Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report
This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. (For project preparatory technical assistance: All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.
Project Number: 49454-001 May 2018
Papua New Guinea: Support for Water and Sanitation Sector Management
Prepared by Ken Marshall
Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea
For Department of National Planning and Monitoring
Voice, Choice,
and Babies’
Poop
A WASH Household Survey of Tete
Settlement in Port Moresby, Papua
New Guinea
Consultants Report - May 2018
Ken Marshall – ADB Consultant
Clara Momoi – PNG Department of National
Planning and Monitoring
Voi e, Choi e, and Ba ies’ Poop i
Contents
I trodu tio ....................................................................................................................................
The WASH Household Survey .........................................................................................................
. Methodology ...........................................................................................................................
. Sa pli g ..................................................................................................................................
. Cost .........................................................................................................................................
Fi di gs ...........................................................................................................................................
. For ‐ Ge eral .....................................................................................................................
. For ‐ Water ......................................................................................................................
. For ‐ Health a d Hygie e ................................................................................................
. Me strual Hygie e Ma age e t .........................................................................................
. For ‐ O servatio Tool ....................................................................................................
. Ge der A alysis ....................................................................................................................
Su ary of Survey Fi di gs .........................................................................................................
Re o e datio s for a WASH Pilot ............................................................................................
. Role of the WASH Proje t Ma age e t U it / DNPM .........................................................
. Role of Eda Ra u ...................................................................................................................
. Role of Tete Reside ts a d Leaders ......................................................................................
. Health a d Hygie e ...............................................................................................................
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 1
1 Introduction
Much has been written about the challenges faced by countries in the Pacific in the
face of high rural/urban migration. The provision of basic services has seldom kept
up with the influx of people moving into towns and cities looking for a better life. The
provision of water and sanitation services takes time to plan, design, construct, and
manage and services are poor for formal residents of towns and cities, let alone for
those living in informal settlements. Policy and legislation also take time to develop,
and to change and reflect the reality on the ground.
Whilst there are still those who would prefer to send settlement residents “home”,
there is a growing recognition and acceptance that this is not possible. Settlements
around Port Moresby have been in place for many years, some of the residents have
never lived anywhere else.
People living in Port Moresby settlements, and there are many, perhaps 500,000,
deserve better services and the opportunity to improve their standards of living.
Presently people in settlements have little opportunity to express their feelings or to
be heard and no tangible way of communicating with service providers.
This Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) Household Survey has been designed
to help residents participate in the design and implementation of a WASH pilot
project. The pilot will support the development of a model for WASH improvements
in settlements that can be refined and ultimately scaled up. It aims to demonstrate
the impact that improved services can have, not only on settlement residents but
also on a town or city more broadly, and to prove that settlement residents are a
valuable source of business to water utilities.
Given the high number of people living in settlements in and around Port Moresby,
and the fact that many of them are using water from the towns reticulation system,
there is a great incentive for all to make this work. The survey has shown that
settlement residents are desperate for better services, and utilities are missing out
on large amounts of revenue. If better services can be supplied, regardless of all the
legislative, policy, and physical challenges, then settlement residents will pay.
Tete settlement is in northern Port Moresby in the Moresby North West District, close
to the suburb of Gerehu. It has a population of approximately 8000 people living in
up to 1000 houses. The current water, sanitation, and hygiene status is poor with
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 2
only one standpipe serving the entire settlement and operating only intermittently.
Sanitation facilities and practises are poor with high levels of sanitation related
illness. Menstrual hygiene, and infant faeces management practises are particularly
poor and result in high incidence of infections and illness.
2 The WASH Household Survey
2.1 Methodology
The survey consisted of four key forms, three were conducted through an interview,
and one an observation exercise (see annexes 5 to 8):
• Household Survey Form 1 – General (33 questions)
• Household Survey Form 2 – Water (34 questions)
• Household Survey Form 3 – Health and Hygiene (45 questions)
Photo 1 - Tete Public Standpipe
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 3
• Household Survey Form 4 – Observation Exercise (11 questions)
Each of the forms were designed to include a series of questions with a range of
possible answers (closed questions), as well as “Don’t Know” and “Other” response
options. Possible answers were not divulged to respondents, but simply used to
record responses. All interviews were conducted by national enumerators who had
been selected and trained specifically for this role, with all questions being written
and asked in Tok Pisin.
Enumerators and enumerator guides were generally university graduates and/or
local NGO staff (World Vision), as well staff of Eda Ranu (the Port Moresby Water
utility) and suitable residents of Tete settlement. The team included 9 male and 8
female enumerators, with male to ask male respondents, and female to ask female.
In addition, enumerators were split into teams of 3 or 4 people with each team
supported and guided by a Tete resident, whose role was to ensure enumerators
were safe, and to introduce them to households when needed.
Several community meetings had already been conducted to introduce the survey,
and a one-day visit to Tete had been conducted to talk with community and church
leaders, and to validate landmarks on the survey map (Figure 1). Official maps of
Tete are not available, therefore the survey used a map adapted from a Google
Earth image.
2.1 Sampling
Settlements in Port Moresby are difficult places to work. There is a lack of
information regarding the population, the geography, the services, and no available
maps. In addition, there are many practical, logistical, and security challenges to
overcome.
Figure 1 below shows a Google Earth image of Tete settlement. This map was used
to validate all key landmarks in Tete, and subsequently to provide enough locational
information so that the survey team could ensure there was a geographical spread to
the households surveyed.
The key sampling approach included two criteria; gender and location. The survey
aimed to interview equal numbers of men and women, and to interview residents
living in all grids marked on the map using churches as key starting/staging/finishing
points.
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 4
The team’s approach was to start each day at a recognised landmark, generally one
of the 12 churches identified on the map, and to spread out in each direction
attempting to capture at least one household in each numbered grid square, all
Enumerators had a copy of the map with the gridlines showing.
It is estimated that the Tete settlement has more than 8,000 residents, living in as
many as 1,000 houses. Our aim was to include at least 10% of all households in the
survey, this gave us a target of 100 households where all four forms would be used.
At completion we conducted the Water and the General survey in 152 households,
and the Health and Hygiene and the Observation survey in 151 households,
meaning that the surveys were conducted in the same households, but one of the
Health and Hygiene and Observation forms were not completed due to a lack of time
or the forms being mislaid or missed out in one Household.
In total we covered approximately 15% of all households, this was achieved with 17
enumerators conducting between 2 and 4 surveys each, on each day. The survey
was conducted over three days, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th November 2017.
2.2 Cost
Whilst developing such a survey is a complex and time-consuming task, actual
survey costs, once the survey has been designed and tested, are quite low. The
survey was undertaken with support from the Asian Development Bank through
TA9298: “Support for water and sanitation sector management”.
Costs for the Tete survey were as follows:
The table above does not include costs to develop and analyse the survey. However,
it does indicate what the costs would be for future surveys using the same tools.
ITEM No. Days Unit Cost TOTALTraining
Enumerators 17 2 175 5,950
Materials 500
Catering 20 2 30 1,200
Field Work 17 3 200 10,200
Tete Support Staff 7 3 50 1,050
Materials 400
Fuel 400
TOTAL KINA 19,700
TOTAL USD 6,058
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 5
Figure 1 - Tete Settlement Survey Map
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 6
3 Findings
3.1 Form 1 - General
Form 1 was used to conduct interviews with 152 households including 68 female and
83 male respondents, one respondent did not answer the question on gender. The
purpose of this form was to establish a general understanding of Tete residents, who
they are, where they come from, and what they do.
Whilst Tete has existed for many years, and the ethnicity of the population has
changed as time has gone by, the current population (as sampled) includes 71%
from the Western Highlands, 8.5% from the Eastern Highlands, 8.5% from Central
Province, and 3.5% from the Southern Highlands and Jiwaka Provinces. In total the
population sampled included people from 16 Provinces. Our sample included 132
male, and 19 female headed households. Of the 152 respondents interviewed, men
were generally 25 to 54 years and women 18 to 44 years old.
Information gathered on
education (Figure 2)
showed that whilst a
higher proportion of men
completed both primary
school and college, more
women completed
secondary school and
university. Approximately
16% of men and women
did not attend any school.
Houses in Tete are generally built from permanent materials (wood, iron and
concrete – see photo 2) with 65% considered to be permanent structures, and 35%
considered to be temporary.
Figure 2 - Education
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 7
Initially, through looking at
secondary data, we had estimated
household size to be approximately
8 people. Survey results show that
it is significantly higher with 45%
indicating a household of more than
8, and over 20% having more than
12 people sleeping at their house
(Figure 3).
Photo 2 - Typical House
Figure 3 - Household Size
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 8
Most respondents have lived in Tete for more than 2 years, with 75% having lived
there for between 2 and 10 years, and 14% having lived in Tete for more than 15
years.
Of respondents interviewed approximately 9% answered that someone living with a
disability lived at their house, responses included joint pain, deafness, blindness, and
car and accident injuries.
Lack of land tenure/home ownership, and/or the fear of eviction, have long been
considered impediments to investing in a home. 90% of respondents answered that
they “owned” their own land, with 85% saying that they have purchased it from
landowners and 4% saying
they had been given the land
by politicians. Of the 10%
who do not own their land,
50% are paying rent to
landowners and landlords.
When asked if they had a
fear of eviction many said
that they did. This fear was
generally towards eviction by
government, with few fearing eviction by landowners (Figure 4).
Whilst Tete has a colourful history, many residents now consider it to be a safe and
good place to live. Conflict does occur and is generally related to alcohol, drugs,
stealing, clan issues, and family and sexual violence.
Given the complexity of providing
and managing services in
settlements, and the difficulties
already experienced in many
Port Moresby settlements, the
survey asked a range of
questions to explore how to
develop mechanisms that would
maximise the opportunity for a
Figure 4 - Fear of Eviction
Figure 5 - Who Represents You?
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 9
successful WASH pilot. A WASH
pilot in Tete will only be successful
if residents are involved in
developing such a mechanism, and
ultimately are prepared to pay for
services. Respondents were asked
two questions, firstly “who
represents you?” (Figure 5), and
secondly “who represents all of
Tete?” (Figure 6). Answers were quite consistent, although people mostly felt that
the leaders from their own block represented them (a block is a local administrative
level comprising a distinct land area and established by the Tete Residents
Association), they also felt that the
Tete Residents Association had a
role representing all of Tete. This
question may be misleading given
that in many instances the people
doing the “representing” are the
same. Someone from my own
province, is also my block leader,
and is also on the Tete Residents
Association. Also, the survey was visibly supported by the Tete Residents
Association, potentially introducing a positive bias in the responses and legitimising
the role of the Association. When asked “who helps you to settle disputes?” (Figure
7), the responses were more strongly directed to “leaders from my own block”.
Currently there are very few services provided in Tete and few organisations willing
to work there. When asked if other organisations worked in Tete, 75% of
respondents said “No”. Others indicated that there is an occasional visit from a
church group, an NGO, or a government department.
Figure 6 - Who Represents all of Tete?
Figure 7 - Settling Disputes
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 10
Willingness and ability to pay
for services are key
components of any future
development for the people of
Tete. As has been shown
throughout the world, it is often
the poorest people who pay the
most for basic services. Tete is
no different and more is
included in the following section
on “Water”.
An initial assessment of income
(Figure 8) and paying for
services was included in Form
1 – General. It is apparent that
most people in Tete rely on
several sources of income, and
on the income of more than one
household member (Figure 9).
Approximately 50% of respondents are street vendors making and/or selling various
goods such as vegetables, fruits, cigarettes, bettlenut, livestock, fish, water, clothing,
drinks, biscuits, and firewood. These products are sold both within Tete and further
afield, with many travelling to the middle of town to sell their goods. It is clear from
driving around Tete that there is a high percentage of taxi owners/drivers. Whilst “taxi
driver” wasn’t one of the available answers, of the 64 responses in the “Other”
category (Figure 8), 30 of them were transport related, taxi driver, taxi owner, bus
owner, bus driver.
Figure 8 - Income
Figure 9 - Other Household Income
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 11
From the two graphs on
“Earnings” it would appear
that 65% of households in
Tete are receiving more than
K201/week, this can vary
widely and whilst many
households are very poor,
many are not (Figure 10 and
Figure 11). This is discussed
further in the section on water,
and is important when trying
to understand both the ability,
and the willingness to pay for
improved water services.
Figure 12 – Average
Expenditure, shows what
people generally spend their
money on.
Average weekly expenditure
on water is K25 with many people paying much more than this, and some not paying
anything. If we take the average expenditure on water as K25 per week and the most
common weekly total household income to be K700 then people are paying 3.6% of
their income on water. Whilst this is close to the UN stated maximum of 3% of
household income, it does not represent 50 litres per person and is likely to be
considerably less.
41.3% of respondents said that they collect water once a day, and 42% said that
they normally collect 20 litres of water each time. If average household size is 10
people, this equates to approximately 2 litres per person per day, barely enough to
survive and far below the WASH Policy recommendation of 50 litres per person per
day.
Figure 10 - Earnings
Figure 11 - Other Earnings
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 12
To understand willingness to
pay for services, we asked
questions relating to payment
for electricity (Figure 13). This
is a contentious question and
one that people may have felt
uncomfortable answering with
some responses not being
entirely accurate. From the
responses we received it
appears that 42% do not have
electricity. Meaning that 58%
do have some form of
electricity. This includes legal
connections, illegal connections, use of a generator, and solar power. Of the 58%
that do have electricity, 62% do not pay for it (Figure 14). The remainder are paying
for electricity. Responses under the “Other” category showed that those who are
paying for electricity are generally paying more than K15 per week. There were 32
Figure 12 - Expenditure
Figure 13 - Electricity
Figure 13 - Electricity
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Food and
Drink
Transport Cooking fuel
and
Household
lighting
Electricity School fees Water Buai Beer
Approximately how much do you spend each week on the
following? Hamas moni yu save usim long wanpla wik long
baim ol displa samting?
Figure 12 – Average Expenditure
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 13
responses under the “Other”
category, of these 24 entered
an amount they are paying per
week. The average of these 24
entries is K76/week. Overall it
shows that of the 152
respondents asked, 127 gave
an answer, of that 127, 28 are
paying for electricity.
In conclusion, Form 1
indicated that people living in Tete are not well educated, live in overcrowded
houses, and come mostly from the Highlands of PNG, predominantly the Western
Highlands. Many of them still fear eviction, which impacts on their ability and
willingness to invest in improving their living arrangements. In terms of leadership
they have a preference for leaders from the block where they live but also recognise
the role of the Tete Residents Association. They work hard to earn a living and to
look after their children, mostly as street vendors and taxi/bus drivers with some
working in government positions, but receive very little support from any other
parties, be they government, NGO, or the private sector. Their lack of real
engagement with government and NGO organisations means they have little
opportunity to raise their concerns and fears for the future, with no voice in
advocating for improved government services.
3.2 Form 2 - Water
There were 152 respondents interviewed using Form 2 - Water. This included 47%
female and 53% male respondents. This part of the survey aimed to develop an
understanding of what water people used, where they get it from, and what value
they placed upon it.
From the survey it is clear that residents use a variety of different sources depending
on the availability of water and the time it takes to collect (Figure 15). Tete currently
has one water supply point that is controlled by Eda Ranu. This consists of one open
pipe (has no tap fitted) that provides water for a short period of time each day, or
most days. In this survey it will be referred to as the “public standpipe”. At the south
Figure 14 – Paying for Electricity
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 14
western end of the settlement there are a series of small springs that produce water
for much of the year, in addition there are several (three or four) hand-dug wells that
are owned by residents.
59% of people in Tete use
the public standpipe as their
main source of water (Figure
16). The second most
popular source of water is
“water collected from town”.
If these two options are
combined, then 80% of Tete
residents are relying on
water provided by Eda Ranu, either through the public standpipe in Tete, or by
collecting it in other suburbs, normally the Gerehu Market.
Most people walk more than fifteen minutes to reach their water collection point and
take more than 2 hours to collect water after having to wait in line. In addition, their
Figure 16 - Main Source of Water
Figure 15 – What Water do you Use?
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 15
Photo 3 - Water Containers
main source of water only works occasionally and does not work to a regular
timetable, meaning they do not know when they will be able to collect water. Most
people (41.33%) collect water once per day, with 30% collecting water less than
once per day. People
collecting water less than
once per day are generally
using a vehicle to collect
large amounts of water, often
from town, with some having
water delivered to a large
tank at their house.
Whether using water
collected from their main or alternative water source, there is very little treatment of
water with 79% of respondents not treating water, and others boiling or filtering it.
Water is collected by a range of different people (Figure 18) including men, women,
young and old, but mostly by women and young women. Generally, when water is
collected from town, in a vehicle, this is done by men, when water is collected from
the public standpipe, this is mostly by women and young women.
Figure 17 - Alternative Source of Water
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 16
Figure 18 - Who Collects Water
Photo 4 - Woman and Girls Collecting Water
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 17
Whilst it is unclear how often people pay for water that is collected from the public
standpipe, it is clear that people collecting water from town are paying for it on
collection. Whilst 20% of
respondents are not
paying for water, 80% are.
Most people (35%) are
paying more than K30 per
week for the water they
use (Figure 19). Water
collected from the Gerehu
Market is costing K2 for 10
litres. This would equate to
K200 for one kilolitre (1000 litres). The gazetted Eda Ranu tariff for public standpipes
is K1.5 for one kilolitre. Generally, Eda Ranu is signing MOUs with communities
using public standpipes and these MOUs include a tariff of K1 per one kilolitre. Tete
residents collecting water from the Gerehu market are paying 200 times the rate that
they should be paying if buying water from Eda Ranu through a properly managed
public standpipe.
The one public standpipe provided by Eda Ranu is known as the “Tete Community
Water account” and should be paid monthly. This does not happen and this lack of
payment, and the lack of a reliable water service, have combined to create the
current situation and a vicious circle of poor payment, poor service - poor service,
poor payment. In the past the Tete Community Water account has been settled by
the local political Member which has contributed to the confusion about responsibility
for paying for water.
The Tete Community Water account should be managed by the Tete Water
Committee. Whilst this committee was established some time ago, it now appears to
have been disbanded and there is no clarity over who should manage the payment
to Eda Ranu.
During the survey we asked people if they have a water committee. 53% responded
that they do have a water committee, 38% said “No”, and 8% did not know. It is
possible that in the past, members of the old water committee, or members of the
Tete Residents Association have asked people to contribute towards paying the
Figure 19 - Money Spent on Water
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 18
water bill, and that people still think the water committee exists. From an examination
of the Eda Ranu accounts system, it is apparent that the Tete water bill is seldom
paid, and when it was last paid, it was paid by the Member.
When we asked people if they
pay a monthly water bill
(Figure 20), 49% answered
“No”, 29% answered that they
pay the water committee, and
9% that they paid Eda Ranu.
There is clearly some
confusion over paying for
water, indeed many people
believe that they should not have to pay for water. They claim that water should be
free and that they didn’t pay for it when they lived in the village. This situation has
been compounded by the very poor level of service, resulting in very poor levels of
payment, and by the Member paying for water and creating the perception that water
is a free good provided by government.
These perceptions are complicated by the Community Services Obligation (CSO).
The CSO states that State Owned Enterprises like Eda Ranu, are obliged to provide
services, in this case water services, to those in need. The cost of providing such
services should be recouped from government. Whilst Eda Ranu are aware of the
CSO, and in some instances do provide services to communities, normally when
they are requested to do so by a Member of Parliament, they have never claimed the
cost of such services from government.
This means that they provide a very low level of service, to fulfil an obligation, but do
not get paid for it. This low level of service, Tete for instance has one public
standpipe for approximately 8000 people, means that residents are unlikely to pay,
given that they only get water for one or two hours a day, sometimes less. This has
created a downward spiral or vicious circle with Eda Ranu and settlement residents
stuck in the middle, residents getting very poor service and not paying for it, and Eda
Ranu not recovering the cost of provision either from the community or the
government, and certainly not being able to generate a surplus. Given the size of the
Figure 20 - Monthly Payment for Water
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 19
settlement population in Port Moresby is at least 500,000 people, finding a solution
to this situation is key to improving standards of living, and to the future sustainability
of Eda Ranu.
Of those people who had
responded that they do pay
a monthly water bill, when
we asked how much they
were paying, there was a
wide range of responses. If
they were paying a Tete
Water Committee member a
monthly contribution, we
would have expected the responses to be more uniform. This may indicate a variety
of response incentives. People may feel that they should be paying for water, and so
inflate the regularity of that payment, they may answer using the amount that they
are paying for water, regardless of whether it is a monthly bill payment, or just what
they pay others for water. Regardless it is apparent that many people are paying
significant amounts for water each week, but we know, from looking at the accounts,
that they are not paying Eda Ranu.
We then asked
respondents who
were paying a water
bill, how they knew
how much to pay
each month (Figure
22). 63% said that
they were informed
by the Water
Committee member,
and that when they did pay, they would pay it to the Water Committee member, who
would often come to the house to collect it. It is likely that this is how the process
Figure 21 -How Much are you Paying for Water?
Figure 22 - Communicating Payment Amounts
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 20
initially was intended to work when the system was first established. Over time
though, the level of service has declined, and water bills have seldom been paid.
A (if not “the”) critical
component of any
payment for services
system, is what
happens if you do not
pay. When asked this
question 21% of
respondents said that
nothing happens if they
don’t pay (Figure 23), 35% claimed that if they did not pay then they cannot get
water from the public standpipe, and 28% answered “Other”. Of the “Other”
responses most claimed that the supply is turned off if they do not pay.
The current situation is clearly unsatisfactory. There is one public standpipe for 8000
people, that standpipe works intermittently, and the water it provides is seldom paid
for by residents. It appears that people are willing to pay for water and are paying for
water from other places at high unit rates, but for them to pay Eda Ranu, they need
to receive a reasonable level of service. The next group of questions were designed
to help understand what service levels people would be happy with and would pay
for.
The first such question asked “If Eda Ranu were able to install a standpipe closer to
your home, say within 100 metres, that would operate 24 hours a day and provide
clean (safe) water, would you be prepared to pay a flat rate for this service? (Figure
24).
When asked this question 5.41% responded “No”, 44.59% responded “Yes” and
would be prepared to pay more K5 per month. Of the 37.84% (56 respondents) who
answered “Other” the majority of comments were positive and said they would be
prepared to pay more. Two of the comments said that they would only pay if the
standpipe was close to their own home.
Figure 23 - What Happens if you Do Not Pay
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 21
The next question (Figure 25) offered the same service level but included paying for
the amount of water you use, rather than a flat rate. A much higher percentage
(24.48%) answered “No”. 39.16% answered “Yes” and would pay more than K10 per
month. Of the “Other” answers there was some concern regarding whether everyone
would pay, “I might pay, but then others will not” but still general agreement that they
would pay whatever the cost.
Figure 24 - Closer Standpipe - Flat Rate
Figure 25- Closer Standpipe - Pay for Water Used
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 22
The third question (Figure 26) in this series offered an improved level of service, and
the prospect of sharing a connection with 3 to 5 houses and again paying for the
water that you use. 11.64% answered “No” with 36.99% answering “Yes” and that
they would pay more than K20 per month.
Comments in “Other” responses show that most people would be happy with this
service level, but they would also have concerns about whether their neighbour
would pay their share.
Figure 26 - Neighbourhood Standpipe - Pay for Water Used
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 23
Finally, we asked how much people would be prepared to pay for a connection to
their own yard/house (Figure 27). 36.24% answered that they would be prepared to
pay upto K40 per month. Of the 61 “Other” responses 58 said that they would be
prepared to pay more than K40, and three said it would depend on the amount
charged.
It is clear from the response to this series of questions that people are prepared to
pay for water and see it as a vital service. They are already paying for water and
having to collect it in town or wait in very long queues. They would pay more as the
service level increases but are concerned with equity and being sure that they are
getting what they are paying for. There is some concern in regard to sharing a
connection with others, with several comments suggesting that this would only be
satisfactory if the
connection was at their
own premises.
When asked if they
would be prepared to
pay a connection fee
(Figure 28), 32.65%
answered “Yes K200”. Of
the 31.97% of “Other”
responses, the majority
Figure 27 - Yard Connection
Figure 28 - Connection Fees
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 24
also answered in the positive but were unsure what the amount would be. 22 of the
47 “Other” responses said that they would pay any amount.
A pro-poor approach to helping people pay bills could include things like smaller
weekly bills instead of larger monthly bills, using a flat rate so that people can plan
for the cost, and Eda Ranu establishing a payment booth in or close to Tete, instead
of people having to travel to Eda Ranu to pay bills. When asked about weekly or
monthly billing 96% said they preferred monthly billing. When asked about flat rate
versus pay for what you
use 62.84% preferred a
flat rate with 37.16
preferring to pay for the
amount used. When
asked who they would
prefer to pay (Figure 29),
89.26% preferred paying
directly to Eda Ranu with
7.38% preferring to pay
the Water Committee. Of the comments received there was a clear message that
they did not trust the block leaders or Water Committee members to handle their
funds, and that it would be safer and more transparent to pay directly to Eda Ranu.
The final question in the “Water” interview was “why do you want to have an
Figure 29 - Who Would You Prefer to Pay?
Figure 30 - Why Do You Want an Improved Water Supply?
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 25
improved water supply”. There were two strong reasons given (Figure 30), one was
to improve their health status, the other to make life easier. Whilst similar, male and
female responses differed in that men chose “health” as the key driver and women
claimed “convenience”.
3.3 Form 3 - Health and Hygiene
Health and hygiene in Tete is a constant challenge. The lack of water and effective
toilets coupled with poor knowledge of good health and hygiene practices means
that many people suffer regular bouts of water related illness.
Whilst there are some organisations conducting health and hygiene training in PNG,
there has been very little interaction with Tete residents. When asked if they have
had any health and hygiene education only 12% answered “Yes”. The limited health
and hygiene education that they have received has been conducted by the
Department of Health, the church, NGO’s, and the National Capital District
Commission (NCDC), but certainly not in the recent past and seldom if ever
focussed on health and hygiene behaviour in relation to water use and sanitation.
When asked “how do you stop people from getting diarrhoea” respondents
mentioned a range of things including hand washing and using an effective toilet
(Figure 31).
Figure 31 - What Can You Do to Stop People Getting Diarrhoea?
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 26
Even though there has been very little health and hygiene education, most
respondents do have a broad understanding, particularly regarding handwashing,
although practising this is difficult given the lack of water.
When asked if they had their own toilet, 96% answered that they do. These toilets
vary in type (Figure 32) and effectiveness and were further examined as part of the
“Observation Tool”.
Of the toilets that we inspected most were not operating as an effective barrier to the
transmission of disease, many were full, and most were poorly constructed. More
than 50% of respondents answered that the toilet that they use does not have a light,
Figure 32 - Types of Toilets
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 27
Photo 5 - Typical Tete Toilet
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 28
with 45% saying that they use a torch, including using a cell phone as a torch, when
they use the toilet at night (Figure 33).
Approximately 20% of
respondents said that they
were sharing their toilet with
people who did not reside in
their house, so sharing with
neighbours and others.
Whilst 20% are currently
sharing their toilet with people
outside their own household,
80% answered that they would not use a public toilet if one was installed. Of the 80%
who said they would not use a public toilet the main reasons given included that it
“would be dirty” and that they don’t like sharing with strangers” (Figure 34).
Respondents were asked if there were any taboo’s regarding men and women using
the same toilet, 93% said there were not. Of those that said there were, answers
included:
Figure 33 - Does Your Toilet Have a Light
Figure 34 - Reasons for Not Using a Public Toilet
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 29
• “People with illness should use a different toilet”
• “Women have their periods”
• “Yes, men should use separate toilet to women”
• “Men and women must use different toilets because of their physical
differences and social/cultural norms”
• Most culture, we don’t allow them to cook food (when they have their period)
because it’s part of Hagen culture”
• “Because of females monthly periods”
• “Exposure to different diseases”
• “It’s risky for women to use the same toilet as men”
From Form 1 - General we understand that household sizes are large often with
more than 12 people sleeping in one house. This means that most houses have a
number of young children and babies with 40% of households having 3 or more
young children living there (Figure 35).
Figure 35 - Number of Children
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 30
Given the high number of children, we asked “where do children normally defecate”?
Whilst 45% responded that children defecate in their toilet (Figure 36), it is apparent
that the remaining 55% do not. The next question asked how adults dispose of
babies / children’s faeces?
Figure 37 shows that
approximately 50% throw
it into the Toilet, the rest
do not. Meaning that about
one quarter of all
children’s faeces is not
being put into a toilet but is
buried in the yard, thrown
into the bushes /drain,
thrown onto the rubbish
heap, put on the fire, or left
for the dogs to eat. Figure 36 - Where Do Children/Babies Defecate?
Photo 6 - Most Families Have Many Children
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 31
Poor infant faeces
management is a
contributing factor to the
high incidence of
diarrhoea in Tete and one
that needs to be
addressed as part of any
health and hygiene
education program. From
the responses gathered
(Figure 38) it would appear that 70% of the population of Tete have had diarrhoea
during the last 12 months and it is usually children between 0 and 15 who get it the
most, although adults also suffer.
Having explored people’s
understanding of good
health and hygiene
behaviour and established
how little support Tete has
received in the past, we
asked respondents “when
do you wash your hands?”
(Figure 39). Strong
responses were recorded
for “hand washing after
going to the toilet” and
“before eating”. 47
comments were recorded
in the “Other” category,
these included 16
responses that said they
only wash their hands
when they have water,
Figure 37 - How Do You Dispose of Children/Babies Faeces?
Figure 38 - Incidence of DIarrheoa
Figure 39 - When Do You Wash Your Hands?
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 32
other comments
included that they never
wash their hands. 60%
of respondents said that
they use soap (Figure
40), and 34% said they
sometimes use soap. Of
the respondents who
answered that they did
not use soap 64% said it
was not available, and
many commented that
they did not use soap because there was not enough water to wash their hands. The
Observation Tool was used to validate if soap was present at households.
Whilst 96% of respondents answered that they did have a toilet, 98% answered that
they would like to have a better toilet. Reasons for not already having a better toilet
(Figure 41) included “not having enough water” and that “it would be too expensive”.
Of the 24 comments received in the “Other” category 10 said that they need to have
a sewerage system before they can improve their toilets.
60.40%
34.23%
4.70%0.00% 1.34%
Yes Sometimes No Don't know Other
(please
specify)
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Do you normally use soap when washing your hands?Yu save usim sop long wasim
han?
Figure 40 - Do You Use Soap?
Figure 41 - Reasons for Not Having a Better Toilet
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 33
When asked “what would help you to have better toilets” (Figure 42) the strongest
response was 82% “having access to water”. Other responses included “having
more money”, “health education”, and “demonstration toilets”.
Photo 7 - Typical Toilet
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 34
As with all settlements around Port Moresby solid waste management is difficult.
There is an occasional visit from a garbage truck, but this is irregular and
unpredictable.
Figure 42 - What Would Help you to Have a Better Toilet?
Figure 43 - How do you Dispose of Rubbish?
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 35
Most people manage their solid waste in a variety of different ways including burning
it, using a rubbish pit to collect it, and taking it to a collection point, from where it is
seldom collected (Figure 43).
3.4 Menstrual Hygiene Management
In order to ask respondents about Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM) we first
asked if they would be prepared to answer questions on this topic (Figure 44). Whilst
84% of women answered
“Yes” only 55% of men
answered “Yes”. On several
occasions, when interviewing
a man, with his wife sitting
close by, when this question
was asked, he suggested that
his wife respond to the MHM
questions.
There were a range of
responses given to the
question “Where do you go to
clean yourself when you have
your period” (Figure 45). Most
woman responded that they
use either the toilet or an
outside wash area. Other
responses included “work”,
“bush/creek”, “Gerehu Market
Public Shower”, and “in the yard”.
The majority of female respondents (95%) said that they use “sanitary pads” (Figure
46). 12.7% said that when they could not afford sanitary pads they would use
“cloths”. Sanitary pads would be disposed of in the toilet or burnt with 23 of the 24
Figure 44 - Are You Prepared to Answer Questions About Menstrual Hygiene
Management?
Figure 45 - Where Do You Go to Clean Yourself During Your Period?
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 36
Photo 9 - Typical Washing Area
Photo 8 - Typical Washing Area
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 37
comments under
“Other” saying they
would be burnt
(Figure 47). If cloths
are used then they
are seldom washed
and re-used, most
respondents would
dispose of them by
throwing them into
the toilet or burning
them, although two
comments said that
they “go to my
relatives’ house in
town to wash them”,
“shower area and
wash the cloth”
(Figure 48).
Figure 47 - How do you dispose of sanitary pads?
Figure 48 - Where do you wash cloths?
Figure 46 – What do you/girls in your house use when you have your period?
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 38
Men who were willing to
answer questions on MHM
were asked the same
questions as the women.
Interestingly whilst 96% of
women said that they used
sanitary pads and only 3%
used tampons, male
responses showed that they
believed 67% used sanitary
pads and 22% used tampons (Figure 49). Of the 8 responses in the “Other” category
7 responded that they do not know what women used and that it was women’s
business. When asked how pads were disposed of 55% of men said they were put in
the toilet and 26% said they did not know. When asked about the disposal of cloths,
43% of male respondents said they did not know where women/girls disposed of
them.
3.5 Form 4 - Observation Tool
To validate and cross check some of the responses that we received during the
interview parts of the survey, we used the Observation Tool. The Observation Tool
was the final part of the interview, after sitting and going through the three main
survey forms – General, Water, and Health and Hygiene, the enumerator would then
use Form 4 - Observation Tool.
Form 4 was used on 151 households, this was 83 male and 68 female respondents.
Initially the survey was designed such that each enumerator would have a camera
which would be used during the Observation Tool. This approach was adjusted and
only two cameras were used during the survey. Whenever photographs were taken,
permission was first sought from the respondent.
Form 4 focussed specifically on sanitation and hygiene. The first question (Figure
49) looked at the location of the toilet in relation to the house. This was to help
Figure 49 - Men Only, what do girls use when they have their period?
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 39
understand the
likelihood of fecal
matter being
transported by flies from
the toilet to the house,
and onto any food in the
house. Most toilets,
53% were within 5
metres of the house.
The main part of the
Observation Tool was
used to establish the overall condition of the toilet (Figure 50), the key focus being its
ability to contain human waste and act as a barrier to the transmission of disease.
Approximately half of the 151 toilets observed had a well-fitted slab, well-fitted was
defined as not having holes through which flies could travel, apart from the main hole
over which people squat. Whilst 77% of the toilets were considered to be useable,
Figure 49 - Location of Toilet
Figure 50 - Construction of Toilet
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 40
69% were observed to have flies moving in and out of the toilet. Only 37% were
considered to have a permanent superstructure with 15% able to be locked from the
Photo 10 - Typical Toilet
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 41
inside, and 18% able to be locked from the outside. 20% of the toilets observed had
some form of riser on which to sit, 11% had clear evidence of faeces on the floor,
and 11% were full. Very few, if any, were functioning as a barrier to the transmission
of disease.
When the yard area was observed 8% had evidence of defecation in the open, this
likely often to be babies’ faeces.
In order to cross check
answers given concerning
hand washing, one of the
observation questions was “Is
there evidence of a hand
washing facility close to the
toilet?” (Figure 51). 81% of
observations were that there
was no obvious evidence of a
functioning hand washing
facility and only 10% of
households had any soap
visible close to the toilet or
wash basin.
Most households (54%) were
collecting rubbish into one
place (Figure 52), 27% did
not appear to be collecting
rubbish in one place.
Water was observed to be
stored in containers that were covered at 82% of houses, with 13% storing water that
was not covered.
The Observation Tool (Form 4) was effective in helping to check interview
responses. It showed that toilets were of very poor quality, handwashing is very rare,
and babies’ faeces are not well managed.
Figure 51 - Evidence of Hand Washing Facility
Figure 52 - Is Rubbish Collected in One Place
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 42
Photo 11 - Washing Facility
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 43
3.6 Gender Analysis
Of the 152 interviews that were conducted 45% (68) were with women. Generally,
the female respondents were younger than the male with most female respondents
(38%) being in the 25 to 34 age group, and most male respondents (40%) being in
the 35 to 44 age group (Figure 53). Approximately 20% of female respondents were
less than 24 years of age compared with only 4% of male respondents.
Less women respondents had completed Primary School, but more had completed
Secondary School and University. A similar number of men and women had not
been to school, 17.5% of men and 16.18% of women (Figure 54).
The survey aimed to interview heads of households wherever possible, if the head of
household was not present, or did not want to be interviewed, then another adult
Figure 53 - Age of Respondents
Figure 54 - Education
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 44
member was chosen. Of men interviewed 98% were part of a household that was
headed by a man and 26% of women interviewed were part of a household headed
by a woman. Overall 12% of households interviewed were headed by a woman.
The survey found that
women are less likely to
be living in temporary
houses with 73% living
in permanent wood/iron
houses compared to
62% of men, and
approximately 36%
living in temporary
accommodation
compared to 46% of
men (Figure 55).
Women are more fearful of being evicted from Tete with approximately 70% fearing
eviction compared with 56% of men (Figure 56). As with men, women are less
concerned about eviction from landowners and more concerned about eviction by
government.
Figure 55 - Housing Materials
Figure 56 - Fear of Eviction
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 45
Of the respondents who said they did not own their land (23 respondents), women
are more likely than men to be paying rent, or more likely to be living in a household
that pays rent, with 66% of women paying rent to a landowner compared with 36% of
men (Figure 57).
In terms of representation and leadership men and women gave similar responses.
The key difference being that women felt more represented by leaders from their
own block, and men by the Tete Residents Association (Figure 58).
Figure 57 - Do You Pay Rent?
Figure 58 - Who Represents you in Tete?
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 46
When asked “Is there a group that represents all of Tete (as opposed to just you)”,
women responded that leaders from their block and the Tete Residents Association
scored the same, whereas for men the Tete Residents Association scored more
highly (Figure 59).
Women are less likely to have responded that they are self-employed, they work less
for private companies and work as much for government as do men (Figure 60).
Figure 59 - Who Represents all of Tete?
Figure 60 - How do you Earn and Income?
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 47
Women earn less than men with 44% earning less than K200 per week compared
with 28% of men, and 56% of women earning more than K200 per week compared
with 72% of men (Figure 61).
Q4: Male Q4: Female
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
Approximately how much do you earn in one week?Hamas moni yu save kisim
long wanpla week?
Between 0 and 50 Kina
Between 51 and 100 Kina
Between 101 and 200 Kina
Between 201 and 500 Kina
Between 501 and 1000 Kina
Above 1000 Kina
0
50
100
150
200
250
Food and
Drink
Transport Cooking fuel
and
Household
lighting
Electricity School fees Water Buai Beer
Approximately how much do you spend each week on the
following? Hamas moni yu save usim long wanpla wik long
baim ol displa samting?
Male Hd Female Hd
Figure 61 - How Much Do You Earn?
Figure 62 – Approximately how much do you spend on the following items each week?
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 48
Of expenditure reported, male headed households spend K425 per week and female
headed households K299. As can be seen from figure 62 male headed households
reported spending more on most items. Female headed households reported
expenditure only exceeded male headed households in one category, “school fees”.
Average household expenditure on water was K28 per week for male headed
households and K23 for female headed households. An average of K25 per week
spent on water per household.
Women, and often young women (Figure 63), are more likely to be responsible for
collecting water from the public standpipe, men more likely to collect water when it
involves the use of a vehicle. This contributes to women spending more time
collecting water with 76% of women spending more than one hour each time they
collect water, compared to 50% of men (Figure 64).
36.71%
22.86%
55.70%52.86%
8.86%12.86%
18.99%
42.86%
35.44%
18.57%
10.13%
2.86%7.59% 7.14%
Q4: Male Q4: Female
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Who normally collects water for your house?Husat isave pulumapim wara blong
haus blong yu long olgeta taim?
Men
Women
Young men
Young women
Everyone
Young men and women
Other (please specify)
Figure 63 - Who Normally Collects Water?
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 49
Women spend less money on water, since they mostly collect it from the public
standpipe, with men collecting water from town normally using a vehicle (Figure 65).
Figure 64 - How Long Does it Take to Collect Water?
Figure 65 - How Much do you Spend on Water in One Week?
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 50
Women are more likely to have some form of light in their toilet, this includes access
to a torch so that they can use the toilet at night (Figure 66).
Women were asked if they have
ever been assaulted when
visiting the toilet or collecting
water. 10% had been assaulted
when using the toilet and 33%
when collecting water. (Figure
67 and 68).
Comments given in relation to
assaults when using the toilet
included “fear of native people”,
fear of snakes, and fear of
young boys.
Comments regarding assault
when collecting water included
being assaulted by other
women, being accused of
pushing in the line, being
abused by drunkards, and
Figure 66 - Does Your Toilet Have a Light?
Figure 67 - Have You Been Assaulted When Using the Toilet?
Figure 68 - Have You Been Assaulted When Collecting Water?
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 51
arguing with people who live close to the public standpipe because they seem to
think that they own the water.
It is clear that women would greatly benefit from improvements in water and
sanitation facilities for Tete, and from improving both their knowledge and practices
of effective hygiene behaviour. They spend longer collecting water, they risk assault
when collecting water, and they spend considerable time looking after children and
the elderly. Both menstrual hygiene and infant faeces management are very
challenging in an environment with very little water, and the associated levels of
illness means woman lose more productive time than men due to illness or having to
care for people who are sick.
Woman earn less than men and generally work closer to home, they travel less to
town and generally do jobs that depend on the local micro economy within Tete. This
means they are more vulnerable to cash shortages and rely on other Tete residents
to come and spend their earnings at their stall.
4 Summary of Survey Findings
The settlement population in Port Moresby is growing rapidly and changing in nature
to include more and more professional residents, people who work in both the
private and the public sector. Whilst many settlements have a dominant ethnic
group, they still include people from many different places, making internal
governance and leadership challenging and making it difficult for any settlement, and
settlements in general, to have a clear voice that would allow them to advocate for
better services.
Whilst the Survey was conducted in just one settlement, much of the data gathered
can be applied more generally to all settlements in Papua New Guinea.
In Papua New Guinea, Melanesia, and beyond, people living in informal settlements
have a reputation for being bad customers. They are often viewed as being a liability
by service providers, a perception that has only been reinforced by the many poorly
performing settlement water systems in Port Moresby. Water is provided to many
settlements in response to an “obligation” imposed by governments, and not as an
effective way of improving standards of living and Utility revenue. Generally, service
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 52
levels are so low that settlement residents must rely on a variety of supplementary
and alternative water sources to ensure they have the water they need to survive.
Consequently, they do not feel a strong obligation to pay for the intermittent supply of
water to a community standpipe that may be some distance from their home and
take some hours to collect.
Service Providers feel that settlement residents do not want to pay for water, and
often link this to long-held cultural attitudes to water as a free good that they never
had to pay for when living in their “village” home. Whilst Service Providers accept an
obligation to provide some level of service, they do not generally structure their
organisation to respond to the very specific needs and conditions of settlement
residents. In addition, they operate under an institutional and legal framework that
currently discourages them from looking for real solutions to providing water to
“squatters” and are perhaps not fully aware of the potential revenue that they could
generate by improving service levels to settlements.
It is clear that (Tete) settlement residents are very used to paying for water, on
average they are paying K25 per week, often at rates that are much higher than
those charged by Eda Ranu for water provided via a community standpipe. Such
high rates and the need to travel to local markets and car wash areas to purchase
water means they cannot afford to get clean water in the quantities they need to
sustain a full and healthy life. Many households are surviving on 2 litres per person
per day making things like washing hands and clothes very difficult resulting in a
variety of health challenges.
The survey showed that settlement residents are not only willing to pay for water, but
that they are currently paying for water. It showed that relying on a community
management approach to revenue collection has not worked in the past and will
continue to be challenging in the future. There are clear trust issues between
settlement residents and a history of funds “going missing”.
Settlement residents have a clear preference for paying directly to Eda Ranu, they
recognise their need for water and have expressed their willingness to pay more for
increasing levels of service. If Eda Ranu can provide reliable water and a billing /
collection system that allows direct payment for water, at an easily accessible
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 53
location, then a model can be developed that will improve the standards of living of
settlement residents, improve the overall health of the city, and increase the revenue
and sustainability of the Service Provider.
5 Recommendations for a WASH Pilot
For the proposed Tete WASH Pilot to be successful an integrated management
approach must be developed that ensures all key stakeholders understand the role
they play. Key stakeholders include the Department of National Planning and
Monitoring (DNPM), Eda Ranu, the Tete community, the National Capital District
Commission (NCDC), the Department of Health (DoH), and WASH sector
implementers in PNG. The pilot needs to be implemented as a long-term
partnership, and not as a quick fix infrastructure activity. For this to happen all parties
need to examine how they have done things in the past, what have been the key
constraints in the past (and present) and how they can be overcome. Ultimately, the
two key indicators in terms of success or otherwise will be the rate at which residents
of Tete pay for water, and the reliability of supply provided by Eda Ranu. This will
include two key variables, the hours per day that water is available, and the rate of
payment for water.
Results of the survey show that people in Tete settlement are not only willing to pay
for water, it shows that they are currently paying for water, often at higher rates than
formal Port Moresby residents, therefore it is in everyone’s best interest to make this
pilot work.
On average Tete households are currently paying K25 per week for water, this is
being paid to various people/places in various suburbs including Gerehu Market. If
we assume that there are 800 households in Tete then in total they are paying
K20,000 per week. This means that Tete residents are currently paying in the region
of K1m per year for water, much of this is unearned revenue for Eda Ranu.
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 54
If we further expand this calculation to include all the settlements of Port Moresby
(Figure 70), accepting that not all settlements are the same as Tete, but certainly
many are, and many are paying similar
amounts for the water they collect, then
the numbers are quite interesting. If we
assume a settlement population of
500,000 people in and around Port
Moresby, and an average household
size of 10, then there are 50,000
households. If each household is paying K25 per week for water, then they are
paying K1.25m in total per week. This gives an annual total of K65m that settlement
residents are currently paying for water. This should provide the incentive for Eda
Ranu and the Government of PNG to be proactive in finding solutions to the
provision of WASH services to settlement residents and developing a system that
provides reliable water services and encourages and allows settlement residents to
pay for water.
If the settlement population were all paying at Eda Ranu rates, and paying directly to
Eda Ranu, this would mean an additional K13m (US$4) of annual revenue.
20.69%
5.52%
11.72%
4.83%
8.28%
13.79%
35.17%
0 Between 1
and 5 Kina
Between 6
and 10 Kina
Between 11
and 15 Kina
Between 16
and 20 Kina
Between 21
and 30 Kina
More than 30
Kina
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
In total, how much do you normally spend on water each week?Hamas moni olgeta yu
save baim long pulumapim wara long wanpla wik?
Figure 70 - Money Spent by Settlement Residents on Water
Figure 69 - How Much Do You Spend on Water?
ITEM No. / Amount
Settlement Population 500,000
Average Hhd Size 10
Ttl number of households 50,000
Average weekly hhd payment 25
Tota/Week 1,250,000
TOTAL PER YEAR 65,000,000
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 55
At the time of writing this report (May 2018) the public standpipe was not functioning.
This meant that Tete residents were collecting water from Gerehu Market and paying
K2 for 10 litres. This equates to K200 for one kilolitre (1000 litres). The gazetted Eda
Ranu tariff for public standpipes is K1.5 for one kilolitre. Generally, Eda Ranu is
signing MOUs with communities using public standpipes and these MOUs include a
tariff of K1 per one kilolitre. Tete residents collecting water from the Gerehu market
are paying 200 times the rate that they should be paying if buying water from Eda
Ranu through a properly managed public standpipe.
5.1 Role of the WASH Project Management Unit / DNPM
It is the role of the DNPM, with proposed funding support from the ADB, to manage
the pilot including monitoring and evaluation, stakeholder coordination and
supporting the Project Management Unit. This will include the development of terms
of reference for any sub-contracts and oversight of any tendering processes. The
WASH PMU will monitor progress of the pilot and ensure that real time information is
available each month, to track both payment levels and water outages and identify
constraints to the successful implementation of the project.
The WASH PMU will be responsible for sharing lessons from the pilot and adapting
the model and approach as lessons are learnt. This will include sharing lessons
learnt with the sector through as many channels as possible, including through a
Peri-Urban WASH Committee likely to be established as a sub-committee of the
current national steering group. Lessons learnt will help shape the model and
support the development of a scaling-up project that can be implemented with a
range of development partners.
The WASH PMU and more broadly the DNPM must play an advocacy role that
focuses on supporting the Independent Consumer and Competitions Commission
(ICCC) to review and adapt tariff structures to be more pro-poor, not only usage
tariffs but also connection fees. They should help Eda Ranu to review their mandate
in regard to settlement residents and in reviewing the implementation of the
Community Services Obligation (CSO) and how this has been implemented and
interpreted. The WASH PMU/DNPM should working with the NCDC and the Lands
Department to help alleviate the current land ownership constraint and find
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 56
transitional ways to formalise ownership of land to the degree that it is not an
impediment to the delivery of services or to resident’s own development aspirations.
With current TA support of the ADB the WASH PMU must continue to work closely
with the residents of Tete and help to establish a functioning management model to
support Eda Ranu in managing the supply, billing, and payment for water in Tete.
5.2 Role of Eda Ranu
For Eda Ranu a successful WASH pilot is a critical component of a sustainable
future. There are currently approximately 500,000 people living in 112 settlements
around Port Moresby, many are paying for water, but very few are paying directly to
Eda Ranu for water.
Eda Ranu have been very supportive of the project to date and have agreed to
support the pilot by conducting the design work for anticipated infrastructure
improvements and managing a construction sub-contract with a local contractor.
A series of design workshops need to be held with Eda Ranu to develop a short
options paper on service levels (including the possibility of water for gardens), type
of infrastructure, including the use of storage to minimise peak flow requirements
and minimise stoppages, and the possibility of an integrated water system approach
that utilises sources other than only town water. In developing infrastructure options
attention should be given to the available budget.
Currently the whole of Tete, approximately 8000 people have access to only one
public standpipe that supplies water for only a few hours each day, when it is
functioning. Clearly this is inadequate and contributes to people not paying Eda
Ranu for water. Service levels must be carefully considered such that people have
access to water easily and quickly but are not burdened with a heavy water bill.
Service level discussions should consider how many water points there should be,
what is an acceptable number of people per water point, and how far people should
be expected to travel to collect water.
The current PNG National WASH Policy states that people using public standpipes
should have access to 50 litres per person per day, that there should be a maximum
of 50 users per public standpipe, and it should be within 150 metres.
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 57
Given the strong preference from Tete residents to pay directly to Eda Ranu serious
consideration must be given as to how this can be made possible, even before
residents of Tete have legal ownership of land and formal section/allotment
numbers.
Eda Ranu could benefit from developing a pro-poor approach to working with
settlement customers. Such an approach should consider a flat rate tariff structure, a
system that allows residents to start a formal and direct relationship with Eda Ranu
including paying bills directly, and a billing collection approach that puts resident’s
convenience first. This could include offering weekly billing instead of monthly, where
people have difficulty paying monthly bills, and to develop a decentralised approach
to bill collection, including establishing bill payment points closer to customers.
In the case of the Tete pilot consideration should be given to having a mobile
collection mechanism, meaning Eda Ranu come to Tete on one day per month to
allow residents to make payments. Another option would be to work with trade stores
or banks to allow bill payments to be made at these facilities.
It would be useful for Eda Ranu to trial an “easypay” type of mechanism, as is used
for the purchase of power. Whilst the technology for this is less advanced than for
power, it does exist, and the current situation where all customers must go to the
Eda Ranu office to pay their bill is clearly a constraint to payment. Whilst it would not
be possible to trial this at the individual customer level in Tete, it may be possible to
trial it at block level.
Given the future potential for this approach, it is likely that companies who develop
and sell this technology will be willing to be involved in the pilot, and to provide
equipment free of charge, or at subsidised rates.
For infrastructure, a progressive engagement approach appears most sensible with
main lines being designed such that they can offer future household connections but
with initial service levels focused on a flat rate system to ensure all residents have
access to water and can afford to pay for it. Only when residents have proven that
they can and do pay for water should improvements to service levels be
implemented. This does not rule out future household level connections where users
have a proven record of payment and are willing to pay connection costs.
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 58
5.3 Role of Tete Residents and Leaders
Whilst it is obvious from the survey that people do have trust issues in terms of
giving money to other members of the community, it is also true that there is some
confidence in the role of block leaders and the Residents Association. Many
respondents commented that in the past money had been misused, possibly by the
Water Committee. Whether or not this has happened it has certainly contributed to
trust issues.
The role of block leaders and the Residents Association needs to be discussed in
detail and agreements reached with community members about who is responsible
for what.
The survey did not look in detail at the membership of the Tete Residents
Association, or who are the block leaders. This information is now needed and
should include information about original province, gender, age, and skill set. In
addition, more information is needed relating to how members are chosen, how
many members there are, and how and when they meet.
One of the challenges that needs to be addressed is that currently Eda Ranu are not
able to supply piped water to people who do not live on an official parcel of land,
meaning they do not have an allotment or block number. This is a big challenge not
only for Tete but for all settlements in and around Port Moresby.
In order to try to minimise mistrust or negativity, it may be prudent to establish a new
group (Water User Group), or a number of smaller groups, to focus on managing the
water system, this is likely to be made up of representatives from each block, with
each block having members from the households that it serves. The role of this
group could include the identification of service levels, the location of facilities, and
the coordination, working closely with Eda Ranu, of a billing system that allows
residents to pay directly to Eda Ranu, and assists Eda Ranu with the distribution of
bills, given that most residents do not have formal addresses. Most importantly this
will include developing the terms of reference for the Water User Group, with an
emphasis on how to handle non-payment, and how to assist Eda Ranu to manage
and minimise non-revenue water.
Voice, Choice, and Babies’ Poop 59
The role of such a Water User Group, whether they are part of the Tete Residents
Association or not, must include supporting Eda Ranu in identifying where pipelines
should be located and dealing with residents who may be affected.
5.4 Health and Hygiene
Whilst improving the availability of water will provide the opportunity for an
improvement in living standards, the survey shows that the current health and
hygiene status of Tete residents is poor. A rigorous health and hygiene project is
needed that can address behaviours identified in the survey and support residents to
improve their own physical surroundings.
Local capacity to conduct such a project is weak, both in technical knowledge and
available staff and resources. Further discussions need to be held with both the
NCDC and the Department of Health regarding the role they may play in supporting
Tete residents to build their knowledge and understanding of effective WASH
behaviour. It has been proposed that a small contract will be developed and let to a
local organisation to carry out this project, but it will still be essential to establish
closer links with NCDC and DoH to ensure future support is provided.
The Health and Hygiene Project should include:
• A rigorous health education component to be conducted in Tete
focussing on key findings identified in the survey
• Consideration of Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) triggering
activities to encourage residents to fully understand their current
sanitation status and risk levels, and want to make changes
• Consideration of community-based sanitation activities that utilise local
labour resources to construct toilet slabs, risers and toilets, to include
technical advice and training in construction, and to quality assure
constructed toilets
• The construction of appropriate demonstration toilets at agreed
locations.