A Community-Based Approach to WASH?

Can community management (CM) be an effective and sustainable model for bottom-up WASH services? This post will discuss its methodology, strengths, limitations, and key success factors. 


Methodology

CM is based on the principle that communities should own, develop, operate, and maintain the services which they benefit from (Harvey & Reed, 2006). Formally structured community committees are formed to take responsibility for these activities. Community members contribute regular fee payments and cash and in-kind resources upon service development (Chowns, 2015). 


Strengths

Ideally, CM's first strength is in improving the technical performance of WASH services. With training, short distances, convenient communication, and staff motivation (as they benefit from better technical performance), the expectation is continuous, fast, and frequent maintenance, repairs, and tests. Secondly, CM offers a potential financial solution. Since community members can sense the effect of their contributions and the pricing mechanism is likely to be transparent, their willingness to pay and contribute should increase (Chowns, 2015). These strengths have contributed to the successful water supply CM in Kumbo, a large city in Cameroon (fig.1 & fig.2). In 2013, the CM organisation Kumbo Water Authority comprised 68 community water committees, each overlooking a standpipe. CM has notably reduced technical glitches and raised sufficient funds (372,000,000 frs CFA) for water supply development, guaranteeing clean water access (Njoh, 2006). 

Fig.1: Locationing Kumbo. 


Fig.2: Overlooking Cameroon. 


Limitations

On the other hand, CM is vulnerable to failure, suffering from some limitations. These might include lacking the required skills; no committee succession system; over-reliance on voluntarism that may not last; a lack of transparency, accountability, and institutional supervision; erosion or a lack of trust, respect, and sense of community; poverty; unrealised demand for or disapproval of CM; no support of legal frameworks; insufficient user contributions, making break-even difficult (Harvey & Reed, 2006; Carter et al., 2007). Consequently, evidence from Malawi shows that CM has been weak in improving the technical and financial performance of WASH services. The committees can only gather 2% of the required funds (Chowns, 2015); maintenance and repairs are slow and substandard. In Tanzania, one-third of CM water points fail two years after installation (Taylor, 2009). 


Key Success Factors

Continuous external institutional support from development organisations or governments proves important for sustainable and scalable CM experiences. This requires a shift from the CM paradigm by which development organisations conduct "finish-and-go" projects and governments try to bypass their WASH service provision responsibilities. This support can embody motivational mechanisms, capacity building, specialist advice, supervision and accountability schemes, and financial and in-kind resources. In the long term, a policy framework that formalises this support should be developed (Hutchings, 2015; Harvey & Reed, 2006). I argue that this external force will foster internal success factors as well, including strong leadership, community spirit, etc. A community participatory approach, which CM does not essentialise, is also crucial for success (Shields et al., 2021). Challenges remain within governments to assemble these efforts; in unpromising cases, seeking alternative approaches is the way to go (Carter et al., 2007; Harvey & Reed, 2006). 

Comments

  1. Baicheng Zhu17 January 2024 at 16:38

    Hi Lucas! What a good blog that well explained CM's strengths and limitations, and the case of Kumbo is also reflective. I really loved that you have embedded an interactive map in your blog, that is cool! What I want to ask you is whether you think bottom-up development is the solution for underdevelopment in Africa. From my perspective, the engagement of big organisations in tackling poverty is still imperative, and bottom-up may only be the solution for problems at the local level, which couldn't ultimately bring the deprived communities out of poverty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lucas Wu24 January 2024 at 14:24

      I'm glad you found the blog post informative! Regarding your question on whether bottom-up development is the solution for underdevelopment in Africa, it's a complex issue. While bottom-up approaches, like community management (CM), are vital for addressing local needs and ensuring community ownership and sustainability of projects, they are not a standalone solution for widespread underdevelopment. The involvement of larger organizations and top-down initiatives is crucial to tackle broader systemic issues, provide substantial funding, and implement large-scale projects. Both approaches have their unique strengths and limitations and should ideally work in synergy. A balanced combination of bottom-up and top-down strategies is likely more effective in addressing the multifaceted challenges of underdevelopment in Africa.

      Delete
  2. Damien Lu17 January 2024 at 20:36

    Hi Lucas,

    Insightful post as always. Considering the limitations you mentioned, such as skill gaps and financial challenges, what strategies could be employed to strengthen community committees? Are there successful models for training and capacity building?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lucas Wu24 January 2024 at 15:03

      Hi Damien,

      To strengthen community committees in the context of WASH projects, several strategies can be employed:

      1. Training and Capacity Building: Providing regular training sessions for committee members in areas like project management, financial management, and technical aspects of WASH systems can enhance their skills and confidence.

      2. Partnerships with NGOs and Government: Collaborating with NGOs and government agencies can provide access to technical expertise, resources, and additional funding.

      3. Community Engagement and Education: Engaging the wider community in discussions about WASH issues can foster a sense of ownership and responsibility, leading to better support and cooperation.

      4. Incorporating Local Knowledge and Practices: Respecting and integrating local customs and knowledge into WASH projects can lead to more culturally appropriate and accepted solutions.

      5. Creating Clear Roles and Responsibilities: Defining clear roles and responsibilities within the committee can improve efficiency and accountability.

      6. Monitoring and Evaluation: Regular monitoring and evaluation of WASH services can help identify issues early and track the progress of interventions.

      Successful models often involve a combination of these strategies, tailored to the specific context and needs of the community.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Underperformance of Bottom-up WASH Services - Insights from Lukaya, Uganda

Image
This third post will discuss the reliance on and underperformance of bottom-up WASH services.   Fig.1 : Locationing Lukaya. Lukaya is a small town in Uganda (fig.1) that has experienced rapid population growth. Lukaya's WASH services heavily rely upon  bottom-up techniques  - 95% of its households use on-site sanitation facilities, primarily pit latrines, and almost all households (>99%) use on-site water supply, primarily  hand-dug wells ( Nayebare et al. 2020 ). Underperformance of water services Fig.2 : The 2017 JMP water service ladder . According to   the JMP standard  (fig.2), none of the water services are safely managed, 10% are unimproved, and 33% are limited due to waiting times over 30 minutes -  on average, 92 households share each of the 66 water facilities . Not reflected by using the JMP standard, water storage in open containers positioned on the floor by many households  risks contamination ( Mellor et al., 2014 ) . Curren...
Read more

Starting from the Reality – Bottom-up WASH Techniques

Image
This post wishes to provide an interesting account of some widely used bottom-up WASH techniques in Africa. Due to government failures in public WASH service provision, these techniques present a compromised yet essential WASH solution. Understanding these techniques allows later exploration of their weaknesses, potential improvements, and complementary solutions for successful WASH improvements. Water-accessing techniques Without adequate piped water supply,  hand-dug wells , which citizens themselves can construct and operate at low costs, are a traditional and common water-accessing technique. The water in the well can be extracted using a pulley device or, preferably, a sealed handpump.  A proper structure that prevents the seeping of surface water and filters silt and sand , illustrated by fig.1, can ensure water safety.  Fig.1 :  The structure of a hand-dug well . Comparably, despite moderately higher construction and operation costs,  boreholes  equi...
Read more