Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

Application of Mtango Rural Water Supply

Sustainability Tool for assessing water

schemes in Hanang’ District


Eng. Mtango,F. F.
Introduction and background
Water sector Development Programme (2006-2025) was
launched in Tanzania in 2006. The objective of the programme
is to alleviate poverty through improvements in the governance
of water resources management and the sustainable delivery of
water supply and sanitation services.
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) No. 6, Ensure availability
and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.
Has a target to achieve universal and equitable access to safe
and affordable drinking water for all by 2030.
In JMP (2012) it was foreseen that “Measuring actual
sustainability of both water & sanitation facilities remains an
area that could benefit from further attention.
It was agreed by WHO in 2012 that, there was no broadly agreed-
upon standards against which sustainability should be
measured. Indeed, ‘sustainable access’, has not been
adequately defined in measurable terms, particularly since
sustainability involves so many dimensions
Dimensions of rural WS sustainability


Technical Financial


Outstanding Challenges-Water supply
coverage trend in Tanzania-Rural.
80 Coverage by
70 functionality
decrease in
50 coverage
40 2009-2012
COVERAGE Kink of 2012 to
20 2013 is because of
change of mode of
10 assessing coverage
(BRN -intervention
0 on coverage)

•Despite of initial pilot projects(quick wins), the water supply coverage decreased from
58.7% in 2009 to 57% in 2012.
•Last year , 40% of 123,888 WPs constructed from WSDP 1 not function if they were
functioning, coverage could be 85% ( MoW - Apr.2018) :, 56.7% coverage in 2018.
Outstanding Challenges contd.
What activities should be Prioritized?

MOW- Sustainability Strategic Plan Document (2015) proposed

168 actions, 68 to be done by the LGAs and COWSO’s!!!
More investment? Water – metered? Water source protection?
Water leakage? Funds are timely banked? Local Fundi /
technician? Monitoring WS facilities? Fluctuation of W.sources?
COWSOs function? Spare parts ‘access’ and storage?
Mode of tariff ?COWSO is autonomy? External backstopping?
Unreasonable tariffs? Active COWSOs?
Maintaining book keeping? Presence of O& M plan?
Repair done locally ? Adherence to equity?
Income & expendt. Reports? Political influence?
Reporting to stakeholders? Quality of water ?
Community Participation ? Tendency to pay for water ?
Presence of Private Conn.? History of vandalism ?
Objectives and tool Overview
• Main objective is to apply Mtango Rural Water sustainability
tool to assess the rural water supply schemes.
• Specific objectives are:-
-Find Hanang’ district rural water sustainability rate;
-Determine the priority activities to be done in order to improve
sustainability of the water schemes; and,
-Identify sites/ villages where these activities should be
-Tool Overview
A tool is described by an equation, the main input is the Improved
Community Water Point (ICWPs) present at scheme.
An ICWP is a unit of assessment. Defn? Water from the tap
supplied to a public.(public tap/domestic point) ; and Any other
kind of an improved point where clean water is obtained to be
used at home by a nearby community ;- example Handpump,
overview of the tool contd.
A tool uses simple means (linear equation) to achieve
complex purpose (sustainability). It is a flexible tool as it
allows the alteration and extension of parameters. It can be
adjusted by increase or reducing factors affecting
sustainability. More ever, this equation not only measures the
sustainability of water supply schemes, but also shows the
internal processes on how and to what extent, every factor is
affecting rural water supply sustainability
The factors are assumed to have equal weight (the aspects
assumed the weights from water sector experts surveys
done in 2015);
The inter relation of factors is ignored, and
TOOL EQUATION: Sustainability ‘S’ S =

we 

 
n e

  wf 

 n f

 
 wt 

 nt   
  w  
ni 
 Fe N   Ff N   Ft N  i 
Fi N 
       

wm  
 
n m

  w 
 n s

 
 Fm N  s  Fs N 
   
Weighting factors (from survey of water Weight
Where N = Total number of ICWP Engineers & other water experts)
F= number of factors in an aspect we
Weighting factor due to the effect of envir, 0.154
Ʃne= npq + nps + nsf.
Ʃnf= nci + nbm + nie + nbf + nrs
Weighting factor due to the effect of finance 0.183
+ nrt:
Weighting factor due to technical effects 0.155
Ʃnt= neb + nrl + nnr + nts + nmt wi
Weighting factor due institutional effects 0.164
Ʃni= ncv + nls + nas + nmd wm
Weighting factor due to the effect of
Ʃnm= nom + nae + nap + npr + nrd management 0.189
Ʃns= ncp + npw + nvh + npc ws
Definition of terms
The parameters defined are 27 factors that affect sustainability of rural water schemes as
shown below:-
• nps -Number of ICWP in which sources are protected
• nsf -Number of ICWP where water flows at least 11 months per year
• npq -Number of ICWP with good water quality
• nci -Number of ICWP with history of satisfactory capital investment
• nbm -Number of ICWP where tariff is per bucket/metered i.e not a flat rate
• nie -Number of ICWP where income and expenditure reported(book keeping)
• nbf -Number of ICWP where water funds are banked
• nrs -Number of ICWP With reserved spare parts for repair
• nrt -Number of ICWP where tariffs are reasonable
• neb -Number of ICWP where external backstopping is done
• nrl -Number of ICWP where repair is done locally
• nnr -Number of ICWP not directly affected by NRV such as leakages, etc
• nts -Number of ICWP where there is at least one technical staff.
• nmt -Number of ICWP where water is metered
• ncv -Number of ICWP where there is active COWSOs/VWC
Definition of terms contd.
• nls -Number of ICWP with institutional linkage and support
• nas -Number of ICWP where spare parts can be accessed within the ward
• nmd- Number of ICWP where monitoring by other institution was done
• nom -Number of ICWP with Operation and maintenance plan
• nap -Number of ICWP where COWSO is autonomous or privately
• nae –Number of ICWP in which there is adherence to equity in providing
• npr Number of ICWP without political or religion interference in
operation and management.
• nrd Number of ICWP where reporting is done
• ncp -Number of ICWP where community were involved from the planning
to execution
• npw -Number of ICWP where community has tendency to pay for water
• nvh -Number of ICWP without history of vandalism of any type
• npc -Number of ICWP where no PC around for alternative water fetching
The sample villages were selected based on the WS technology.
The phone surveys were conducted with the list, name and
location of ICWP known from the data available (WPs updated
monthly mainly used for PbR scheme fund allocations). The caller
use the ready-made questionnaire containing twenty seven
questions (equivalent to the number of factors affecting
sustainability).Questions were answered alternatively by min. of
two people among COWSOs administration. If one reply first
question, the other was left with second and so on. After each
response, the ICWP was either tallied up (if it +vely affected
sustainability) or left out (if it -vely affected sustainability) based
on the factor at a column in question. Finally, in one
village/scheme, the numerical total number of ICWP at a
particular factor column was filled in an excel sheet 1 . The data
were then transferred to the tool equation (simplified calculations
in an excel sheet 2) for calculations. Sustainability and
functionality rate were finally obtained in this sheet.
Results: Functionality and sustainability
Comparison functionality
False functionality

Coverage in %


True functionality




There is irregular pattern of results, many villages have higher

functionality than sustainability, others don’t. The big vertical gap
observed in the village of Ishponga implies that there are many
functional ICWPs but there is very little effort to keep them
sustainable(False Functionality). A case of Gisambalang and
Sirop can be referred to as True Functionality.
sustainability Levels as defined by tool
Level of sustainability Descriptions

0.00 – 0.10 Not sustainable

0.10 – 0.35 Low sustainability

0.35 – 0.70 Moderate sustainability

0.70 – 1.00 High sustainability

Conclusion & Recommendations
• Sustainability rate of Hanang’ District was found to be
approximately 0.48 ’moderate sustainability’. Higher
sustainability was found in Masakta (0.80), Getanuwas (0.77)
and Garawja (0.72), low sustainability villages were
Bassotughang (0.20) and Dawar (0.08).

• It is imperative for the Hanang’ District to prioritize activities

which will enhance sustainability :- Prepare operation and
maintenance plans , banking of tariff, introduce the store of
Spare parts, To buy and use water meters, Establish and train
COWSOs and Monitoring visits. Priority villages for all
mentioned activities should be Bassotugang, Dawar, Ishponga
and Gisambalang.

• The tool is recommended for assessment at the LGA level in

order to identify activities and villages that are needed to boost
rural water supply sustainability.
‘Call’ for tool application
Districts-At the time ‘rate of sustainability ‘ is obtained, DWE &
his/her team will be much aware of WS in a district not only
knowing rate/sust. coverage but also the activities and villages
to be prioritized during planning.

Ministry of Water–due to higher unfunctionality

rate of 40%, MoW insisted that 2018/2019 the Ministry will
only do activities that will change unfunctional WPs to
functional ones, the tool might help in identifying these
activities based on assessment in a particular LGA.
 PbR -Using the outcome of the tool, sustainability rate
and priority activities may be used by PbR scheme for
fund allocation in every LGA. This will simplify and
answer the questions that are frequently raised that
what activities are permitted in PbR scheme?
‘Call’ for tool application Contd.
Other stakeholders
To avoid the situation that every development partner to
come activities and sites to sponsor in hand, even if they
are not priorities of the Districts. The priority activities
and villages/sites recommended by the tool in an LGA
will be a good directive .

COWSOs- A tool is also efficient at the project level or at

the COWSOs level. The assessments done by the tool at
this level will be characterized by more reliable data and
therefore more accurate results are expected. The
COWSO leaders will be updated with water should be
done and where in order to improve sustainability of
water schemes
Why Mtango rural water sustainability tool?

In brief, Mtango rural water sustainability tool simplify the

assessment of rural water schemes by:-
Measure sustainability rate/coverage
Enable to define specific activities to tackle sustainability
Show the magnitude of the cause of unsustainability
therefore easy to deal with key problem first
Universal tool: can be used to assess rural water at scheme
level, COWSOs level, District Level & National level
Flexible tool, The parameter can be changed, increased or
reduced any time without altering the concept behind.
The End

Fetching domestic water at Dang’aida –Hanang’