Improving livelihoods through DRA: case study of Diyabeduma and Kailapathana.

The presentation emphasised the importance of understanding the wider policy context in Sri Lanka. Water is recognised as a limited resource but also as a human right. The value of water is not just economic but also has social and environmental dimensions, and the right to water should be enjoyed without discrimination.

Operationalising the right to water is a complex challenge. Current coverage levels are debated (ranging from 57% to 75% depending on the definition used). Even by conservative estimates the policy objective of achieving 85% coverage by 2010 would require investment of around Rs50bn. The government is unlikely to be able to generate sufficient revenue itself in the current economic climate, hence the interest in private sector participation. PSP is somewhat unknown territory in Sri Lanka but the establishment of the PUC to act as an independent regulator is an important first step. The concept of public-private-community participation is attractive and holds some potential opportunities but precisely who is the private sector in the Sri Lankan context? These are important issues which frame the SecureWater research.

In depth case study research was conducted in 2 villages (Kailapathana and Diyabeduma). This involved detailed analysis of water and livelihoods issues and the impact of recent water supply schemes in each. Emerging issues are summarised briefly here but will be explored in more depth in the forthcoming case study reports. The villages selected are irrigation settlements and livelihoods in both areas basically revolve around agriculture and paddy production. While they each receive reasonably good rainfall (c.1500mm) irrigation canals play an important role in supplementing groundwater recharge. Prior to the schemes problems relating to both water quality and quantity were experienced, especially during the close season when there was only sufficient for drinking purposes. Other water needs were difficult to satisfy. It should be noted that (by international standards) Sri Lankans are ‘lavish’ water users. However the research identified a number of important livelihood impacts relating to access to water. A major use, for example, is for house construction, this is mostly carried out during the close season when labour is available but water availability is low and purchase and transport of water is a significant factor in the cost of construction. Collection of water impacts on availability of labour at household level and has adverse impacts on the health and welfare of women and children who generally bear the burden. Important social dimensions were also identified e.g. issues of status, privacy and safety surrounding sharing and use of open sources. Limited water availability is a key factor in the generally poor level of sanitation in the case study areas. Sanitation is particularly poor in small eating-houses upon which agricultural wage labourers depend and contributes to ill health among these poorer groups.

The SecureWater research highlights a number of issues surrounding DRA implementation. The presentation focused on issues of community selection and motivation. Mobilisation is a long and involved process. Success tends to be closely related to existing activities in other areas e.g. sanitation, hygiene, environment etc which help build confidence and trust within the community. Important issues surround understanding need and ‘demand’ at community-level and the reliability of statements of willingness to pay (cash/labour) as currently assessed/expressed. Achieving an appropriate balance between ‘expert’ technical advice and community self-assessment is often difficult. DRA aims to provide a choice of technology wherever possible but in reality there appears to be a bias towards piped water schemes. Important questions surround the desirability and feasibility of providing genuine technology choice and responding to demand at sub-community levels.

The research revealed some interesting findings on the status of water supplies at household level and aims to identify factors underlying this pattern. For example, levels of membership vary but reasons for non-membership vary widely as well, from access to alternative sources to inability to pay. Furthermore not all members have connections. It is important to understand the factors influencing decision making at household level and to build appropriate levels of flexibility into scheme implementation.

The SecureWater approach is based upon categorisation of different households according to livelihood activities and identification of broad wealth groups within communities. This enables comparative analysis of the impact of water interventions on livelihoods across different wealth groups. Emerging research findings show interesting patterns in water use. Meter records allow analysis of monthly water use by wealth which, as expected, shows much higher consumption among richer groups.

Monthly consumption can be contrasted with monthly income, i.e. consumption tends to peak in the close season when irrigation canals are dry but income is low. It is also interesting to contrast average consumption pre and post-project. The biggest difference is in dry season consumption which has increased substantially in both areas with the new schemes. Increased usage can be mostly attributed to sanitation and bathing. Average time spent on water collection was also analysed. This was disaggregated by wealth group, by water use and also by season. Significant time and energy savings can be identified with important welfare benefits but there may also be trade offs in terms of increased expenditure on tariffs. Average monthly tariff payments vary substantially between wealth groups.

Analysis of the cash contribution as a % of monthly income shows that expenditure trade-offs are likely to be greatest for poorer groups. People in these rural areas pay far more for water (almost the actual value of water) than their urban counterparts who remain highly subsidised. The fact that poorer households are willing to pay as much as 50-80% of their monthly income demonstrates the level of demand for improved water services but also suggests significant trade-offs and sacrifices which may in some cases be unacceptable. Analysis of trade-offs is difficult because there are many other variables but this research highlights a number of expenditure trade-offs among the rich and middle wealth groups (e.g. house repairs, power, furniture) and consumption trade-offs among middle and poor wealth groups (e.g. reduced agric. inputs and food intake). The impact of reduced food intake among the poor is obviously potentially very serious in the short term. A number of households were also found to be drawing on savings and selling off assets e.g. jewellery and (in extreme cases) land will have a long-term impact on the viability of livelihoods.

Research suggests a wide variety of livelihood benefits (both direct and indirect) including time and energy savings and increased water availability at critical periods e.g. during harvesting. Important social benefits surround improved sanitation and privacy for women and status associated with having clean clothes and using a private source. Economic benefits are derived from access to water for construction or income generation (e.g. pottery) but also indirectly through increases in land prices and rents associated with the improved water access. These will be examined in more detail in the forthcoming report.

A key focus of the Sri Lanka case study has been the nature and role of CBOs in different stages of planning and implementation. CBOs are central to the success of DRA schemes but their legal status and constitution remains somewhat ambiguous. They currently enjoy close relations with the water board (both top-down and bottom-up) but what are the incentives for these organisations to persist beyond the lifespan of the project? Currently most are voluntary but they have the potential to generate substantial revenue. What is their capacity to manage these funds effectively and transparently as they grow in size? Are current (informal) agreements among water users adequate in the face of future change and what authority do CBOs have to regulate users? The future sustainability of existing schemes will depend on addressing these questions. There is a need for institutional capacity building and clarification of the roles and responsibilities of CBOs vis a vis decentralised government structures (PS and DS level). Water supply development is a potentially useful entry point for development of a more integrated approach involving support from other sectors.