The multiple-use services (MUS) approach has emerged over the last decade as an alternative approach to providing water services. It stems from a recognition that people use water for multiple purposes, even if the services were originally planned for a single use. Today, the MUS approach aims to move from merely recognising this to explicitly providing water services that are designed to meet people’s multiple water needs.

A growing number of organisations have been undertaking activities on multiple-use services, ranging from conceptual and empirical research to piloting multiple-use services delivery and policy advocacy. They have come together in the Multiple Use Services (MUS) Group, (originally established in 2003 as PRODWAT), to undertake research and documentation, promote implementation and learning, and facilitate information sharing and evidence-based advocacy on multiple-use services.

The MUS Group, together with the RiPPLE (Research-inspired Policy and Practice Learning in Ethiopia and the Nile Region) organised an international symposium on multiple-use services from 4 to 6 November 2008 in Addis Ababa. The aim of the symposium was to:

1) take a critical look at findings from research and practice on multiple-use services provision, and

2) to discuss implications for taking the MUS approach forward, leading to strong policy recommendations.

MUS costs less

A number of case studies presented at the symposium highlighted the benefits of MUS, including improved health, increased production, and additional income generation. A cost-benefit global study, led by Winrock International, showed that the additional benefits of multiple-use services often outweigh the additional costs.

The cost-benefit ratio becomes even more positive, considering that MUS allows economies of scale and efficiency in investment. Participants argued that investments in multiple-use services cost less than investments in separate domestic and irrigation systems. This point was highlighted in the opening by Mr Abera Mekonnen, adviser to His Excellency Ato Asfaw Dingamo, the Minister of Water Resources of Ethiopia:

“Access to water for basic domestic uses alone is not sufficient. People also require access to water for small-scale productive uses. (..) Investing in access to water for domestic uses and for production at the same time has many advantages among which:

- Greater synergies in investments and economies of scale can be obtained by developing services which provide for these needs at the same time.

- A much greater impact on poverty can be achieved, as the benefits obtained from domestic and productive uses are mutually reinforcing, and allow greater impact on people’s health, income and food-security status”.

Various options

The symposium also showed the variety of ways in which multiple-use services can be provided:

• Household options, often through self-supply. Examples included rainwater harvesting in Thailand, rope pumps to increase water lifting and productive use of water at homestead level, and point-of-use treatment options. Return on investments in such options is often very high.
• Developing new communal systems for MUS. Examples include piped communal systems, as in Nepal, and small community reservoirs in Sri Lanka and Ghana.
• Addressing multiple-uses in existing domestic and irrigation systems. A case from Honduras showed that many existing water supply systems can physically accommodate water for small-scale productive uses, once internal regulations are adjusted. A study by FAO discussed how multiple uses of water were considered in large-scale irrigation schemes as part of a move towards service-oriented management.

Way forward

Specific follow-up activities were discussed for the global level, as well as for some specific countries. In Nepal, for example, a MUS working group will be established at national level as a continuation of the learning alliance established under the Project. Policy recommendations were formulated to be presented at the 5th World Water Forum.

As a MUS community, we are coming to a much better shared understanding of what MUS is, what it isn’t, and what it can achieve. Above all, there is a good understanding on how to provide MUS. The Group can move from advocating for MUS, to advocacy about how to do MUS. Or, to conclude it in a popular phrase during the week of the symposium: “MUS; yes we can!”

Stef Smits

Tags: advocacy, africa, water and livelihoods