Municipal Water Supply Systems in Rural Areas of Crimea

UNDP through its Crimea Integration and Development Programme (CIDP)[1] has been supporting the improvement of municipal water supply systems for several years.

Using a social mobilization approach, these projects pursue the dual objective of (1) increasing the self-initiative and social cohesion of multi-ethnic rural communities and (2) improving access to basic social services.

As of today, CIDP has implemented 83 community water supply projects benefiting 18,960 people. The average project costs are between USD 10,000 – 12,000 with in-kind and in-cash contributions from the communities of 25 - 30% and from the Government of 12 – 18%.

Concept

In order to ensure a participatory development approach thatbuilds upon self-reliance and self-organisation right from theoutset of the projects, communities are encouragedto organise themselves in self-governing CommunityOrganisations. During public meetings, facilitated byCIDP’s Community Mobilisation Assistants,common interests, problems and needs are prioritized and a corresponding community development plan is being prepared.Water supplies ranked top on these priority lists.The community organisations then present their development plans to the local village councils and actively participate in the realization of the water supply projects. Finalized projects are being handed over to CommunalEnterprises (KomunKhoz) – the body responsible for themaintenance and management of rural drinking water supplysystems in the village council.

The quality of water supply service provision in rural areas of Crimeais generally verypoor. Water tariffs are centrally determined without taking intoaccount the actual cost of operating and maintaining the watersupply system. Consumers are charged a fixed fee for water, calculatedas a lump sum per head (for domestic use) and per m2(for irrigation) of the kitchen garden.As a result, there are no incentives for individual users to befrugal with their use of water, as the fees were not related to theactual amount consumed. Apart from being environmentallyunsustainable, consumers also felt that this system was intrinsicallyunfair. Consequently, collection of water userfees is inadequate to meet operation and maintenance costs.The corollaries of this weakness are frequent breakdowns andservice interruptions. In turn, the dissatisfaction of users with thepoor service level results in a low willingness to pay. Low willingnessto pay and inefficient fee collection leads to low revenue,which further undermines the possibility of improving servicedelivery.

UNDP/CIDP has responded to this progressively worsening situation- in close collaboration with all stakeholders - by developingan alternative institutional and organizational model forcommunity-based water supply O&M management which istransparent and financially sustainable. Following this model, the village councils becoming the owners of the water supply infrastructure,and authorize the community organizations to autonomously manage, operate and maintain the systems.Subsequently, the community organisations have selected amember who then registers as aCommunity-Based Enterprise (CBE). The communityorganisations have sub-contracted all O&M tasks and responsibilities(including financial administration of the water supplysystems) to the CBE. Water meters are being installed by users in the communities and a rising block tariff systemis introduced.The CBE is responsible for monthly meterreading and for the collection of water charges based onthe tariff approved by the community organisations.Although CBEs have been elected by the community organizations based on existing technical skills, a supporting trainingpackage has been developed by UNDP/CIDP providing the CBEs with tailor-made training on technical matters, basicbusiness management, accounting and financial administration.

The simplicity and transparency of this arrangement has beenproven, and social control has already minimized misuse. Inaddition, water fees are directly linked to the actual costs of thecomponents, which have been discussed with (and approved by)the community organisations. Underthis lean management arrangement, users generally pay lessbecause there is no need for the bureaucratic and technical apparatusgenerally associated with more centralized systems ofwater supply management.Previous conflicts over water distribution in the CIDP’s target settlements are clearly a thing of the past. Houses that were abandoned or sold years ago are being bought again, and the communities are enjoying a new lease of life. The new service has substantially improved the quality of life in the communities. Agricultural production - and thus income from the sale of surplus production - has increased substantially.

The projects show that meaningful community involvement through social mobilization can lead to positive changes in attitude - even in thecomplex environment of post-soviet Crimea. Attitudes can bechanged so that communities are able to take stock of their ownsituation, identify their own needs, set their own priorities anddecide what resources they can contribute towards the solutionof their own problems.This growing awareness is currently contributing to mainstreamcommunity involvement in planning and decision-making processesthroughout the Crimea.

Replication and up-scaling the CIDP experience

The Government of Crimea has expressed a strong interest in (a) expanding the community-based water supply systems to other regions and (b) up-scaling these mechanisms. UNDP/CIDP has been requested to assist in reforming the rural water supply system in Crimea.

In this context, the Ministry of Economy of Crimea and UNDP/CIDP agreed to set up a joint working group with the following functions:

  • study the CIDP experience, document lessons learned and review bottlenecks and obstacles the programme faced;
  • assess the applicability of the CIDP mechanisms in the above areas for integration into the rural water supply systems of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC);
  • review pertinent legislative and regulatory frameworks, current ARC practices and undertake a functional review of ARC structures in these areas;
  • cost the CIDP mechanisms;
  • develop recommendations for adapting the regulatory framework, practices and structures necessary to apply CIDP mechanisms;
  • identify areas for further assistance, includingneeds for regulatory reform, institution- and capacity-building.

External assistance would be required in supporting this working group and in implementing its recommendations for the reform of the municipal water supply system in Crimea.

This would consist of the following:

1. An assessment of

a)the lessons learned from relevant CIDP interventions;

b)the current system of municipal water supply in Crimeaincluding its legal and regulatory framework;

c)the institutional changes that are required to improve local-level water supply, in particular with regard to

  • optimal arrangements for production and provision activities including their level of decentralization to local Governments,
  • opportunities for using different forms of alternative service delivery mechanisms,
  • assignment of service responsibilities and authority, insuring accountability of local decision makers, and ensuring broad-based participation etc.;

d)capacities-building needs at the local and ARC Government levels for effective public service delivery;

e)the role and strategy of CIDP to assist with the reform of the municipal water supply system considering the potential for up-scaling CIDP interventions at the community level;

f)the concrete interventions that CIDP will need to undertake in this regard and the outputs it will have to deliver, in particular to

  • reaching a decision with the authorities on the necessary institutional changes and assist in their implementation at local and ARC levels;
  • address capacity gaps;
  • assist in the revision of existing and development of new laws and regulations in order to create the legal basis for the above to the extent necessary;
  • establish appropriate structures and processes;
  • relate these interventions to the ongoing territorial and administrative reform process in Ukraine.

2. Institutional capacity-building and assistance in changing the respective regulatory framework based on the outcome of the above needs assessment.

3. Expansion of the current interventions at the community-level to other districts of Crimea.

1

[1]In 1995, UNDP launched the Crimea Integration & Development Programme (CIDP) in response to the increasing risk of violent conflict in Crimea between the resident population and the recently returned Formerly Deported People. In 2004, CIDP’s mandate was renewed until the end of 2007 with the objective to foster sustainable human development in a manner that contributes to the maintenance of peace and stability in Crimea through initiatives aimed at preventing interethnic violence and enhancing peaceful coexistence among different ethnic groups.