Round 2

December 2010

Best Practices & Innovations (BPI) Initiative

Agriculture & Rural Livelihoods

Water for Health and Wealth

Winrock International
Innovation Award for Natural Resources Management and Productivity

Overview:
Multiple-use water services (MUS) is a consumer-oriented approach to water service delivery that takes
people’s multiple domestic and productive water needs as the starting point to plan, finance and
manage integrated water services. In the Zinder region of Niger, Winrock International’s innovative
“Water for Health and Wealth” MUS Project, funded by USAID and Coca Cola, is helping poor
households gain access to water for drinking, food production and income generation using locally
manufactured pumps. By taking an integrated approach to water services, Winrock is helping
households reduce water-related diseases and turn limited gardens into a year-round source of income
with benefits to both health and livelihoods.

Intervention Details:
Location Niger -- Zinder (since December, 2008); Tanzania – Morogoro (since
March, 2010)
Start Date November 15, 2008
End Date December 15, 2010 (additional funding received for continuation of work
under different funding source)
Scale Local/Community
Target Population Poor rural households/villages—men, women and children
Number of beneficiaries 13,500
Partners
Funders/Donors USAID (via ARD) and Coca Cola (via GETF)
Total Funding $1.2 million
Website www.winrock.org; www.winrockwater.org
For 3 min video on project , where you can get a better sense of
approach and impacts, see:
English: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwqUtVRKNIQ
French: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKQaAmlYJP8
 Round 2
December 2010

About the Intervention

1. Background/Context
What challenges or problems were the interventions designed to address? Why was the intervention
needed?

“Winrock International, a global leader in promoting MUS worldwide… has had outstanding results
[in Niger] and is providing “proof of concept” to regional governments and WASH sector actors about
MUS.” – USAID Ghana, West Africa Regional Mission, 2010.

Summary of the Pilot Project. In the Zinder region of Niger, Winrock International’s innovative
Multiple-Use Water Services Project, funded by USAID and Coca Cola, is helping poor households gain
access to water for drinking, food production and income generation using locally manufactured
pumps. By taking an integrated approach to water services, Winrock is helping households to reduce
water-related diseases and turn limited gardens into a year-round source of income with benefits to
both health and livelihoods. (See our utube video to get a sense of the project and impact
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwqUtVRKNIQ)

Background on the Innovation—Multiple-Use Water Services. Lack of access to water for domestic
and productive activities has been identified as a key constraint to improving the health and
livelihoods of the more than 2 billion rural poor living on less than $2/day (HDR, 2006). Poor
populations need water for a variety of essential uses ranging from drinking, hygiene, and sanitation
to food production and income generation. Yet, existing approaches to water service delivery typically
focus on providing water for a single-use—for example, drinking or irrigation. Unplanned uses of
single-use systems often lead to sustainability problems and/or conflicts over water.

Multiple-Use Water Services (or MUS) is a consumer-oriented approach to water service delivery
that takes people’s multiple domestic and productive water needs as the starting point to plan,
finance, and manage integrated water services. The potential to replicate, scale up, and
institutionalize multiple-use approaches depends, in part, on the costs and benefits of incremental
investments. With support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Winrock completed a
systematic cost-benefit assessment of single- versus multiple-use water services and their potential
applicability in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (Renwick et al., 2007).1 The results suggest that
although MUS may in some cases cost more than single-use services, they offer significant advantages
because they:

Generate more income and benefits, such as improved health, nutrition, time savings, food
security, livelihood diversification, increased resiliency in the face of climate variability, and social

1
Renwick, et al., 2007. “Multiple Use Water Services for the Poor: Assessing the State of Knowledge,” pp
86-102 prepared for Bill and Melinda Gates by Winrock International, IRC Water and Sanitation Center,
and International Water Management Institute. Report is available at www.winrockwater.org
 Round 2
December 2010

empowerment; and

Increase sustainability of services. Productive water use generates income that increases the
ability of households to cover ongoing operation, maintenance, and replacement costs of
multiple-use systems. Because they better meet the water needs of communities, MUS increase
returns on community investment and decrease conflict related to water access as well as
damage to infrastructure caused by “illegal” or unplanned uses.

The study provided the first body of concrete evidence on returns on investment from MUS and on
the potential market size in rural sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia—over 1 billion poor people in five
high-potential opportunity areas that could benefit from MUS. The scoping study helped us gain an
understanding of “why” MUS and to some extent “where”. The pilot in Niger has provided further
information on “how” to implement—a critical step in replication and scaling-up of this innovative
and promising approach.

2. Goals & Objectives

What were the intervention’s goals and objectives? What was it meant to accomplish?
The goal of the project was to introduce economically and technically viable multiple-use water
services that enable poor rural households in Niger to achieve sustainable and equitable
improvements in access to water, income, health, hygiene, and food security. The primary project
objectives were to:

Objective 1: Provide reliable access to multiple-use water services that are designed and
implemented to sustainably2 meet domestic and productive water needs.

Objective 2: Improve health for poor rural households by providing access to safe drinking water and
promoting improved hygiene practices at the household level.

Objective 3: Increase annual incomes and diversify livelihoods of poor rural households through
locally appropriate strategies that support and sustain incomes from productive
water use activities (such as horticulture, livestock and aquaculture).

Objective 4: Catalyze a supportive environment for MUS learning, replication, and scale-up through
outreach, education, and establishment of a multi-stakeholder MUS Learning
Alliance.

From the onset, gender was seen as an integral part of this project, cutting across all four objectives
and resulting in the increased participation of women in – and benefits to women from – improved
access to multiple-use water services.

3. Key Activities
Please describe the intervention’s main activities. What role did each partner play? If applicable, how
is the intervention innovative?

2
We define sustainability to include: financial, technical, social, institutional, and environmental.
 Round 2
December 2010

Overview. Winrock’s approach to MUS involves developing a carefully delineated integrated program
designed to improve the health and livelihoods of rural smallholders. As described above, MUS
differs from single-use approaches, by addressing both health and productive water-related needs
within an integrated framework.3 Winrock’s MUS approach, includes four main components—water
(domestic and productive), health, livelihoods, and learning/replication, which are described below.

Technical Approach. Underpinning Winrock’s approach to multiple-use services are a number of key
guiding principles for selection and implementation of activities, including:

Water services must be demand-driven and start with a holistic assessment of domestic
and productive needs.
Water used for productive activities should generate at least a modest amount of
income with the goal of supporting payment for water services.
Households and communities must pay, at least partially, for water services.

MUS Niger project activities fall into four main components, which embody these principles and
reflect the objectives above.
Component 1: Increase Access to Multiple-Use Water Services.
Project activities support access to water services for domestic and productive uses using low-cost
water technologies and services in shallow groundwater areas for small communities. We have
targeted sedentary communities with populations under 500 to install new community-based low-
cost MUS for those yet not served or upgraded existing community-based systems to MUS systems
using a combination of low-cost upgrades and improvements in management. Key community-level
activities include: 1) Identify and mobilize communities for MUS; 2) Facilitate community selection of
supply options, financing, and private business for installation, and; 3) Support establishment of
Water Users Associations (WUAs) and provide training.
Project activities also focus on establishing/strengthening a demand-driven private sector supply
chain for low-cost water technologies and services, ensuring quality control and catalyzing
technological innovations. The primary activities involve identifying, selecting, and providing training
to pump manufacturers and drillers to produce and install, at a profit, low-cost technologies for
domestic and productive activities. Technologies to date include the rope pump, treadle pump, and
Canzee pump. Drilling methods include hand augering and percussion. The project provides both
technical and business development services training. For technical training, we advocate a training-
of-trainers approach, the project hires expert pump fabricators and low-cost drillers to provide
training to local staff (a pump manufacture and driller), who will in turn train local manufactures and
drillers. Local trainers will provide ongoing training and quality control inspections to manufacturers
and drillers/installers over the course of the project.
Component 2: Increase Incomes and Diversify Livelihoods of Rural Households
Our approach to increasing household income from productive water uses focuses on providing
strategic information and training to support smallholder involvement in profitable high-value
horticultural and livestock markets. Smallholders tend to be ill served or bypassed as a market

3
Single-use approaches tend to focus on drinking water and health (for example typical domestic water projects focus on
developing the water point, water users association and health outreach related to hygiene and sanitation) or irrigation water and
production (for example typical irrigation water projects focus on water technologies for irrigation and agricultural extension related
to production, marketing and inputs).
 Round 2
December 2010

segment for a number of reasons: they are located in sparsely populated remote areas, they have low
purchasing power, they make purchases and sell produce in small volumes, and the quality and
quantity of their production is inconsistent. To participate effectively in markets, individual
smallholders must overcome constraints, including access to water, agricultural inputs,
transportation, and credit. Through this project, three critical types of support were provided: 1)
access to improved water lifting and irrigation technology (that was locally manufactured) to enable
producers to expand irrigated area, particularly during the hungry season when there are significant
constraints on labor available due to demands related to rainfed millet and bean production; 2)
market information and human capacity building for high-value horticultural and aquaculture. Special
emphasis was placed on supporting women to establish gardens.

Component 3: Promote Better Health through Improved Hygiene Practices

Access to MUS has multiple positive impacts on the health of the rural population. Communities
benefit from access to safe drinking water as well as adequate quantities of water for hygiene, food
preparation, and cleaning. In addition, households engaged in production of horticultural crops and
livestock realize benefits in terms of improved nutrition and food security. Women and girls benefit
from reduced drudgery and physical stress due to reduced burdens associated with lifting and
carrying heavy water containers for long distances.
The project promotes practices that help keep new and refurbished water points free from
contamination, and protected (such as a concrete apron around the well to prevent standing water
from seeping down along the well casing and contaminating the aquifer). To optimize health benefits
from improved access to safe drinking water, the project’s hygiene specialist works directly with
communities to increase awareness and capacity to assess the causes and consequences of poor
hygiene practices. Project activities equip communities to identify and promote collective and
individual best practices to improve health, especially for children under five. Key activities include: 1)
water quality testing and training for water users (households and communities), and; 2) training in
basic hygiene practices with a focus on handwashing.
Component 4: Catalyze a supportive environment for MUS Learning, Replication, and Scale-Up
Because MUS is a new approach for provision of water services, this component is designed to
increase awareness of MUS as well as stimulate the creation of a network of sector professionals,
practitioners, and researchers for mutual learning, replication and scale-up. Key activities included: 1)
Conducting outreach and education on MUS to Ministries, NGOs, and sector professionals; 2)
Establishing a MUS Learning Alliance to create a platform for interested government ministries, NGOs,
and sector professionals to share knowledge, experience, and practices.

4. Effectiveness/Evidence of Success

What were the results of the intervention, and how were they measured? Who and how many people
benefited from the intervention? What evidence do you have to support these results (e.g. field visit
reports, internal tracking & monitoring, internal or external evaluations, etc.)?

Since November 2008, Winrock’s Multiple-Use Water Services project in Zinder, Niger has:
Increased access to water for domestic and productive uses to over 13,500 people
Trained (or provided follow-up training to) three irrigation pump manufacturers and three
rope pump manufacturers
Sold over 100 irrigation pumps at full-cost
 Round 2
December 2010

Trained 86 gardeners with underdeveloped gardens

Supported the development of 3 dynamic women’s cooperative gardens
Installed and provided training for seven experimental aquaculture ponds
Provided 17,295 people with hygiene training leading to 592 hand washing stations being
purchased and installed by households

Note: For more detailed information on beneficiaries and outputs, see copies of quarterly reports.

5. Equitable Outcomes

Please describe how the intervention enabled the participation of women and the specific benefits that
resulted for them. Please provide data showing the comparative benefits for men and women. If the
intervention focused primarily or exclusively on men, please explain the rationale for doing so.

Involvement and benefits to women as a result of the project, include:

Easy availability of water supplies reduces water-carrying burdens for girls (see solution story of
Hafiza). Women and girls haul water for both domestic and small stock use.
Less time spent hauling water and caring for family members who are sick because of water- and
sanitation related illnesses means that women have more time for productive activities,
education, and leisure.
Participation of women in Water Users Association (>30% of leadership positions in WUA held by
women).

The establishment of three cooperative women’s gardens. Produce from the garden is consumed and
sold. (Note: Data has been collected on production, consumption and sales and is available on
demand.)

6. Efficiency/Cost-Effectiveness
How do the intervention’s relative costs compare to the outcomes achieved? Please provide evidence
to support your answer.

MUS Costs, Benefits, Poverty Impacts and Applicability—the evidence base.

The potential to replicate, scale up, and institutionalize multiple-use approaches depends, in part, on
the costs and benefits of incremental investments. With support from the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, Winrock completed a systematic cost-benefit assessment of single- versus multiple-use
water services and their potential applicability in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (Renwick et al.,
2007).4 The results suggest that although MUS may in some cases cost more than single-use services,
they offer significant advantages because they:

4
Renwick, et al., 2007. “Multiple Use Water Services for the Poor: Assessing the State of Knowledge,” pp
86-102 prepared for Bill and Melinda Gates by Winrock International, IRC Water and Sanitation Center,
and International Water Management Institute. Report is available at www.winrockwater.org
 Round 2
December 2010

Generate more income and benefits, such as improved health, nutrition, time savings, food
security, livelihood diversification, increased resiliency in the face of climate variability, and social
empowerment; and

Increase sustainability of services. Productive water use generates income that increases the
ability of households to cover ongoing operation, maintenance, and replacement costs of
multiple-use systems. Because they better meet the water needs of communities, MUS increase
returns on community investment and decrease conflict related to water access as well as
damage to infrastructure caused by “illegal” or unplanned uses.

The findings indicate that each additional liter of water, above the international drinking water norm
of 20 liters per capita per day (lpcd) generates an additional $.50 of income. At the recommended
levels of water service delivery (intermediate service level—60-100 lpcd), this amounts to an
additional $250/year to the average family.

The study identified a market of over 1 billion rural poor people in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa
in five high-potential opportunities areas who could benefit from MUS. Please see the study
(attached and online at www.winrockwater.org or via
http://www.winrockwater.org/docs/Final%20Report%20Multiple%20Use%20Water%20Services%20F
inal%20report%20feb%2008.pdf) for detailed information on costs, benefits, poverty impacts, and
opportunities for implementation (to reach a potential market of 1 billion) by country in sub-Saharan
Africa and South Asia.

7. Sustainability
Is this intervention sustainable in the long-term, socially, financially and environmentally? Please
describe the steps the intervention took to ensure services or impacts will be sustained over the long
term, and the role of local partners or the beneficiary community in continuing the intervention.

In Niger, there are no official statistics on the number of non-functional pumps, but some
stakeholders in government and NGOs speculate that as many as 80% of pumps could be non-
functional (RWSN, 2006). There are at least 3 main reasons for this lack of durability: (1) The high
cost and availability of spare parts. Some replacement parts for hand pumps common in Niger cost
over $500, which is expensive given that 85% of the population survives on less than $2/day, mostly
from subsistence rain-fed agriculture and livestock.(2) Overuse (often by watering livestock) leading
to frequent breakdowns, and; (3) Lack of community organization.

Winrock International’s Multiple-Use Water Services project in Niger has been tackling these
obstacles to sustainable water access in four ways:
Lowering cost and increasing availability of spare parts by training local metalworkers to
make low-cost pumps for both drinking and irrigation. The drinking water pumps are made
from completely local materials and the cost of the pump (not including borehole) for a small
community is less than $175 and spare parts cost $3-25;
Increasing the communities earning power by providing access to water for economic uses,
such as market gardening and aquaculture;
Preventing overuse by calculating actual water needs of small livestock, factoring them into
 Round 2
December 2010

the targeted amount of water to be provided, and putting in several pumps in the same
village when necessary, and ;
Providing water point management training to communities and close follow-up over several
months by field agents.

8. Challenges & Lessons Learned

What challenges or obstacles did you face and how were they addressed? What are the most
important lessons a reader should take from this practice?

MUS is an new approach with substantial promise. One of the biggest challenges faced is trying to
figure out “What is needed to stimulate sufficient adoption of MUS so that this innovative approach
reaches a tipping point and its continued adoption becomes self-sustaining?” A number of important
obstacles are limiting adoption of MUS, including:

Lack of integration. Sector-based approaches and concomitant funding lead to a lack of

integration of solutions, institutions (programs, policies, human resources), and funding for
potable water, irrigation, and sanitation. For example, in Niger (and now Tanzania) we have
sufficient funding for domestic water related activities but constraints on productive water
use.

Lack of operational models for MUS. The newness of the approach, coupled with limited
funding, has meant a lack of customizable operational models for implementation of MUS in a
variety of settings.

Lack of MUS capacity. Many possible implementing partners, ranging from grassroots
organizations and local and international NGOs to governments and researchers, possess the
requisite core competencies skills and experience required for MUS but lack the experience to
design, implement, and evaluate MUS.

Lack of awareness and understanding. While awareness of MUS is growing and the
knowledge base is evolving, gaps still exist. There is a need for advocacy targeted to different
audiences. A particularly significant gap is learning linked to implementation.

Limited implementation, coupled with a lack of operational models and capacity, has created a catch-
22 for MUS uptake and replication: Donors and implementing organizations are increasingly
interested in pilot initiatives, yet there are no commonly accepted working models for program
design, implementation, and learning. Bold and successful examples –such as the work in Niger—will
accelerate progress towards the tipping point.

9. Enabling Factors & Recommendations

What factors were critical to the success of the intervention? What should others know about this
intervention before replicating it elsewhere?
 Round 2
December 2010

Success factors include: huge unmet need in Niger, substantial hydrological potential,
excellent staff, and highly motivated communities. Water is a great entry point into a
community due to its universality in terms of need.

Key recommendations include: 1) A program of sufficient size (>$3,000,000 USD) in order to

be able to justify hiring full-time specialists for the water, hygiene and, especially, livelihoods
components, and: 2) Programs of sufficient length (4-5 years) in order to really see evolution
in livelihoods and to follow up with water management committees.

10. Replicability/Adaptability
Has this intervention been successfully replicated or adapted in another setting? If so, where, when
and by whom?

In March 2010, Winrock launched another MUS program in Tanzania and anticipated additional
funding from USAID for Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali. Winrock, in collaboration with IDE, has also
implemented MUS in Nepal.