232 Poverty Reduction & Economic Management November 2003 Findings reports on ongoing operational, economic, and sector work carried out by the World Bank and its member governments in the Africa Region. It is published periodically by the Knowledge and Learning Center on behalf of the Region. The views expressed in Findings are those of the author/s and should not be attributed to the World Bank Group. http://www.worldbank.org/afr/findings The First Ghana Community Water and Sanitation Project: Poverty and Gender Issues T h e I m p l e m e n t a t i o n and 24 percent of the non-poor used Completion Report (ICR) for unimproved sources, along with 26 the first Ghana Community percent of male respondents and Water and Sanitation Project 29 percent of female respondents). (1994­2000) provided an opportu- Some of this use may have been nity to assess gender and poverty for activities such as clothes wash- issues. Were both women and ing and bathing. Ninety-five per- men, and the poor, involved in sub- cent of the non-poor were drink- project decision-making and ing improved water, versus 86 per- implementation? Did they all have cent of the poor. Those who still access to services? The ICR col- used unimproved water give rea- lected beneficiary assessment sur- sons including the following: un- vey data in the summer of 2000, improved water is always available, and the ICR was completed soon it tastes better than improved wa- thereafter. Further data analysis ter, and it has better color than specific to gender and poverty was improved water. In most districts completed later, and a summary of surveyed (5 out of 8), poverty was the results is provided below. not mentioned as a reason for us- ing unimproved water. (In the three Findings districts where it was, it was cited by only 2­4 percent of respondents.) Access to improved water was high among all groups (poor, non-poor, Survey results indicate strong male and female respondents), financial participation across groups Findings ranging from 94 to 100 percent. In as well as consensus about that addition to using improved water participation. Most respondents sources, some also still accessed contributed to capital costs (rang- unimproved sources. The poor, and ing from 88 percent of poor house- women, accessed these slightly holds to 96 percent of non-poor more often (30 percent of the poor households, and from 87 percent of poor, female-headed households to 91 percent of male-headed, poor cent of female respondents thought headed households were much households). Most were contribut- that payment encouraged owner- less informed than non-poor men ing to operations and maintenance ship, while 62 percent of female (73 percent vs. 92 percent), while (85 percent of poor and non-poor respondents and 52 percent of male female headed households, both households, as well as 92 percent respondents felt it promoted dura- poor and non-poor, are about of female-headed, poor households bility). Most thought the rate was equally informed (79 percent vs. 78 and 84 percent of male-headed, affordable, although the percent- percent). Thus, more efforts may poor households). Most believed age was lower than it was for those be needed to inform women and that payment for water was a good believing that payment for water poor men on this issue. idea, although female-headed was a good idea (76 percent of male Both poor and non-poor and male households scored lower on this (91 and female respondents thought as well as female-headed house- percent of poor and non-poor that the rate was affordable, and holds indicated that they were well- thought payment was a good idea, 79 percent of non-poor households informed about the capital and Op- versus 94 percent of male-headed, and 73 percent of poor households). eration & Maintenance costs as- poor households and 93 percent of There were not large differences sociated with each technical option male-headed, non-poor households between the various groups con- (90 percent of men and 87 percent and 79 percent of female-headed, cerning access to information and of women said they were informed). poor households and 83 percent of involvement in decision-making, ex- Approximately two- thirds of poor female-headed, non-poor house- cept for one issue: knowledge of the and non-poor and men and women holds.) Most believed that payment community's contribution to capi- reported that two or more techni- was a good idea because it helped tal costs. Overall, men were more cal options were explained to them. ensure sustainability (82 percent informed than women about the Approximately 95 percent across of poor and non-poor, and 84 per- amount of the community's contri- the different groups felt it was the cent of female and 81 percent of bution to capital costs (93 percent community which decided to build male respondents). Other reasons of males indicated that they knew the facility, and three-fourths received lower scores (44 percent the amount vs. 75 percent of fe- stated that the community decided of male respondents and 45 per- males). However, poor male- on the technical option. Findings Findings can be accessed via the World Bank Group's website at http://www.worldbank.org/ Click on Publications, then Periodicals. Or, Findings would also be of interest to: click on Countries and Regions, then Africa. Name Institution Address Letters, comments, and requests for publications not available at the World Bank Bookstore should be addressed to: Editor, Findings Operational Quality and Knowledge Services Africa Region, The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Mailstop J-8-811 Washington, D.C. 20433 e-mail: pmohan@worldbank.org Consumer satisfaction with loca- (44 percent of WATSAN members Seventy-three percent of the non- tion of improved water sources, were female, 56 percent male). poor were aware of the latrine pro- arrangements for fetching water, However, top WATSAN positions gram, versus 59 percent of poor and water quantity and quality were more likely to be held by households, and 73 percent of fe- were high, although there were males: only 8.3 percent of WATSAN male respondents as opposed to 61 some gender differences. Satisfac- chairpersons were female and only percent of males. Few had latrines: tion with location was 93 percent 28 percent of WATSAN vice-chairs 21 percent of non-poor households for poor households and 88 percent were female. There was signifi- vs. 16 percent of poor households, for non-poor households, and 92 cant regional variation: communi- and 20 percent of female respon- percent for male respondents and ties surveyed in three regions had dents vs. 17 percent of male re- 90 percent for females. However, no female chairpersons, while in spondents. More efforts may thus the rate for male-headed, poor one region (Western), 33 percent be needed to reach non-poor households was 96 percent, while of chairpersons were female. Com- households and men with hygiene it was 85 percent for female- munities surveyed in two regions and sanitation education and headed, poor households. Eighty- had no female vice-chairs, while project information. nine percent of poor and non-poor in Brong-Ahafo region 62 percent Some have questioned whether households were satisfied with of vice-chairs were female as were demand-responsive approaches water quantity, as were 90 percent 33 percent in Northern region. It (DRA) limit access of the poor (as and 88 percent of male and female is not clear what caused these re- they cannot afford to pay) and respondents, respectively. Regard- gional differences, though it would whether women as well as men ing water quality, poor and non-poor be useful to know if different so- participate in DRA activities. This households were about equally sat- cial intermediation techniques or study suggests that in this DRA isfied (85 percent and 84 percent emphases played a role. In the com- project, both the poor and the non- respectively); however, females munities surveyed, 69 percent of poor have participated and have respondents were more satisfied treasurers were female as were 47 access to improved water supply than males (90 versus 81 percent). percent of caretakers. services. Women as well as men Similarly, both poor and non-poor Considerable differences were have been involved in and were were satisfied with arrangements found between groups concerning informed about project activities. for fetching water (89 versus 87 hygiene and sanitation. The non- This may reflect the effectiveness percent), while female respondents poor and females were more aware of social intermediation work done were less satisfied than males (82 of the project's latrine program and by community development orga- versus 92 percent). These differ- in some cases said they were fol- nizations working with the project. ences could reflect the more direct lowing more hygienic practices. The study also indicates where fur- involvement of women in water Fifty-five percent of non-poor ther emphasis would be useful: collection, and thus the bigger role households versus 43 percent of more efforts could be made to ex- it plays in their daily routine. As poor households said they used pand women's participation in se- they, with their children, are the separate cups for scooping water nior WATSAN positions. In addi- ones who spend time collecting from containers and for drinking tion, more outreach is needed to water every day, they may be more (and 50 percent of poor women vs. provide information to the poor and aware of its quality and more af- 38 percent of poor men). Eighty-five to men concerning hygiene and la- fected by inconveniences related percent of non-poor versus 77 per- trines, and to provide information to location and fetching arrange- cent of poor households indicated about capital costs to women and ments. that they washed hands before poor men. Water and sanitation committees cooking, along with 87 percent of (WATSANS) were gender-balanced women and 77 percent of men. This analysis was supported by funding from the Impact Evaluation Thematic Group and the PREM Gender and Development Group. Additional data analysis was completed by Adriana Alves. For more information, contact Tracy Hart (Thart@Worldbank.org) and Wendy Wakeman (Wwakeman@worldbank.org).