Topic: Regeneration and infrastructure

“CARE has carried out water, sanitation and hygiene and WRM (hereafter referred to collectively as water+) work for over 55 years and is currently managing approximately 181 projects in both emergency response and long-term development in over 40 countries. In fiscal year 2012 (July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012) over 1.5 million people benefited directly from CARE’s developmental work in water+ and over 9 million from its humanitarian (emergency) water+ work. During the 1960s CARE focused on water hardware installations in poor rural communities in the developing world. Over the next 30 years as its experience grew, CARE tackled other water-related components such as sanitation, watershed protection, and health and hygiene education. Although projects supported by CARE have been predominantly rural, CARE has undertaken an increasing number of urban projects since the early 1990s. These include water supply, drainage, on-site sanitation and sewer construction, and solid waste management. Most recently the emphasis has been on building the capacity of local institutions (through working in partnerships with local non-government organizations [NGOs], local governments and the private sector), strengthening community-led WRM and total sanitation, and establishing a multistakeholder approach to IWRM with stronger emphasis on sustainability and the need to climate-proof services and promote innovations such as payment for environmental services.”

“Available evidence suggests that Uzbekistan’s water supply and sanitation (WSS) systems are performing poorly. ADB (2012) for example estimates that less than half the national population has access to improved1 drinking water and only 17 percent of urban households receive water 24 hours per day. The situation is worse in smaller cities and rural areas. Water resource protection is weak with only basic treatment facilities in place (JMP 2006, 2013). Sanitation coverage is low even in urban areas and according to some sources sanitation and hygiene (WASH)-related diseases or illnesses are a major concern (WHO 2012 & Pruss-Ustun et al. 2008).

Reliable evidence on the quality of current WSS service conditions is scarce and consumer experience and views and voices are not systematically collected and used for policy development. International experience suggests that poor drinking water and sanitation services can cause households to incur high costs for dealing with this situation. However, in Uzbekistan and other Central Asian countries, there is a lack of data on service quality and on coping costs. Together with limited feedback from consumers to those that design WSS policies and programs this makes it difficult to design effective reform measures and assess their ex-ante impact on households, in particular for those at the bottom of the income distribution.

This study assesses consumer experiences with current WSS services across a range of selected sites in Uzbekistan and determines consumer readiness for reform. First of all, the study analyses how surveyed consumers currently meet their drinking water and sanitation needs and what proportion of their household budget is spent on meeting their WSS needs. Second it assesses the interaction between consumers and service providers. Third it examines stakeholder views and positions on service modernization needs and assesses consumer willingness to pay for quality networked WSS services. Comparisons are made across consumers in a selection of cities, small towns and rural areas, between consumers that are connected to a networked service and those that are not, and between households in the bottom 40 percent and top 60 percent of the income
distribution (as estimated through a wealth index).”

“Globally, 1.1 billion people live without access to safe water supply, and 2.4 billion live without adequate sanitation. In the Asia and Pacific region, 700.0 million are without water supply, and 2.0 billion are without adequate sanitation. The problem is particularly grave and pressing in the rural areas, where 70% of the world’s poor reside (Asian Development Bank’s [ADB’s] 2006 Discussion Paper, Serving the Rural Poor: A Review of Civil Society-Led Initiatives in Rural Water Supply and Sanitation). While the emphasis has been on expanding coverage, an independent expert panel reported in its 2006 review of the water policy of ADB that it did not find empirical evidence to suggest that poor people necessarily benefit from improved coverage. In its 2007 thematic evaluation of water supply and sanitation (WSS), the European Commission noted that, in the absence of valid impact data, no definitive statement can be made on the role of European Commission investment in WSS in promoting better health. However, available information pointed to a qualified success and that European Commission investment has made a positive contribution to better health in target groups. Multiple impacts and long time and resource requirements mean that rigorous impact evaluations (RIEs) of the WSS sector are seldom conducted.”