Lessons Learned in Water, Sanitation and Environmental Health

Honduras
Local Management of Community Water Systems

BACKGROUND
This case study is based on a field evaluation of water supply systems conducted in February 1996 in the departments of Francisco Morazan, La Paz, and El Paraiso in Honduras. The evaluation looked at four gravity water supply systems serving ten communities that CARE Honduras constructed from 1987 to 1989 as part of the CIDA-funded ICWS (Integrated Community Water Supply) Project. CARE was present in the communities for about one year, of which five to six months were dedicated to system construction. CARE provided orientation and training in operation and maintenance, community organization and administration, and protection of the watershed. CARE also provided communities with extensive training on sanitation and hygiene, and assisted each community to establish a Sanitation and Hygiene Committee that promoted latrines (the project did not subsidise or construct latrines), improved water use, sanitary disposal of refuse, control of animals, etc.

International development organizations such as CARE are rarely able to work with the same communities for many years. The evaluation was conducted in an effort to examine three important but unknown factors: (1) the fate of the water systems, (2) the water systems' impact on their beneficiary populations, and (3) effectiveness of the approach used in the project. More specifically, the evaluation studied four topics closely: (1) costs and cost recovery, (2) project design methodologies - choice of technologies, impact, and sustainability, (3) watershed management and multiple use of water, and (4) community management.

PROJECT LOCATION
All ten communities served by the CARE-constructed water systems are located in the Honduran Highlands within a three hour drive from Tegucigalpa, the capital. The communities are in three different departments: Francisco Morazan, La Paz, and El Paraiso.

THE PROJECT
Implementation of the ICWS Project was governed by signed agreements between CARE Honduras, the National Service of Aqueducts and Sewers (SANAA), and each community. The responsibilities of the three parties were as follows:

CARE provided:
all PVC and GI pipe and accessories used in system construction. No replacement pipe was left in the communities after construction was complete.
major tools such as pipe cutter, threader, wrench, and the first 500 meters of barbed wire for the protective fence around the watershed;
training for community operators, leaders, and community members in system operation and maintenance, community organization and administration, the relationship between the watershed and the quality and quantity of drinking water, sanitation and hygiene;
guidance in the formation of committees, in the construction of the systems, and in the purchase and protection of a portion of the watershed above the community water source;
technical oversight in project design and construction; and
an institutional presence of approximately one year in the communities including engineers, builders, and principally extensionists.

SANAA provided:
technical studies, designs, and supervision of system construction; and
an institutional presence alongside CARE.

b>The community provided:
all unskilled labor and collection of local materials including rock, sand, and gravel; and
the purchase of all cement, rebar, nails, wood, and from two to six hectares of land in the watershed to protect the water source, as well as payment for all skilled labor and material transport.

KEY FINDINGS

Infrastructure Design and Construction
The overall quality of construction was good, and all systems were providing ample water to their communities after seven to nine years despite below standard maintenance. An important consideration is that all systems evaluated were over-designed by a factor of from two to four with respect to provision of domestic water. In only a few cases were problems in service delivery attributable to design or construction problems.

Watershed Protection
Although the "Microcuenca" (small watershed) Committees formed by CARE no longer exist, the communities understand that protection of the small watershed is a responsibility of the community water board. Three of the four gravity system sources visited were protected by well-maintained barbed wire fences which surround the two to five hectares originally purchased by the community. However, a major concern is that the watershed zones outside the fences were being cleared, cultivated, burned, and grazed, even though nearly all the inhabitants recognize the importance of protecting the watershed for the provision of water. In only one system did the communities appear to be taking an active stand to control activities taking place in these zones, working with the Municipality to prevent the clearing and farming of the forest above the intake. This could be explained by the fact that, here, in contrast to the other systems, there was a dry season water shortage.

Community Organization and Administration
All systems are run by water boards, with each community having their own board and the two multi-communal systems also having a general board (twelve organizations in all). Twenty percent of board members were women with several serving as treasurer or secretary, but none as president or vice-president. Nine of the twelve organizations held annual elections and three held elections every two yeras. At each election, the entire board was replaced and only in one case, did the outgoing officers formally orientate their replacements. All twelve water boards possessed the original regulations developed with CARE at the beginning of the project, but very few board members were acquainted with them. All boards maintained minutes of meetings, but eight of these were disorganized. Most boards held meetings "as needed", although the best-managed board held meetings monthly with mandatory attendance.

Operation and Maintenance
All ten communities (four systems) had community water system operators. All were paid for their work, normally on a per job basis which equated to about US $2.00 per day. In addition, all operators organized large work teams with the help of the water board when repairs were needed. All have, at some time, repaired pipe breaks or dealt with other problems that cut off the water supply completely, but no community has faced a catastrophic system failure such as the destruction of the intake, reservoir tank, or a large length of pipeline. No community operator had a design or plan of the system, a written schedule of activities, or was performing system-wide disinfection. Overall, the community operators were lacking in their ability to manage water distribution in their systems, and only one out of the ten demonstrated a basic understanding of the concept of flow. None could measure water flow. In one system, chlorine was regularly administered to the reserve tank. Finally, the operators in one system were vigilant in the control of household water use. They toured the households periodically to ensure proper water use and to check on the status of the connections. In the communities served by this system, there were no observed instances of large-scale irrigation or industrial water use, and very few tapstands were leaking. In the other systems, it was found that some households were misusing water, and one-third of the tapstands were leaking.

Tariffs and Financial Management
Each of the ten communities utilized a tariff system for water use and monitored the money collected. Tariffs were charged monthly, but could be paid monthly or annually depending on the resources of family. There were, however, problems in money management that may threaten the long-term provision of water in the communities. For example, no community has ever raised the tariff. The monthly fee that each family paid that was worth US $1.50 at the beginning of the project is now worth US $0.25. In addition, there were no surcharges for macro-consumption. For instance, families with large tomato gardens irrigated from the tap paid the same monthly fee. Nearly all users paid the tariff and were satisfied with the current charge, although some board members perceived a need to raise it. The water boards of the two multi-communal systems maintained bank accounts, but none of the community water boards did.

Sanitation and Hygiene
All communities participated in extensive training and orientation on sanitation and hygiene. CARE facilitated the formation of sanitation committees in all communities with the purpose of promoting latrine construction, household hygiene, and improved water use. Although the ICWS Project did not provide for their construction, 73 percent of families had concrete wash basin-storage tanks, 28 percent had some type of shower, and 94 percent had latrines (unfortunately, no baseline information is available but in adjacent communities served by an earlier project also implemented by CARE but without a sanitation and hygiene component, only 53 percent have latrines). About 75 percent of household connections observed were in reasonable condition - not leaking, overly dirty, or damaged. The disposal of residual waters was appropriate in 84 percent of households, household hygiene was acceptable in approximately 75 percent of households, and soap was present at the taps of 70 percent of homes. Two notable areas of concern were the presence of refuse and lack of control of animals, namely pigs, dogs, and foul.

Community Status, Water Use, and Development
It is critical that community water system operators receive adequate training in the following areas: system designs and plans, the concept of flow that links bucket filling times to the number of houses served, and guarding against misuse of the system. In addition, CARE should promote a salary structure for operators that rewards vigilance. One possibility is a base monthly salary with bonuses derived from fines collected from households that misuse the system.

The typical rural community served by the ICWS Project has grown about 16 percent in the last eight years, although one community, San Jose, has grown 244 percent due to its proximity to the region's main city, Teopacenti, and due to its ample water supply. The quantity of water delivered by the systems at the time of the field evaluation was very high, averaging 300 liters per person per day. In the cases where the water board management was weak, overuse by individuals was common. For example, large irrigated commercial gardens, watering of cattle, and production of adobes and ceramic tile were observed in several communities that were also suffering from water shortages. Few homes had family gardens, but almost half were watering ornamental plants and shade and fruit trees located around their homes. In terms of further development, no community has used the water boards or their funds for any cause outside the water system. The effect of the construction and local management of the water systems on the capacity of the community to take further steps in its own development is not clear, although most communities have participated in other community development projects with outside entities to some degree. Examples are latrine construction and coffee cooperatives. In contrast, wholly internal community development projects were not observed. Finally, all community members served by the CARE water systems were quick to point out the significant positive changes in their lives realized because of the systems. The positive impacts most often mentioned included children's health, personal hygiene, not having to wash clothes in the creek, and the ability to have shade trees and other plants around the home.

LESSONS LEARNED
All of the systems were over-designed by at least a factor of two with respect to pipe and tank size. Using the very narrow criteria of cost per liter of water, systems should be downsized. However, the added benefits of abundant water enjoyed by a community have value. Water availability increases earning potential, people can actively change their immediate environments with shade trees, and nutrition can be improved through the presence of fruit trees. Thus, when feasible, CARE should adopt project methodologies that allow communities the option to pay more and access a larger quantity of water than is required for solely domestic use.

The ICWS Project was extremely successful in watershed protection as measured both by attention paid to the watersheds by the communities and their awareness of the importance of trees in the watershed. This project component should be further developed and expanded. Communities should receive information and training on their legal right to a protected watershed and how they can work with land owners and municipalities to protect this resource. Moreover, CARE should advocate at higher levels of government for the management of watersheds to secure drinking water and for the rights of communities to oversee their water sources.

Women should be actively identified, trained, and promoted as water board members and as office holders such as president, secretary, or treasurer. In addition, CARE should propose two or three year terms for board members with no more than half of the board members leaving office every year. This would provide for a continuous carryover of experience into new administrations and alleviate the loss of institutional memory as board members leave office.

Each community water board should calculate an appropriate tariff for monthly water use with surcharges for high levels of consumption. Also, the board should be trained to raise the tariff over time. Each community or system should deposit payments into a bank account in an effort to promote savings and keep financial records organized.

It appears that the sanitation and hygiene component of the ICWS Project had a significant positive impact on the communities. This conclusion is based on limited data available from a comparable CARE Honduras water system project that did not include a sanitation and hygiene component. Thus, this component should be a part of future projects. Because behavioral issues such as refuse disposal and animal control were problematic, they should be emphasized in future projects. The communities discussed here tended to see the water systems as "ends" rather than a step in the community development process. Communities should be encouraged to apply skills in planning, organization, money management, and administration gained in one project to future projects.

CARE has a role to play in providing ongoing support to communities beyond the one year time period of the project. Follow-up visits to communities of two to three days per year are necessary for providing guidance and training to the water boards and community operators who actively seek further training and advice on system operation and administration. In addition, visits are important for gathering data to assess project status, measure impact, and make any necessary adaptations or changes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Honduras
Office:
Ave. Republica de Costa Rica,
De Emisoras Unidas Subida a Las Lomas del Maya,
En Diagonal de Bodegas de La Curacao,
Tegucigalpa, D.C.

Mailing Address:
Apartado 729
Tel: (504) 328601 / 394204 / 394024 / 394281
Fax: (504) 320913
Internet: careh@ns.gbm.hn

This case study was prepared by Scott Tobias. "Lessons Learned in Water, Sanitation and Environmental Health" is a series of short case studies designed to identify best practices in water, sanitation and environmental health through the lessons learned in projects implemented by CARE and others. The series is edited by Jon Macy and Peter Lochery.
March 3, 1997