With the inclusion of Multiple-use Water Services (MUS) in the latest review of the Ethiopian Universal Access Plan (UAP) as the default option for achieving water services coverage, policymakers in Ethiopia need to start understanding what MUS is, why it is being advocated and what implications are for policy makers.  The following Policy Bulletin offers recommendations on MUS, based on RiPPLE case study findings and outcomes of the 2nd International Symposium on MUS we co-hosted with the MUS group.

MUS has a greater impact on poverty and sustainability than single-use systems

MUS refers to an integrated approach to water service delivery that aims to meet households’ water demand for both domestic and productive uses (Faal et al, 2009). With this livelihood-based approach, MUS helps make a greater impact on poverty by combining benefits, such as health and productivity, from better access to water. Sustainability results from better planned and managed schemes; use of ‘smart’ technologies; and cost-effective solutions.

Delivering MUS is more cost-effective than single-use systems

A RiPPLE study in 2008 that looked at cost and benefits of implementing a MUS system in comparison to single-use systems (Adank et al, 2008), showed that additional benefits of MUS greatly outweigh additional costs of implementing MUS. The study compared costs in capital invesment, operation and maintenance and support, with benefits gained from improved health, time-saving and increased productivity. Another analysis of MUS systems around the world places cost-benefit ratios between 2.9 and 27 (Renwick et al, 2007).

MUS is now a recommended strategy in the Ethiopian Universal Access Plan

In a recent review of the Ethiopian Universal Access Plan, MUS has been recognised as a strategy for accelerating progress towards attaining targets. Case studies from Ethiopia have convinced policy-makers of benefits of MUS, through increased community contribution and ownership; cost recovery and sustainability and better chances of rapid scale-up. However, more work needs to be done to fill in knowledge gaps and develop clear guidelines.

Policy recommendations

Scaling up MUS requires various changes in policy and practice

Scaling up MUS needs an enabling environment that promotes inter-sectoral working and participatory planning. Both practitioners and policymakers need to recognise MUS as a key option, and always investigate its potential when contemplating service provision. Practitioners need to be more flexible with designs and accommodate more participatory processes. Policymakers should be looking to coordinate and integrate sectors, such as agriculture, health, natural resources management and water, through a ‘development’ body; facilitate a more decentralised service provision; advocate for ’smart’ technology solutions; and support and promote learning on MUS.

RiPPLE has a new policy brief, “Multiple-use Water Services (MUS): Cost-effective water investments to reduce poverty and address all the MDGs“.

References:

Adank, M., Jeths, M., Belete, B., Chaka, S., Lema, Z., Tamiru, D. and Abebe, Z. (2008) The costs and benefits of multiple uses of water: The case of Gorogutu woreda of East Hararghe zone, Oromia region, Ethiopia: RiPPLE Working Paper 7. RiPPLE: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Faal, J., Nicol, A., and Tucker, J. (2009) Multiple-use Water Services (MUS): Cost-effective water investments to reduce poverty and address all the MDGs, RiPPLE Policy Brief 1. RiPPLE: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Renwick, et. al, 2007, Multiple Use Water Services for the Poor: Assessing the State of Knowledge. A report for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Winrock International: Arlington, VA

Tags: MUS, Policy engagement, UAP

This entry was posted on Friday, October 30th, 2009 at 1:19 pm and is filed under Policy engagement, Supporting Nile-region learning, Understanding water and growth. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.