By Susan Davis, Executive Director

What leads to success or failure of water systems?  Everything we read points to a complex mix of factors.  In this series, we will share compiled quotes on various topics related to failure of water systems from our literature search and interviews for the resolution action brief as a way to highlight pieces of the puzzle.

More than a decade ago, Lockwood et al identified five main groups of factors that affect the post-project sustainability of water systems in a significant way: technical; financial; community and social; institutional and policy; and environmental. (Lockwood, Bakalian, & Wakeman, 2003)  These factors are widely agreed upon in the sector-wide sustainability conversation.  But in practice, a project vs. services mindset continues. Below are a few quotes and excerpts related to this project mindset and its effects.

[WASH experts] named inflexible planning approaches as a common reason for failed projects. …practical, appropriate methods for integrating sustainability criteria into local-level decision processes are not well established. (Barnes, Ashbolt, Roser, & Brown, 2014)

The donor focus continues to be on delivery via the project form, a form that fits the donors’ needs more often than the grantees’. The “project” form encourages and supports “accountability myopia”… especially “obsessive measurement disorder”…, short termism, and an emphasis on quantifiable “deliverables.” And despite the consensus on country systems and ownership most donors continue to set implementation priorities in topdown fashion. The resulting “projectization” phenomenon has had some negative effects on the [civil society organization (CSO)] life cycle. In particular these tendencies of the project form run counter to development effectiveness and local organization capacity development, especially learning. Many of these issues have been cited for over 30 years.(Dichter, 2014)

[T]he common mentality is planning for single digit years. Folks will take things in[to developing countries] assuming that they’re going to last in perpetuity, but not giving the resources to ensure that they do. (US Interviewee, 2013)

Thinking and planning aid for water, sanitation, and hygiene as simply delivering pieces of infrastructure spread randomly through the rural and urban landscapes is simply not cost-effective and, as I often say, borderline irresponsible of the donor community. We are wasting billions on investments in infrastructure which are supposed to last for 20-30 years but stop working after 1 or 2 years. (Luyendijk & Fonseca, 2013)

Projectized versus Sustainable Service-Oriented thinking (Kang & Campbell, 2013)

	Projectized Thinking	Sustainable Service-oriented Thinking
Solutions	The only way to work on a problem is to fund a project and achieve planned outputs	Changing relationships between stakeholders can enable on-going problem solving
Sustainability	The sector should focus on increasing coverage; sustainability will happen by handing over solutions to government and communities	Investing in increased coverage must be accompanied by investment in the permanent institutions needed to sustain the service levels
Scale	Solving service problems locally within a funded project environment will lead to scaled solutions for the whole country through sharing ideas in sector forums	Solving service problems locally within a funded project environment can only scale if solutions can be implemented using local resources

…in development projects, communities may typically …be expected to make a capital contribution and a non-skilled labour contribution, so the project is partially subsidized. However, the amount of subsidy varies according to intervening agency policy and the sector so there is little coherence even in development work. (Luff, 2013)

[U]sing a demand-led approach does not result in participation in and of itself: much deeper involvement is needed to ensure an appropriate and sustainable response. (Nassef & Belayhun, 2012)

Almost universally, rural water supply programmes emphasize the need to provide 20 litres per person per day of clean water. In practice, protection of the source or construction of a new source is regarded as much more important than the distance to it. In addition, other water requirements are ignored. Alternatives such as providing say 5 litres per person per day of drinking water, coupled with tapping other sources for non-drinking uses is generally overlooked. Water professionals and water users may not agree on acceptable distances between the home and the source. Water engineers, trained in the importance of a pathogen-free source, generally insist on providing water points with multiple features to protect water quality (grouting, a well apron, handpump). The cost of this tends to result in only one water point to serve many families or an entire village. This leads to long collection trips and queuing time. Data from the JMP show that 18% of the people in Sub-Saharan Africa supposedly using an “improved” source (and therefore considered served) spend more than 30 minutes per round trip to collect water. (Rural Water Supply Network Executive Committee, 2010) [see more about water quantity here]

[A] reason behind community management was the ‘project approach’ adopted by most bilateral organizations and NGOs, whereby the implementing agency would construct a number of water systems as part of a project and then leave the project area after several months or years. Community management, therefore, became a convenient concept for shifting responsibility for ongoing O&M, and hence sustainability of services, from facility-provider to end-user. By sensitizing and mobilizing the community to instil a sense of ownership and responsibility, and handing over the water facility to them to manage, agencies were able to abrogate responsibility with a clear conscience. (Harvey & Reed, 2007)

Professionals emphasize high engineering standards, physical outputs, and health impacts, while users often value improved access to water for both domestic and productive uses, improved convenience, and privacy and dignity. (Cranfield University, AguaConsult, & IRC, 2006)

The collective willingness to maintain a water supply system, is a reflection of social cohesion, and is dependent on the concept of community identity. Ironically, as some researchers suggest, this very community “spirit” may be directly threatened by the development process itself, including the provision of improved services such as rural water systems, which breaks apart community loyalties and traditional obligatory relationships (Carter et al, 1999).

A short-term ‘project’ mentality on the part of funding organizations should be avoided in favour of long-term and evolving commitment to developing country partners (Carter et al, 1999).

One possible way to address this “projectized” of thinking is to change the measurements of success – not just for “projects,” but for NGOs themselves – thinking past the project and the hardware to how to ensure universal, sustained services. Another is to somehow make NGOs accountable for their work. Perhaps the best is to change the role of WASH donors and NGOs altogether.