Matriz DOFA

Well owners’ wealth and education

It may be assumed that only the richest people can and do invest in a well, and so Self Supply does not reach the poorest or most disadvantaged. The surveys included woreda-specific wealth indicators which were applied to owner households and sharers. Observation was also made of house roof type. In most cases, households have also improved the roof of their house to corrugated metal, which is an indicator of wealth but also of an active desire to improve quality of life.

There is no wealth indicator for comparison between woredas, so ranking relates to variation within the woreda. However a significantly lower proportion of well owners in Kombolcha and Haramaya fall in the lowest quintile. In SNNPR over a third (37%) of well owners fall in the poorest quintile (owning none of the indicator assets), compared with 18% in Oromia. Some 26% of SNNPR well owners are in the top two wealth quintiles, and 10% in Oromia. The majority of owner households have no or only one of the wealth indicators (58% in SNNPR, 61% in Oromia). Overall these findings suggest that initiative rather than wealth might be the main enabler in constructing a well. It is also apparent that it is not so much the best educated but the most motivated who have invested in wells. Just under half of wells (42% in SNNPR, and 47% in Oromia) were owned by households whose heads are illiterate, and two-thirds have not completed primary education (87% and 58% respectively).

Overall it appears that ownership of a well is not at all confined to the richest, but that further investment in the well is linked to greater wealth, without being able to say which leads to the other. Generally greater access to water allows more income generation, and so more potential to invest in further improvements to supply and to other aspects of the household.

In terms of cultural background, the woredas studied which have the most cash crop production and family wells tend to be ones with high Moslem populations. It may be that to encourage progression up the technology ladder, or

31

even onto the technology ladder, will require slightly different approaches in different cultural settings, but also some exchange visits for people to see what can be achieved with their own resources.

capital investment in household water supply

Owning a well requires both capital expenditure in the infrastructure (initial and upgrading) and recurrent and capital maintenance expenditure to keep the well producing water. The level of owner investment depends on several factors:

• The ease of well excavation (hardness of rock, risk of caving in) and depth to reliable water;

• The amount of help or of contributions from neighbours who may also use the well;

• The amount of work the owner does him/ herself rather than contracting it out to others;

• How long ago the work was done, and what types and amounts of material and equipment were used;

• The level of technology and its maintenance needs; and

• The availability of cash within specific rural economies.

Costs incurred by well owners therefore vary enormously. They are linked not only to physical conditions but also to the ‘modus operandi’ that has grown up in different areas, with high value cash crops offering a particular incentive to develop higher levels of service delivery. As a result, the costs per traditional well in Meskan are almost three times those in Aleta Wendo, but ten times less than in Oromia (or perhaps half, if inflation were included) . This may be partly because a higher proportion of SNNPR wells were constructed many years ago when costs were lower, but also because wells in Kombolcha and Haramaya more often have pulleys, masonry linings and aprons. Once mechanised pumps and water storage for irrigation are included, and rates of investment reach twenty times as high (see Table 3.1).

table 3.1 capital costs and labour inputs

Average cost per

woreda costs in etB

SnnPr trAditionAL roPe And BucKet (r+B) WeLLS oroMiA (KoMBoLchA And hArAMAYA)

traditional wells Aleta Wendo Boloso Sore Meskan Average traditional _{r+B wells} Mechanised _wells

Lifting device cost 28 49 50 42 280 3911

Materials 80 264 166 165 4484 6970

Labour 125 183 453 253 2056 2379

total 233 496 669 460 6820 13260

Well excavation With labour input

from……. Aleta Wendo Boloso Sore Meskan Average oromia tW oromia MW

Owner 3% 18% 98% 40% 70% 64%

Owner's family 0% 7% 97% 35% 34% 34%

Artisans 0% 4% 0% 1% 44% 46%

Unskilled labour 97% 77% 82% 85% 36% 28%

Other users 0% 3% 4% 2% 6% 4%

N.B. Costs have not been adjusted to current values and bearing in mind the devaluation of the Birr over time, a traditional well costing around 500ETB in 1990 would be estimated to cost five times as much (2500 ETB) in 2010.

A hidden resource Household-led rural water supply in Ethiopia

32

In richer farming areas, the investment in a traditional well may exceed US$ 1000 (assuming a nominal exchange rate of 17ETB to US$ 1), but averages about 7000ETB (about US$ 400) for the well and its protection, rising to 13000ETB (about US$ 750) if a mechanised pump is installed. In poorer areas, simple well completion with minimum protection may cost only some US$ 10-40, with most work done by unskilled labour.

Most well owners in SNNPR employ unskilled labour, and in Oromia, skilled labour. Only in Meskan in SNNPR, but more widely in Oromia, do the owner and family carry out much of the work themselves, and so reduce costs. Few owners look beyond the family for unpaid inputs, as this may reduce their ownership of the supply.

Loans for well excavation and development are rare at present since micro-credit institutions and traditional savings schemes do not yet recognise water supply as a viable investment. Even where large investments are required (e.g., mechanised pumps) families tend to raise money from their savings and from selling agricultural produce. Most well owners (80%) expected to have recovered the cost of investing in a mechanised pump within one year in Oromia, and of a rope pump in SNNPR in six months. Capital expenditure (CapEx) impact can be maximised by:

a) making available micro-credit that allows bridging between one harvest and the next; b) building more on savings schemes, both traditional and modern; and

c) establishing smaller incremental steps, which allow income generation with less initial cost, from which bigger investments are then made possible.

The rope pump may be best promoted in the beginning as an affordable interim step between rope and bucket and mechanised pumps, but one which enables small scale irrigation and so increases income for further investment. Levels of recurrent investment in household water supply (capital maintenance expenditure, capManex) The advantage of family wells is that maintenance is simple, usually involving cleaning out the well so debris does not accumulate and dry out the well, and/ replacing/ up-grading lifting devices. Since owners themselves have sourced materials and well-diggers, masons and where relevant, mechanics, they have all the necessary contacts and knowledge of costs to carry out necessary maintenance. As a result, in SNNPR almost 75% of privately-owned wells receive regular maintenance, and almost two-thirds of Oromia wells with mechanised pumps or simple traditional wells. Cleaning out is carried out regularly (usually on an annual basis) by almost all well owners surveyed in SNNPR and by over half of those in Oromia.

On-going costs relate not only to regular maintenance but to up-grading. A quarter of SNNPR and Oromia well owners have further improved well head protection in years after well excavation, especially top lining to stabilise the well mouth, and the addition of pulleys or pumps.

Such levels of commitment both indicate continued interest to invest in the water supply, and greater probability of sustainability, which is also demonstrated in Section 2.3.