ESWATINI WATER SERVICES CORPORATION SOCIO - ECONOMIC BASELINE FOR THE NHLANGANO - SIPHAMBANWENI INTEGRATED WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROJECT May 2019 Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4 Qualitative Data .................................................................................................................... 5 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 6 Rural Health Motivators......................................................................................................... 6 Women’s groups ................................................................................................................... 9 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 11 Quantitative Data ................................................................................................................ 11 Demographic Information of the Respondents .................................................................... 12 Household Characteristics .................................................................................................. 14 Drinking Water Treatment ................................................................................................... 23 Attitude Towards the Water quality...................................................................................... 24 Hygiene............................................................................................................................... 28 Sanitation ............................................................................................................................ 30 Types of Toilet Facilities used by Households ..................................................................... 30 Distance of the Toilet Facility from the Homestead ............................................................. 32 Disposal of Infants stools .................................................................................................... 32 Economic Status of the Households.................................................................................... 35 Main Sources of Income for the Households ....................................................................... 36 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 38 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 40 List of Photo plates Photo plate 1: Rural Health motivators at Bambitje ........................................................................ 7 Photo plate 2: Rural Health motivators at Ondiyaneni ................................................................... 8 Photo plate 3: Women's group Lushini ........................................................................................... 10 Photo plate 4: Long awaiting plumbing ........................................................................................... 11 List of Table of Figures Figure 1: Sex of Respondents .......................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2:Sex of Respondents by Constituency (Inkhundla) ........................................................ 13 Figure 3: Number of Respondents Per Constituency (Inkhundla) .............................................. 13 Figure 4: Relationship of Respondent to Household Head ......................................................... 14 Figure 5: Average Monthly Income Per Household ...................................................................... 15 Figure 6: Responsibility for Collecting Water from the Water Sources ...................................... 17 Figure 7: The time it takes to fetch water from the water source ................................................ 18 Figure 8: Is there any means of transport to fetch water from the water source ...................... 18 Figure 9: Is there any means of transport to fetch water from the water source ...................... 19 Figure 10: Size of containers used by households ....................................................................... 20 Figure 11: Contributions to get water supplied in households .................................................... 20 Figure 12: Times for fetching water from the source .................................................................... 21 Figure 13: Frequency of water supply from the water source in the past two weeks ............. 22 Figure 14: Water treatment ............................................................................................................... 23 Figure 15: Water Treatment Methods ............................................................................................. 24 Figure 16: Methods of Disposing Used Water ............................................................................... 27 Figure 17: Do Members of your household Wash their hands? ................................................. 29 Figure 18: Observations of Hand Washing .................................................................................... 29 Figure 19: Times for Washing Hands.............................................................................................. 30 Figure 20: Type of Toilet Facility used by Households................................................................. 31 Figure 21: Location of Toilet Facility from the Homestead .......................................................... 32 Figure 22: Methods of Disposing Infants Stools (0 to 3 Years)................................................... 33 Figure 23: Interviewers Observations of the Presence of Faecal Matter in the Homestead Surroundings ....................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 24: Main Sources of Income by Constituency ................................................................... 36 Figure 25: Do You Save Money? ..................................................................................................... 37 Figure 26: Do You Have a Bank Account? .................................................................................... 37 Figure 27: The Standard of Living of the Households? ................................................................ 38 List of Acronyms ESWASE Eswatini Water and Agricultural Development Enterprise EWSC Eswatini Water Services Corporation EU European Union RHM Rural Health Motivators Introduction The benefits of having access to an improved drinking water source can only be fully realized when there is also access to improved sanitation and adherence to good hygiene practices. Beyond the immediate, obvious advantages of people being hydrated and healthier, access to water, sanitation and hygiene (known as WASH) has profound wider socio-economic impacts, particularly for women and girls. According to the United Nations (2017) report about 2.1 billion people worldwide lack access to safe drinking water services and about 4.5 billion people lack safe sanitation services. Unsafe hygiene practices are also widespread, compounding the effects of such practices on the health of the people. The impact on child mortality rates is devastating with over 340 000 children under five who died annually from diarrhoeal diseases due to poor sanitation, poor hygiene, or unsafe drinking water. A person without access to improved drinking water, for instance, from a protected borehole well or municipal piped supply, is forced to rely on sources such as surface water, unprotected and possibly contaminated wells, or vendors selling water of unverifiable provenance and quality. For many communities, water sources are usually far from their homes, and it typically falls to women and girls to spend much of their time and energy fetching water, a task which often exposes them to attack from men and even wild animals. Without improved sanitation, a facility that safely separates human waste from human contact, people have no choice but to use inadequate communal latrines or to practise open defecation. For women and girls, finding a place to go to the toilet outside, often having to wait until the cover of darkness, can leave them vulnerable to abuse and sexual assault. In the immediate environment, exposed faecal matter will be transferred back into people’s food and water resources, helping to spread serious diseases such as cholera. Beyond the community, the lack of effective waste disposal or sewerage systems can contaminate ecosystems and contribute to disease pandemics. In some parts of the world there is little or no awareness of good hygiene practices and their role in reducing the spread of diseases. However, it is often the case that even when people do have knowledge of good hygiene behaviour, they lack the soap, safe water and washing facilities they need to make positive changes to protect themselves and their community. In an endeavour to try and reduce the negative impacts of WASH, the Eswatini Water Services Corporation seeks to increase the supply of potable water supply coverage in the Shiselweni region covering the Nhlangano to Siphambanweni corridor. This area is area is known to have been hit hard by the drought spells that have been experienced in the country about a decade ago. The current study aims to provide the social and economic impact assessment of water supply, sanitation and hygiene in the Shiselweni region. It is based on evidence extracted using a structured questionnaire. It basically addresses the following socioeconomic factors of WASH: the demographic characteristics of the households found along the corridor; existing water supply sources in the area; the drinking water treatment; the disposal of used water; Hygiene; sanitation and the economic status of the households surveyed. Qualitative Data Qualitative data was collected from key respondents and groups: • Traditional authorities (Bucopho; Bandlancane Nsingizini) • Rural Health Motivators (Bambitje; Ondiyaneni) • Women’s groups (Mchinisweni; Lushini) • Girls of school going age (eBufaneni Jericho) • Health workers (Hluthi clinic) Socio-economic profile of communities based on the household questionnaire were administered to 300 households (5%) via random sampling including: • Demographics • Income and expenditure • Assets • Water • Sanitation This data combined with qualitative information culminates in a ‘snap-shot’ of the affected communities to highlight impacts of the water supply project and generate recommended mitigation measures to be put in place. At Nsingizini Bucopho confirmed that the project would be supported by the community leadership as they have been adequately informed by ESWC. He stated that projects had been halted in the past due to lack of proper consultation. The people of this area look forward to having water not only for drinking but also to plant vegetables. Some even have ambitions to plant sugar cane rather than maize. A concern is that ESWC may not be able to implement all house connections before the 6-month deadline for project assistance unless independent contractors are engaged. At Zombodze Buchopho stated that the community is excited about the project and would welcome it with open arms (‘sivule tandla’). He stated that many have been awaiting such a project and was confident that the contractors would be able to work freely with the community. At Manyiseni the bucopho admitted that the leadership had been difficult to persuade on a number of projects. However, the issue of water has increasingly become a matter of urgency for the community especially as they perceive that they are less developed than their neighbouring communities. For this reason, the electrification project in the area could not be stopped. He stated that ‘Water is vital for life, who could possibly stop such a thing? He agreed that proper consultation would encourage support from the local leadership. • Bandlancane Nsingizini: Indvuna stated that Umphakatsi knows about the project as they had attended meetings at Inkhundla and at Hluti. It is understood that this is the early phase of submitting funding requests but are hopeful that ESWC will get loans to complete the project. It was stated that water is a great concern in the community as it has been over decades. Older members of Libandla recall that this issue has been on the agenda for many years. Members of Libandla also expressed a hope that there would be further consultations as to where to construct Kiosks so that they are in easy reach of the most needy in the community. Summary The importance of engaging with traditional authorities cannot be understated. Respondents suggest that previous projects have been stalled or cancelled because the traditional authorities felt that they were not adequately consulted. Following the scoping activities that have been carried out by ESWC, Bandlancane expressed satisfaction with the project. It is clear from informants that the implementation of a ‘Since I was a small boy in school, we water project will give positive political mileage for all community leaders associated with it. Many are have been promised water projects, keen that the project be implemented during their there was even a ‘big water’ term of office. committee set up but nothing substantial has materialised. Those Although all traditional authorities including committee members are long dead Bandlancane expressed satisfaction with the by now.’ scoping process carried out, further enhancement of this benefit would be for the Regional Indvuna, bandlancane, Nsingizini Administrator who is responsible for Chiefs within the region to be informed of the project and formally and to liaise with his chiefs for the duration of the project. Rural Health Motivators At Bambitje the rural health motivators expressed their gratitude to their Indvuna who begged ESWC to include this area in the project as they believe they had been erroneously left out of the project that went as far as Siphambanweni. There is an assumption that this is because the water supply could not reach them from the eastern side but are pleased to hear that the new project is from Nhlangano which means the supply can be gravity fed. They stated that not a single home in the area currently has a water connection. Hough there have been boreholes with communal hand-pumps in the area these are not maintained. Most people collect water from the river which they share with livestock. Now even the rivers are drying up so that in many places people have to dig for water. The respondents also believe that the drought is the reason the community lost out on a proposed project by ESWADE in 2015. The loss of the project a big disappointment for many in the community who rate themselves as ‘prize-winning’ farmers and who we ready to begin farming on a commercial scale. The area is said to have a lot of gardens. The women in particular considered this an independent source of income for themselves. In the past people tried to keep up homestead gardens using ash to purify their ‘grey water’ but very few still try as so little water is left over from other activities. People in the area know about water harvesting and recycling but many have just given up. Asked to elaborate on their struggle to get water the respondents stated that there are times when they queue from 3am in the morning until 7am. Each person is allowed a 20litre container at a time. If there are many people at the borehole the process is slowed considerably. Even then the water from the boreholes is sometimes muddy. Those who have transport avail themselves of the EWSC water kiosk at Nsalitje. With regards to sanitation, the area has recently benefitted from an EU funded sanitation programme implemented by World Vision. Every home has a clean toilet with additional waste pits in each. The Rural Health Motivators are confident that they have a good waste management system in the area. These new VIP toilets also include hand-washing facilities utilising 2 litre plastic bottles attached to the toilet. There has been education on sanitation and hygiene for all the families in the area although it is difficult to estimate who adheres to this. The respondents believe that a water kiosk is the first priority so that everyone in the community can have access to clean potable water. The respondents request that ESWC consult them with regards to the site of the proposed kiosk. Then those who can afford to can opt for individual connections. In such instances the community would be grateful for more information on how to maintain their water connections, how to avoid faults and how to reduce costs. In terms of affordability respondents stated that they rate water as a higher priority than electricity and currently they estimate that 90% of the homesteads in the area have electricity. Photo plate 1: Rural Health motivators at Bambitje At Ondiyaneni, Rural Health Motivators in this area stated that most homesteads rely on hand- pumps although there are some parts of their community that are a great distance from these and so rely on a spring in the mountains. A common complaint is that the hand-pumps are not well maintained and can sometimes be non-functional for a number of months during which time people return to unsafe water sources. Not all homesteads can keep money aside to assist with repairs, so everyone suffers. Some community members can hire tankers to deliver water to those homesteads that have water tanks in their yard. The water suppliers charge E2 per 20 litre container and between E400 and E600 to fill 5000 litre tanks. Many also harvest rainwater from gutters on their roofs which feed into the same tanks. The Rural Health motivators stated that they try to teach people about purifying drinking water and believe that many are following their advice because the cases of diarrheal diseases in the community have declined over the years. For those who collect water from the springs and rivers, cloth washing is usually done there but people are not allowed to wash clothes at the hand-pump. With regards to sanitation, the percentage of homestead with good, effective VIP toilets in the area has decreased. This is because many of the existing VIPs are old and have become dilapidated or because they are many new homesteads who did not benefit from past interventions. Not many people have reverted back to using the bush but the toilets – which had to be built as a condition of khonta’d into the community’- are of poor quality ‘umtiyamphisi’. Although the general health status is seen as having improved in recent years, a big challenge to waste management are disposable nappies which are said to litter the community. Although burning disposables and sanitary towels is an option many chose to throw in the veld or in the VIP latrines which are already full. This is a source of annoyance for those family members who have to dig new pits, in many instances the men. Recognising that water projects always have a sanitation component; respondents were concerned that some families will not be able to improve their facilities. In order to be able to cultivate homestead gardens there is need for access to more water. Currently there are those who water their gardens with grey water, but these are very small an only serve to supplement the family’s needs. Respondents stated that ‘people get discouraged when the plants dry up.’ There is so little water to spare that one respondent remarked that ‘people do not even offer water to travellers if they ask – we pretend not to hear.’ Respondents also observed that the availability of water at home or close to home would allow them to be more efficient in their chores. Photo plate 2: Rural Health motivators at Ondiyaneni Summary Rural Health Motivators are generally regarded as the ‘As women we were able to fend for most knowledgeable community members with regards to ourselves and not rely on our water and sanitation having been trained on WASH issues husbands for ‘salt’. We had gardens by government and non-governmental organisations over and were even looking forward to a the years. Rural Health Motivators at Bambitje stated that large scale agricultural project withthe area has recently benefitted from an EU funded project ESWADE but the drought put an end implemented by world Vision which has ensured that all to that.’ RHMs Bambitje homesteads have new toilets which include pits for disposable nappies and other waste that is difficult to burn as well as hand-washing facilities. However this gain is undermined by the lack of safe and reliable water supply. This not only has an impact on sanitation but also on nutrition and income generation opportunities. In another area, Rural Health Motivators also confirmed that the availability of water is a key challenge. Some of the worst hit areas do not even have hand-pumps which many depend on. The more well off families have installed or plan to install boreholes. Rural health Motivators at Ondiyaneni expressed frustration because despite their efforts to educate all homesteads about the importance of WASH, most toilets in the area are dilapidated to the level of being non- functional. Waste management in general is a challenge in this area. The use of ‘grey’ water for homestead gardens is understood but respondents complain that this water is hardly adequate for viable gardens. Non-governmental organisations active in the area include World Vision; Red Cross and Crescent; Medicins Sans Frontier; Elizabeth Glazer; JW org and HCA. Asked if community members will be able to afford to ‘So many of us used to say we would pay monthly water bills, respondents stated that not afford electricity connections but many will make the connections even if they may be now everyone gets upset when we an initial reluctance to commit. An elderly couple experience a power cut because the stated that would even be willing to sell their cattle if convenience of clean safe and necessary because they find it increasingly difficult to cope with fetching water and using an outdoor latrine. reliable water outweighs everything This is an important commitment considering the else. traditional attachment to cattle among Emaswati. RHM’s group - Ondiyaneni Women’s groups At Mchinisweni a group of women attending a parent’s association meeting was interviewed. The first thing they stated is that existing stand-pipes within their community are unreliable. Although technically they are near to safe water sources these are often shut down. These water schemes were implemented by Rural Water Supply Branch and as is the norm, community members had to put down a joining fee to be part of the scheme as well as provide labour for the installation of pipes. Some schemes are aid to be non-functional at least once per month for a couple of days at a time even though community member are paying E10 per month. The water is drawn from an earth dam that was built so respondents are not sure how clean it is. There is concern in the community that some will not be able to afford to pay their bills which in the past has affected neighbours. For this reason, the kiosk is the preferred means of getting safe potable water. VIP toilets had to be built by homesteads in order for them to be eligible for the Rural Water scheme but many of these quickly fell into disrepair because they were done hurriedly to facilitate the project. Some have hand-washing facilities but most do not. There is a complaint that disposable nappies are littered all over the community in dongas and even along the side of the road. The preference to disposable nappies is said to be nothing to do with the availability of water but the allure of ‘modern’ living. Respondents emphasized that the project should use local labour for their (‘our’) projects and were keen to know if the kiosk would provide more long-term employment. Further to that they are eager to learn more about water conservation with a view to reducing costs. Photo plate 3: Women's group Lushini At Lushini a group of women attending an electricity project meeting was interviewed. They welcomed the team because they felt that they need to attend to water issues before resuming their intend meeting. When asked if the local leadership agreed with the same priorities some of the women stated that they would be willing to protest against anyone who stopped a water project (‘Singaphakamisa tidwaba’). Photo plate 4: Long awaiting plumbing Water in the community is scarce in spite of water hand-pumps in a number of areas. One respondent expressed concern for her elderly parents who find it increasingly difficult to fetch water or use an outdoor toilet. For many the option of indoor plumbing is desirable as even the water kiosk is considered far for some. Those who live with or near sick or elderly people are concerned to ensure they leave enough water for the day. Asked about affordability respondents pointed out that their attendance at the electricity project meeting shows that there is some disposable income among homesteads, and they would be willing to pay for such vital services. Summary A common complaint from women’s Focus groups is that even in instances where hand- pumps or community stand pipes are nearby, these are very unreliable. Some respondents claim that they sometimes queue for water from 3am to 7am before they can return home. Community members are further frustrated because they have to constantly maintain clogged pipes and repair burst pipes or other infrastructure which they provided labour to install in the first instance. Sometimes these water sources do not function for as much as six months. When this happens, the community has no choice but to return to unsafe sources such as rivers. As carrying water is cumbersome, most opt to wash the cloths at the river rather than at home. This time-consuming task means other household chores are put on hold. The availability of water closer to the homestead is seen as a timesaving innovation where additional activities such as cooking and watering livestock can be carried out simultaneously. Quantitative Data A quantitative survey was carried out over 8 days between 24th April and 3rd May 2019. A key challenge for fieldwork is the number of national holidays during this period. Whist some of these conventions could be ignored it was not considered politic to visit communities during others. Tindvuna of each of the Tinkhundla in the proposed project area assisted with contacts for bucopho in each community who were on site to confirm community boundaries for the survey team. Demographic Information of the Respondents 1.1. Sex of Respondents Sex of Respondents 36% 64% Male Female Figure 1: Sex of Respondents Figure 1 shows that sixty four percent (64%) of the respondents interviewed were females, while thirty six percent (36%) were males. This shows that most females in the study area are not working and they are staying at home taking care of their families, while the male counterparts were at work when the interviews were conducted. This was true in all the constituencies, female respondents were more than the males as shown in figure 2. The Hosea constituency recorded the highest number of females (90) and 37 males; Zombodze Emuva recorded 76 females and 45 males; in Shiselweni 1, there were 43 females and 33 males. Mkhiweni had the least number of respondents. Sex of Respondents in each Inkhundla 100 80 60 40 20 0 Hosea Matsanjeni Mkhiweni Shiselweni 1 Zombodze Emuva Male Female Figure 2:Sex of Respondents by Constituency (Inkhundla) 1.2. Number of Respondents Per Constituency Figure 3 shows the percentage of constituencies covered by the survey. The figure shows that the Hosea constituency had the highest number of respondents (37%); followed by the Zombodze Emuva (35%) and the constituency with the least respondents (0.6%) was the Mkhiweni constituency. Number of Respondents Per Constituency Zombodze Hosea Emuva 37% 35% Shiselweni 1 22% Matsanjeni Mkhiweni 5% 1% Figure 3: Number of Respondents Per Constituency (Inkhundla) 1.3. Relationship of Respondent to Household Head Relationship of Respondent to Household Head 120 100 80 Frequency 60 40 20 0 Household head Spouse Child Brother or Sister Grand children Nephew Male Female Sex Figure 4: Relationship of Respondent to Household Head Figure 4 shows that the majority of the respondents interviewed were spouses of the household head. This confirms that most married females (28%) in the study area stay at home while the males are working. The respondents that are male household heads constitute 25% of the total respondents interviewed, while the female household heads were 23%. Most of the male household heads are pensioners while the female household heads are widows. There were cases where the respondents were children of the household heads. Again, there were more female respondents interviewed who were daughters of the household head. The Respondents also included brothers, grand - children and nephews; which indicates that the family setup in the study area is that of extended family. Household Characteristics A household rather than a homestead was to be the unit of enumeration because this is the smallest level of resource sharing. The cooking arrangement international definition of a household was used, which is defined as a person or persons who may be related or unrelated, who share at least one meal per day (“Lidladla, nobe badla bodo linye�). Since no list of households was available from Buchopho, homesteads were selected using random sampling, and thereafter all households in selected homesteads were interviewed. 1.3 Number of People Per Household Table 1: Number of People Per Household Adults Number of People (above 15 Children (5 Infants (0 per household years) % to 14 years) % to 4 years) % 0 to 5 people 258 75,4 311 90,9 340 99,4 6 to 10 people 72 21,1 29 8,5 2 0,6 Above 10 12 3,5 2 0,6 0 0 Total 342 100 342 100 342 100 Table 1 shows that in the study area most households (99.4%) had less than five infants aged between 0 to 4 years. This shows that in most households are extended families and they all resided in the same compound/homestead. About 75% of the households have between 0 to 5 adults. The few households in the study area reside with more than 10 people. 1.4. Average Monthly Income Per Household 3.20% 12.60% 14% Below E500 per month E501 – E1000 per month 20.80% E1001 – E2000 per month Above E2000 per month Don’t know 33.90% Refused to answer 15.50% Figure 5: Average Monthly Income Per Household Figure 5 shows that the majority of the households on average have a monthly income above E2000. About 21% of the households have an average monthly income between E1000 and E2000. 45.3% of the households have an average monthly income below E1000, a majority of these households depend on the elderly grant for income. 1.5. Education Level Attained Table 2: Highest Level of Education Attained Highest Education Level Frequency Percent None 1 0,3 Primary level 34 9,9 Secondary level 99 28,9 High school 157 45,9 College 20 5,8 University 28 8,2 Vocational 3 0,9 Total 342 100,0 Table 2 shows that about 46% of the households have completed high school, while 30% of the respondents have completed Secondary school. The tertiary level completion rates are very low. Complete illiteracy is a reality in the area, and this attributable to them having to acquire work to support their families at the earliest age possible. 2. Existing Water Supply Sources for the Households 2.1. Access to Safe Water Sources Table 3: Sources of Water Supply Sources of Water Supply Frequen Percent cy Stream/River/ Pond 97 28.4 Unprotected well without concrete lining 69 20.2 or cover Rain water collection 30 8.8 Hand dug well with 1 0.3 hand pump Borehole with hand 49 14.3 pump Public taps 30 8.8 Piped into yard 19 5.6 Protected well 15 4.4 Community tank 7 2.0 Dam 1 0.3 Buy the water 6 1.8 Spring 18 5.3 Total 342 100.0 Table 3 presents the types of water sources where the household fetch water for drinking. The majority of the households (82.3%), drink untreated/unsafe water from the dams, rivers, unprotected wells some of which are hand – dug. 2.2. Responsibility for Collecting Water from the Water Sources Mother, wife, aunt, sister, 4% sister-in-law 4% 25% Father, husband, uncle, brother 18% Daughter, niece 4% Son, nephew 11% Not applicable 34% Everyone Figure 6: Responsibility for Collecting Water from the Water Sources It is the responsibility of the females to collect water from the sources outlined in table 3. 59% of the female respondents collect water for the households as shown in figure 6. 2.3. The Time it Takes to Fetch Water from the Source Number of Respondents 70 60 50 40 30 Number of Respondents 20 10 0 0 5 15 25 35 45 60 90 120 300 Figure 7: The time it takes to fetch water from the water source Figure 7, shows that a majority (51%) of the respondents reported that it takes them less than 45 minutes to fetch water from the source. The highest number of respondents (17.3%) reported that it takes them about 30 minutes to fetch water from the source. 49% spend more than an hour to collect water from the source. Any time above 10 minutes indicates that generally most of the respondents walk long distances to get water from the source. There is a great need for clean and accessible water supply in the region. 2.4. Means of Transport to Ferry Water from the Source Any Transport used to fetch water from the source? 8% Yes No 92% Figure 8: Is there any means of transport to fetch water from the water source % of Respondents 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 % of Respondents .5 .0 Figure 9: Is there any means of transport to fetch water from the water source Figure 8 shows that only 8% of the respondents use transport to ferry water from the source. The remaining 92% carry plastic containers on their heads. The few respondents that use transport to ferry water from the source mostly use wheel barrows and tractors as shown in figure 9. It is interesting to note that in other constituencies such as Hosea they utilize the services of a monkey to transport water from the source, see table 4. This shows how desperate this region is to have water supply that is closer to their households. Table 4: Means of transporting water from the source by constituency Means of transporting water from the source by constituency Name of Inkhundl Monk Tract Truc va water wheel a car ey or k n tank barrow Total Hosea 1 1 4 0 1 2 2 9 Matsanje 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ni Mkhiweni 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shiselwen 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 i1 Zombodz 0 0 6 1 0 0 8 7 e Emuva Total 1 1 10 2 1 2 12 17 2.5. Size of containers used by households to collect water from the source Size of Containers used by Households 250 200 150 100 Number of Respondents 50 0 Figure 10: Size of containers used by households Most households (90%) especially collect water from the source by head use the 20 litres plastic containers. The 25 litre containers are used by 23% of the respondents. Few respondents use tanks such as the 1500 to 5000 litres containers. This is shown in figure10. 2.6. Contributions, in kind or cash, to get water supply Contributions , in kind or cash, to get water supply facility 3% 2% 2% Connection fee/initial 11% contribution Building material, sand, cement, stones etc. Pipes, taps etc. Non Applicable 82% Cash payment for water delivery Figure 11: Contributions to get water supplied in households Since a majority of the respondents fetch water from the rivers and unprotected well, this question was non-applicable (82%) to them. This emphasizes the need for clean water supply in the study area. Those that have tanks and bore holes had to part some money in order get water supplied in their homesteads. 2.7. The Times for Fetching water from the source The early morning hours (before 9am) are the best times for households to fetch water from the source. The respondents cited reasons such as: in the early morning hours the water is clean compared to the afternoon time where livestock has starred the mud from the source. Also, the sun in the morning is not as hot as in the noon and afternoon times. This is illustrated in figure 12. There surely an urgent need for the supply of treated clean treated water for this region. number of respondents 120 100 80 60 40 number of respondents 20 0 Figure 12: Times for fetching water from the source 2.8. Frequency of Water Supply from the Water Source in the Past Two Weeks 7% 10% Daily, 24 hours a day Daily at certain hours Three to five days a week 83% Figure 13: Frequency of water supply from the water source in the past two weeks Since most of the water sources are perennial rivers and wells, 83% of the respondents have had water from the source daily. This is illustrated in figure 13. This is true in all the constituencies of the study. 2.9. Interruptions in Water Supply Table 5 below shows that within the past 6 months there have been no major breakdowns (72%) in the drinking water supply. This is because most of the water sources are perennial. The constituencies that have had some breakdown are those communities that use boreholes that had to be closed down so that the community leaders could organise someone to fix the problem. Table 5: Interruptions/breakdowns in the drinking water supply from the main source in the past 6 months Did your household experience Total interruptions/ breakdowns in the drinking Name of Inkhundla water supply from the main source in the past 6 months Yes No Dont know Hosea 32 90 4 126 Matsanjeni 7 10 0 17 Mkhiweni 0 2 0 2 Shiselweni 1 20 51 2 73 Zombodze 26 94 1 121 Emuva Total 85 247 7 339 Drinking Water Treatment Has your household ever treated water to make it safer to drink? Have you ever treated the water make it safer to drink? 25% Yes No 75% Figure 14: Water treatment Figure 14 says that the majority of the respondents (75%) do not treat water for drinking. This is dangerous as the river water may be contaminated, and it needs to be treated to avoid sicknesses such as diarrhoea, bilharzia etc. The 25% of the respondents that treat drinking water used treatment methods such as: boiling the water (15.8%); adding bleach/chlorine (7%) and sieving (0.6%) it with a clean cloth as shown in figure 15 below: Water Treatment Methods 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Percentage 0.0 Figure 15: Water Treatment Methods The constituencies that seem to be leading in the water treatment exercise are Zombodze and Hosea as shown in table 6 below. Table 6: Name of Inkhundla * When was the last time your household treated the water using this method Crosstabulation Name of When was the last time your household treated the water using Total Inkhundla this method .00 Today Yesterday less More Non Everytime than than Applicable we collect one one water month month Hosea 0 8 8 3 4 95 0 118 Matsanjeni 0 1 2 2 0 11 1 17 Mkhiweni 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Shiselweni 1 0 2 0 2 1 53 6 64 Zombodze 1 5 3 4 1 93 5 112 Emuva 1 16 13 11 6 254 12 313 Total Attitude Towards the Water quality Respondents of the study were also asked to give their own opinions on the quality of drinking water available in their constituencies. The quality of water was measured in terms of the following factors: clarity (no sediments; colour; smell; taste; healthiness; stability of service and convenience (time). The responses are presented in table 7 below: Table 7: Respondents’ Rating of the Quality of Drinking Water from the Source Clarity (no segments) Frequency Percent Good 148 43,3 Acceptable 127 37,1 Poor 67 19,6 Total 342 100,0 Colour Frequency Percent Good 145 42,1 Acceptable 131 38,0 Poor 66 19,3 Total 342 100,0 Smell Frequency Percent Good 166 47,7 Acceptable 124 35,7 Poor 52 15,2 Total 342 100,0 Taste Frequency Percent Good 138 39,5 Acceptable 121 36,0 Poor 80 22,8 Total 342 100,0 Healthiness Frequency Percent Good 139 40,6 Acceptable 125 36,3 Poor 78 21,6 Total 342 100,0 Stability of Service Frequency Percent Good 105 30,4 Acceptable 162 47,4 Poor 75 21,1 Total 342 100,0 Convenience Frequency Percent Good 132 38,6 Acceptable 120 34,2 Poor 90 25,7 Total 342 100,0 The quality of drinking water from the sources as described in table 7 indicates that the majority of the respondents (more than 70%) accept the quality of drinking water they collect from the source. Those that consider the quality of water to be poor (over 20%) have cited reasons such as: i) During rainy seasons the households that use rivers and unprotected wells complained about diseases such as diarrhoea, vomiting and bilharzia. ii) They also cited that since their sources of water supply are also used by livestock especially in the afternoon periods, the colour, taste and clarity of the water is compromised. 3. Disposal of Used Water Methods of Disposing Used Water 1% 1% 0% 17% Watering Bricks Drain/Pit Garden /fruit trees Throw in the yard/ field Sewer 81% Figure 16: Methods of Disposing Used Water In all the constituencies, the majority of the respondents (81%) dispose used water from bathing, cleaning and washing anywhere in the yard or field that is adjacent to the homestead. This shows that most of these households are prone to diseases such as malaria since the yard and the nearest field is dumped with dirty water now and then. This also shows that the study areas’ household do not save water. The haphazard disposing of water any how in the yard is a health hazard to the occupants of the households. Upon observing the points of discharge of used water in the homesteads, the interviewers reported the following findings shown in table 8 below: Table 8: Observations by the Interviewer of Points of Discharge of Used Water Observations of Points of Discharge of Used Number of Water Respondents Percentage Soak- away/septic system 11 3,2 Sanitation facility 2 0,6 Open channel 46 13,5 Street surface 6 1,8 Outside premises (yard or Garden) 248 72,5 Water body (lake, river etc.) 2 0,6 None 27 7,9 Total 342 100,0 The interviewers’ observations of the homesteads for points of discharge of used water confirms that indeed the majority (over 72%) of the households in all the constituencies dispose used water in the yard and nearest field or garden. The interviewers’ also observed appearance of the points of discharge of used water in the homesteads and presented them in table 9 below: Table 9: Observations of the appearance of the Points of Discharge of Used Water Number of The Appearance of the Points of Discharge Respondents of Used Water Percentage Stagnant water pool 1 0,3 Swampy area 19 5,6 Lots of insects/ mosquitoes breeding 10 2,9 Bad Smell 4 1,2 None 302 88,3 Fair 6 1,8 Total 342 100,0 About 6% of the homesteads of the respondents had swampy areas around where the household disposes used water. About 3% of the areas where used water is disposed had lots of insects such as mosquitoes, ants and flies. The areas also had a bad smell (1.2%). In all the households that had signs of water disposal sites, those households had a cattle kraal nearby, which contributed immensely to the bad smell and swampy spots around the homesteads. It is interesting to note that in about 88% of the households there were no signs of used water disposal sites. The study recommends that kraals should be built at least 200 metres away from the homestead to avoid the swampiness and bad smell around the homestead. Hygiene Hygiene is defined as a set of personal practices that contribute to good health. In some parts of the world, especially developing countries, there is little or no awareness of good hygiene practices and their role in reducing the spread of diseases. However, it is often the case that even when people do have knowledge of good hygiene behaviour, they lack the soap, safe water and washing facilities they need to make positive changes to protect themselves and their community. Evidence from the Nhlangano to Siphambanweni study, shows that, a majority (95%) of the household members do wash their hands now and then. This is shown in figure 17 below: Do members of your household wash their hands? 5% Yes No 95% Figure 17: Do Members of your household Wash their hands? The researchers observed how the respondents washed their hands. Figure 18 shows that, only 23% of the respondents in all the constituencies used soap when washing their hands. 32% of the respondents used water they collected from the water source by head. It is containers and they use it sparingly. A majority of the respondents used a basin or bucket to wash their hands. Observations of Hand Washing 160 140 120 100 80 60 Number of respondents 40 20 0 Soap Water for hand Facility for hand washing (tap, storage washing (Basin, bucket, etc.) etc.) Figure 18: Observations of Hand Washing To check their awareness on the times it is necessary to wash hands, their responses are presented in figure 19 below: Times for washing hands 41% Before eating After eating 57% After defecating 2% Figure 19: Times for Washing Hands Most of the respondents are teach their children to wash hands after defecating (41% and before eating (57%). A few respondents (2%) wash their hands after eating. Sanitation Sanitation is the effective use of tools and actions that keep our environment healthy. These include latrines or toilets to manage waste, food preparation, washing stations, effective drainage and other mechanisms. In the immediate environment, exposed faecal matter will be transferred back into people’s food and water resources, helping to spread serious diseases such as cholera. Beyond the community, the lack of effective waste disposal or sewerage systems can contaminate ecosystems and contribute to disease pandemics. Types of Toilet Facilities used by Households Evidence from a baseline study covering Nhlangano to Siphambanweni shows that in all the constituencies over 70% of the households use the improved type of pit latrine. 21% of the households use the traditional type of pit latrine. This is shown in figure 20 below. An improved pit latrine is the one that has a ventilation pipe from the pit to above the toilet structure, while the basic or traditional pit latrine does not have the ventilation pipe. Type of Toilet Facility used by Households 250 200 150 100 50 0 Number of Respondents Figure 20: Type of Toilet Facility used by Households About 6% of the respondents do not have a toilet facility and they use the bush, open air and fields. The constituencies that reported that they do not have a toilet facility and they use the bush, open air and fields are: Hosea (7 respondents), Shiselweni 1 (6 respondents) and Zombodze Emuva (5 respondents). This is shown in table 10. For women and girls, finding a place to go to the toilet outside, often having to wait until the cover of darkness, can leave them vulnerable to abuse and sexual assault. Table 10: Type of Toilet Facility used in the Household by Constituency/Inkhundla What kind of toilet facility does your household use Flus h to sew age Traditio or Improv nal pit Open sept ed pit latrine Air/bus ic latrine without h/ field No tank (VIP) slab etc toilet Total Name of Hosea 0 97 21 7 0 125 Inkhund Matsanjeni 0 16 1 0 0 17 la Mkhiweni 0 2 0 0 0 2 Shiselweni 2 54 13 5 1 75 1 Zombodze 5 71 40 3 2 121 Emuva Total 7 240 75 15 3 340 Distance of the Toilet Facility from the Homestead The majority (81%) of the toilet facilities are located within the compound, while 15% of the respondents reported that the toilet facility is located outside the compound. The few respondents (4%) reported that they do not have the toilet facility at all, they use the bush as a toilet. This is shown in figure 21 below: Is the Toilet Facility Located within the Homestead? 4% 15% Yes , within the yard No, outside the yard No toilet facility 81% Figure 21: Location of Toilet Facility from the Homestead Disposal of Infants stools Respondents were asked to explain how they dispose the stools of their infants (0 to 3 years), who do not use the toilet facility. The responses are shown in figure 22: Methods of Disposing Infants stools (0 to 3 years) 250 200 150 100 50 Number of Respondents 0 Figure 22: Methods of Disposing Infants Stools (0 to 3 Years) About 65% of the respondents do not stay with infants. Those that stay with infants reported that they dispose the stools in the latrine (14%); some burry it within the yard (10.89%); others just throw the stools outside the yard ( 7.6% ); others simply burn the disposables in the rubbish pit outside the compound and 0.3% of the respondents throw it in the rubbish pit that is within the compound. 3.1. Rating the Quality of Toilet Facility Used by the Households Respondents of the study were also asked to give their own opinions on the quality of toilet facilities available in their homesteads. The quality of the toilet facility was measured in terms of the following factors: Effectiveness; cleanliness; smell; distance of toilet from the homestead and ease to repair. The responses are presented in table 11: Table 11: Rating the Toilet Facility Quality Effectiveness Frequency Percent Good 186 54,4 Acceptable 100 29,2 Poor 34 9,9 Non 22 6.4 Applicable Total 342 100,0 Convenience Frequency Percent Good 187 54,7 Acceptable 113 33,0 Poor 18 5,3 Non 24 7.0 Applicable Total 342 100,0 Cleanliness Frequency Percent Good 126 36,8 Acceptable 163 47,7 Poor 31 9,1 Non 23 6.7 Applicable Total 342 100,0 Smell Frequency Percent Good 107 31,3 Acceptable 171 50,0 Poor 44 12,9 Non 20 5.8 Applicable Total 342 100,0 Distance to toilet Frequency Percent Good 160 46,8 Acceptable 92 26,9 Poor 60 17,5 Non 30 8.8 Applicable Total 342 100,0 Ease to repair Frequency Percent Good 121 35,4 Acceptable 115 33,6 Poor 85 24,9 Non 21 6.1 Applicable Total 342 100,0 The toilet facilities are acceptable (83.6%) probably because they are the improved type of pit latrines, which have a ventilation pipe from the pit to the outside of the toilet. The remaining 16.4% are of poor quality since they are the traditional type. Over 80% of the respondents reported that they are happy with the improved toilet facilities in terms of convenience, cleanliness and the smell. Most of the toilets are within the acceptable distance (73.7%). The improved toilet facilities can be easily repaired (69%). The traditional toilet facilities were rated as poor in all the factors. The non-applicable outcomes relate to the homesteads that do not have toilet facilities. 3.2. Interviewers’ Observations of Faecal Matter around the Homestead Interviewers Observations of the Presence of Faecal Matter in the Homestead 23% Yes No 77% Figure 23: Interviewers Observations of the Presence of Faecal Matter in the Homestead Surroundings Figure 23 shows that in 77% of the homesteads, no faecal matter was observed. The 23% that were found to have faecal matter were for dogs, chickens goats and cattle, especially in those homesteads that have kraals. Economic Status of the Households It is very important to investigate the economic status of the households in order to ascertain they will afford to pay for the proposed water supply that will be provided by the Eswatini Water Services Corporation. Main Sources of Income for the Households Respondents were asked to list the main sources of income for their households. The results are presented in figure 24 by constituency: 70 60 50 40 Hosea 30 Matsanjeni 20 Mkhiweni 10 Shiselweni 1 0 Zombodze Emuva Figure 24: Main Sources of Income by Constituency Figure 24 shows that in almost all the constituencies the main source of income is the salary. Other sources of income for the respondents include the pension, remittances, trading and farming. It is interesting to note that households in this region are highly dependent of salaried income and only one respondent (0.3%) from the Shiselweni 1 constituency is self-employed. 3.3. The Highest Expenditure Item in the Household Expenditure on food (88%) is the most highly ranked item in all the constituencies. This is shown in Table 12 below: Table 12: Main Expenditure Items for Households House hold Number of Expenditure Respondents Percentage Food 302 88 Electricity 24 7 School Fees 10 3 TV /Radio 6 2 Total 342 100 Other expenditures include; electricity consumption (7%), school fees (10%) and TVs & radios (2%). This region spends more on consumables than saving or investing their excess income. No wonder only one respondent out of the 342 respondents is self – employed by his own business. The region needs to be oriented on how to start their own businesses so that they can learn to save and invest their proceeds. Figure 25 proves that indeed the respondents in the region consume more than they save. Do you Save Money? 31% Yes No 69% Figure 25: Do You Save Money? Figure 26 also shows that only 69% of the respondents own bank accounts. I should be noted that the majority of those that have bank accounts, opened the account so that their salaries can be transferred to them. Otherwise the fact still remains that the respondents are consumer rather than savers. Do You Own a Bank Account? 41% Yes no 59% Figure 26: Do You Have a Bank Account? Lastly Respondents were asked to rank the standard of living of their households. The results are shown in figure 27 below: Standard Of Living of the Households 250 200 150 Number of respondents 100 50 0 Rich Moderate Poor Figure 27: The Standard of Living of the Households? Figure 27 shows that most of the households are comfortable with the status quo, they live “from hand to mouth “and are not bothered by increasing their incomes or saving. 65.5% of the respondents have a moderate standard of living. A few of the households are rich (4.4%), while 30% are poor. Conclusion The aim of the baseline study was to assess the social and economic impacts of water supply; sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in the Shiselweni region covering the Nhlangano to Siphambanweni corridor. It is based on evidence extracted using a structured questionnaire. The study basically addressed the following socioeconomic factors of WASH: the demographic characteristics of the households found along the corridor; existing water supply sources in the area; the drinking water treatment; the disposal of used water; Hygiene; sanitation and the economic status of the households surveyed. The study found that in all the constituencies, the majority of the households do not have access to improved drinking water. A majority of the households get drinking water from unprotected water sources such as surface water, unprotected and possibly contaminated wells. In most of the constituencies, water sources are far from their homes, and women and girls are the ones tasked with the burden of fetching water from the water sources, a task which often exposes them to attack from men and even wild animals. The baseline study also found that in all the constituencies over 70% of the households use the improved type of pit latrine. However, in some constituencies such as Hosea, Shiselweni 1 and Zombodze Emuva; some households do not have toilet facilities and they use the bush, open air and fields. For women and girls, finding a place to go to the toilet outside, often having to wait until the cover of darkness, can leave them vulnerable to abuse and sexual assault. The lack of effective waste disposal or sewerage systems can contaminate ecosystems and contribute to disease pandemics in the affected communities. In some constituencies there is little or no awareness of good hygiene practices and their role in reducing the spread of diseases. The study found that, a majority (95%) of the household members do wash their hands now and then. However, it was observed that even though, the respondents have knowledge of good hygiene behaviour; they did not use the soap, safe water and washing facilities they need to make positive changes to protect themselves and their communities. In spite the time consumed and the danger of snakes, the girls accept that fetching water is mainly their task. Although they do not miss school as a result of having to carry this out, this does mean their days are long particularly in winter. Although in Eswatini homesteads tend to stand apart unlike in village settings, the positioning of water kiosks should also consider the proximity to schools as well as to homesteads. The challenge at Hluthi clinic is that most of the staff are new to the area and felt that they could only make general comments. Further information can be collected from the health Inspector who is resident at the clinic but was not present there during the time of the study. Health workers at the other clinics confirm that they treat many incidences of snake bit in the area. Although there are sporadic bouts of diarrheal disease outbreaks these have decreased in recent times. However, there is currently an outbreak of an unidentified skin disease throughout the region although this cannot yet be attributed to the water. Health workers emphasised that the importance of clean water and sanitation cannot be understated especially as the key preventative health measure. One respondent stated that ‘It’s not possible to talk about Vision 2022 when there are still people drinking untreated water’. Health facilities in the area are situated at Hluthi, Matsanjeni, Nsalitje, Mgazini and Our Lady of sorrows. The local community also make use of Tjetjuba hospital which is in close proximity across the border. Recommendations The project is widely welcomed in the communities by both residents and their respective leadership. The project is relevant to the needs of the community and is largely regarded as being long overdue. The project is viewed by the communities as having a positive impact on their health in terms of safe drinking water, nutrition, sanitation and hygiene. However, respondents raised a number of concerns. In the first It’s important that we are able to instance there is concern that EWSC will be able to keep an eye on the children when they go to fetch water so we know implement household connections within six months of they are safe. the project infrastructure being put in place. In addition there is concern that the proposed water kiosks should Women’s group - Mchinsweni be situated within easy access of homesteads rather than nearer commercial hubs. Respondents are also keen for schools to be assisted further as many schools currently rely on rainwater harvesting. Whilst it is understood that project contractors may need to employ some skilled labour, the employment of local unskilled labour during the project implementation is also a repeated concern among respondents. Communities welcome the opportunity to learn more about water conservation as well as sanitation and hygiene issues and innovations. Annex A: List of Informants Nsingizini Elias Mkhumane Ndodekhaya Simelane Wonderboy Gwebu Elsie Sihongonyane Mbuso Shongwe Ntsela Dlamini Babe Tsabedze Eliot Shongwe Lushini Gabisile Msibi Mumsy Msibi Zachariah Ndwandwe Martha Ngobese Sanela Simelane Manjenkeza Msibi Galile Zanele Zwane Jongosi Mabuza Anyway Hlophe Nkosinphile Hlophe Pomlie Mkhonta Bambitje (RHMs) Make Simelane (Indvuna) Duduzile Sibanyoni Nesta Gina Duduzile Sihlongonyane Sindi Dlamini Ondiyaneni (RHMs) Ntombikayise Nxumalo Lololo Simelane Nomphumelelo Mathunjwa Aslina Masuku Tholakele Masangu Sibomgile Nxumalo Thalitha Nxumalo Ebufananeni Lindelwa Mhlanga Nonhle Simelane Siphilile Nxumalo Annex B: Traditional Authorities Inkhundla Community Approx. Bucopho contact Number of homesteads Bambitje Make Simelane 76447560 Shiselweni 1 Sifiso Khumalo 76345887 Dumenkungwini 200 Bafana Sithole 76023337 Manyandzeni 298 Bawinile 76289007 Mchinsweni 200 Jongosi Mabuza 76338256 Mabonwabulawe 320 Khumalo 76252818 Hhuhhuma 390 Sister khumalo 78315217 Posini 80 Simiso Dlamini 78212836 Zikhotheni 175 Nhlanhla Mathunjwa 76145331 Hosea Vilane 76211081 Kaliba 915 Sicelo Mdluli 76338926 Nsingizini 881 Selby Gumbi 76286976 KaHhohho Emuva 405 Make Simelane 76279770 Lushini 454 Sanele Simelane 76435946 Ondiyaneni 197 Muzi Nxumalo 76894734 Manyiseni 236 Ndumiso Mabuza 76212120 eBufaneni 100 Nhlanhla Sikhondze 76247065 Zombodze Ngwenya 7318590 Emuva Zombodze 700 Mdluli 76643094 Maphondweni 160 Mvubu 76187605 Bulekeni 120 Mndzebele 76360692 Ngwenyameni 1200 Mkhwanazi 76228730 7031 Inkhundla Community Approx. Bucopho contact Number of homesteads Bambitje Make Simelane 76447560 Shiselweni 1 Sifiso Khumalo 76345887 Dumenkungwini 200 Bafana Sithole 76023337 Manyandzeni 298 Bawinile 76289007 Mchinsweni 200 Jongosi Mabuza 76338256 Mabonwabulawe 320 Khumalo 76252818 Hhuhhuma 390 Sister Khumalo 78315217 Posini 80 Simiso Dlamini 78212836 Zikhotheni 175 Nhlanhla Mathunjwa 76145331 Hosea Vilane 76211081 Kaliba 915 Sicelo Mdluli 76338926 Nsingizini 881 Selby Gumbi 76286976 KaHhohho Emuva 405 Make Simelane 76279770 Lushini 454 Sanele Simelane 76435946 Ondiyaneni 197 Muzi Nxumalo 76894734 Manyiseni 236 Ndumiso Mabuza 76212120 eBufaneni 100 Nhlanhla Sikhondze 76247065 Zombodze Ngwenya 7318590 Emuva Zombodze 700 Mdluli 76643094 Maphondweni 160 Mvubu 76187605 Bulekeni 120 Mndzebele 76360692 Ngwenyameni 1200 Mkhwanazi 76228730 7031 Annex C: Questionnaire Used NHLANGANO – SIPHAMBANWENI INTEGRATED WATER SUPPLY PROJECT IN ESWATINI Questionnaire for Sample Household Survey Interviewer’s Name: ---------------------------------------- Interview Date: ------/--------/2019 Name of Community( Sigodzi): ----------------------------------------------- Name of Umphakatsi ------------------------------------------------- Name of Inkhundla: --------------- A: Personal Information of the Respondent 1. Name of Respondent 2. Sex of Respondent i) Male [ ] ii) Female [ ] 3. Age of Respondent 4. Relationship of Respondent to i) Household Head [ ] Household Head ii) Spouse [ ] iii) Child [ ] iv) Brother or Sister [ ] v) Other, specify --------------------------------- B: Household Characteristics 5. How many people live in this household? i) Adults (above 15 years) [ ] ii) Children (5 – 14 years) [ ] iii) infants (0 – 4 years) [ ] 6. How many people are working [ ] 7. What is the average total monthly i) Below E500 per month [ ] income of the household? This includes ii) E501 – E1000 per month [ ] income earned by all members of the iii) E1001 – E2000 per month [ ] household and all sources of income iv) Above E2000 per month [ ] received from other family members etc. v) Don’t know [ ] vi) Refused to answer [ ] 8. What is the highest education level i) none [ ] attained by the members of your ii) Primary level [ ] household? iii) Secondary level [ ] iv) High school [ ] v) Collage [ ] vi) University [ ] vii) Vocational [ ] viii) Don’t know [ ] 9. How many children are attending school [ ] in your household? 10. What are the reasons for the children --------------------------------------------------------- that are not attending school? --------------------------------------------------------- C: Existing Water Supply Sources for the Household 11. Does your household have access to i) Yes [ ] safe water sources for drinking? ii) No [ ] 12. What is the main water source for i) Stream/River/ Pond [ ] drinking and cooking for members of your ii) Unprotected well without concrete lining household? or cover [ ] iii) Rain water collection [ ] iv) Hand dug well with hand pump [ ] v) Borehole with hand pump [ ] vi) Public taps [ ] vii) Piped into yard [ ] viii) Piped into house [ ] ix) Other, specify------------------------------------ - 13. Who is responsible for fetching water i) Mother, wife, aunt, sister, sister-in-law [ from the source you mentioned in 12 ] above? ii) Father, husband, uncle, brother [ ] iii) Daughter, niece [ ] iv) Son, nephew [ ] v) Other, specify------------------------------------ -- 14. How long does it take to collect water [ ] and come back from the source you mentioned in 12 above? 15. Does your household use any means of i) Yes [ ] transport to ferry water from the source ii) No [ ] mentioned in 12 above? iii) If yes, specify the kind of transport --------------- - 16. What is the size of the containers used ---------------------------------------------------------- by your household to collect water? - ---------------------------------------------------------- - 17. Roughly, how many containers of water ---------------------------------------------------------- does your household use per day? ---------------------------------------------------------- - 18. What contributions, in kind and cash, to i) connection fee/initial contribution [ ] get the water supply facility ii) Building material, sand, cement, stones etc. [ ] iii) Pipes, taps etc. [ ] iv) other, specify------------------------------------ 19. What time does your household fetch i) Before 6.am. [ ] water from the source? ii) 6am to 9am [ ] iii) 9am to 12noon [ ] iv) 12 to 3pm [ ] v) 3pm to 6pm [ ] vi) after 6pm [ ] 20. How frequently was the drinking water i) Daily, 24 hours a day [ ] from the main source available to your ii) Daily at certain hours [ ] household during the last two weeks? iii) three to five days a week [ ] iv) other, specify------------------------------------ - 21. Did your household experience i) Yes [ ] interruptions/ breakdowns in the drinking ii) No [ ] water supply from the main source in the iii) Don’t know [ ] past 6 months? 22. During these interruptions mentioned [ ] in 21 above, how many days was drinking water not available from the main source? D: Drinking Water Treatment 23. Has your household ever treated the i) Yes [ ] water to make it safer to drink? ii) No [ ] 24. What did your household do to make it i) Boiled the water [ ] safer to drink? ii) Added bleach/chlorine [ ] iii) Sieve it through a clean cloth [ ] iv) Water filter (ceramic, sand, composite, etc. [ ] v) Other, specify----------------------------------- 25. When was the last time your household i) Today [ ] treated the water using this method? ii) Yesterday [ ] iii) less than one month [ ] iv) More than one month [ ] v) Other, specify------------------------------------ 26. How much does your household [ ] approximately spend on water treatment per month? E: Attitude Towards the Water Quality 27. How would rate the quality of drinking Good Acceptable water from the main source of supply? Poor i) Clarity (no sediments) [ ] [ ] [ ] ii) Colour [ ] [ ] [ ] iii) Smell [ ] [ ] [ ] iv) Taste [ ] [ ] [ ] v) Healthiness [ ] [ ] [ ] vi) Stability of service [ ] [ ] [ ] vii) convenience(time) [ ] [ ] [ ] 28. What is your household ‘s attitude i) We often talk about it [ ] towards saving water? ii) Mostly parents mention it from time to time [ ] iii) We do not think about it [ ] F: Disposal of Used Water 29. How does your household dispose used water from bathing, cleaning, washing etc.? -------------------------------------------------------- 30. Observation: What are the points of i) Piped sewer [ ] discharge of household used water? ii) Soak- away/septic system [ ] Interviewer: Tick the facilities that you observe without reading iii) Sanitation facility [ ] out loud. iv) Open channel [ ] v) Street surface [ ] vi) Outside premises (yard or Garden) [ ] vii) Water body (lake, river etc.) [ ] viii) Other, specify----------------------------- 31. Observations about points of discharge i)Stagnant water pool [ of used water: ] Interviewer: Tick the descriptions you observe without reading out ii) Swampy area [ loud the question to the respondent. ] iii) Lots of insects/ mosquitoes breeding [ ] iv) Bad Smell [ ] v) Signs of residues ( Soap, green slime etc.) [ ] vi) Other, specify----------------------------------- - G: Hygiene 32. Do members of your household wash i) Yes [ ] their hands? ii) No [ ] 33. Observation of hand washing: i)Soap [ ] Interviewer: Tick the descriptions you observe without reading out ii) Water for hand washing (tap, storage etc.) [ ] loud the question to the respondent. iii) Facility for hand washing (Basin, bucket, etc.) [ ] 34. When do you think it is important for a i)Before eating [ ] child (older than 4 years) to wash her ii) After eating [ ] hands? iii) After defecating [ ] iv) Before going out [ ] v) Before receiving visitors [ ] vi) Other, specify----------------------------------- H. Sanitation 35. What kind of toilet facility does your i) Flush to sewage or septic tank [ ] household use? ii) Flush/pour flush to pit [ ] iii) Improved pit latrine (VIP) [ ] iv) Traditional pit latrine without slab [ ] v) Bucket [ ] vi) Open Air/bush/ field etc. [ ] vii) Other, specify----------------------------------- 36. Is the toilet facility located within your i) Yes , within the yard [ ] compound or yard? ii) No, outside the yard [ ] 37. How do you dispose stools for your i) Throw disposables into latrine [ ] infants (0 – 3 years) who do not use the ii) Throw outside the yard [ ] toilet facility? iii) Buried in the yard [ ] iv) Other, specify----------------------------------- - 38. How would you rate the quality of the Good Acceptable toilet you use? Poor i)Effective [ ] [ ] [ ] ii) Convenience [ ] [ ] [ ] iii) Cleanliness [ ] [ ] [ ] iv) Smell [ ] [ ] [ ] v) Distance to toilet [ ] [ ] [ ] vi) Ease to repair [ ] [ ] [ ] 39. Observations about household i)Yes [ ] surroundings: Interviewer: Do not read out. ii) No [ ] Is faecal matter deposited in the household surroundings (Children & animal faeces) I. Economic Status of the Household 40. What are the main sources of income in i) Farming E------------- your household? Please specify average ii) Trading E------------- amount of income per month. iii) Salary from employer E------------ iv) Pension E------------ v) Remittance from family E------------- vi) Other, specify------------------E------------- 41. What is the most expensive object in Specify--------------------------------E------------- your household that ranks highly in your monthly expenditure? 42. Does your household keep any savings i) Yes [ ] or cash? ii) No [ ] 43. Does any of your household own a bank i) Yes [ ] account? ii) No [ ] 44. How many livestock does your i) Cattle for farming [ ] household own? ii) Cattle for breeding [ ] iii) Donkeys [ ] iv) Horses [ ] v) Goats [ ] vi) Sheep [ ] vii) Other [ ] 45. How would you rank the standard of i) Rich [ ] living of your household? ii) Moderate [ ] iii) Poor [ ] THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION AND PATIENCE IN THIS RESEARCH!!