Sustainability Planning and Monitoring

LOOKING BACK TO SEE FORWARDEffective management: level and timelinessof repairs, quality of budgeting and accountkeeping.Men and women in each community had theopportunity to express their qualitative andquantitative perceptions regarding the aspectsbeing assessed, and to see where their systemsstood on the sustainability scales. They were thusable to see areas where they needed to improvescores, for their systems to be more sustainable.The summary of the specific findings from 38villages are presented in Figures 24, 25, 26.●Only ten communities out of 38 haveestablished a water and sanitation committee.Systems are mostly managed by user groupsthat have very limited knowledge of operation,management and maintenance. Women’sparticipation in decision making andmanagement of the facilities is very low.Emerging implicationsThe study pinpoints several key issues to considerduring future planning, implementation and useof rural water supply services in Lao PDR.●Most communities judged the quality of theirsystem (design, construction and materials) tobe generally sound (Figure 24). Only 5 percentof the communities classified the technicaldesign as poor. Improved technical trainingand services of district and provincial Nam Saatofficers seem to be producing positive impacts●All the four factors - such as system quality,effective functioning, effective financing, andeffective management - are essential and needto be studied to assess sustainability. As thisstudy shows, even though all households in avillage may have access, households do noton design, construction, and installation ofequipment. Also, the growing free market islikely injecting exposure to new technology andcompetition.●While the majority of systems scored abovethe mid-point of 100-point scales, i.e., above50 point 49 for system quality and effectivefunctioning, the scores for financing andmanagement were generally poor, with morethan half of the sample communities scoringbelow the sustainability benchmark level of 50points (see Figures 25 and 26).●No proper financial system is in place in amajority of the sampled communities. Less thanone third of the communities have establisheduser fees. Even where if established, user feesare insufficient to cover costs of operation andmaintenance, repairs, and future expansionof the system. Communities do very little orno financial planning for the future.49 Possible maximum score for each component of sustainability is 100. Thus, for each of the four “factors”a maximum score of 100 is possible. These four “factor” scores are added together to give an overallsustainability score out of 400, in Figure 21.134