Is the Co-Management of Water Supply Facilities Possible in Rural Bangladesh? : Analyses of a caretaker system and water users’ participation

Rural areas of Bangladesh face safe water supply challenges. In addition to traditional hard infrastructural issues related to design and construction, such challenges are caused by soft infrastructural issues like the underdevelopment of the institutional system required for the adequate operation and maintenance (O&M) of infrastructure. This paper aims to analyze the caretaker system for O&M that has been widely adopted in rural areas of Bangladesh and to discuss the possibility of co-managing O&M activities between caretakers and other water users. Interviews were conducted to investigate the awareness and perceptions of caretakers and other water users in the Gazipur, Khulna, and Chattogram districts, as well as that of the Department of Public Health Engineering (DPHE) personnel. DPHE is the government agency responsible for water supply services in ruralBangladesh. From the institutional system perspective, as defined by DPHE, caretakers bear full responsibility for the O&M of their water supply facilities. However, many caretakers do not conduct comprehensive or sufficient O&M activities due to insufficient awareness, technical capacity, and financial limitations. As an on-the-ground response to this situation, some caretakers expressed a willingness to co-manage their facilities with other water users. This trend is especially prevalent for “alternative water supply options,” defined in this study as arsenic iron removal units and small-scale piped water supply systems. In addition, 38% of the target water supply facilities under this study were used by different gushuti (extended paternal families), particularly in the case of alternative water supply options. The results of this study indicate that the following factors can be correlated with whether a caretaker would choose to adopt a co-management system: (1) whether multiple gushutis are using the water supply facility, (2) the complexity of the required O&M activities, and (3) the cost burden of the O&M activities. Further, this study identified the limitations of the on-the-ground responses. DPHE has not fully established the institutional structures necessary to support the caretakers and water users. Such structures could include setting clear regulations, exchanging documents and information, building consensus, and providing technical support for the water supply facilities’ ownership, handover, and O&M activities. Official collaboration and establishing protocols among DPHE, caretakers, and water users are required to strengthen the implementation of O&M activities and solve facility-level technical problems. One potential solution for the cost burden issue is tariff collection, a shared responsibility among caretakers and water users. Many water user interviewees indicated a willingness to pay. However, their proposed amount was relatively low compared to that identified in other studies. In situations where donors had made water tariff interventions, the amount users were willing to pay tended to be higher. This implies that collecting water fees from users may be possible if awareness is raised.