Waterlines theme issue: “Multiple use is here to stay”

“Multiple use is a reality on the ground, and as in other aspects of our work, water sector professionals will have to learn to better address the needs and demands of users. There is a long way to go in terms of institutionalizing the multiple use approach and addressing multiple water needs at scale. MUS as an area of research and practical endeavour is here to stay”, writes Richard Carter in his editorial of a special theme issue on this topic of Waterlines, Volume 29, Number 1, January 2010.

Two peer reviewed articles are written by two core members of the international MUS alliance. One highlights general lessons by Barbara van Koppen of the International Water Management Institute and Stef Smits of IRC. With local partners Stef Smits co-authored an article on effects of multiple-use water services on users’ livelihoods and its sustainability in Honduras. Two other focus on local experiences in Nepal and Bangladesh. The Bangladesh example shows the spread, use and impact of the MUS work since 2002.

Article titles

Multiple-use water services: climbing the water ladder
pp. 5-20(16)
Authors: Van Koppen, Barbara; Smits, Stef

Opportunities revealed by the Nepal multiple-use water services experience

pp. 21-36(16)

Author: Mikhail, Monique

Effects of multiple-use of water on users' livelihoods and sustainability of rural water supply services in Honduras
pp. 37-51(15)
Authors: Smits, Stef; Mejía, Túpac; Rodríguez, Senia Eben; Suazo, Damián

Multiple-use water supply systems: do the claims stack up? Evidence from Bangladesh

pp. 52-72(21)
Authors: Fontein, Maarten; Webster, James; Trawick, Paul

Waterlines articles can only be accessed at costs from their site.

MUS not on radar of sector professionals

Multiple-use water services may be a reality on the ground, yet multiple use is not usually the way water sector professionals organize themselves. A lack of recognition of multiple uses can lead to subsequent problems because designs fail to fit user requirements. On the other hand there can be strong synergies between people’s needs for domestic water and their possibilities of paying for it as a result of income from productive use of water. The challenge remains: how to do multiple use water development, and how to do it in a sustainable manner.

Monique Mikhail’s paper in this edition describes part of a programme, in Nepal, in which domestic, livestock and crop irrigation needs were addressed in an integrated way. More results from the wider programme are also described in van Koppen and Smits’ article. It is clear that numerous benefi ts were enjoyed by those who obtained access to the programme, but benefits to the poorest members of communities were not always achieved, and the emphasis on productive water uses to some extent left out issues such as sanitation, hygiene and water quality.

Stef Smits and colleagues describe a set of case studies from Honduras in which the multiple use message – that people and communities use water for multiple purposes, but in different ways – comes over loud and clear. An interesting aspect of this paper is the link between multiple use and sustainability. It is concluded that multiple use of water is not usually in itself the direct cause of non-sustainability, but it can pose a risk to sustainability. However, the authors conclude that relatively simple adjustments to design and management can address the problems identified.

The last paper, by Maarten Fontein and colleagues, describes an investigation of a multiple use approach undertaken in Bangladesh. The project addressed domestic and crop irrigation needs in an integrated manner (at least from a ‘hardware’ point of view), and water users generally reported increased productivity and incomes, together with easier access to domestic water. However, the analysis suggested that the water supply systems are not affordable to users, even over a ten-year time frame. For this and other reasons, the sustainability of the approach taken has to be questioned.