Water

Water Champion: Rebecca Ravalo on rural water supply
Bringing Water To The Rural Poor
July 2004

By Ma. Christina Dueñas
Water Knowledge and Communications Coordinator, ADB

Rebecca Ravalo is the Program Manager for the Water Supply and Sanitation Program Management Office (WSSPMO) of the Department of the Interior and Local Government. She has been involved in water supply and sanitation (WSS) sector for close to two decades now. The WSSPMO is currently managing 5 water supply and sanitation projects funded by the World Bank, Japan Bank for International Cooperation, Japan International Cooperation Agency, German Technical Cooperation, and National Anti-Poverty Commission. In April 2004, the WSSPMO completed its activities for ADB's Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Project (PHI Loan 1440/1441).   Background On average, two out of three people in the rural areas of the Philippines lack access to potable water. This proportion is markedly higher than the Asian average of one in three people. The provision of water supply and sanitation facilities in rural areas is, therefore, a priority of the Philippine Government. ADB's Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project focuses on some 3,000 rural communities in the 20 poorest provinces in the country. Among its objectives were to: Provide safe, adequate and reliable WSS services to selected low-income rural communities through community-based arrangements Support health and hygiene education, water quality surveillance, and community management activities The project is divided into two parts. Part 1- institutional development, which involves capacity building for local institutions, community organization, health and hygiene education, and water quality control and surveillance Part 2- WSS facilities, which involves the construction of some 6,100 water supply systems, and rehabilitation of 2,000 shallow wells and 130 springs. To date, the project has resulted in the construction of 5,869 water supply facilities, organization of 4,172 village water supply associations (BWSAs), and training of about 4000 representatives of communities and local institutions. On the sanitation side, the project has installed 126 public toilets. 252 school toilets. 91,400 household toilets and 64 water analysis laboratories.

What are the country's major challenges to providing safe and accessible water to the rural poor?

We have so many that makes it really challenging to work in this sector. In fact, we probably faced most of them-in one form or another-when implementing the ADB Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Project (RWSSP).

We have 30 agencies handling different aspects of water management and service delivery. Not only does this lead to incredible coordination constraints, but it also means we don't have a single champion for the sector that could make decisions about subsidies, tariffs, prioritization of project areas and such. We also have local government units (LGUs) with limited capacity when it comes to planning, setting up and maintaining water supply systems. Or LGUs that still put their money in infrastructure like bridges, bus terminals, etc. and ignore water and sanitation projects.

It also doesn't help that rural water supply (RWS) projects in the country generally involve lower levels of systems, e.g. from point sources or community tap stands. Communities want more than these, so they take for granted the lower level systems, or refuse to pay for maintenance.

Financing is also a very complex and prevailing issue. Since 2003, we have been promoting a new national government-LGU cost sharing scheme that should enable us to use what scarce resources we have more effectively. The scheme is based on LGU income levels—50-50 sharing for 5^th and 6^th class municipalities, 40-60 sharing in favor of the LGU for 3^rd and 4^th class municipalities, and 30-70 sharing for 1^st and 2^nd class municipalities. Unfortunately, the "dole-out" mentality of many LGUs prevents them from recognizing the need for cost-sharing.

Who were the main beneficiaries of the project and how were they involved?

We focused on the underserved communities in the 20 poorest provinces in the country, and they were actively involved in various stages of the project. We involved them in a lot of consultations and social preparation activities. We also operated on a cost-sharing basis (adopting the old national government-LGU cost sharing scheme), with the national government shouldering 80% of the investment. This meant that our local partners- from the local governments to the communities-had to provide the remaining 20%, either through local construction materials or labor.

Our partner LGUs also had the chance to supervise the implementation of the project, which gave them the opportunity to enhance their technical capacities in handling water and sanitation projects.

Finally, each project community organized a Barangay Waterworks and Sanitation Association (BWSA) to undertake operation and maintenance of completed facilities. Both the Department of the Interior and Local Government and the LGUs assisted communities in establishing their BWSA prior to the construction of facilities, and providing training for technical, institutional, and financial management.

Did the project introduce innovations?

I think that our move to seek the active participation of local governments- from the provincial to municipal to barangay (village) level-in the different stages of the project has helped them acquire a sense of ownership for the water supply systems installed, and we hope that this will ensure sustainability of the systems. It also brought home to the provincial water supply teams we organized their responsibility toward the sector-they're now more open to community participation and more responsive to the communities' requests for assistance.

If you can highlight 3 things about rural water supply in the country, what would they be?

First, that we have to continue promoting and refining the cost-sharing arrangement between national and local governments. Many LGUs have resisted the scheme, especially the recipients of grants from foreign donors who feel that the national government should continually provide them with grant assistance. Since income level is the basis for the sharing, some LGUs opt to remain 5^th and 6^th class municipalities in order to receive more subsidies from the government, disregarding the many benefits they can get from working toward a higher income level classification.

Second, we need to find a way to make our projects more responsive to the demands of rural communities. LGUs aren't really interested in lower level systems anymore, but they continue to avail of such systems because they're the ones offered and heavily subsidized in RWS projects.

Third, we need to continue building the LGUs' capacity to assess their needs and be self- sufficient enough to address them. Capacity building activities need to be developed in a more holistic manner-taking into account the changes sought, strategies adopted, and competencies and incentives required to make the change. We have faced a lot of major issues over the years, and implemented both successful and not-so successful interventions. Always, the agencies and LGUs involved have found a way to resolve or get around the issues. We just need to continue doing this, because the stakes- the improvement in the quality of lives of many rural poor-are just too high.

Related Links

• Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Project [PDF]
• Project Innovations and Good Practices