This presentation was used for an in-house IRC discussion on MUS, that took place 22 June 2012. Topics: new research evidence; MUS practices and Institutional opportunities and barriers for scaling MUS.

1. Multiple Use Services (MUS)
IRC Synergy week – 22 June 2012

2. Agenda
9.00 – 9.15: Introduction, opening and explanation of objectives
Keeping the water flowing (video)
9.15 – 9.45 Block 1: New research evidence: a reminder on MUS and new research evidence on
extent and cost-benefits of multiple-use services, and the relation between MUS and
sustainability of services (Stef Smits)
Discussion: how to include MUS into the frameworks for sustainable service delivery?
9.45 – 10.15: Block 2: MUS practices:
Guidelines for planning and providing multiple-use services (Marieke Adank)
10.15 – 10.30: Coffee break
10.30 – 12.00: Block 3: Institutional opportunities and barriers for scaling MUS:
• Overview of entry points and scaling pathways; results of the Rockefeller Foundation study
(Stef Smits)
• Scoping study on MUS in Ethiopia (John Butterworth)
• Domestic-plus approaches in Ghana (Marieke Adank)
• NREGA and multiple-use of water in Kerala, India (Kurian Baby)
Discussion: how can we analyse the opportunities and barriers for scaling up MUS? What else
could IRC do to take MUS forward?

3. Block 1:
A reminder and new research
evidence

4. A reminder: what is MUS?
• A livelihood-based approach towards water services provision, that
takes people’s multiple water needs (domestic, productive), with
the view towards improving health and livelihoods in an integrated
manner, often combining multiple sources for multiple uses

5. Where does MUS come
from?
• Recognition of de facto MUS
– “unplanned” uses and causes of “vandalism” in water supply
– The potential these could make to cost-recovery and human well-being
– De facto use of irrigation systems for drinking water supplies and other uses
– Captured in series of case studies
• Proactively planning and catering for multiple uses
– Research into MUS modalities
– Collecting evidence
– Various pilot projects
– Guidelines for implementation
• Promoted by organizations from both WASH and irrigation sectors

6. What does MUS look like?
• Four types:
– Domestic-plus: climbing the water ladder
– Irrigation-plus: add-ons for access
– Self-supply: promoting household investments
for multiple use
– Community MUS: participatory planning for
different water uses, without any pre-set
priority

7. Evidence of use of water
• De facto use of rural water supplies is almost
universal
• But, depends on availability of alternative
open water sources
• In Kenya: 71% use water for productive
activities, but 54% use piped water for this

8. percentage of rural users, using point sources for productive
purposes (n= 1032)

9. Dry season water use
50
45
Median
40
litres per person per day
Lower Quartile
35
30 Upper Quartile
25
20
15
10
5
0
Northern - East Ashanti - Bosomtwe Volta - Ketu South
Gonja

10. Use of water sources for productive uses
100%
% Formal for Productive
90%
80% % Informal for Productive
70%
% of respondants
60% % informal for domestic
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Northern - East Gonja Ashanti - Bosomtwe Volta - Ketu South

11. Benefits of MUS: user
level
• More livelihood benefits than ‘single-use’ services (Renwick
et al. 2007)
– $25-$70 / capita / yr net
– Additional $125-$350 / yr for family of 5
– Above 20 lpcd, each additional lpcd generates $0.5 - $1 / yr of
income
• Particularly high impact for intermediate levels of service
• Non-monetary benefits
– Health
– Food security and nutrition
– Reduced vulnerability and diversification of livelihoods
– Social equity and empowerment
• Low, but not lowest, income category most dependent on
productive use but in absolute terms, high, but not
highest, income group benefits most
• In Kenya 11% of total HH income earned through piped
water

12. Benefits of MUS: services
• High correlation between the extent of MUS and performance
and sustainability of water services:
– no damage of unplanned uses, anticipating competition between
users
– income for cost-recovery and professionalization of service providers
– if more water is more reliably available, more incentive to use it
productively
– Ownership and maintenance in case of self-supply
• Senegal: high productive use systems had, on average, greater
technical sustainability than low systems, but similar financial
sustainability
• Chicken or egg?

13. Benefits of MUS: services
In Senegal, extent of
productive use associated
Greater # of duties undertaken by water committee
More experienced water system operators
Greater % of HHs making upfront cash contributions
for system construction
Greater likelihood that community initiated
construction of water system
Source: Hall et al. 2012

14. What are the costs?
• Incremental costs:
– Higher levels of service
– Transaction costs of more participatory approach
– Opportunity costs: more for some, or some for more
• Evidence:
– Particularly for piped systems, the incremental costs are
low (5-15% additional costs) – e.g. Bolivia, Honduras,
Senegal, Nepal

15. Cost-benefits
• For the majority of systems, the theoretical financial benefits
from piped-water-based productive activities are greater than
the estimated incremental costs of system upgrade
• If all the potential net benefits were used to repay the
incremental costs, these would be recovered in approximately
1-2 years (Senegal, Kenya)

16. Source: Hall et al. 2012

17. Context matters
• High water use correlated with:
– Greater HH wealth, often associated with
percentage of HHs receiving remittances
– Greater % of HHs with at least one literate
member
– Shorter distances to nearest paved road/city
(Senegal), poorer road conditions (Kenya)

18. Conclusions
• Extent of productive use of water positively
associated with better performing supplies –
so that more and more reliable water is
available
• But needs incremental investments, which in
theory can be easily earned back
• Benefitting poor people, but not the poorest

19. • Questions
• Discussion: implications of these research
findings for service delivery approach

20. Block 2
MUS practices

21. Block 3
Institutional opportunities and
barriers for scaling MUS

22. Scaling up MUS
• 4 entry points or models for MUS have
developed over the past few years
• Each with their own characteristics, potential
and barriers
• Basis for identifying scaling pathways

23. Domestic-plus
Characteristics:
- Providing higher levels of service,
for new infrastructure, or in
expansion and rehabilitation
- Strengthening community
management
- Add-ons, like cattle troughs,
community gardens
How to:
- Structured planning approach
- Bringing in livelihoods perspective
in all phases of the project cycle

24. Examples
• Zimbabwe: guidelines for livelihoods-
based planning in rural areas (with
UNICEF)
• Ethiopia: new community-based
WASH and nutrition (with UNICEF)
and accelerated self supply
• Honduras: pilot projects with gravity-
fed piped schemes, using structured
planning approach (also in other Latin
American countries)
• Nepal: gravity-fed schemes in middle
hills

25. Irrigation-plus
Characteristics
• Providing water services for other needs than crop production
through infrastructure adjustments and management reforms
– Add-ons to improve access, e.g. cattle ramps
– Provision of water in bulk for formal drinking water supplies
– Conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water
How to:
• MASSMUS methodology (FAO) for large canal irrigation
schemes
– Assessing multiple uses of water in schemes, and the value generated
through these
– Recognise and address these in canal modernization efforts and
management reforms

26. Example: Krishna Western Delta
(India)
Canal irrigation supplies domestic water for millions of people
through:
• Bulk supply to towns and cities
• Conjunctive use of ground water
• In-stream uses
Assessing these to address them in modernization plans

27. Self-supply
Motorised
Rope pump pumps
Handpump
(communal)
Semi-protected
Unprotected
• Users climb the water by gradually improving their facilities
• Needs support through:
– Supply chain development
– Market development
– Targeted subsidies
– Technology development

28. Community-based MUS
• Participatory planning in water
projects or water components
in participatory programs
• Own priorities for sustainability
• Empowering communities
linked to local government
• Combining multiple sources

29. Scaling up: barriers and
opportunities
• Each of the 4 entry points has its own potential and barriers
• Mainly institutional limitations: mandates and financial frameworks
• Example: domestic-plus:
Market potential: is 1-2 Billion people (60% of poor have assets that would benefit
from MUS)
Opportunities
• Improving service levels
• Higher return per dollar invested
Observed barriers and concerns:
• Use of high quality water for uses that do not require that
• Investing in higher levels of service vs providing basic supplies for unserved
• Sector targets and performance indicators
• Capacity for livelihoods-based planning

30. Scaling pathways
Making MUS models more robust
• Clear definition of service levels
• Targeting to address inequality
• Clear criteria to measure performance
• Relation between sustainability and extent
of MUS
• Culminating in MUS service delivery
models

31. Scaling pathways
Scaling
• Increased awareness and advocacy to identify
and address limitations in policies, norms and
standards
• Building upon existing sector programmes to
leverage public and private finance
• Concentrating in a few areas/countries where
there is heat to generate a critical mass

32. Scaling internationally
• MUS Group: 12 Core members and 350
individual members on the mailing list
• Group activities:
– Advocacy
– Information sharing and knowledge
management
– Promoting innovation and research
• Successes
– Information base established and joint
concept development
– Adoption of the concept and approach by
some international organisations
(USAID, FAO)
• Challenges
– Differentiated targeting of messages to key
audiences
– Establishing relation with bilateral donors

33. Conclusions
• MUS started off as recognizing reality – now moving into:
– Structured implementation
– Overcoming institutional barriers
• Approach with high potential to improve livelihoods of the
poor (but not the poorest?) and sustainability of services
• Wealth of case examples and pilot experiences, culminating in
standardized guidelines
• Still, opportunities to make the models more robust and fit to
different contexts
• Sharing and learning is key – but need to differentiate
messages more