YakukamayPublic-communal alliances: A model for water management

The experience of the CENAGRAP

yaku

kamay

3

IndexINDEX 3

GLOSSARY 4

INTRODUCTION 5

CHAPTER 1 - THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COMMUNITY DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS IN LATIN AMERICA 7

The urban-rural dynamic in Latin America 8

The public policies 10

The public services and their limitations 13

L’émergence des systèmes communautaires 16

CHAPTER 2 - COMMUNITY MANAGEMNET IN THE NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AND JURIDICAL

FRAMEWORK IN ECUADOR 20

Constitutional principles related to community management 23

The COOTAD and the communal water management 27

CHAPTER 3 - CHARACTERIZATION OF THE COMMUNAL MANAGEMENT 29

What are the communal systems and what are their strenghts 31

Limitations of the community systems 37

CHAPTER 4 - CENAGRAP: A PUBLIC-COMMUNAL ALLIANCE FOR THE RURAL

DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS 41

CENAGRAP: conditions for its emergence 43

Third period: Center’s re-adjustment to the ordinance and new legal framework 51

Principles for the construction of a multi-stakeholder structure 55

Consequences of the public-communal alliance in the rural drinking water systems of Cañar 58

CHAPTER 5 - LEARNING OUTCOMES AND CONCLUSIONS 67

© CENAGRAP, Protos-CEDIR Yakukamay - Municipality of Cañar.Public-communal alliance: A model for water management. The experience from the CENAGRAP.

Systematizing teamAnne CoutteelDennis GarcíaMariela RoblesHelder Solis C María del Carmen Solíz

FacilitationDennis García

EditionDennis GarcíaHelder Solis C

Original version: Yakukamay - Alianza público-comunitaria: un modelo de gestión del agua. La experiencia desde el CENAGRAP, 2011Traduction française, 2013 - Emilie Lama English version, translated and revised, 2018 - Miguel Abrego

PhotographsAnne Coutteel, Pablo Martines, Helder Solis C., Archives Protos, Archives Cenegrap

Design conceptCarlos Collaguazo, Lut Mathys

SponsorshipBelgian Government

Reproduction is authorized if the source is cited.This book should be dited as follows:© CENAGRAP, Protos-CEDIR , Yakukamay Municipality of Cañar.Public-communal alliance: A model for water management. The experience from the CENAGRAP.

Protos/Join For WaterFlamingostraat 36B-9000 GentBelgium+32 (9) 235 25 10info@joinforwater.ngowww.joinforwater.ngo

June 2019

Yakukamay

yaku

kamay

5

yaku

kamay

4

ACORDES Acompañamiento Organizacional para el Desarrollo (Organizational Accompaniment for Development)

ANEMAPA Asociación Nacional de Empresas Municipales de Agua Potable, Alcantarillado y Servicios Conexos (National Association of Municipal Potable Water and Sewer Companies and Related Services)

AO&M Administración, operación y mantenimiento (Administration, operation and maintenance)

BM Banco Mundial (World Bank).

BID Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (Inter-American Development Bank).

CARC Proyecto de Desarrollo Rural Integral “Cuenca Alta del Río Cañar” (Integrated Rural Development Project “Cañar river watershed”).

CEDIR Centro de Desarrollo e Investigación Rural (Center for Development and Rural Research).

CESA Central Ecuatoriana de Servicios Agrícolas (Ecuadorian Central for Agricultural Services).

CENAGRAP Centro de Apoyo a la Gestión Rural del Agua Potable (Support Center for the Rural Management of Drinking Water).

CEPAL Comisión Económica para América Latina (Economic Commission for Latin America).

COOTAD Código Orgánico de Organización Territorial, Autonomía y Descentralización (Organic Code for Territorial Organization, Autonomy and Decentralization).

CREA Centro de Reconversión Económica del Austro (Economic Reconversion Center of Austro)

EPS Entidades Prestadoras de Servicio (Service Provider Entities).

GAMMA Grupo de Apoyo al Movimiento de Mujeres del Azuay (Support Group for the Azuay’s Women Movement)

GADs Gobiernos Autónomos Descentralizados (Decentralized Autonomous Governments).

IEOS Instituto Ecuatoriano de Obras Sanitarias (Ecuadorian Institute for Sanitary Projects).

INERHI Instituto Ecuatoriano de Recursos Hidráulicos (Ecuadorian Institute of Hydraulic Resources)

MIDUVI Ministerio de Urbanización y Vivienda (Ministry of Urbanization and Housing).

OLPE Operadores Locales de Pequeña Escala (Local Operators of Small Scale).

SENAGUA Secretaría Nacional del Agua (National Water Secretariat).

Glossary Introduction

Ecuador’s constitution only recognizes two forms of water management: public and communal.

This is absolutely original as, until very recently, there was only talk about public and private

management, or the combination of those. Recognizing community systems legitimizes ways of

management that were ignored before, set aside, laid to rest. The Constitution even goes one step

further stating that this kind of management should be supported and strengthened by the State

institutions through public-communal alliances.

This recognition was possible because an evident reality cannot be hidden anymore: community systems

have made it possible to quench the thirst of the poorest rural and peri-urban populations, not only in

Ecuador but in all Latin America. In fact, there are more than 6 800 drinking water community systems in

the country that serve more than 2.7 million low income people. This is equivalent to at least 20 % of the

Ecuadorian population! A conservative estimation is that more than 40 million people are being served

by these systems in Latin America.

What are the communal systems? How were they initiated? Which legal framework supports them?

What are their weaknesses and strengths? How are they organized? Which principles govern them?

What happens with the public systems? Are the public-communal alliances feasible? How can they be

promoted and strengthened? These are some of the questions that we tried to answer in the book you

are holding in your hands

One of the biggest challenges of these times is the recognition of diversity, which is an essential

part of the Good Living or Sumak Kawsay. We will see that the public and communal management

have weaknesses and strengths, but these are absolutely complementary. Without developing this

complementarity, it will take decades until the human right to drinking water and sanitation, as

recognized by the United Nations on July 28 2010, becomes a reality.

“The right to a decent life, which assures health, food and nutrition, drinking water, housing, environmental sanitation… is recognized and will be ensured for all people.”

Article 66, Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador

yaku

kamay

7

yaku

kamay

6

Why is it so important to know and debate on public-communal alliances at this moment, on

what they are, on how they function and how they develop? The reasons are many:

• these models for water management are mentioned in the Constitution, Organic Code

for Territorial Organization, Autonomy and Decentralization (COOTAD, Spanish acronym)

and the Water Resources legislative bill, even though they have not been developed and

materialized

• it is essential for the country to respond to the demands of traditionally neglected sectors,

such as the rural area, with models of water management ensuring the human right to water

and sanitation.

• there are only few concrete examples of the model proposed in the Ecuadorian Constitution

on public-communal alliances and thus the need to disseminate relevant experiences.

Here, one of the first experiences of this kind in the country is presented: the Support Center

for the Rural Management of Drinking Water (CENAGRAP) of the province of Cañar, created in

2002. This experience demonstrates that this model of public-communal alliance is possible and

sustainable. For this reason, it becomes a fundamental point of reference and it will contribute

significantly to the debate on new models for rural water management in the country and the

region

chapter 1

The importance of the community drinking water systems in Latin America

“But how can I eat and drinkWhen my food is snatched

from the hungryAnd my glass of water belongs

to the thirsty?And yet I eat and drink.”

Bertolt Brecht

yaku

kamay

9

yaku

kamay

8

In demographic terms, the current Latin America is

not the same as that of the 50s or 60s. At that time,

three out of four Latin Americans lived in the rural

areas and just one out of four lived in the cities.

Nowadays the situation is exactly the opposite.

In fact, according to the United Nations and the

Economic Commission for Latin America (CEPAL),

our region is one of the most urbanized in the

planet. It is estimated that currently 7 out of 10

inhabitants of Latin America live in the cities. In

1990, three of the world’s megacities1 were in Latin

America (Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo and Mexico) and

in 2015 three more were added to the list (Río de

Janeiro, Bogotá and Lima).

1 Citieswithmorethan10millioninhabitants.

The rural areas where poverty concentrated

historically, have expelled their population

in search of better living conditions and job

opportunities to the cities. These unplanned and

extremely disorganized processes have multiplied

the emergence of marginalization, and as a result,

problems relating to the provision of basic services.

Migration has urbanized poverty, resulting in many

issues: the problems of the rural areas remain

the same, their solution is put on-hold and these

problems get worse; those displaced to the cities

and concentrated in peri-urban neighborhoods

exert great pressure to cover the needs for basic

services, above all water and sanitation; this new

peri-urban population is the potential base to

support populist politics and clientelism, which

do not propose an structural solution to the

problems of public services. On the other hand,

the limitations in the planning of the State, urban

and rural territorial organization, inequity and

the effects of centralism in the public investment,

create an extremely complex problematic that we

all have to face.

In Ecuador, 33.75 % of the population lives in the

countryside2. However, this is a national average,

that does not allow to clearly see the scale and

implications of the rural settings for public policies.

As we can see in chart 1, only 4 provinces fall

within the national average range, since two of the

most populated cities in the country are located in

two of these provinces: Guayaquil and Quito. The

provinces of Amazonia, Sierra Central, Cañar and

Esmeraldas exceed the 48 % of rural population.

2 INEC,Estimationofthepopulationperregionandyearaccordingtoprovincesandmunicipalities, period2001-2010,Quito,2010.

Even though 66.25 % of the population is

concentrated in the cities of the country and

continue unstoppable the processes of

urbanization, the rural areas still have a great

importance. Precisely, the lack of access to services

and better living conditions in rural communities

are the main cause of migration.

The urban-rural dynamic in Latin America

Chart 1:percentage of rural population in Ecuador per province, 2010

Source:INEC2010,madebyDennisGarcia,2011.

70 %

60 %

50 %

40 %

30 %

20 %

10 %

0 %

Nac

iona

l

Gala

pago

s

Guay

as

El O

ro

Pich

inch

a

Azua

y

Man

abí

Los R

ios

Imba

bura

Carc

hi

Loja

Tung

urah

ua

Chim

bora

zo

Past

aza

Caña

r

Sucu

mbi

os

Zam

ora

Ch

Mor

ona

Santi

ago

Esm

eral

das

Nap

o

Coto

paxi

Boliv

ar

Ore

llana

yaku

kamay

11

yaku

kamay

10

Chart 2:Coverage of drinking water and sanitation in the countries in the Andean region

Country Population % Drinking water % Sanitation %

Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural

Bolivia 65,3 34,7 82,8 97,0 56,5 37,7 55,8 4,1

Colombia 75,5 24,5 90,9 97,5 68,3 75,4 92,2 17,9

Ecuador 66,3 33,7 78,4 87,5 58,5 49,5 66,7 11,8

Peru 64,3 35,7 68,6 86,1 34,8 57,1 81,8 9,4

Chart 2 shows that the coverage of drinking water

and sanitation in the region still has deficiencies,

in particular in the rural areas. The delay in the

coverage of sanitation and the inequities in the

coverage of services in the rural area are undeni-

able On the other hand, it has to be considered

that these averages do not allow to visualize

the differences that exist between the urban,

peri-urban and rural areas; the noticeable differ-

ences that exist right inside the urban areas in

relation to the marginalized neighborhoods; or the

acute delay in the rural areas, where historically

excluded populations live.

Further, drinking water coverage would drop

significantly if the contribution of the community

systems in the countries of the Andean region is not

considered. Finally, the quality of service regarding

drinking water access remains relative. Many

services under this classification pretend to deliver

drinking water but actually provide water that gets

no or inadequate treatment

The United Nations, CEPAL and the multilateral

organizations, such as the World Bank and the Inter-

American Development Bank state that the local

governments, sectoral policies and the financial

and institutional resources have not been able to

answer the demands for services, in particular for

drinking water and sanitation in the poorer sectors.

At the end of the 80s and 90s, the multilateral

organizations promoted and imposed policies

called “decentralization” in the framework of

policies for structural adjustment, which resulted

in the dismantlement of the state institutions,

even though many performed a great job at that

moment. A well-known case is the Ecuadorian

Institute for Sanitary Projects (IEOS, Spanish

acronym), which in 1994, even though the World

Bank had recognized its efficiency, moved to the

Sub-Secretariat for Drinking Water and Sanitation of

the Ministry of Urbanization and Housing (MIDUVI,

Spanish acronym), where it got dissolved

The processes known as decentralization were

promoted without the resources to make them

sustainable and quickly ended up in failure.

At the same time that this “inattention of the

State” was happening, caused by the policies of

structural adjustment, the multilateral organizations

promoted processes of privatization of the drinking

water and sanitation services.

However, after disastrous experiences, the

international organizations recognize the failure of

this choice “FromArgentinatoBoliviaandfrom

ThePhilippinestoTheUnitedStates”,ithasbeen

provedthatthebeliefthattheprivatesectoroffers

a“magicformula”toimposetheequalityand

efficiencyneededtospeeduptheprogresstowards

thegoalofwaterforeveryone,iswrong.The

watersectorhasmanycharacteristicsofanatural

monopoly.Giventhatthereisalackofregulatory

capacitytoprotectthepublicinterestthrough

rulesonpriceandinvestment,thereisariskthat

monopolisticabusecantakeplace.”3

3 PNUD,Beyondscarcity:power,povertyandglobalwatercrisis.HumanDevelopmentReport2006,Madrid.

The public policies

Source:CEDLAC,madebyDennisGarcía,2011. ForBoliviaandColombiathedatausedisfrom2007,forEcuadorandPeru2009.

yaku

kamay

13

5Nowadays,thereare221.6ContraloríaGeneraldelEstado,DireccióndeAuditoríadeProyectosyAmbiental,DIAPA-0015-2009,ECAPAG:ProgramadeConcesiónalSectorPrivadoServ.deAguaPotableyAlcantarilladodeGuayaquil,InformeGeneral,Quito,2009.

7ThePanAmericanHealthOrganization(PAHO)andtheWorldHealthOrganization(WHO)havesetthemaximumleveloflosesat20%intheurbanareas.

8ElComercio,6.02.2007.9MIDUVI,Análisisdelasituacióndelosserviciosdeagua,saneamientoyresiduossólidosenlasáreasurbanasdelEcuador,2008.

Even if we recognize the strategic importance of the

public services to ensure the human right to water,

it is not possible to ignore the limitations of the

public institutions.

The National Association of Municipal Companies

for Drinking Water, Sewer and Related Services

(ANEMAPA) recognizes that the scarcity, bad quality

and rationing of the drinking water services are

the main problems that the majority of the 2195

municipalities in the country faces. Their president

states that 50 % of the municipalities cannot

treat their water due to the high cost and lack of

infrastructure. In addition, “65 %of the treated

water is lost due to the old pipes, bad management

and a deficient control of leaks”.

For example, in Guayaquil, where a private company

operates, leaks or losses are as high as 65 % 6 -7

On the other hand, “90 % of the 219 municipalities

subsidizes drinking water tariffs”, which affects its

sustainability8

An analysis performed by the MIDUVI in 20089,

reported the serious structural problems in the

supply of drinking water, sanitation and solid waste

management in the urban areas. These findings are

summarized in the following chart:

The public services and their limitations

Chart 3: Water, sanitation and solid waste management in urban areas

Ecuador Costa Sierra Amazonia

Population who access the public water supply network % 87,65 82,17 89,00 90,67

Systems with permanent water quality control % 25,52 27,50 31,82 12,00

Systems not treating water prior discharge % 67,78 72,50 63,27 71,33

Population who access the sewage system % 69,43 65,00 69,73 73,33

Systems disposing their solid waste in sanitary landfills % 14,91 7,17 17,91 17,17

Source:MIDUVI2008,DennisGarcía2011

The World Bank itself admits the failure of

these policies: “The model that includes the

participation of the private sector suffered

negative experiences that raised doubts about its

global applicability. The disappointment of the

leaders of the water and sanitation sector towards

the private sector originated due to problems,

for instance in Cochabamba, Tucuman and later

on in Buenos Aires Further, doubts arose soon in

relation to the private sector’s interest in providing

services to the poorest sector of the population,

given the tariff structures imposed to this sector.”4

There is no doubt that a fundamental human

right, such as the access to water and sanitation

(now recognized by the United Nations), cannot

be supplied by private companies, which ultimate

goal is profit maximization and do not have

any interest in preserving the public interest,

in particular of the poorest who cannot afford

the high tariffs, which in most of the cases are

subsidized This right can only be ensured by public

or community companies, as it is established in the

Ecuadorian Constitution.

yaku

kamay

12

4WorldBank,WaterandSanitationProgram,EvaluationoftheSmall-ScaleLocalOperatorsofWaterandSanitationinPeru,Lima,2007.

yaku

kamay

14

yaku

kamay

15

It is important to point out that the job done by

the MIDUVI is a study and not a national census;

therefore these figures can vary. In addition, these

conclusions are only representative of the urban

areas However, this data shows a tendency in

relation to the provision of basic services. Water

quality is definitely an aspect in which public

systems have alarming deficiencies. Furthermore

there is concern about the high levels of pollution

generated by public and private companies, which

do not treat their wastewater before discharge.

In addition, the almost inexistent solid waste

management is also a source of water pollution.

In the report of the Government Accountability

Office in 2009 about the provision of drinking water

and sanitation services in Guayaquil, comparing

the city’s services to other cities in the country, two

additional problems were identified: on the one

hand, the excess of personnel inside some public

companies, in particular in big cities10 that results

in higher production cost and limits investments.

On the other hand, the large percentage of water

not being paid: 65 % in the case of Guayaquil,

31.5 % in Quito and 31 % in Cuenca.11 

These problems are even more present in several

small municipalities, above all in rural ones. The

small municipalities in the majority of cases

only have one “Department of Public Projects”,

which takes care of multiple activities related to

the construction of infrastructure. They do not

have specialized spaces for drinking water, and in

some cases, they limit their activities to provide

construction materials to the communities, so

that they construct their own systems Rural

municipalities with drinking water companies

usually do not have a medium or long term

planning, master plans with sufficient and updated

information, many of them do not have water

meters and water supply is highly subsidized

In other cases, the municipal companies almost

do not have any autonomy, depend greatly on

the Mayor, they only serve the urban population

and have high levels of debts. In general, the

municipalities have not been responsible for

the water systems in rural areas and have

underestimated the contribution of the community

systems. The interventions do not finance

well-designed and complete systems due to the

lack of funding, limited planning and prioritization

which allow them to evaluate progress in the

sector; they are not very sustainable, since they

integrate aspects related to the management,

operation and maintenance.

In the last 4 years (2007-2011), speeches that discredit

the public and community service providers are often

heard, forgetting the complexity of the problems

faced by the providers and the huge challenges that

need to be addressed in order to ensure water and

sanitation in peri-urban and rural areas. The quality

and efficiency in the provision of services do not only

depend on their technical and financial capability. It’s

rather been caused by a structural problem inherent

to the development model promoted in Latin America

over the past decades

10FordrinkingwatersystemsinLatinAmerica,aparametertoensuretheoperativeefficiencyhasbeensetat3employerspereach1000householdconnections.11ContraloríaGeneraldelEstado,Ibidem.

yaku

kamay

17

yaku

kamay

16

Until a few years ago in Latin America, the

concept of water community systems and its legal

recognition were totally absent. As a result these

systems were ignored in the legal framework. In

order to refer to these drinking water providers,

many terms were used (and are still in use):

Drinking Water and Sanitation Management Boards,

Water Provider Boards, Drinking Water Committee,

Community Associations for Water Management,

Rural Aqueducts, Community Aqueducts,

Management Boards for Sanitation Services,

Water Cooperatives, Management Boards for Rural

Aqueducts, Sanitation Management Boards and

Local Operators of Small Scale.

Surprisingly, water supply and sanitation are

currently being covered by community systems in

many communities in the United States. In fact,

there are more than 54 000 community systems,

which provide service to more than 248 million

people 12

12LuisDaríoSánchez,GerardoGalvis;Tecnologíasenabastecimientodeaguaparapequeñossistemasdesuministrodeagua,CINARA,Cali,2001.

In Latin America, the community systems originated

as an answer to several issues: the increasing

demand from the rural and peri-urban sectors,

which had been historically deprived of the right

to clean water; the incapability of the State and its

related offices to provide the poorest sectors with

these services; organizational ideas in the region

and the risk of privatization of the public services.

Many of these systems are between 15 and 45

years old and emerged in diverse contexts.

In Bolivia, the community systems appeared due

to the absence of the State, even though they were

created during the 70s, supported by the model of

development proposed by CEPAL, in which the State

had a crucial role

In addition, many of these systems appeared as

a reaction to the drastic privatization processes

launched since the government of Gonzalo Sanchez

de Lozada (1993-1997 and 2002-2003) and the

second presidential period of Hugo Banzer (1997-

2001) It is not surprise that the community systems

had first been established near Cochabamba, which

also took part in the “Water War” and is located in

the southernmost (and the poorest) part of the city.

The emergence of the community systems

These zones, which are not interesting for the

multinationals and therefore could not access

drinking water, had to organize themselves to get

this service. It is estimated that the community

systems supply 73.48 % of the population in the

6 municipalities of the Cochabamba region

(including the southern part of the city). The

systems in Santa Cruz de la Sierra supply 32 22 %

of the population. 13

In the 70s in Peru, the General Management of

Sanitary Projects (DGOS, Spanish acronym), which

is linked to the Ministry of Housing, built and ran

drinking water and sanitation projects in the whole

country. In 1981, it was replaced by the National

Service for Drinking Water Supply and Sewage

(SENAPA, Spanish acronym), which disappeared in

1990 due to structural adjustments

In Colombia something similar happened In this

country a lot of the water and sanitation systems

were also built during the 70s

13AgenciadelaCooperaciónSueca(ASDI),OperadoresLocalesdePequeñaEscala,DocumentodeTrabajo,2008.

In Ecuador, the majority of the community systems

emerged during the 60s and 70s by the initiative

of the communities themselves, as well as through

the promotion of the model of development by

CEPAL. Ecuador was under a nationalist military

dictatorship, and profited from petroleum

extraction at the beginning of the 70s. They

promoted integrated rural development policies

(DRI, Spanish acronym), aiming to integrate the

development of the poorest rural communities and

therefore to ensure access to services.

It is in this period that many organizations for

planning and execution of policies related to water

were created, such as: the Ecuadorian Institute

for Electrification (INECEL, 1961), which was

responsible for developing hydroelectric power;

Ecuadorian Institute for Hydraulic Resources

(INERH, 1966), which was in charge of planning

and regulation with emphasis in irrigation; the

Ecuadorian Institute for Sanitary Projects (IEOS,

1965), responsible for the increase in water and

sanitation coverage.

This policy had in general positive results, for

example: the drinking water coverage increased

from 20 % in 1961 to 51 % in 1982, the sewage

system grew from 14 % to 32 % in the same

period 14

14AlexZapatta,Modelosdegestióndelagua:enbrevemiradaretrospectiva,Jipijapa,2010.

yaku

kamay

19

yaku

kamay

18

Country Title Number Beneficiairies

Guatemala Drinking water committees 5 000 n/d

Honduras Management water committees 5 300 3 000 000

El Salvador Community committees and associations of water networks

1 800 1 890 000

Nicaragua Drinking water and sanitation committees 5 600 1 200 000

Costa Rica Community aqueducts 1 800 1 080 000

Panama Management committees of rural aqueducts n/d n/d

Mexico Community based water committees n/d n/d

Colombia Community aqueducts 16 000 12 000 000

Peru Sanitation management committees 12 000 8 180 000

Ecuador Water and sanitation management committees (JAAP) 6 832 2 732 000

Bolivia Water cooperatives and committees 4 500 2 250 000

Paraguay Sanitation committees 2 500 1 210 000

Argentina Water cooperatives 2 000 4 410 000

Chili Rural water committees 1 456 1 497 079

Chart 4 was elaborated from estimations done by

the community systems themselves Studies carried

out by the World Bank (BM, Spanish acronym),

about Local Operators of Small Scale (OLPE, Spanish

acronym ), confirm these figures.

It is estimated that the community systems provide

drinking water to more than 40 million people

in Latin America, in other words to 7 % of the

population.

These averages, once again, overshadow the impor-

tance of the population served by these systems

in countries such as: Honduras (38 %), El Salvador

(30 %), Peru (26 %), Colombia (23 %), Bolivia (23

%), Nicaragua (21 %) or Ecuador (20 %). In Mexican

cities, such as Toluca, 35 % of the inhabitants are

supplied by Drinking Water Community Committees

(COCAPs, Spanish acronym) 16

The community systems are an undeniable reality

in the continent and to continue to ignore them

constitutes a strategic myopia . Given the specific

conditions of the region, it will be impossible to

ensure the universal right to clean water in the rural

areas without external competition. In this regard,

the Ecuadorian constitution is visionary because

it has recognized the need to strengthen these

systems, through alliances between the public

sector (municipalities) and community (JAAPs,

Spanish acronym)

16ElDiario,27.03.2009.

The multilateral organizations, such as the World

Bank themselves, which initially promoted

privatization even of the community systems,

have changed their position and now look at

these alliances between the public sector and the

community as a way to fill the gaps in coverage by

these services

“TheLocalOperatorsofSmallScale(OLPE)have

showedaperformancelevel,efficiencyand

sustainabilityequalorbetterthantheService

ProviderEntities(EPS,Spanishacronym).Giventhe

challengeofthegapinservicescoverage,itislikely

thattheOLPEcontinuetoprovideserviceformany

years...TheEPSandOLPEshouldcooperateand

worktogetherandinparallelinsteadofsegmenting

themarkets…TheEPSandOLPEaregoingtocoexist

formanyyears.Theybothhavesimilaradvantages:

theEPSs,givenitssize,offereconomyofscaleand

potentiallyaserviceofbetterquality;whilethe

OLPEshavebeenabletosupplysatisfactorilythe

unsatisfieddemandbythepoorestsectorsofthe

population…”.17 

17Worldbank,Ibidem.

Chart 4:Systèmes communautaires d’eau potable en Amérique latine15

Source:RevistaAquaVitae,Nª12,2010,DennisGarcía2011

15 InthemagazineAquaVitaeN°12,2010,editedinBrazilachartwasmadetodisplaythecommunitysystemsinLatinAmericafrominformationofexperiencesrelatedtotheAVINA.Thischartwasmadebyusingcomplementaryinformationobtainedbytheauthor.Sadly,thischartdoesnotdisplayinformationaboutBrazil,Uruguay,Venezuela,Surinam,Belize,PanamaandMexico.

yaku

kamay

21

yaku

kamay

20

As stated in several articles, presentations and

publications, one of the best discussed topics

in the Ecuadorian constitution is water. The

members of the assembly recognize that this

is due to the large variety of proposals sent by

several organizations and social platforms to the

Montecristi Constituent Assembly. The irrigators

and drinking water boards actually managed to

submit most of their proposals by different ways.

Despite the results obtained in the constituent

process, water was one of the most conflictual

topics, in particular on two aspects: the human

right to clean water and the exclusivity of the

public and community management These two

topics are closely related Is there a possibility to

ensure the human right to clean water without

public or community management? Can private

management ensure the human right to clean

water and take care of public interests?

The human right to clean water and the rights of

nature are part of an ethic vision for the provision

of services that the market cannot ensure on its

own. It requires setting principles such as human

equality, equity in the provision, common good

and social equity as starting points.

The market logic has a set of ethical limitations

and lack of principles. “Thecomplexityofpresent

andfutureinterlinkedvaluesandrights,impossible

todivideandown,makethatthemarketistoo

simpleatool.Thevaluesofsocialcohesionand

equitylinkedtothebasicservices,suchasthe

residentialwaterandsanitationservices(together

withsanitation,education,communitysafety,

amongothers)gobeyondmarketlogic.Ideological

debatesthatgowiththiskindofprivatizing

policiesputapart,demandingthatthemarket

assumesthemanagementofthiskindofvalues

isanimpossiblemission.Itisunreasonabletoask

themarkettosolveequityandciviccohesionorto

managetherightsoffuturegenerationstowards

whichitisnotsensitive”» 18

18ArrojoPedro,Elretoéticodelacrisisglobaldelagua.RelacionesInternacionales,núm.12,octubrede2009.

chapter 2

Community management in the new constitutional and juridical framework in Ecuador

“In well-managed countries,

a particular justice is not necessary…

In those countries, justice is seen as an

inventive and productive process able to

reconcile the most diverse interests.”

Bertolt Brecht

yaku

kamay

23

yaku

kamay

22

As can be seen, the human right to clean water and

its management entails a debate on the validity

of the water management privatization processes

and its substantial economic and politic interests.

One has to consider as well that the country has

experienced private management processes with

disastrous results, according to audits done by the

Comptroller General of the State and the Ministry

of Urban Development and Housing, in cities as

Guayaquil and Machala. In addition to solving

this dilemma, the Constitution makes a great

contribution to a new water management model

which is strategically linked to a new development

paradigm: the Good Living or Sumak Kawsay. This

new paradigm no longer considers the market and

economic growth as the ultimate goal; therefore

it is no longer possible to see water as a product

Water is closely related to the human right and

the rights of nature, at the same level. It is,

therefore, not an isolated element, but is part of an

ecosystemic relation.

“ExpressingtherightsofnatureintheConstitution

meanssupportingpoliticallyitschangefromobject

tosubject,andassuchensuringtherightofhumans

toexistthemselves.Thispointofviewimpliesthat

alllivingbeingshavethesameontologicalvalue.In

ordertoachievethiscivilizingtransformation,the

“decommodification”ofnatureisessential.

Insteadofkeepingtheseparationbetweennature

andhumanbeings,thetasktocontributetotheir

encounter,wouldbesomethinglikeproposing

totieagaintheknotbrokenbythestrengthofa

conceptionoflifethatturnedouttobepredatory,

andbytheway,unsustainable.”19

This justifies the inclusion of water in several

chapters of the constitution: it is the headline of

the chapter about the Good Living Rights; it is

included in the chapter about food sovereignty,

the strategic sectors and in the chapter about

biodiversity and natural resources The new

Constitution definitely marks a rupture with the

history of water management and administration

in Ecuador. It breaks, above all, the notion that

sees water as a good, therefore suggesting that it

can be exchanged, expropriated and transformed

in products. It also breaks the old “agrarian”

conception of water linked exclusively to irrigation,

neglecting other uses such as the human right to

clean water and its important role in nature

As numerous constitutional principles relate to

water, we consider 5 of them directly related to

community management: the human right to clean

water, the definition of water as a national strategic

heritage for public use, the public and community

management, the rights of nature and water user

participation.

The human right to clean water

The article 12 of the Constitution states that:

“Thehumanrighttocleanwaterisfundamental

andinalienable…”

Further, the article 66 declares :

“Thefollowingrightwillberecognizedand

ensuredforallpeople:therighttoadecentlife

thatpromoteshealth,feedingandnutrition,

drinkingwater,housing,sanitation.”

The Constitution does not only ensure the human

right to have sufficient water, permanently and

in good quality, but also the right to a decent life.

This implies that priority should be given to health

and sanitation matters, shown to be amongst the

greatest deficiencies in our country and in Latin

America

The State is obliged to ensure the human rights

Therefore the State should adopt policies, plans

and strategies to make thess rights effective. It

demands from the State institutions to guard these

rights to become reality and to adopt the necessary

measures for their accomplishment (by legislation,

public policies, budgetary measures, etc ) 20

The acknowledgement of the human right to

water is also fully embodied in the priority water

uses as stated in article 318. Human consumption

comes first, followed by irrigation to ensure food

sovereignty, and finally productive activities.

20TheUnitedNationsrecognisedonJuly28thof2010drinkingwaterandsanitationasauniversalhumanright.

Constitutional principles related to community management

19 Acosta Alberto, et al, Agua un derecho humano fundamental, Ed. Abya Yala, Quito, 2010.

yaku

kamay

25

yaku

kamay

24

Water as a national strategic heritage for public use

21

The article 318 is of utmost importance for water

management. It includes several key aspects,

such as:

“Waterisanationalstrategicheritageforpublic

use;itisaninalienableandimprescriptible

possessionoftheStateanditconstitutesavital

elementfornatureandhumanexistence.

Everyformofprivatizationofwaterisprohibited.”

The definition of water as a “national strategic

heritage for public use”, surpasses the previous

vision of water as a “good” or “resource” ; water

becomes a fundamental (strategic) element for

the construction of the new development model.

The definition of heritage assumes a responsible

management in the present, to ensure resource

availability for the future generations. In addition,

given that water is an essential heritage for life

and the development of the country, it has to be

ensured that its use and management is in hands

of the State. For that reason any form of

privatization is strictly prohibited.

Purely public or community-based management

Article 318 goes on to say that

“Watermanagementwillbeexclusively

publicorcommunal.Thepublicserviceof

sanitation,drinkingwatersupplyandirrigation

willbeprovidedonlybystateorcommunity

corporations”.

This section agrees completely with the previous:

as water is a “national strategic heritage for public

use”, and “any form of privatization is prohibited”;

the only entities that can ensure adequate

management are the State and community systems

The State, by its nature, has to watch over the

public interest The community systems because

they are the expression of the communities, which

are a form of organization that also watches over

the common interest This means that neither the

State nor the communities seek profit or particular

benefits.

In acknowledgement of the community systems

and in order to strengthen their management,

the article 318 goes on to say:“TheStatewill

strengthenthemanagementandoperationofthe

communalinitiativeslinkedtowatermanagement

andtheprovisionofpublicservices,throughthe

promotionofalliancesbetweenthepublicsector

andthecommunitytosupplyservices.” There are

two important aspects to point out here: in the first

place, the express order to recognize, consolidate

and strengthen the community services; secondly,

the mechanism to strengthen and consolidate the

community management is established: promote

public-community alliances

It is clear that the goal is to strengthen the

community systems, through alliances between

the public sector (State and municipalities) and the

community systems. An alliance refers to a strategic

agreement between key stakeholders to achieve

a common goal: in this case, the human right to

water. It is assumed that these stakeholders are

known, above all, for their potential and strengths

because it is recognized that both are essential to

achieve the strategic objective.

This is extremely important nowadays because not

all of the municipalities have a good understanding

of what this means and some of them pretend

to absorb the community systems instead of

strengthening them as the Constitution demands.

Few are the examples in which the public-

community alliances have materialized One case

is the municipality of Cañar and its alliance with

the Drinking Water Boards to create the Support

Center for Rural Management of Drinking Water

(CENAGRAP), aiming at supplying drinking water

to the rural areas in this municipality

The rights of nature and the conservation of ecosystems related to water

The Ecuadorian Constitution is the first to grant

rights to nature. There are many articles that

establish this right and propose a model for

development in harmony with nature and the

environment

Article 71 says:

“Nature,orPachamama,wherelifereproduces

anddevelops,isentitledtofullrespectfor

itsexistence,maintenanceandregeneration

cycles,itsstructure,functionsandevolutionary

processes.Everyperson,community,townor

nationalitycandemandthecompliance

oftherightsofnaturefromthepublicauthority.”

21ItisworthrememberingthattheConstitutionof98initsArt.247definedthat“Watersarenationalgoodsofpublicuse”.Butthen,inArt.249,itstated:“Theprovisionofpublicservicesofdrinkingwaterandirrigation,sanitation,electricpower,telecommunications,roads,portfacilitiesandothersofasimilarnature,isaStateresponsibility.Itcanlendthemdirectlyorbydelegationtojointventuresorprivateenterprises,bymeansofconcession,association,capitalisation,transferofownershipshareholderoranyothercontractualforminaccordancewiththelaw.Theagreedcontractualconditionsmaynotbeunilaterallymodifiedbylawsorotherprovisions”.Thatistosay,thedefinitionof“nationalgoodsforpublicuse”.wasonlyadeclarativeformulation,becausetheycouldbeexploitedbyprivatecompanies,throughagreementsthatcouldn’tevenbeaffectedbythelaws.

yaku

kamay

27

yaku

kamay

26

It is established clearly in Article 406 which

ecosystems have to be preserved:

“TheStatewillregulatetheconservation,

managementandsustainableuse,recoveryand

limitsofthefragileandthreatenedecosystems,

amongothersthemoorlands,wetlands,cloud

forests,wetanddrytropicalforests,mangroves,

marineecosystemsandcoastalecosystems.”22

Article 411 expresses specific mandates regarding

water resources:

“TheStatewillguaranteetheconservation,

recoveryandintegratedmanagementofwater

resources,hydrographicbasinsandflowslinked

tothehydrologicalcycle.Allactivitythatcould

affectthequalityandquantityofwaterandthe

equilibriumoftheecosystems,inparticularin

thesourcesandzonesofwaterrechargewillbe

regulated.Thesustainabilityoftheecosystemsand

humanconsumptionwillbethepriorityintheuse

andexploitationofwaterresources.”

The COOTAD and the communal water management

Participation of users in the water management

Participation is another novel principle introduced

by the Constitution.

Article 85 is very clear to point out that:

“Thedeclaration,execution,evaluationand

controlofthepublicpoliciesandserviceswill

ensuretheparticipationofpeople,communities,

villagesandnationalities.”

This article proposes the participation of the

citizens and their organizations along the

elaboration cycle of public policies, from the

formulation until the monitoring of their execution.

The participation even goes beyond this.

Article 95 states:

“Thecitizens,individuallyandcollectively,will

participateactivelyinthedecisionmaking

process,planningandmanagementofthe

publicmatters,andpopularcontrolofState

organizationsandsociety…”

This does not only imply an active participation

inside the institutions, which provide public

services, but also the responsibility and obligation

of the citizens to influence the public policies.

22Páramos:afragileAndeanecosystemoflakes,peatbogs,meadowsandbushes.

22PublishedintheRegistrooficialofOctober19th,2010.

What is the COOTAD ?

The Organic Code of Territorial Organization,

Autonomy and Decentralization (COOTAD)23 is a new

law enforced since October 2010. This law explains

and specifies the competences at the different levels

in the Decentralized Autonomous Governments

(GADs) established in the Constitution: regional

autonomous governments, provincial governments,

municipal governments and rural parochial(*)

governments This law aims at accomplishing what

has been stated in the articles 261 to 267 of the

Constitution. In other words, the idea is to clearly

define which competences correspond exclusively

to each government level and which ones are

shared or linked to the Executive branch.

This aspect is very important because, in regard

to drinking water, there is a superposition of

competences at the different levels of the

government; as a result there is dispersion and

irrationality in relation to water.

The executive branch, through the MIDUVI; the

provincial governments, the municipalities, the

parochial boards, the regional corporations for

development, all of them intervened. According to

the Constitution and the COOTAD, the municipalities

have the exclusive responsibility in the issues

related to drinking water.

The COOTAD ratifies the principles that the

Constitution proposed in regard to water.

It establishes the obligation of having a good

coordination between the different governmental

levels, as well as the community and water users’

participation in planning and execution of public

water policies

Drinking water in the COOTAD

In the Article 55 of the COOTAD, which refers to

the exclusive competences of the decentralized

autonomous municipal government, the following

duties are established:

« Supplythefollowingpublicservices:drinking

water,sewage,wastewatertreatment,solidwaste

management,environmentalsanitation,…»

(*)parochial:TheparishesofEcuador

arethethirdleveladministrativeunits

ofEcuador.Thecantonsaredivided

intoparisheswhicharesimilarto

municipalities.

yaku

kamay

29

yaku

kamay

28

Article 137 of the COOTAD refers to the exercising of the competence of supplying public services, in

particular water and sanitation. In summary, this article expresses the following:

chapter 3

Characterization of the communal management

“… The truth is that today I am

nostalgic as well,

As if I am thirsty for my own thirst

and when I am about to drink

my hand trembles,

As if in reality

I want to kill my thirst.”

Antonio Preciado

• Water and sanitation are exclusively in the

competence of the municipalities in coordination

with the parochial and community systems

• The conservation and maintenance of the

hydrographic basins is the competence of

the autonomous regional and provincial

governments in coordination with the

municipalities.

• The municipalities have to strengthen

community management through public-

community alliances

• The municipalities are responsible for sanitation

(sewage system, wastewater treatment, solid

waste management, environmental sanitation) in

coordination with the rural parishes.

• The water tariff has to be fair and differentiated,

in order to favor those with the lowest incomes.

• The parochial governments can manage

and administrate the public services, which

are passed on to them by the municipal

governments

• Citizens’ participation and monitoring have to be

encouraged to ensure the quality of the public

services

• Quality control mechanisms have to be

established for the public and community

services

In general, the COOTAD limits itself to list the

exclusive and shared competences of the GADs,

but it does not establish how they should be put

in place In other words, it does not propose a

management vision that implies a more integrated

management of the public services linked to water.

In this context, the functions and competences

are going to be developed; therefore it is very

important to start discussing the models for water

management within the principles set by the

Constitution and mentioned in the COOTAD.

yaku

kamay

3130

What are the communal systems and what are their strenghts

Studies carried out by international and multilateral

organizations recognized unanimously that

community systems have become an answer to the

most vulnerable sectors of the population. In our

country, some of the needs of these sectors were

covered by the policies implemented by the IEOS,

however a large part of this accomplishment was

achieved thanks to the community effort itself,

sometimes in alliances with NGOs due to the lack

of willingness from the municipalities to solve these

issues in the poorest sectors

A leader of one of the water boards explained this

situation in a speech given to the authorities of the

SENAGUA:

“Eventhough,severaltimesanofficialwritten

noticewassenttothemunicipalitiesaskingtowork

forus,weneverreceivedpositiveanswers.Andit

wasworseforthoselivinginthehills,moorlands,

countryside,…

Themunicipalgovernmentsinchargeatthat

momentabandonedus;theymadeusfeelthat

therewasnorighttowaterforthosewhodidnot

fulfilltheirrequirements.

Thissituationmotivatedustopursueaverydifficult

butnotimpossibledream,whichbecamereality

throughtotheworkandeffortofourownpeople.

Theyarethosewhoarehererightnow,wearethe

oneswhodecidedtosolvetheproblemoflackof

waterintheforgottensectors,inthevulnerable

families,theonethatalwaysweretold“no”.

Themunicipalitiesdidnotfeelnorliveourreality.

Theseplacesthatyouallseeherearethosewhere

theJAAPworked,built,operated,maintainedand

managedoursystems30yearsago.

Severalwaterboardsreceivedsupportfromthe

publicinstitutionsobviously,forinstancethe

IEOSatthattime,fortheconstructionworksand

installationofpipes.However,thewaterboards

thatrequiredapumpingstation,hadtomake

ahugeinvestmentinthesystemandelectric

equipment,whichwascompletelyfundedbyus

(thewaterboards)inordertoaccomplishwhatthe

WaterBoardsaretoday.

Itisclearthatwedonotexisttocompetewith

anyprivateorpubliccompany.Wecameto

solveaproblemandtotakeahugepartofthe

responsibilitiesofthesuccessivegovernments.

Wearedoingit,despitetheproblemsthatthe

countryfacesduetothehugeeconomiccrisisin

whichwehaveseenourbanks,presidentsand

severalprivatecompaniesfail.”24

24 Martha Guanoliquín, speech delivered on 31 July 2010 in a meeting of water boards ofAmaguañatoraisetheneedtoberecognizedbytheSENAGUA.

yaku

kamay

33

yaku

kamay

32

The community systems are part of community

organizations in a specific territory. They do not

profit and they exist to supply drinking water to

the rural and peri-urban areas. The fundamental

criterion for their management is the provision of

a public service to benefit the community. Their

efficiency and administration do not have profit

maximization as ultimate goal, but the well-being

of the community.

For this purpose the principles of equity and

solidarity are always present. Profit surplus (when

available) is reinvested to expand the service,

training, initiatives to protect micro-basins or

ecosystems related to water, contributions to

the community (road infrastructure and other

infrastructure), funeral costs, human aid or other

activities with social impact.

Differentiated tariffs were for instance applied in

the JAAP of Shizho in the municipality of Cañar.

This system favors those who consume the least

(which is the large majority) and penalizes those

who consume the most:

Tariffs in the JAAP of Shizho

Consumption (m3) Base tariff (USD) Cost / additional m3

01 - 11 0,50 –

12 - 16 0,50 0,25

17 - 20 0,50 0,50

21 - 24 0,50 0,75

> 25 0,50 1,00

The system was built by the community and the

Consortium Protos-CEDIR in 2000. It has 84 families

where 60 % pay the minimum consumption, and

the payment coming from the other 40 % allows

to subsidize the bigger group of users. Regular

analysis of water quality at the source and houses

is performed. Water of very good quality is

supplied

Profit surplus is only reinvested in the expansion

and improvement of the system. The passive

members (people who have the right to clean

water but have migrated or young people who in

the future will have a house) pay a monthly fee of

1 dollar to maintain this right, as a contribution to

the water board, since they do not participate in

the collective community work (mingas!!!).

Community systems are autonomous and

self-managing. This means that they do not depend

on the State to function and their operation

and maintenance are their own responsibility

Generally, the community systems have been built

by means of common work (community work),

for this reason they have, in some cases, received

support from the State and/or the international

cooperation via NGO’s. The contribution of the

community to the total cost of the construction of

the systems is between 30 - 40 % (exceptionally

they can contribute up to 70 %) through collective

work, materials found in the area and more

specialized works, according to the knowledge

present in the community. The active participation

of the users in the design and construction of

the system has resulted in solid processes of

empowerment, which are not only reflected in

how people take care of the infrastructure, but also

in the active participation in the administration,

operation, maintenance, as well as the monitoring.

The system was built between 1990 and 1993 It

has 2 100 families and serves 23 communities.

It costed 2 061 632 USD, the community gave

1 462 632 (71 %) and Plan International 600 000

USD (29 %)

In general, research done by international

organizations in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and

Bolivia shows that when the systems are built

and managed by the participation of the users,

the sustainability of these systems is guaranteed.

In contrast, when they are built following a top

down system, for example by the State and NGOs

and with the conception that these systems are

only infrastructure, they are inaugurated in the

majority of the cases, but they fall into a process

of deterioration that reduces their lifetime and the

possibilities to reach sustainability.

Tariffs in the JAAP of Cojitambo, Cañar

Consumption m3 Base tariff (USD) Cost / additional m3

01 - 10 2 –

10 - 15 2 0,20

15 - > 2 2,00

Source:CENAGRAPFiles,MadebyProtos,2011. Source:LeonidasMuñoz,PresidentoftheJAAPdeCojitambo,2011.

yaku

kamay

35

yaku

kamay

34

Research done by CEPAL clearly identified the

consequences of the vertical construction

processes:

“Acommonpracticeintheexecutionofdrinking

waterprojectsandsanitationinruralareasisto

applystrictlytechnicalcriteriaforthecreation,

designandconstructionoftheprojects,without

takingintoaccounttheneedsandpreferences

ofthebeneficiaries.Theprojectsgiventothe

communityareabandonedquicklybecause

participatoryprocessesarenotdevelopedfor

thecreationandexecutionofprojects,they

implement,inseveralcasestechnologies,which

donottakeintoaccountthecapacityofthe

communitytopayfortheirlatermaintenanceand

operation.Inaddition,projectsthatgoagainst

traditionsandcultureofthebeneficiariesare

sometimesimplemented.”25

The community systems are participatory.

Participation is not only seen as an individual

right to take part in the decisions in all aspects

related to the systems (social, technical and

environmental), but as an individual and family

responsibility that makes possible the right of the

affiliated family. Volunteering work is the highest

expression of participation and responsibility. It

includes and empowers the principle of reciprocity

(I work for the community because that ensures

my rights and I can demand them) and the

importance of the organization and collective

work.

The community systems include social monitoring

and transparency in their management Social

monitoring is done via the assemblies, where

discussion takes place and decisions are made in

regard to all the aspects of the system: technical,

financial, social, organizational, political and

conflict solution. In the assembly, the leaders are

elected by direct participation; they usually do

not get paid. They have to motivate their agenda

during the assemblies and if it is necessary, there

is a possibility to revoke their administration

period In this way, democracy in the community

systems is not only representative, but also

deliberative and has the mechanisms for direct

social regulation.

Therefore, there are normally few cases of

corruption and bad practices. In general, the

management of economic resources is transparent

because a lot of attention is given to the assembly

and how it manages funds.

The community systems result in savings for

the State Larger investments per inhabitant are

needed in rural areas where population density

is low, houses are dispersed and, in many cases,

the geographic characteristics limit access. In

the majority of the community systems, users

contribute not only with labor force in the

construction and rehabilitation, but also give

significant amounts of economic resources

and also take part in the administration and

maintenance. In Cañar, for instance, it has been

determined that each community systems needs

per year in average 3 370 USD to ensure its

operation. Nevertheless, the systems with more

than 250 families require amounts around the

15 000 USD per year

Generally, the governmental programs for

investment in infrastructure consider criteria linked

to the impact and politic visibility, which are more

viable, perceptible and “demonstrable” in urban

conglomerates. This is one of the most important

reasons why the investment in drinking water and

sanitation results in such low rates in rural areas in

Latin America.

Usually, the State considers only the investment

to construct infrastructure, but it doesn’t take into

account the important contribution that the users

of the community systems make. In the cities,

the relationship between the water distribution

companies and the citizens has been limited to the

bill and salary payments, users do not know from

where the water comes and do not participate

in the maintenance of the infrastructure, which

ensures the provision of this service. In the rural

areas the opposite happens, the users participate

actively in the construction, management and

work towards their operation and maintenance.

From an economic point of view, the community

workforce rationalizes and decreases the costs. The

community systems do not require bureaucracy

for their operation, since the majority of the

positions are ad-honorem and only the salary of

an operator is needed For that reason, the only

form of management feasible has been the one

by the community which relies strongly in social

agreements

Many community systems were constructed out

of “social engineering”, which aims at integrating

technical aspects in the construction process

(linked to hydraulic engineering), as well as the

active social participation in the planning and

construction of the project.

25 WilliamCarrascoMantilla,Publicpoliciesfordrinkingwatersupplyandsanitationinruralareas,CEPAL,Santiago,Chile,March2011.

yaku

kamay

37

yaku

kamay

36

This methodology implies a dialogue between

the technical staff and the organization, ensuring

that the construction is done according to the

technical requirements, that the methods are

adjusted to the specific conditions of the place

where the system is being built, but above all,

that the organization owns the system and

knows entirely its components, how it operates

and ensures its sustainability A study done

by the Forum for Water Resources in 2007

confirmed this characteristic:

“Itwasfoundthatthebettermaintainedsystems

arethosewiththegreatereffort,participation

andcommunitycontribution.”26

The community systems built with social

involvement have an integrated vision of water.

The greater the degree in which the users of the

community systems have taken an active part

in the construction of the infrastructures, the

better they fully know where the water they

consume originates

For that reason, they know well the relationship

that exists between the ecosystems linked to

water resources, water quantity and quality.

Many of the community systems built with social

involvement carry out works to protect sources

and take care and preserve ecosystems linked

to water, because they know that the continuity

and quality of the service depends on this.

In many cases the systems are inter-communal,

which means that they involve several

communities. Therefore, they promote

permanently contact and exchange between

communities, which result in multiple relation-

ships and networks.

Generally, the community systems put a lot of

emphasis on training their leaders and

representatives and they support them so that

they can participate. However, training is a need

that cannot be fulfilled by the water board itself,

but through alliances that are established in the

water management scheme It is also common

for the leaders to make efforts to raise awareness

among the users about organizational, political,

social and environmental topics

The community systems are linked to broader social

processes Up to the point where a large majority

of the community systems have had to experiment

organizational processes to obtain access to water,

in many of these organizations the associative

processes are considered as very valuable The

organization becomes an essential part for the

provision of the services, as well as for other

applications beyond the community. In the past

years, after the constituent and the construction of

the Water Resources Law, the attempts to structure

broader social processes have multiplied.

Limitations of the community systems

The operation of the community systems is

heterogeneous. They have different operational

and functional levels; there are some with serious

problems, as well as others that function efficiently.

Just like the state systems, community systems face

some problems. One of the biggest problems is

water quality because not all of them provide clean

water. In fact, a large majority supply water, which

does not always have a good quality Many do not

have infrastructure and resources to purify water

nor clear processes for quality control. A large part

of the community systems have infrastructure

that was built 20, 30 or 40 years ago in need

of rehabilitation and improvement which is not

feasible without the intervention of the State.

The smaller systems have the biggest problems

to ensure their administration, operation and

maintenance because of the low tariffs, which do

not cover these costs. The salary of the operators,

for instance, is still low and insufficient. There are

still “limitations for the administration, operation

and maintenance, information and record

management, coordination with institutions,

leadership and conflict management”27 among the

community systems Even though several training

experiences have been organized in Ecuador

over the past decades, these have not been able

to produce concrete social dynamics in order to

strengthen the community systems’ organization. 26FernandoSolis,et.al.,WaterandsanitationcommunitysystemsinEcuador,ForumforWaterResources,Quito,2007. 27 Idem

yaku

kamay

39

yaku

kamay

38

One of the major problems faced by the

community systems is the lack of a clear legal

framework, even though the Constitution

recognizes them. The absence of a water resources

law that includes them28 and the overlapping of

institutional competences between several State

organisms do not make it easy for them to be

entirely recognized at the legal level as well as in

terms of their management and operation. Even

though many of the systems are legally recognized,

a significant percentage is not yet recognized.

The associative processes in the community

systems are still incipient. Even though , initiatives

have increased in number during the past years

and after the approval of the Constitution and the

Water Resources Law, they are still too basic. There

are a few significant and solid examples such as

the Support Center for the Rural Management of

Drinking Water (CENAGRAP) in the Cañar province.

A problem detected in the community systems is

the lack of rotation of their leaders. This is due to

several reasons. Many users are afraid to take on

a leadership position because they do not believe

to have the knowledge and capability for the

position.

There are no policies for the training and renewal

of the directive chart. The training process is still

very basic and not systematic. Few are the leaders

who stay up to date in terms of information

and training of their team. The paternalistic and

favoring approaches still persist not only between

the State and the social organizations, but also

between leaders and their teams

Even though women play an important role in

the drinking water community systems, a role

which has become more important due to male

migration, the value of their role is not always

recognized and women are excluded in several

cases. Managerial positions are still being occupied

mostly by men and the positions that women

occupy are secondary

The construction of community systems

often demands the users to make significant

contributions in the form of community work,

which are appreciated and tracked, over long

periods of time. The decree 3327 of April 1979,

which constitutes the Rural Drinking Water Boards

and Sewage Law, establishes that the people who

28 WaterResourcesLaw,Waterusesandexploitationresultedinmanyconflictsalongitspreparation,discussionandapproval(April,May2010)anditwasfinallynotapproved.ThisisajobthatstillneedstobedonebytheAssemblybecausesomelegalrequirementshavenotbeenfulfilledandduetopoliticalreasons,thislawhasnotbeenfurtherdiscussed.Thislegalbillincludesachapteraboutthecommunitysystems.

did not participate in the construction of the water

system could become a member by paying a “Right

of Connection”. This right was calculated based on

the number of community work shifts done for the

construction of the system. However, some boards

have been counting, not only the construction

works, but also the works done for rehabilitation

or maintenance Following this methodology, these

water boards have extremely expensive connection

rights, which results in the exclusion of new users.

The small community systems are not self-

supporting. Their tariffs are low. They do not allow

paying an operator and covering the operation

and maintenance costs. The survival of the small

systems depends on the alliances, which is the only

way to ensure its sustainability. At the end of the

lifetime of the system, rehabilitation works cannot

be done without public funding.

Even though many systems have encouraged

admirable initiatives to promote the protection

of water sources, there is still a lot of work

to be done. In this context, it is important to

acknowledge the insufficience of work done by the

competent State organisms and the autonomous

decentralized governments. This is for sure an area

in which the public-community alliances could play

an important role

Defining a drinking water management model

at the rural level that recognizes the community

systems, strengthens them, promotes their

functioning and improves their management is an

urgent task that needs to be done with or without

the Water Resources Law This model would allow

the municipalities to efficiently exercise their

competence in the drinking water and sanitation

sector, and it would be an important step to ensure

the human right to water

yaku

kamay

41

yaku

kamay

40

CENEGRAP:

A public-communal alliance for the rural drinking water systems

“The water boards as well as the municipality have unique and different organizational,

technical and economic capacities.

The agreements try to complement these strengths,

to be stronger and more efficient together.”

Belisario Chimborazo, Mayor of Cañar

chapter 4

yaku

kamay

43

yaku

kamay

42

Even though the public-communal alliances have

a favorable constitutional and legal framework

through the Constitution, working together is

not easy, nor does it constitute a practice in

the Ecuadorian institutions and organizations.

The governmental institutions are divided in

departments, between the departments there is

little connection and even worse, the institutions

linked to the State do not coordinate among them.

In that way we end up with ineffective repetition

of actions and projects, without effects and

without receiving any feedback at a social level.

In the same way, the division, the dominance of

personal interests and exclusion are still present

inside rural organizations even as a tool to achieve

consensus. For that reason, the present isolation is

the result of mistrust between the organizations,

and between these and the State institutions.

As a result, public-communal alliances won’t be

automatic and immediate, as long as collaborative

approaches are absent Why should we join?

When should we join? Is it possible to come up

with an effective and efficient inter-organizational

system that demonstrates that the alliances give

better results than working alone?

The CENAGRAP’s experience is a multi-stakeholder

initiative that has given an answer to these and

other questions.

The experience of CENAGRAP is situated in the

province of Cañar, one of the poorest in Ecuador:

very low income indexes, weakening of agriculture

and cattle production, low coverage of basic

services, high levels of undernourishment, child

mortality and high migration indexes. Its rural

areas include small and isolated communities of

which a majority are indigenous

In the province, public and private institutions

have been working. In the 70s they built a

significant number of community systems with

the support of IEOS, Marginal Rural Development

Fund (FODERUMA) of the Central Bank, Economic

Reconversion Center of Austro (CREA) and

international NGO’s, such as World Vision and

Plan International. The work done was continued

in 1993 by the Integrated Rural Development

Project “High Basin of the Cañar River” (CARC),

which at the end of 1996 (in the framework of the

decentralization policies) signed a cooperation

agreement with the Belgian NGO Protos and the

Ecuadorian Central for Agriculture Services (CESA)

for the execution of a program for drinking water

and sanitation in the cantons of Cañar, El Tambo

and Suscal

This event marked a milestone in three ways:

first, it established State policies to promote

decentralization processes in alliance with

non-governmental organizations; second, the use

of these alliances to optimize the resources coming

from the State and international cooperation; and

third, it improved the public service efficiency

overcoming the difficult state bureaucracy.

In 1997, the drinking water program promoted

by the alliance CARC-Protos-CESA started In the

years 2000, Protos resumed the work in alliance

with other local NGOs, such as GAMA and CEDIR,

in order to implement an integrated proposal for

the construction of drinking water systems in 80

rural communities. At the same time, a multi-

stakeholder structure was established to ensure

the sustainability of the constructed systems and

to face the common problems at that time: the

lack of inter-institutional coordination, which

strengthened paternalistic and favoring practices.

At that time the majority of the initiatives focused

on material constructions, without considering the

sustainability of the systems. 29

29CEDIR,Protos,Upyayyaku. fromthewatercommunitysystemstothesustainablelocalmanagementofthewaterandsanitationsectorinCañar,Cuenca,2006.

CENAGRAP: conditions for its emergence

yaku

kamay

45

yaku

kamay

44

When the project started, the real drinking water

coverage rate was estimated to be 40 %30 However,

the baseline analysis identified other problems:

the active population of the main organizations

was only 50 %; women had a limited access to

the leadership positions (17 %); the communities

did not pay the bills in time (60 %); there were no

regulations and rules; few operators had received

30BelisarioChimborazo,Ibidem.

training (40 %); the systems were not maintained

or operated efficiently; and a large amount

of the systems were constructed by external

institutions or contractors, who built them and

gave them without participation and appropriation

processes 31

At the end of the initiative, 80 water systems had

been supported

31 CEDIR,Protos,Upyayyaku,Ibidem.

The initial strategy: combining the execution of water systems and

building a multi-stakeholder structure for its management

An initial observation has to be made: the

organizational construction of the CENAGRAP was

a process that took place simultaneously with the

construction of the drinking water rural systems.

This resulted in a double feedback flow: on the

one hand, between several stakeholders in alliance

to achieve a common goal (supply water to the

rural communities); on the other hand, between

the construction of the systems and the creation

of an organizational structure, which goes beyond

material constructions, since it is projected onto

the municipalities, NGO’s and local spaces to

propose a sustainable management of the water

sector

The methodology: the water systems are a technical and social constructionIt is sure that one of the elements that contributed

to the creation of CENAGRAP was the methodology

followed during the systems’ construction, which

was integrated later on into the initiative. In

fact, the construction process of the 80 systems

was carried out based on a methodology where

the technical aspects linked to the construction

and design of the system, were mixed with the

social aspects related to the strengthening of the

community organization, the development of

local capacities and the collective appropriation of

the system for its administration, operation and

maintenance (AO&M) to ensure its sustainability

These two aspects are not considered as individual

elements and no hierarchies are established

between them, but interdependence relationships,

where the constructive process generates a social

dynamic to empower the community and at the

same time to strengthen the social organization,

which ensures the correct development of the

material construction. 32 The methodology known as

the “24 steps methodology or social engineering”

states that the community is the main subject and

actor of a process of social construction.

The methodology is based on focuses and

strategies directed to reach the sustainability of

the community systems: gender, to understand

the relationship of women with water and its

management, as well as to promote the active

control and participation of men and women;

participation, to make the leaders, main

organizations and operators own the system;

training for the water boards and technical

staff responsible for the different sectors of

the CENAGRAP, to strengthen their technical,

administrative and operational capacities.

32Idem.

yaku

kamay

47

yaku

kamay

46

In the construction phase, it was aimed at bringing

together all the interested parties, to start a direct

negotiation and to create a joint vision of the

process, the institutional obligations and the legal

requirements for the multi-stakeholder structure.

Finally, during the implementation phase, the

visions and agreements reached were materialized

into resources and actions by formalizing

collaboration agreements, the disposition of

infrastructure, personnel and resources, the supply

of the services administered collectively and the

monitoring of the multi-stakeholder structure.

These preparatory works became a process

of joint creation and learning between all the

stakeholders; it was developed through a sequence

of experimentation, evaluation and continuous

questioning. In this way the base for future

collaboration was created, where the parties

learned to know each other and interact, which

influenced future collaboration.

Importance of a stakeholder in the role of mediator and spokesperson

The startup of a multi-stakeholder structure

faced a strong initial problem: the historical

mistrust between the communities and the local

governments, considered as the two central actors

of the initiative. This mistrust resulted in part from

the cultural ethnic division between the rural

indigenous communities and the urban mestizos.

Therefore, the idea to contribute to the

construction of a collaborative structure, bringing

together stakeholders who until then functioned

under confrontation, around a common topic was

possible thanks to the intervention of a mediator

and spokesperson: the Consortium Protos-

CEDIR. This group managed to gain the trust of

the different parties. This role would not have

been achieved by the group without technical

solvency, efficiency, transparency, independence

of all the parties and without the fact that the

budget was available to carry out the technical and

construction works.

However, the position from where the Consortium

Protos-CEDIR acted as a mediator was complex.

On the one hand, because they had a role in the

construction of the systems, but the initiative was

under the leadership of the Group itself because

it had created the project, had the resources and

experience to implement it, but the Group was a

temporal and external party. That is why they had

to be careful to let the initiative emerge from the

local parties themselves.

On the other hand, it was an advantage to have

the group because it had a rather objective opinion

(even though it was not neutral) and it kept away

from the possible local conflicts.

During the preparatory phase of the initiative, a 33MarcCraps,Collaboratingforwater:aninter-institutionalexperienceforthesustainablemanagementofruraldrinkingwater-ACORDES-UniversitédeCuencaCOOP-K.U.Leuven,2001

Preparatory works: the conception of the multi-stakeholder structure adapted to the local context

If the historical and social context had left a lot of

frustrations with regard to the rural water projects

and the paradigms upon which these systems

were built, the proposal had to be extremely well

planned and developed

That is the reason why the systems were created

in three moments or phases: a phase of evaluation

with the local stakeholders, a phase of construction

of the initiative and an implementation phase that

was developed by experts in facilitation of inter-

institutional structures: ACORDES. 33

In the phase of evaluation the goal was to identify

and get to know the different conceptions and

interests of the different stakeholders (municipali -

ties, parochial boards, State institutions, NGO’s,

second degree organizations, water boards) about

the problem and their availability to work on a

joint solution.

The institutional identity, relevant background,

possible contributions, the external image of each

institution and their organizational experience

was also analyzed. In addition, a deeper study

of the reference framework, work paradigms,

action strategies and logics related to each of the

stakeholders was done. Workshops and meetings

between the multiple stakeholders were held,

where focus was given to organizers, the objectives

and methodology to reach consensus as starting

point, the development of joint visions, the

analysis of the organizational system and a possible

organizational chart, as a first exercise for the

construction. The workshops were complemented

with the work of commissions to search for

agreements between the parties via consultations

to find a base and adequate legal framework.

yaku

kamay

49

yaku

kamay

48

detailed inventory was done to identify the stake-

holders, their visions, capacities and legitimacy to

take part in a multi-stakeholder structure. One of

the biggest challenges was the identification and

the definition of the roles, in order to improve the

system in which only one stakeholder had the

central position until that moment.

It started from an organizational chart, where the

possible roles and competences that each one

could take were analyzed: the municipality, water

boards, political organizations of the population,

parochial boards, Water and Sanitation Secretary

of that time.

It was important to then analyze the difficulties

faced during the creation of these roles.

For example, it was extensively analyzed how and

under which legal figure the municipality, boards

and NGO’s fall; this is an aspect that still has not

been solved in the Ecuadorian legislation.

Another sensible aspect was to find a

representative figure for the water boards,

dispersed in the rural environment. The idea of an

association of boards was criticized by the local

social and political organizations, and for that

reason the choice was made to create a board

assembly without legal character

Finally, it was decided to have a multilateral

collaborative agreement between the

municipality, the different legalized water boards

of the commune wanting to participate, and the

supporting NGOs. A clear differentiation was

made between the permanent and cooperative

members, the latter ones (NGOs and State

institutions) without right to vote.

A Board of Directors was established as supreme

organism for decision making. This organism was

made up out of three members of the boards

elected in the general assembly and two from the

municipality. This board defines strategies and

policies, appoints the operative team, carries out a

follow-up for the technical personnel and is

responsible for the communication between the

center and the other parties.

An operative team was formed by a coordinator,

a technical promoter, an organizational promoter

per each of the 25 boards, an engineer,

a legal advisor recognized by the municipality,

an accountant, two caretakers and two

warehousemen for the two offices (one for the high

part and one for the lower part). This team had to

monitor the systems regularly and support their

issues in coordination with the Board of Directors

and operators The economic resources were

established based on a contribution table in which

the municipality gives an annual fund, according

to the needs of the center and the boards give

USD 0.10/month per user, in addition to the

contribution of the partner institutions. Protos

agreed to construct the offices, provide equipment,

as well as a vehicle and to contribute economically

in a decreasing way

Chart 5:Contribution participating organizations % 2002-2006

Organization 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

JAAP 5,5 % 14,5 % 26,7 % 30,0 % 30,0 %

Municipality 36,1 % 45,0 % 48,3 % 55,0 % 70,0 %

Consortium Protos–CEDIR

58,3 % 40,5 % 25,0 % 15,0 % 0 %

Source:Protos.

Clear definition of stakeholders’ roles

The organisation was defined by means of a

complementary setup of responsibilities held by the

different participants:

• The communities and drinking water boards

should be responsible for the operation and

maintenance of their systems, and during the

assembly meetings they should play a role in

the dialogues and brainstorming between water

boards, as well as influencing and interacting with

the municipality

• The Municipality gave legal support to the

structure, made public resources available and

technical capacities that were absent in the

operative team. They also had to cooperate

guiding and implementing public policies related

to water

An organization chart based on horizontal integration

yaku

kamay

51

yaku

kamay

50

It was aimed at developing a feeling of joint

responsibility between these two participants,

which could allow them to feel part of the new

multi-stakeholder structure, as well as to construct

together this alliance and to complement their

strengths and potentials.

The role of the participants was not always clear.

At the beginning, the desire to promote the

initiative was based on political interests because

there was no a legal framework to support it.

Later, after the approval of the new Constitution,

the role became more and more clear as the ideas

linked to decentralization were taken into account.

In 2009, there was already a clear definition that

the municipalities had exclusive competency in

regard to drinking water provision and sanitation.

Periods in the history of CENAGRAPCENAGRAP through its 9 years of existence is the real proof that the public-

communal alliances are possible to achieve

On June 24, 2002, 15 community systems, Cañar Municipality and the group

Protos-CEDIR, acting as cooperating entity, subscribed an agreement to create

this multi-stakeholder structure, aiming at providing public services that can

contribute to the sustainability of the rural drinking water systems.

Three periods can be identified during its institutional life:

First period: CENAGRAP’s startup (2002-2006)

During this period of institutional construction,

the technical bases of the center were presented,

new capacities in the operating team were created

and the services that the center was going to

provide were defined. According to the agreement,

the major economic contribution was done by

the Consortium Protos-CEDIR, but under a clear

agreement that this contribution was going to

decrease gradually, while the contribution of the

Municipality and the communities was going to

increase

The first year the JAAP’s contributed with

USD 1 000, the municipality with USD 7 100 and

Protos-CEDIR USD 11 700 In 5 years the percentage

distribution of the budget was accomplished. The

municipality gave land for

the construction of the centers in Cañar and Zhud,

which were constructed and equipped with the

contribution of Protos-CEDIR, through the financial

support of the European Union and the Belgian

Government

yaku

kamay

53

yaku

kamay

52

The basic service package implemented by the

CENAGRAP was: 34

• Provide training in administrative, operational

and socio-organizational aspects to the drinking

water community systems in Cañar.

• Permanent follow-up via field visits to the

community systems to support their

management and prevent damages

• Technical advice in case of damages that go

beyond local capacities.

• Provide the community systems with materials

of good quality and at a fair price through

implementation of two warehouses.

This was the period with the greatest growth in the

Center (from 15 to 55 water boards affiliated) due

to the constructive work done by the Consortium

Protos-CEDIR, which allowed to include these

boards in the process. In addition, the support

services, through an active training process and

the operation of the warehouses with materials of

good quality and at fair prices, contributed to this

growth

The alliance between the Consortium Protos-

CEDIR, the municipality and the community systems

obtained recognition and ensured the efficiency of

the technical team of the CENAGRAP. In 2003, the

community systems had an acceptable

operation, above 62 %, which indicated that the

organizational as well as the technical part was

functioning quite well. 35

Second period: CENAGRAP’s

institutionalization (2007 - mid

2009s)

This period was characterized by the consolidation

of the services that CENAGRAP provided to the

water boards, while at the same time an important

debate was taking place about the need to

institutionalize the Center.

In 2008, a long term Strategic Plan was structured

and the vision of the CENAGRAP was established:

“CENAGRAP,withregardtothelocalwaterpolicies,

plansandmanagesthesafeaccesstocleanwater

inthecommunitiesandruralsystemsintheCanton

ofCañar,undertheframeworkofwaterrightand

IWRM.Ithasfullrecognitionandlegitimacy”36

 

This plan set three fundamental cores: the sustain-

ability of the community systems through efficient

and convenient services; advocacy and the

construction of the communal policies related to

water in the rural areas, the institutionalization of

the Center as a public-communal alliance

Further, the idea of having an Ordinance of

Formalization and Regularization for the Operation

of the CENAGRAP was developed; this aimed at

the legal recognition of this multi-stakeholder

structure

A participatory process was set up in order

to develop this legal instrument via dialogue

and discussion. An external legal advice team

together with the Board of Directors put down the

proposals and agreements in a body of text which

determined the organic structure of the Center, its

role in regard to drinking water in rural areas and

its mode of operation.

The process of elaboration and approval of

the ordinance had not been possible without

the political willingness of the municipal

administration. The municipality provided a

space for horizontal interaction inside the Board

of Directors (which consolidated as a strategic

entity for CENAGRAP), at the same time, it opened

spaces for the participation of the water boards,

respecting its criteria and opinions. In April 2009,

the ordinance was approved by the Assembly as

well as by the Cantonal Board

With the approval of the ordinance, the structure

of the Board of Directors was established and this

allows to ensure horizontal participation between

two of the main participants (Municipality and

Boards), which was a major issue for debate during

the process. In addition, administrative, labor and

tributary topics were regulated, which remained

undefined during the first period.

During this second period, the group provided

technical support in administrative and accounting

aspects, gave advise and general support to the

Board of Directors and to the operational team in

order to improve their capabilities.

34Collaboratingforwater:aninter-organizationalexperienceforthesustainablemanagementoftheruraldrinkingwaterservice.MarcCraps,ACORDES,UniversityofCuenca,COOP,K.ULeuven,2001.

35BelisarioChimborazo.Ibidem,pointsoutthatthesepercentagesareachievedthroughastudythatconsidered18variables:organizational,social,administrativeandoperationalaspects,aswellasgender,qualityoftheserviceandqualityofwater.

36CENAGRAP.PlanoEstratégico,2008,SolisHelder,OrdoñezMarcelo.

yaku

kamay

55

yaku

kamay

54

Third period: Center’s re-adjustment to the ordinance and new legal

framework (mid - 2009s until now)

This period started with the change in the

Municipal Administration. The new authorities

tested the validity of the ordinance and the water

boards showed a high level of ownership of the

Center

The municipality showed great interest in under-

standing and strengthening this alliance since the

beginning. It developed its actions according to the

new municipal policies relating to water manage-

ment in rural areas For that reason, a revision

and modification of the ordinance was proposed,

which was presented in the Board’s Assembly

The structures of the CENAGRAP accepted the

challenge to adequate their operational rules to

the ordinance and the requirements of the new

municipal administration, which aimed at working

closer and empowering the Center

The CENAGRAP’s structure, according to the

current ordinance, can be graphically represented

as follows:

During this period, a participatory and

democratic behavior was institutionalized 36 in the

management of the Board of Directors that still

remains. Once again, the political willingness of

the authorities at that time made it possible to

achieve joint agreements

In addition to the services already established in

the Center, from 2009 onwards, two key aspects

were included: protection of water sources

and water quality These aspects were included

due to the integrated vision of water resources

management at the time and the increasing

problems and concerns about these two topics

This is how the focus changes from within the

system up to the basin level, where these sources

and problems are found.

37InregardtothedelegationoftheMunicipality,theseare2people,inanewordinancetheMajororhis/herdelegateandacouncilmandesignatedbythecantonalcouncilman.Inaddition,thecoordinatorandonerepresentativeofthecantondevelopmentcommitteeparticipatewithoutrighttovote

Principles for the construction of a multi-stakeholder structure

An alliance involves the reunion of two or more

participants who recognize that they can help each

other to achieve a goal. Therefore, it is implicit in an

alliance that both parties acknowledge the value and

capacities of the other. “The water boards, as well as

the municipalities have organizational, technical and

economic capacities that are unique and different.

An agreement tries to complement these strengths,

in other words: be more strong and efficient

together”.37 The CENAGRAP is an concretisation of

this kind of an alliance.

Previously, we have seen that the provision of water

and sanitation services have serious deficiencies

not only in our country, but also in the whole South

American region

Improvements have been made in regard to water

provision in urban areas, but in rural areas it

continues to be postponed; the public and

community systems have problems and limitations.

However, after several negative experiences, Latin

America and the international and multilateral

organisms have proofed that private management is

not a guarantee for the human right to water.

38BelisarioChimborazo.ElprogramadeaguapotableenCañar,desdelaexperienciadeCEDIR,enDocumentosdediscusión,SegundoEncuentroNacional,ForodelosRecursosHídricos,Quito,2003.

Board of Directors

Municipal Delegation Three representatives of the JAAP’s Major Town Councilman

Administration Technical promoters Social promoters Material

Warehouse

Municipal government JAAP’s Assembly

Structure of CENAGRAP

This discussion has permitted greater rapprochement and ownership of the Center by

its participants.

On the one hand, the boards showed a strong identification with the alliance;

on the other hand, the municipality reaffirmed the validity of this structure as a policy for the

rural management of water, as even the Major of the Canton joined the Board of Directors.

Furthermore, the Planning Department of the municipality included the planning of the

CENAGRAP into their own, respecting its autonomy. This was complemented by accountabi-

lity actions in the Board’s Assembly.

yaku

kamay

57

yaku

kamay

56

Therefore, to ensure this right, the region

faces the challenge of strengthening the public

management, for instance the community and

alliances between them, in particular in the rural

environment where the provision of services is

more complex.

The public-community alliances start by

recognizing that given the specific conditions of

the rural environment (low population density,

dispersion, geographic conditions, high unit costs,

among others) the only feasible model in many of

these regions is the community management

The way to expand the coverage and gain

efficiency is through the complementarity of the

municipalities and community systems.

In the rural context, neither the community

systems nor the municipalities alone can ensure the

efficiency of these services and much less with the

levels of investment occurred in the last decades in

this field.

The municipalities have to ensure water quality,

economic and technical support and training; while

the boards take over the administration, operation

and maintenance

While water is a human right, the financial

responsibility relies with the State and

constitutionally it is competence of the

municipalities. However, historically, the community

systems contribute considerably to the construction

of the systems and later administration, operation

and maintenance. Therefore, at the level of

the community systems one has to talk about

a co-investment with participation of the State,

NGO’s and the community systems themselves

providing economic resources, work and available

materials in the area

The community systems are neither public nor

private They do not belong to the State and do not

operate under the corporate criteria of profit, which

are typical of the private management. They follow

a new model for the management of public services

that starts to be feasible and has to be valued and

respected: the community model, which functions

with autonomy and self-management.

These systems depend largely on their own

economic resources and human sustainability

In fact, in Latin America they are only recognized

in Ecuador (Constitution and COOTAD) and in

Nicaragua (Law 722)

The public-communal alliance implies having strong

municipalities, in terms of their capacities Their

technical staff should master technical and social

criteria for planning, design, execution and AO&M

of the drinking water systems. They should also

have capacities for monitoring and training which

translate into strengthening of the community

systems

In the context of the community systems, this

implies access to legal security (legalization of the

systems), with strong organizations, transparency

and social control This also implies having

significant levels of associativity because the

alliances cannot happen between the municipality

and isolated water boards, but between a group

of them that assume seriously their roles as

counterpart

The public-communal alliances also imply that

agreements need to be reached between the

community systems and the municipalities, as

well as mechanisms for regulation, control and

monitoring of the quality of the water supplied to

the systems. For that purpose the municipalities

should have laboratories to perform regularly

analysis of water quality.

Once the initiative has been formed, it is important

to respect the relative autonomy that this new

institution will have in the eyes of the municipality.

Several participants referred to the fact that “they

could not take anything from the warehouse,

change the personnel or use the resources of the

Center”. In fact, the stability of the CENAGRAP

was possible because the municipality respected

this decentralized structure, which in a lapse of

time began to interact with several municipal

departments In this way, the structure was

included in the planning to give accountability of

the budget received, to carry out environmental

projects and to work, in particular, with the

drinking water unit to supervise the connection

works together with the water boards supported

by the municipality and affiliated to the Center,

but always protecting its autonomy that allows to

consolidate its identity.

An alliance such as the CENAGRAP would not be

safe without its institutionalization that ensures its

permanence and continuity, especially considering

the political influence in the local governments

and the limited long term planning. The political

temporality threatens long term initiatives, when

the authorities change every 5 years.

The CENAGRAP evolves on the basis of a long

term agreement (10 years), as a regulating tool

that confirms the alliance between the public

participants, towards the approval of the municipal

ordinance Along the way, strong legal and

institutional changes happened in the country that

made the process of institutionalization difficult

and extended (Inclusion of the Secretariat of

Environmental Sanitation in the MIDUVI and its

disappearance, omission of the drinking water

boards law, draft legal bill of the Drinking Water

Services and Sanitation, the new Constitution and

the Water Resources Law, still not approved). The

ordinance was a useful and simple tool to secure

the CENAGRAP

yaku

kamay

59

yaku

kamay

58

Acceptance of the initiative in the

rural environment in Cañar

When the CENAGRAP started, 15 community

systems came together for its formation, but

it grew very rapidly This shows that it has an

important legitimacy in the rural communities and

that it is supplying services according to the needs

of the rural water systems.

In the following chart this growth can be seen:

Chart 6: Growth of the CENAGRAP

Year Number of systems

2002 15

2003 15

2004 25

2005 50

2006 55

2007 59

2008 60

2009 70

2010 73

2011 82

Source:CENAGRAP,madebyProtos,2011

The fact is that more than two thirds of the members of the CENAGRAP are small

community systems. This reaffirms that the multi-stakeholder structures make it

possible to ensure the human right to water It is impossible to imagine that poor

and isolated community systems serving 12, 20 or 60 families paying low tariffs,

could ensure a sustainable management of the system.

The small systems can only ensure their operation through multi-stakeholder

structures and alliances, in which the bigger systems and the State show

solidarity with those least favored.

Consequences of the public-communal alliance in the rural drinking water systems of Cañar

Nowadays, the CENAGRAP has 82 drinking water community systems

that serve 6 764 families in Cañar with a population of 33 020 people.

The smallest system supports 12 families, while the biggest serves 500.

As it is shown in Chart 7, the smaller water boards (between 12 - 80

families) represent 68.75 %, the medium size (between 81 - 180 families)

22.50 % and the big ones (more than 181 families) 10 %.

Chart 7:Type of water boards in the CENAGRAP, according to family composition - 2011

Kind of board, according to the number of families

Number of water boards %

12 à 40 familles 39 47,6

41 à 80 familles 17 20,7

81 à 120 familles 9 11,0

121 à 180 familles 9 11,0

More than 181 familles 8 9,8

Total 82 100

Source:CENAGRAP,madebyDennisGarcía,HelderSolis,2011

Contribution of the communal systems and public governance savings

Chart 8: Evolution of the contributions to the recurrent expenditures (RE) and AO&M, 2003-2010

Participant 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Municipality (RE) 6 413 12 285 18 364 22 533 39 831 45 636 45 636 83 215

Boards (RE) 1 473 3 919 4 583 3 988 5 143 5 695 5 214 5 769

Boards AO&M 50 505 84 175 168 350 185 185 198 653 202 020 235 690 245 791

Source:CENAGRAP-Protos.MadebyProtos

In 2010, the municipality contribution to the recurrent expenditures was increased to USD 83 215 (88 %)

yaku

kamay

61

yaku

kamay

60

and the contribution of the boards to USD 5 769

(12 %). The contribution of the community systems

is USD 0.10 per month per each family for the

operation of the CENAGRAP.

From a first look at the evolution of the

contributions to the Center, it can be concluded

that the affiliation of the water boards to the

CENAGRAP increased, municipal contribution

increased and became more representative, while

the contribution of the water boards is more

symbolic. The municipal contribution has been

essential to cover the recurrent expenditures

that allow to cover the costs of the technical and

administrative personnel, who are essential for the

operation of the multi-stakeholder structure. If the

contributions are divided among the total number

of users, it can be seen that the municipality

contributes up to USD 2 90 per user per year

This figure can be seen as rather low, but it is not.

In the context of a multi-stakeholder alliance, this

figure is significant because with a low investment

per family, the State can achieve significant

results. In fact, if the municipality would give these

resources in a bilateral way to each of the water

boards, it would not have the effects and impacts

that they generate under a public-communal

alliance. Clearly, the major contribution to rural

water management comes from the community

systems through their administration, operation

and maintenance (AO&M) of each of the JAAP’s.

Obviously, the contributions vary according to the

size of the system. Similarly, in 2010, while a big

system with more than 280 families contributed

up to USD 14 600 yearly in AO&M, a small one

with less than 30 families provided USD 552. In

this aspect, there are huge differences that have

implications for the management and operation of

the systems. For example, while a big system can

pay an operator USD 200 per month, the medium

size systems manage to pay USD 60 and the smaller

USD 5 or even less

The average contribution in AO&M of each

community system of the CENAGRAP in 2010 was

USD 3 367 per year. From this figure, it can be

stated that the contribution of the community

systems of the CENAGRAP for the administration,

operation and maintenance of rural water in the

Canton of Cañar in 2010 was USD 245 791. In the

period 2003-2010, the contribution of the water

boards was USD 1 370 369

As seen in Graph 1, the contribution of the

community systems linked to the CENAGRAP in

terms of AO&M has increased at a sustained and

significant rate since its formation, because of

the number of affiliations and the responsibility

that the community systems have with their own

systems

If we add up all the investment done in terms

of construction and rehabilitation labor of 52

systems by the community (USD 980 212), it is

easy to see that, during the period 2003-2010,

the community systems of CENAGRAP resulted

in savings for the State of up to USD 2 350 581 in

water management

The municipal contribution, as well as the contri-

bution of the community systems, shows once

again the need of the complementarity between

the public sector and the community to ensure the

human right to water in rural areas

Graph 1:Evolution of the contributions to the recurrent expenditures (RE) and to the cost of AO&M 2003-2010

US$

300 000

250 000

200 000

150 000

100 000

50 000

0

Boards - AO&M

Municipality - RE

Boards - RE

years 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

yaku

kamay

63

yaku

kamay

62

Training for the technical team and

the water boards

The Center has developed a continuous training

process, aiming at improving the advise that the

technical team provides to the water boards in

topics such as maintenance of the infrastructure for

drinking water and environmental sanitation, water

quality monitoring, technical processes to protect

water sources, leadership, organization and basic

administration for the community systems, internal

communication and management in a team.

This technical team is responsible for the periodic

training of the board representatives and users in

technical, social and environmental aspects by using

different mechanisms: workshops between leaders,

workshops in the sectors and field visits to exchange

experiences. All of this is achieved with the

methodological support of the Manuals for Training

developed by the Center and with the support of the

Group. Lately, CENAGRAP managed to find support

from other entities to strengthen the training of

the operative team and the water boards (AVINA,

CAMAREN and Waponi)

At the same time, a set of tools were developed

for the management of the administration of the

water boards: payroll, list of users, meter reading,

accounting records, calculations and update of

the tariffs, software for payment collection (which

makes it easy for the community to control and

record their daily activities). In this way, the leaders

Chart 9:Evolution of the sales and warehouse inventory

CENAGRAP 2003 - 2010 (USD)

Year Total sale Total inventory

2003 4 759,00 10 962,03

2004 12 312,83 21 757,55

2005 17 946,73 21 180,02

2006 71 322,64 25 445,74

2007 19 869,28 27 810,48

2008 25 770,70 32 199,59

2009 22 304,12 31 781,39

2010 73 017,46 49 502,89

Total 247 302,76

Source:Protos

keep good track of the contributions and necessary

expenses. In addition, there is a constant support

of the technical team in the audits and control

processes that the users do on a yearly basis

Impact of the services provided by the CENAGRAP in the rural water systems of Cañar

Monitoring visits

The technical team makes two kinds of visits:

routine visits and visits upon request. Technical

and social topics are discussed during these visits

They provide advise with regard to the operation

and maintenance of the systems, which allows

to extend their lifetime. Furthermore these visits

strengthen the management capacities of the

members of the system and their responsibility to

supply water in sufficient quantity and quality to

their families.

In the past two years, 100 % of the water boards

affiliated were visited. In 2009, 123 routine visits

and 104 visits upon request were done, while in

2010, 78 routine visits and 205 upon request.

The main topics discussed during the visits have

been: prevention of damage in the infrastructure,

budget planning to fix major damages, correction

in the operation and maintenance, access to the

Emergency Fund, advising in the acquisition of

tools and materials and flow control. During the

social visits, the following issues were discussed:

conflict resolution, advising in organizing,

elaborating and updating the internal regulations,

support in resource’s audits and strengthening of

the leadership

The users testify that the technical team was kind

and friendly; they were willing to work and were

available for the communities.

The warehouse for materials

The warehouse has earned a good reputation

for giving materials of good quality, at fair prices

(in regard to their quality) and on time. Sales of

approximately USD 247 302.76 were reported

in a period of 8 years. A sustained capitalization

process results in USD 49 500 in funds in 2010.

In 2006, sales increased drastically due to the

desire to strengthen and increase these sales, so

the Consortium Protos-CEDIR bought materials

and accessories for the construction of the

system in the community of Quilloac. The same

happens in 2010 because the Municipality

begins to buy materials and accessories for the

construction and rehabilitation of the systems

affiliated to the CENAGRAP, as well as for those

not affiliated.

Greater participation of the women

Women participation has been more promoted

and their work and contribution to the

management of the water boards has been put

forward. For instance, out of the 82 affiliated

systems, 100 % have at least one woman in their

directive structure, in 17 % of the boards the

leader is a woman and 5 boards have women

as operators The users recognize their ability to

contribute to the decisions and the important

role they play in monitoring of the leaders’

actions.

yaku

kamay

65

yaku

kamay

64

In 2009 and 2010, a new service was included to

the affiliated water boards: the protection and

conservation of their sources and watersheds.

The demand appeared when the Strategic Plan was

constructed and during an inter-boards meeting

in 2008 During this event, important priority and

relevance was given to preserving water quality and

its quantity due to the problems of environmental

degradation existing in the different communities.

This demand allowed to take a step further into the

management of community systems now including

an environmental dimension From 2010 onwards,

permanent campaigns took place regarding the

protection of water sources. These campaigns

have the support of the Cantonal Environmental

Management Unit, Ministry of Public Health and

the financial cooperation of development support

institutions.

Supporting the protection of water sources and

water sheds has a series of procedures, which

set the steps that need to be taken to achieve

protection: delimitation of the area via an

environmental analysis, actions with regard to

protection, negotiations with the owners of the

land where the sources are located, the execution

of the initiative, periodic monitoring to assess the

state of the source, an evaluation process within

and between water boards

In 2009 and 2010, environmental protection

initiatives were developed in 23 affiliated water

boards

The Group gave for this component in 2009 and

2010 USD 9 000 and the Municipality USD 6 500

The financial and non-financial contribution of the

water boards was USD 10 000

The protection of the sources and their watershedGraph 2:

Evolution of the sales and warehouse inventory, CENAGRAP 2003 – 2010 (in USD)

80 000

70 000

60 000

50 000

40 000

30 000

20 000

10 000

02003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

total sales

total inventory

Emergency Fund

An Emergency Fund was created to support the

affiliated water boards paying for the costs that go

beyond their capacities. This fund is given by the

municipality, additionally to the budget given for the

recurrent costs and its use is well regulated

The fund has a limited budget that allows to support

between 10 - 15 water boards per year based on a table

used to calculate the amount that they can receive,

according to the number of users. Once the water board

submits an application, a technician from the Water

Unit of the Municipality analyzes it, visits the water

board and makes a proposal for a technical solution, for

the acquisition of the materials and implementation of

the solution with the water board.

The regulations to use this fund establish some

conditions to promote improvements in the

management of the water boards, such as: the

fulfillment of the tariff payments, the update of their

regulations, the alternation of their leaders and

the realization of audits on the management of the

resources. The implementation of the fund serves also

as a training mechanism for the water board and their

operators

yaku

kamay

67

yaku

kamay

66

Water quality monitoring and control

campaigns

Until 2010, two campaigns to analyze water quality

were organized, which involved all the affiliated

water boards with the support from the Ministry

of Public Health and the Drinking Water Unit of

the Municipality. This shows the coordination

relationships with similar municipal departments

that allow to strengthen the topics started by

CENAGRAP

In this way, 59 water boards have water chlorination

systems through the support of the Emergency

Fund and the community This component has not

been easy to achieve In order to implement it,

several campaigns to raise awareness about the

implications of drinking polluted water, at the level

of boards and inside each sector were organized.

The corrective actions and proposals in the water

boards that need water quality improvement are

constantly being executed. This remains a priority in

the technical team, the Drinking Water Unit and the

Ministry of Public Health.

Dissemination of the Center and influenceThe technical team has disseminated the

experience at the local, regional, national and Latin

American level, among several public, social and

private entities. This has allowed CENAGRAP to

become an important reference, nationally and

internationally in regard to the feasibility of the

multi-stakeholder structures resulting from the

public-communal alliances

The Center has participated actively in the Water

Resources Forum in Azuay (Cañar) and has made

significant proposals through this forum that were

given to the Assembly in Montecristi, which was in

charge of elaborating the Constitution. In some way

the recognition of the community management

and the mandate to establish public-communal

alliances in the Constitution, is the result of the

proposals constructed collectively in platforms

such as the Forum, but this is also the result of

the development of practical examples that these

kind of alliances are possible and can showcase

significant progress.

The CENAGRAP has joined several debate

forums and meetings for dialogue to discuss and

construct legal proposals related to the communal

management of water, such as the Constitution, the

Water Law and the COOTAD

Networking with State institutions, social

organizations and NGO’s made it possible to

disseminate their proposals, build alliances and

make projects become a reality. AVINA, CARE,

ACRA, CAMAREN, USAID, SENAGUA, Secretariat of

the Towns, ETAPA, Ministry of Public Health, Latin

America Water Network and other entities make

part of the scope of the relationships within this

experience.

chapter 5

Learning outcomes and conclusions

« I return to the elemental

air and water,

after having loved the soil

and fire and the color and

shape of things. I return to the

transparency and calm ..»

Jorge Carrera Andrade

yaku

kamay

6968

Overcomingastructuralproblemrequires:thecreationofpublicpoliciesfromthecentralStateunder

theframeworkofanewmodelfordevelopment;thepoliticalwillingnessoflocalgovernmentstoact;

theallocationofeconomicresourcestoensurethenecessaryinvestments;thecreationofpoliciesthat

ensurethesustainabilityofthewaterandsanitationsystemswithoutaffectingthemostvulnerable

groups;thecapacityandefficiencyoftheserviceproviders;socialparticipationandmonitoring;the

coordinationamongthepublicandcommunitysystemstotakeadvantageoftheircomplementarityand

alsoseriousandsustainableproposalsaboutcompleteandintegratedwatermanagement.

Strengths and limits of the constitutional and legal framework

Currently in Ecuador, we have a favorable legal framework for water management.

The Constitution states that water management can only be done by the public sector

and the community It also points out that the State has to strengthen the community

management through public-communal alliances Which is the basic principle behind

these proposals? That is the principle that the human right to water has to be ensured

by the sectors of the society that look after the common interest. Therefore, it is

unavoidable to organize and strengthen the public sector, as well as the community

in spite of their limitations. This experience shows the importance of the public and

communal management for strengthening the provision of drinking water in the

rural areas and it also presents a defined model for the public-communal alliances:

CENAGRAP

The CENAGRAP managed to reach institutionalization thanks to the ordinance; this is

allowed in the current legislation. Despite of the favorable constitutional framework,

there is still no clear legal model to protect the public-communal alliance. For

that reason, it is important to promote the approval of the Water Law in order to

strengthen these initiatives and to define clearly who regulates and recognizes them.

yaku

kamay

71

yaku

kamay

70

An opportunity for the GADs

From the constitutional mandates and the COOTAD, the Decentralized Autonomous

Governments (GAD’s) experience an historical moment: receive and practice the assigned

competences, as well as to ensure the planning processes for development and territorial

organization at the different levels. This fact presents a variety of valuable opportunities for the

GAD’s. In the case of drinking water and sanitation, the municipalities have the responsibility

to integrate the planning of the drinking water sector with the local development and the

plans for territorial organization; to insert drinking water and sanitation in the development

process; to link the social, environmental and economic aspects in their management; to make

alliances with the community and the parochial boards as responsible participants.

Public and communal complementarity

This experience clearly shows that the public-communal alliances are a way to expand the

drinking water and sanitation coverage in the rural areas. These alliances are needed taking

into account the specific conditions in the rural context (low population density, dispersion,

geographic conditions, high unit costs…). In many cases, the only feasible model in these

regions is the community management. The way to expand the coverage and gain efficiency

is through the complementarity of the municipalities and community systems. In the rural

context, neither the community systems nor the municipalities alone can ensure that the

human right to water and sanitation is fulfilled, taken into account the levels of investment that

were done over the last decades in this field. The municipalities have to ensure water quality,

economic and technical support and training; while the boards take over the administration,

operation and maintenance.

The key for the success of the alliance is the complementarity and the joint responsibility

between the key participants: the municipality and the community systems. They contribute

with their social organization, their collective mechanisms for water management and social

control, an integrated vision of natural resources management and management without

bureaucracy. The municipalities, on the other hand, as decentralized State entities, use their

proximity to capitalize the problems of the population, their technical resources and their

financial responsibility in the sector.

Integration of resources and

capabilities from different

stakeholders

The public-communal alliances propose a model

that allows the integration of resources and

potentials not only from the municipalities

and water boards, but also from other State

organizations. This is a contribution to reduce the

dispersion of initiatives and to improve the

efficiency of the limited resources available.

These alliances are an inspiring framework for the

investment and integration, therefore to bring

to reality a public policy agreed upon several

participants.

An essential element has been the presence

of key allies such as NGOs committed to rural

development, which has taken up the role of

integration and intervention, in particular during

the initial processes to create the alliance. In this

process, it has been very important for the

CENAGRAP to transfer the competences and for

the sustainability to clearly define a strategy for

the NGOs to gradually leave the alliance, as well

as a strategy to increase the contribution of the

municipalities and decrease those of the NGO’s.

Communal systems result in

savings for the government

From the experience with the CENAGRAP, it

is necessary to do a new assessment of the

contribution of the community systems to water

management in rural areas. The major contribution

of these systems is the AO&M, but also the

contribution to the construction works. The average

annual contribution of the community systems of

the CENAGRAP in terms of AO&M in 2010 was USD

3 367

This means that the contribution of the 73

community systems (until 2010) to the rural

management of water was USD 245 791. If we add

to this figure the contribution for the construction

of the systems, it is estimated that the CENAGRAP

contributed in the period 2003-2010 to USD

2 350 581. This results in significant savings for the

State, not yet visualized by the community systems

and GAD’s

The State also saves resources through monitoring

and prevention. The services that are provided,

such as training, warehouse, emergency fund

programs, water sources protection and water

quality monitoring help to prevent damages in the

systems, making the management of the sector

more efficient.

yaku

kamay

73

yaku

kamay

72

Resources increase in the public-communal alliances

The contribution of the municipality is essential to cover the recurrent expenses,

as well as the technical and administrative personnel costs, which are vital for the

operation of the CENAGRAP.

In 2010, the municipal contribution for the recurrent expenses was USD 83 214.

This figure can be seen as insignificant, if it is divided by the total of families and

users of the community systems, but it is not. In the context of a public-communal

alliance, this figure is significant. If the municipality would give these resources

in a bilateral way to each of the water boards, it would not have the effects and

impacts that they generate under a public-communal alliance

From an economic point of view, the community workforce rationalizes and

decreases the costs. The community systems do not require bureaucracy for

their operation, since the majority of the positions are ad-honorem and only the

salary of an operator is needed. For that reason, the only form of management

feasible has been the one done by the community, which relies strongly in social

agreements

Simultaneous development of the water systems and multi-stakeholder structure

It is important that when starting water-related

interventions, to be aware that in the short term

the public-communal alliances have to be promoted

This statement is maybe related to the fact that

many small and rural municipalities have not yet

developed many water-related interventions,

because in the Constitution of 2008 this exclusive

competence is established. The experience shows

that it is essential to realize the construction of

the systems not in an isolated way, but linked

to common management processes, within the

planning and territorial management processes,

which allows to monitor the progress towards a

target in relation to the service.

Therefore, it is important to establish a strategy

that integrates simultaneously the construction

of the water systems with the construction of a

multi-stakeholder initiative, in which the public-

communal alliance takes place. It is obvious to

affirm that this process have to be participatory and

adapted to the local context.

For the construction of the water systems, it is

essential to have a participative technical-social

methodology, which exceeds the focus based on

the infrastructure. The systems have to be built

focusing on the social construction in which the

technical and social aspects have an equilibrium

and where the community becomes the main

character in all the phases of the process. There is

the key for the social sustainability of the drinking

water sector in rural areas

The need for a higher level of association between the communal systems

For the implementation of public-communal

alliances, is important to have a high level of

associativity with the community systems that

creates a counterparty relationship with the

Municipality The bilateral JAAP’s-Municipality

relationships promote the paternalism, favoring

and political opportunism. It is relevant to

promote and ensure the strengthening of the

community organizations, as collective spaces for

representation and association, as an essential

element for social empowerment. An essential part

of the public-communal alliance is to recognize the

role that each sector has. In this context, promoting

a higher level of organization of the water boards

ensures that the municipality has an interlocutor

for the dialogue, planning and development of the

sector, as well as for accountability.

yaku

kamay

75

yaku

kamay

74

The multi-stakeholder structure’s autonomy

A public-communal alliance develops better under

the principles of administrative decentralization,

which respect the relative autonomy of the new

structure created

Further, the respect to the autonomy in the internal

management of the community systems has to be

very clear

These two elements avoid and reduce the risk of

politicization by the cantonal authorities and social

organizations, instead tending to create technical

and specialized structures

It is necessary to set clear roles within the alliance

that empower the autonomy of the parties and the

group. The roles should not be confused; neither

the alliance can replace the specific roles of the

parties.

At the same time, it is necessary to set clear

mechanisms for planning, monitoring, evaluation

and accountability, not only of those involved but

also for the water boards and users. Similarly,

a public-communal alliance is also essential to

ensure the request to take strategic decisions and

orientation for the operative team that provides

the services to the JAAP’s (Board of Directors or

similar, where the participants in the alliance are

represented)

The multi-stakeholder structure,

a fundamental factor in the

generation of public policies

If the public-communal alliance is part of the

Canton’s water policies, it is necessary to ensure

its integration into the global water and sanitation

policies in the Canton to guarantee integral and

long term public policies

The integration between the services that

a multi-stakeholder structure (such as the

CENAGRAP) provides and the municipal water

policies is important; they work simultaneously for

the construction and/or rehabilitation of the new

systems which can be integrated into this structure

It is important to integrate the multi-stakeholder

structure to the joint construction of water policies

at the Canton level, such as the Master Plan,

inventories, prioritization of interventions, and

methodology for intervention at the level of the

unity or water company

Participation guarantees

sustainability

After 9 years of operation, the experience of the

CENAGRAP has proven to be feasible and sustain-

able. One of its major achievements has been the

participation of the water boards in the drinking

water management at the rural level. Its integration

to the Center for services increased the trust, credi-

bility and legitimacy of the interventions, since the

decisions cannot be taken by one entity unilater-

ally As a result, there is a strong social commitment

of the society towards the Center; the relationship

between the municipalities and the communities

is also strengthened and there is room for estab-

lishing public policies based on the demands of the

citizens.

Adapt to the conditions of each

scenario

Replicating the model of the CENAGRAP in other

scenarios involves the analysis and adaptation to

the local contexts because in some cases other

kinds of models pre-exist, such as the municipal

water companies. It is important to work on the

legal possibilities for developing alliances with the

water boards, which is a factor that increases the

sustainability of the interventions.

It is also important to consider the adaptation to

the size of the municipality. How to create struc-

tures in municipalities where decentralization is

not very likely to occur due to the few resources

in the municipal administration? One has to start

by considering the application of the principles,

in particular trying to provide the services to the

rural systems in a participatory manner, ensuring

personnel and/or specific units for the water sector

within the public administration.

yaku

kamay

77

yaku

kamay

76

Importance of a technical team

During the organization of the community systems,

it is essential to have a team that provides technical

and social monitoring, as well as guidance along

the process Such a team helps to solve problems

which cannot be solved by the local capacities.

Similarly, clear mechanisms for communication and

information about the Center’s activities have to be

established in order to keep the municipal entities,

water boards and local society up to date

Gender, participation and training

For strengthening the community systems for

drinking water in rural areas, it is essential to set

clear gender strategies to promote the inclusion

of women; promote participation to achieve the

involvement of leader and members; and provide

training to strengthen the technical, administrative

and operative capacities of the members and

technical staff.

The need for regulation and control mechanisms

The public-communal alliances also involve establishing control and monitoring mechanisms for the

quality of the water supplied by the community systems, by common agreement between community

systems and municipalities regulations. For that purpose, the municipalities should have laboratories

or establish alliances with other entities to regularly assess water quality.