water

to flow away from the area.

-These culverts are filled with trash and debris often


blocking water pathways

-Income generation can arise for those near flowing

resources when piped, metered, or pumped water

runs dry by selling water for 1000 shillings per jerry

can to local commercial businesses

Kamwokya

(Slum) near the

Christian

Caring

Community in

Kampala,

Uganda

Water users near slum

clinic

-Initial leadership has been vital for opening new

sources not previously tapped into

-This was especially helpful during repairs of

previously poorly maintained channels

-The central Govt’s role has been assisting in

planning the water piping systems

-Accountability has been facilitated through

payment-based creation of stakeholders who have a

skin in the game for maintenance and operation

-Local councils make bylaws that help people

understand how to use shared resources

- User Committees select water sellers who for 1000

shillings per jerry can sell water to members of the

community.

-At the end of the month when the metered water bill

from piped water resources came from the National

Water and Sewerage Corporation, the Committee

used the funds for payment.

Figure 3: How better

leadership leads to

community

support/buy-in


Work Cited:

“The Constitution.” The Constitution | State House Uganda, 8 Oct. 1995,

https://www.statehouse.go.ug/government/constitution.

Asingwire, N. 2008. Shifting Paradigms in Social Policy Reform: A Case of Demand versus

Supply-Driven Approaches to Safe Water Supply in Uganda. PhD thesis. Kampala:

Makerere University.

Banks, B., Furey, S., 2016.What'sWorking,Where, and for How Long. A 2016Water Point Update

to the RWSN (2009) Statistics.

Breslin, E.D. “Demand response approach in practice: why sustainability remains elusive.” (2003).

Water Aid. In: Paper Presented at the 3rd World Water Forum, Japan.

Crook R, Manor J. 1998. Democracy and Decentralization in South Asia and West Africa:

Participation, Accountability and Performance. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge

Daniel Etongo, et al. “Community-Managed Water Supply Systems in Rural Uganda: The Role of

Participation and Capacity Development.” Water, vol. 10, no. 9, 2018, p. 1271.

Golooba‐Mutebi, Frederick. “IN SEARCH OF THE RIGHT FORMULA: PUBLIC, PRIVATE

AND COMMUNITY‐DRIVEN PROVISION OF SAFE WATER IN RWANDA AND

UGANDA.” Public Administration and Development, vol. 32, no. 4-5, 2012, pp. 430–443.

GWP. 2002. Dialogue on Effective Water Governance. Stockholm, Sweden: Global Water

Partnership (GWP).

Klug, Tori et al. “A Categorization of Water System Breakdowns: Evidence from Liberia, Nigeria,

Tanzania, and Uganda.” Science of the Total Environment 619–620 (2018): 1126–1132.

Science of the Total Environment. Web.

Ministry of Water and Environment. “SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT 2018: Ministry of

Water and Environment.” SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT 2018 | Ministry of Water

and Environment, 2018, https://www.mwe.go.ug/library/sector-performance-report-2018.

Naiga, R., Penker, M., & Hogl, K. (2017). Women’s Crucial Role in Collective Operation and

Maintenance of Drinking Water Infrastructure in Rural Uganda. Society and Natural

Resources, 30(4), 506–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2016.1274460

Naiga, Resty, Marianne Penker, and Karl Hogl. “Challenging Pathways to Safe Water Access in

Rural Uganda: From Supply to Demand-Driven Water Governance.” International Journal

of the Commons 9.1 (2015): 237–260. International Journal of the Commons. Web.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2016.1274460

https://www.mwe.go.ug/library/sector-performance-report-2018

https://www.statehouse.go.ug/government/constitution


Nakayama, Mikiyasu et al. Natural Resources and Conflict Resolution: A Guide for Mediation

Practitioners. United Nations department of Political Affairs and United Nations

Environment Programme, 2015. Water. Web.

Tsimpo, Clarence (editor); Wodon, Quentin (editor). 2018. Water and Sanitation in Uganda

(English). Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/772821545386728074/Water-and-Sanitation-in-

Uganda

UN General Assembly. “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 28 July 2010.”

A/RES/64/292 - E - A/RES/64/292, 3 Aug. 2010, https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/64/292.

Van Den Broek, and Brown. “Blueprint for Breakdown? Community Based Management of Rural

Groundwater in Uganda.” Geoforum, vol. 67, no. C, 2015, pp. 51–63.

Watts, Jonathan. “Water Shortages Could Affect 5bn People by 2050, UN Report Warns.” The

Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 19 Mar. 2018,

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/19/water-shortages-could-affect-5bn-

people-by-2050-un-report-warns.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/19/water-shortages-could-affect-5bn-people-by-2050-un-report-warns

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/19/water-shortages-could-affect-5bn-people-by-2050-un-report-warns

https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/64/292

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/772821545386728074/Water-and-Sanitation-in-Uganda

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/772821545386728074/Water-and-Sanitation-in-Uganda

rubric for grading the cophp ghana anemia case · web viewwithout proper water governance, both...

Documents