Editing Case Study Zimbabwe Family Well Upgrading

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

This page supports semantic in-text annotations (e.g. "[[Is specified as::World Heritage Site]]") to build structured and queryable content provided by Semantic MediaWiki. For a comprehensive description on how to use annotations or the #ask parser function, please have a look at the getting started, in-text annotation, or inline queries help pages.

Latest revision Your text
Line 77: Line 77:
 
====Socio-economic, political and management factors====
 
====Socio-economic, political and management factors====
  
From the year 2000, Zimbabwe entered a very troubled political period, resulting in economic and infrastructure decline, and a huge reduction in donor support, which affected many developmental programs including the water supply program.  Many community hand pump supplies failed and were not revived. Currently, only about 50% of hand pumps are thought to be functional. There was also a slowdown in the construction of new family wells. But the many existing family wells that continued to operate successfully in the worsened economic conditions proved that family-owned water supplies had great merit. Many families constructed their own wells when other community water supplies became defunct. The skills and experience gained by many during the official programme may have helped to demonstrate the value and reliability of family-owned supplies, and to support self-upgrading.
+
From the year 2000, Zimbabwe entered a very troubled political period, resulting in economic and infrastructure decline, and a huge reduction in donor support, which affected many developmental programs including the water supply program.  Many community hand pump supplies failed and were not revived: currently, about 50% of hand pumps are functional. There was also a slowdown in the construction of new family wells. But the many existing family wells that continued to operate successfully in the worsened economic conditions proved that family owned water supplies had great merit. Some families self-upgraded in this period as other supplies of water, such as community hand pumps, became defunct. The skills learned by many during the official programme may have helped to support self-upgrading.
  
Additionally, the willingness of donors to providing generous subsidies to families for improving family based wells and toilets, which was done in the years after Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980, has also declined significantly. As a result, the design of the Upgraded Family Well unit was restyled so it could be built in a series of step by step stages at lower cost, where families could perform construction work with minimal or no support from outside - see 'Further developments of the programme', below.  
+
Additionally, the willingness of donors to providing generous subsidies to families for improving family based wells and toilets, which was done in the years after Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980, has also declined. As a result, the design of the Blair Upgraded Family Well unit was restyled so it could be built in a series of step by step stages at lower cost, where families could perform construction work with minimal or no support from outside - see 'Further developments of the programme', below.  
  
There has been a lack of accurate monitoring of the successes and weaknesses of the former Programme and of the technologies and funding methods used. Limited evaluations have suggested mixed fortunes of upgraded wells, depending on things like the quality of original construction, and the amount of government and financial support.
+
There has been a lack of accurate monitoring of the successes and weaknesses of the former Programme and the technologies and funding methods used. Limited evaluations have suggested mixed fortunes of upgraded wells, depending on things like the quality of original construction, and who funded and educated the family constructors.
  
 
===Further developments of the programme===
 
===Further developments of the programme===

Please note that all contributions to Earthwise may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Earthwise:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

  [] · [[]] · [[|]] · {{}} · · “” ‘’ «» ‹› „“ ‚‘ · ~ | °   · ± × ÷ ² ³ ½ · §
[[Category:]] · [[:File:]] · <code></code> · <syntaxhighlight></syntaxhighlight> · <includeonly></includeonly> · <noinclude></noinclude> · #REDIRECT[[]] · <translate></translate> · <languages/> · ==References== · {{reflist}} · ==Footnote== · {{reflist|group=note}} · <ref group=note> · __notoc__ · {{DEFAULTSORT:}} <div class="someclass noprint"></div> {{clear}} <br>