Annex 6 PPP Pilot Selection Analysis_11_02_2016 Final.docx

LOCAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT IN TAJIKISTAN

PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP – DRINKING WATER DELIVERY

Deliverable 1: PPP Pilot Selection Analysis

NOVEMBER 2016

Thursday, March 05, 2020

USAID LOCAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT IN TAJIKISTAN

Public Private Partnership – Drinking Water Delivery

Contract No. AID-176-C-12-00002-00

March 5, 2020 The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Table of Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms

USAID's LGP Small-scale infrastructure project Manual

1. Executive Summary In line with Local Governance Project (LGP) aims to improve local government service delivery to citizens, the LGP in Year 5 will focus on new initiatives for water service delivery. This endeavor will seek to expand safe drinking water access to citizens within target jamoats through Public Private Partnerships.

The objective of this deliverable is to present the evaluation process LGP undertook to determine a suitable site for the Water PPP in Tajikistan, as well as to present results of the process. Thus, this document will help to inform USAID Tajikistan on areas where PPP for drinking water delivery may be possible in Tajikistan and will also outline issues to consider for effective implementation.

In order to select a suitable site for the pilot program a number of criteria were taken into consideration. The LGP team initially targeted analysis to specific regions based on criteria from USAID, and also incorporated leading characteristics used to determine the business case for private sector participation in utility and drinking water systems globally.

The pilot selection process was implemented with the use of surveys that were created by the LGP team and conducted in coordination with Mountain Society for Development Support Program (MSDSP) of Deloitte subcontractor, the Aga Khan Foundation. The overarching criteria to measure suitability sought to determine the willingness of districts and mahallas to financially and legally support the program, as well as the presence of a private entity willing to finance a large part of the water infrastructure. These criteria were broken down and measured through the following characteristics in the surveys:

· Municipality or rural system,

· Population density,

· No or limited access to drinking water,

· Size of the system and associated investment size,

· Condition of system and resource,

· District government support to apply to the PPP Center and Council,

· Ability and Willingness to Pay for Drinking Water,

· Presence of entrepreneurs or private sector willing to invest in drinking water delivery.

The LGP team selected Isfisor as a potentially suitable pilot site; there, communities expressed willingness to contribute for water service. In looking at the results, the LGP team identified many areas interested in a pilot program; however many of the villages did not meet the ideal criteria, as outlined in the surveys.

The team recommends further steps to be taken to consider the development of a PPP pilot site. One essential factor to consider is the legal structure in which the PPP can be implemented. USAID should keep in mind that the PPP and Lease laws, which provide legal frameworks for PPPs in Tajikistan, are new and untested. If we are to follow the formal process to establish a PPP, adhering to either of these laws could be time consuming and potentially unpredictable. In the next deliverable “PPP Path Forward Report for FY17”, we explore the options to use the formal process as outlined in the PPP law or to look for other options to engage and utilize the private sector for drinking water delivery. It also includes more details on the path forward for the different options.

2.

USAID's LGP Small-scale infrastructure project Manual

3. Local Governance Project Overview The objective of the Local Governance Project (LGP) is to support the Government of Tajikistan in its implementation of the 2009 Law on Local Self-Government in Towns and Townships. The project aims to improve local governments’ capacity to deliver communal services, particularly clean drinking water, through interventions to improve the policy environment for local government, improve the operational practice of target jamoats, and to increase the participation of citizens. Expected results include:

1. Strengthened legal enabling environment to support sub-national governance;

2. Sub-national government entities are more effective in meeting citizens’ needs; and

3. Increased participation of citizens in decision-making regarding the delivery of basic services by local government.

LGP is implemented in the four main regions of Tajikistan: Sughd, Khatlon, District Republic of Subordinates and Gorno Badakhshon Autonomous Oblast. A total of 20 jamoats, the lowest form of sub-national government in Tajikistan, in 10 districts are involved in the project. USAID, in partnership with the host government, selected the participating jamoats.

An important part of LGP is the support of community-driven service delivery improvement projects. Specifically, the LGP contract requires the following:

The contractor will expand access to safe drinking water for citizens within target jamoats through small-scale infrastructure improvements, while at the same time working with local government to optimize service delivery, fee collection, maintenance and financing. The contractor will administer small-scale drinking water activities within each of the 15-20 selected jamoat communities over the life of the project, with an estimated value of $10,000-$50,000 per project. This will include infrastructure improvements and system rehabilitation through direct commodities purchases and sub-contracts under contract. The contractor’s rehabilitation of water delivery systems will ensure that the responsibility for these systems is held by authorized, legitimate, and capable entities.

4. Objectives The objective of this deliverable is to provide a list of districts evaluated for suitability for the PPP pilot. It will indicate the willingness of the different parties to contribute, the amount they are willing to contribute (where applicable), as well as other information about the districts that make them candidates for PPP. This document will help to inform USAID Tajikistan on areas where PPP for drinking water delivery may be possible in Tajikistan.

5. Pilot Selection For this specific pilot, the team targeted analysis in specific regions based on criteria for pilot site locations that would be the most conducive for a successful PPP. In line with initial conversations with USAID, the team did not limit their scope to only LGP districts and jamoats. Thus, during the consultant’s first trip, meetings were held to look at districts both outside and within the geographic scope of LGP.

A. Criteria for Pilot Selection In the scope of work for this task, USAID laid out the criteria below for pilot location selection. We have done further analysis and while looking for these criteria, also included other factors that are important for a successful PPP pilot.

a) Willingness of district to contribute resources or match USAID resources plus support a request to Antimonopoly Commission for an exemption;

b) Willingness of Mahalla Committee (community based organization) to pay higher than 0.9 TJS/cubic meter (would ideally be a water scarce area).

c) Presence of an entrepreneur or community group willing to finance a large part of the water infrastructure.

In order to find locations where we believed these conditions would exist, the team also incorporated metrics about geographic areas that were more likely to create environments for the above conditions. The team used different data points and information to select targeted areas for surveys and further investigation into pilot project sites:

· Statistics (i.e. economic, demographic, investment, etc.)

· Conversations with the director of the national rural water supply enterprise and initial conversations with district government officials

· Team’s experience in implementing drinking water projects in Tajikistan In selecting a PPP for drinking water, the characteristics below were used to select the pilot site and represent factors that would be attractive to the private sector and support making the PPP successful. These characteristics are leading practice items used to determine the business case for private sector participation in utility and drinking water systems globally.

1. Municipality or rural system Given the scale of the pilot projects that we are targeting for the pilot project (~$100,000 USD), we will concentrate our focus on more rural water systems. Indeed, in the long-term, the private sector may be more attracted to systems in municipal areas because of the population density; however, most system upgrades in municipal areas currently require more financial capital than is the target for the pilot project. In addition, in many municipal areas, the European Development Bank is working to upgrade the systems through loan programs, with SMU KMK involved in managing those systems.

Thus, ideally for the pilot projects, USAID should target systems or wells that are in rural areas and are either individual wells or wells that can be upgraded on their own without causing disruption to the larger system.

2. Population Density Ideally for executing a PPP and providing more profitability for water delivery to the private sector the project should be located in a more densely populated area. In most cases in Tajikistan this is in municipal areas or the rural areas directly surrounding municipalities (or district capitals). This is the case for the selected pilot project in Isfisor—Isfisor is located adjacent to Gafurov district capital and thus, has a more urban style design where the population is more compact. However, often in Tajikistan, these areas have higher access rates to drinking water.

3. No or limited access to drinking water To increase the benefit of the project and to use the pilot project to improve drinking water access in Tajikistan, USAID should target areas where there is limited or no access to drinking water. This can be difficult when targeting areas with population density because the municipal areas have higher percentages of working water systems. However, due to the condition of unmaintained water systems built during the Soviet era, many areas can be found with low access rates (around 0-20/30%) and limited, unreliable service. It is important to implement PPP projects in areas where the private sector will improve services, so that people are motivated to pay for water. People are more likely to pay for water service delivery that is better than the current service that is limited and unreliable and/or does not exist at all.

4. Size of the system and associated investment size For the pilot, it is important to target a water system and upgrades that are not too large. This helps to limit the risk, timeline for upgrades, and also for USAID/LGP project to be able to effectively contribute necessary financial resources to the PPP and supporting district government. Thus, this is also in line with the criteria listed above.

5. Condition of the system and resource Targeting wells and/or systems that can be rehabilitated in some form is ideal for the pilot. This will help to reduce the costs for the system, and the financial contribution required by all parties, if some part of the system can be refurbished. For instance, in the case of Isfisor the existing well can be used for the water system.

This must be weighed against the possibility that in some cases it may be easier to build a completely new system than to upgrade an existing system. In order to determine this, a preliminary investigation into the water system from a technical perspective is necessary. In Tajikistan, this can take time as many of the water systems in rural areas and under the control of jamoats and/or Mahallah Committees do not have records or maps of the water systems. When we requested a list of all of the wells that needed refurbishment in Gafurov district, the team was only able to secure a list of wells in Isfisor and even further. While, we were able to get some records on the well that we are targeting for the PPP (the Geological passport as it is called), there was not a map of the whole pipeline system.

6. District government support to apply to the PPP Center and Council This is probably the most important factor in selecting a PPP pilot site given the need for the PPP to be initiated by the district government. In Tajikistan, the water systems are under the ownership of the district governments. While some systems have been given over to different operators, such as Mahalla Committees or jamoats, in some locations or SMU KMK in others, the district governments are the ultimate owners of the systems. Thus in the eyes of the State Committee of Investment and the PPP Center/Council (and thus the PPP law), the district governments must champion the PPP. In addition, district government support is critical as they will be the government agencies to run the tender for the PPP.

The team started with LGP district governments (from the LGP project or previous USAID local governance projects) that have been supportive of the private sector and entrepreneurship in other sectors. In the case of the FtF zones, we met with people working on other projects in the region to understand which districts may be best suited to support private sector involvement in water sector delivery. We targeted districts that were supportive of the PPP concept, but we did not specifically target districts that would provide matching financial resources for a water project. We are operating under the assumption that once the pilot site is selected and the costs for the refurbishment are calculated, we can request funding from the district government to meet their contributions to the specific project. The financial magnitude and estimated commitment by USAID and the private sector to a pilot projects and the expected district government contribution has conceptually been discussed – but the exact figure has not been shared (to avoid confusion before the pilot site is selected).

In the original SOW, the team was asked to identify districts that would support submission to the Antimonopoly Commission. Discussing with the Antimonopoly Commission, it is our understanding that the district will need to support the entrepreneur (that wins the competitive tender) and submit the proposed tariff to the Antimonopoly Commission. If the proposed tariff is more than the current tariff, than an exemption will also need to be supported by the district government.

7. Ability and Willingness to Pay for Drinking Water The ability and willingness of the communities to pay for drinking water is as equally important as finding a district government that will support the PPP. Thus, we analyzed economic data to find areas in the country where populations have moderate income levels and thus ability to pay for drinking water. For example, in Khatlon region, we targeted districts that were more economically prosperous than others. In addition, we included a series of questions in our survey on the current amount spent on drinking water as an indicator of the approximate amount people would be willing to pay. While there are examples in other countries and systems where service improvement increases the willingness to pay threshold, it is important to understand the current payment amount for comparison to the new potential tariff level.

USAID requested that we specifically target areas in which people would be willing to pay more than 0.9 TJS/m3. While we did not use this as the first filter to identify the PPP pilot locations, looking at the population’s ability to pay a higher tariff for drinking water is an important factor. We have asked questions on the current price for water in the surveys and are targeting a pilot site that has a higher payment amount. More details on this in the survey results below.

8. Presence of entrepreneurs or private sector willing to invest in drinking water delivery During our research, interviews and surveys, we sought to understand if there were entrepreneurs that would be interested in providing drinking water delivery services. We interviewed District Chairmen in Yovon, Rudaki and Garfurov as well as included questions in the surveys. We asked about the private sector and entrepreneurs in the districts outside water and drinking water as well as whether any private companies or organizations were or had tried to provide services or may be interested in drinking water delivery.

Across the country, we found few examples of where the private sector is involved in drinking water delivery. Two specific cases are noted here:

· Water and Sanitation of Khusterorz LLC that is delivering water as a private company. The system was donated to the LLC from the ADB. The private sector did not contribute capital to build or upgrade the system, does not make a profit (and is barely sustainable given collections are low), and operates more like a government system than a private entity. While there may be an opportunity for USAID to contribute to a project performed by the LLC to expand water access, there would need to be considerable work to make such a system successful.

· USAID would need to conduct capacity building for the organization on how to increase collections

· The LLC would need to ensure there is a contract with the government that allows it to continue water system delivery. We received conflicting information from the Chairman of the Water and Sanitation Council (M. Nabiev) because he said that the LLC owns the water system. However, he has not provide a signed contract or other official document confirming such ownership.

· Entrepreneur delivering water in Isfisor from a private system upgrade (well and pipes). Given the active involvement by the private sector in Gafurov district, we believe this will be the best geographic area to target for the PPP. The entrepreneur is delivering water to 600 households for 15 TJS per household. The extra water in the winter is trucked and sold in more rural areas. More details about this project and his work can be found in the Pilot Site Recommendation Deliverable.

In Rudaki and Yovon districts, interested entrepreneurs may exist, however further research would need to be conducted. In Rudaki and Yovon, entrepreneurs are involved in different one-off social service activities, but as charity, not as a business. As part of the process to understand whether or not entrepreneurs and/or businesses would be interested in water delivery, there would need to be clear education and direction on the private sector participation desired. The involvement goes beyond simply taking on drinking water as a charity, but to set up the operations, collect for the services, and run the operation for an extended period of time.

B. Survey Geographies In coordination with Mountain Society for Development Support Program (MSDSP), we conducted two surveys – one targeted at the Mahalla Committees to understand the drinking water system and the other targeted at households to understand willingness to pay for drinking water. We designed the surveys (See Appendix I) and developed guidelines for interviewers. In addition, we received official permission of the Chairman of Khatlon region to conduct the study in Vakhsh and Rumi districts, and from the Chairman of Gafurov district.

We conducted surveys in two major areas:

1. Isfisor, Khujand area (in the North) Given the more entrepreneurial economic environment in Khujand and information from USAID that there was an entrepreneur independently delivering drinking water in Isfisor, we conducted surveys in Isfisor. Garfurov district said that we could survey and potentially conduct the pilot in any of the villages of Isfisor. With the district’s support, we conducted the survey in four villages in Isfisor.

2. Feed the Future (FtF) districts Given these conditions and criteria listed above, in Khatlon region, we selected Vakhsh and Rumi (renamed to Balkhi) districts for the first phase of surveys. We conducted surveys in some of the FtF districts to determine whether or not there were opportunities for private sector water delivery in an area that USAID is already working on other programs. Four villages were selected in two different FtF districts.

Through conversations during the initial trip with district Chairmen, we learned that Rudaki district and Yavan district are both interested in a PPP for drinking water, but did not conduct surveys specifically targeted in these areas due to time limitations. USAID should consider continuing to explore opportunities in these districts through a possible expansion of this activity under LGP.

6. Survey Results The survey templates are included in Appendix I. The full survey results can be found in the Excel embedded in Appendix II. The key findings of the surveys are below.

· Khatlon (Vaksh and Jalolidin Balhi) towns do not necessarily have separate drinking water systems and thus any solution will have to be integrated with irrigation water.

· In three of the villages interviewed in Vaksh and Jalolidin Balhi, there are not separate drinking water systems (and if they do exist they are not being used). The population is using the irrigation canals for drinking water, which is very dirty and often where waste is disposed.

· In Uzbekobod, there is a drinking water system, but only 30% of the population has access (8 households). They receive water from a water reservoir but it needs repair and pipes are out of order so people bring drinking water with trucks. Water is 0.75 TJS per 1m3 and they estimate they consume 10 TJS per person per month.

· Separate drinking water systems from irrigation water are more prevalent in the north and while there are times when people will pay for irrigation water and use for drinking water, there are distinct drinking water systems.

· Tariffs for drinking water are low or are not paid in some cases. However, there are some examples where payment is higher.

· The Isfisor tariff is 0.61 TJS/m3 of water. 0.61 TJS is below the target 0.9 TJS that we were looking to find. However, there is a private sector water delivery system in one village in Isfisor that is charging 15 TJS per household per month and collections are near 100%. In addition, in Gazarcha people are paying 1 TJS per person for water into households. In addition, it should be noted that service is not reliable and there is not 100% coverage of service.

· Monthly payment is also higher in Bustou. If it is assumed that the average household consumed 3.25 m3 of drinking water per month, each household is paying between 9-18 TJS per month. More details would need to be gathered on the number of trucks and the percentage of people that pay for this drinking water, but there are opportunities for water system upgrades and payment given their current costs for drinking water

street pipe 1TJS/person

Price for 1 m3 (3.25 m3 used monthly)

· Collection rates are low, however, collection rates for irrigation water are high, providing opportunities to integrate drinking water into the water system in Khatlon

· Drinking water is not always thought of as a separate system in the Khatlon villages. In some places there are separate systems, and in that area the village is paying slightly for the water. Otherwise the villages are using the canals for drinking water.

· Two villages noted that they have 100% payment for irrigation water

· Collection rates in Isfisor were not clearly documented except in one village where collection rates are 40-45%. This highlights the need to find pilot areas where people understand the importance to pay for water like where the private sector is delivering water in Isfisor already.

· Communities are willing to put forward some financial resources to support building out the water system

· These contributions are varied and depend on a number of different factors including the income of the Mahalla Committee populations. All areas surveyed would be willing to contribute in some way, depending on the upgrade and reconstruction costs.

TJS

7. Conclusion Through this survey, we identified areas where there is interest in participating in a PPP pilot. However, most of these villages do not meet the ideal criteria that we identified for the PPP. Most importantly, in many of the areas surveyed (especially in Khatlon), we did not identify entrepreneurs or private sector entities interested in a PPP.

While we recommend moving forward with the pilot site in a village in Isfisor, USAID could also consider gathering additional information in consideration of conducting a pilot in other villages. To do so, the following steps would need to take place::

· Gather more information about the specific upgrades to the systems needed and estimated costs

· Identify entrepreneurs that would be interested in the systems

· Send out an RFI to entrepreneurs

· Search for businesses in these areas that might have ability to take out a loan for water delivery

· Coordinate community level water delivery and organization of water services. Outside of the PPP, there are opportunities for drinking water deliver in some of the pilot areas through Feed the Future to integrate drinking water into a more comprehensive water management plan in the Khatlon region.

In Isfisor, the communities’ indication of contribution is a sign that they have a willingness to pay for water. In addition, the Garfurov district government supports the pilot and has indicated that any of the seven Isfisor wells could be used. Zarkhok community is willing to pay for service and the community is willing to contribute if required. While more technical details will need to be collected, the community support, district support and other characteristics of the region make it a good candidate pilot site for a PPP in drinking water.

Appendix I - Surveys

USAID’S LOCAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT

PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IN THE SERVICE OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLY

General nformation on the village and its access to drinking water

Date (day/month/year)

Position:

What is the interviewee’s position in the mahalla committee)

Interviewee’s name (Indicate phone number too)

Village

Interviewer’s name (Indicate phone number too)

Jamoat

District

a. General information on the village

Answer

b. Economic situation/village development

C. State enterprises and establishments

Hospitals

First aid points

Х

D. Drinking water supply conditions in the village

Centralized water supply system

- Total length of the pipeline

- Number of pumps

- Number of pipelines

- Is the pipeline stretched to houses or not

· Operational

· Partially operational

· Not working

· Wells are out of order

· Pumps are not operational

· Power lines are not connected

· Lack of transformer box (or are in bad technical conditions)

· Pipeline network is out of order

· Reservoirs are broken

· Pressure tower is out of order

· Water Sedimentation pools are not operational

· Other reasons (indicate)

Water supply resources

· Surface water resources (river, lake, channels)

· Springs

· Wells

· Trunk pipes

· Transported water (water trucks))

1.

2.

3.

4.

Management under water supply facility

- Are they full time employees?

- Do they get salaries?

- Do they have technical skills for the use of the system?

- State budget;

- District budget;

- Jamoat budget;

- Services provider;

- Population;

- Entrepreneur;

- Foreign organization

(you can take it from the approved tariff rates)

Tariffs

· Per capita

· Per household

If they do, show the volume per capita or households.

Maintenance of water supply facilities.

COMMENTS:

USAID’S LOCAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT

PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IN THE SERVICE OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLY

HOUSE-TO HOUSE INTERVIEWING

Date (day/month/year):

Interviewee’s place of work

Interviewee’s name

Village

Position

Jamoat

Interviewer’s name

District

(comment: personal data will be taken by the permission of the interviewee.

Tick appropriate box “√”

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

- on the streets of the village

- household yards Tick appropriate box “√”

3а

10.

3б

Yes or Not (please, indicate)

(water supply enterprise, jamoat, mahalla committee, water user’s association and etc.) ?

- per head

- per household Please, indicate in TJS

14.

6а

15.

6b

- in summers?

- in winters Give approximate figure

7а

17.

7b

18.

- Every week

- Every month

- Other (indicate the period)

10а

10b

10c

Indicate in detail

(indicate per head or per household)

Appendix II – Survey Results image3.emf

Survey results Mahalla C_11_1_2016.xlsx Survey results MC a District Garfurov Garfurov Garfurov Khoriston Vaksh Vaksh Jalolidin Balhi Jalolidin Balhi b Jamoat Isfilsor Isfilsor Isfilsor Isfilsor Rudaki Solagii Istikloliayt Navobod Kalin c Village Galabodur Gazarcha Zarkhok Gazarcha Sherozi Bustou Pushkin Uzbekobod d Date of interview (day/month/year) 29-31 August, 2016 August 26,2016 October 17,2016 August 26,2016 Sep 1,2016 August 30,2016 August 27,2016 August 27,2016 e Interviewer’s name Nabiev N, Qurbonjon Mirzoev Naimjon Nabiev Naimjon Nabiev Bakhtioyor Inamov Tuichiev Yusuf Tuichiev Yusuf Tuichiev Yusuf Yusupov Fraidin f Interviewee’s name Madaliev Usmonov Akbarali Mamadjonov Dodojon Temirov Nuriddin Yoftulloev Nazirkhuja Sodiqov Jumabek Kholov Qulmahmad g Position: What is the interviewee’s position in the mahalla committee) (Mahalla Chairman) (Mahalla Chairman) (Mahalla Chairman) (Mahalla Chairman) (Mahalla Chairman) (Mahalla Chairman) (Mahalla Chairman) (Mahalla Chairman)

General information on the village

1 Village population 3808 1118 2264 1395 2450 1953 2000 2000

2 Women population 1942 570 1155 711 1152 909 1260 1200

3 Number of households 680 223 400 249 320 388 168 250

4 Distance from the village to the center of the jamoat (km) 2km 2 4km 3 10km 6 km 4km 2km

5 Distance from the village to the center of the district (km) 5km 3 2km 6 9km 18 km 20km 15

Economic situation/village development

6 Industrial enterprises /all kinds of workshops 0 10 1 0 2 0

7 Construction enterprises 0 0 0 0 0

8 Number of farms 1 (Association of dehqan farms) 0 1 (Association of dehqan farms) 30 30 2 82

9 Private small entrepreneur (trade, paid services) 4 0 4 2 3 3 4 5

10 Others 0 0 1

11 How much somoni is the average income of the population? 510 TJS 0 400 200 TJS 400TJS 200TJS

State enterprises and establishments

12 Health care establishments (clinics, hospitals, first aid points) # 0 1 1 # 1 1

13 Secondary general school 2 1 0 1 # 0 #

14 Pre-school establishments (kindergartens) # 0 0 # # 1 #

15 Cultural establishments # 0 0 # # # #

16 Sport facilities # 0 0 # # # #

17 Other establishments # 0 0 3 # Cattle farm #

18 Total 4 0 0 # # # #

Drinking water supply conditions in the village

19 Number pf citizens having access to drinking water resources? 20% 50 720 0 4 households 15% 60 people 8 households

Centralized water supply system

20 Is there any Centralized water supply system (general drinking water pipeline) in the village? Yes yes yes yes no yes yes

21 Technical features of the water supply system: no 5500 m required yes 5000m

- total length of the pipeline 700m 900m no 0

- number of pumps 3 1 no need for 2 pumps 0 2

- number of pipelines 62 3 no need for 2 pipelines not known 6 pieces

- is the pipeline stretched to houses or not yes yes no no 0 yes

22 Technical conditions of the Centralized water supply system (general use pipeline): not working

Operational

Partially operational yes yes yes yes yes

Not working yes not working

23 If the Centralized water supply system of the village is not working, explain why it is not working: water is delivered through channel which is dirty neglected neglected

Wells are out of order yes yes yes yes

Pumps are not operational yes not working yes yes

Power lines are not connected yes

Lack of transformer box (or are in bad technical conditions) yes

Pipeline network is out of order yes yes not working

Reservoirs are broken yes

Pressure tower is out of order

Water Sedimentation pools are not operational yes

Other reasons (indicate)

Water Supply Resources

24 Indicate water supply resources (where do you get water from):

Surface water resources (river, lake, channels) yes yes

Springs yes

Wells yes X X

Trunk pipes yes

Transported water (water trucks)) yes

25 Quality of water according to water analyses (conformability with standard norms) complies with standard norms does not meet meets standard requirement meets the requirement yes meets the requirement not checked yes

Management under water supply facility

26 To whom belongs the Centralized water supply system? (show the owner: district executive body of state power, jamoat, mahalla committee, water users association, private entrepreneur and etc.) District governments SUE "Isfisor" of Isfisor jamoat SUE "Isfisor" of Isfisor jamoat District governments irrigation water supply entity irrigational belongs to government District governments Tojikobdehot Department

27 Who managers the centralized water supply system ( water supply facility of the district, jamoat, mahalla committee, water users association, private entrepreneur and etc.) SUE "Isfisor" of Isfisor jamoat SUE "Isfisor" of Isfisor jamoat SUE "Isfisor" of Isfisor jamoat SUE "Isfisor" of Isfisor jamoat irrigation water supply entity assiciation of water users certification office Water users department of Khatlon Region

28 What percentage of the population is covered with service? 20% 60% 35-40% 30% 100% 100% irrigational 0 30%

29 How many people manage the system? 3 5 3 5 5 0 5

- Are they full time employees? yes yes yes yes 4 0 yes

- Do they get salaries? yes yes yes yes yes yes 0 yes

- Do they have technical skills for the use of the system? yes yes yes yes yes yes not yes

30 Has the system been ever repaired or is under repair? no not under repair no no not last repaired in 1995

31 What is the rate of water loss? (leakage) 30-40% 25-30% 15% 25% 60%

32 Indicate the sources of funds for the repair/rehabilitation of the water: SUE "Isfisor" of Isfisor jamoat SUE "Isfisor" of Isfisor jamoat fee collections SUE "Isfisor" of Isfisor jamoat

- state budget;

- district budget;

- jamoat budget;

- services provider; yes SUE "Isfisor" of Isfisor jamoat SUE "Isfisor" of Isfisor jamoat

- population;

- entrepreneur; x

- foreign organization

33 What is the cost for production of 1m3 of water? (you can take it from the approved tariff rates) 0,61TJS 15-20 TJS 0,61TJS does not kow as per acrage of land (irrig) 0,75TJS

Tariffs

34 Is the tariff approved and confirmed by the Anti-monopoly Agency? yes yes yes yes yes

35 What is the price of water by the tariff? (1m3 TJS) 0,61 TJS 0,61TJS\street pipe 1TJS-person 0,61TJS

36 How much do the people pay for drinking water every month? 2 TJS 0,61 TJS 2TJS in the house-1TJS street 2,5-3 TJS for 0,01 ha land 30-60 TJS 0,75TJS

- Per capita 1TJS

- Per household 20 TJS

37 Do the people pay as per the tariff? yes yes yes

38 Do the consumers know how much water the use monthly? (as per water meters and water carrying trucks)? no 3,25 m3 person\per month yes no no not pay for drinking water 10 TJS per person

If they do, show the volume per capita or households. 600-700 L/month

39 Are the people paying for water delivery services now? If yes, then what is the fee collection rate at the moment? (in %) 40-45% 55-60% yes 100% 100% payment for irrigation water no

Maintenance of water supply facilities.

40 Are the mahalla committee/ consumers willing to contribute for repair or rehabilitation of the village water supply system? If yes, then how much money the mahalla committee could collect? Yes 20-25 thousand TJS 8000 TJS yes 100TJS each household 150TJS for irrigation water 200 somoni each household 60% 0f cost by citizens

41 In cases of breakage of the system how much money could the population of the village collect for the repair of it? 1500-2000 TJS 20 000 TJS depends on the cost 10 TJS from household 5TJS each month 10 TJS 50TJS from household

Other Comments

42 Write out the description on the lines at the bottom of the survey Pipes,people are ready to pay piping from street to households part of population receives water from irrigation water source (pay the entrepreneur) Pipes,people are ready to pay piping from street to households 3 villages receive irrigational water from the channel for the last 25 years, agriculture is the main source of income, citizens are ready to pay for water delivery work 3 villages no system available, water transported from 2 km distance,citisens are ready to put funds no drinking water,in winters take water from channels receives water from water reservoir but it needs repair pipes are out of order people bring water with trucks image1.jpeg image2.emf