Sustainability Planning and Monitoring

HOW WELL DID THOSE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN FLORES WORK?the major reason, especially concerning thesharing of water resources. The projects hadno particular mechanisms to deal with thisimportant determinant of sustainability, neitherin brokering agreements nor in facilitatingalternative supply options in the absence ofreasonable agreements. The more ambitiousschemes were more likely to expose conflicts,and conflicts tended to be more severe in drierareas, where the competition for scarceresources, especially during the dry season,was more pronounced.4. A few made the decisions for many. All thesampled projects were designed aroundparticipatory, community-based approaches.But in implementation, ordinary villagers (bothmen and women) had little say in the keyproject decisions. They had participated in 10percent or fewer decisions about projectinitiation, choice of technology or level ofservice; in 19 percent of the decisions regardinglocations for facilities; in 26 percent of thedecisions about operation and maintenancearrangements, and less than half the decisionsregarding the selection of committee membersand financing arrangements. These matterswere typically decided by project staff with thevillage elite or with community leaders.Where project planning had been moreinclusive of both women and men, and of thepoor households, water systems weresignificantly better sustained and used (seeFigure 27 for correlations found).5. Financial sustainability threatened. Regularuser payments do not cover full recurrent costs(operation and maintenance, repairs, plusdepreciation) for water supplies in any of thesampled villages. 59 percent of communitieshave major shortfalls in covering justoperational costs. Similar to the trend seen indetermining contributions towards capital costs,almost all villages had set fixed water usercharges for all consumers (flat rates per capitaor per household) irrespective of economicmeans and lifestyles. Where these water userfees are actually collected, the flat ratedisadvantages the poor, who tend to consumeless water, but for whom the water tariffrepresents a greater proportion of their income.This inequity likely reflects their lack ofparticipation in decision making as mentionedearlier.6. What makes for better management? Only31 percent of the communities still have activeWater Management Organizations (WMOs)three to eight years after project completion.Those with higher proportions of women aremore active. More equitable (gender andpoverty inclusive) WMOs are associated withbetter performing services, more effectivemanagement and better cost recovery from userpayments. These relationships are statisticallysignificant (see Figure 27). The quality of localmanagement was the most important groupof factors correlated with sustainabilityoutcomes. The communities which had bettermanagement arrangements (equitable control,setting own rules, accounting to users forservices and financial issues) also tended tohave better functioning and more regularlyand universally paid-for services, although thelevel of financing was not optimal.Emerging lessons for agencypolicy and practiceThe findings point clearly towards the followingconclusions and lessons for future projects:146