KYRGYZ REPUBLIC: RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROJECT

Transcription

1 KYRGYZ REPUBLIC: RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROJECT IFI Coordination in Provision of Rural Water and Sanitation Services Presentation by Jonathan Kamkwalala

2 Project Details Project Objectives: (a) improve access to potable water in the villages of Issyk- Kul, Naryn and Talas regions in northern Kyrgyzstan through a community approach (b) improve hygiene, sanitation and water related practices in a sustainable manner Total Project Cost and Financing: Project Cost: US$24.5 million IDA Financing: US$15.0 million DFID Financing: US$ 6.2 million GOK/Community Financing: US$ 3.3 million Implementation Period: March 2002 to October 2008

3 Main Project Features Project uses demand driven approach at village level involving all community members Project strengthens capacity to manage water/sanitation systems by supporting establishment of Community Drinking Water Users Unions (CDWUUs) at the local level The Project has helped establish a decentralized system for the management of rural water supply, by facilitating the dissolution of a Soviet style central institution that was responsible for operation of rural water systems Instead, a more streamlined central department largely responsible for policy making has been established

4 IFI Partnerships WB financed water supply activities in villages selected on a demand driven basis DFID financed hygiene promotion and good sanitation in villages selected for water supply sub-projects In addition, DFID financed technical assistance for project implementation and institutional capacity building DFID/WB Project approach and methodology was adopted in Southern Regions with similar parallel project financed by Asian Development Bank (ADB)

5 Project Achievements By end 2007, project activities had been completed in 120 villages covering 138,000 village residents. The health impact of hygiene and sanitation activities was significant; water borne diseases in participating villages dropped significantly The population to receive clean water from the project will exceed original estimates Community development approach has been internalized and communities participation in selection, implementation of water supply systems is satisfactory Together, the Bank/DFID and ADB projects will cover over 60% of Kyrgyz rural areas

6 Main Challenges in Scaling Up Acceptance by communities of simpler, more rudimentary but sustainable water supply systems from those provided under the former Soviet Union, which are no longer sustainable Acceptance by communities of cost recovery principle and community contribution to project costs after a legacy of Soviet provided subsidized water systems Continued capacity to operate and manage the systems after project completion Weak institutional capacity of Central Government for policy making Possible politicization in the selection of participating villages

7 Lessons Learned Sustained dialogue with communities to ensure acceptance of approach is critical (at the expense of delays to project implementation) Simple project design with activities initially focusing on demonstration effect and scaling up later Community involvement oriented towards engaging communities on priorities, options, and empowering them with information on project and technical solutions helped overcome some of the initial resistance to project approach

8 Benefits of IFI Collaboration WB/DFID Collaboration allowed for greater leverage in discussing policy reforms with Government and promoted harmonization DFID grant resources leveraged Bank credit sources for effective use of resources DFID/Bank Collaboration allowed other donors, e.g., ADB to join the bandwagon Complementary Support in strategic financing now being provided under OECD National Policy Dialogue Initiative, thus increasing potential of scaling up of donor support Bank/DFID collaboration will continue in a follow-up project

9 Challenges of IFI Collaboration and Lessons Learned Differences in donor policies created potential for conflict in such areas as procurement, fund disbursements, etc Co-financing effectiveness would benefit from better complementarities in activities financed; i.e. DFID financing was sometime seen as separate project by stakeholders Ownership at the Central Government level was inadequate as project was seen as donor owned

10 Thank You!