Susan Davis

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.

Today’s blog looks at the culture of dependency that can result from NGO projects that lead to free water points.

Where donors have filled the gap, governments and communities alike may have moved into a condition of “donor dependency:” waiting for help, rather than doing something without help (Morgan, Peter, 2013. Learning from WASH System Failures – Are We Prepared to Learn? Some personal experiences).

In the donor community, much of rural water supply sector is still seen in the light of providing essential services, on a charitable basis, to desperately poor and powerless people. In general, there is a lack of transparency regarding investment and lack of accountability with respect to practices followed (Rural Water Supply Network Executive Committee, 2010).

Foreign donors and agencies are thus contributing to a systemic problem; although their overall financial contribution to the sector is not dominant, their policy influence is very significant, and this often undermines national ownership and initiatives (Cranfield University, AguaConsult, & IRC, 2006).

Much public sector funding is spent on hardware subsidies. RWSN estimates that for government and NGO supported rural water supply schemes across sub-Saharan Africa, between 90 and 100% of the hardware costs are externally financed (i.e., not paid for by the community). Institution-building at national and local level is neglected in favor of building infrastructure (Rural Water Supply Network Executive Committee, 2010)

Project-oriented thinking also contributes to the culture of dependency. In the Malawi WASH sector, for example, districts’ limited time and resources are often diverted into off-budget, NGO-driven interventions; as a result, district staff tend to act only when donor money is available, and they have little incentive to engage directly with communities to analyze local problems and develop effective responses on their own (Lockwood, Fixing the Sector, Not Just the Pump, 2013).

Most of the water points [built] in the camps were for emergencies and at no cost and all the committees were trained. So some people are spoiled. They still expect the same thing to happen (Interviewee in South Sudan, 2013).

[I]n a place like Nepal until around the end of the 80s the place was obviously quiet remote, not well-connected in terms of roads. It meant that many communities were quite independent in terms of taking care of their own needs. [Water systems] may have been constructed with external aid, either government or donors, once constructed people knew no one is going to come for the next five years, so [they] better take care of it. So you find that many things are functioning quite well, even after many years; In the case of Sri Lanka, people were much more laid back and they said, “Ah, yes, you know, you come and you assist us because we expect you to assist us” (Interviewee in Uganda, 2013)

Makondo Parish, like many other rural communities in Uganda has a history of dependence on NGO support. While such service providers have been indispensable in resource-poor contexts, they have always faced high risks of breeding dependency syndromes among their target communities. In the case of Makondo, nearly all problems were directed to an NGO. This was compounded by poorly clarified roles and responsibilities of the community and their leaders, the absence of by-laws and weak leaders (Mugumya, 2013).

Evidence from this study suggests that the work of [an NGO] has since their presence in the community generated and sustained a reasonable degree of dependence within their target communities. This has mostly affected community willingness to contribute to O&M of point water sources especially shallow and deep wells (Mugumya, 2013).

There is a risk of some local partners becoming overly dependent for their existence on [NGO] and more work on developing exit strategies is needed (Cotton, Adams, & Shaw, 2012)

[M]ost activities to support WATSANCos are being carried out jointly by using other project budgets from NGOs and other grants, making the office dependent on NGO money (Deneke & Abebe, 2008).

In Malawi, District governments are tertiary levels of government below Regional and National governments. They possess similar responsibilities as Canadian provincial/municipal governments but they largely depend on donor money to implement development projects (Engineers without Borders-Canada, 2010).

How do we balance the desire to help with helping in a way that will lead to sustained water services?  Perhaps it is reconsidering the role of NGOs and donors.