Multiple Use Water Services (MUS) Project: Assessment of ...

1

Multiple Use Water Services (MUS) Project: Assessment of

Impacts and their Pathways as a Basis for Learning Lessons

for Future Projects

Final Report

Submitted to the Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF)

through CIAT (Contract C-039-08)

Douglas J. Merrey and Lindiwe M. Sibanda

November 2008

REGIONAL SECRETARIAT

141 Cresswell Road, Weavind Park 0184 Private Bag X813, Silverton 0127

Pretoria, South Africa

Tel: +27 12 845 9100 Fax: +27 12 845 9110 Email: [email protected] www.fanrpan.org

i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents................................................................................................................. i List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. v

Executive Summary........................................................................................................... vi

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1

2. Methodology and Approach ........................................................................................... 3

3. Conceptualizing Impacts and Impact Pathways ............................................................. 5

3.1 Models Introduced by the CPWF ......................................................................... 5

3.2 MUS Project Use of the CPWF Models ............................................................... 6

3.3 MUS Project Initiatives to Maximize Impacts...................................................... 8

The “Learning Wheel” Concept.................................................................................. 9

The “Learning Alliance” Concept ............................................................................ 10

4. The MUS Project: Planned and Actual Implementation............................................... 11

5. Major Findings.............................................................................................................. 12

5.1 Major Observations from Colombia ................................................................... 12

Approach and Context .............................................................................................. 12

The MUS Learning Alliance and Outputs ................................................................ 12

Outcomes: Changes in KAS ..................................................................................... 13

Impacts: Changes in Practice .................................................................................... 13

Retrospective on the “Impact Pathway” ................................................................... 14

5.2 Major Observations from South Africa .............................................................. 17






5.3 Major Observations from Zimbabwe.................................................................. 21



ii




5.4 Major Observations from Thailand..................................................................... 25






5.5 Observations from Other Project Countries........................................................ 31

Bolivia....................................................................................................................... 31

Ethiopia ..................................................................................................................... 31

Nepal and India ......................................................................................................... 32

5.6 Major Observations at Project Global Level ...................................................... 33

MUS Science ............................................................................................................ 34

MUS Partnerships and Strategic Alliances ............................................................... 35

Perceptions on the Role of the CPWF ...................................................................... 36

Assuring Continuity for Full Impact in Future ......................................................... 37

5.7 Summary of Outcome of Benefit-Cost Assessment ........................................... 38

5.8 Summary of Most Salient Findings .................................................................... 39

6. Recommendations......................................................................................................... 42

References......................................................................................................................... 45

Appendices........................................................................................................................ 49

Annex 1 Terms of Reference for the CPWF Adoption and Cost-Benefit Analysis Project ....................................................................................................................... 50

Annex 2 Questions for Project Implementation Partners ......................................... 52

Annex 3 List of People Interviewed by D. Merrey................................................... 55

Annex 4 Significant Change Statement .................................................................... 56

Annex 5 Five high-potential areas for action based on evaluation of: financial sustainability; impact on well-being, health, and social empowerment; scalability; opportunities for leverage, testing and learning........................................................ 58

Annex 6 Overview of Impacts of the MUS Project .................................................. 59 Annex 7 List of Key MUS References……………………………………………. 61

iii

List of Acronyms

Aquacol Colombian Association of Community Organizations Providers of Public Water Services and Sewerage

AWARD Association for Water and Rural Development (South Africa)

CARD Centre for Agricultural and Rural Development, University of Malawi

CIAT International Centre for Tropical Agriculture

CINARA Institute for R&D in Water Supply, Environmental Sanitation and Conservation of Water Resources

CPWF Challenge Programme on Water and Food

CRS Catholic Relief Services

DFID Department for International Development

DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (South Africa)

FANRPAN Food Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Netwokr

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GWP Global Water Partnership

IDE International Development Enterprises

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre

IWMI International Water Management Institute

IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management

IWSD Institute of Water and Sanitation Development (Zimbabwe)

KAS Knowledge, Attitudes and Skills

KKU Khon Kaen University (Thailand)

LA Learning Alliance

LLA Local Learning Alliance

lpd litres per person per day

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MIG Municipal Infrastructure Grant

iv

MUS Multiple Use Water Services

mus multiple use water services (generic)

NAC National Action Committee (Zimbabwe)

NCU National Coordination Unit (Zimbabwe)

NITP Non-Traditional Irrigation Project

NGO Non-government Organization

O&M Operation and Maintenance

PIPA Participatory Impact Pathway Assessment

SMART specific, measurable, attributable, realistic, time bound

SWELL Securing Water to Enhance Local Livelihoods

SWITCH Managing Water for the City of the Future

TOR Terms of Reference

UN United Nations

WASPA Wastewater Agriculture and Sanitation for Poverty Alleviation

WES-WG Water and Environmental Sanitation Working Group

WRC Water Research Commission (South Africa)

WWF4 Fourth World Water Forum (Mexico)

WWF5 Fifth World Water Forum (Turkey)

W4GD Water for Growth and Development (South Africa)

v

Acknowledgements

This report has been prepared for the project on “Impact assessment of research in the Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF): An adoption and cost-benefit analysis project, managed by the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). We are grateful to CIAT and to the Project Leader, Dr Boru Douthwaite, for the opportunity to carry out this assessment and for his consistent and very constructive support. This is an assessment of the CPWF Project Number 28, “Models for Implementing Multiple-Use Water Supply Systems for Enhanced Land and Water Productivity, Rural Livelihoods and Gender Equity” (“MUS” for short). It is not a normal end-of-project evaluation. Rather, it is an attempt to understand the innovative approach to project implementation, what the results of this approach have been, and most important, what are the lessons that can be used by the CPWF and others in the future.

We are very grateful to Dr. Barbara van Koppen, MUS Project Leader, who has gone out of her way to respond to requests for information and has been extremely open and helpful throughout. She reviewed a draft of this report over a weekend, and provided very useful suggestions which in nearly every case were accepted as adding value. In addition, other senior project implementation partners have been very helpful in telephone interviews or sharing information; they are listed in Appendix 3, and include Stef Smits, John Butterworth, Patrick Moriarty, Monique Mikhail, and Robert Yoder.

We are grateful to our partners who have carried out country assessments, and done so very professionally and on time. These are Diana Córdoba (Colombia), Marna de Lange (South Africa), Emmanuel Manzungu (Zimbabwe), and Po Garden (Thailand), as well as our colleague at the University of Malawi who attempted a benefit cost assessment (Charles Jumbe).

The draft report was shared with the MUS Project partners as well as with Boru Douthwaite for their review before being finalized. We received responses and in most cases very useful comments from Larry Harrington, Roberto Lenton, Stef Smits, Barbara van Koppen, and Boru Douthwaite; these have been largely addressed in this final report.

We are grateful for all this assistance, but emphasize we remain responsible for the contents of this report.

Douglas J Merrey Lindiwe Majele Sibanda

vi

Executive Summary

This is a report synthesizing our findings and major recommendations emerging from the impact assessment of the CPWF Project Number 28, “Models for Implementing Multiple-Use Water Supply Systems for Enhanced Land and Water Productivity, Rural Livelihoods and Gender Equity” (“MUS” for short; we also follow Project convention and use the lower-case “mus” to refer to generic multiple use water services). The report provides a lot of detailed observations and findings. The Executive Summary presents a few of the most salient observations and conclusions that we assume will be most useful to the CPWF. Annex 6 also provides a summary of impacts. These are followed by the three major recommendations emerging from the study. This is not a conventional assessment of the project impacts and benefits and costs; rather, following recent literature on appropriate methodologies to evaluate innovations, we have sought to develop a reasonable and plausible account of what changes have occurred and are likely to occur in future, and what the MUS Project has contributed. This means the account is subjective and open to alternative interpretations; however, we believe this account is sufficiently accurate to provide a basis for our conclusions and recommendations.

Major Observations and Conclusions

1. The MUS Project has built effectively on existing experiences with multiple use water services with a goal of identifying how to overcome barriers to scaling multiple use water services out and up

The MUS Project did not consider the benefits of multiple use water services to be hypothetical; based on existing experience, which was further corroborated and conceptualized during the Project, the Project sought to identify more clearly the barriers to scaling out and up, and the possible strategies for overcoming these barriers. In this sense, the MUS Project is not a classical research project; rather, it is primarily a conceptualization and advocacy project which has made effective use of research to strengthen its advocacy. This is not to say that there was not good science—see the next conclusion. Many of the project partners at global and national levels had previous experience with water supply services for multiple uses, usually in the form of domestic services also providing some productive water (“domestic plus”) or irrigation services providing some water for household or other uses (“irrigation plus”). An important contribution of the project was in conceptualizing these experiences, providing a vocabulary and approach for analysis and description, and identifying the policy and institutional changes needed to support more demand-driven water services for improving livelihoods.

2. The MUS Project has made a significant contribution to conceptualizing, improving scientific understanding and raising the global and national profile of multiple use water services

We conclude that “the most important achievement of the MUS Project has been its contribution to conceptualizing, legitimizing and raising the profile of MUS both as a topic worthy of detailed scientific study, and as a potentially powerful tool for improving

vii

the livelihoods of poor people by providing a higher-level water service than is often the case in rural water supply programmes and irrigation projects.” This applies at multiple levels. Globally, there is concrete evidence of growing interest in supporting the implementation of mus schemes as well as research and advocacy efforts, as witnessed by the high level of interest expressed at the WWF4, by ICID, GWP, Comprehensive Assessment on Water Management in Agriculture, FAO, the organizers of WWF5 in Turkey, and expressions of interest by the World Bank, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and IFAD. In addition, an international thematic group has formed of organizations working on the topic (MUS Group; see www.musgroup.net). At national level in the participating countries, there is clearer understanding of the concept of mus; many participants credited the MUS Project with helping with clarification and conceptualization. We have noted from our interviews that in some countries stakeholders have a broader concept of mus than in others: some restrict it to productive use of (some) domestic water from a single source, while others recognize mus as including multiple sources, uses, and users.

On the science side, we identified a number of existing publications emerging from the project that provide evidence of good science, clear conceptualization, and the potential power of mus as a tool for enabling people to improve their livelihoods. Annex 7 provides an indicative list of key MUS references. The Project is currently in the process of finalizing additional publications that are likely to make a significant further contribution.

3. The MUS Project has had very significant influence, and even impacts, on knowledge, attitudes and practices at national and in some cases local levels, with most of the policy and investment impacts still to come in future

The report demonstrates there is considerable evidence that the MUS Project contributed significantly to raising the level of awareness, knowledge, interest and in some cases implementation skills in most of the countries where it was active. These include Colombia, Nepal, South Africa, Thailand, and Zimbabwe. The reasons for this success are related to its emphasis on partnerships and joint learning by diverse stakeholders through “Learning Alliances,” combined with identifying effective “champions of change” in these countries.

A review of the countries where there was most impact, compared to those where the MUS Project had the least impact, suggests two observations. First, in part as a function of the limited funding available and channelled from the global Project partners to local partners, it was only in those countries where there was a good potential to leverage existing matching local resources where the most salient impacts were achieved. These include Colombia, Nepal, South Africa, and Thailand. In Bolivia, and definitely in Zimbabwe, the inadequate level of locally available resources that could be leveraged was a serious constraint.

We also observe that in general the governmental agricultural water sector is the most rigid in terms of accepting mus schemes at least formally, while the governmental water supply and sanitation sector seems generally more open to the concept formally. In both Zimbabwe and Nepal, the respective Departments of Irrigation have shown a higher level

viii

of formal rigidity than is the case for the water supply sector in these countries—though the Department in Nepal especially is more flexible and supportive informally. This is the case in Nepal even though the NGO champion (IDE) comes from the agricultural sector; in Zimbabwe the Department of Irrigation did not remain engaged in the working group even when invited. Both, however, have informally recognized the advantages of mus and provide some case-by-case ad hoc support. In Colombia and South Africa, mus seems to resonate most with the water supply sector institutions. Thailand is an outlier in this pattern, as mus as promoted by the project refers to multiple use of water largely intended for productive purposes.

4. The MUS Project “impact theory” has proven to be a salient guide to using action research as a tool for achieving impacts. The “Learning Alliance” concept provides a change model that will be useful in other policy and institutional change projects.

The CPWF impact tools were provided late in the project and therefore never really tested (nor were they meant to be tested). We suspect this is not an “either or” point, but a matter of judgement, flexibility, and the kinds of goals the project is seeking to achieve. In a “normal” scientific project, where one is seeking to test hypotheses or discover new knowledge, the impact pathway models may indeed be appropriate. However, as emphasized above, after its transformation during the first implementation year, the MUS Project was not a “normal” research project; rather it was an advocacy project of a new concept seeking to maximize its impact through joint learning with stakeholders. The conceptualization of the project in terms of the “learning wheel,” strategic partnerships, multiple institutional levels, learning alliances bringing together diverse stakeholders to learn and share together proved effective. It is notable also that the Project was able to integrate and add value to local approaches to learning, such as the Farmer Wisdom Networks in Thailand and the South African “SWELL” approach.

5. While the flexibility of the CPWF management was highly appreciated, the intellectual support seems to have been deficient, and the arbitrary reduction of the budget had deleterious effects

Most of the MUS Project partners interviewed express appreciation for the flexibility the CPWF management exhibited in accommodating changes in the project approach. However, they were equally unanimous in suggesting there was no useful intellectual engagement between the project and the thematic leaders or basin coordinators. In addition, many participants perceived the seemingly arbitrary large reductions in the budget after the CPWF awarded the Project had serious negative impacts. The other side of this, however, is the response of the Project leadership: the time frame was reduced from five to four years, and the provisions for local level case studies and action research drastically curtailed. The same large number of partners and basins was retained; therefore resources were spread very thinly. Further, as several interviewees noted, a large proportion of the budget was retained by the global levels—which can perhaps be justified but clearly did not sit that well with some national partners. Specifically, cutting out the detailed local assessments and the action research pilot studies that were planned seems to have had a negative impact on the potential for achieving substantial local and

ix

national impacts: there seems to be as felt need for more detailed studies and also for studies to learn “how” to design and implement mus schemes effectively.

Recommendations

Based on our assessment of the impacts and pathways to achieve these impacts, we have several key recommendations for the CPWF Programme to consider as it launches its second implementation phase.

1. We recommend that the CPWF should make a clearer distinction between

“normal” research projects intended to discover new knowledge or test scientific

hypotheses, from those whose main objective is to use research as an important tool

to promote conceptualization and innovation. The CPWF should identify a limited

number of innovations with high potential for impact, and work with the

proponents over a longer period to build partnerships and achieve real results.

We understand the CPWF to have a dual mandate. On the one hand, as a CGIAR programme, it ought to be carrying out cutting edge future-oriented “international public goods” work whose usefulness and impacts, if any, will only be seen after a decade or more. However, because much of its funding comes from development funds, the CPWF also has an equally strong mandate to achieve measurable impacts on livelihoods, agricultural growth, water productivity, and the environment. It is counter-productive to ask all CPWF-supported projects to meet both of these mandates simultaneously. This is why we propose that the CPWF portfolio should contain a set of future-oriented “science” projects, parallel to a set of projects which are also contributing to as well as applying science with specific medium term impact goals. The former should not require very much support in terms of developing impact theories—it is sufficient to emphasize the scientific contributions, with a logical framework that indicates how those contributions will make a difference in the long term — beyond the life of the project. The innovation-oriented projects do need to invest far more resources in creating strategic partnerships and learning alliances, sharing experiences among diverse stakeholders, and training in order to achieve the desired impacts.

2. We recommend that the CPWF provide support for an additional medium-term

(five-year) MUS programme in cooperation with other development partners. The

purpose would be to consolidate the gains and achieve real impacts within the

context of the innovation-oriented programmes suggested above.

The MUS Project is clearly unfinished business. At national and global levels, a great deal of knowledge, awareness and interest have been generated, and there are indications of potential reforms in policies, implementation strategies, and financing at both national and global levels. But it is not a “done deal.” We have noted that there has not been enough action research (pilot cases) to learning “how” to implement mus schemes effectively. There is a need for encouraging more technological innovation. There are concerns about the costs and benefits in the long run. There remain serious institutional and mind-set barriers at the levels of international development partners, national governments, local governments, and even some NGOs. We believe that simply dropping its support now will result in either not achieving the potential of mus at all, or at best significantly delaying their wider implementation; and this in turn will affect achievement of the Millennium Development Goals among others. The CPWF will have

x

lost an opportunity to demonstrate large-scale impacts on rural livelihoods through support of water management innovations.

Therefore, we strongly recommend that the CPWF work with the partners in the current project, but also reach out to other development partners, financing agencies and NGOs as well as expand into a select group of other countries. Working through regional and international (UN) institutions, on both the water supply and sanitation and agricultural water sides, would also be critical. This new project should seek to demonstrate the “how” and the real long term benefits and costs and promote technological as well as institutional innovation; while encouraging partnerships among stakeholders through Learning Alliances at multiple levels.

3. We recommend that as part of the above set of ‘innovation’ projects, the CPWF

adopt the MUS impact theory based on elements of the “innovation cycle” and

provide support and capacity building to this selected group of the next generation

of projects and basin programmes to design and implement this approach to

achieving impacts. We perceive this as complementary to the impact theories and

models currently being used, not as replacements.

We have concluded that the change theory embedded in the MUS Project, based on innovations systems theory, has been demonstrated to be effective. This is especially the case for projects seeking changes in policies, institutions and concepts (or mindsets). The CPWF impact pathway models may be quite adequate when promoting a single-dimensional technological innovation, but promoting complex behavioural change requires a more nuanced theory of change, such as the Learning Alliances and learning wheel concepts used by MUS. We note the CPWF Programme fully recognizes this, and indeed had invited projects to suggest more appropriate change models.

Whichever set of change models are adopted (there is no single “correct” one), these need to be embedded in the project design from the beginning, the project participants need to have a good understanding of these (which requires investment in training and workshops), and there needs to be a continuous learning process punctuated by regular open reviews of lessons learned; and the project must be able to make changes in its strategy based on these lessons.

1

Multiple Use Water Services (MUS) Project: Assessment of Impacts and

their Pathways as a Basis for Learning Lessons for Future Projects

1. Introduction The Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) has a portfolio of approximately 50 projects awarded through competitive processes that are working on a diverse set of issues and problems in ten river basins around the world. After the first round of projects had been initiated, the CPWF realized it needed to assist these projects to adopt more explicit theories and approaches to maximize their impacts on agricultural water productivity, poverty and environment. Therefore, it has worked with these projects to apply tools such as “problem trees,” “impact pathways,” and “network models” of stakeholders (Douthwaite et al. 2008; see also http://impactpathways.pbwiki.com). More recently, the CPWF has also implemented an “Adoption and Cost Benefit Analysis Project” managed by CIAT, in order to assess the current and potential future impacts of selected projects. The purpose of these assessments is to identify what outcomes and impacts the project in question has had, how it achieved these impacts (if any) including the pathways, strategies, etc. that led to the impacts; and from this, what lessons can be learned for improving the design of future projects.

The CPWF requested FANRPAN to carry out an assessment of CPWF Project Number 28, “Models for Implementing Multiple-Use Water Supply Systems for Enhanced Land and Water Productivity, Rural Livelihoods and Gender Equity.” The short name for this CPWF-supported Project is “MUS” and this is the term (in capital letters) used in the remainder of this report (following the Project’s convention, we also use “mus” to refer to generic multiple use water services). The Project was officially launched in 2004; project activities in the basins ran through 2007. The Project has received a no-cost extension until 2009 to enable it to implement a major final conference in November 2008 and organize a special session at the Fifth World Water Forum in Turkey, March 2009. The Project is formally led by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), in “coordinating partnership” with IRC (International Water and Sanitation Centre) and IDE (International Development Enterprises). In addition, other “lead partners” include Khon Kaen University (KKU) in Thailand, Mekelle University in Ethiopia, and CEMAGREF (France). During the course of the project, some of these partners were less active than expected (e.g., Mekelle University, CEMAGREF) while some partners at the basin or national level became extremely active (e.g., AWARD in South Africa, Cinara in Colombia). The MUS Project has operated in five river basins (Andes group of basins, Ganges, Limpopo, Mekong, Nile) and eight countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Ethiopia, Nepal, India, South Africa, Thailand, Zimbabwe) as well as at global levels. At basin level, Penning de Vries (2007: Table 2) lists ten “associate partners” and the list is stated to be growing.

According to the original proposal, the project goal was “to improve poor people’s food security and health, reduce unpaid workloads, alleviate poverty and enhance gender equity through more productive use of small-scale water supplies.” The project had two stated objectives:

2

1. Generation and synthesis of new knowledge (knowledge to be synthesized into “innovative models, guidelines, and tools for rural and peri-urban water supply systems” that meet multiple needs in a sustainable and “inexpensive” way and have quantifiable positive impacts); and

2. Capacity building for scaling up (“… to jointly promote a 100-fold wider implementation of multiple-use water supply systems after this project”) (MUS Proposal 2003).

The basic rationale of the project begins from the observation that most water supply schemes are designed by governments or NGOs for a single purpose, usually “domestic only,” or “irrigation only.” However, households and communities use water for many purposes, ranging from personal (drinking, washing, hygiene) to recreational to productive (crops, home gardens, livestock, brick making, etc.). If schemes do not cater to these multiple needs, people will either suffer because of lost opportunities (for production or health for example) or will attempt to use water from single-purpose schemes for multiple purposes, which may undermine the entire functionality of the system (for example when some people take more water than the scheme can deliver, preventing others from receiving any water at all). Therefore, if water supply services are designed from the beginning to cater to the range of real needs, they will have a much greater poverty-reducing impact and will enable better livelihoods. The most important reason why water supply services are not designed and operated to meet multiple needs is an “institutional failure” in the water sector; i.e., it is a result of the sectoral and top down nature of both government and nongovernment organizations (van Koppen et al. 2006:2; Butterworth et al. 2008).

The original project proposal defined two sets of activities based on these objectives: activities that would generate new knowledge by studying 25 multiple-use water systems in ten countries and then synthesize lessons, and a range of awareness-creation and capacity building activities at national and regional levels, based on the new knowledge generated. However, it did not take long for the project implementers to realize that if they wished to achieve their very ambitious goals, radical changes in approach would be needed. At its first meeting in January 2005 what emerged were major differences in understanding of “MUS” and how to operationalize the project (MUS Synthesis of Lessons 2008; interviews). Over the following year, the participants developed a common understanding organized around the “learning wheel” that eliminates the division between ‘research,’ ‘upscaling’ and ‘implementation.’ This new understanding is reflected in a subsequent IWMI Research Report (van Koppen et al. 2006). These issues are discussed further below; the point here is to emphasize the major changes in the project implementation strategy following the acceptance of the proposal by the CPWF.

This shift in MUS project implementation strategy occurred parallel to (but independently from) a growing CPWF concern for optimizing the impacts of its portfolio of projects. A support project was therefore launched to work with existing project partners to develop explicit hypotheses and possible ‘pathways’ for moving from research to outcomes to impacts. MUS was among the projects that developed problem trees, stakeholder maps, and impact pathways through participatory and interactive workshops held in various river basins. The present impact assessment of the MUS

3

Project was commissioned because MUS is perceived as one of the projects that has indeed had important impacts of various types. The main purpose is to document what changes have occurred, how they came about, what are the benefits and costs, what was the contribution of CPWF, what was the role of research, through what pathways did the changes occur, and most important – what are the major lessons learned that can be used to strengthen future CPWF projects (summarized from the TOR, Annex 1).

The next section (2) explains the methodology and approach followed for this assessment. Section 3 briefly discusses the types of impact we are assessing, and the impact pathways concept. We then focus on the MUS project (section 4), and explain our understanding of how it was implemented (contrasting with the plan provided in the original proposal). These set the scene for describing our major findings in section 5 which form the basis for the recommendations (section 6) emerging from this study.

2. Methodology and Approach

This assessment, carried out during June to September 2008, is based largely on analysis of publications and documents provided by the MUS Project (many of which are available on its web site, www.musproject.net), combined with interviews with project implementers and selected stakeholders. We developed a questionnaire as a guide for interviews; several MUS Project implementers provided further suggestions and comments on this guide which we adopted (Annex 2). Doug Merrey used this as a guide for interviewing either in person or by phone most of the key project implementers and some stakeholders (Annex 3). As specified in the contract with CIAT, the assessment focused on just a few countries (basins) where according to the “significant change” story submitted to the CPWF (Annex 4) the project has had impacts. These are South Africa, Thailand and Zimbabwe, plus Colombia. In the first three countries, FANRPAN engaged consultants to carry out the studies, while a CIAT staff member followed the same TOR in carrying out a study in Colombia. In all four countries, the consultants interviewed both project partners and other stakeholders in the MUS Project; in three of the countries, a consultation with stakeholders to validate the draft report was also held. The exception was Thailand, where we could not reach agreement with the local project implementing partner within the available budget. This report draws heavily on these four country reports (South Africa-de Lange 2008; Zimbabwe-Manzungu 2008; Thailand-Garden 2008; Colombia-Córdoba 2008).

In addition, FANRPAN commissioned one of its network partners, the Centre for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at the University of Malawi, to attempt an ex ante benefit-cost study. Winrock International had recently done a thorough analysis of the benefits and costs of multiple water uses systems globally (Renwick et al. 2007), so our study was intended to build on this report and using data available from the CPWF-supported MUS Project, attempt to estimate the benefits and costs of this project itself projected into the future. Since the MUS Project is not completed, it is too early to do a proper benefit-cost assessment; therefore the results of this study have serious limitations while also providing some useful insights (Jumbe and Chinangwa 2008).

A draft of this report was also shared with key MUS Project implementers and stakeholders, for their comments and suggestions. We received useful and remarkably

4

positive comments from a number of people as noted in the Acknowledgements, and these comments have been used to finalize the report.

Our approach was heavily influenced by papers shared with us by Boru Douthwaite, especially Perrin (2002) on how (not to) evaluate innovation, Mayne (no date) on contribution analysis, and Patton (2008) on assessing impact of advocacy programmes. Perrin (2002) argues that traditional evaluation methods inhibit innovation by focusing on the mean rather than the range of outcomes. Innovation is by definition risky, and requires space for trial and error, and learning from ‘failure’ as well as ‘success.’ Innovation processes are not linear; understanding them requires a systems perspective that explores the dynamics of creation, which is often achieved through partnerships and joint activities. The focus should be on the degree of learning and innovation, rather than on “success” using concrete indicators. The MUS Project actual implementation was based on an “innovation cycle” model, not a linear logical framework model of change.

Mayne (no date) focuses on the fundamental question, “to what extent are any observed results the consequences of the program’s activities rather than other programs or external factors”? He develops “contribution analysis” as an approach that addresses this attribution question. This approach is useful when examining outcomes of interventions in complex multi-dimensional systems, where it is simply not possible to conclusively attribute an outcome to a single programmatic impact. The goal is to develop a plausible theory of change recognizing explicitly the possible roles of other influencing factors and the limitations of the programme assessed. Given competing possible explanations, combining Occam’s Razor (‘all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the best one’) with triangulation and judgement on plausibility helps achieve insights into the “influence” if not direct impact of a project.

Patton (2008) applies ‘contribution analysis’ to a specific advocacy program, characterizing it as focusing on “identifying likely influences [italics in original] ” and therefore being more like detective work to connect the dots between what was done and what resulted in the context of multiple interacting variables and factors. A judgement is made based on “the cumulative evidence” in a systems perspective. We did not follow the contribution analysis model in a formal sense, but found its insights useful as we proceeded to unravel the impacts that can be attributed to the MUS Project and pathways that led to these impacts. Patton (2008) was especially useful because, as discussed below, we came to perceive the MUS Project as primarily an innovation and advocacy not classic research project.

This is therefore not a conventional project impact assessment. We have focused more on the strategies and processes through which the project sought to achieve its impact goals in order to derive lessons for the future. The project is still being implemented; it is therefore premature to attempt to evaluate its actual impacts. These are likely to be observable in future, though the attribution problem will remain. We also note that there was considerable variation in what was actually done, with what result, among the participating basins and countries.

5

3. Conceptualizing Impacts and Impact Pathways

3.1 Models Introduced by the CPWF

As noted in the introduction, the CPWF engaged on-going phase I projects in a process intended to assist project leaders to clearly articulate their ‘theory of change’ and take steps to maximize impacts where possible and appropriate. Douthwaite et al. (2008) describe a methodology called “Participatory Impact Pathway Analysis” (PIPA); there is more information at http://impactpathways.pbwiki.com. PIPA involves participatory processes to articulate the potential logic and pathways linking project research and other activities to desired outputs, outcomes and impacts. It uses several tools based on the linear logic of logical frameworks (‘logframes’): preparing “problem trees” that are intended to elucidate the underlying “causes” of specified problems; transforming problem trees into “impact pathways” showing how project activities and inputs will lead to outputs which in turn may lead to changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills, which in turn may lead to changes in behaviour (outcomes) that over time will have impacts (reduced poverty for example). The proponents of this approach are well aware of the over-simplifications involved in such linear models, and therefore try to balance this with a “network map perspective,” modelling relationships among stakeholders according to their roles vis-à-vis the project and its outputs (for example, ‘next users,’ ‘end users,’ politically-important actors, project implementers).

Building on these two instruments, the impact pathway and network model, the final step is to integrate and transform them into an “outcomes logic model” (Douthwaite et al. 2008; and web site cited above). This model seeks to identify what actors are expected to change, what changes in stakeholders’ practices (behaviour) are needed to achieve the project’s goals, what changes in “KAS” (Knowledge, Attitudes and Skills) are required to support this change in behaviour, and what “project strategies” (e.g., participatory co-development of project outputs, capacity building, communication, etc.) will being about these changes in KAS and therefore behaviour. The outcome logic model is in turn intended to provide the basis for project M&E using SMART (specific, measurable, attributable, realistic, time bound) targets. Projects are encouraged to reflect on these periodically—every six months—and make revisions based on lessons learned. Such revisions are almost inevitable because of the uncertainty about outcomes further into the future: we can more easily predict outcomes over a year than over a five-year period.

Elsewhere, Douthwaite and Alvarez (2006) refer to the MUS Project’s “scaling theory” and “network theory.” The former is defined in terms of two types of adoption: ‘scaling-out’ and ‘scaling-up.’ Scaling out is the horizontal spread of project outcomes such as a new technology from farmer to farmer or community to community, i.e., within the same stakeholder group. Scaling up is essential vertical, or what they call “an institutional expansion”: from local adopters to policy makers, donors, etc. Scaling up also includes interventions at higher institutional levels such as policy change through lobbying. Scaling up leads to changes in policies, norms, mental models, etc “in such a way as to support a scaling-out (adoption) process” (Douthwaite and Alvarez 2006), demonstrating the close linkages between these two concepts.

6

As described, and indeed perceived by several of those interviewed for this study, this process comes across as highly linear and lacking grounding in the real world where changes are rarely the result of a single linear cause1. The published examples tend to be based on a single-factor technology (for example Striga control; see Douthwaite et al. 2007 referenced in Douthwaite et al. 2008). The proponents are clearly well aware of this danger but argue that this kind of exercise concentrates the minds of project implementers on their own strategies and approaches to achieve the ultimate impacts they hold dear, and brings out unstated and often indeed wrong assumptions about the links between project activities and impacts. The intention is to encourage a participatory reflection process, not impose unrealistic models.

3.2 MUS Project Use of the CPWF Models

Although introduced about two years after the project implementation had begun, clearly the CPWF hoped the MUS Project (and others) to make use of these models in thinking about how projects could maximize their impacts as well as a basis for ex ante impact assessment. The process began with an ‘Impact Pathways Workshop’ in Vientienne in February 2006, where Dr. Sawaeng Ruaysoongern and Saiyon Sriyorach (KKU) prepared a set of materials (problem tree, objectives tree, 2011 project vision, timeline, list of outputs) that were used by Douthwaite and Alvarez (2006) as the basis for proposing an impact pathway or “Scaling Theory Model;” and they also provided the information required to develop a network map for MUS in the Mekong Basin. The Project Scaling Theory Model proposed by Douthwaite and Alvarez (2006) is provided here as Figure 1. As worded, it seems to be generic for the global project, and not necessarily specific to the Mekong Basin. At a separate workshop, an “adoption theory model” (impact pathway), with time line and problem tree among others, was prepared for the MUS Project work in the Andes (Figure 2, below), while in July 2006 there was a “Kathmandu Impact Pathways Workshop” for the Ganges (PN28 and the BFP Impact Assessment Project 2007). Structurally they are very similar, though the details within boxes vary. Although invited to the Nile and Limpopo impact pathway workshops, the MUS Project did not develop models for these basins2. Other CPWF projects which had not developed their own impact models may have found these sessions more useful than the MUS Project leaders; as discussed below, the MUS Project was developing its own approach.

While at an informal level these exercises were undoubtedly useful, we found no evidence that the MUS Project implementers made use of the products, for example through periodic assessments based on these impact pathways and network maps. The report by Douthwaite and Alvarez (2006) was prepared by the leaders of the “BFP Impact Assessment Project” based at CIAT, and sent to the MUS Project leadership with a request for assistance in completing the report3. There are quite a few questions that Douthwaite and Alvarez request assistance in answering, but we are not aware of any response to this request (this applies to the Kathmandu report as well). In interviews with

1 This is not a universally shared perspective; in his comments on the draft, Boru Douthwaite cited other views from participants in CPWF impact pathway workshops. 2 In the Nile, the main person was not available because of health reasons, while in the Limpopo Dr. van Koppen chose to focus on developing a model for project just being launched—a very reasonable choice. 3 The intention was the authorship would be jointly by the MUS and BFP Impact Assessment Project.

7

Capacity building,

awareness creating

and up-scaling

strategies

Main project OutputsProject Goals

and Vision 2011

Scaling Out

Scaling up

Science-based

models,

guidelines and tools

for sustainable

multiple-use systems

that are financially

affordable to the

poor.

1

Improved

livelihood

security, less

poverty in NE

Thailand region

through improved

food and water

security

Better basin

development plans

in the northeast of

Thailand

CPWF GOAL

key

from TimelinefromVISION

from ProblemTree

2

Policy intervention

for providers at

national scale

Equitability of

water resources

around learning

centers

5

Economic

sufficiency for

1,200 households

9

Sufficient water

resources for

20,000

households

4

fromPROJECTPROPOSAL

Integrated

agricultural

development

through better

water resource

management for

2000 households

7

8

Improvedknowledge ofstakeholdersat pilot sites

Changes instakeholders'attitudes andperceptions

Stakeholdersmodify andinnovate

Adoption oftechnologiesand changesin practice

Iterations of

learning

cycle

Better government

action plans for

water resource

management of

Thailand

10

Productive political

and government

working

environment and

plans

11

Integrated water

resource model

testing for

households

3

Livelihood

improvement

among former and

new Local Wisdom

Networks members

6

Lowered pollution

and improved water

quality

More efficient and

equitable water use

in the region

15

14

13

12

Figure 1. Impact Pathway Analysis, Mekong

Source: Douthwaite and Alvarez 2006.

8

a number of the IRC Project Implementers, the responses were that either they were not fully aware of these models, or knew about them but admitted they were not used.

We suggest an additional reason why they were not used: the MUS Project as actually implemented did not fit the assumed research � outcomes � impacts model that drives the CPWF impact pathway model. The MUS Project had its own theory of impact, as discussed below in section 3.3. Also further discussed below, the MUS Project should not be understood as a research project that is also seeking to have impacts; rather, it turned into an advocacy project which used the results of action research to strengthen its advocacy arguments, including conceptual innovation and implementation4.

Therefore we conclude that the CPWF impact assessment tools were not used by the MUS Project. However, as shown in the next section, this does not mean the Project leadership were uninterested in achieving impacts—indeed achieving impact was a central goal, but they followed their own approach to achieve this.

3.3 MUS Project Initiatives to Maximize Impacts

From the inception of the project, the MUS team recognized the need to re-conceptualize the project implementation strategy, though it took most of the first year to reach a full consensus on what this would entail. It seems fair to say that the Project team did not consider the benefits of MUS to be an hypothesis: they were convinced, based on considerable collective experience and already-available case studies, that this was so5. The project therefore did not seek to test whether multiple-use schemes are more beneficial than single-use schemes; rather, the problem became one of overcoming institutional and professional barriers and associated assumptions, beliefs and mindsets. Put in the CPWF Project terms, the problem was how to change KAS (knowledge attitudes and skills) as well as overcome powerful institutional barriers to bring about a paradigm shift from “normal” narrow professionalism to an inclusive demand-driven multiple-use service perspective. The team recognized early in the project that a traditional research approach to such a complex problem would not deliver serious impacts; and they realized that stakeholder engagement would be far more critical than anticipated in the original project design (Butterworth et al. 2008). The project implementation approach they arrived at combined the use of “learning alliances” and action research, which was made conceptually coherent by adopting the concept of the “Learning Wheel” from Jürgen Hagmann (van Koppen et al. 2006, Hagmann 2005 cited in van Koppen et al. 2006; interview with J Hagmann). There are different emphases in the ways of explaining the conceptual framework for the MUS Project strategy depending on which document one reads (compare van Koppen et al. 2006 with Butterworth et al. 2008) but no contradiction.

4 This is not to say there were no valuable research results; indeed there were, for example van Koppen et al. 2006 and the forthcoming project synthesis. See also website of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications at www.musproject.net and discussion below in section 5.6 and 5.8. 5 For evidence, see the case studies in Moriarty et al., ed. 2004. This publication emerged from a remarkable pre-project workshop in South Africa. The first author of this report (D Merrey) participated in the first day of the workshop in his role as then Director for Africa at IWMI.

9

The “Learning Wheel” Concept

Van Koppen et al. (2006) describe a three-tiered action research framework. The three tiers or ‘wheels’ are, broadly, local community level, intermediate level (for example districts), and national level, with important flows of information, lessons learned, and resource flows integrating the three levels. Each level or wheel is driven by a small set of “principles, again represented in circles to underline that there is no ranking or prioritization (Figure 2). But each wheel does have a driving central goal. For example, at the community level, “sustainable mus leading to improved livelihoods” is the central goal, and achieving it requires five principles: livelihoods-based services, sustainable water use, appropriate technology, inclusive institutions, and adequate financing. At intermediate level, enhancing service delivery by creating the necessary supporting environment and services (again driven by five non-ranked principles) is critical to achieve “community mus enabled and supported.” At national level, the core driver is “mus upscaled nationally” through four principles: coordination of sectors and actors, long-term support, enabling policy and legislation, and adequate financing. The reader is urged to consult van Koppen et al. (2006) as the concept includes many important elements and is applicable for a wide range of change-oriented programmes.

Figure 2. Framework for Multiple Use Water Services

Source: Makoni and Smits 2007: Figure 1.

In a paper published separately but written in the same year as van Koppen et al. (2006), Penning de Vries (2007), the first MUS Project leader, provides a slightly different conceptualization of the “Learning Wheel” in terms of a set of 11 “cornerstones” that must be in place to achieve full multiple use system and services. According to this paper, the MUS project would focus its attention on research and implementation actions organized around these cornerstones.

10

The “Learning Wheel” concept provided an intellectual foundation for the MUS Project change theory in the minds of the Project Leaders; but we found it did not seem to have been fully internalized by most of the project participants. None of the Project Leaders interviewed referred explicitly to its role, except for Jürgen Hagmann who developed the idea and introduced it to the Project. However, it does seem to have provided a useful framework for identifying what kinds of interventions are needed at local, intermediate and national levels, and what should be the goals at these levels. The “Learning Alliance” concept was far more salient in the minds of MUS Project leadership.

The “Learning Alliance” Concept

Butterworth et al. (2008) and Penning de Vries (2007) provide detailed discussions of the concept of the “learning alliance” and how it has been used in the MUS Project. These and other publications build on the original publication on learning alliances (Smits et al., eds. 2007). Butterworth et al. (2008: 4, Box 1) provide the following definition:

A Learning Alliance is a series of interlinked stakeholder platforms from a given innovation system that seeks to improves impacts and up-scaling through involvement of research users and other key stakeholders at all stages of more demand-led research. Through working on the agreed underlying problems, and contesting and evolving together potential solutions through action research, mechanisms to address institutional constraints and enhance institutional learning are given more attention than in traditional research approaches. Typically the members represent diverse organisations and roles.

Learning Alliances (LA) are different from “communities of practice” because they include a range of diverse stakeholders, especially potential users. They are intended to overcome institutional and conceptual barriers among participants (such as researchers, communities and implementing agencies) having a shared vested interest in solving an agreed problem. The MUS Project adopted this approach from previous experiences of IRC and CIAT. The Project did not promote a single LA; rather, one can say that its leaders sought to develop a global LA6, while encouraging LAs at national and sub-national levels in participating countries. In Thailand, the pre-existing “Farmer Wisdom Network” formed a basis for a Learning Alliance (Garden 2008). In Zimbabwe there was an attempt to use the Water and Sanitation Working Group as a LA, with modest results (Manzungu 2008). In Colombia the “Valle del Cauca learning alliance” was facilitated by the implementing organization, CINARA; among the countries we studied it comes closest to the “ideal” LA model. In both South Africa and Zimbabwe, participants in what operated to some degree as a “Learning Alliance” generally professed not to have understood that term when asked. On the other hand, a remarkably effective though informal set of learning alliances at multiple levels developed in Nepal and played important impacts in achieving impacts (see Kamal Raj no date; Mikhail 2008 forthcoming).

We conclude that the LA approach combined with the underlying “Learning Wheel” concept constitutes an important innovation in the MUS Project. Although few Project participants were explicitly aware of the Learning Wheel, it provided an important

6 More recently this has been formalized into the “Multiple Use Water Services Group,” with about a dozen institutional partners, an informative new web site and periodic electronic newsletter (www.musgroup.net).

11

intellectual foundation for the Project leaders’ approach to achieving impact; working at the three separate but mutually interacting levels (local, district or intermediate, national) was an important principle in some of the participating countries (e.g., Colombia, Nepal, South Africa, Thailand). The collaboration of diverse partners in joint learning through Learning Alliances was explicitly implemented globally and in several of the countries (e.g., Colombia, Nepal, Thailand, Zimbabwe) and implicitly in others (e.g., South Africa), with notable impacts as documented in the country reports and summarized below. As noted in the discussion of country experiences below, in some instances lack of sufficient resources appears to have impeded the effectiveness of the Las—but the concept remains valid and important.

4. The MUS Project: Planned and Actual Implementation

The original proposal for the MUS Project contained two major “activities” aside from Project management: “Generation and Synthesis of Knowledge” and then, building on this knowledge base, “Capacity Building for Scaling Up.” The first activity was planned to select existing and new schemes, and then to carry out about 25 case studies in the participating countries to generate knowledge. The following ‘phase’ would then implement participatory action research in 10-15 of these. Capacity building involved creating awareness, simultaneously with the studies, then an increased focus on training and curriculum development. By the end of the project (planned for five years), the implementers anticipated “15 inputs in international forums and 15 inputs in national forums delivered” (MUS Proposal Gantt Chart). This is a “normal” and quite defensible approach to implementing a research project expected to have major impacts in the long run; and as is the case for most such normal research projects, it assumed a nearly linear progression from research to awareness, curriculum development, and training, leading to changes in implementation policies and investments.

Several factors appear to have led to a major transformation of the project approach. One factor was that the CPWF accepted the proposal but demanded a major budget cut (from $1.98 million to $1.6 million). This undoubtedly concentrated the minds of the project leaders. Perhaps more important, when the project partners met in Pretoria in early 2005 after the project had been awarded, it became clear the main players had no common understanding or vision of what would really be different if mus schemes were implemented (J Hagmann interview). The participants were from very diverse backgrounds, creating a serious challenge to achieve a common understanding. However, facilitated and coached by J Hagmann, by the end of this meeting the participants had developed the major elements of a shared framework based on the Learning Wheel and agreed on a set of critical success factors. According to the facilitator, the key drivers of this transformation were the IWMI colleagues (especially B van Koppen) and the IRC participants (J Butterworth, P Moriarty, S Smit). In June 2005 another project meeting in Netherlands enabled the team to share their experiences, develop the framework further as a way of organizing these experiences, and identify the next steps in the project.

Action research remained as a key project implementation strategy, though now embedded in the “Learning Alliance” approach. However, the idea of systematically documenting 25 case studies and implementing 10-15 pilot studies was dropped. In fact,

12

the CPWF budget cuts and the decision not to cut out any of the original basins or partners combined made carrying out these studies impossible. In some countries systematic case studies were implemented (for example Colombia where they were used to inform the Learning Alliance meetings). In Nepal and India, IDE used the funds to carry out a broader process documentation effort which has led to a draft book (Mikhail 2008).

5. Major Findings

This section is structured as follows. The first four sections synthesize the major observations emerging from the assessments carried out in Colombia, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Thailand respectively. The fifth section briefly identifies lessons gleaned from other countries based on interviews and literature review (Bolivia, Ethiopia, India, Nepal). Section 5.6 describes the major findings at the global level, based on interviews and documents. Section 5.7 summarizes the results of the attempt to do a benefit-cost assessment. Section 5.8 summarizes the most salient findings, providing a basis for our recommendations. In general, the country sections briefly describe the approach to the study, context, participants’ understanding of “mus,” how the Learning Alliance worked (if any), the types of outputs, identified changes in Knowledge, Attitudes and Skills if any, and actual as well as future potential changes in practice (for example on policy) identified, if any. Where appropriate an attempt is also made to assess whether the developed “impact pathways” were salient.

5.1 Major Observations from Colombia

Approach and Context

This section is based on the final report by D Córdoba (2008). She tried to follow closely the “Participatory Impact Pathway Approach” (PIPA) and identify the project’s impact pathways from the project implementers’ perspectives. The methodology consisted largely of analysis of documents, interviews of about a dozen key informants, and video-taping of interviews. Interviewees and other participants in the LA were invited to view the video and participate in a workshop where there was a facilitated discussion of changes in Knowledge, Attitudes and Skills (KAS) and practices, as well as direct feedback on the first draft of the report. The lead institution was the Institute for R&D in Water Supply, Environmental Sanitation and Conservation of Water Resources (CINARA) at the University del Valle. The focus was largely on examining the potential for expanding and diversifying rural water supply services to include productive uses of water. In Colombia, “mus” is largely conceived in terms of enhancing domestic water services to enable use of water for livelihoods, that is, “domestic plus.”

The MUS Learning Alliance and Outputs

CINARA deliberately worked on creating a formal LA at the departmental level. Members included a wide range of government and non-government stakeholders, such as representation from the rural water supply program (PAAR), provincial government departments, local governments and water supply institutions, CIAT, the university, and students. From November 2004 to October 2006, eight meetings were held attended by

13

an average of 34 participants each. At each meeting there were presentations and discussions on a range of mus-related issues and case studies; while LA members also participated in field visits to case study sites. Participants helped select three case study sites, where students also carried out thesis research which was shared with the LA. These case studies clearly contributed much to developing a shared understanding of the concept of mus and how it could be operationalized. By the fourth meeting of the LA, working groups were established to develop designs, guidelines and protocols for multiple use water supply systems. Three special Policy Briefs were prepared, and a diploma program incorporating mus principles was designed and implemented by the University: some 90 people from various institutions including community leaders participated.

Project outputs included a total of five case studies done by students, guidelines for designing, managing, operating and maintaining multiple use water services, a variety of materials for training courses, and three policy briefs.

Outcomes: Changes in KAS

Córdoba (2008) documents the significant level of changes that occurred in terms of participants’ awareness, knowledge, attitudes and skills (KAS). LA participants learned a lot and at least conceptually, accepted and internalized mus. Synergies and commonalities were generated among diverse institutional participants, leading to more coordination and sharing of information. Córdoba (2008) quotes participants, for example from the Municipality of Cali, claiming that multiple uses of water are now identified through questionnaires and based on the findings, design principles are adapted to try to meet the identified demand. The MUS Project clearly succeeded in raising the level of awareness, knowledge and skills with regard to multiple uses of water.

Impacts: Changes in Practice

Córdoba (2008) also documents important institutional changes at local level. Aquacol (Colombian Association of Community Organizations Providers of Public Water Services and Sewerage) was a key strategic member of the LA. It seeks to promote participatory processes at community level for provision of water supply and sewerage services, and is formed by 24 community organizations representing 111 communities. As a response to the findings of the students’ case studies, Aquacol made changes in the organizational structure, planning and management processes of service providers; Box 1 provides a detailed case.

Nevertheless, the impacts in terms of reforming policies, the laws and regulations for water services, and actual system designs have been very limited so far. The water supply standards for domestic water services are fixed by law. The assessment found no evidence of changes in policies or legislation at either regional or national levels7. Two key constraints were identified as obstacles for generating policy changes: 1) a key powerful institutional actor at provincial level did not participate in the Learning

7 This is despite the Director of the Water and Sanitation Sector, Ministry of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, Government of Colombia, participating as a keynote panelist at the MUS session, 4th World Water Forum (WWF4) in Mexico, March, 2006.

14

Alliance; and 2) many participants were motivated by personal interests rather than institutional. Córdoba (2008) notes the Alliance has continued to operate and seek changes in policies and has indeed initiated a national debate about the need to revise the legislation to recognize mus; and most of the participants agreed that change requires considerable time to bring about. She also notes that the LA largely included highly experienced technicians who had little power to make decisions in the organizations they represented. Participants generally agreed there had not been sufficient technological innovation and pilot testing “to learn ‘how’ to implement a MUS approach rather than learn ‘why’” (Córdoba 2008:20).

Retrospective on the “Impact Pathway”

In October 2006, the project implementers developed a “MUS Impact Logic Model” for the Andes countries (Figure 3). It is clear that the three types of project outputs were produced, and that they did lead to the KAS changes represented by the box showing the “iterations of learning cycle’. In terms of scaling out (community organizations and implementers’ “know-how to manage and operate a project”), it is not clear this was achieved: at least in Golondrinas awareness and some technical knowledge was disseminated and applied, but the lack of pilot testing constrained learning how to do it. In terms of scaling up to national level, while policy change proposals were prepared and disseminated, policy makers have not (yet) included “MUS principles and concepts in legislation.” However, it remains plausible that these national changes will be adopted if the LA participants continue their efforts — this appears to be the case so far.

15

Box 1. Changes in Management and Planning in Golondrinas

The ESAAG, a community enterprise belonging to El Chocho microwatershed was constituted in 1996, due to the pressure exerted by public utilities Law 142 of 1994, which forced the communities’ Local Administrative Boards (JACs) to constitute an enterprise to provide the water-supply services in rural zones. To make this change, the community leaders decided that it would be best to create a locally based enterprise. Since then, they have faced difficulties due to weak institutional support, deficiencies in the water-supply systems and sewerage, and the communities’ low paying power.

The community of Golondrinas, the same as the other communities in the El Chocho microwatershed, have had to face different difficulties due to the scarcity of water, the absence of protected areas, and the presence of the mining activity, which according to the inhabitants limits the quantity and quality of the water (CINARA, 2006e).

Through the thesis investigations done within project PN28, ESAAG has been able to make transformations in its organization, making it more efficient, especially in the stratification of the rates of charge, supply of the service and planning of the enterprise. Likewise they have adopted practical strategies for multiple uses of water. For instance, students from the Universidad del Valle worked on the diagnosis of the livelihood and water use in this community, and the different possibilities to improve the distribution of water. ESAAG and the community are aware of the different uses of the water, even for smallholder productive activities and control its use in other economic scales.

Recently, the establishment of residential meters for registering water consumption within ESAAG has used the information produced by the MUS alliance, stratifying the users according to the productive activities and their potentialities. It has promoted the rapid adoption of the MUS approach at the household level to improve consumption but also introducing a differential list price for the water service. These meters form part of the legal requirements that the Colombian State has made for these enterprises.

Golondrinas is a community that faces water scarcity, in which productive activities have been restricted, giving precedence to domestic water consumption. The MUS project showed that use of water in productive activities is an alternative to improve livelihood without mining conservation practices. This change can be summarized in the following testimony, offered by María Zamora, representative of Golondrinas (Pers. Comm. 08-07-08).

“As for the MUS for water, we have had to deal with it because we have animals in the house.

How do we do this? We are using recycled water to water the plants, the water from the

washing machine and rain water. We have had to do this because of the scarcity of water.

This process of awareness-raising began because some students from the UNIVALLE came,

interviewed some people and spoke with the community. That was where the process of

awareness-raising began. In addition, a factor that has contributed to this is the installation of

the meters of water consumption; previously one rate was charged for everyone, independent

of how much water was used. Now with the meter, the people are becoming sensitized and

tend to re-use the water.

CINARA’s intervention in the MUS project and the Department of Housing have helped in the resolution of conflicts, improve the planning and administration of the enterprises for the integrated management of the water resource, and forming a planning committee.”

Source: Córdoba 2008: Box 1.

16

Figure 3. MUS Impact Logic Model conjectured by project implementers in Colombia in October 2006

Source: Córdoba 2008: Figure 1.

17

5.2 Major Observations from South Africa


This section is based on a report by de Lange (2008). She began with a timeline of events she obtained from Dr van Koppen, MUS Project Leader, and accessed relevant documents from the MUS website, Dr van Koppen, and interviewees. She interviewed key informants in the capital, Pretoria, as well as people involved in the research and implementation in Bushbuckridge implemented by an NGO, AWARD, and then held further discussions with people not involved in the project but facing similar challenges. Further interviews were conducted after receiving comments on the draft report, and a consultative workshop was held on 21 October 2008 after which the report was finalized. This consultative workshop endorsed the recommendations contained in de Lange’s

(2008) report.

As described briefly by de Lange (2008), since the first democratic elections in 1994 South Africa has embarked on major policy, legal and institutional reforms and a tremendous infrastructure development program to extend water and sanitation services to those previously excluded (about 12 million people). In addition to the National Water Act of 1998 reforming how water resources are managed, the Water Services Act of 1997 was promulgated to govern water supply services. Newly created local government structures are constitutionally responsible for providing water services but many of these are in their infancy; the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) has therefore been the major driver for extending water services.

A water supply standard of just 25 litres per person per day (lpd) within 200 meters of each dwelling was set at an early stage, and while the principle of payment for water service was introduced, the concept of “Free Basic Water” (6kl per household per day) was also implemented. Government has chosen to provide bulk water supply and reticulated schemes instead of small dispersed schemes. Operation and maintenance has received insufficient attention with the drive for extending supply. There is now growing pressure to focus on Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and also a widespread recognition that the 25 lpd standard is not adequate.

In this context, MUS has provided a “focal point” for assessing a range of ideas on how to optimize the role of water in poverty reduction and promoting economic growth. De Lange (2008) found that the stakeholders interviewed had a diversity of views as to what “MUS” means in the South African context. The most widely shared view is provision of more, and more reliable, water for productive as well as domestic uses in poor rural areas—“domestic plus” as is the case in Colombia. However, others noted the importance of rainwater harvesting and home-based storage, and considering beneficial use of recycled waste water and sludge as well as fresh water.


An NGO, AWARD, did much of the practical on-the-ground research and advocacy for multiple use water supply services—indeed it had been a pioneer before the CPWF Project began. However, from the beginning DWAF was involved in the project—DWAF was a co-sponsor of the pre-project workshop in 2003, where the Minister not

18

only gave an opening speech, but remained for another two hours engaging in a dialogue on the concept. The IWMI Project Leaders for the MUS Project were based in Pretoria, and Dr van Koppen had close personal and professional relationships with senior DWAF officials. Therefore it is fair to say there was no single lead institution; rather several institutions and key individuals played critical and complementary roles.

De Lange (2008) found that when asked, few people outside members of the AWARD research team and involved DWAF professionals knew anything about a “Learning Alliance” in these words. However, at local level in Bushbuckridge, AWARD’s action research team made good use of the “local learning alliance” (LLA) which was a broadening of the multi-organization facilitation team applying the SWELL methodology in eleven villages (See Box 2, and further discussion below). This LLA continues but requires external funding to function. At national level, attempts to promote a formal LA were not very effective. Interviewees claimed they did not perceive much value in international meetings of the LA, but certainly did appreciate feedback and comments received on draft documents, for example from IRC. There were several national workshops and seminars which were reasonably well-attended, and undoubtedly made a big contribution to sharing MUS concepts (e.g., Cousins and Smits 2005; AWARD 2005; see list in de Lange 2008:12).

Box 2. SWELL Process overview A methodology aimed at understanding issues of multiple use of water and planning improvements of water services, SWELL includes analyses at least at three levels: - The household: to understand the livelihood contexts of different households; - The village: as this is the level where water services are normally organised; and - The broader institutional context In order to address these three levels, the SWELL planning process is divided into four phases: - Preparation with stakeholders - The Water and Livelihood Strategy Assessment (WLSA) - The Village Synthesis - The Ward Synthesis and Planning The actual process followed is informed by the logic of a participatory exercise – both in the sense of villages and their structures participating, and in the sense of cross-sector service provider participation. It assumes a facilitator is present. Source: de Lange 2008:9.

AWARD had been documenting the household economic benefits of providing higher levels of water supply at least since 2001. Based on this work it had developed a planning and consultation methodology, “Securing Water to Enhance Livelihoods” (SWELL). The CPWF support enabled AWARD to further develop and test the SWELL methodology at Municipal Ward level—previously it had covered only household and village levels. Case studies were published by AWARD (e.g., Maluleke 2007; Dlamini 2007; Cousins, Smits and Chauke 2007) and were used in advocacy efforts at national level. In addition, IWMI co-supported M.Sc. research in the Ga-Sekororo area that

19

sought to assess the demand for multiple use water services (Kanyoka et al. 2008). De Lange (2008) reports that DWAF also carried out several case studies which helped raise awareness among management. Separately, the Water Research Commission (WRC) has supported related work on re-use of peri-urban waste water for agriculture, and processing of sludge for re-use, as well as an assessment of productive uses of domestic piped water (Main and Naidoo 2008)8.


In a context where multiple use water services was already being discussed and even tested, de Lange (2008) sought to identify what difference the CPWF-supported MUS Project has made. She identifies several critical changes attributable to the project.

One is framing of the MUS concept in a way that got national attention. The CPWF project added weight to the advocacy efforts of Dr van Koppen, who was already well-known and respected; the support of the project, and support for exposure at the World Water Forum (WWF4) in Mexico, definitely increased its legitimacy. Further, the MUS workshops, especially the two national workshops, were mentioned by interviewees as being important. In addition to raising awareness of mus significantly, the project supported the elaboration and improvement of the SWELL methodology. This in turn seems (recently) to have assisted AWARD to attract further funding. AWARD also notes that CPWF funding is unusually flexible compared to most donor project support to NGOs, enabling opportunities for debate and exchange.

The October 2008 consultative workshop was held in Capricon Municipality, which has expressed strong interest in pilot testing the SWELL methodology. In addition, the workshop participants recommended that the next important step was “to test SWELL on the ground, and importantly, that in this round, it should be tested personally on the ground by a team of high level officials from the relevant sector organizations ….” DWAF sees this step as an opportunity to also test the draft mus guidelines (de Lange 2008).

Finally, it is important to emphasize that the CPWF Project probably added weight to mus-related work that pre-dates the project. In addition to SWELL, this includes DWAF’s household rainwater harvesting program, and WRC-supported research. In addition, de Lange (2008) suggests the CPWF MUS Project led directly to the following activities and outputs:

• Two national CPWF workshops (2005, 2006)

• MUS expert panel at WWF4 (2006)

• MUS Draft Guidelines for Municipalities (DWAF 2006; see next section)

• MUS case studies by DWAF (2005-2008)

• MUS presentation to DWAF senior management committee (2006)

• MUS workshop held by Win-SA (2007)

8 See de Lange 2008 for additional references.

20

• Water Services Leadership Group presentation (2007).

There is therefore no doubt about the impact of the MUS Project on knowledge and awareness in South Africa. To a very large degree this can be attributed to the personal relationships and reputation of the MUS Project Leader; that is, if she were not located in South Africa or did not have these assets, it is unlikely that multiple uses would have progressed to the current level in policy discussions. IRC’s long-standing engagements in South Africa and contacts with DWAF and WRC also contributed; and the contributions of AWARD and several highly-committed DWAF officials were also critical. Unlike Colombia however, there has been no effort to develop formal curricula and training materials, and no equivalent of the CINARA’s diploma course, which have possibly retarded progress.


To date, “there are no changes in actual design and implementation of water supply systems in communities” (de Lange 2008:17). There are also no changes in water quantity available to rural people, or in the way water services are managed. However, there is evidence that such changes will begin happening in the near future. First, DWAF has produced a draft “Guidelines for Municipalities” (DWAF 2006). However, these guidelines are not sufficiently detailed, and have not been accompanied by the necessary training, technical design guidelines and budget provisions necessary for actual implementation. DWAF is said to be well aware of this, and is exploring how to adapt the “Municipal Infrastructure Grants” (MIG) to enable implementation of MUS.

Second, MUS principles are included in the current draft of the “Strategic Framework for Water for Sustainable Growth and Development” (W4GD; see DWAF 2008). This is in line with the strong poverty and gender focus of South Africa’s water supply policies and renewed focus on user consultation (SWELL can support this in practice). Improving access to reliable water supplies has been a central goal since 1994, because of the recognition of water as a critical resource for poverty reduction and economic growth.

On the other hand, de Lange (2008) reports there are serious concerns about the cost of implementing multiple use systems: practical examples are needed to demonstrate potential cost savings from innovation, and potential benefits from the additional water supply. O&M is already a serious challenge for municipalities: local water engineers argue that more standardization of technologies and indeed new innovations are needed if mus are to be promoted more widely. More advocacy by ‘political champions’ using their personal network of relationships, and supported by research aimed at solving practical technical problems will be critical to achieve the ultimate impact envisioned by the Project. SWELL also provides an important tool that can be further adapted and used in more municipalities; the Bushbuckridge cases, while important, do not represent the diversity of conditions in South Africa. Changes will be needed in infrastructure procurement and management; and perceptions that certain water uses are prohibited by law need to be overcome.

21


No Impact Pathway model was developed for South Africa; therefore we cannot assess whether the actual processes were consistent with a specific model. It is clear that the personal relationships and reputation of the MUS Project Leader were critical to the level of impact achieved in South Africa. The important role of a respected NGO like AWARD, which also has close relationships with DWAF as well as municipalities in Bushbuckridge, must also be acknowledged. Other institutions and/or individuals also made a big difference: for example IRC’s S Smits. A third important factor is the relatively high level of commitment and openness to new ideas characterizing DWAF: the willingness of the former Minister to engage with participants openly and easily at the 2003 workshop is indicative of this orientation to learning. In hindsight, it is possible that the original project design, emphasizing in depth case studies and action research, might have led to a more rapid adoption of new standards and policies in the case of South Africa. Such case studies might have provided a basis for specific technical training and standards, which is still lacking (to some extent in contrast with Colombia).

5.3 Major Observations from Zimbabwe


The assessment of the MUS Project in Zimbabwe is reported in detail by Manzungu (2008). His approach was similar to the others: review of both global and local literature including literature on impact pathways and learning alliances; interviews with key informants from a range of stakeholder institutions; a stakeholder consultation (also attended by D. Merrey) on 11th September 2008, and finalization of the report using the feedback from this consultation. There were several challenges: the political situation made field visits impossible and also inhibited the possibility of interviewing some of the NGO staff members. Some of the key staff members, especially at Mvuramanzi Trust which had been expected to play a leading role in implementation, had left the organizations.

As outlined by Manzungu (2008), Zimbabwe has reformed its water resources laws and institutions roughly simultaneously with South Africa. Similar to South Africa, a right to water for “primary purposes,” i.e., domestic needs, animals but not at commercial level, and making bricks is recognized. But Manzungu notes this “subsistence-orientation” can be seen as limiting mus and indeed some catchment councils have maintained such a limited perspective to maximize opportunities to charge for water. Zimbabwe does not have a comprehensive water supply law in contrast with South Africa. In rural areas, Rural District Councils are responsible for provision of water, mainly from boreholes and protected wells; therefore, again in contrast with South Africa, Zimbabwe has chosen a more decentralized strategy for providing water in rural areas. NGOs play an active role in this, and boreholes are often used for both productive and domestic water purposes. Until recently, NGOs with donor support played a very major role in extending water services in rural areas but this is now reduced to a low level in the current political situation. Manzungu (2008: Tables 2.1, 2.2) provides a list of state and non-state institutions in the water sector and their mandates.

22

Rural water supply programs use a variety of water delivery technologies. The MUS Project has provided a description of these (Guzha et al. 2007). Table 1 summarizes Manzungu’s views on the comparative advantages of these. Most are human power-driven pumps to raise water from wells or boreholes, and therefore by their very nature serve a limited number of people. The extent to which they can be used for productive as well as domestic purposes depends on their capacity compared to the demand. Respondents from the rural water supply sector nearly all emphasized that “multiple water use was not a new concept in Zimbabwe” (Manzungu 2008:19). The Integrated Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme (IRWSSP), a joint government-NGO programme, encourages multiple uses where the supply is sufficient. It therefore recommends that boreholes and wells cater not only to domestic uses, but where possible facilitate food security for example through community nutrition gardens and herbal gardens, cattle troughs and income generating activities such as brick moulding. Under the National Water Master Plan, a part of IRWSSP, guidelines have been produced on the design and construction of cattle troughs, laundry pads as well as sanitation facilities. Rural water supply respondents see their mandate as helping rural people enhance their livelihoods making mus “almost an inevitability.” They have institutional mechanisms for sharing information at national level and to some degree at District level. Manzungu (2008) notes a few donors insist on mus approaches in their project, though at the stakeholder consultation some participants blamed donors for restricting mus schemes.

This contrasts with the perspective of those working in the agricultural water sector, especially the Department of Irrigation. These people perceived mus as something new and recognized the limitations of their single-use schemes. Their approach however has been ad hoc, with no policy or strategic framework. Manzungu (2008) notes examples where the Department has assisted the use of water for purposes other than irrigation on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, in contrast with the water supply sector, the irrigation engineers have no training or specific designs to accommodate domestic uses of water. And the irrigation sector has no mechanism or platform for sharing experiences. The Department of Irrigation was invited to discussions on mus by the water supply professionals but the one person who initially participated dropped out.


The lead institutions in Zimbabwe were the Institute of Water and Sanitation Development (IWSD) and Mvuramanzi Trust, supported by IRC and with other government and non-governmental agencies as partners (see Makoni et al. 2007; Manzungu 2008). At government level, the National Coordination Unit (NCU), a secretariat to the inter-ministerial National Action Council (NAC) overseeing the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme was critical. From the beginning the Project was linked to the Water and Environmental Sanitation Working Group (WES-WG). WES-WG is a largely coordination body of those working in the water supply and sanitation sector that meets monthly.

23

Table 1. Comparative advantages of different types of water delivery technologies in

Zimbabwe

Attributes Type of

pump Initial cost Capacity Ease of operation by locals

Ease of maintenance by locals

Bucket and windlass

Low Low Easy Low

Bush Low –medium

Low-medium

Easy –challenging

Low-medium

Rope Medium Medium – high

Challenging Easy to medium

Sand abstraction

High High Quite challenging

Very challenging

Treadle High High Easy to challenging

Quite challenging9

Low cost-drip irrigation

Medium Quite challenging

Very challenging

Elephant High High Easy Quite challenging

Source: Manzungu 2008: Table 3.1. The table represents his views.

The MUS Project held four workshops between October 2004 and March 2007, the last three of them explicitly aimed at developing a “Learning Alliance” at national and district levels. About 20 persons participated in a January 2005 workshop that agreed to forming a Learning Alliance as an “open organization” that would meet quarterly for promoting and sharing experiences with mus. The LA was envisioned to be linked to but separate from the WES-WG and regularly report to the latter. However, as documented by Makoni et al. (2007), no formal meetings of the LA took place after this workshop. Members found it difficult to make the time available outside the monthly WES-WG meetings, and humanitarian crises and other issues took precedence. Therefore, the terms of reference for the WES-WG were expanded from being an operations coordination body to be one in which learning and sharing dominated. Smaller committees were formed to address specific issues, for example technology options. In effect, at national level, WES-WG functioned as a Learning Alliance, though notably this did not include representatives from the Department of Irrigation.

The MUS Project concept of a LA envisions this occurring at multiple levels, including sub-national or district level. In Zimbabwe little progress was made at district level, largely because there were no resources to support either district-level LAs or actual pilot projects as a mechanism for lesson learning. Unlike South Africa and Colombia, where experiences from local levels were used to inform discussions, there was no such linked local learning possible in Zimbabwe.

Parallel to this process, the MUS Project (primarily led by IWSD) carried out reviews of reports, interviews, etc. An evaluation of technologies for multiple use of water was prepared (Guzha et al. 2007), as was an assessment of policies and institutional

9 While treadle pumps are regarded as a simple technology elsewhere it is the fact that in Zimbabwe treadle pumps have not been widely adopted because of cost issues and low acceptability by farmers. This has meant that there is limited experience when it comes to operating and maintaining them.

24

framework (Makoni and Smits 2007). One M.Sc. project on the factors affecting mus sustainability was also completed (Katsi 200610).


Manzungu (2008) reports that the Zimbabwe participants, after quite some discussion, agreed on a common definition of MUS:

“The multiple use services approach is understood as an integrated way of planning and managing institutions, resources and infrastructure to sustainably enhance their livelihood options” ([quoting:]Makoni and Smits 2005). It was stressed that the element of planning and management was central and that the focus should be on integrated ways of planning across different institutions (ibid.).

This definition is somewhat more bureaucratic than the CPWF definition, and at the September stakeholder consultation, the participants were uncomfortable with their own formulation, preferring the CPWF one emphasizing its participatory, integrated, poverty-reduction and people-focus. Interviews showed most perceived mus as multiple uses of water from a single source, in contrast with the MUS Project emphasis on integrating water sources, uses, and users (e.g., Penning de Vries 2007).

Respondents generally acknowledged that while they came to realize they had been practicing mus, the Project provided a stronger conceptual framework for analyzing their experience. It also boosted their confidence that they were doing the right thing. Mvuramanzi Trust incorporated mus into grant proposals, one of which is reported as having been successful. Members also felt their understanding of technology options for mus was improved. Other organizations have begun applying ideas of multiple uses of water in their programs as well (see Manzungu 2008; Makoni et al. 2007).

The consultation with some of the stakeholders held on 11 September 2008 as part of this study confirmed clearly that people had indeed learned a lot from involvement in the MUS project. One participant noted that exposure to experiences elsewhere, especially South Africa, was useful.


There were definitely changes in the implementation practices of NGOs and UN agencies which were strongly influenced by the MUS Project. The transformation of the WES-WG from purely coordination to the equivalent of a Learning Alliance was a useful change that should contribute much in the long term. Makoni et al. (2007) suggest members of the WES-WG are now better able to influence policy debates, although presently there is no evidence of actual policy impacts. Indeed, according to Manzungu (2008), the respondents at the National Coordination Unit denied that a current (non-public) draft policy on water supply and sanitation had been directly influenced by the project, and also denied the Project was having any impact in the current (behind the scenes) review of the water law. At the September stakeholder consultation, however, the NCU representative suggested that they may simply be using different terminologies (e.g., “productive water use” for the same concept (which still begs the question of

10 This study is a detailed and useful study of actual water use practices, experiences, perceptions and problems in rural Zimbabwe.

25

impact of MUS). It may also simply be an attribution issue. Discussions of policy and legal reforms are currently on hold until there is a functioning government.

There are very good reasons why the MUS Project impacts in Zimbabwe have been limited, most of them outside the control of the Project itself. Loss of key staff at one of the implementing partners as well as in other implementing agencies has been cited as a critical factor. Another was the lack of financial resources, for example to support strengthening local level capacities. As in other countries, the lack of real pilot projects as learning sites meant that many of the claims regarding benefits and fears regarding costs could not be validated. Most of the research was desk research. There were no strong linkages between national discussions and implementation on the ground—again largely a function of limited financial resources. At the September stakeholder consultation, participants noted that most donor projects have been very short-term and relief-oriented over the past decade, with too many “strings attached” limiting implementation of MUS. Finally, the failure to successfully integrate the Department of Irrigation into the WES-WG processes resulted in that Department maintaining its single-use focus.


The Project did not develop a formal Impact Pathway model for Zimbabwe. However, Manzungu (2008) provides a summary table identifying what changes can be observed, how they came about, what were the drivers, and what contributions were made by research and the CPWF Project (Table 2). It is probably fair to say that “scaling up” in terms of impacts on policies and national investment strategies was very limited. However, through the sharing of lessons facilitated by the WES-WG, scaling out has occurred, and will likely continue and grow in future.

At the September stakeholder consultation, one participant argued that the significant reduction in resources and shift in strategy of the MUS Project compared to the proposal was a major constraint. The Zimbabwe participants had been excited to learn that if successful the MUS Project would have sufficient resources to carry out field-level research and pilot testing to identify which technologies can best support mus. However, the change in resources and focus, especially dropping the proposal for actual pilot case studies, was a major reason why the project had less impact than it might have had.

5.4 Major Observations from Thailand


Po Garden (2008) provides a detailed assessment of the MUS Project in Thailand; this section is based on his report. The methodology used included review of documents (in both English and Thai, and including the web blog of the Thailand MUS Project Leader, Dr. Sawaeng Ruaysoongnern), in-depth interviews with the Thailand MUS Project Leader, and telephone interviews with other stakeholders including eight village leaders (of 16 contacted), provincial officials and policy analysts at two main national water agencies: the Royal Irrigation Department and Department of Water Resources, as well as Thailand’s main think tank, the National Economic and Social Development Board. Po Garden also made a field trip with Dr Sawaeng and two of his students at his learning

26

centre outside Khon Kaen University (KKU). We were not able to organize a stakeholder consultation, and did not receive feedback on the report by Garden (2008) from any of the stakeholders.

Table 2. Overview of impacts of the MUS project in Zimbabwe

Question Answer/observation What is the change(s)?

The change brought about the MUS project related to enhancing understanding of MUS. As the project did not go as far as the implementation stage, it is difficult to assess scaling out among beneficiaries. But the fact that the project gave NGOs the confidence that they were on the right path and the adoption of the concept by new NGO players can be seen as evidence of scaling out. Scaling up was more difficult to assess whether directly or indirectly due to conflicts in the evidence given.

What is the scope and extent of these changes on the ground?

Since the project did go as far as the implementation stage the scope of the changes on the ground cannot be quantified. However, the interest the project helped to generate is considerable.

How did the changes come about, and what contribution did the project make to them?

The changes came about mainly through sharing information on MUS in project workshops and in pre-existing structures such as the WASH Working Group. The project contributed to change by way of focusing minds on MUS, which hitherto, while appreciated lacked a champion to take it forward.

What is driving the changes?

The MUS project managed to tap into an idea whose time had already come in the sense that MUS was favourably viewed before the project but its profile was raised because the project provide the trigger mechanism for the increased interest.

Where could the changes eventually spread?

Changes will eventually spread in rural water supply projects. There is no evidence to suggest that the productive water-based sub-sector will come on board more than is currently the case i.e. express admiration of the concept and adopt if circumstances are permitting.

What are the benefits and costs of the changes (quantify them as far as possible) both now, and potentially in the future? What did the project invest?

The benefits are in the long rather than short term. This is because there has been a reduction in the number of projects by both state- and non-state actors because of the current political problems in the country. In this regard the project provided awareness of the concept.

What was the contribution of the CPWF in achieving the change?

The resources that were available allowed more interaction and concentration of mind about MUS

What was the role of research?

The research that was carried out under the auspices of the project cannot be said to have impacted on the adoption of the MUS. This is because the research was more of a desk research and did not progress to delve into operational issues. Given the wide acceptance of the MUS, operational issues would have been the next logical step.

Did the project follow the expected impact pathways (as described in an earlier impact pathways workshop to define them)?

The project did not follow the projected impact pathways because there was no linear progression from conceptualization of the concept or vision, implementation of the projects which produced defined impacts.

Source: Manzungu 2008: Table 4.1

Institutionally, KKU is the leader of the MUS Project in the Mekong Basin, focused on northeast Thailand. The Thai MUS Project Leader is a charismatic professor in charge of the Integrated Water Resources Management Research and Development Centre at KKU.

27

He has a long association with a social movement of local “scholars” called “Farmer Wisdom Network,” formed in 1995 but with roots in the first Thai NGO formally registered in 1967. Local village leaders are the key activists in the network, estimated at

about 10,000 “fully committed members” (Garden 2008)11. The movement organizes monthly forums to share experiences towards achieving a broad set of goals including household self-sufficiency in Northeaster Thailand. As detailed by Garden (2008), the Farmer Wisdom Network is supported by other institutions, some linked to government or more specifically with the King of Thailand (His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej) and his “Sufficiency Economy” concept. This is a philosophy rooted in Theravada Buddhism that stresses the “middle path” as the overriding principle for appropriate conduct at all levels from the individual to the nation and indeed humanity itself. “Sufficiency Economy” is seen as a complete economic framework emphasizing balance and strengthening coping capacity using knowledge and morality. This philosophy was first presented by the King in 1987 to stimulate new thinking about integrated farming and community development, and remains as an evolving theory that guides official as well as civil society development institutions.

The Sufficient Economy concept sets the parameters for the “New Theory Agriculture,” which emphasizes food security and self-reliance through holistic and integrated management of land and other resources while living harmoniously with nature and within society. Specifically, at farm household level, it advocates achieving a self-sustaining agricultural landscape through integrating livestock and crop production, water management, weed and insect control, and the like. As an example, a rule of thumb advocated for a typical farm (about 2.4 ha per farm) is its management in four parts with a proportion of 30/30/30/10 percent for rice, garden, pond and residence areas respectively.

Another important institution in this mix is “Santi Asoke,” which plays a dual role in Thailand. On one side it is a “potent and radical political force” active in recent opposition activities. On the other it actively promotes an “alternative agriculture” through grassroots activities based on a relatively rigorous interpretation of Theravada Buddhist precepts. It is especially active in northeast Thailand and the success of its approach to alternative agriculture is said to be growing.

This philosophical context underlies the MUS Project activities in Thailand; and as Garden (2008) notes, the MUS concept fits very well into this paradigm.


Clearly the Farmer Wisdom Network constitutes a “Learning Alliance.” Garden (2008:2-3) observes that the MUS Project has “served to bridge cooperation among government agencies in the water and agricultural sectors, local NGOs and farmers within the network.” Figure 4 illustrates this relationship. Elsewhere, Garden (2008:9) says that the learning alliances of the MUS Project are “nested in” the Farmer Wisdom Network, which in turn is led by local scholars working on alternative or integrated agriculture who are also part of the MUS LA. Dr. Sawaeng however puts it somewhat differently: the LA

11 Sawaeng Ruaysoongnern and Penning de Vries (no date) claim current membership is 100,000 households with a target of one million in the next 17 years.

28

as a technique has actually been used successfully for more than 20 years in the Mekong Basin and especially Northeast Thailand (interviews, and also Sawaeng Ruaysoongnern no date). What appears to be the case is that the MUS Project resources were used to strengthen if not create linkages between the Network and the government sector, thus also enabling the Network to be more effective in influencing policies.

Figure 4. MUS learning alliances strengthened cooperation between NGOs and

Government agencies in Farmer Wisdom Network

Source: Garden 2008: Figure 1.

At this point Garden introduces another key concept from Dr Prawase Wasi, an influential civil society leader, called “Triangle that Moves the Mountain.” This concept is used in the organizational activity of the movement. The “mountain” is defined as a large and difficult problem. The triangle that “moves the mountain” consists of knowledge gained through research, social movement, and political movement, all working in synergy (Figure 5). In this case, the ‘mountain’ is seen as implementation of the self-sufficiency philosophy, the key collective goal of the Farmer Wisdom Network. MUS is seen as a concept for managing water that fits into this “new” way of farming.

Figure 5. The triangle that moves the mountain

Source: Garden 2008: Figure 2.

29


It is clear from Garden’s (2008) report that the mus concept is widely known and understood both among Network members and indeed government officials. The Thai phrase used to convey the term is widely shared. The perception is that the idea originates in existing practice on small farms, but now there is a theory or conceptual way of recognizing and expressing it. Farmers who were interviewed were able to provide concrete examples of practices related to using water from different sources for different purposes depending on their quality and location, and re-use and re-cycling of water for treated activities. Dr. Sawaeng’s articulation of “the global MUS” has three elements: “multiple sources, multiple uses, and multiple hierarchies.” The latter refers the ways in which water policy must operate differently at different scales, from household to community to region to basin12. This distinguishes the concept from IWRM as practiced in Thailand which he says is “top down.” He has also expressed the view that his concept is broader than that used by the global MUS Project leaders, in the sense that they tend to focus on “domestic plus” or “irrigation plus.” He sees this as over-simplistic and as putting insufficient emphasis on maximizing water efficiency. He also places great emphasis on learning from practice and sharing experiences; new knowledge has to be “co-produced” with farmers in their arenas of practice that tie into a learning alliance. He asserts this requires more commitment than what is articulated in the global LA concept13.

Dr Sawaeng Ruaysoongnern (no date) has elsewhere described a four-stage process of LA development, in which ‘stakeholders’ move from being just ‘visitors,’ to ‘observers,’ to ‘jointed members,’ to full working team members. He identifies three “types” of LA developed within the Local Wisdom Networks in Northeast Thailand: government sectors, non-government organizations, and community-based organizations, each with specific roles. This does seem to be an elaboration of the Learning Alliance concept not captured in MUS Project publications.

Garden (2008) does not report on the research outputs of MUS in Thailand. However, Dr Sawaeng’s presentation at the WWF4 in Mexico demonstrates that considerable field research involving farmers as well as student researchers was undertaken (Sawaeng Ruaysoongnern 2006). He lists three Ph.D. and five M.Sc. theses, and 75 plots where mus practices were monitored in participation with farmers; the presentation gives several examples. It is likely the reports are in Thai not English. Penning de Vries et al. (no date) report a model that can be used to determine the optimum pond size under varying conditions.


In his report, Garden (2008) accepts the statements of Dr Sawaeng regarding impacts of the MUS Project in Thailand. There appears to be two levels of such impacts. First, the support of the MUS Project led Dr Sawaeng to spend more time on promoting multiple

12 This is similar to the three-tier action research framework (van Koppen et al. 2006). 13 In his discussions with Po Garden and phone conversations with Doug Merrey, Dr Sawaeng has emphasized differences with the global MUS as he perceives them. It is however not clear that the global MUS participants would perceive his perspective as being fundamentally different. There was a clear communication gap between the Project and Dr Sawaeng that we never quite penetrated.

30

water uses (at the expense of other interests such as organic farming) and this seems to have led to a wider understanding and appreciation (and possibly better practices) among many farmers with regard to mus. Second, he places high priority on improving policy support for the New Theory of Agriculture. The MUS Project acted as a bridge between government agencies, villagers and academic institutions. A specific example is a new national policy to establish ponds in farms throughout Thailand in 2005. While this policy may well have been adopted in any case, the MUS Project facilitated stronger support from the grassroots. The Project has served as a “conduit” to bring local wisdom into national policies and practices of government agencies. Dr Sawaeng also believes that his grassroots-oriented approach provides a tool for the global MUS community to foster national water policies that better serve poor farmers through linking it with the Thai experience, but in his view the global MUS Project “did not do enough to open this channel” (Garden 2008:19).


In February 2006 Dr Sawaeng and a colleague participated in the Vientienne Impact Pathways Workshop. The worked on a number of inputs that were then—6 months later – put together into a draft paper on the “PN28 Impact Narrative” (Douthwaite and Alvarez 2006). This document was sent to the MUS Project with requests for further inputs, corrections and elaborations in order to enable its finalization. We understand there was never any such response from the MUS Project. The document does contain a proposed “Impact Pathway” developed by Dr Sawaeng and his colleague (Figure 1, above). We take this as a proposed impact pathway model for the Mekong Basin (i.e., Northeast Thailand), though the document could be interpreted as being applicable more globally (or generically).

In an interview done by Po Garden (2008), Dr Sawaeng seemed to distance himself from this particular model and indeed the underlying logic. He noted there were no “outputs” (box 1—all references to “boxes” refer to Figure 1, above) but there are “outcomes” (in fact, as documented above, there are outputs as well). He also claimed there were no useful “international public goods” though this too is not strictly the case. Dr Sawaeng considers the most important outcome to be policy change both in operational terms and at conceptual level (boxes 8-9). Specifically he has sought to change the national water policy and promoted adoption of a new Thai water act, though these are not likely to be adopted in the near future (perhaps because of the current political uncertainty in the country). As noted above, the MUS Project may have contributed to the government adopting a policy to subsidize farm ponds. On the other hand the other project “output,” capacity building and awareness creation, was certainly accomplished as planned; indeed Dr Sawaeng says that most of the MUS resources were used to conduct meetings. There is also no doubt that the testing of an integrated water resource model at household level, following the ‘learning cycle’ (box 3) was accomplished.

We conclude that Thailand represents a unique case in that the MUS Project’s multiple use water services concept was perceived as being consistent with and adding value to an

31

indigenous social movement and morally-driven philosophy14. Therefore, Dr Sawaeng was able to use its limited resources to pursue more vigorously an agenda that was already in place. We found little evidence of mutual learning between this experience and others, which is unfortunate as there is a clear potential, especially compared to Nepal, India, and Ethiopia where the MUS Project was also active15.

5.5 Observations from Other Project Countries

The MUS Project supported activities in the following additional countries (basins): Bolivia (Andes); Ethiopia (Nile); and India and Nepal (Ganges, though the India sites were not strictly in the Ganges Basin). Our Terms of Reference did not include resources or mandate to carry out full assessments in these basins. We have selectively examined some information that we have for Bolivia (only what we found in English) and Ethiopia, and also draw on interviews with global MUS Project personnel. For Nepal, we have selectively drawn on a book under preparation by Mikhail (2008), responses from several people involved in the Nepal program, and an interview with R Yoder at IDE. Therefore, this section is incomplete and indicative at best.

Bolivia

As in Colombia, multiple use water services were not a new idea and there was a pre-existing partnership with IRC. The approach taken in Bolivia was similar to that of Colombia, but the achievements were modest. It is understood the Bolivian water sector is complex and politicized, and some of the partners are dependent on donors. There was some research carried out, and a curriculum module was developed. However, there was no Learning Alliance, and there is no discernible influence on government policy (though at least one donor may have adopted the concept for its projects). S Smits noted that an attempt has been made to include mus as part of an initiative to establish a Resource Centre to provide support to communities and technologies. Both IRC interviewees suggested there is so little momentum that work on mus may not continue.

We have no basis to make definitive statements, but it appears that the lack of a champion to lead the process was a serious problem. In addition, resources were too limited, such that the work on case studies, investment in a Learning Alliance, etc. was insufficient to create a sustainable momentum. As in Zimbabwe, but in contrast with Colombia, Nepal, South Africa and Thailand, the potential to leverage existing local resources appears to have been minimal while the MUS Project itself did not have sufficient resources to fill this gap.

Ethiopia

As with Bolivia, we were not able to obtain much information on outcomes and impacts in Ethiopia. Eline Boelee (IWMI) provided a CPWF “most significant change story” on

14 B van Koppen pointed out to us the Water for Food Movement in South Africa, whose household rainwater harvesting model has now been adopted by DWAF, shares this indigenous grass roots characteristic. 15 B van Koppen points out that MUS team members may not accept this statement, as there was mutual learning among them; and also notes that Dr Saweang made use of the mus and learning alliance concepts of the project.

32

uptake of home water treatment, and an internal document reporting on outputs (Boelee 2008a, 2008b). The latter reports a fairly large number of student theses and journal articles in preparation, indicates an intermediate level Learning Alliance is functioning in Dire Dawa, and at national level, mentions guidelines for implementing MUS in Ethiopia as well as a planned national seminar. We contacted CRS but got no significant feedback. We were told by an interviewee knowledgeable about Ethiopia that a new water supply and sanitation project in Ethiopia, “RiPPLE” (www.rippleethiopia.org) has been initiated with a multiple use component, but we could not find specific evidence on this16.

In sum, we are not able to make any statements on impact or pathways thereof for Ethiopia.

Nepal and India

With hindsight, it is unfortunate we did not have the resources or mandate to assess the impacts and lessons learned in India and Nepal—especially Nepal. It is clear that the impacts and both out- and up-scaling are significant in Nepal. We have examined (selectively because of limited time) some chapters of a forthcoming book on the experiences in Nepal and India (Mikhail 2008), interviewed by telephone both Monique Mikhail and R Yoder of International Development Enterprises (IDE), and received written comments from K Sharma, project coordinator in Nepal. The remainder of the discussion here is limited to Nepal.

IDE is a USA-based international NGO well-known for its work on introducing low-cost small scale water agricultural water management technologies. It works in both Africa and Asia, but has had its greatest impacts to date in South Asia. IDE has a fairly long history in Nepal and partners with Winrock, various local NGOs, and government at both national and local levels to implement its programmes in that country; therefore the MUS Project partnership was complementary to activities IDE-Winrock and their partners were already implementing with other funding17. IDE is one of the “global partners” in the MUS Project, but most of its MUS Project work has focused on Nepal and to a lesser extent India. IDE’s roots are in agricultural water, distinguishing it from the main focus of NGO partners in Colombia, South Africa and Zimbabwe for example, but similar to KKU in Thailand.

As is the case elsewhere, multiple use water supply systems are not a new idea in Nepal, where they are sometimes referred to as “hybrid systems.” IDE has been promoting drip irrigation for small-scale market-oriented vegetable production, especially by women. Most of this work was initially with individual households, not communities. An important driver mentioned was the number of households that abandoned the use of drip irrigation because they were diverting their limited water supply to domestic use. Development of water sources to supply sufficient water for ‘hybrid systems’ often entails community-level cooperation. It is in this context that the MUS Project was introduced. IDE used most of the limited resources from the CPWF Project to support

16 However, an Ethiopian case study is scheduled to be presented at the MUS Symposium in Addis Ababa in November 2008; see www.musgroup.net. 17 R Yoder mentioned the IDE-Winrock programme has now constructed over 80 schemes.

33

process documentation by M Mikhail; but clearly took excellent advantage of the opportunity to participate in the global program.

In Nepal, IDE and its partners implemented “Learning Alliances” quite effectively, if largely informally, at national, district and local levels. This is remarkable given the serious political and civil turmoil in the country during the project period. Mikhail (2008) provides detailed documentation of the efforts to overcome a host of bureaucratic barriers, for example between domestic and agricultural water agencies, debates about the appropriate bureaucratic ‘home’ for mus, and indeed barriers separating NGOs with different mandates. With its irrigation background, IDE struggled to reach out to those working on domestic water supply—although in the end it appears the impact on this sub-sector was greater in terms of formal acceptance and financial support than was the case for the irrigation sector. She documents positive outcomes that probably exceed those in the other participating countries.

Here, we highlight key outcomes that directly relate to the CPWF MUS Project support, based largely on interviews. First, the fact that they were part of a global project enhanced the credibility of mus and Learning Alliances in Nepali eyes. That said, although there was some mutual sharing of experiences between Nepal and other basins, there does not appear to have been much impact from this sharing. Second, the Learning Alliances in Nepal went very far toward breaking down institutional barriers and mental roadblocks between the agricultural and domestic water supply sectors. One statement was that hybrid systems would have continued without the CPWF Project, but would have had far less traction; and the LA was explicitly adopted from the MUS Project—this approach to mutual learning and overcoming barriers might not have been implemented otherwise. A third change brought about in the IDE-Winrock Project was its shift from largely working with individual households, to working with communities; and IDE credits the MUS Project leader with pushing them to take a more participatory and gender-balanced approach to this than they might otherwise have adopted.

Fourth, and in the long run potentially critical, were changes at government level. The Department of Irrigation had previously initiated a “Non-Traditional Irrigation Project” (NITP) to reach more people, and introducing MUS as well as collaboration with IDE-Winrock provided opportunities for quick and visible successes. This has led to internal debates, discussions and positive recognition within the Department, which (as in Zimbabwe) has now adopted a practical ad hoc approach to including domestic water services in its irrigation schemes—in the face of continuing barriers to using its funds directly for this purpose. IDE anticipates the policy will change in the near future. On the domestic water services side, much of the support is provided in response to demands from local levels using decentralized budgets (at district and village levels); multiple use water supply schemes are now officially approved for investment on a cost-sharing basis (“domestic plus”).

5.6 Major Observations at Project Global Level

This section is based largely on either interviews or written responses to questions from some of the project leadership or close partners (see Annex 3), complemented by reference to various written documents and papers (some of which are incomplete and unpublished drafts). The MUS Project Leadership is writing a book synthesizing lessons

34

learned; this is being prepared simultaneously with the present report, and unfortunately though understandably we have not had access to this. The discussion here does not pretend to be a complete assessment; rather, we have chosen to address a limited set of issues as reflected in the sub-headings.

MUS Science

As nearly all of the MUS Project partners interviewed also agreed, the idea that water supplies are used by people for multiple purposes is not new. There had been earlier published research, for example by IWMI in Sri Lanka, documenting the various ways in which irrigation water is used and the added value of these uses (e.g., Renwick 2001). One of the MUS Project partners, IRC, with its roots in the domestic water supply and sanitation sector, had initiated work on productive uses under the theme of “ProdWat;” and several of the local partners (e.g., AWARD, KKU, IDE-Winrock in Nepal, several Zimbabwe NGOs) were also pioneers in the promotion of water services for multiple uses. Most of the latter emphasized the value of the MUS Project in providing an internationally recognized conceptual framework and vocabulary for such MUS programmes.

Perhaps the most important achievement of the MUS Project has been its contribution to conceptualizing, legitimizing and raising the profile of MUS both as a topic worthy of detailed scientific study, and as a potentially powerful tool for improving the livelihoods of poor people by providing a higher-level water service than is often the case in rural water supply programmes. This was mention in nearly all country-level interviews, and applies at local, national and global levels. An important example is the recent publication from FAO and IFAD on interventions for improving livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa: multiple use of water is highlighted as highly beneficial with special benefits in terms of gender equity (Faurès and Santini, eds. 2008:57-58).

The IWMI Research Report by van Koppen et al. (2006) represents the collective perspective and framework of the MUS Project team. A separate paper (van Koppen and Hussain 2007) introduces the “multi-purpose water ladder,” a concept that was used effectively (“water service level framework”) in the comprehensive benefit-cost assessment by Renwick et al. (2007; the MUS Project was a partner in this study as well). A paper prepared for the November CPWF conference in Addis Ababa elaborates the water ladder concept further (van Koppen et al. 2008). A special conference on MUS, preceding the CPWF conference, is being held in Addis Ababa on 4-6 November 2008, prior to the CPWF international conference (www.musgroup.net); important science contributions of the MUS Project will emerge from that conference.

In his comments on the draft final version of this report, S Smits added the following points18. He notes that not only has mus been a topic of research, but also learning alliances as mechanisms to achieve impact. IRC took up the topic of learning alliances as one of its key areas, organising an international symposium on this topic in 2005 (http://www.irc.nl/page/16676), and publishing its proceedings in the form of a book (http://www.irc.nl/page/35887 ). The background paper for that symposium (http://www.irc.nl/page/17422) drew heavily upon the conceptualisation developed as

18 This para is an edited version of the suggestions provided by S Smits.

35

part of the MUS Project. Findings of the LA approach will be reported also at the MUS Symposium in Addis Ababa by J Butterworth).

MUS Partnerships and Strategic Alliances

Getting a diverse set of partners to agree in principle to cooperate, for example by writing a letter of support for a project proposal, is not difficult. But achieving creative synergies among such a diverse set of partners as is found in the MUS Project is a daunting task. The Project partners including international researchers from institutions focused on agricultural water, institutions whose primary interest has been research and capacity building for domestic water, and NGOs whose main interest is implementation of community level programs; partners from local NGOs with minimal capacity or self-confidence in research; local universities; and governments. At the first project planning workshop, it became clear that there was no common understanding of MUS, of what the project should try to achieve, or how it should go about doing this. In such a circumstance it is not unusual for the partners to simply divide up the resources and work independently within their own sphere, leading to an incoherent set of outputs.

However, the MUS Project partners, assisted by a highly-regarded facilitator, chose to devote considerable effort, time, and resources to building a common understanding around an agreed conceptual framework. The outcomes included adaptation of the concepts of the Learning Wheel, Learning Cycle and Learning Alliance with clearer understandings of how to build on the comparative strengths of each partner. It is also clear from the interviews that the Project succeeded in establishing an open self-critical reflective learning culture, enabling the Project partners to communicate effectively, remain flexible and adapt their approach with experience. Several interviewees explicitly credited the Project Leader on this point.

The MUS concept has achieved a high profile through a very effective presentation at the WWW4 in Mexico in 2006, and has been recognized for further elaboration and presentation at the next World Water Forum in Turkey in March 2009. S Smits has also noted that the LA approach is now being applied in other projects on other themes beyond mus, but still involving some of the key partners from MUS, such as in the WASPA Project (http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/waspa/WASPAprojinfo.htm), SWITCH (www.switchurbanwater.eu) and RiPPLE (www.rippleethiopia.org). Learning alliances are now also receiving attention as part of the CGIAR’s Knowledge Sharing in Research initiative (see blog at http://ictkm.wordpress.com/). In addition, the MUS Project has provided an important input into the MUS Group (www.musgroup.net). This is a group of organisations (originally called ProdWat) working jointly on knowledge sharing and advocacy for mus, and has co-organized with the MUS Project events such as at WWF4 in Mexico and the upcoming symposium in Addis. This group has enabled sharing of project findings beyond the project consortium partners.

There is evidence from interviews of new partnerships having been established as an outcome of the MUS Project and these are likely to continue (an outcome appreciated by the CPWF). Examples are IWMI and IRC, IWMI and several of the NGOs (AWARD, IDE for example), and CIAT and CINARA in Colombia—we understand they have a follow-on project funded by the Colombian Science Council.

36

It is not only at the global level that one perceives effective strategic partnerships and learning alliances; this is clear for several of the participating countries and the partners themselves, including Colombia, Nepal, South Africa, Thailand and Zimbabwe. Dr R Yoder (IDE) also credited the MUS Project (and its leader) for facilitating a more participatory and gender-balanced perspective and approach to communities than had previously been the case. In Thailand, the Project enabled expanding linkages of the Farmer Wisdom Network to include local and national government institutions. In Colombia it is clear that cooperation among the researchers, local governments, and provincial government increased as a result of the MUS-supported Learning Alliance, while in Zimbabwe a coordinating body was transformed into one that was more learning- and sharing-oriented.

Perceptions on the Role of the CPWF

In our interviews, the MUS Project leadership credited the CPWF management for its flexibility as the project evolved, a point also made in the draft “MUS Synthesis of Lessons” (no date). As the latter document states, the project followed an ‘evolving work plan model’ which involved changes in agreed deliverables. Nevertheless, the latter document goes on to advocate this evolving work plan model as being more effective than a linear logframe-type activity plan. This suggestion makes sense for any “learning process” type project19.

Nevertheless, two criticisms can be levelled at the CPWF management. First, several interviewers were quite categorical in stating that there was no scientific interaction between the MUS Project and the CPWF thematic leadership and basin coordination20. One suggested that the latter was a “waste of money” on the part of the CPWF. There were no interviewees who praised this aspect of CPWF management.

The second criticism relates to the severe budget cut imposed by the CPWF compared to the amount originally proposed—and we would add, the Project leadership’s response to this cut. The original proposal requested $1.98 million; the amount received from the CPWF was $1.6 million, and the time cut from five to four years. Several interviewees pointed out that no partners or basins were cut out of the project in response to this severe budget reduction; rather, the funds were spread more thinly among the same partners—too thinly in the view of many partners, a point we believe has a lot of merit. In essence about $20-25,000 was made available to the country/basin-level partners per year, an amount that was not adequate to truly leverage local activities in many instances. A serious consequence was the reduction in field work, including abandonment of the idea of implementing about 25 reasonably detailed case studies including action research. As noted above in the discussion of Zimbabwe’s experience, this reduction had serious impacts on the local effectiveness. Another consequence mentioned by an interviewee

19 One interviewee who wished not to be quoted, however, suggested the CPWF is “too bureaucratic to be able to mobilize quickly and respond flexibly to opportunities for policy influence on the ground,” a point we believe also has merit. 20 B van Koppen notes two exceptions. Interactions occurred at the IGB MUS workshop in Delhi in December 2005 organized by the basin coordinator. Also the former Theme Leader prepared a stock-taking workshop in April 2008, but nobody in CPWF took this forward when the Theme Leader left. But others we interviewed were less generous in their views of the CPWF intellectual contribution.

37

was that there was less inter-basin interaction — the limited budgets led to partners in each basin focusing on their own work. The other side of this is a point emphasized by one interviewee — that most of the resources remained with the global partners. This observation too has nuances: while there were some comments suggesting “too much” went to international partners’ costs and overheads, the fact is that the amount used to cover the actual time of the principle international staff at IRC and IWMI was woefully deficient, forcing them to work “pro bono” or find cross-subsidies.

We believe that the CPWF should in future be far more careful about imposing essentially arbitrary budget cuts, and where it is necessary to ask proponents to reduce their budgets, the CPWF management should be more pro-active in making sure that the new level of effort (and expected deliverables) match the actual resources. There is also a case to be made to insist that project leaders must budget realistically for their own time.

Finally, we asked several of the MUS Project interviewees about their use of the impact and network assessment tools provided by the CPWF. These were provided through training and workshops only about half way through the project. This was clearly too late. We found no evidence that the MUS Project made use of these tools either for developing its ‘impact theory’ or model, or for tracking impacts. The Project had already adopted its own framework for achieving impacts (Learning Alliances, etc.); and it is also likely that the more ‘linear’ logic of impact pathways (from inputs to changes in KAS to behaviour changes to poverty reduction impacts) did not fit well with the more nuanced MUS impact model.

Assuring Continuity for Full Impact in Future

Despite the progress made by the MUS Project, a lot more needs to be done to achieve fully its potential impacts. Several interviewees expressed concern regarding the end of the Project with no apparent plan for follow-up. In some cases, for example IRC, there will be continuity for the MUS Group through other sources of funding. But the strategic partnerships and Learning Alliances, especially at country level, that have been forged are not so likely to continue without support. A representative of one international NGO (Plan International) expressed the view that the most valuable contribution of the Project had been its networking function. He explicitly recommended creating an “African Chapter of MUS” to improve the understanding of multiple use water services in the region and promote its scaling up and out. F Penning de Vries, the first Project Leader, suggested that there is an opportunity for major impacts by carrying out more solid research (especially financing, learning alliances, and how to upscale more effectively); if the project continued with action-research and cooperation with other donors, the potential for impacts on livelihoods is very large.

In this context we were interested in whether other donors have agreed to provide support. One example is Danida in southern Africa, but this is a result of a parallel project implemented by IWMI and led by B van Koppen herself. A representative of IFAD, A Nepveu, provided a specific example of an approved IFAD-supported project in Ethiopia that includes support for mus. On the other hand, the senior IFAD

38

representative at a recent IFAD-funded conference21 focusing on agricultural water management innovations did not mention MUS as one of the innovations of interest to IFAD. There is interest at FAO (which will be the formal convener of the MUS session at the next WWF in March 2009), and we have learned that the World Bank has commissioned an impact assessment whose results should be available in 2009. We are not aware of additional investments following the benefit-cost assessment done for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation led by Winrock (Renwick et al. 2007). Other examples were mentioned in some of the country studies (e.g., DFID in Zimbabwe, donors in Nepal and Colombia). There are undoubtedly other local examples, but the conclusion has to be that MUS has not yet reached the level of acceptability required for major and systematic support from development partners.

5.7 Summary of Outcome of Benefit-Cost Assessment

The assessment of the likely benefits and costs of investments in MUS schemes by Renwick et al. (2007) remains the closest to a definitive study available. We took that as a starting point and asked, would it be possible to estimate the benefits accruing to the CPWF investment in the MUS Project? Costs are known. However, the project has not yet been completed (it has been given a no-cost extension to April 2009). Even if it had been completed on time, it is too soon to identify the real impacts of the Project. Nevertheless, we included provision in our proposal to attempt such an analysis even if it is not definitive and indeed is more conceptual. This attempt is documented in the report by Jumbe and Chinangwa (2008). The report has to make many assumptions about the likely adoption rates in the five basins where the MUS Project was active and the benefits that may accrue. The reader should consult the full report for details on the methodology used, assumptions made, data used, and detailed conclusions.

Jumbe and Chinangwa (2008) suggest the following direct benefits of the MUS Project:

• Provision of space and opportunity for experiential learning and experimentation (one might call this ‘proof of concept’);

• Through LA activities, increased knowledge and awareness of communities;

• Again through LA activities, expansion of existing indigenous networks (in Thailand) forging stronger horizontal and vertical partnerships;

• Changes in investments and approach to investments.

They also list quite a number of what they call indirect benefits, for example changes in policy and behaviour, expansion of vegetable production as a result of adoption of mus, labour savings for water collection, increased household incomes, and higher levels of sustainability of schemes leading to benefits accruing over a longer period. On the cost side, the MUS Project total investment is assumed to be the CPWF investment of $1.6 million (it is substantially more but much of the additional costs are hidden). Jumbe and

21 Regional Conference on Agricultural Water Management in Eastern and Southern Africa, 15-19 September, 2008, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; see: www.asareca.org/imawesa/3rdAWMconference.

39

Chinangwa (2008) use the benefit and cost data for mus schemes contained in Renwick et al. (2007).

Based on this and other critical assumptions, the analysis estimates about two million additional people will benefit over a period of about ten years, mostly but not only in the countries where the Project has been active, at an additional investment cost of $53.8 million and annual O&M costs of about $12.6 million. Although these appear to be high costs, the benefits of investing in ‘high potential areas’ as recommended by the Renwick et al. (2007) study are substantial. They break these investments down to five “opportunity areas” drawn from Renwick et al. (2007) (Annex 5). Overall, they estimate an average benefit-cost ratio of 2.68 and Net Present Value after ten years of over $226.5 million (Table 3). These findings confirm those of the Renwick et al. (2007) study, and strengthen the argument for continuing investments in this area. It is important to note that Jumbe and Chinangwa (2008) do not attempt to analyze the benefits accruing as a result of the global project activities—indeed they attribute all the Project costs to the five basins and eight countries where the Project directly worked. Therefore, it seems fair to conclude these estimates are very conservative; the benefits are likely to be far greater based on all the evidence available.

Table 3. Projected Costs and Income Benefits for All High-Potential Opportunities

Projected Costs and Income Benefits for All Opportunities (US$)

Financial Result

Item Per Capita (Winrock) NPV B-C Ratio

Capital Investment 11 – 110

Recurrent cost/yr 1 – 19

Total Cost 12 – 124 Annual Income 25 – 62

226,533,333 2.68

Source: Jumbe and Chingangwa 2008:24.

5.8 Summary of Most Salient Findings

The previous sections provide a lot of detailed observations and findings, and this section does not repeat these. Rather, it focuses on a small number of observations that we believe will be most useful to the CPWF in future; some of these also provide the background to the recommendations in Section 6. We have not carried out a conventional assessment of the project impacts and benefits and costs; rather, following recent literature on appropriate methodologies to evaluate innovations, we have sought to develop a reasonable and plausible account of what changes have occurred and are likely to occur in future, and what the MUS Project has contributed. This means the account is subjective and open to alternative interpretations; however, we believe this account is sufficiently accurate to provide a basis to draw the conclusions summarized below, and for the recommendations in section 6. Annex 6 is a tabular summary of impacts.

5.8.1 The MUS Project has built effectively on existing experiences with multiple use

water services with a goal of identifying how to overcome barriers to scaling

multiple use water services out and up.

40

The MUS Project did not consider the benefits of multiple use water services to be hypothetical; based on existing experience, which was further corroborated and conceptualized during the Project, the Project sought to identify more clearly the barriers to scaling out and up, and the possible strategies for overcoming the barriers. In this sense, the MUS Project is not a classical research project; rather, it is primarily a conceptualization and advocacy project which has made effective use of research to strengthen its advocacy. This is not to say that there was not good science—see the next conclusion.

The pre-project workshop held in South Africa in early 2003 included case studies of existing mus activities (Moriarty et al. 2004). Not only was IRC already working on this topic, but many of the national project partners emphasized that they too were already “doing” mus. In general, the pioneers have been NGOs: IDE and its partners in Nepal, AWARD in South Africa, the Integrated Water Resource Management Research and Development Centre at KKU in Thailand (though this is part of a university), Mvuramanzi Trust and other NGOs in Zimbabwe. Some had as their starting point provision of water for agriculture (e.g., IDE, KKU), others started from the water supply sector.

5.8.2 The MUS Project has made a significant contribution to conceptualizing,

improving scientific understanding and raising the global and national profile of

multiple use water services.

As stated above, we suggest that “the most important achievement of the MUS Project has been its contribution to conceptualizing, legitimizing and raising the profile of MUS both as a topic worthy of detailed scientific study, and as a potentially powerful tool for improving the livelihoods of poor people by providing a higher-level water service than is often the case in rural water supply programmes and irrigation projects.” This applies at multiple levels. Globally, there is concrete evidence of growing interest in supporting the implementation of mus schemes, as witnessed by the high level of interest expressed at the WWF4, by ICID, GWP, Comprehensive Assessment on Water Management in Agriculture, FAO, the organizers of WWF5 in Turkey, and expressions of interest by the World Bank, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and IFAD. At national level in the participating countries, there is clearer understanding of the concept of mus; many Project participants credited the MUS Project with helping with clarification and conceptualization. We have noted from our interviews that in some countries stakeholders have a broader concept of mus than in others: some restrict it to productive use of (some) domestic water from a single source, while others recognize mus as including multiple sources, uses, and users. We also found only a little specific evidence of cross-fertilization across basins or countries, but acknowledge the work on conceptualizing ‘MUS,’ ‘domestic-plus,’ and ‘irrigation-plus’ across eight countries and globally (e.g., in Winrock study [Renwick et al. 2007]). At the WWF4, the common presentation of the local actions by the whole project team highlighted various aspects of mus. Zimbabwe stakeholders mentioned the value of a study visit to South Africa (but its centralized approach to providing water services is entirely different from the decentralized approach of Zimbabwe). According to B van Koppen, exchanges also took place between Colombia and Bolivia and between Nepal and India. However, one

41

interviewee (involved in the Nepal work) suggested that more resources ought to have been devoted to study visits.

On the science side, publications emerging from the project (for example van Koppen et al. 2006, Penning de Vries 2007, Penning de Vries et al. no date) also provide evidence of good science, clear conceptualization, and the potential power of mus as a tool for enabling people to improve their livelihoods. The MUS Project partners contributed to the Renwick et al. (2007) study demonstrating its benefits and costs; and the Project is currently in the process of finalizing publications that are likely to make a significant further contribution22. Annex 7 provides a selected list of key references.

5.8.3 The MUS Project has had very significant influence, and even impacts, on

knowledge, attitudes and practices at national and in some cases local levels, with

most of the policy and investment impacts still to come in future.

This report has demonstrated there is considerable evidence that the MUS Project contributed significantly to raising the level of awareness, knowledge, interest and in some cases implementation skills in most of the countries where it was active. These include Colombia, Nepal, South Africa, Thailand, and Zimbabwe. The reasons for this success are related to its emphasis on partnerships and joint learning by diverse stakeholders through “Learning Alliances,” combined with identifying effective “champions of change” in these countries.

A review of the countries where there was most impact, compared to those where the MUS Project had the least impact, suggests two observations. First, in part as a function of the limited funding available and channelled from the global Project partners to local partners, it was only in those countries where there was a good potential to leverage existing matching local resources where the most salient impacts were achieved. These include Colombia, Nepal, South Africa, and Thailand. In Bolivia, and definitely in Zimbabwe, the inadequate level of locally available resources that could be leveraged was a serious constraint.

We also observe that in general the governmental agricultural water sector seems to be the most rigid in terms of accepting mus schemes at least formally, while the governmental water supply and sanitation sector seems generally more open to the concept formally. In both Zimbabwe and Nepal, the respective Departments of Irrigation have shown a higher level of formal rigidity than is the case for the water supply sector in these countries—though the Department in Nepal especially is more flexible and supportive informally. This is the case in Nepal even though the NGO champion (IDE) comes from the agricultural sector; in Zimbabwe the Department of Irrigation did not remain engaged in the working group (dominated by domestic water sector institutions) even when invited. Both, however, have informally recognized the advantages of mus and provide some case-by-case ad hoc support. In Colombia and South Africa, mus seems to resonate most with the water supply sector institutions. Thailand is an outlier in this pattern, as mus as promoted by the Project refers to multiple use of water largely intended for productive purposes.

22 These include the MUS synthesis book currently being prepared, and B van Koppen lists the following: Smits et al. forthcoming; van Koppen et al. forthcoming; Penning de Vries and Sawaeng Ruaysoongnern 2008 (forthcoming); and Kanyoka et al. 2008 (forthcoming).

42

5.8.4 The MUS Project “impact theory” has proven to be a salient guide to using

action research as a tool for achieving impacts. The “Learning Alliance” concept

provides a change model that will be useful in other policy and institutional change

projects.

The CPWF impact tools were provided late in the project and therefore never really tested (nor were they necessarily meant to be tested). We believe the MUS approach has advantages over these tools. We suspect this is not an “either or” point, but a matter of judgement, flexibility, and the kinds of goals the project is seeking to achieve. In a “normal” scientific project, where one is seeking to test hypotheses or discover new knowledge, the more linear impact pathway models may indeed be appropriate. However, as emphasized above, after its transformation during the first implementation year, the MUS Project was not a “normal” research project; rather it was an advocacy project of a new concept seeking to maximize its impact through joint learning with stakeholders. The conceptualization of the project in terms of the “learning wheel,” strategic partnerships, multiple institutional levels, learning alliances bringing together diverse stakeholders to learn and share together proved effective. It is notable also that the Project was able to integrate and add value to local approaches to learning, such as the Farmer Wisdom Networks in Thailand and AWARD’s “SWELL” approach.

5.8.5 While the flexibility of the CPWF management was highly appreciated, the

intellectual support seems to have been deficient, and the arbitrary reduction of the

budget had deleterious effects.

Most of the MUS Project partners interviewed express appreciation for the flexibility the CPWF management exhibited in accommodating changes in the project approach. However, they were equally unanimous in suggesting there was no useful intellectual engagement between the project and the thematic leaders or basin coordinators. In addition, many participants perceived that the seemingly arbitrary large reductions in the budget after the CPWF awarded the Project had serious negative impacts. The other side of this, however, is the response of the Project leadership: the time frame was reduced from five to four years, and the provisions for local level case studies and action research drastically curtailed. The same large number of partners and basins was retained; therefore resources were spread very thinly. Further, as several interviewees noted, a large proportion of the budget was retained by the global level partners—this can perhaps be justified but clearly did not sit that well with some national partners. Specifically, cutting out the detailed local assessments and the action research pilot studies that were planned seems to have had a negative impact on the potential for achieving substantial local and national impacts: there seems to be as felt need for more detailed studies and also for studies to learn “how” to design and implement mus schemes effectively.

6. Recommendations

Based on the assessment of the impacts and pathways to achieve these impacts we have carried out on the CPWF-supported MUS Project, we have several key recommendations for the CPWF Programme to consider as it launches its second implementation phase.

43

6.1 We recommend that the CPWF should make a clearer distinction between

“normal” research projects intended to discover new knowledge or test scientific

hypotheses, from those whose main objective is to use research as an important tool

to promote conceptualization and innovation. The CPWF should identify a limited

number of innovations with high potential for impact, and work with the

proponents over a longer period to build partnerships and achieve real results.

We understand the CPWF to have a dual mandate. On the one hand, as a CGIAR programme, it ought to be carrying out cutting edge future-oriented “international public goods” work whose usefulness and impacts, if any, will only be seen after a decade or more. However, because much of its funding comes from development funds, the CPWF also has an equally strong mandate to achieve measurable impacts on livelihoods, agricultural growth, water productivity, and the environment. It is counter-productive to ask all CPWF-supported projects to meet both of these mandates simultaneously. This is why we propose that the CPWF portfolio should contain a set of future-oriented “science” projects, parallel to a set of projects which are also contributing to as well as applying science with specific medium term impact goals. The former should not require very much support in terms of developing impact theories—it is sufficient to emphasize the scientific contributions, with a logical framework that indicates how those contributions will make a difference in the long term — beyond the life of the project. The innovation-oriented projects do need to invest far more resources in creating strategic partnerships and learning alliances, sharing experiences among diverse stakeholders, and training in order to achieve the desired impacts.

6.2 We recommend that the CPWF provide support for an additional medium-term

(five-year) MUS programme in cooperation with other development partners. The

purpose would be to consolidate the gains and achieve real impacts, within the

context of the innovation-oriented programmes suggested above.

The MUS Project is clearly unfinished business. At national and global levels, a great deal of knowledge, awareness and interest have been generated, and there are indications of potential reforms in policies, implementation strategies, and financing at both national and global levels. But it is not a “done deal.” We have noted that there has not been enough action research (pilot cases) to learning “how” to implement mus schemes effectively. There is a need for encouraging more technological innovation. There are concerns about the costs and benefits in the long run. There remain serious institutional and mind-set barriers at the levels of international development partners, national governments, local governments, and even some NGOs. We believe that simply dropping its support now will result in either not achieving the potential of mus at all, or at best significantly delaying their wider implementation; and this in turn will affect achievement of the Millennium Development Goals among others. The CPWF will have lost an opportunity to demonstrate large-scale impacts on rural livelihoods through support of water management innovations.

44

This is why we strongly recommend that the CPWF work with the partners in the current project, but also reach out to other development partners, financing agencies and NGOs as well as expand into a select group of other countries. Working through regional and international (UN) institutions, on both the water supply and sanitation and agricultural water sides, would also be critical. This new project should seek to demonstrate the “how” and the real long term benefits and costs and promote technological as well as institutional innovation; while encouraging partnerships among stakeholders through Learning Alliances at multiple levels.

6.3 We recommend that as part of the above set of ‘innovation’ projects, the CPWF

adopt the MUS impact theory based on elements of the “innovation cycle” and

provide support and capacity building to this selected group of the next generation

of projects and basin programmes to design and implement this approach to

achieving impacts. We perceive this as complementary to the impact theories and

models currently being used, not as replacements.

We have concluded that the change theory embedded in the MUS Project, based on innovations systems theory, has been demonstrated to be effective. This is especially the case for projects seeking changes in policies, institutions and concepts (or mindsets). More linear impact pathway models may be quite adequate when promoting a single-dimensional technological innovation, but promoting complex behavioural change requires a more nuanced theory of change, such as the Learning Alliances and learning wheel concepts used by MUS.

Whichever set of change models is adopted (there is no single “correct” one), these need to be embedded in the project design from the beginning, the project participants need to have a good understanding of them (which requires investment in training and workshops), and there needs to be a continuous learning process punctuated by regular open reviews of lessons learned; and the project must be able to make changes in its strategy based on these lessons.

45

References

AWARD. 2005. Planning for water to enhance local livelihoods. SWELL monitoring workshop report. AWARD.

Boelee, Eline. 2008a. CPWF most significant change stories: Uptake of home water treatment in Ethiopia. Unpublished.

Boelee, Eline. 2008b. MUS outputs in Ethiopia. Status 5 June 2008, internal document.

Butterworth, John, Stef Smits, and Monique Mikhail. 2008. Learning alliances to influence policy and practice: Experiences promoting institutional change in the multiple use water services (MUS) project. Draft MUS Project Working Paper. www.musproject.net.

Cordoba, Diana. 2008. Evaluation of the impact in Colombia of the Project MUS/PN/28 – Multiple uses of water as a strategy for facing poverty, CPWF. Report submitted to FANRPAN.

Cousins, Tessa and Stef Smits. 2005. Report on the national seminar on initiatives and experiences on multiple use approaches to water. Held on 24th August 2005, SANBI Auditorium—Pretoria Botanical Gardens. www.musproject.net.

Cousins, Tessa, Stef Smits and Telly Chauke. 2007. Access to water and poor peoples’ livelihoods: the case of Ward 16 of Bushbuckridge Local Municipality. March. AWARD, IRC, and MUS Project. www.musproject.net.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry of South Africa (DWAF). 2006. Provision of water for small scale multiple use systems: A guide for municipalities. Version 1, April 2006. Draft. Pretoria, South Africa: DWAF.

DWAF. 2008. Strategic framework for water for growth and development. Discussion document, April. Pretoria, South Africa: DWAF.

Dlamini, Vusi. 2007. Local government implementation of policies for integrated water services provision – the practice in Bushbuckridge Local Municipality. AWARD and MUS Project. www.musproject.net.

Douthwaite, Boru and Sophie Alvarez. 2006. Next steps towards the PN28 impact narrative: Impact pathways model development. August. Draft, BFP Impact Assessment Project, CIAT.

Douthwaite, B., S. Schulz, A. Olanrewaju, and J. Ellis-Jones. 2007. Impact pathway evaluation of an integrated Striga hermonthica control project in Northern Nigeria. Agricultural Systems 92: 201-222. Cited in 2008.

Douthwaite, Boru, Sophie Alvarez, Graham Thiele, and Ronald Mackay. 2008. Participatory Impact Pathway Analysis: A practical method for project planning and evaluation. Draft, January 2008.

46

Faurès, Jean-Marc, and Guido Santini, eds. 2008. Water and the rural poor: Interventions for improving livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Rome: FAO.

Garden, Po. 2008. Learning lessons from assessment of impacts and their pathways: Multiple Use Water Services (MUS) Project supported by the Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF)-- Assessment of Thailand MUS Project. Draft final submitted to FANRPAN.

Guzha, Edward, Ephraim Chimbude, and Stef Smits. 2007. Technologies for multiple use of water: Experiences from Zimbabwe. Working Paper, January. Mvuramanzi Trust, IRC and MUS Project. www.musproject.net.

Hagmann, Jürgen. 2005. Learning wheel – creating common frameworks for joint learning, action and knowledge management. AGREN Newsletter No. 52, July 2005, http://www.odi.org.uk/agren. Cited in van Koppen et al. 2006.

Jumbe, Charles and Sirys M.J. Chinangwa 2008. Economic Analysis of Benefits and Costs, MUS Project. Final Draft Report submitted to FANRPAN by CARD.

Kamal Raj, Gautam. No date. An evaluation of existing legislation, policies, institutions, organizations and networks capacity and Limitations, strength and weaknesses in scaling up innovations and the role of Learning Alliance approaches into existing water sector in Nepal. Draft final report.

Kanyoka, P., S. Farolfi and S. Morardet. 2008, forthcoming. Households’ preferences for multiple use water services in rural areas of South Africa: An analysis based on choice modelling. Accepted by Water SA. South Africa WRC (also accepted for presentation at the November 2008 CPWF Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia).

Katsi, Luckson. 2006. Assessment of factors which affect multiple uses of water and their impact on the sustainability of rural water supply sources. A case study of Marondera, Murehwa and Uzumba Maramba Pfungwe districts, Zimbabwe. June. Thesis submitted for Master of Science in IWRM, University of Zimbabwe. www.musproject.net.

de Lange, Marna. 2008. Country-level assessment—South Africa. Revised draft report submitted to FANRPAN.

Main, G., and N. Naidoo. 2008. Productive use of domestic piped water for sustaining livelihoods in poor households. Draft Report No. 1666 for the Water Research Commission. February.

Makoni, Fungai, and Stef Smits. 2005. Workshop on Learning Alliances for multiple use water services, 19th-20th January 2005, Harare, Zimbabwe. Workshop Report. IWSR, IRC and MUS Project. www.musproject.net.

Makoni, Fungai, Stef Smits, Innocent Shoshore, and Max Jonga. 2007. Institutional learning about multiple use services in Zimbabwe: Experiences of the Learning Alliance approach. March. IWSD, IRC, UNICEF and MUS Project. www.musproject.net.

47

Makoni, Fungai and Stef Smits. 2007. Policies and institutional framework for multiple use of water in Zimbabwe. Working Paper, January. IWSD, IRC and MUS Project. www.musproject.net.

Maluleke, Nyeleti. 2007. Perceptions on addressing the water services needs of the most vulnerable households in Bushbuck Ridge Local Municipality. June. AWARD and MUS Project. www.musproject.net.

Manzungu, Emmanuel. 2008. An assessment of Multiple Use Water Services Project in Zimbabwe. Final Draft report submitted to FANRPAN.

Mayne, John. No date. Exploring attribution through Contribution Analysis. Draft for discussion paper provided by B Douthwaite.

Mikhail, Monique. 2008, forthcoming. Multiple use water service implementation in Nepal and India; Experience and lessons for scale-up. Draft book in preparation.

Moriarty, Patrick, John Butterworth, and Barbara van Koppen (eds.). 2004. Beyond domestic: Case studies on poverty and productive uses of water at the household level. Technical Paper Series 41. Delft, Netherlands: IRC.

MUS Proposal. 2003. Models for implementing multiple-use water supply systems for enhanced land and water productivity, rural livelihoods and gender equity. Proposal submitted by IWMI and other partners to the CPWF.

MUS Synthesis of Lessons. No date. Lessons from the MUS Project: If we had to start again. Unpublished draft (manuscript in preparation).

Patton, Michael. Q. 2008. Advocacy impact evaluation. Journal of Multidisciplinary

Evaluation 5 (9):1-10.

Penning de Vries, F.W.T., 2007. Learning Alliances for the broad implementation of an integrated approach to multiple sources, multiple uses and multiple users of water. Special issue 'Integrated Assessment of Water Resources and Global Change: A North-South Analysis', Water Resources Manag., 21: 79-95.

Penning de Vries, F.W.T. and S. Ruaysoongnern, 2008 (forthcoming). Multiple uses of water in N.E. Thailand. IWMI Research Report, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Thailand. [reference provided by B van Koppen]

Penning de Vries, Fritz, Sawaeng Ruaysoongnern, and S.Wong Bhumiwatana. No date. The optimum size of farm ponds in N.E. Thailand with respect to farming style and multiple uses of water and under various biophysical and socio-economic conditions. [probably from www.musproject.net].

Perrin, Burt. 2002. How to—and how not to—evaluation innovation. Evaluation 8 (1):13-28.

PN28 and the BFP Impact Assessment Project. 2007. Next step towards the PN28 impact pathways model development. Draft paper. February.

Renwick, Mary. 2001. Valuing water in irrigated agriculture and reservoir fisheries: A multiple-use irrigation system in Sri Lanka. IWMI Research Report No. 51. Colombo: IWMI.

48

Renwick, Mary et al. 2007. Multiple-use water services for the poor: Assessing the state of knowledge. Prepared for Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Arlington, VA: Winrock International.

Sawaeng Ruaysoongnern, and F.W.T. Penning de Vries. 2005. Learning Alliance development for scaling up of multi-purpose farm ponds in a semi-arid region of the Mekong basin. Pp 191-202 in: Smits, S., C. Fonseca, and J. Pels (eds.) Proceedings of the symposium on Learning Alliances for scaling up innovative approaches in the water and sanitation sector held in Delft, the Netherlands, 7-9 June 2005 . Also http://www.irc.nl/page/24792.

Sawaeng Ruaysoongnern. 2006. Mekong Basin Report. MUS SC Meeting, Mexico. Power Point.

Sawaeng Ruaysoongnern. No date. Learning Alliance concept redefined from lessons in Mekong basin. Draft. www.musproject.net.

Smits, Stef, Patrick Moriarty, and Christine Sijbesma, eds. 2007. Learning alliances: Scaling up innovations in water, sanitation and hygiene. IRC Technical Paper Series 47. Delft, The Netherlands: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. www.irc.nl/page/35887.

Smits, Stef, Barbara van Koppen, and Patrick Moriarty. 2008, forthcoming. Multiple-use services through incremental improvements in access to water: Findings from case studies in eight countries. Under review for Irrigation and Drainage Systems.

Van Koppen, Barbara, Patrick Moriarty and Eline Boelee. 2006. Multiple-use water services to advance the Millennium Development Goals. IWMI Research Report No. 98. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI, IRC, CPWF.

Van Koppen, Barbara and Intizar Hussain. 2007. Gender and irrigation: Overview of issues and options. Irrigation and Drainage 56: 1-10.

Van Koppen, B., S. Smits, P. Moriarty, and F. Penning de Vries. 2008. Community-level multiple-use water services: ‘mus’ to climb the water ladder. Paper submitted to CPWF Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, November 2008.

Van Koppen, B., S. Smits and M.Mikhail. Forthcoming. Community-scale multiple-use water services: New investment opportunities to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Irrigation and Drainage. Special Issue for World Water Forum 5.

49

Appendices

50

Annex 1

Terms of Reference for the CPWF Adoption and Cost-Benefit

Analysis Project [slightly edited]

The International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) requires the services of an impact evaluation consultant. Dr. Doug Merrey, Anthropologist, has been identified to develop the following activities that form part of the outputs the Adoption and Cost-Benefit Analysis Project. 1. Evaluation Design and Implementation The evaluation will be of two projects: PN28: MUS and PN47: African Models of Transboundary Governance23. Orientation for both evaluations is technical and partnership significant change stories written by both projects (see Annex). The evaluation should address the following questions:

1. What is the change(s)? 2. What is the scope and extent of these changes on the ground? 3. How did the changes come about? What contribution did the project make

to them? 4. What is driving the changes? Where could the changes eventually

spread? 5. What are the benefits and costs of the changes (quantify them as far as

possible) both now, and potentially in the future? What did the project invest?

6. What was the contribution of the CPWF in achieving the change? 7. What was the role of research? 8. What are the international public goods that the project has generated that

are related to the change? 9. Did the project follow the expected impact pathways (as described in an

earlier impact pathways workshop to define them)? The method for carrying out the evaluation is up to the evaluator with the following provisos:

• It is expected that you first work with the respective Project Leaders and Theme Leaders (Theme 2 and 5 respectively) to clarify what the changes are that will be evaluated.

• The evaluation should focus on adoption and impact and not be an overall evaluation of the project.

• The Theme Leader, Project Leader and Boru Douthwaite should agree to the evaluation design

23 Note: The assessment of PN 47 was later dropped out.

51

• The Theme Leader should engage as a co-evaluator (not the evaluator’s responsibility to make this happen, but they should be prepared to work with the TL)

• Some ground-truthing is carried out for the MUS project (i.e., more than just a desk study)

• That as far as possible changes should be quantified and costed

• A draft final report is produced no later than 1st August, 2008 of about 40 pages (plus Annexes) structured around the research questions (unless another structure makes more sense). The report should compare and contrast successes and failures, opportunities and constraints for research to influence policy, and describe impact pathways by which it happens.

52

Annex 2

Questions for Project Implementation Partners

Name of Respondent: _________________________________ Role in Project ______________________________

Question Responses 1. The MUS Project Leader and others have

helped us to identify some of the key people to be contacted. Please help us identify any other key people of which you are aware, that we ought to contact in order to gain a better understanding of the project impacts and lessons learned:

2. Did the CPWF-supported MUS Project have any impacts in terms of scaling out or up of MUS? If you feel it has not had any such impacts, kindly explain why you think this is so.

3. If you believe the project has had impacts, what are they? Precisely what changes occurred? At what level (e.g., local, national, regional, global) did they occur, and what is their scope and extent (in whatever measure seems appropriate)?

4. Please explain how, in your view, these changes came about? For example was it through adopting research results, transfers from one location through training, or some other way?

5. What is the future prognosis of these changes? That is, do you see these continuing to scale out and/or scale up on their own? Or do you think that continued support from champions is required?

6. There is an implicit assumption of the CPWF that ‘impact’ has occurred through a somewhat linear process: for example, research � impacts. However, there is at least the possibility that MUS policies and practices preceded the initiation of the CPWF Project. What is your view on this, and do you have examples (one way or the other)?

53

7. Are water services schemes being designed and built differently as a result of this project? If so kindly specify what the differences are, provide examples, and if possible provide information on the number of schemes and level of investment.

8. What specific contribution, if any, did the project make to bringing about these changes and how? (If there had been no CPWF MUS Project, what would be different now?)

9. Were the project’s impacts (if any) a result of 1) the project outputs (for example adoption of research findings), 2) project workshops, 3) collaborative partnerships in project implementation, or 4) some other factors or some combination of these?

10. What was the specific role and value of the research under the MUS project, if any (separately from workshops, etc.)?

11. To put the previous question a bit more broadly, what are the specific international public goods, if any, produced by the project? Or were the products situation-specific?

12. What is your assessment of the importance of the “Learning Alliance” approach that the project says it has followed in project implementation? Was this effective? If so what is the evidence for this? If not, why not? How can it be made more effective?

13. To put the previous question in different terms, can you please try to identify the social networks (for example close colleague and friendship relationships) and “champions” if any that have influenced the adoption and spread of MUS? If you can diagram this as well, it will be very useful.

14. What role, if any, did the CPWF itself play in achieving project results? (These can be positive, negative, neutral, but we are looking for specific points.) What could the CPWF do to be more effective in future projects?

54

15. What are the benefits and the costs of the changes? That is, can you specify either quantitative or qualitative benefits that have come out of the project? Can you specify, other than the funds provided by the CPWF, costs that have been incurred, either quantitatively or qualitatively?

16. With hindsight, what is your assessment of the usefulness of the tools CPWF is now trying to use for enhancing and monitoring its outputs and impacts? This refers to the use of network models, impact pathway diagrams, ‘most significant change’ stories, etc. Are these tools helpful in terms of planning strategy to achieve impact (ex ante), or identifying ex post facto how impacts came about? Do you have other suggestions for future CPWF projects? [If you have no knowledge of this, please just tell us this.]

17. We have access to reports available on the MUS web site (www.musproject.net). If you are aware of any other reports, web sites or documents we should consult, kindly either share them or give us the details so we can obtain them.

18. Any other suggestions or observations that may be helpful?

19. May we quote your, or would you prefer to remain anonymous in terms of the views you have expressed?

55

Annex 3

List of People Interviewed by D. Merrey

Note: The partners who implemented the country assessments have included lists of interviewees in their respective reports, and these are not repeated here.

Person Interviewed Institution Other information

Dr. Barbara van Koppen IWMI Project Leader By email, in person, various times

Dr. Stef Smits IRC 2/7/2008, by email and phone

Dr. Patrick Moriarty IRC 20/8/2008 by phone

Dr. John Butterworth IRC 23/7/2008, by phone

Dr. Robert Yoder IDE 16 July, by phone

Ms Monique Mikhail IDE 4/7/2008, by phone

Dr. Sawaeng Ruaysoongnern KKU 4//6/2008 by phone in addition to P Garden’s interviews

Mr. Amsalu Neguissie Plan International 22/7/2008 by phone

Mr. Tom Slaymaker ODI Completed questionnaire

Ms Audrey Nepveu IAD 15/7/2008, completed questionnaire and email

Dr. Frits Penning de Vries Formerly IWMI, first Project Leader

12/6/2008 and others, email and completed questionnaire

Dr. Jürgen Hagmann PICO Southern Africa 13/8/2008 by phone

Dr. Daniel Renault FAO 15/8/2008 by email

Ms Barbara Schreiner Formerly DWAF, now Pegasus Strategy & Development

27/6/2008, with Marna de Lange

Dr. Jay Baghwan WRC 26/6/2008, with Marna de Lange

Mr. Kailash Sharma IDE, Nepal Responded to questionnaire

56

Annex 4

Significant Change Statement

Multiple use water services

Classification: Technical Name of Person Reporting: Barbara van Koppen Project / Theme / Basin: PN28 / Theme 2 / Andes, Indus Ganges, Limpopo, Mekong, Nile Date when the change occurred: Since inception phase of the project Place where the change occurred: Governments of Colombia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Thailand

The Story: Conventional water development was sector based (either domestic or irrigation) but water users normally use schemes for multiple purposes and multi-faceted livelihoods. PN 28 showed evidence of community-level cases of multiple use water services. It was clear that planning and design of water services for multiple needs of the poor can improve wellbeing. Women’s participation in planning also enhances institutional and financial sustainability of multiple use water services, and improves water efficiency and equity at low incremental cost. The governments of Colombia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Thailand have taken up recommendations of PN28 and have adapted a national policy towards planning and implementation of multiple water uses. The government of South Africa has drafted national guidelines for multiple water use services and is testing these in pilot-projects with local governments. In Zimbabwe there is a proposed law incorporating MUS. Dialogue with global water sector leaders in both domestic and productive sectors and with national and local partners has led to uptake or strengthening of multiple-use approaches (World Water Forum IV, WSP, IFAD, global NGOS, Winrock, GWP, ICID, Stockholm Water Week, Gates Foundation, etc). Other impacts are implicit and not necessarily documented, but not less effective, such as:

• The allocation by WWF4 of a topic Session on MUS in a highly competitive process

• Joint policy briefs e.g. GWP reports how MUS is now more widely seen as IWRM

• There are high-level discussions in Colombia (with Ines Restrepo) on water quantity norms for 'domestic' schemes. However, changing laws can last longer than the duration of the project.

• In Nepal, high-level irrigation engineering officials said in meetings that they will “close their eyes” if an irrigation scheme is used for domestic purposes. This is an

57

informal commitment that is not easy to document, but may be much more effective than a change in the Zimbabwean water law!

• The Thai government has embraced the multiple-use water tanks and other investments for homestead production by the Farmer Wisdom Network, (which is supported by the MUS project) for the national economic sufficiency policy. We are documenting this process, but, in general, governments do not like to be told by others what they have to do, so any documentation of change has to be much more subtle. In fact, our approach with 'Learning Alliances' is exactly to create ownership and fully adapt according to national stakeholders' commitments

• The project has been invited to the Collaborative Council on ('domestic') Water Supply--another key player taking up the concept, and IFAD is also showing more interest in the project.

Why is the story significant?

• Implementation of multiple-use water services approaches alleviates rural and peri-urban poverty more effectively.

• It highlights the extent of collaborative efforts pertaining to MUS. To date there are many written advocacy papers and joint publications on MUS approaches.

What were the critical factors that led to the change?

• Strategic partnership between domestic and productive water sectors to jointly identify obstacles to sector-based planning and untapped synergy of cross-sectoral collaboration

• The common CPWF action-research framework shared among projects for cross-basin comparisons across eight countries

What were the constraints? Limited capacity and institutional space to implement participatory planning for identification of local-specific water needs, building ownership, and upscaling What are the future implications for action (e.g., future research), if any? Further action research from local to global level to corroborate advocacy and develop upscalable participatory water planning and design approaches.

58

Annex 6

Five high-potential areas for action based on evaluation of: financial sustainability; impact on well-being, health, and

social empowerment; scalability; opportunities for leverage, testing and learning

Opportunity Action Area

Potential Market

Capital investment costs

hardware & software (per capita)

Annual income net of

recurrent costs (per capita)

Benefit-cost

ratio (10% discount

rate)

Opportunity 1. New piped multiple-use services for currently unserved at the intermediate service level

137 million

(South Asia: 56 m; SS Africa: 81 m)

$56-$105 $41-$50 3.4-7.8

Opportunity 2. Upgrading existing domestic piped systems to intermediate multiple uses service level

185 million (South Asia: 144 m SS Africa: 41 m)

$84

$45 4.7

Opportunity 3. Boreholes with hand pumps: upgrading services to basic multiple use service level through communal add-ons to support multiple uses

280 million

(South Asia: 263m SS Africa: 17m)

$25

$22 5.4

Opportunity 4. Upgrading existing household hand dug wells to the intermediate multiple use service level through well protection and improved lifting devices

74 million (South Asia: 43m SS Africa: 31m)

$39 - $10

$47-$55

3.4-8.6

Opportunity 5. Upgrading existing irrigation systems to basic and intermediate service levels through communal add-ons, domestic storage and water treatment

447 million

(South Asia: 443m SS Africa: 4m)

$10 - $110

$50-$57 2.9 – 27

Source: Jumbe and Chinangwa 2008.

59

Annex 6

Overview of Impacts of the MUS Project*

Question Answer/observation What is/are the change(s)?

Conceptualizing, legitimizing and raising the profile of multiple use water services both as a topic worthy of detailed scientific study, and as a potentially powerful tool for improving the livelihoods of poor people Contributed significantly to raising the level of awareness, knowledge, interest and in some cases implementation skills in most of the countries where it was active. Created active global and several country-level Learning Alliances likely to continue promoting mus. At global and country levels, there is a heightened level of awareness, knowledge, attitudes and skills (KAS) as well as synergies and relationships among diverse stakeholders that has the potential to lead to changes in practice on the ground in future. Major changes in policies in Thailand with respect to support for farm ponds and in Nepal with respect to supporting local MUS initiatives from the domestic water sector.

What is the scope and extent of these changes on the ground?

There is substantial impact on the ground in Nepal and Thailand, and some impacts on the ground in Colombia, Ethiopia, South Africa (Bushbuck Ridge), and Zimbabwe. Major changes in policies that will lead to substantial scaling out of mus investments are likely in South Africa and quite possible in Colombia (but have not occurred as yet). Learning Alliances in Colombia, Nepal, Thailand, Zimbabwe, South Africa likely to continue.

How did the changes come about, and what contribution did the project make to them?

Changes came about through combinations of case studies, conceptualization research and communication, workshops, and learning alliances. While in most cases the CPWF Project added value to initiatives that were already present, in most cases the Project did contribute substantially to raising the profile and legitimacy of these efforts and by providing a conceptual framework for them.

What is driving the changes?

Effective learning alliances supporting champions: the latter are individuals in some cases (South Africa, Thailand, perhaps Colombia) and institutions in other cases (Nepal, Zimbabwe) Strong global learning alliance (IRC, IWMI, with others) that has the attention of decision-makers at national and international levels. Recognition that single-use water services have serious drawbacks (all countries) and therefore change is needed.

Where could the changes eventually spread?

Through further exposure for example at WWF5 and other forums, the new global MUS Group (www.musgroup.net), and expressed interest of some development partners such as FAO, IFAD, and BMGF, it is possible that MUS will be scaled up and out over the next decade. In the participating countries, it is likely that changes in practice will come about and lead to new investments, and with sharing of experiences, spread to other countries as

60

well.

What are the benefits and costs of the changes (quantify them as far as possible) both now, and potentially in the future? What did the project invest?

Although the report by Jumbe and Chinangwa (2008) does try to offer a hypothetical benefit-cost analysis, it is too early to make any firm statements on this. The Winrock study (2007) also suggests the very high potential benefits. More work is needed on this aspect as mus schemes come on line.

What was the contribution of the CPWF in achieving the change(s)?

Support for creation of global and local Learning Alliances Support for case studies Increasing the legitimacy of mus as people in some countries came to realize this concept has global support

What was the role of research?

Although some of those interviewed placed little emphasis on the importance of research, it is clear that in fact, global international public goods research contributed to developing and refining the conceptual framework for multiple use water services, as well as the Learning Wheel and Learning Alliance framework for scaling out and up. In South Africa the research by AWARD led to refining their “SWELL” methodology. Case studies in some countries demonstrated the high level of benefits that can be derived from mus, and the interest of local people in using water for multiple purposes. The Winrock study, in which the MUS Project was a partner, demonstrated the potential high benefit-cost ratios of investing in different levels of mus from basic to more complete A case study and model provides a tool for estimating the optimum size of farm ponds in Thailand.

Did the project follow the expected impact pathways (as described in an earlier impact pathways workshop to define them)?

Only partially. The tools were introduced quite some time after project implementation, by which time the project had developed its own impact model; therefore, the impact pathway tools provided, while helping some project leaders to clarify their impact theory, did not make a major contribution. There is some evidence (for example Thailand) that change did follow some of the early anticipated steps in the impact pathway.

* Note: This table provides information at a general level, and does not attempt to document the specific impacts in each country studied; for these the reader is referred to the detailed reports.

61

Annex 7

List of Selected Key MUS References

The MUS Project web site is very rich, containing a large number of references (www.musproject.net); see also the newer site for the MUS Group (www.musgroup.net). The list here is therefore not comprehensive, but rather a selected list of references that the authors feel represent some of the best scientific output of the project as of October 2008. It is important to note that the project is currently finalizing a synthesis book and numerous publications which will have significant additional value. Brief annotations explain our reason for believing the reference is of value.

Butterworth, John, Stef Smits, and Monique Mikhail. 2008. Learning alliances to influence policy and practice: Experiences promoting institutional change in the multiple use water services (MUS) project. Draft MUS Project Working Paper. www.musproject.net.

Documents the experiences and lessons learned from the MUS Project.

Cousins, Tessa, Stef Smits and Telly Chauke. 2007. Access to water and poor peoples’ livelihoods: the case of Ward 16 of Bushbuckridge Local Municipality. March. AWARD, IRC, and MUS Project. www.musproject.net.

Good and specific case study.

Dlamini, Vusi. 2007. Local government implementation of policies for integrated water services provision – the practice in Bushbuckridge Local Municipality. AWARD and MUS Project. www.musproject.net.

Good and specific case study—complements Cousins et al. 2007.

Hagmann, Jürgen. 2005. Learning wheel – creating common frameworks for joint learning, action and knowledge management. AGREN Newsletter No. 52, July 2005, http://www.odi.org.uk/agren. Cited in van Koppen et al. 2006.

Basic rationale for the Learning Wheel concept.

Kanyoka, P., S. Farolfi and S. Morardet. 2008, forthcoming. Households’ preferences for multiple use water services in rural areas of South Africa: An analysis based on choice modelling. Accepted by Water SA. South Africa WRC (also accepted for presentation at the November 2008 CPWF Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia).

Attempt to quantify preferences of poor rural people in South Africa.

Mikhail, Monique. 2008, forthcoming. Multiple use water service implementation in Nepal and India; Experience and lessons for scale-up. Draft book in preparation.

Excellent and insightful documentation of the processes of change supported by the Project.

Moriarty, Patrick, John Butterworth, and Barbara van Koppen (eds.). 2004. Beyond domestic: Case studies on poverty and productive uses of water at the household level. Technical Paper Series 41. Delft, Netherlands: IRC.

62

These cases were presented in the pre-project workshop in 2003 and provide evidence for the beneficial outcomes of mus.

Penning de Vries, F.W.T., 2007. Learning Alliances for the broad implementation of an integrated approach to multiple sources, multiple uses and multiple users of water. Special issue 'Integrated Assessment of Water Resources and Global Change: A North-South Analysis', Water Resources Manag., 21: 79-95.

A complementary perspective on Learning Alliances ; see also van Koppen et al. 2006.

Penning de Vries, Fritz, Sawaeng Ruaysoongnern, and S.Wong Bhumiwatana. No date. The optimum size of farm ponds in N.E. Thailand with respect to farming style and multiple uses of water and under various biophysical and socio-economic conditions. [probably from www.musproject.net].

Provides an easy to use model to identify how much of a typical northeast Thailand farm needs to be devoted to the farm pond.

Renwick, Mary. 2001. Valuing water in irrigated agriculture and reservoir fisheries: A multiple-use irrigation system in Sri Lanka. IWMI Research Report No. 51. Colombo: IWMI.

One of the earliest attempts at valuing the multiple uses of water in a relatively new irrigation scheme.

Renwick, Mary et al. 2007. Multiple-use water services for the poor: Assessing the state of knowledge. Prepared for Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Arlington, VA: Winrock International.

An excellent assessment of the potential benefits and costs of different levels of mus investment.

Sawaeng Ruaysoongnern, and F.W.T. Penning de Vries. 2005. Learning Alliance development for scaling up of multi-purpose farm ponds in a semi-arid region of the Mekong basin. Pp 191-202 in: Smits, S., C. Fonseca, and J. Pels (eds.) Proceedings of the symposium on Learning Alliances for scaling up innovative approaches in the water and sanitation sector held in Delft, the Netherlands, 7-9 June 2005 . Also http://www.irc.nl/page/24792.

A Thai perspective on Learning Alliances.

Smits, Stef, Patrick Moriarty, and Christine Sijbesma, eds. 2007. Learning alliances: Scaling up innovations in water, sanitation and hygiene. IRC Technical Paper Series 47. Delft, The Netherlands: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. www.irc.nl/page/35887.

Cases beyond mus of the value of learning alliances.

Smits, Stef, Barbara van Koppen, and Patrick Moriarty. 2008, forthcoming. Multiple-use services through incremental improvements in access to water: Findings from case studies in eight countries. Under review for Irrigation and Drainage Systems.

An attempt to document the findings from the MUS Project.

63

Van Koppen, Barbara, Patrick Moriarty and Eline Boelee. 2006. Multiple-use water services to advance the Millennium Development Goals. IWMI Research Report No. 98. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI, IRC, CPWF.

An excellent framework for understanding the overall MUS Project goals and rationale, in the context of the Learning Wheel.

Van Koppen, Barbara and Intizar Hussain. 2007. Gender and irrigation: Overview of issues and options. Irrigation and Drainage 56: 1-10.

Introduces the “water ladder.”

Van Koppen, B., S. Smits and M.Mikhail. Forthcoming. Community-scale multiple-use water services: New investment opportunities to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Irrigation and Drainage. Special Issue for World Water Forum 5.

An argument for mus investments as a way of achieving the MDGs.

Multiple Use Water Services (MUS) Project: Assessment of ...

Documents

Transcript of Multiple Use Water Services (MUS) Project: Assessment of ...