**1.4 Analysis**

The discussion of the results shows that different countries in Africa have used community management differently for various reasons and in varying degree of success. In all instances, community water management has been used as an informal approach especially where the mainstream approaches have not been able to access. Even in countries like Ethiopia and Malawi where the government established the community water supply, there is still little faith in its management [5].

The exponential of growth of different sources of water though at face value, creates an impression of improved water supply, the dependence on natural sources of water by a large population depicts a gloomy picture of access to safe, quality and reliable water. It means that a large population is still vulnerable to waterborne diseases arising from unprotected sources of water, hence not only giving the government a temporary reprieve but also a false hope of less pressure from citizens for water. The trend is worrying since even countries which began with benevolent approach of supplying water to the communities like Ghana, Tanzania and Malawi have ended up being overwhelmed by demand and had to change strategy to accommodate more initiatives from the community. This means that it is not just about the state's direct involvement but taking the lead in promoting constructive engagement based on each community's need, without treating the communities as homogeneous entities. The fact that the communities still rely on natural sources of water is a further manifestation of the projects being initiated in desperation and as a coping mechanism. It does not mean that they are capable of producing reliable quality water at the expense of the government. The arguments of some opponents of community water supply that emphasizes government's attempt to run away from its role and that the approach is not sustainable, hence suffice. However, opponents of community management argue that the model is neither cost effective nor sustainable hence does not work well for communities due to various reasons including: non functionality of many such water points do not work by roughly one-third across the continent [29]. In Tanzania, one-quarter of new water points become non-functional within 2 years of installation [14]. For related reasons some scholars argue that community management is the least preferred management option for water users [10]. Other studies though appreciating the role of community water supply, established that the government's preferred choices in the management especially of maintenance is at times at variance with that of the community, hence less gain [10]. In Malawi, the technical and financial performance under community management is weak and therefore the community management has worked more for the state and donors as a means of offloading public service delivery responsibility than it is for the community and therefore cannot deliver the desired results (Elly [8, 9]).

In terms of roles of government in the community water supply in Africa, three broad categories are identifiable; The Prefect/Inspector; The Mediator and the Benevolent. In the prefect category, the government seldom mobilizes the community. Even where it does, its sole preoccupation is whether the community is following the prescribed procedures. Although it might not bother so much even if an initiative sprouts from a community, however, that initiative must comply with the law for it to be permitted to work, failure to which it is branded informal and its water unsafe. Due to its inability to comply with its obligation of providing an

**67**

by the government.

*Community Management and Water Service Delivery in Africa*

water by privileges and status like the case is in Nigeria.

to provide water through other informal means.

alternative, the government is embarrassed to either stop the operations or help in the system improvement. It may however put some stringent pre-conditions for community projects to qualify for the government support. The resultant scenario is the mushrooming of so many unregulated sources of water supply including natural sources, illegal tapping of government utility water companies. Kenya leads in this kind of category. The Mediator category, both Passive and Active types, provides an institutional framework to facilitate community water framework. The passive mediator, may negotiate general support with donors and development partners but does not enforce the support to the individual community water providers. It is upon any individual entrepreneur to grab the opportunity and supply water to the deserving community. This results in uncoordinated approach usually resulting in exploitation of the underprivileged community and differential distribution of

The Active mediator type government accepts responsibility to provide water and after being overwhelmed, it not only creates institutional framework for support also but encourages donor partnership with the community. The communities are not compelled to embrace donor support through mobilization and creating space for community-donor engagement in the implementation process through an administrative forum. This is a case that obtains in Tanzania, where the community leadership and the donor meet under the state facilitated Village/Mtaa Water Committees. The arrangement does not interfere with other forms of community water provision, either through vendors or private fixed water points. They operate side by side. Neither does the government restrict individual and private initiatives

The third category, the Benevolent State presents a situation in which the government deliberately creates structure for community water supply. It is the responsibility of the state to design and provide water access points for the community and is coordinated by the District Assembly/Local Administration. The community is organized around known structures and area of a particular number of households, who are mobilized to form Water User Associations for the management of the centralized community water supply. The government determines the membership. This category obtains under community water management approach in Malawi and Ghana and earlier own Tanzania before it slipped into the Mediator category. In Malawi and Ethiopia, each government not only designed but also constructed water points before inviting communal involvement. Ghana formed National Community Water and Sanitation Programme (NCWSP) to facilitate the provision of basic water and sanitation services to communities through Community Ownership and Management [30]. Even though the government of Kenya has strengthened the legal basis and capacity of community-based service providers, they are still regarded as informal or small scale water service providers. Whereas in some counties, the supply has been a deliberate move by the government to distribute water to the disadvantaged through water communal points like in Uganda, Ethiopia and Malawi, in Kenya, community water supply has been orchestrated through self-help initiatives by local communities with no direct role

The involvement of Public Private Partnership in the community water management in Africa is very prominent, the extent to which differs from state to state. Irrespective of the success, its emergence was no doubt, occasioned by the realization that neither the government nor the private sector alone could provide quality and reliable water in good quantity and time to the community in Africa. The difference in extent of involvement of PPP is related to the category of role of governments. In the Benevolent category, the state champions the search for strategic partners to establish the infrastructure and mobilize the community to manage the

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90746*

### *Community Management and Water Service Delivery in Africa DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90746*

*Resources of Water*

**1.4 Analysis**

rural areas and public spaces.

and sanitation programme (1996–2010); United State Agency for International Development; World Health Organization and World Bank [28]. Involvements of these bodies have been restricted to financing, infrastructural provisions in urban,

The discussion of the results shows that different countries in Africa have used community management differently for various reasons and in varying degree of success. In all instances, community water management has been used as an informal approach especially where the mainstream approaches have not been able to access. Even in countries like Ethiopia and Malawi where the government established the community water supply, there is still little faith in its management [5]. The exponential of growth of different sources of water though at face value, creates an impression of improved water supply, the dependence on natural sources of water by a large population depicts a gloomy picture of access to safe, quality and reliable water. It means that a large population is still vulnerable to waterborne diseases arising from unprotected sources of water, hence not only giving the government a temporary reprieve but also a false hope of less pressure from citizens for water. The trend is worrying since even countries which began with benevolent approach of supplying water to the communities like Ghana, Tanzania and Malawi have ended up being overwhelmed by demand and had to change strategy to accommodate more initiatives from the community. This means that it is not just about the state's direct involvement but taking the lead in promoting constructive engagement based on each community's need, without treating the communities as homogeneous entities. The fact that the communities still rely on natural sources of water is a further manifestation of the projects being initiated in desperation and as a coping mechanism. It does not mean that they are capable of producing reliable quality water at the expense of the government. The arguments of some opponents of community water supply that emphasizes government's attempt to run away from its role and that the approach is not sustainable, hence suffice. However, opponents of community management argue that the model is neither cost effective nor sustainable hence does not work well for communities due to various reasons including: non functionality of many such water points do not work by roughly one-third across the continent [29]. In Tanzania, one-quarter of new water points become non-functional within 2 years of installation [14]. For related reasons some scholars argue that community management is the least preferred management option for water users [10]. Other studies though appreciating the role of community water supply, established that the government's preferred choices in the management especially of maintenance is at times at variance with that of the community, hence less gain [10]. In Malawi, the technical and financial performance under community management is weak and therefore the community management has worked more for the state and donors as a means of offloading public service delivery responsibility than it is for the community and therefore cannot deliver the

In terms of roles of government in the community water supply in Africa, three

broad categories are identifiable; The Prefect/Inspector; The Mediator and the Benevolent. In the prefect category, the government seldom mobilizes the community. Even where it does, its sole preoccupation is whether the community is following the prescribed procedures. Although it might not bother so much even if an initiative sprouts from a community, however, that initiative must comply with the law for it to be permitted to work, failure to which it is branded informal and its water unsafe. Due to its inability to comply with its obligation of providing an

**66**

desired results (Elly [8, 9]).

alternative, the government is embarrassed to either stop the operations or help in the system improvement. It may however put some stringent pre-conditions for community projects to qualify for the government support. The resultant scenario is the mushrooming of so many unregulated sources of water supply including natural sources, illegal tapping of government utility water companies. Kenya leads in this kind of category. The Mediator category, both Passive and Active types, provides an institutional framework to facilitate community water framework. The passive mediator, may negotiate general support with donors and development partners but does not enforce the support to the individual community water providers. It is upon any individual entrepreneur to grab the opportunity and supply water to the deserving community. This results in uncoordinated approach usually resulting in exploitation of the underprivileged community and differential distribution of water by privileges and status like the case is in Nigeria.

The Active mediator type government accepts responsibility to provide water and after being overwhelmed, it not only creates institutional framework for support also but encourages donor partnership with the community. The communities are not compelled to embrace donor support through mobilization and creating space for community-donor engagement in the implementation process through an administrative forum. This is a case that obtains in Tanzania, where the community leadership and the donor meet under the state facilitated Village/Mtaa Water Committees. The arrangement does not interfere with other forms of community water provision, either through vendors or private fixed water points. They operate side by side. Neither does the government restrict individual and private initiatives to provide water through other informal means.

The third category, the Benevolent State presents a situation in which the government deliberately creates structure for community water supply. It is the responsibility of the state to design and provide water access points for the community and is coordinated by the District Assembly/Local Administration. The community is organized around known structures and area of a particular number of households, who are mobilized to form Water User Associations for the management of the centralized community water supply. The government determines the membership. This category obtains under community water management approach in Malawi and Ghana and earlier own Tanzania before it slipped into the Mediator category. In Malawi and Ethiopia, each government not only designed but also constructed water points before inviting communal involvement. Ghana formed National Community Water and Sanitation Programme (NCWSP) to facilitate the provision of basic water and sanitation services to communities through Community Ownership and Management [30]. Even though the government of Kenya has strengthened the legal basis and capacity of community-based service providers, they are still regarded as informal or small scale water service providers. Whereas in some counties, the supply has been a deliberate move by the government to distribute water to the disadvantaged through water communal points like in Uganda, Ethiopia and Malawi, in Kenya, community water supply has been orchestrated through self-help initiatives by local communities with no direct role by the government.

The involvement of Public Private Partnership in the community water management in Africa is very prominent, the extent to which differs from state to state. Irrespective of the success, its emergence was no doubt, occasioned by the realization that neither the government nor the private sector alone could provide quality and reliable water in good quantity and time to the community in Africa. The difference in extent of involvement of PPP is related to the category of role of governments. In the Benevolent category, the state champions the search for strategic partners to establish the infrastructure and mobilize the community to manage the

community water supply. This challenge has generally been hampered by sustainability problems after the partners have left especially in Malawi. It is however less in Ghana due to stronger institutional governance support. In the Passive mediator category, there is limited activity in partnerships since only those championed by the state are active and sustainability challenges arise shortly thereafter. In the active mediator level there, are more PPPs both initiated by the state and by individuals. There is a flurry of PPPs in the Inspector/Prefect Category where individuals, private corporates and the government all participate asymmetrically. There is no predetermined or prescribed way of partnerships. This is consistent with other scholars observation. In Malawi and Ethiopia, the respective governments deliberately both singly and in support of International NGOs, established community public water standpipes to provide access to rural population to water. In Kenya community management was even stronger and started through self-help initiatives and for members first. To date community water supply contributes up to 60% of total water access in Kenya [12], 40% of access in Dar es Salaam [31]. Of the 8 million Kenyans who have access to improved water in rural areas, 30% are served by community-managed water supply schemes most of which were developed by self-help groups. These self-help schemes differ from those in Ethiopia or Malawi in two important aspects. First, they were designed to provide water mainly to the members of the self-help groups, not equitably to everybody living in the service areas. Secondly, they supply water mostly through household connections, not public tap stands. Only 26.8% of the population have access to a basic minimum level of service in Ethiopia, while 64.2% have access in Kenya and 84.5% have access in South Africa (WSP, 2003). Whereas Central government is highest water sector provider at 51%, followed by Local authorities at 27% and Non-Governmental organization including CBOs and PSP at 21% in Kenya, In Ethiopia Private Sector Participation through CBOs is at 54% followed by local authorities at and no central government direct participation.

Like in Ghana, the governments of Ethiopia and Malawi worked in partnership with the communities and, the former providing technical standards and supervision. The government took the lead in implementing projects, and then in the 1990s Water Aid, the international NGO, began giving financial and professional help to the government schemes. The government engineers designed the schemes in accordance with technical standards and the wishes of the communities served. Ghana has further institutionalized Public Private Partnership in which involving contracted Private Operators and Public Operators under Community Ownership and Management approach under the supervision of local authorities through District Assemblies. However, in Ethiopia, the Ethiopia Social Rehabilitation and Development Fund (ESRDF) provide grant funding through the national budget and the communities cover 10% of capital costs and all operating costs. As in Ethiopia, the projects in Malawi were designed to serve the entire population in the supply area, but only through public tap stands.

**Table 1** shows that the growth of community water projects in inversely related to the role of state. When there are more projects, the role of state tends towards that of an inspector. When the reverse is the case, the role of the state tends to be more of benevolent. Even the states whose role began as benevolent, eventually need to tend towards mediator and later Inspector to ensure quality and safety.

#### **1.5 Conclusion**

The community water management supply has emerged as a core intervention strategy in Africa to fill in the space the state has either abandoned or unable to occupy. It has emerged and matured in various ways in different countries ranging

**69**

**Table 1.**

*Community Management and Water Service Delivery in Africa*

**Inspector Active** 

**mediator**

Communityoperated kiosks; shallow wells and rivers; vendors and mosques

Mobilization of community and partners; infrastructure development

People living a given radius; individuals and NGOs

Donors; WSPs; water utilities; NGOs; community liaison unit; political party leadership, local authority

*A framework of the involvement of state in community water management in Africa.*

**Kenya Tanzania Nigeria Malawi Ghana**

**Passive mediator**

Communityoperated kiosks; shallow wells and boreholes; natural sources- rain water, rivers, lake, ponds, and vendors

Mobilization for

infrastructure development

People living a given radius; individuals

Consultants; nongovernmental organizations; local government authorities; local community water committees; donors

**Benevolent Benevolent**

Communityoperated kiosks; shallow wells and boreholes

Mobilization of community and partners; infrastructure development

People living a given radiusinitiative of the community

Donor, community, state

communityoperated kiosks; natural sources; shallow wells and boreholes

Mobilization of community and partners; infrastructure development

People living a given radiusinitiative of the community

Donors, nongovernmental organizations; center for community organization and development (CCODE); water board; WSP; local community/

WUAs

from state supported in Ghana, Tanzania, and Malawi to amorphous in Nigeria to self-supported initiatives in Kenya. Even where the state has supported the initiatives, the state has been overwhelmed more informal water supplies still emerge as in Nigeria and Tanzania and ended opening up to more public private partnerships like in Ghana. The higher the number of community water projects are, the more likely the state will assume the Inspector role. There are fewer community water projects in benevolent states. In all three categories of roles, ranging from

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90746*

Communityoperated kiosks; shallow wells and boreholes; natural sources i.e. rain water, rivers, lake, ponds; and vendors

Role of state Regulation, Ltd. infrastructure development; collecting fees and registration of WSPs

Membership Local

PPP Donors,

community groups; communitybased organizations' (CBOs); institutions; welfare associations/ organized groups

community, state; WSP

*Direction of flow community water and state involvement.*

**Role of state in community water**

Water sources


*Community Management and Water Service Delivery in Africa DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90746*

*Resources of Water*

government direct participation.

supply area, but only through public tap stands.

community water supply. This challenge has generally been hampered by sustainability problems after the partners have left especially in Malawi. It is however less in Ghana due to stronger institutional governance support. In the Passive mediator category, there is limited activity in partnerships since only those championed by the state are active and sustainability challenges arise shortly thereafter. In the active mediator level there, are more PPPs both initiated by the state and by individuals. There is a flurry of PPPs in the Inspector/Prefect Category where individuals, private corporates and the government all participate asymmetrically. There is no predetermined or prescribed way of partnerships. This is consistent with other scholars observation. In Malawi and Ethiopia, the respective governments deliberately both singly and in support of International NGOs, established community public water standpipes to provide access to rural population to water. In Kenya community management was even stronger and started through self-help initiatives and for members first. To date community water supply contributes up to 60% of total water access in Kenya [12], 40% of access in Dar es Salaam [31]. Of the 8 million Kenyans who have access to improved water in rural areas, 30% are served by community-managed water supply schemes most of which were developed by self-help groups. These self-help schemes differ from those in Ethiopia or Malawi in two important aspects. First, they were designed to provide water mainly to the members of the self-help groups, not equitably to everybody living in the service areas. Secondly, they supply water mostly through household connections, not public tap stands. Only 26.8% of the population have access to a basic minimum level of service in Ethiopia, while 64.2% have access in Kenya and 84.5% have access in South Africa (WSP, 2003). Whereas Central government is highest water sector provider at 51%, followed by Local authorities at 27% and Non-Governmental organization including CBOs and PSP at 21% in Kenya, In Ethiopia Private Sector Participation through CBOs is at 54% followed by local authorities at and no central

Like in Ghana, the governments of Ethiopia and Malawi worked in partnership with the communities and, the former providing technical standards and supervision. The government took the lead in implementing projects, and then in the 1990s Water Aid, the international NGO, began giving financial and professional help to the government schemes. The government engineers designed the schemes in accordance with technical standards and the wishes of the communities served. Ghana has further institutionalized Public Private Partnership in which involving contracted Private Operators and Public Operators under Community Ownership and Management approach under the supervision of local authorities through District Assemblies. However, in Ethiopia, the Ethiopia Social Rehabilitation and Development Fund (ESRDF) provide grant funding through the national budget and the communities cover 10% of capital costs and all operating costs. As in Ethiopia, the projects in Malawi were designed to serve the entire population in the

**Table 1** shows that the growth of community water projects in inversely related to the role of state. When there are more projects, the role of state tends towards that of an inspector. When the reverse is the case, the role of the state tends to be more of benevolent. Even the states whose role began as benevolent, eventually need to tend towards mediator and later Inspector to ensure quality and safety.

The community water management supply has emerged as a core intervention strategy in Africa to fill in the space the state has either abandoned or unable to occupy. It has emerged and matured in various ways in different countries ranging

**68**

**1.5 Conclusion**

#### **Table 1.**

*A framework of the involvement of state in community water management in Africa.*

from state supported in Ghana, Tanzania, and Malawi to amorphous in Nigeria to self-supported initiatives in Kenya. Even where the state has supported the initiatives, the state has been overwhelmed more informal water supplies still emerge as in Nigeria and Tanzania and ended opening up to more public private partnerships like in Ghana. The higher the number of community water projects are, the more likely the state will assume the Inspector role. There are fewer community water projects in benevolent states. In all three categories of roles, ranging from

Benevolent, Mediated and Inspector/Prefect, it is a clear that the state in Africa cannot run away from facilitating community water supply. Neither can it wish it away as long as citizens continue to go without water. In fact, the community water and the state are strange bedfellows in the water supply. At times they act as partners, and at times as competitors especially in Inspector states. Since neither can do without the other, public private partnerships is the best option. The countries that have demonstrated high level of PPP have equally been able to relatively, show more improvement in the water supply. In order to address inequality, quality and exploitation the state still has complement the mobilization of resources by the private sector.
