technical assistance consultant’s report...voice, choice, and babies’ poop 1 ... 8.5% from the...

Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report

This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. (For project preparatory technical assistance: All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.

Project Number: 49454-001 May 2018

Papua New Guinea: Support for Water and Sanitation Sector Management

Prepared by Ken Marshall

Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea

For Department of National Planning and Monitoring

Voice, Choice,

and Babies’

Poop

A WASH Household Survey of Tete

Settlement in Port Moresby, Papua

New Guinea

Consultants Report - May 2018

Ken Marshall – ADB Consultant

Clara Momoi – PNG Department of National

Planning and Monitoring

Voi e, Choi e, and Ba ies’ Poop i

Contents

I trodu tio ....................................................................................................................................

The WASH Household Survey .........................................................................................................

. Methodology ...........................................................................................................................

. Sa pli g ..................................................................................................................................

. Cost .........................................................................................................................................

Fi di gs ...........................................................................................................................................

. For ‐ Ge eral .....................................................................................................................

. For ‐ Water ......................................................................................................................

. For ‐ Health a d Hygie e ................................................................................................

. Me strual Hygie e Ma age e t .........................................................................................

. For ‐ O servatio Tool ....................................................................................................

. Ge der A alysis ....................................................................................................................

Su ary of Survey Fi di gs .........................................................................................................

Re o e datio s for a WASH Pilot ............................................................................................

. Role of the WASH Proje t Ma age e t U it / DNPM .........................................................

. Role of Eda Ra u ...................................................................................................................

. Role of Tete Reside ts a d Leaders ......................................................................................

. Health a d Hygie e ...............................................................................................................

Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 1

1 Introduction

Much has been written about the challenges faced by countries in the Pacific in the

face of high rural/urban migration. The provision of basic services has seldom kept

up with the influx of people moving into towns and cities looking for a better life. The

provision of water and sanitation services takes time to plan, design, construct, and

manage and services are poor for formal residents of towns and cities, let alone for

those living in informal settlements. Policy and legislation also take time to develop,

and to change and reflect the reality on the ground.

Whilst there are still those who would prefer to send settlement residents “home”,

there is a growing recognition and acceptance that this is not possible. Settlements

around Port Moresby have been in place for many years, some of the residents have

never lived anywhere else.

People living in Port Moresby settlements, and there are many, perhaps 500,000,

deserve better services and the opportunity to improve their standards of living.

Presently people in settlements have little opportunity to express their feelings or to

be heard and no tangible way of communicating with service providers.

This Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) Household Survey has been designed

to help residents participate in the design and implementation of a WASH pilot

project. The pilot will support the development of a model for WASH improvements

in settlements that can be refined and ultimately scaled up. It aims to demonstrate

the impact that improved services can have, not only on settlement residents but

also on a town or city more broadly, and to prove that settlement residents are a

valuable source of business to water utilities.

Given the high number of people living in settlements in and around Port Moresby,

and the fact that many of them are using water from the towns reticulation system,

there is a great incentive for all to make this work. The survey has shown that

settlement residents are desperate for better services, and utilities are missing out

on large amounts of revenue. If better services can be supplied, regardless of all the

legislative, policy, and physical challenges, then settlement residents will pay.

Tete settlement is in northern Port Moresby in the Moresby North West District, close

to the suburb of Gerehu. It has a population of approximately 8000 people living in

up to 1000 houses. The current water, sanitation, and hygiene status is poor with


only one standpipe serving the entire settlement and operating only intermittently.

Sanitation facilities and practises are poor with high levels of sanitation related

illness. Menstrual hygiene, and infant faeces management practises are particularly

poor and result in high incidence of infections and illness.

2 The WASH Household Survey

2.1 Methodology

The survey consisted of four key forms, three were conducted through an interview,

and one an observation exercise (see annexes 5 to 8):

• Household Survey Form 1 – General (33 questions)

• Household Survey Form 2 – Water (34 questions)

• Household Survey Form 3 – Health and Hygiene (45 questions)

Photo 1 - Tete Public Standpipe


• Household Survey Form 4 – Observation Exercise (11 questions)

Each of the forms were designed to include a series of questions with a range of

possible answers (closed questions), as well as “Don’t Know” and “Other” response

options. Possible answers were not divulged to respondents, but simply used to

record responses. All interviews were conducted by national enumerators who had

been selected and trained specifically for this role, with all questions being written

and asked in Tok Pisin.

Enumerators and enumerator guides were generally university graduates and/or

local NGO staff (World Vision), as well staff of Eda Ranu (the Port Moresby Water

utility) and suitable residents of Tete settlement. The team included 9 male and 8

female enumerators, with male to ask male respondents, and female to ask female.

In addition, enumerators were split into teams of 3 or 4 people with each team

supported and guided by a Tete resident, whose role was to ensure enumerators

were safe, and to introduce them to households when needed.

Several community meetings had already been conducted to introduce the survey,

and a one-day visit to Tete had been conducted to talk with community and church

leaders, and to validate landmarks on the survey map (Figure 1). Official maps of

Tete are not available, therefore the survey used a map adapted from a Google

Earth image.

2.1 Sampling

Settlements in Port Moresby are difficult places to work. There is a lack of

information regarding the population, the geography, the services, and no available

maps. In addition, there are many practical, logistical, and security challenges to

overcome.

Figure 1 below shows a Google Earth image of Tete settlement. This map was used

to validate all key landmarks in Tete, and subsequently to provide enough locational

information so that the survey team could ensure there was a geographical spread to

the households surveyed.

The key sampling approach included two criteria; gender and location. The survey

aimed to interview equal numbers of men and women, and to interview residents

living in all grids marked on the map using churches as key starting/staging/finishing

points.


The team’s approach was to start each day at a recognised landmark, generally one

of the 12 churches identified on the map, and to spread out in each direction

attempting to capture at least one household in each numbered grid square, all

Enumerators had a copy of the map with the gridlines showing.

It is estimated that the Tete settlement has more than 8,000 residents, living in as

many as 1,000 houses. Our aim was to include at least 10% of all households in the

survey, this gave us a target of 100 households where all four forms would be used.

At completion we conducted the Water and the General survey in 152 households,

and the Health and Hygiene and the Observation survey in 151 households,

meaning that the surveys were conducted in the same households, but one of the

Health and Hygiene and Observation forms were not completed due to a lack of time

or the forms being mislaid or missed out in one Household.

In total we covered approximately 15% of all households, this was achieved with 17

enumerators conducting between 2 and 4 surveys each, on each day. The survey

was conducted over three days, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th November 2017.

2.2 Cost

Whilst developing such a survey is a complex and time-consuming task, actual

survey costs, once the survey has been designed and tested, are quite low. The

survey was undertaken with support from the Asian Development Bank through

TA9298: “Support for water and sanitation sector management”.

Costs for the Tete survey were as follows:

The table above does not include costs to develop and analyse the survey. However,

it does indicate what the costs would be for future surveys using the same tools.

ITEM No. Days Unit Cost TOTALTraining

Enumerators 17 2 175 5,950

Materials 500

Catering 20 2 30 1,200

Field Work 17 3 200 10,200

Tete Support Staff 7 3 50 1,050

Materials 400

Fuel 400

TOTAL KINA 19,700

TOTAL USD 6,058


Figure 1 - Tete Settlement Survey Map


3 Findings

3.1 Form 1 - General

Form 1 was used to conduct interviews with 152 households including 68 female and

83 male respondents, one respondent did not answer the question on gender. The

purpose of this form was to establish a general understanding of Tete residents, who

they are, where they come from, and what they do.

Whilst Tete has existed for many years, and the ethnicity of the population has

changed as time has gone by, the current population (as sampled) includes 71%

from the Western Highlands, 8.5% from the Eastern Highlands, 8.5% from Central

Province, and 3.5% from the Southern Highlands and Jiwaka Provinces. In total the

population sampled included people from 16 Provinces. Our sample included 132

male, and 19 female headed households. Of the 152 respondents interviewed, men

were generally 25 to 54 years and women 18 to 44 years old.

Information gathered on

education (Figure 2)

showed that whilst a

higher proportion of men

completed both primary

school and college, more

women completed

secondary school and

university. Approximately

16% of men and women

did not attend any school.

Houses in Tete are generally built from permanent materials (wood, iron and

concrete – see photo 2) with 65% considered to be permanent structures, and 35%

considered to be temporary.

Figure 2 - Education


Initially, through looking at

secondary data, we had estimated

household size to be approximately

8 people. Survey results show that

it is significantly higher with 45%

indicating a household of more than

8, and over 20% having more than

12 people sleeping at their house

(Figure 3).

Photo 2 - Typical House

Figure 3 - Household Size


Most respondents have lived in Tete for more than 2 years, with 75% having lived

there for between 2 and 10 years, and 14% having lived in Tete for more than 15

years.

Of respondents interviewed approximately 9% answered that someone living with a

disability lived at their house, responses included joint pain, deafness, blindness, and

car and accident injuries.

Lack of land tenure/home ownership, and/or the fear of eviction, have long been

considered impediments to investing in a home. 90% of respondents answered that

they “owned” their own land, with 85% saying that they have purchased it from

landowners and 4% saying

they had been given the land

by politicians. Of the 10%

who do not own their land,

50% are paying rent to

landowners and landlords.

When asked if they had a

fear of eviction many said

that they did. This fear was

generally towards eviction by

government, with few fearing eviction by landowners (Figure 4).

Whilst Tete has a colourful history, many residents now consider it to be a safe and

good place to live. Conflict does occur and is generally related to alcohol, drugs,

stealing, clan issues, and family and sexual violence.

Given the complexity of providing

and managing services in

settlements, and the difficulties

already experienced in many

Port Moresby settlements, the

survey asked a range of

questions to explore how to

develop mechanisms that would

maximise the opportunity for a

Figure 4 - Fear of Eviction

Figure 5 - Who Represents You?


successful WASH pilot. A WASH

pilot in Tete will only be successful

if residents are involved in

developing such a mechanism, and

ultimately are prepared to pay for

services. Respondents were asked

two questions, firstly “who

represents you?” (Figure 5), and

secondly “who represents all of

Tete?” (Figure 6). Answers were quite consistent, although people mostly felt that

the leaders from their own block represented them (a block is a local administrative

level comprising a distinct land area and established by the Tete Residents

Association), they also felt that the

Tete Residents Association had a

role representing all of Tete. This

question may be misleading given

that in many instances the people

doing the “representing” are the

same. Someone from my own

province, is also my block leader,

and is also on the Tete Residents

Association. Also, the survey was visibly supported by the Tete Residents

Association, potentially introducing a positive bias in the responses and legitimising

the role of the Association. When asked “who helps you to settle disputes?” (Figure

7), the responses were more strongly directed to “leaders from my own block”.

Currently there are very few services provided in Tete and few organisations willing

to work there. When asked if other organisations worked in Tete, 75% of

respondents said “No”. Others indicated that there is an occasional visit from a

church group, an NGO, or a government department.

Figure 6 - Who Represents all of Tete?

Figure 7 - Settling Disputes


Willingness and ability to pay

for services are key

components of any future

development for the people of

Tete. As has been shown

throughout the world, it is often

the poorest people who pay the

most for basic services. Tete is

no different and more is

included in the following section

on “Water”.

An initial assessment of income

(Figure 8) and paying for

services was included in Form

1 – General. It is apparent that

most people in Tete rely on

several sources of income, and

on the income of more than one

household member (Figure 9).

Approximately 50% of respondents are street vendors making and/or selling various

goods such as vegetables, fruits, cigarettes, bettlenut, livestock, fish, water, clothing,

drinks, biscuits, and firewood. These products are sold both within Tete and further

afield, with many travelling to the middle of town to sell their goods. It is clear from

driving around Tete that there is a high percentage of taxi owners/drivers. Whilst “taxi

driver” wasn’t one of the available answers, of the 64 responses in the “Other”

category (Figure 8), 30 of them were transport related, taxi driver, taxi owner, bus

owner, bus driver.

Figure 8 - Income

Figure 9 - Other Household Income


From the two graphs on

“Earnings” it would appear

that 65% of households in

Tete are receiving more than

K201/week, this can vary

widely and whilst many

households are very poor,

many are not (Figure 10 and

Figure 11). This is discussed

further in the section on water,

and is important when trying

to understand both the ability,

and the willingness to pay for

improved water services.

Figure 12 – Average

Expenditure, shows what

people generally spend their

money on.

Average weekly expenditure

on water is K25 with many people paying much more than this, and some not paying

anything. If we take the average expenditure on water as K25 per week and the most

common weekly total household income to be K700 then people are paying 3.6% of

their income on water. Whilst this is close to the UN stated maximum of 3% of

household income, it does not represent 50 litres per person and is likely to be

considerably less.

41.3% of respondents said that they collect water once a day, and 42% said that

they normally collect 20 litres of water each time. If average household size is 10

people, this equates to approximately 2 litres per person per day, barely enough to

survive and far below the WASH Policy recommendation of 50 litres per person per

day.

Figure 10 - Earnings

Figure 11 - Other Earnings


To understand willingness to

pay for services, we asked

questions relating to payment

for electricity (Figure 13). This

is a contentious question and

one that people may have felt

uncomfortable answering with

some responses not being

entirely accurate. From the

responses we received it

appears that 42% do not have

electricity. Meaning that 58%

do have some form of

electricity. This includes legal

connections, illegal connections, use of a generator, and solar power. Of the 58%

that do have electricity, 62% do not pay for it (Figure 14). The remainder are paying

for electricity. Responses under the “Other” category showed that those who are

paying for electricity are generally paying more than K15 per week. There were 32

Figure 12 - Expenditure

Figure 13 - Electricity

Figure 13 - Electricity

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Food and

Drink

Transport Cooking fuel

and

Household

lighting

Electricity School fees Water Buai Beer

Approximately how much do you spend each week on the

following? Hamas moni yu save usim long wanpla wik long

baim ol displa samting?

Figure 12 – Average Expenditure


responses under the “Other”

category, of these 24 entered

an amount they are paying per

week. The average of these 24

entries is K76/week. Overall it

shows that of the 152

respondents asked, 127 gave

an answer, of that 127, 28 are

paying for electricity.

In conclusion, Form 1

indicated that people living in Tete are not well educated, live in overcrowded

houses, and come mostly from the Highlands of PNG, predominantly the Western

Highlands. Many of them still fear eviction, which impacts on their ability and

willingness to invest in improving their living arrangements. In terms of leadership

they have a preference for leaders from the block where they live but also recognise

the role of the Tete Residents Association. They work hard to earn a living and to

look after their children, mostly as street vendors and taxi/bus drivers with some

working in government positions, but receive very little support from any other

parties, be they government, NGO, or the private sector. Their lack of real

engagement with government and NGO organisations means they have little

opportunity to raise their concerns and fears for the future, with no voice in

advocating for improved government services.

3.2 Form 2 - Water

There were 152 respondents interviewed using Form 2 - Water. This included 47%

female and 53% male respondents. This part of the survey aimed to develop an

understanding of what water people used, where they get it from, and what value

they placed upon it.

From the survey it is clear that residents use a variety of different sources depending

on the availability of water and the time it takes to collect (Figure 15). Tete currently

has one water supply point that is controlled by Eda Ranu. This consists of one open

pipe (has no tap fitted) that provides water for a short period of time each day, or

most days. In this survey it will be referred to as the “public standpipe”. At the south

Figure 14 – Paying for Electricity


western end of the settlement there are a series of small springs that produce water

for much of the year, in addition there are several (three or four) hand-dug wells that

are owned by residents.

59% of people in Tete use

the public standpipe as their

main source of water (Figure

16). The second most

popular source of water is

“water collected from town”.

If these two options are

combined, then 80% of Tete

residents are relying on

water provided by Eda Ranu, either through the public standpipe in Tete, or by

collecting it in other suburbs, normally the Gerehu Market.

Most people walk more than fifteen minutes to reach their water collection point and

take more than 2 hours to collect water after having to wait in line. In addition, their

Figure 16 - Main Source of Water

Figure 15 – What Water do you Use?


Photo 3 - Water Containers

main source of water only works occasionally and does not work to a regular

timetable, meaning they do not know when they will be able to collect water. Most

people (41.33%) collect water once per day, with 30% collecting water less than

once per day. People

collecting water less than

once per day are generally

using a vehicle to collect

large amounts of water, often

from town, with some having

water delivered to a large

tank at their house.

Whether using water

collected from their main or alternative water source, there is very little treatment of

water with 79% of respondents not treating water, and others boiling or filtering it.

Water is collected by a range of different people (Figure 18) including men, women,

young and old, but mostly by women and young women. Generally, when water is

collected from town, in a vehicle, this is done by men, when water is collected from

the public standpipe, this is mostly by women and young women.

Figure 17 - Alternative Source of Water


Figure 18 - Who Collects Water

Photo 4 - Woman and Girls Collecting Water


Whilst it is unclear how often people pay for water that is collected from the public

standpipe, it is clear that people collecting water from town are paying for it on

collection. Whilst 20% of

respondents are not

paying for water, 80% are.

Most people (35%) are

paying more than K30 per

week for the water they

use (Figure 19). Water

collected from the Gerehu

Market is costing K2 for 10

litres. This would equate to

K200 for one kilolitre (1000 litres). The gazetted Eda Ranu tariff for public standpipes

is K1.5 for one kilolitre. Generally, Eda Ranu is signing MOUs with communities

using public standpipes and these MOUs include a tariff of K1 per one kilolitre. Tete

residents collecting water from the Gerehu market are paying 200 times the rate that

they should be paying if buying water from Eda Ranu through a properly managed

public standpipe.

The one public standpipe provided by Eda Ranu is known as the “Tete Community

Water account” and should be paid monthly. This does not happen and this lack of

payment, and the lack of a reliable water service, have combined to create the

current situation and a vicious circle of poor payment, poor service - poor service,

poor payment. In the past the Tete Community Water account has been settled by

the local political Member which has contributed to the confusion about responsibility

for paying for water.

The Tete Community Water account should be managed by the Tete Water

Committee. Whilst this committee was established some time ago, it now appears to

have been disbanded and there is no clarity over who should manage the payment

to Eda Ranu.

During the survey we asked people if they have a water committee. 53% responded

that they do have a water committee, 38% said “No”, and 8% did not know. It is

possible that in the past, members of the old water committee, or members of the

Tete Residents Association have asked people to contribute towards paying the

Figure 19 - Money Spent on Water


water bill, and that people still think the water committee exists. From an examination

of the Eda Ranu accounts system, it is apparent that the Tete water bill is seldom

paid, and when it was last paid, it was paid by the Member.

When we asked people if they

pay a monthly water bill

(Figure 20), 49% answered

“No”, 29% answered that they

pay the water committee, and

9% that they paid Eda Ranu.

There is clearly some

confusion over paying for

water, indeed many people

believe that they should not have to pay for water. They claim that water should be

free and that they didn’t pay for it when they lived in the village. This situation has

been compounded by the very poor level of service, resulting in very poor levels of

payment, and by the Member paying for water and creating the perception that water

is a free good provided by government.

These perceptions are complicated by the Community Services Obligation (CSO).

The CSO states that State Owned Enterprises like Eda Ranu, are obliged to provide

services, in this case water services, to those in need. The cost of providing such

services should be recouped from government. Whilst Eda Ranu are aware of the

CSO, and in some instances do provide services to communities, normally when

they are requested to do so by a Member of Parliament, they have never claimed the

cost of such services from government.

This means that they provide a very low level of service, to fulfil an obligation, but do

not get paid for it. This low level of service, Tete for instance has one public

standpipe for approximately 8000 people, means that residents are unlikely to pay,

given that they only get water for one or two hours a day, sometimes less. This has

created a downward spiral or vicious circle with Eda Ranu and settlement residents

stuck in the middle, residents getting very poor service and not paying for it, and Eda

Ranu not recovering the cost of provision either from the community or the

government, and certainly not being able to generate a surplus. Given the size of the

Figure 20 - Monthly Payment for Water


settlement population in Port Moresby is at least 500,000 people, finding a solution

to this situation is key to improving standards of living, and to the future sustainability

of Eda Ranu.

Of those people who had

responded that they do pay

a monthly water bill, when

we asked how much they

were paying, there was a

wide range of responses. If

they were paying a Tete

Water Committee member a

monthly contribution, we

would have expected the responses to be more uniform. This may indicate a variety

of response incentives. People may feel that they should be paying for water, and so

inflate the regularity of that payment, they may answer using the amount that they

are paying for water, regardless of whether it is a monthly bill payment, or just what

they pay others for water. Regardless it is apparent that many people are paying

significant amounts for water each week, but we know, from looking at the accounts,

that they are not paying Eda Ranu.

We then asked

respondents who

were paying a water

bill, how they knew

how much to pay

each month (Figure

22). 63% said that

they were informed

by the Water

Committee member,

and that when they did pay, they would pay it to the Water Committee member, who

would often come to the house to collect it. It is likely that this is how the process

Figure 21 -How Much are you Paying for Water?

Figure 22 - Communicating Payment Amounts


initially was intended to work when the system was first established. Over time

though, the level of service has declined, and water bills have seldom been paid.

A (if not “the”) critical

component of any

payment for services

system, is what

happens if you do not

pay. When asked this

question 21% of

respondents said that

nothing happens if they

don’t pay (Figure 23), 35% claimed that if they did not pay then they cannot get

water from the public standpipe, and 28% answered “Other”. Of the “Other”

responses most claimed that the supply is turned off if they do not pay.

The current situation is clearly unsatisfactory. There is one public standpipe for 8000

people, that standpipe works intermittently, and the water it provides is seldom paid

for by residents. It appears that people are willing to pay for water and are paying for

water from other places at high unit rates, but for them to pay Eda Ranu, they need

to receive a reasonable level of service. The next group of questions were designed

to help understand what service levels people would be happy with and would pay

for.

The first such question asked “If Eda Ranu were able to install a standpipe closer to

your home, say within 100 metres, that would operate 24 hours a day and provide

clean (safe) water, would you be prepared to pay a flat rate for this service? (Figure

24).

When asked this question 5.41% responded “No”, 44.59% responded “Yes” and

would be prepared to pay more K5 per month. Of the 37.84% (56 respondents) who

answered “Other” the majority of comments were positive and said they would be

prepared to pay more. Two of the comments said that they would only pay if the

standpipe was close to their own home.

Figure 23 - What Happens if you Do Not Pay


The next question (Figure 25) offered the same service level but included paying for

the amount of water you use, rather than a flat rate. A much higher percentage

(24.48%) answered “No”. 39.16% answered “Yes” and would pay more than K10 per

month. Of the “Other” answers there was some concern regarding whether everyone

would pay, “I might pay, but then others will not” but still general agreement that they

would pay whatever the cost.

Figure 24 - Closer Standpipe - Flat Rate

Figure 25- Closer Standpipe - Pay for Water Used


The third question (Figure 26) in this series offered an improved level of service, and

the prospect of sharing a connection with 3 to 5 houses and again paying for the

water that you use. 11.64% answered “No” with 36.99% answering “Yes” and that

they would pay more than K20 per month.

Comments in “Other” responses show that most people would be happy with this

service level, but they would also have concerns about whether their neighbour

would pay their share.

Figure 26 - Neighbourhood Standpipe - Pay for Water Used


Finally, we asked how much people would be prepared to pay for a connection to

their own yard/house (Figure 27). 36.24% answered that they would be prepared to

pay upto K40 per month. Of the 61 “Other” responses 58 said that they would be

prepared to pay more than K40, and three said it would depend on the amount

charged.

It is clear from the response to this series of questions that people are prepared to

pay for water and see it as a vital service. They are already paying for water and

having to collect it in town or wait in very long queues. They would pay more as the

service level increases but are concerned with equity and being sure that they are

getting what they are paying for. There is some concern in regard to sharing a

connection with others, with several comments suggesting that this would only be

satisfactory if the

connection was at their

own premises.

When asked if they

would be prepared to

pay a connection fee

(Figure 28), 32.65%

answered “Yes K200”. Of

the 31.97% of “Other”

responses, the majority

Figure 27 - Yard Connection

Figure 28 - Connection Fees


also answered in the positive but were unsure what the amount would be. 22 of the

47 “Other” responses said that they would pay any amount.

A pro-poor approach to helping people pay bills could include things like smaller

weekly bills instead of larger monthly bills, using a flat rate so that people can plan

for the cost, and Eda Ranu establishing a payment booth in or close to Tete, instead

of people having to travel to Eda Ranu to pay bills. When asked about weekly or

monthly billing 96% said they preferred monthly billing. When asked about flat rate

versus pay for what you

use 62.84% preferred a

flat rate with 37.16

preferring to pay for the

amount used. When

asked who they would

prefer to pay (Figure 29),

89.26% preferred paying

directly to Eda Ranu with

7.38% preferring to pay

the Water Committee. Of the comments received there was a clear message that

they did not trust the block leaders or Water Committee members to handle their

funds, and that it would be safer and more transparent to pay directly to Eda Ranu.

The final question in the “Water” interview was “why do you want to have an

Figure 29 - Who Would You Prefer to Pay?

Figure 30 - Why Do You Want an Improved Water Supply?


improved water supply”. There were two strong reasons given (Figure 30), one was

to improve their health status, the other to make life easier. Whilst similar, male and

female responses differed in that men chose “health” as the key driver and women

claimed “convenience”.

3.3 Form 3 - Health and Hygiene

Health and hygiene in Tete is a constant challenge. The lack of water and effective

toilets coupled with poor knowledge of good health and hygiene practices means

that many people suffer regular bouts of water related illness.

Whilst there are some organisations conducting health and hygiene training in PNG,

there has been very little interaction with Tete residents. When asked if they have

had any health and hygiene education only 12% answered “Yes”. The limited health

and hygiene education that they have received has been conducted by the

Department of Health, the church, NGO’s, and the National Capital District

Commission (NCDC), but certainly not in the recent past and seldom if ever

focussed on health and hygiene behaviour in relation to water use and sanitation.

When asked “how do you stop people from getting diarrhoea” respondents

mentioned a range of things including hand washing and using an effective toilet

(Figure 31).

Figure 31 - What Can You Do to Stop People Getting Diarrhoea?


Even though there has been very little health and hygiene education, most

respondents do have a broad understanding, particularly regarding handwashing,

although practising this is difficult given the lack of water.

When asked if they had their own toilet, 96% answered that they do. These toilets

vary in type (Figure 32) and effectiveness and were further examined as part of the

“Observation Tool”.

Of the toilets that we inspected most were not operating as an effective barrier to the

transmission of disease, many were full, and most were poorly constructed. More

than 50% of respondents answered that the toilet that they use does not have a light,

Figure 32 - Types of Toilets


Photo 5 - Typical Tete Toilet


with 45% saying that they use a torch, including using a cell phone as a torch, when

they use the toilet at night (Figure 33).

Approximately 20% of

respondents said that they

were sharing their toilet with

people who did not reside in

their house, so sharing with

neighbours and others.

Whilst 20% are currently

sharing their toilet with people

outside their own household,

80% answered that they would not use a public toilet if one was installed. Of the 80%

who said they would not use a public toilet the main reasons given included that it

“would be dirty” and that they don’t like sharing with strangers” (Figure 34).

Respondents were asked if there were any taboo’s regarding men and women using

the same toilet, 93% said there were not. Of those that said there were, answers

included:

Figure 33 - Does Your Toilet Have a Light

Figure 34 - Reasons for Not Using a Public Toilet


• “People with illness should use a different toilet”

• “Women have their periods”

• “Yes, men should use separate toilet to women”

• “Men and women must use different toilets because of their physical

differences and social/cultural norms”

• Most culture, we don’t allow them to cook food (when they have their period)

because it’s part of Hagen culture”

• “Because of females monthly periods”

• “Exposure to different diseases”

• “It’s risky for women to use the same toilet as men”

From Form 1 - General we understand that household sizes are large often with

more than 12 people sleeping in one house. This means that most houses have a

number of young children and babies with 40% of households having 3 or more

young children living there (Figure 35).

Figure 35 - Number of Children


Given the high number of children, we asked “where do children normally defecate”?

Whilst 45% responded that children defecate in their toilet (Figure 36), it is apparent

that the remaining 55% do not. The next question asked how adults dispose of

babies / children’s faeces?

Figure 37 shows that

approximately 50% throw

it into the Toilet, the rest

do not. Meaning that about

one quarter of all

children’s faeces is not

being put into a toilet but is

buried in the yard, thrown

into the bushes /drain,

thrown onto the rubbish

heap, put on the fire, or left

for the dogs to eat. Figure 36 - Where Do Children/Babies Defecate?

Photo 6 - Most Families Have Many Children


Poor infant faeces

management is a

contributing factor to the

high incidence of

diarrhoea in Tete and one

that needs to be

addressed as part of any

health and hygiene

education program. From

the responses gathered

(Figure 38) it would appear that 70% of the population of Tete have had diarrhoea

during the last 12 months and it is usually children between 0 and 15 who get it the

most, although adults also suffer.

Having explored people’s

understanding of good

health and hygiene

behaviour and established

how little support Tete has

received in the past, we

asked respondents “when

do you wash your hands?”

(Figure 39). Strong

responses were recorded

for “hand washing after

going to the toilet” and

“before eating”. 47

comments were recorded

in the “Other” category,

these included 16

responses that said they

only wash their hands

when they have water,

Figure 37 - How Do You Dispose of Children/Babies Faeces?

Figure 38 - Incidence of DIarrheoa

Figure 39 - When Do You Wash Your Hands?


other comments

included that they never

wash their hands. 60%

of respondents said that

they use soap (Figure

40), and 34% said they

sometimes use soap. Of

the respondents who

answered that they did

not use soap 64% said it

was not available, and

many commented that

they did not use soap because there was not enough water to wash their hands. The

Observation Tool was used to validate if soap was present at households.

Whilst 96% of respondents answered that they did have a toilet, 98% answered that

they would like to have a better toilet. Reasons for not already having a better toilet

(Figure 41) included “not having enough water” and that “it would be too expensive”.

Of the 24 comments received in the “Other” category 10 said that they need to have

a sewerage system before they can improve their toilets.

60.40%

34.23%

4.70%0.00% 1.34%

Yes Sometimes No Don't know Other

(please

specify)

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

Do you normally use soap when washing your hands?Yu save usim sop long wasim

han?

Figure 40 - Do You Use Soap?

Figure 41 - Reasons for Not Having a Better Toilet


When asked “what would help you to have better toilets” (Figure 42) the strongest

response was 82% “having access to water”. Other responses included “having

more money”, “health education”, and “demonstration toilets”.

Photo 7 - Typical Toilet


As with all settlements around Port Moresby solid waste management is difficult.

There is an occasional visit from a garbage truck, but this is irregular and

unpredictable.

Figure 42 - What Would Help you to Have a Better Toilet?

Figure 43 - How do you Dispose of Rubbish?


Most people manage their solid waste in a variety of different ways including burning

it, using a rubbish pit to collect it, and taking it to a collection point, from where it is

seldom collected (Figure 43).

3.4 Menstrual Hygiene Management

In order to ask respondents about Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM) we first

asked if they would be prepared to answer questions on this topic (Figure 44). Whilst

84% of women answered

“Yes” only 55% of men

answered “Yes”. On several

occasions, when interviewing

a man, with his wife sitting

close by, when this question

was asked, he suggested that

his wife respond to the MHM

questions.

There were a range of

responses given to the

question “Where do you go to

clean yourself when you have

your period” (Figure 45). Most

woman responded that they

use either the toilet or an

outside wash area. Other

responses included “work”,

“bush/creek”, “Gerehu Market

Public Shower”, and “in the yard”.

The majority of female respondents (95%) said that they use “sanitary pads” (Figure

46). 12.7% said that when they could not afford sanitary pads they would use

“cloths”. Sanitary pads would be disposed of in the toilet or burnt with 23 of the 24

Figure 44 - Are You Prepared to Answer Questions About Menstrual Hygiene

Management?

Figure 45 - Where Do You Go to Clean Yourself During Your Period?


Photo 9 - Typical Washing Area

Photo 8 - Typical Washing Area


comments under

“Other” saying they

would be burnt

(Figure 47). If cloths

are used then they

are seldom washed

and re-used, most

respondents would

dispose of them by

throwing them into

the toilet or burning

them, although two

comments said that

they “go to my

relatives’ house in

town to wash them”,

“shower area and

wash the cloth”

(Figure 48).

Figure 47 - How do you dispose of sanitary pads?

Figure 48 - Where do you wash cloths?

Figure 46 – What do you/girls in your house use when you have your period?


Men who were willing to

answer questions on MHM

were asked the same

questions as the women.

Interestingly whilst 96% of

women said that they used

sanitary pads and only 3%

used tampons, male

responses showed that they

believed 67% used sanitary

pads and 22% used tampons (Figure 49). Of the 8 responses in the “Other” category

7 responded that they do not know what women used and that it was women’s

business. When asked how pads were disposed of 55% of men said they were put in

the toilet and 26% said they did not know. When asked about the disposal of cloths,

43% of male respondents said they did not know where women/girls disposed of

them.

3.5 Form 4 - Observation Tool

To validate and cross check some of the responses that we received during the

interview parts of the survey, we used the Observation Tool. The Observation Tool

was the final part of the interview, after sitting and going through the three main

survey forms – General, Water, and Health and Hygiene, the enumerator would then

use Form 4 - Observation Tool.

Form 4 was used on 151 households, this was 83 male and 68 female respondents.

Initially the survey was designed such that each enumerator would have a camera

which would be used during the Observation Tool. This approach was adjusted and

only two cameras were used during the survey. Whenever photographs were taken,

permission was first sought from the respondent.

Form 4 focussed specifically on sanitation and hygiene. The first question (Figure

49) looked at the location of the toilet in relation to the house. This was to help

Figure 49 - Men Only, what do girls use when they have their period?


understand the

likelihood of fecal

matter being

transported by flies from

the toilet to the house,

and onto any food in the

house. Most toilets,

53% were within 5

metres of the house.

The main part of the

Observation Tool was

used to establish the overall condition of the toilet (Figure 50), the key focus being its

ability to contain human waste and act as a barrier to the transmission of disease.

Approximately half of the 151 toilets observed had a well-fitted slab, well-fitted was

defined as not having holes through which flies could travel, apart from the main hole

over which people squat. Whilst 77% of the toilets were considered to be useable,

Figure 49 - Location of Toilet

Figure 50 - Construction of Toilet


69% were observed to have flies moving in and out of the toilet. Only 37% were

considered to have a permanent superstructure with 15% able to be locked from the

Photo 10 - Typical Toilet


inside, and 18% able to be locked from the outside. 20% of the toilets observed had

some form of riser on which to sit, 11% had clear evidence of faeces on the floor,

and 11% were full. Very few, if any, were functioning as a barrier to the transmission

of disease.

When the yard area was observed 8% had evidence of defecation in the open, this

likely often to be babies’ faeces.

In order to cross check

answers given concerning

hand washing, one of the

observation questions was “Is

there evidence of a hand

washing facility close to the

toilet?” (Figure 51). 81% of

observations were that there

was no obvious evidence of a

functioning hand washing

facility and only 10% of

households had any soap

visible close to the toilet or

wash basin.

Most households (54%) were

collecting rubbish into one

place (Figure 52), 27% did

not appear to be collecting

rubbish in one place.

Water was observed to be

stored in containers that were covered at 82% of houses, with 13% storing water that

was not covered.

The Observation Tool (Form 4) was effective in helping to check interview

responses. It showed that toilets were of very poor quality, handwashing is very rare,

and babies’ faeces are not well managed.

Figure 51 - Evidence of Hand Washing Facility

Figure 52 - Is Rubbish Collected in One Place


Photo 11 - Washing Facility


3.6 Gender Analysis

Of the 152 interviews that were conducted 45% (68) were with women. Generally,

the female respondents were younger than the male with most female respondents

(38%) being in the 25 to 34 age group, and most male respondents (40%) being in

the 35 to 44 age group (Figure 53). Approximately 20% of female respondents were

less than 24 years of age compared with only 4% of male respondents.

Less women respondents had completed Primary School, but more had completed

Secondary School and University. A similar number of men and women had not

been to school, 17.5% of men and 16.18% of women (Figure 54).

The survey aimed to interview heads of households wherever possible, if the head of

household was not present, or did not want to be interviewed, then another adult

Figure 53 - Age of Respondents

Figure 54 - Education


member was chosen. Of men interviewed 98% were part of a household that was

headed by a man and 26% of women interviewed were part of a household headed

by a woman. Overall 12% of households interviewed were headed by a woman.

The survey found that

women are less likely to

be living in temporary

houses with 73% living

in permanent wood/iron

houses compared to

62% of men, and

approximately 36%

living in temporary

accommodation

compared to 46% of

men (Figure 55).

Women are more fearful of being evicted from Tete with approximately 70% fearing

eviction compared with 56% of men (Figure 56). As with men, women are less

concerned about eviction from landowners and more concerned about eviction by

government.

Figure 55 - Housing Materials

Figure 56 - Fear of Eviction


Of the respondents who said they did not own their land (23 respondents), women

are more likely than men to be paying rent, or more likely to be living in a household

that pays rent, with 66% of women paying rent to a landowner compared with 36% of

men (Figure 57).

In terms of representation and leadership men and women gave similar responses.

The key difference being that women felt more represented by leaders from their

own block, and men by the Tete Residents Association (Figure 58).

Figure 57 - Do You Pay Rent?

Figure 58 - Who Represents you in Tete?


When asked “Is there a group that represents all of Tete (as opposed to just you)”,

women responded that leaders from their block and the Tete Residents Association

scored the same, whereas for men the Tete Residents Association scored more

highly (Figure 59).

Women are less likely to have responded that they are self-employed, they work less

for private companies and work as much for government as do men (Figure 60).

Figure 59 - Who Represents all of Tete?

Figure 60 - How do you Earn and Income?


Women earn less than men with 44% earning less than K200 per week compared

with 28% of men, and 56% of women earning more than K200 per week compared

with 72% of men (Figure 61).

Q4: Male Q4: Female

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

Approximately how much do you earn in one week?Hamas moni yu save kisim

long wanpla week?

Between 0 and 50 Kina





Above 1000 Kina

0

50

100

150

200

250

Food and

Drink

Transport Cooking fuel

and

Household

lighting

Electricity School fees Water Buai Beer

Approximately how much do you spend each week on the

following? Hamas moni yu save usim long wanpla wik long

baim ol displa samting?

Male Hd Female Hd

Figure 61 - How Much Do You Earn?

Figure 62 – Approximately how much do you spend on the following items each week?


Of expenditure reported, male headed households spend K425 per week and female

headed households K299. As can be seen from figure 62 male headed households

reported spending more on most items. Female headed households reported

expenditure only exceeded male headed households in one category, “school fees”.

Average household expenditure on water was K28 per week for male headed

households and K23 for female headed households. An average of K25 per week

spent on water per household.

Women, and often young women (Figure 63), are more likely to be responsible for

collecting water from the public standpipe, men more likely to collect water when it

involves the use of a vehicle. This contributes to women spending more time

collecting water with 76% of women spending more than one hour each time they

collect water, compared to 50% of men (Figure 64).

36.71%

22.86%

55.70%52.86%

8.86%12.86%

18.99%

42.86%

35.44%

18.57%

10.13%

2.86%7.59% 7.14%

Q4: Male Q4: Female

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Who normally collects water for your house?Husat isave pulumapim wara blong

haus blong yu long olgeta taim?

Men

Women

Young men

Young women

Everyone

Young men and women

Other (please specify)

Figure 63 - Who Normally Collects Water?


Women spend less money on water, since they mostly collect it from the public

standpipe, with men collecting water from town normally using a vehicle (Figure 65).

Figure 64 - How Long Does it Take to Collect Water?

Figure 65 - How Much do you Spend on Water in One Week?


Women are more likely to have some form of light in their toilet, this includes access

to a torch so that they can use the toilet at night (Figure 66).

Women were asked if they have

ever been assaulted when

visiting the toilet or collecting

water. 10% had been assaulted

when using the toilet and 33%

when collecting water. (Figure

67 and 68).

Comments given in relation to

assaults when using the toilet

included “fear of native people”,

fear of snakes, and fear of

young boys.

Comments regarding assault

when collecting water included

being assaulted by other

women, being accused of

pushing in the line, being

abused by drunkards, and

Figure 66 - Does Your Toilet Have a Light?

Figure 67 - Have You Been Assaulted When Using the Toilet?

Figure 68 - Have You Been Assaulted When Collecting Water?


arguing with people who live close to the public standpipe because they seem to

think that they own the water.

It is clear that women would greatly benefit from improvements in water and

sanitation facilities for Tete, and from improving both their knowledge and practices

of effective hygiene behaviour. They spend longer collecting water, they risk assault

when collecting water, and they spend considerable time looking after children and

the elderly. Both menstrual hygiene and infant faeces management are very

challenging in an environment with very little water, and the associated levels of

illness means woman lose more productive time than men due to illness or having to

care for people who are sick.

Woman earn less than men and generally work closer to home, they travel less to

town and generally do jobs that depend on the local micro economy within Tete. This

means they are more vulnerable to cash shortages and rely on other Tete residents

to come and spend their earnings at their stall.

4 Summary of Survey Findings

The settlement population in Port Moresby is growing rapidly and changing in nature

to include more and more professional residents, people who work in both the

private and the public sector. Whilst many settlements have a dominant ethnic

group, they still include people from many different places, making internal

governance and leadership challenging and making it difficult for any settlement, and

settlements in general, to have a clear voice that would allow them to advocate for

better services.

Whilst the Survey was conducted in just one settlement, much of the data gathered

can be applied more generally to all settlements in Papua New Guinea.

In Papua New Guinea, Melanesia, and beyond, people living in informal settlements

have a reputation for being bad customers. They are often viewed as being a liability

by service providers, a perception that has only been reinforced by the many poorly

performing settlement water systems in Port Moresby. Water is provided to many

settlements in response to an “obligation” imposed by governments, and not as an

effective way of improving standards of living and Utility revenue. Generally, service


levels are so low that settlement residents must rely on a variety of supplementary

and alternative water sources to ensure they have the water they need to survive.

Consequently, they do not feel a strong obligation to pay for the intermittent supply of

water to a community standpipe that may be some distance from their home and

take some hours to collect.

Service Providers feel that settlement residents do not want to pay for water, and

often link this to long-held cultural attitudes to water as a free good that they never

had to pay for when living in their “village” home. Whilst Service Providers accept an

obligation to provide some level of service, they do not generally structure their

organisation to respond to the very specific needs and conditions of settlement

residents. In addition, they operate under an institutional and legal framework that

currently discourages them from looking for real solutions to providing water to

“squatters” and are perhaps not fully aware of the potential revenue that they could

generate by improving service levels to settlements.

It is clear that (Tete) settlement residents are very used to paying for water, on

average they are paying K25 per week, often at rates that are much higher than

those charged by Eda Ranu for water provided via a community standpipe. Such

high rates and the need to travel to local markets and car wash areas to purchase

water means they cannot afford to get clean water in the quantities they need to

sustain a full and healthy life. Many households are surviving on 2 litres per person

per day making things like washing hands and clothes very difficult resulting in a

variety of health challenges.

The survey showed that settlement residents are not only willing to pay for water, but

that they are currently paying for water. It showed that relying on a community

management approach to revenue collection has not worked in the past and will

continue to be challenging in the future. There are clear trust issues between

settlement residents and a history of funds “going missing”.

Settlement residents have a clear preference for paying directly to Eda Ranu, they

recognise their need for water and have expressed their willingness to pay more for

increasing levels of service. If Eda Ranu can provide reliable water and a billing /

collection system that allows direct payment for water, at an easily accessible


location, then a model can be developed that will improve the standards of living of

settlement residents, improve the overall health of the city, and increase the revenue

and sustainability of the Service Provider.

5 Recommendations for a WASH Pilot

For the proposed Tete WASH Pilot to be successful an integrated management

approach must be developed that ensures all key stakeholders understand the role

they play. Key stakeholders include the Department of National Planning and

Monitoring (DNPM), Eda Ranu, the Tete community, the National Capital District

Commission (NCDC), the Department of Health (DoH), and WASH sector

implementers in PNG. The pilot needs to be implemented as a long-term

partnership, and not as a quick fix infrastructure activity. For this to happen all parties

need to examine how they have done things in the past, what have been the key

constraints in the past (and present) and how they can be overcome. Ultimately, the

two key indicators in terms of success or otherwise will be the rate at which residents

of Tete pay for water, and the reliability of supply provided by Eda Ranu. This will

include two key variables, the hours per day that water is available, and the rate of

payment for water.

Results of the survey show that people in Tete settlement are not only willing to pay

for water, it shows that they are currently paying for water, often at higher rates than

formal Port Moresby residents, therefore it is in everyone’s best interest to make this

pilot work.

On average Tete households are currently paying K25 per week for water, this is

being paid to various people/places in various suburbs including Gerehu Market. If

we assume that there are 800 households in Tete then in total they are paying

K20,000 per week. This means that Tete residents are currently paying in the region

of K1m per year for water, much of this is unearned revenue for Eda Ranu.


If we further expand this calculation to include all the settlements of Port Moresby

(Figure 70), accepting that not all settlements are the same as Tete, but certainly

many are, and many are paying similar

amounts for the water they collect, then

the numbers are quite interesting. If we

assume a settlement population of

500,000 people in and around Port

Moresby, and an average household

size of 10, then there are 50,000

households. If each household is paying K25 per week for water, then they are

paying K1.25m in total per week. This gives an annual total of K65m that settlement

residents are currently paying for water. This should provide the incentive for Eda

Ranu and the Government of PNG to be proactive in finding solutions to the

provision of WASH services to settlement residents and developing a system that

provides reliable water services and encourages and allows settlement residents to

pay for water.

If the settlement population were all paying at Eda Ranu rates, and paying directly to

Eda Ranu, this would mean an additional K13m (US$4) of annual revenue.

20.69%

5.52%

11.72%

4.83%

8.28%

13.79%

35.17%

0 Between 1

and 5 Kina

Between 6

and 10 Kina

Between 11

and 15 Kina

Between 16

and 20 Kina

Between 21

and 30 Kina

More than 30

Kina

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

In total, how much do you normally spend on water each week?Hamas moni olgeta yu

save baim long pulumapim wara long wanpla wik?

Figure 70 - Money Spent by Settlement Residents on Water

Figure 69 - How Much Do You Spend on Water?

ITEM No. / Amount

Settlement Population 500,000

Average Hhd Size 10

Ttl number of households 50,000

Average weekly hhd payment 25

Tota/Week 1,250,000

TOTAL PER YEAR 65,000,000


At the time of writing this report (May 2018) the public standpipe was not functioning.

This meant that Tete residents were collecting water from Gerehu Market and paying

K2 for 10 litres. This equates to K200 for one kilolitre (1000 litres). The gazetted Eda

Ranu tariff for public standpipes is K1.5 for one kilolitre. Generally, Eda Ranu is

signing MOUs with communities using public standpipes and these MOUs include a

tariff of K1 per one kilolitre. Tete residents collecting water from the Gerehu market

are paying 200 times the rate that they should be paying if buying water from Eda

Ranu through a properly managed public standpipe.

5.1 Role of the WASH Project Management Unit / DNPM

It is the role of the DNPM, with proposed funding support from the ADB, to manage

the pilot including monitoring and evaluation, stakeholder coordination and

supporting the Project Management Unit. This will include the development of terms

of reference for any sub-contracts and oversight of any tendering processes. The

WASH PMU will monitor progress of the pilot and ensure that real time information is

available each month, to track both payment levels and water outages and identify

constraints to the successful implementation of the project.

The WASH PMU will be responsible for sharing lessons from the pilot and adapting

the model and approach as lessons are learnt. This will include sharing lessons

learnt with the sector through as many channels as possible, including through a

Peri-Urban WASH Committee likely to be established as a sub-committee of the

current national steering group. Lessons learnt will help shape the model and

support the development of a scaling-up project that can be implemented with a

range of development partners.

The WASH PMU and more broadly the DNPM must play an advocacy role that

focuses on supporting the Independent Consumer and Competitions Commission

(ICCC) to review and adapt tariff structures to be more pro-poor, not only usage

tariffs but also connection fees. They should help Eda Ranu to review their mandate

in regard to settlement residents and in reviewing the implementation of the

Community Services Obligation (CSO) and how this has been implemented and

interpreted. The WASH PMU/DNPM should working with the NCDC and the Lands

Department to help alleviate the current land ownership constraint and find


transitional ways to formalise ownership of land to the degree that it is not an

impediment to the delivery of services or to resident’s own development aspirations.

With current TA support of the ADB the WASH PMU must continue to work closely

with the residents of Tete and help to establish a functioning management model to

support Eda Ranu in managing the supply, billing, and payment for water in Tete.

5.2 Role of Eda Ranu

For Eda Ranu a successful WASH pilot is a critical component of a sustainable

future. There are currently approximately 500,000 people living in 112 settlements

around Port Moresby, many are paying for water, but very few are paying directly to

Eda Ranu for water.

Eda Ranu have been very supportive of the project to date and have agreed to

support the pilot by conducting the design work for anticipated infrastructure

improvements and managing a construction sub-contract with a local contractor.

A series of design workshops need to be held with Eda Ranu to develop a short

options paper on service levels (including the possibility of water for gardens), type

of infrastructure, including the use of storage to minimise peak flow requirements

and minimise stoppages, and the possibility of an integrated water system approach

that utilises sources other than only town water. In developing infrastructure options

attention should be given to the available budget.

Currently the whole of Tete, approximately 8000 people have access to only one

public standpipe that supplies water for only a few hours each day, when it is

functioning. Clearly this is inadequate and contributes to people not paying Eda

Ranu for water. Service levels must be carefully considered such that people have

access to water easily and quickly but are not burdened with a heavy water bill.

Service level discussions should consider how many water points there should be,

what is an acceptable number of people per water point, and how far people should

be expected to travel to collect water.

The current PNG National WASH Policy states that people using public standpipes

should have access to 50 litres per person per day, that there should be a maximum

of 50 users per public standpipe, and it should be within 150 metres.


Given the strong preference from Tete residents to pay directly to Eda Ranu serious

consideration must be given as to how this can be made possible, even before

residents of Tete have legal ownership of land and formal section/allotment

numbers.

Eda Ranu could benefit from developing a pro-poor approach to working with

settlement customers. Such an approach should consider a flat rate tariff structure, a

system that allows residents to start a formal and direct relationship with Eda Ranu

including paying bills directly, and a billing collection approach that puts resident’s

convenience first. This could include offering weekly billing instead of monthly, where

people have difficulty paying monthly bills, and to develop a decentralised approach

to bill collection, including establishing bill payment points closer to customers.

In the case of the Tete pilot consideration should be given to having a mobile

collection mechanism, meaning Eda Ranu come to Tete on one day per month to

allow residents to make payments. Another option would be to work with trade stores

or banks to allow bill payments to be made at these facilities.

It would be useful for Eda Ranu to trial an “easypay” type of mechanism, as is used

for the purchase of power. Whilst the technology for this is less advanced than for

power, it does exist, and the current situation where all customers must go to the

Eda Ranu office to pay their bill is clearly a constraint to payment. Whilst it would not

be possible to trial this at the individual customer level in Tete, it may be possible to

trial it at block level.

Given the future potential for this approach, it is likely that companies who develop

and sell this technology will be willing to be involved in the pilot, and to provide

equipment free of charge, or at subsidised rates.

For infrastructure, a progressive engagement approach appears most sensible with

main lines being designed such that they can offer future household connections but

with initial service levels focused on a flat rate system to ensure all residents have

access to water and can afford to pay for it. Only when residents have proven that

they can and do pay for water should improvements to service levels be

implemented. This does not rule out future household level connections where users

have a proven record of payment and are willing to pay connection costs.


5.3 Role of Tete Residents and Leaders

Whilst it is obvious from the survey that people do have trust issues in terms of

giving money to other members of the community, it is also true that there is some

confidence in the role of block leaders and the Residents Association. Many

respondents commented that in the past money had been misused, possibly by the

Water Committee. Whether or not this has happened it has certainly contributed to

trust issues.

The role of block leaders and the Residents Association needs to be discussed in

detail and agreements reached with community members about who is responsible

for what.

The survey did not look in detail at the membership of the Tete Residents

Association, or who are the block leaders. This information is now needed and

should include information about original province, gender, age, and skill set. In

addition, more information is needed relating to how members are chosen, how

many members there are, and how and when they meet.

One of the challenges that needs to be addressed is that currently Eda Ranu are not

able to supply piped water to people who do not live on an official parcel of land,

meaning they do not have an allotment or block number. This is a big challenge not

only for Tete but for all settlements in and around Port Moresby.

In order to try to minimise mistrust or negativity, it may be prudent to establish a new

group (Water User Group), or a number of smaller groups, to focus on managing the

water system, this is likely to be made up of representatives from each block, with

each block having members from the households that it serves. The role of this

group could include the identification of service levels, the location of facilities, and

the coordination, working closely with Eda Ranu, of a billing system that allows

residents to pay directly to Eda Ranu, and assists Eda Ranu with the distribution of

bills, given that most residents do not have formal addresses. Most importantly this

will include developing the terms of reference for the Water User Group, with an

emphasis on how to handle non-payment, and how to assist Eda Ranu to manage

and minimise non-revenue water.


The role of such a Water User Group, whether they are part of the Tete Residents

Association or not, must include supporting Eda Ranu in identifying where pipelines

should be located and dealing with residents who may be affected.

5.4 Health and Hygiene

Whilst improving the availability of water will provide the opportunity for an

improvement in living standards, the survey shows that the current health and

hygiene status of Tete residents is poor. A rigorous health and hygiene project is

needed that can address behaviours identified in the survey and support residents to

improve their own physical surroundings.

Local capacity to conduct such a project is weak, both in technical knowledge and

available staff and resources. Further discussions need to be held with both the

NCDC and the Department of Health regarding the role they may play in supporting

Tete residents to build their knowledge and understanding of effective WASH

behaviour. It has been proposed that a small contract will be developed and let to a

local organisation to carry out this project, but it will still be essential to establish

closer links with NCDC and DoH to ensure future support is provided.

The Health and Hygiene Project should include:

• A rigorous health education component to be conducted in Tete

focussing on key findings identified in the survey

• Consideration of Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) triggering

activities to encourage residents to fully understand their current

sanitation status and risk levels, and want to make changes

• Consideration of community-based sanitation activities that utilise local

labour resources to construct toilet slabs, risers and toilets, to include

technical advice and training in construction, and to quality assure

constructed toilets

• The construction of appropriate demonstration toilets at agreed

locations.

technical assistance consultant’s report...voice, choice, and babies’ poop 1 ... 8.5% from the...

Documents