Small Scale Rainwater Harvesting for
Combating Water Deprivation at Orphan
Care Centres in Peri-Urban Areas of
Lilongwe, Malawi

H.R. Mloza-Banda
A. Chikuni
D.D. SingaATPS Working Paper Series No. 46

Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network, P.O. Box 10081, 00100 General Post
Office, Nairobi, Kenya© 2006 African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS)

PUBLISHED BY ATPS COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT
Printed by Newtec Concepts
P.O. Box 00800, Westlands
14180 Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: 4449849, Fax: 4450399
newtec@mitsumi.net

ISBN: 9966-916-24-5

ABOUT THE AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NETWORKThe African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multi-disciplinary network of researchers,
policymakers, actors in the private sector and other end users interested in generating, promoting
and strengthening innovative science and technology policies in Africa. With a regional secretariate
in Nairobi, the network operates through national chapters in 23 countries, with an expansion plan tocover the entire sub-Saharan Africa.
One of the objectives of the network is to disseminate research results to policy makers, legislators,
the organized private sector, civil society, mass media and farmers’ groups through publications,dialogue and advocacy. Among its range of publications are the Working Paper Series (WPS),
Research Paper Series (RPS), Special Paper Series (SPS) and the Technopolicy Briefs.
Papers published under the Working Paper Series (WPS) are those produced from the
ATPS small grants process or from regional projects. The WPS are not subjected to thestrict requirements of the RPS but this does not suggest that they do not have significant
policy or methodological contribution to make to the work of ATPS. The Board supports all
efforts aimed at improving the WPS, such as building skills that will make most of the ATPS
research outputs to be published under the RPS. Researchers are encouraged to produce
their final drafts in a publishable manuscript form that is shorter and easier to read.
ATPS is supported by a growing number of donors including the International Development ResearchCentre (IDRC), the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank,
the OPEC Fund, Ford Foundation, Coca-Cola Eastern Africa, the African Development Bank, InfoDev
and the Royal Dutch Government.

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1:
1.1
1.2
1.3
CHAPTER 2:

PROJECT PREPARATION AND DESIGN
Introduction
Project Rationale
Project Objectives
ASSESSMENT OF ACCESS AND CONSUMPTION OF WATER FOR THE INTEGRATION OF
RAINWATER HARVESTING SYSTEMS FOR DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Methodology
2.3 Results
2.4 Discussion
2.5 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRUCTION OF ROOFTOP RAINWATER HARVESTING SYSTEMS
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Methodology
3.3 Results
3.4 Discussion
3.5 Conclusion
CHAPTER 4: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF ROOFTOP RAINWATER HARVESTING SYSTEMS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Analysis of volume and cost of present demand
4.3 Water demand forecast
4.4 Financial cost – benefit analysis
4.5 Conclusion
CHAPTER 5: EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE OF ROOFTOP RAINWATER HARVESTINGSYSTEMS AND
FRAMEWORK FOR SCALING UP
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Methodology
5.3 Results
5.4 Discussion
5.5 Conclusion
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
REFERENCES

1
1
3

4
4
4
5
36
38
39
39
40
40
43
44
45
45
46
47
49
50
52
52
52
53
56
61
63
64

Abbreviations

ATPS
CBO
CPAR
LEAD
MASAF
NGO
RELMA
SEARNET
SIDA
UNDP

African Technology Policy Studies Network
Community Based Organisations
Canadian Physicians for Aid and Relief
Leadership on Environment and Development
Malawi Social Action Fund
Non-governmental Organisations
Regional Land Management Unit
Southern and Eastern Africa Rainwater Harvesting Network
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
United Nations Development ProgrammeiList of Tables and Figures
The number and category of respondents in the baseline survey
Nature of occupation of respondents
Nature of household head
Nature of occupation of some of the household heads
Total number of people living in house
Proportion of respondents indicating difficulty in access to water
for the household
Table 2.7: Proportion of respondents indicating difficulty in accessing waterin the area
Table 2.8: Proportion of respondents indicating other households in the area that
do not have the problem of access to water
Table 2. 9: Some explanations given for residents having no problem of water
Table 2.10: Sources of water for domestic use
Table 2.11: Some indication of institutions and individuals that developed thewater source
Table 2.12: Institutions and individuals responsible for operating the water facility
Table 2.13: Institutions and individuals responsible for maintenance work
Table 2.14: Proportion indicating payment or contribution to the development ofwater sources
Table 2.15: Proportion indicating reasons for assisting in development of newsources of water
Table 2.16: Proportion indicating whether they pay for water or water services
Table 2.17: Proportion indicating whether satisfied with water services they arebuyingTable 2.18: Proportion indicating whether payment for the water affects theamount of water drawn
Table 2.19: Members of the household responsible for drawing water
Table 2.20: Reasons given for drawing water from the same source
Table 2.21: Some indication of total litres of water used by households during
working days (Monday- Friday) in dry season
Table 2.22: Some indication of total litres of water used by households during
weekends in dry season
Table 2.23: Some indication of total litres of water used by households during
working days in wet seasonii
Table 2.1:
Table 2.2:
Table 2.3:
Table 2.4:
Table 2.5:
Table 2.6:

7
7
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
11
12
12
13
13
14
15
15
16
16
17
18
19
20

Table 2.24: Some indication of total litres of water used by households during
weekends in wet season
Table 2.25: Summary of litres of water used per households and per person
between seasons and days of the week
Table 2.26: Percent difference in the amount of water used by households
between wet and dry seasons and between days of the week
Table 2.27: Proportion indicating whether the amount of time to draw water
differs between dry and wet seasons
Table 2.28: Proportion of respondents indicating whether time taken to draw water
differs at different time of the day
Table 2.29: Proportion of respondents indicating whether time to draw water
affects amount of water drawn
Table 2.30: Proportion of respondents indicating whether amount of time it takes
to draw water affects livelihood activities
Table 2.31: Some actions and explanations in dealing with the impact of time taken
to draw water
Table 2.32: Proportion indicating whether the amount of effort it takes to draw
water affects the amount of water drawn
Table 2.33: Proportion indicating whether the amount of effort it takes to draw water
affects livelihood activities
Table 2.34: Proportion expressing constraints and different actions taken tocontend with effort required to draw water
Table 2.35: Proportion indicating solutions to reducing drudgery associated withtime and effort expended on drawing water
Table 2.36: The number of incidences and sources of water-borne diseases
Table 2.37: Some reasons given for capturing rainwater
Table 2.38: Proportion of respondents describing characteristics of rainwatercompared to water from other sources
Table 2.39: Ranking of type of storage tanks for rooftop rainwater harvesting
Table 2.40: Some perceived advantages and disadvantages of stone-walled tanks
Table 2.41: Some perceived advantages and disadvantages of brick-walled tanks
Table 2.42: Some perceived advantages and disadvantages of plastic tanks
Table 2.43: Some perceived advantages and disadvantages of storage
drums/containers
Table 2.44: Proportion indicating willingness to pay or invest in the rainwater
storage tank for use by the household
Table 2.45: Proportion indicating willingness to pay or invest in cash or in kind for
rainwater storage tank
Table 2.46: Some suggested means of investing in kind for rainwater storage tanks
Table 3.1: Roof catchment size and potential yield of water at Kauma
Table 3.2: Cost of construction of 50 m3 brick tank and guttering at Kauma
Table 3.3: Roof catchment size and potential yield of water at Mchezi
iii

21
22
23
23
24
24
24
25
26
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
40
41
41

Table 3.4:
Table 3.5:
Table 3.6:
Table 4.1:
Table 4.2:
Table 4.3:
Table 4.4:
Table 4.5:
Table 4.6:
Table 5.1:
Table 5.2:

Cost of construction of 50 m3 brick tank and guttering at Mchezi
Roof catchment size and potential yield of water at Lumbadzi
Cost of construction of 119.73 m3 brick tank and guttering
Present supply cost of water from the most important alternative sources
as they are used by both connected and non-connected households
Population projections for the service area served by project
Demand for water without project
Demand for water with project
Project financial revenues per year
Financial cost–benefit analysis
Evaluation of the construction and performance of brick tanks
Enterprises developed parallel to water harvesting initiatives

iv

42
42
43
47
47
48
49
49
51
54
55

Chapter One
Project Preparation and Design
1.1

Introduction

In urban areas of Malawi, like elsewhere in Africa, uncoordinated rapid urbanization has resulted in
profuse informal settlements. These are marginal areas of urban development that are often notprovided with adequate water and sanitation amenities. This is the case with high density areas of
Lilongwe, the capital city of Malawi where most of the low income labour force resides. Each day,water is provided at kiosks that are filled from tanks drawn by tractors. This makes the supply of water
erratic, inadequate, and unsafe for people in these high density areas. Of critical concern is therealisation that there are vulnerable groups in the peri-urban areas that comprise the disabled,
female-headed households and the orphaned; the latter, principally arising out of the HIV/AIDS
pandemic. Over and above their pursuit of daily sustenance, they have to contend with purchasingwater, whose availability is erratic and if available, either comes at the wrong time or they have tophysically struggle to access it.
Poverty is increasingly recognized as a problem that needs to be brought to the centre stage ofmainstream policy and intervention. Kopen (2000) argued that water deprivation is part and parcel ofpoverty, which is defined as living below the standards that society judges as minimally required forhuman well-being. Water deprivation jeopardizes health, income, and freedom from drudgery. Carrying
buckets, drinking unsafe water, and lacking access to water are increasingly seen as important
aspects of integrated water management. To understand and combat this state of water deprivation,
the key comprises two forms of processes. First, they are related to the nature of water, which is thatwater only becomes suitable for human use, if one has the physical means to abstract, store, or divert
and convey it to homes, fields, and enterprises. Second, it depends on whether water sources exist
to tap from. In relation to either processes, poor people are often disproportionately affected. They
are the least to be provided directly or indirectly with physical infrastructure for obtaining water while
their means to tap water are weaker.
Conventional water supply systems may not entirely be adequate in solving water needs of the
majority. In Sub-Saharan Africa, an estimated 400 million people will live in countries facing severe
water scarcity by the year 2010. Further, although Africa accounts for 13% of the world’s population,it has only 11% of the world’s fresh water supply. Because of low ages of irrigated land (5%) and hydropower (3%), water is often used ineffectively.

1

2

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

The Malawi Government estimates that 65% of the population has access to potable water (MlozaBanda, 2003). However, due to poor maintenance of supply systems only 40% of the population is
actually served with potable water. On the other hand, Malawi has ample water resources with anannual average precipitation of 1037 mm of which 196 mm or about 19% is runoff. This translates
into 18 billion cubic metres per annum as surface runoff. As of the year 2000, the estimated domestic
demand was 95 million cubic metres or about 0.5% of total surface runoff. Thus, realizing that
surface and ground sources of water like lakes, rivers and ponds face the challenges of intermittency,
extraction and delivery problems, overexploitation, and pollution, there is a growing need to harvestand conserve rainwater where it falls.
Despite its potential and the existing infrastructure, rainwater harvesting has not received adequate
attention from policy makers, planners and water project engineers or managers. They consider
rainwater harvesting as competing with rather than supplementary to the conventional ground andsurface water source. Wanyonyi (2004) argued that rainwater harvesting has been shown not only to
improve the immediate water situation but also leads to a whole range of software benefits to theindividuals and water and sanitation providers that include the following:• Improved health and hygiene facilities;• Increased food and water security at household and community levels;• Provision of an appropriate water source at the point of use at low cost;• Independent back up water supply system supply for emergencies;• Development of employment opportunity and experience sharing skills.
Thus, rainwater harvesting represents a pragmatic developmental plan for augmenting water
resources to avert water deprivation for sustenance of livelihoods in these impoverished urbanzones. And it is for this reason that the investigators seek support to provide stewardship and a modelin rooftop rainwater harvesting which represents an untapped strategic potential in peri-urban
communities often not well served with municipal facilities.
Elsewhere in Uganda, in an effort to solve the water problem, women groups in Rakai District
were trained in water jar and ferrocement tank construction (Kiggundu, 2003). The technology
greatly improved the quality of life in the area by providing safe water for domestic use. Women andchildren were saved from the burden of fetching water. Other highlighted benefits included: reduction
in water borne diseases and infections; regular and timely school attendance by children, which
resulted into improved grades; time saved from water fetching from distant sources allocated toperforming other development activities; adequate, clean and safe water; income from selling water(used for buying books); and, harmony due to potable water sharing.
There still remain a number of areas requiring further expounding if rooftop rainwater harvestingshould be an established practice and parallel water supply system in peri-urban areas. Studies in
Uganda have questioned the economic viability, adequacy of roof area, and skills among professionals
and technicians and artisans (Uganda Rainwater Association, 2004). Even then, there appears alack of methodical analysis both in terms of impact of training for technology transfer, required
institutional support, and social cost of the technology.

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

1.2

3

Project Rationale

The project aims to create a new culture of harnessing water resources amongst disadvantaged
peri-urban beneficiaries by facilitating attitude change, and providing knowledge and skills necessary
to release the development and investment potential they have and the potential for rainwater
harvesting to improve livelihoods. The importance of rooftop rainwater harvesting in the context ofthe peri-urban environment can simply be visualized as a poverty reduction strategy through improved
water supply and sanitation. Water deprivation is integral to poverty. This is particularly so for orphaned
and female-headed households whose access to income to purchase water or even access towater at kiosks remains a hindrance. Many households resort to sourcing water from springs andstreams in low lying areas (dambos) or intermittent streams.
It is envisaged that the already existing corrugated iron roofs in the peri-urban residential areas allow
construction of rainwater harvesting structures at low costs, requiring only installation of gutters andstorage tanks. The project will provide a model that creates multiplier effects by working throughcommunity-based organisations and artisans, equipping them with vision and skills to implement
and scale-up rainwater harvesting. Indeed, it is considered that rainwater harvesting is an effective
entry point for other areas of self-help community development.

1.3

Project Objectives

1.3.1

Overall objective

The overall goal of the project is to model best practices for roof catchment rainwater harvesting
systems to augment water resources at six orphan care centres in peri-urban communities in Lilongwe
City, Central Malawi.
1.3.2

Specific objectives

1. To construct promising small scale roof catchment rainwater harvesting systems foraugmenting water resources at orphan care centres.
2. To strengthen the capacity of community level technical staff and NGOs, and peri-urban
communities to design and implement roof rainwater harvesting systems.
3. To evaluate factors affecting the performance and adoption of the implemented rainwater
harvesting systems.

Chapter Two
Assessment of Access and Consumption of Water for
Integrating Rainwater Harvesting Systems for Domestic Water Supply
2.1

Introduction

The findings of the Malawi Social Indicators Survey of 1998 (Malawi Government 2002) reveal that
only one third (37%) of the Malawian population have access to safe drinking water that is locatedwithin a distance of less than one-half kilometre. This figure increases to 48% when the distance isincreased to one kilometre. Only 2.1% and 16.4% of the Malawian population have access to pipedwater in dwelling houses and a public tap, respectively. The most common type of water facility usedin Malawi is an unprotected well or spring while the most popular safe source of water is a borehole.
It has been observed that in peri-urban and rural areas, families tend to rely on traditional water
sources which often get polluted in the rainy season due to erosion. A reasonable alternative is theuse of cisterns to catch rainwater from roof catchments. The total daily water requirement perperson is 30 litres out of which the daily minimum drinking water requirement per person is 5 litres(Malawi Government, 2002). The need to augment potable water for domestic use through rainwater
harvesting is thus attainable and cannot be overemphasized. This study evaluated water services,development and consumption in order to provide the justification for integration of rainwater harvestingin the water economy of peri-urban households using orphan care centres as a model.

2.2

Methodology

2.2.1

Choice of sites

Extensive consultations were made with the Lilongwe Water Board to learn about provision of waterto peri-urban areas. A list was drawn of peri-urban locations that were not provided with tap water orthat are provided with water kiosks. Further consultations were made with the Ministry of Community
Services and Social Welfare to detail orphanages or orphan care centres in Lilongwe City. The lists
from the Water Board and from the Ministry were compared and potential sites visited for groundtruthing. Six locations were chosen based on unique characteristics each location provided as
detailed in Section 2.3.1.

4

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES
2.2.2

5

Baseline survey

A baseline study at each of the six locations was conducted. A set of three questionnaires wereprepared for interviewing three groups of respondents.
1. Key informants: these were coordinators of the orphan care centres and chairpersons or
local leaders of any committees overseeing the centres
2. Focus group discussions: a group of six to eight women at each centre was assembled forfocus group discussions
3. General household interviews: respondents for household interviews for each site targeted
five persons from each of the categories listed below:a)Physically challengedb)
Foster male parentc)
Foster female parentd)Male spousee)Female spousef)Single male (widowed, divorced, etc.)g)Single female (widowed, divorced, etc.)h)
Boy child, orphanedi)Girl child, orphaned
Questionnaires were circulated to coordinators of centres and were pre-tested. The identification of
respondents, dates and survey protocols were arranged by centre coordinators after two thoroughtraining/sharing sessions. This was done in order to engender ownership of the process.
2.2.3

Data analysis

Data from household interviews were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences(SPSS). Descriptive analysis such as frequencies and ages were computed to show the quantitativeand qualitative features of responses.

2.3

Results

2.3.1

Characteristics of study locations

Location 1, Kauma: Kauma Orphan Support Initiative (Adziwa Ministry)
The centre is coordinated by the Capital City Baptist Church as an organ of its outreach ecclesiasticalprogrammes. Orphans are housed together with foster parents that are relatives of the orphans.
These “families” are issued a plot of land to produce food and allocated income generating enterprises
such as poultry (layers, broilers) and production of high value dry season crops. There are 155
guardians in 15 houses housing 767 orphans. There is an established community committee tooversee activities guided by an outreach office located at the centre.

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

6

Location 2, Mchezi: Recapo Orphan Care Centre
The centre is coordinated by Mr. Matengula, former Member of Parliament, 1999-2004. Funding isfrom contributions by villagers and occasionally, well wishers. It caters for 411 orphans from 10
villages. The centre has various committees for different livelihood activities. The operations are
non-residential but orphans congregate daily for meals and extracurricular livelihood learning
activities. Immediately after sensitization meetings, a committee to run the rainwater harvesting
initiative was established.
Location 3, Lumbadzi: Mtendere Orphan Care Centre
Mtendere Orphan Care Centre is housed adjacent to Blessings Hospital and a vitameal (nutritiousfood) processing factory complex at Lumbadzi Township, 30 km from Lilongwe City. It is run by a
Malawian entrepreneur, Mr. Napoleon Dzombe, with a few overseas benefactors, particularly fromthe United States. Mtendere is a residential centre where orphans, whose lives are at risk fromdebilitating diseases or malnutrition and poverty, are housed for rehabilitation. The centre has satellite(outreach) centres where home-based/ community-based orphan care programmes are run including
provision of medication and vitameal.
Location 4, Dzenza: Dzenza Girls Boarding Primary School
The centre enrols needy girls at primary school level on residential basis. It is coordinated by the
Church of Central African Presbytery, Lilongwe. Funding is provided by the local church adjacent tothe centre and well wishers.
Location 5, Ngwenya: House of Hope Orphan Care Centre
The centre is coordinated by a local committee made up of chiefs and local development leaders.
It was started in the year 2000 and caters for 600 orphans from five villages on non-residential basis.
It specialises in feeding and ecumenical programmes. Funding is exclusively from foreign and local
well-wishers.
Location 6, Mtsiriza: Faith Christian Academy
The centre is coordinated as an outreach programme of the African Bible College that receives
partial support from evangelical churches in the USA. It specialises in feeding and ecumenicalprogrammes on non-residential basis for 670 orphans. It caters for nursery school, primary andsecondary school educational programmes for 270 orphans while another 400 attend public primaryand secondary schools.
2.3.2

Characteristics of respondents

The numbers of respondents interviewed in the general household survey are shown below in Table
2.1. The study ably identified respondents that were evenly spread across the intended categories.
Their occupation is shown in Table 2.2

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

7

Table 2.1: The number and category of respondents in the baseline survey
Singe parents Spouses

Foster parents Physically Total
challenged

CentreOrphans
Girl

Boy

Male

Female Male

Female Male

FemaleKauma
Ngwenya
Mtsiriza
Lumbadzi
DzenzaMcheziTotal% of Total

7
6
6
5
5
6
35
13.1

5
6
5
5
4
5
30
11.2

4
5
3
1
4
4
17
6.3

6
7
5
7
7
5
37
13.8

5
6
6
7
6
6
36
13.4

4
6
7
6
5
5
33
12.3

3
6
5
9
6
5
34
12.7

5
1
4
4
4
4
22
8.2

2
3
5
1
4
5
20
7.5

40
47
46
45
45
45
268
100

Table 2.2: Nature of occupation of respondents
Occupation
Quarry stone CountmakingColumn %Farming
Count
Column %Business
Count
Column %Student
Count
Column %Casual labour Count
Column %ArtisanCount
Column %Teaching
Count
Column %
Total

2.3.3

Dzenza
2
4.9
26
63.4
2
4.9
9
22.0
2
4.9

Mchezi
1
2.3
18
41.9
6
14.0
10
23.3
6
14.0
2
4.7

41
100.0

43
100.0

Household location
Ngwenya Mtsiriza
2
5.6
6
9
16.7
24.3
9
7
25.0
18.9
11
12
30.6
32.4
3
7
8.3
18.9
3
1
8.3
2.7
2
1
5.6
2.7
36
37
100.0
100.0

Total
Kauma

5
17.2

13
44.8
10
34.5
1
3.4

29
100.0

Lumbadzi

24
58.5
4
9.8
10
24.4
3
7.3

41
100.0

5
2.2
88
38.8
28
12.3
65
28.6
31
13.7
7
7
3.1
3
227
100.0

Some characteristics of households

Some characteristics of the households are shown in Tables 2.3-2.5. Households where both spouses
were present were only about 33% while 21% of the households were each headed by male foster
parents and single female parents, respectively (Table 2.3). The occupation of household heads inthe employment category were either working in the civil service (21%), farmers (36%) or werelabourers (36%) (Table 2.4). Overall, the average household size ranged from 5.33 to 6.35 persons
while the overall average was 5.81 persons per household (Table 2.5).

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

8

Table 2.3: Nature of household head
Head of household
Single parent, Count
male
Column %Single parent, CountfemaleColumn %Female foster Count
parentColumn %Male fosterCount
parentColumn %OrphanCount
girl-child
Column %OrphanCount
boy-child
Column %Headed byCountother relatives Column %Both spouses Count
present
Column %Other (specify) Count
Column %Total

Household location
DzenzaMcheziNgwenya
5
1
5
13.9
2.7
10.9
5
8
13
13.9
21.6
28.3
1
3
2
2.8
8.1
4.3
6
6
9
16.7
16.2
19.6
2
1
5.4
2.2
1
2
2.7
4.3
2
1
5.6
2.7
13
15
14
36.1
40.5
30.4
4
11.1
36
37
46
100.0
100.0
100.0

Total
Mtsiriza
5
11.4
10
22.7
3
6.8
9
20.5

16
36.4

Kauma
4
10.0
8
20.0
1
2.5
11
27.5
1
2.5
3
7.5
1
2.5
11
27.5

44
100.0

40
100.0

15
33.3
1
2.2
45
100.0

Kauma
1
5.9
2
11.8
2
11.8
12
70.6
17
100.0

Lumbadzi
2
11.8
11
64.7
2
11.8
2
11.8
17
100.0

1
2.3

Lumbadzi
3
6.7
10
22.2
5
11.1
11
24.4

23
9.3
54
21.8
15
6.0
52
21.0
4
1.6
7
2.8
4
1.6
84
33.9
5
2.0
248
100.0

Table 2.4: Nature of occupation of some of the household heads
Occupation
Civil Servant
FarmerBusiness
Labourer
Total

Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Household location
DzenzaMcheziNgwenya
1
1
5
7.1
5.9
27.8
11
7
3
78.6
41.2
16.7
2
4
11.8
22.2
2
7
6
14.3
41.2
33.3
14
17
18
100.0
100.0
100.0

Total
Mtsiriza
1
5.9
2
11.8
7
41.2
7
41.2
17
100.0

11
11.0
36
36.0
17
17.0
36
36.0
100
100.0

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

9

Table 2.5: Total number of people living in house
Household location
DzenzaMcheziNgwenya
Mtsiriza
Kauma
Lumbadzi
Mean

2.3.4

Minimum
1
1
1
1
1
2
1

Maximum
11
12
13
12
10
12
13

Mean
5.56
5.71
5.87
5.33
6.35
6.09
5.81

N
45
45
47
46
40
45
268

Std. Deviation
2.63
2.29
2.58
2.33
2.20
2.28
2.40

Access to water

In terms of access to water, 90% of respondents argued that water is a problem for their families(Table 2.6) while 89% indicated that access to water was a problem in their areas (Table 2.7). About
38% indicated that other households do not have problem of access to water (Table 2.8) due to theobservations that (a) they have their own wells, boreholes or have running tap water, (b) are near thewater sources, or (c) pay workers to draw water (Table 2.9).
Table 2.6: Proportion of respondents indicating difficulty in access to water for the household
Difficult at household level
Yes
No
Total

Dzenza
45
100.0

Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
45
Column % 100.0

Mchezi
44
97.8
1
2.2
45
100.0

Household location
Ngwenya Mtsiriza
36
40
76.6
87.0
11
6
23.4
13.0
47
46
100.0
100.0

Total
Kauma
36
90.0
4
10.0
40
100.0

Lumbadzi
42
93.3
3
6.7
45
100.0

243
90.7
25
9.3
268
100.0

Table 2.7: Proportion of respondents indicating difficulty in accessing water in the area
Difficult for the area
Yes
No
Missing
Total

DzenzaCount
40
Location % 88.9
Count3
Location % 6.7
Count2
Location % 4.4Count45
Location % 100.0

Mchezi
43
95.6
2
4.4

45
100.0

Household location
Ngwenya Mtsiriza
43
40
91.5
87.0
4
6
8.5
13.0

47
100.0

46
100.0

Total
Kauma
36
90.0
4
10.0

40
100.0

Lumbadzi
37
82.2
6
13.3
2
4.4
45
100.0

239
89.2
25
9.3
4
1.5
268
100.0

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

10

Table 2.8: Proportion of respondents indicating other households in the area that do not have theproblem of access to waterNo problem to access
water
Yes

No

Total

Count
All location %Location %Count
All location %Location %Count
All location %Location %Household location
Dzenza
11
10.7
24.4
34
20.6
75.6
45
16.8
100.0

Mchezi
11
10.7
24.4
34
20.6
75.6
45
16.8
100.0

Total
Ngwenya
19
18.4
40.4
28
17.0
59.6
47
17.5
100.0

Mtsiriza
23
22.3
50.0
23
13.9
50.0
46
17.2
100.0

Kauma
16
15.5
40.0
24
14.5
60.0
40
14.9
100.0

Lumbadzi
23
22.3
51.1
22
13.3
48.9
45
16.8
100.0

103
100.0
38.4
165
100.0
61.6
268
100.0
100.0

Table 2.9: Some explanations given for residents having no problem of water
Reasons for adequate water
DzenzaHave theirCount3
own well
All location% 9.7
Location% 27.3
Have ownCount3boreholes
All location% 50.0
Location% 27.3
Houses close Count4
to water source All location% 40.0
Location% 36.4
Paid workers Countdraw water
All location%
Location%
Have tap water CountAll location%
Location%
MissingCount
1
All location% 100.0
Location% 9.1
Total
Count
11
All location% 11.0
Location% 100.0

Mchezi

2
33.3
18.2
8
12.5
27.3
1
100.0
9.1

11
11.0
100.0

Household location
Ngwenya Mtsiriza
5
11
16.1
35.5
26.3
50.0
1
16.7
5.3
9
3
37.5
12.5
47.4
13.6

6
20.8
33.3

4
16.0
21.1

8
32.0
36.4

6
24.0
40.0

19
19.0
100.0

22
22.0
100.0

15
15.0
100.0

Kauma
3
9.7
20.0

Total
Lumbadzi
9
31
29.0
100.0
40.9
31.0
6
100.0
6.0
4
24
16.7
100.0
18.2
24.0
1
100.0
1.0
7
25
28.0
100.0
31.8
25.0
2
2
100.0
100.0
9.1
2.0
22
100
22.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES
2.3.5

11

Sources of water and their development

The principal sources of water for the households were boreholes (32%) and kiosks (34%). Shallow
wells were the alternative sources to either boreholes or kiosks (Table 2.10). Overall, individuals
have developed their own water points (Table 2.11) while a handful of water facilities were developed
by NGOs such as CPAR and Plan International. Government and its institutions such as the Lilongwe
Water Board and MASAF were mentioned by about 40% of the respondents for developing a numberof water facilities. About 67% of the respondents indicated that local governance structures(committees, chiefs, villagers) and individuals are responsible for operating the water facilities (Table
2.12). In a similar manner, about 65%of the respondents indicated that local resources (committees,villagers, individuals and paid workers) are used for maintenance of water facilities (Table 2.13).
Table 2.10: Sources of water for domestic use
Sources of water
DzenzaRiver
Borehole
Kiosk
Well(near house)
Well (dambo)
Other(specify)
Total

Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Mchezi

28
59.6
1
2.1
1
2.1
17
36.2

41
80.4

2
3.9
8
15.7

47
100.0

51
100.0

Household location
Ngwenya Mtsiriza

1
1.6
36
56.3
20
31.3
6
9.4
1
1.6
64
100.0

7
13.0
24
44.4
14
25.9
7
13.0
2
3.7
54
100.0

Total
Kauma
3
5.8
6
11.5
34
65.4
5
9.6
4
7.7

52
100.0

Lumbadzi

24
36.9
20
30.8
14
21.5
6
9.2
1
1.5
65
100.0

3
0.9
107
32.1
115
34.5
56
16.8
48
14.4
4
1.2
333
100.0

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

12

Table 2.11: Some indication of institutions and individuals that developed the water source
Developer of water source
Borehole
CIPA

Count
Column %Individual
Count
Column %Paid workers
Count
Column %
MASAF
Count
Column %Villagers
Count
Column %Government
Count
Column %Plan International Count
Column %Lilongwe Water Count
Board
Column %
Total
Count
Column %

12
13.2
2
2.2
1
1.1
14
15.4
6
6.6
29
31.9
27
29.7

91
100.0

Kiosk

7
6.5

14
13.1
7
6.5
6
5.6
5
4.7
68
63.6
107
100.0

Source of water
Well
Well
(near house)(dambo)
1
2.0
39
32
79.6
74.4
3
6.1
1
2.3
6
10
12.2
23.3

49
100.0

43
100.0

Total
Other
(specify)

2
50.0

2
50.0
4
100.0

13
4.4
82
27.9
4
1.4
29
9.9
29
9.9
35
11.9
32
10.9
70
23.8
294
100.0

Table 2.12: Institutions and individuals responsible for operating the water facility
Responsibility for operationof water facility

Committee
Individual
Chief
Villagers
Government
Water Board
worker
Total

Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Source of water
Borehole

Kiosk

22
23.2
27
28.4
4
4.2
20
21.1
21
22.1
1
1.1
95
100.0

6
5.6
14
13.1
2
1.9
11
10.3
5
4.7
69
64.5
107
100.0

Well
(near house)
2
4.4
36
80.0
1
2.2
6
13.3

45
100.0

Total
Well
(dambo)

32
72.7
1
2.3
11
25.0

44
100.0

Other
(specify)

2
50.0

1
25.0

1
25.0
4
100.0

30
10.2
111
37.6
8
2.7
49
16.6
26
8.8
71
24.1
295
100.0

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

13

Table 2.13: Institutions and individuals responsible for maintenance work
Responsibility for
maintenance work

Committee
Individual
Paid workers
Villagers
Government
Water board
Total

Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Source of water
Borehole

Kiosk

25
25.0
23
23.0
4
4.0
26
26.0
20
20.0
2
2.0
100
100.0

5
4.8
11
10.5

8
7.6
6
5.7
75
71.4
105
100.0

Well
(near house)
2
4.4
34
75.6
3
6.7
6
13.3

45
100.0

Total
Well
(dambo)

32
72.7

Other
(specify)

2
50.0

12
27.3

44
100.0

2
50.0
4
100.0

32
10.7
102
34.2
7
2.3
52
17.4
26
8.7
79
26.5
298
100.0

In general, half of the respondents did not pay or contribute to the development of their water sources(Table 2.14). However, payment or contribution to development of water source appeared not new.
About 94% of the respondents were willing to pay or contribute to development of additional water
sources. They cited a number of reasons for wanting to assist in the development of additionalsources of water (Table 2.15). Provision of free water was cited by only 10 % of the respondents while
reduction of congestion at water points and reduction of distance of travel to water sources werementioned by more respondents.
Table 2.14: Proportion indicating payment or contribution to the development of water sources
Contribution to develop-ment of water source
Yes

Count
All location %Location %NoCountAll location %Location %
Not
Count
applicable All location %Location %
Total
Count
All location %Location %Household location
Dzenza
29
21.2
64.4
15
11.5
33.3
1
100.0
2.2
45
16.8
100.0

Total

Mchezi
37
27.0
82.2
8
6.2
17.8

Ngwenya
13
9.5
27.7
34
26.2
72.3

Mtsiriza
18
13.1
39.1
28
21.5
60.9

Kauma
22
16.1
55.0
18
13.8
45.0

Lumbadzi
18
13.1
40.0
27
20.8
60.0

45
16.8
100.0

47
17.5
100.0

46
17.2
100.0

40
14.9
100.0

45
16.8
100.0

137
100.0
51.1
130
100.0
48.5
1
100.0
0.4
268
100.0
100.0

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

14

Table 2.15: Proportion indicating reasons for assisting in development of new sources of water
Reasons for assisting dev-elopment of water source
DzenzaPresent sources Count5
giving them
All location% 20.8
problems
Location% 11.1
Inadequate for Count
4
their population All location% 26.7
Location% 8.9
Water source is Count
6of great help
All location% 25.0
Location% 13.3
The borehole Count7
will help the
All location% 50.0
village
Location% 15.6
Water will be Count
5near
All location% 9.3
Location% 11.1
Have safe and Count8hygienic water All location% 29.6
Location% 17.8
ReduceCount
7congestion at All location% 17.9
borehole
Location% 15.6
Provide free
Count
1
water
All location% 3.7
Location% 2.2
Develop theCount2village
All location% 8.3
Location% 4.4
Total
Count
45
All location% 18.1
Location% 100.0

Household location
Mchezi
13
54.2
29.5
2
13.3
4.5
4
16.7
9.1

10
18.5
22.7
1
3.7
2.3
8
20.5
18.2
1
3.7
2.3
5
20.8
11.4
44
17.7
100.0

Ngwenya
1
4.2
2.4
1
6.7
2.4
6
25.0
14.3
3
21.4
7.1
7
13.0
16.7
6
22.2
14.3
4
10.3
9.5
9
33.3
21.4
5
20.8
11.9
42
100.0

Mtsiriza
2
8.3
5.6
4
26.7
11.1
1
4.2
2.8
1
7.1
2.8
12
22.2
33.3
6
22.2
16.7
7
17.9
19.4

3
12.5
8.3
36
14.5
100.0

Total
Kauma

3
20.0
7.9
2
8.3
5.3

14
25.9
36.8
1
3.7
2.6
4
10.3
10.5
9
33.3
23.7
5
20.8
13.2
38
15.3
100.0

Lumbadzi
3
12.5
7.0
1
6.7
2.3
5
20.8
11.6
3
21.4
7.0
6
11.1
14.0
5
18.5
11.6
9
23.1
20.9
7
25.9
16.3
4
16.7
9.3
43
17.3
100.0

24
100.0
9.7
15
100.0
6.0
24
100.0
9.7
14
100.0
5.6
54
100.0
21.8
27
100.0
10.9
39
100.0
15.7
27
100.0
10.9
24
100.0
9.7
248
100.0
100.0

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES
2.3.6

15

Water services

Overall, 77% of the respondents indicated that they do not pay for water services (Table 2.16). The
highest number of respondents that pay for water services were recorded at Ngwenya and Mtsiriza.
It was noted that at Ngwenya, those that have wells sell their water while at Mtsiriza, kiosks are themain water selling points. Only about 30% were satisfied with provision of water services (Table
2.17) and another 31% indicated that payment for water services affect the amount of water drawn fordomestic use (Table 2.18).
Table 2.16: Proportion indicating whether they pay for water or water services
Payment for water
services
Yes
Count
Row %
Column %
No
Count
Row %
Column %
Total
Count
Row %
Column %Dzenza
1
1.6
2.2
44
21.3
97.8
45
16.8
100.0

Mchezi
4
6.6
8.9
41
19.8
91.1
45
16.8
100.0

Household location
Ngwenya Mtsiriza
Kauma
26
14
10
42.6
23.0
16.4
55.3
30.4
25.0
21
32
30
10.1
15.5
14.5
44.7
69.6
75.0
47
46
40
17.5
17.2
14.9
100.0
100.0
100.0

Total
Lumbadzi
6
9.8
13.3
39
18.8
86.7
45
16.8
100.0

61
100.0
22.8
207
100.0
77.2
268
100.0
100.0

Table 2.17: Proportion indicating whether satisfied with water services they are buying
Satisfaction with services
Yes

No

Not
applicable
Total

Count
Row %
Column %
Count
Row %
Column %
Count
Row %
Column %
Count
Row %
Column %Dzenza
1
1.2
2.2

44
38.3
97.8
45
16.8
100.0

Mchezi
4
4.9
8.9
4
5.6
8.9
37
32.2
82.2
45
16.8
100.0

Household location
Ngwenya Mtsiriza
Kauma
25
14
23
30.5
17.1
28.0
53.2
30.4
57.5
17
19
12
23.9
26.8
16.9
36.2
41.3
30.0
5
13
5
4.3
11.3
4.3
10.6
28.3
12.5
47
46
40
17.5
17.2
14.9
100.0
100.01
100.0

Total
Lumbadzi
15
18.3
33.3
19
26.8
42.2
11
9.6
24.4
45
16.8
100.0

82
100.0
30.6
71
100.0
26.5
115
100.0
42.9
268
100.0
100.0

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

16

Table 2.18: Proportion indicating whether payment for the water affects the amount of water drawn
Payment on amount ofwater drawn

Household location
DzenzaYes

Notapplicable
No

Total

2.3.7

Count
All location %Location %Count
All location %Location %Count
All location %Location %Count
All location %Location %

44
29.5
97.8
1
2.9
2.2
45
16.8
100.0

Mchezi

41
27.5
91.1
4
11.4
8.9
45
16.8
100.0

Ngwenya
26
31.0
55.3
13
8.7
27.7
8
22.9
17.0
47
17.5
100.0

Mtsiriza
17
20.2
37.0
19
12.8
41.3
10
28.6
21.7
46
17.2
100.0

Total
Kauma
22
26.2
55.0
13
8.7
32.5
5
14.3
12.5
40
14.9
100.0

Lumbadzi
19
22.6
42.2
19
12.8
42.2
7
20.0
15.6
45
16.8
100.0

84
100.0
31.3
149
100.0
55.6
35
100.0
13.1
268
100.0
100.0

Sourcing water and its utilisation

The girl child draws water the most (68.7%) followed by the mother/wife (54.1%) and the boy child(29.1%) (Table2.19). About 92.1% of the respondents draw water from the same source throughout
the year and indicated several reasons shown in Table 2.20 for using the same source.
Table 2.19: Members of the household responsible for drawing water
Who draws water?
Boy child

Count
Column %Girl child
Count
Column %Mother/WifeCount
Column %Foster mother Count
Column %Father/Count
Husband
Column %Relative
Count
Column %Piece worker/ Counthouse worker Column %Others (granny, Countfriends etc)
Column %Total

Dzenza
8
17.8
33
73.3
21
46.7
6
13.3

Mchezi
11
24.4
31
68.9
19
42.2
7
15.6

3
6.7
1
2.2
6
13.3
45

3
6.7

10
22.2
45

Household location
Ngwenya Mtsiriza
Kauma
13
16
16
27.7
34.8
40.0
33
29
29
70.2
63.0
72.5
26
26
26
55.3
56.5
65.0
2
2
6
4.3
4.3
15.0
2
5.0
6
2
4
12.8
4.3
10.0
1
2.2
14
10
6
29.8
21.7
15.0
47
46
40

Total
Lumbadzi
14
31.1
29
64.4
27
60.0
8
17.8

2
4.4
1
2.2
4
8.9
45

78
29.1
184
68.7
145
54.1
31
11.6
2
0.7
20
7.5
3
1.1
50
18.7
268

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

17

Table 2.20: Reasons given for drawing water from the same source
Why same source?
River
Water issafe/hygienic
No alternative
water source
Only nearest
water source
It is free water
Total

Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %

1
50.0

1
50.0
2
100.0

Borehole
36
40.0
6
6.7
34
37.8
14
15.6
90
100.0

Source of water
Kiosk
Well(nearhouse)
76
1
80.0
2.2
6
13.0
19
21
20.0
45.7
18
39.1
95
46
100.0
100.0

Total
Well
(dambo)
1
3.5
6
20.7
16
55.2
6
20.7
29
100.0

Other
(specify)
4
66.7

2
33.3

6
100.0

118
44.1
19
7.1
92
34.2
39
14.6
268
100.0

To determine reasons for differences in water use between seasons and within weekdays, the study,
employing facilities for drawing, storing and using water by households, physically quantified theamount of water used by the households. The results for the wet and dry seasons, for weekdays(Monday to Friday), and, weekends (Saturday and Sunday) are shown in Tables 2.21-2.24. The data
were further summarised as shown in Tables 2.25 and 2.26.
In Table 2.25, using the location means, peri-urban populations sampled are using between 18.39
and 27.59 litres of water per person per day. Using the overall mean, the range is 20.76-24.73 withthe overall mean at 22.74 litres per person per day. The location with the lowest per capita
consumption of water is Mchezi.
Slightly higher amounts are used in the dry season and during weekends. In Table 2.26, there isabout a 23% increase in the amount of water used in the dry season compared to that used in the wet
season. When days of the week are compared, it evident that there is an overall 18% increase in theamount of water that is used during weekends compared to that used during weekdays. Substantive
increases in the amount of water used in the dry season comes from a 43-45% and 52-63% increasein the amount of water used for drinking and that used for gardening, respectively. During weekends
when compared to weekdays, increase in water used came from a 49-66% increase in the amountof water used for washing clothes. The lowest amounts are used at Dzenza and Mchezi locations(Table 2.25).

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

18

Table 2.21: Some indication of total litres of water used by households during working days (Monday- Friday) in dry season
Location
DzenzaMcheziNgwenya

Mtsiriza

Kauma

Lumbadzi

Total

Activity
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total

Minimum
2.5
50.0
15.0
2.0
30.0
0.2
0.2
0.9
5.0
25.0
2.0
20.0
1.5
0.9
1.3
20.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
300.0
1.3
1.5
30.0
20.0
2.0
20.0
1000.0
1.5
1.5
5.0
20.0
10.0
20.0
50.0
1.5
1.5
10.0
15.0
10.0
20.0
200.0
1.5
0.9
5.0
5.0
2.0
10.0
0.2
0.2

Maximum
25.0
300.0
500.0
150.0
2000.01200.02000.0
25.0
200.0
400.0
200.0
360.0
1000.01000.0
20.0
300.0
500.0
400.0
1800.01000.01800.0
25.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
1000.03000.040.0
1000.01000.0300.02500.02500.02500.0
25.0
700.0
700.0
450.0
1000.01500.01500.040.0
3000.01000.0500.02500.02500.03000.0Mean
7.34
112.22168.7254.86
215.94411.46970.54
7.35
81.25
153.6751.63
103.08467.17864.15
7.09
103.66184.8992.03
296.43658.331342.437.95
170.85
159.79103.97189.001000.00
1631.56
7.82
156.25208.7592.00
373.50893.331731.66
7.38
135.62220.4487.59
210.60862.501524.13
7.48
126.42
182.3881.97
248.15681.721328.12

N
45
45
39
21
16
8
174
44
44
45
34
13
3
183
47
47
47
37
21
6
205
47
47
47
32
20
1
194
39
40
40
36
28
9
192
45
45
45
29
25
4
194
267
268
263
189
123
31
1141

Std. Deviation
4.81
51.57
132.4043.62
483.13449.71205.63
5.14
45.29
94.62
51.97
92.41
502.63108.394.29
61.15
116.3484.39
379.05290.55191.766.17
426.9592.11
105.55173.98.
242.607.44
157.92212.3466.04
618.07947.40379.27
4.82
120.31131.01
90.57
22.94
540.64
191.685.45
199.51134.62
79.28
399.22626.13236.94

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

19

Table 2.22: Some indication of total litres of water used by households during weekends in dry season
Location
DzenzaMcheziNgwenya

Mtsiriza

Kauma

Lumbadzi

Total

Activity
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total

Minimum
1.0
20.0
6.0
4.0
30.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
2.0
20.0
1.0
40.0
0.6
0.6
0.5
10.0
2.0
4.0
20.0
120.0
0.5
0.6
12.0
8.0
2.0
10.0
400.0
0.6
0.6
2.0
8.0
4.0
4.0
20.0
0.6
0.6
4.0
6.0
4.0
10.0
200.0
0.6
0.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
0.6
0.5

Maximum
10.0
120.0
200.0
150.0
400.0
400.0
400.0
10.0
80.0
160.0
80.0
210.0
400.0
400.0
8.0
120.0
200.0
160.0
800.0
400.0
800.0
10.0
1200.0
160.0
200.0
400.0
400.0
1200.0
16.0
400.0
400.0
120.0
1000.01000.01000.0
10.0
280.0
280.0
180.0
1000.0600.01000.016.0
1200.0400.0
200.0
1000.01000.01200.0

Mean
2.94
44.89
69.26
34.88
101.25266.87520.09
3.34
36.81
69.26
23.16
120.00200.30452.87
2.88
42.26
76.36
43.28
167.03263.33595.14
3.18
68.34
63.91
46.68
118.75400.00700.86
3.05
60.83
83.50
37.08
180.87355.56720.89
3.00
54.09
88.27
41.17
188.95366.67742.15
3.06
51.56
75.16
38.40
148.03311.72627.93

N
45
45
38
25
24
3
180
37
37
38
25
14
2
153
46
46
45
40
32
6
215
47
47
47
29
32
1
203
39
40
40
36
30
9
194
44
45
45
29
21
3
187
258
260
253
184
153
24
1132

Std. Deviation
1.92
20.63
52.53
35.08
85.94
230.59
64.79
1.99
16.39
35.85
22.36
55.33
282.42
52.37
1.70
24.14
46.03
38.02
171.63116.2295.50
2.47
170.78
36.84
43.12
92.80
.
102.20
2.94
63.73
87.32
27.15
235.57380.37153.53
1.92
48.28
52.35
35.29
204.90208.17103.30
2.17
80.74
54.27
34.67
162.40261.83102.70ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

20

Table 2.23: Some indication of total litres of water used by households during working days in wet
seasonLocation
DzenzaMcheziNgwenya

Mtsiriza

Kauma

Lumbadzi

Total

Activity
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total

Minimum
0.6
50.0
25.0
10.0
20.0
0.6
0.3
10.0
4.0
2.0
35.0
40.0
0.3
1.3
15.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
160.0
1.3
1.3
30.0
20.0
3.0
40.0
1.3
0.9
50.0
20.0
10.0
30.0
100.0
0.9
1.5
50.0
50.0
10.0
40.0
200.0
1.5
0.3
10.0
4.0
2.0
10.0
40.0
0.3

Maximum
15.0
225.0
500.0
200.0
500.0
1000.0
20.0
200.0
300.0
200.0
200.0
40.0
300.0
50.0
300.0
500.0
400.0
1800.0750.01800.0
25.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
900.0
900.0
25.0
1000.0500.0
300.0
1000.0500.01000.0
50.0
700.0
700.0
200.0
400.0
1000.01000.050.0
1000.0700.0
500.0
1800.01000.01800.0Mean
4.90
103.00165.2461.11
128.82463.07
4.78
82.79
137.9056.68
102.9240.00
425.075.76
106.60199.57118.59293.39403.331127.24
5.49
106.20159.13104.43223.06598.31
5.40
170.38165.6399.85
264.53340.001045.79
4.71
135.89242.9580.52
170.87600.001234.975.17
116.62179.3289.36
215.77447.001053.24

N
45
45
41
18
17
166
45
43
41
30
12
1
172
47
47
47
32
28
3
204
46
46
46
30
18
186
40
40
40
34
32
3
189
45
45
44
29
23
2
188
268
266
259
173
130
10
1106

Std. Deviation
3.53
35.94
116.0654.55
11.80
117.10
3.96
43.04
81.50
58.25
63.62
.
72.27
8.77
59.16
119.0992.23
336.88308.27175.89
4.89
67.77
91.05
100.78218.52116.905.79
176.73103.4568.11
239.28211.66164.92
7.23
111.32
67.74
67.74
95.34
565.69142.175.97
96.45
113.1779.07
227.37358.70139.61SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

21

Table 2.24: Some indication of total litres of water used by households during weekends in wet
seasonLocation
DzenzaMcheziNgwenya

Mtsiriza

Kauma

Lumbadzi

Total

Activity
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total
Drinking
Bathing
Cooking + utensils
Cleaning (house)
Washing (clothes)
Gardening
Total

Minimum
0.3
10.0
10.0
4.0
30.0
400.0
0.3
0.6
20.0
2.0
1.0
20.0
0.6
0.5
6.0
2.0
4.0
20.0
80.0
0.5
0.5
12.0
8.0
2.0
20.0
0.5
0.6
20.0
8.0
4.0
40.0
40.0
0.6
0.6
20.0
20.0
4.0
50.0
200.0
0.6
0.3
6.0
2.0
1.0
20.0
40.0
0.3

Maximum
6.0
90.0
200.0
90.0
350.0
400.0
400.0
8.0
80.0
120.0
180.0
380.0
380.0
20.0
120.0
200.0
160.0
800.0
300.0
800.0
10.0
120.0
160.0
200.0
400.0
400.0
10.0
400.0
200.0
120.0
400.0
200.0
400.0
20.0
280.0
280.0
80.0
400.0
200.0
400.0
20.0
400.0
280.0
200.0
800.0
400.0
800.0

Mean
1.99
41.36
68.46
32.27
106.74400.00648.12
2.21
38.86
63.45
33.73
136.19274.44
2.30
42.64
79.83
47.89
163.55
166.67502.88
2.20
42.71
64.18
42.07
130.64281.80
2.20
68.15
66.25
39.94
155.35120.00451.89
1.88
54.36
97.18
35.23
147.52200.00536.17
2.13
47.96
73.91
39.05
142.84
191.43431.32

N
44
44
39
30
23
1
181
36
35
33
21
21
146
47
47
47
35
38
3
217
46
45
45
30
31
197
39
40
40
34
34
2
189
45
45
44
30
29
1
194
257
256
248
180
176
7
1124

Std. Deviation
1.41
14.72
46.37
25.90
74.22
.
55.45
1.62
13.45
30.72
41.60
83.09
56.51
3.51
23.66
47.64
36.87
167.71
117.19
93.14
1.96
27.37
36.66
40.18
104.43
63.31
2.33
70.69
41.38
27.24
96.56
113.14
75.30
2.89
44.53
52.99
26.05
89.50
.
69.14
2.42
38.70
44.98
33.15
112.55126.42
71.48

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

22

Table 2.25: Summary of litres of water used per households and per person between seasons anddays of the week
Location

DzenzaSeason/ daysof the week

Weekdays, wet season
Weekends, wet season
Weekdays, dry season
Weekends, dry season
Mchezi
Weekdays, wet season
Weekends, wet season
Weekdays, dry season
Weekends, dry season
Ngwenya
Weekdays, wet season
Weekends, wet season
Weekdays, dry season
Weekends, dry season
Mtsiriza
Weekdays, wet season
Weekends, wet season
Weekdays, dry season
Weekends, dry season
Kauma
Weekdays, wet season
Weekends, wet season
Weekdays, dry season
Weekends, dry season
Lumbadzi
Weekdays, wet season
Weekends, wet season
Weekdays, dry season
Weekends, dry season
Overall mean Weekdays, wet season
across all
Weekends, wet season
locationsWeekdays, dry season
Weekends, dry season

Total amount ofwater for activities

Average amount ofwater for household
activities per day
including household perpergardening chores only household person
463.07463.0792.61
16.66
648.12248.12124.0622.31
970.54559.08111.8220.11
520.09252.22
126.6122.77
425.07385.0777.01
13.49
274.44274.44137.2224.03
864.15396.9879.40
13.90
452.87252.57126.2922.121127.24
723.91144.8224.67
502.88336.21
168.1128.64
1342.43684.1
136.8223.31
595.14331.81165.9128.26
598.31598.31
119.6622.45
281.80281.80140.9026.44
1631.56
631.56126.3123.70
700.86300.86150.4328.22
1045.79705.79141.1622.23
451.89331.89165.9526.13
1731.66
838.32167.6626.40
720.89365.33182.6728.77
1234.97634.94126.9920.85
536.17336.17168.0927.60
1524.13661.63132.3321.73
742.15375.48187.7430.82
1053.24606.24121.2520.87
431.32239.89119.9520.64
1328.12646.4
129.2822.25
627.93316.21
158.11
27.21

Overall average
per person
per dayforforseason location
19.49 20.46
21.44
18.76 18.39
18.01
26.66 26.22
25.79
24.45 25.20
25.96
24.18 25.88
27.59
24.23 25.25
26.28
20.76 22.74
24.73

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

23

Table 2.26: Percent difference in the amount of water used by households between wet and dry
seasons and between days of the week
Household activities Percent differencein the amount ofwater used during
weekdays andweekends in thewet season
Drinking
44.7
Bathing
8.4
Cooking +1.7
cleaning utensils
Cleaning house-8.3
Washing clothes
15.0
Gardening
52.5
Mean
22.8

2.3.8

Percent differencein the amount ofwater used during
weekdays between
weekends in the dry
season
43.7
7.5
1.7

Percent differencein the amount ofwater used between
weekends between
the dry and wet
seasons
3.4
2.8
3.0

Percent differencein the amountof water used between
weekdays andthe dry and wet seasons

-1.7
3.6
62.8
23.52

9.3
65.5
7.1
18.22

17.1
49.1
14.3
17.6

2.3
2.0
3.0

Time taken to draw water

The respondents (77%) indicated that there are differences in the amount of time taken to draw
water in the dry season compared to the wet season (Table 2.27). About 74% indicated that time
taken to draw water also differs at different times of the day (Table 2.28). In Table 2.29, 62% felt thattime taken to draw water affects amount of water drawn while 56% indicated that time taken to fetch
water does not affect other livelihood activities (Table 2.30). Nevertheless, various sentiments andactions were mentioned with respect to the effect of time taken to fetch water as reported in Table
2.31. A combined 42% indicated they do not have a choice but to spend time at water points due toscarcity of water and having no other alternatives.
Table 2.27: Proportion indicating whether the amount of time to draw water differs between dry andwet seasonsDifferences in time
taken to draw water
YES
NO
Total

Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Household location
Dzenza
40
88.9
5
11.1
45
100.0

Mchezi
38
84.4
7
15.6
45
100.0

Ngwenya
34
72.3
13
27.7
47
100.0

Mtsiriza
35
76.1
11
23.9
46
100.0

Total
Kauma
22
76.1
11
23.9
46
100.0

Lumbadzi
37
82.2
8
17.8
45
100.0

206
76.9
62
23.1
268
100.0

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

24

Table 2.28: Proportion of respondents indicating whether time taken to draw water differs at different
time of the day
Whether time taken to draw
water differs within the day
YES
NO
Total

Count
Column %Count
Column %Count
Column %Household location
Dzenza
42
93.3
3
6.7
45
100.0

Mchezi
33
73.3
12
26.7
45
100.0

Ngwenya
34
72.3
13
27.7
47
100.0

Mtsiriza
34
73.9
12
26.1
46
100.0

Total
Kauma
25
62.5
15
37.5
40
100.0

Lumbadzi
29
64.4
16
35.6
45
100.0

197
73.5
71
26.5
268
100.0

Table 2.29: Proportion of respondents indicating whether time to draw water affects amount of water
drawn
Whether time to draw
water affects amountof water drawn
Yes
Count
All location %Location %NoCountAll location %Location %
Total
Count
All location %Location %Household location
Dzenza
31
18.6
68.9
14
13.9
31.1
45
16.8
100.0

Mchezi
30
18.0
66.7
15
14.9
33.3
45
16.8
100.0

Ngwenya
23
13.8
48.9
24
23.8
51.1
47
17.5
100.0

Mtsiriza
30
18.0
65.2
16
15.8
34.8
46
17.2
100.0

Total
Kauma
26
15.6
65.0
14
13.9
35.0
40
14.9
100.0

Lumbadzi
27
16.2
60.0
18
17.8
40.0
45
16.8
100.0

167
100.0
62.3
101
100.0
37.7
268
100.0
100.0

Table 2.30: Proportion of respondents indicating whether amount of time it takes to draw water
affects livelihood activities
Whether time todraw water affects
livelihood activities
Yes
Count
All location %Location %NoCountAll location %Location %
Total
Count
All location %Location %Household location
Dzenza
8
21.1
34.8
15
30.6
65.2
23
26.4
100.0

Mchezi
4
10.5
57.1
3
6.1
42.9
7
8.0
100.0

Ngwenya
2
5.3
18.2
9
18.4
81.8
11
12.6
100.0

Mtsiriza
10
26.3
52.6
9
18.4
47.4
19
21.8
100.0

Total
Kauma
7
18.4
50.0
7
14.3
50.0
14
16.1
100.0

Lumbadzi
7
18.4
53.8
6
12.2
46.2
13
14.9
100.0

38
100.0
43.7
49
100.0
56.3
87
100.0
100.0

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

25

Table 2.31: Some actions and explanations in dealing with the impact of time taken to draw water
Actions/ explanations
Just draw water Countat the well due All location %to congestion
Location %Reduce amount Countbecause water All location %source is very far Location %No choice, water Countis scarce during All location %the dry season Location %Given chance to Countdraw first coz
All location %he is a man
Location %Water source is Countnear so have time All location %to do other things Location %Borehole/ kiosk Count
only source ofAll location %safe,reliable waterLocation %Rotate withCount
children to draw All location %water
Location %Draw less water Count
due to sickness/ All location %old age than time Location %Draw amountCount
wantedAll location %Location %It is her duty to Countdraw water irres- All location %pective of time
Location %Draw less water Count
due to lack of
All location %money than time Location %
Total
Count
All location %Location %2.3.9

Dzenza
13
43.3
28.9
4
20.0
8.9
12
32.4
26.7
1
33.3
2.2
7
14.0
15.6
7
7.1
15.6

1
7.7
2.2

45
17.3
100.0

Mchezi
1
3.3
2.6
3
15.0
7.7
9
24.3
23.1

6
12.0
15.4
16
16.2
41.0
2
66.7
5.1
1
50.0
2.6
1
7.7
2.6

39
15.0
100.0

Household location
Ngwenya Mtsiriza Kauma
6
6
20.0
20.0
13.0
13.3
2
2
5
10.0
10.0
25.0
4.3
4.4
12.5
4
9
10.8
24.3
8.7
20.0

12
24.0
26.1
16
16.2
34.8

5
38.5
10.9
1
50.0
2.2

46
17.7
100.0

8
16.0
17.8
16
16.2
35.6
1
33.3
2.2

2
15.4
4.4
1
50.0
2.2

45
17.3
100.0

Total

12
24.0
30.0
20
20.2
50.0

Lumbadzi
4
13.3
8.9
4
20.0
8.9
3
8.1
6.7
2
66.7
4.4
5
10.0
11.1
24
24.2
53.3

1
50.0
2.5
1
7.7
2.5

3
23.1
6.7

1
100.0
2.5
40
15.4
100.0

45
17.3
100.0

30
100.0
11.5
20
100.0
7.7
37
100.0
14.2
3
100.0
1.2
50
100.0
19.2
99
100.0
38.1
3
100.0
1.2
2
100.0
0.8
13
100.0
5.0
2
100.0
0.8
1
100.0
0.4
260
100.0
100.0

Amount of effort taken to draw water

Tasks that require manual effort in drawing water may include walking, drawing, pumping andcarrying water. These require human energy and may affect performance of other livelihood activities.
Overall, 57% of the respondents indicated that the amount of effort it takes to draw water affects the

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

26

amount of water drawn (Table 2.32). Slightly above half of the respondents indicated that the effort
required drawing water affects other livelihood activities (Table 2.33). There are several strategicand opportunistic actions taken to contend with efforts required to draw water as reported in Table
2.34.
Table 2.32: Proportion indicating whether the amount of effort it takes to draw water affects theamount of water drawn
Effort to draw water andamount of water drawn
Yes

No

Total

Count
Row %
Column %
Count
Row %
Column %
Count
Row %
Column %Household location
Dzenza
21
16.7
60.0
14
14.9
40.0
35
15.9
100.0

Mchezi
20
15.9
57.1
15
16.0
42.9
35
15.9
100.0

Ngwenya
19
15.1
43.2
25
26.6
56.8
44
20.0
100.0

Mtsiriza
27
21.4
65.9
14
14.9
34.1
41
18.6
100.0

Total
Kauma
20
15.9
62.5
12
12.8
37.5
32
14.5
100.0

Lumbadzi
19
15.1
57.6
14
14.9
42.4
33
15.0
100.0

126
100.0
57.3
94
100.0
42.7
220
100.0
100.0

Table 2.33: Proportion indicating whether the amount of effort it takes to draw water affects livelihood
activities
Effort to draw waterand livelihood activities
Yes

No

Total

Count
Row %
Column %
Count
Row %
Column %
Count
Row %
Column %Household location
Dzenza
30
20.8
66.7
15
12.1
33.3
45
16.8
100.0

Mchezi
23
16.0
51.1
22
17.7
48.9
45
16.8
100.0

Ngwenya
22
15.3
46.8
25
20.2
53.2
47
17.5
100.0

Mtsiriza
21
14.6
45.7
25
20.2
54.3
46
17.2
100.0

Total
Kauma
26
18.1
65.0
14
11.3
35.0
40
14.9
100.0

Lumbadzi
22
15.3
48.9
23
18.6
51.1
45
16.8
100.0

144
100.0
53.7
124
100.0
46.3
268
100.0
100.0

In Table 2.35, respondents suggested several solutions to reducing drudgery associated with boththe time (Tables 2.27-2.31) and effort (Tables 2.32-2.34) required in drawing water. About 70% of the
respondents wanted water points constructed near their homesteads. Indeed, 14% suggested theprovision of running water in the homes.

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

27

Table 2.34: Proportion expressing constraints and different actions taken to contend with effort
required to draw water
Constraints and actions
No choice,draw watertill tired
Draw only
requiredamount of water
Water table low
dry season, no
choice, water
has to be drawn
Water source isnear, but has tobe carried
It is a duty todraw water irrespective ofamount of effort
Draw less water
due to physicaldisability
Difficult to draw
water during thewet season due
to mudShare the task
when there are a
lot of people toassistWater sourcevery far; water
has to be carried
the distance
Missing

Total

Count
Row %
Column %
Count
Row %
Column %
Count
Row %
Column %Dzenza
18
22.0
40.0
5
10.9
11.1
10
30.3
22.2

Mchezi
11
13.4
24.4
14
30.4
31.1
8
24.2
17.8

Household location
Ngwenya Mtsiriza
14
17
17.1
20.7
29.8
37.0
13
28.3
27.7
1
6
3.0
18.2
2.1
13.0

Kauma
16
19.5
40.0
5
10.9
12.5
1
3.0
2.5

Lumbadzi
6
7.3
13.3
9
19.6
20.0
7
21.2
15.6

82
100.0
30.6
46
100.0
17.2
33
100.0
12.3

Count
Row %
Column %
Count
Row %
Column %

1
2.8
2.2
3
14.3
6.7

1
2.8
2.2
2
9.5
4.4

11
30.6
23.4
4
19.0
8.5

9
25.0
22.5
1
4.8
2.5

6
16.7
13.3
6
28.6
13.3

36
100.0
13.4
21
100.0
7.8

Count
Row %
Column %
Count
Row %
Column %

1
33.3
2.2
2
100.0
4.4

1
33.3
2.2

1
33.3
2.1

Count
Row %
Column %

4
18.2
8.9

5
22.7
11.1

2
9.1
4.3

6
27.3
13.0

5
22.7
12.5

1
5.9
2.1

3
17.6
6.5

3
17.6
7.5

10
58.8
22.2

17
100.0
6.3

47
17.5
100.0

1
16.7
2.2
46
17.2
100.0

40
14.9
100.0

1
16.7
2.2
45
16.8
100.0

6
100.0
2.2
268
100.0
100.0

Count
Row %
Column %
Count
Row %
Column %
Count
Row %
Column %

1
16.7
2.2
45
16.8
100.0

3
50.0
6.7
45
16.8
100.0

8
22.2
17.4
5
23.8
10.9

Total

3
100.0
1.1
2
100.0
0.7
22
100.0
8.2

2.3.10 Water, health and sanitation
Incidences of water-borne diseases reported in the year are shown in Table 2.36. It is evident thatwells provide the most important source of water-borne diseases. There were no incidences of

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

28

diseases reported arising from use of water from kiosks. Overall, the incidence of water-borne
diseases appeared to be small. The respondents cited three principal ways of disposing of waterthat comes off from bathing, cleaning and washing. Eight percent of the respondents throw it into thetoilet, 10% use it to water lawns and fruit trees, while 82% just throw it into drainage channels aroundthe houses. It is this latter form of disposal of used water that provides unsanitary conditions andwater-borne vectors of diseases.
Table 2.35: Proportion indicating solutions to reducing drudgery associated with time and effort
expended on drawing water
Options to reducing
drudgery
Have another Countwater source Row %nearbyColumn %Given treadle Count
pump forRow %gardening
Column %Other women Countshould assist in Row %drawing water Column %
Have
Count
containers for Row %storing water Column %ProvideCount
running water Row %Column %Boreholes
Countshould beRow %maintained
Column %
Total
Count
Row %
Column %Dzenza
22
24.4
75.9
1
100.0
3.4
2
28.6
6.9
1
14.3
3.4
1
5.6
3.4
1
25.0
3.4
28
22.7
100.0

Mchezi
15
16.7
75.0

Household location
Ngwenya Mtsiriza
Kauma
13
14
11
14.4
15.6
12.2
72.2
82.4
50.0

1
14.3
5.0

1
5.6
5.0
3
75.0
15.0
20
15.6
100.0

2
28.6
11.1
3
16.7
16.7

18
14.1
100.0

1
14.3
5.9
2
28.6
11.8

2
28.6
9.1

9
50.0
40.9

17
13.3
100.0

22
17.2
100.0

Total
Lumbadzi
15
90
16.7
100.0
68.2
70.3
1
100.0
0.8
1
7
14.3
100.0
4.5
5.5
2
7
28.6
100.0
9.1
5.5
4
18
22.2
100.0
18.2
14.1
4
100.0
3.1
22
128
17.2
100.0
100.0
100.0

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

29

Table 2.36: The number of incidences and sources of water-borne diseases
Location
DzenzaMcheziNgwenya

Mtsiriza

Kauma

Lumbadzi

2.3.11

DiseaseDiarrhoea
Dysentery
CholeraMalaria
Diarrhoea
CholeraSkin
Diarrhoea
CholeraDysentery
Diarrhoea
CholeraSkin
Diarrhoea
CholeraMalaria
Skin
Diarrhoea
Cholera

River
1

1

1

Source of water
Boreholes
Wells
4
6
3
4
1
1
3
4
2
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
3
1
1
2

Total
11
3
4
1
4
4
3
1
1
1
6
1
2
7
1
1
1
4
3

Experience with rooftop rainwater harvestingRespondents were asked whether they have ever attempted to get rainwater form the roof. About 80%
had attempted to catch water from the roof catchments for various purposes or reasons as cited inTable 2.37. The 20% that had not attempted harvesting rainwater cited three reasons: (a) they did
not have a corrugated iron sheet roof; (b) they wanted better source of water rather than rainwater;and (c) they have other sources of water. Eighty eight percent of the respondents had drunk or used
rainwater and felt that rainwater is: cooler, safer, gets soapy faster, does not have chemicals andlighter than water from other sources. Others felt though that it is saltier (11.7%), bitter (9.6%) anddirtier (5.0%) than other sources (Table 2.38).

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

30

Table 2.37: Some reasons given for capturing rainwater
Reasons for rainwater
captureTo userainwater for
drinking
Wanted better
water

Count
All location %Location %Count
All location %Location %To useCountrainwater for
All location %bathing
Location %For domestic Countuse
All location %Location %To drink during Countdry season
All location %Location %To get waterCount
right from the All location %house
Location %BecauseCount
rainwater is
All location %clean
Location %To fetch more Countwater in a
All location %short time
Location %Borehole isCountvery far
All location %Location %To saveCount
money
All location %Location %To tasteCount
rainwater
All location %Location %
Total
Count
All location %Location %Household location
Dzenza
3
42.9
10.3
6
42.9
20.7
1
14.3
3.4
6
9.5
20.7
2
66.7
6.9
4
11.4
13.8
1
14.3
3.4
6
20.0
20.7

29
14.1
100.0

Mchezi

1
7.1
2.7
1
14.3
2.7
20
31.7
54.1

5
14.3
13.5

9
30.0
24.3
1
100.0
2.7

37
18.0
100.0

Ngwenya
1
14.3
2.3
4
28.6
9.3
2
28.6
4.7
9
14.3
20.9
1
33.3
2.3
2
5.7
4.7

6
20.0
14.0

17
44.7
39.5
1
100.0
2.3
43
20.9
100.0

Total

Mtsiriza
2
28.6
5.1

Kauma

Lumbadzi
1
14.3
4.2
3
21.4
12.5
1
14.3
4.2
5
7.9
20.8

1
14.3
2.6
16
25.4
41.0

1
14.3
2.9
7
11.1
20.6

11
31.4
28.2
2
28.6
5.1
1
3.3
2.6

11
31.4
32.4

4
13.3
11.8

2
5.7
8.3
4
57.1
16.7
4
13.3
16.7

6
15.8
15.4

11
28.9
32.4

4
10.5
16.7

39
18.9
100.0

34
16.5
100.0

24
11.7
100.0

7
100.0
3.4
14
100.0
6.8
7
100.0
3.4
63
100.0
30.6
3
100.0
1.5
35
100.0
17.0
7
100.0
3.4
30
100.0
14.6
1
100.0
0.5
38
100.0
18.4
1
100.0
0.5
206
100.0
100.0

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

31

Table 2.38: Proportion of respondents describing characteristics of rainwater compared to waterfrom other sources
Characteristics of rainwater
Rainwater iscooler thanborehole water
Rainwater is
dirty

Count
All location %Location %Count
All location %Location %Rainwater isCountsafer than water All location %from a well
Location %Both rain and Count
borehole water All location %are clear
Location %Rainwater gets Countsoapy fasterAll location %than borehole Location %RainwaterCount
doesn’t have All location %chemicals
Location %Rainwater isCount
more slippery All location %than borehole Location %water
Rainwater isCount
more bitter than All location %water from a
Location %borehole
Rain water is Countsaltier thanAll location %dambo water Location %Rain water is Count
lighter thanAll location %borehole water Location %
Total
Count
All location %Location %Dzenza
13
28.9
31.7
1
8.3
2.4
3
75.0
7.3
10
13.7
24.4

Mchezi
5
11.1
12.5
3
25.0
7.5

Total

1
2.50
2.4
6
14.3
14.3

Kauma
2
44
5.6
2
16.7
5.6
1
25.0
2.8
13
17.8
36.1
3
42.9
8.3
2
50.0
5.6
7
16.7
19.4

9
12.3
21.4

Lumbadzi
8
17.8
22.2
2
16.7
5.6

5
11.9
13.9

45
100.0
18.8
12
100.0
5.0
4
100.0
1.7
73
100.0
30.5
7
100.0
2.9
4
100.0
1.7
42
100.0
17.6

10
23.8
24.4

6
14.3
15.0

13
17.8
29.5
3
42.9
6.8
1
25.0
2.3
8
19.0
18.2

2
8.7
4.9

4
17.4
10.0

4
17.4
9.1

5
21.7
11.9

3
13.0
8.3

5
21.7
13.9

23
100.0
9.6

2
7.1
4.9

6
21.4
15.0
1
100.0
2.5
40
16.7
100.0

7
25.0
15.9

8
28.6
19.0

3
10.7
8.3

2
7.1
5.6

44
18.4
100.0

42
17.6
100.0

36
15.1
100.0

36
15.1
100.0

28
100.0
11.7
1
100.0
0.4
239
100.0
100.0

41
17.2
100.0

14
19.2
35.0
1
14.3
2.5

Household location
Ngwenya Mtsiriza
7
10
15.6
22.2
15.9
23.8
1
3
8.3
25.0
2.3
7.1

14
19.2
38.9

2.3.12 Storage tanks for rainwater
Respondents were shown colour pictures of four different types of storage tanks (brick, stone, plastic,
and drums) to evaluate suitability according to their perception. They were asked their preferredstorage tank (Table 2.39) and the advantages and disadvantages of each storage tank (Tables 2.402.43). Forty-four percent ranked brick tanks as the best; followed by 36.5% for plastic tanks, 10.8% forstone-walled (masonry) tanks and lastly, 8.5% for drums.

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

32

The main disadvantage cited for stone-walled tanks was need for money for cement and othermaterials. For brick tanks, they cited money as well and brick work that would need skills during
construction and to prevent mould growth. They feared damage and fire against plastic tanks while
dust was the main concern for containers and drums. For the various storage tanks, respondents
indicated that materials for construction of the tanks were readily within reach. The make of all tanks
appeared strong and durable and they provided opportunity for long storage of clean water.
Table 2.39: Ranking of type of storage tanks for rooftop rainwater harvestingType of tank
Rank forCount
masonry tank All location %Location %Rank forCount
plastic tanks All location %Location %Rank for brick Counttanks
All location %Location %Rank forCount
drum
All location %Location %
Total
Count
All location %Location %Dzenza
6
21.4
13.6
15
15.8
34.1
17
14.7
38.6
6
27.3
13.6
44
16.9
100.0

Mchezi
7
25.0
17.1
6
6.3
14.6
27
23.3
64.3
2
9.1
4.9
42
16.1
100.0

Household location
Ngwenya Mtsiriza
Kauma
8
1
3
28.6
3.6
10.7
17.0
2.2
7.9
12
24
18
12.6
25.3
18.9
25.5
53.3
47.4
20
19
15
17.2
16.4
12.9
42.6
42.2
39.5
7
1
2
31.8
4.5
9.1
14.9
2.2
5.3
47
45
38
18.0
17.2
14.6
100.0
100.0
100.0

Total
Lumbadzi
3
10.7
6.7
20
21.1
44.4
18
15.5
40.0
4
18.2
8.9
45
17.2
100.0

28
100.0
10.8
95
100.0
36.5
116
100.0
44.4
22
100.0
8.5
261
100.0
100.0

Table 2.40: Some perceived advantages and disadvantages of stone-walled tanks
Advantages
Can increase size in orderto store a lot of water
It is strong and durable
Stones are not too difficult
to find
Water can be stored fora long time
Safe and clean water
Missing value
Total

n
5

%
17.2

n
13

%
52.0

4
2

16.0
8.0

3.4

Disadvantages
Needs a lot of money
i.e. cement
Difficult to find stones
Requires a skilled technician
to construct
Missing value

16
3

55.2
10.3

1

6

24.0

3
1
29

10.3
3.4
100.0

Total

25

100.0

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

33

Table 2.41: Some perceived advantages and disadvantages of brick-walled tanks
Advantagesn%

Disadvantages

Can increase size in orderto store a lot of water
It is strong and durable

17

14.9

37

31.6

Bricks are not difficult to find
It is cheaper

34
1

29.8
0.9

Water can be stored for a
Safe and clean water

6
15

5.3
13.2

Missing value

4

3.5

Needs a lot of money for
31materials
Bricks will need to be
12plastered inside
Difficult to clean
12
Easily develop moulds after
26
some time
Doesn’t see any disadvantage 6
Requires a skilled technician 3
to construct
Reliable in rainy season
1
If not properly built it can1develop cracks
Can not be replaced
2
Missing value
8
Total
102

Total

114

100.0

n

%
30.4
11.8
11.8
25.5
5.9
2.9
1.0
1.0
2.0
7.8
100

Table 2.42: Some perceived advantages and disadvantages of plastic tanks
Advantagesn%

Disadvantagesn%

Can increase size in orderto store a lot of water
It is strong and durable
It is ready madeTanks are easily found
It is cheaper
Water can be stored fora long time
Plastic can not become rusty
Safe and clean water
Missing value
Total

1

1.1

Difficult to clean

4

5.7

19
2
9
11
7

21.5
2.2
10.1
12.4
7.9

Others can burn or damage it
Water become too hot to drink
It is very expensive
It can get punctured
Reliable in rainy season

42
7
8
1
1

60.0
10.0
11.4
1.4
1.4

13
24
3
89

14.6
27.0
3.4
100.0

Easily robbed
Missing value

2
5

2.9
7.1

Total

70

100.0

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

34

Table 2.43: Some perceived advantages and disadvantages of storage drums/containers
Advantages
Can increase size in orderto store a lot of water
Materials are easily found
It is cheaper
Safe and clean water
It is removable
Missing value
Total

n
4

%
25.0

Disadvantages
Difficult to clean

n
3

%
15.8

6
2
2
1
1
16

37.5
12.5
12.5
6.3
6.3
100.0

Dust can easily go inside
Metal tanks become rusty easily
It is very expensive
Missing value

11
3
1
1

57.9
15.8
5.3
5.3

Total

19

100

2.3.13 Investing in rainwater storage tanks
Ninety-four percent of the respondents indicated willingness to pay or invest in a rainwater storagetank. Amongst these, 82% opted to invest in kind rather than through cash outlay (Table 2.45).
Various in-kind investments were mentioned as reported in Table 2.46 but the most popular weremoulding bricks and providing manual labour. A similar trend of results was obtained when asked
whether they would be willing to invest in storage tanks as groups. Ninety three percent of the
respondents were willing to contribute in cash or in kind if the structures belonged to a group rather
than to individual households.
Table 2.44: Proportion indicating willingness to pay or invest in the rainwater storage tank for use by
the household
Whether can pay orinvest in storage tankYesNomissing

Total

Count
All location %Location %Count
All location %Location %Count
All location %Location %Count
All location %Location %Household location
Dzenza
44
17.5
97.8

1
20.0
2.2
45
16.8
100.0

Mchezi
42
16.7
93.3
1
9.1
2.2
2
40.0
4.4
45
16.8
100.0

Ngwenya
41
16.3
87.2
6
54.5
12.8

47
17.5
100.0

Mtsiriza
42
16.7
91.3
3
27.3
6.5
1
20.0
2.2
46
17.2
100.0

Total
Kauma
38
15.1
95.0
1
9.1
2.5
1
20.0
2.5
40
14.9
100.0

Lumbadzi
45
252
17.9
100.0
100.0
94.0
11
100.0
4.1
5
100.0
1.9
45
268
16.8
100.0
100.0
100.0

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

35

Table 2.45: Proportion indicating willingness to pay or invest in cash or in kind for rainwater storage tankMode of investment
In cashIn kindBoth cash
and kindMissing

Total

Count
All location %Location %Count
All location %Location %Count
All location %Location %Count
All location %Location %Count
All location %Location %Dzenza
2
5.4
4.4
40
18.5
88.9
2
50.0
4.4
1
20.0
2.2
45
17.2
100.0

Mchezi
5 10
13.5
11.4
37 33
17.1
84.1
1
25.0
2.3
2
40.0
4.5
44
17.2
100.0

Household location
Ngwenya Mtsiriza
Kauma
9
7
4
27.0
24.3
18.9
22.7
20.0
17.9
35
31
40
15.3
16.2
14.4
75.0
77.8
79.5
1
25.0
2.2
1
1
20.0
20.0
2.2
2.6
44
45
39
16.8
17.2
14.9
100.0
100.0
100.0

Total
Lumbadzi
37
10.8
8.9
216
18.5
88.9
4
100.0
1.5
5

100.0
14.1
100.0
82.4

100.0
1.9
45
17.2
100.0

262
100.0
100.0

Table 2.46: Some suggested means of investing in kind for rainwater storage tanks
Methods of investingin kind
Mould bricks
Count
All location %Location %Any duty
Count
assigned
All location %Location %Labour for
Count
digging, hauling All location %materials
Location %Cooking food CountAll location %Location %Provide landCount
for theAll location %construction
Location %Drawing water CountAll location %Location %Missing values CountAll location %Location %
Total
Count
All location %Location %Dzenza
22
35.5
52.4
4
10.8
9.5
9

3
27.3
7.1
3
50.0
7.1

1
20.0
2.4
42
18.9
100.0

Mchezi
10
16.1
26.3
6
16.2
15.8
19
20.7
50.0
3
27.3
7.9

38
17.1
100.0

Household location
Ngwenya Mtsiriza
4
6
6.5
9.7
12.1
17.6
10
8
27.0
21.6
30.3
23.5
15
17
16.3
18.5
45.5
50.0
1
9.1
3.0
1
1
16.7
16.7
3.0
2.9
1
1
14.3
14.3
3.0
2.9
1
1
20.0
20.0
3.0
2.9
33
34
14.9
15.3
100.0
100.0

Total
Kauma
10
16.1
29.4
5
13.5
14.7
16
17.4
47.1

1
14.3
2.9
2
40.0
5.9
34
15.3
100.0

Lumbadzi
10
16.1
24.4
4
10.8
9.8
18
19.6
43.9
4
36.4
9.8
1
16.7
2.4
4
57.1
9.8

41
18.5
100.0

62
100.0
27.9
37
100.0
16.7
92
100.0
41.4
11
100.0
5.0
6
100.0
2.7
7
100.0
3.2
5
100.0
2.3
222
100.0
100.0

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

36

2.4

Discussion

2.4.1

Sources of water and their development

In terms of access to water, 90% of respondents argued that water is a problem for their families
while about 38% indicated that other households do not have problem of access to water because:(a) they have their own wells, boreholes or running tap water; (b) they are near the water sources; or(c) they pay workers to draw water. The principal sources of water for the households were boreholes(32%) and kiosks (34%). Shallow wells were the alternative sources to either boreholes or kiosks.
There is heavy reliance by the urban population on the use of unimproved pit latrines which can
result in contamination of groundwater (Malawi Government, 2002). This has significant implications
on attempts at reducing the incidence of water borne diseases arising out of contamination ofshallow wells through seepage.
Overall, individuals have developed their own water points while a handful of water facilities weredeveloped by NGOs such as CPAR and Plan International, government and its institutions such as
the Lilongwe Water Board and MASAF. About 67% of the respondents indicated that local governancestructures (committees, chiefs, villagers) and individuals are responsible for operating and repairing
the water facilities. Malawi Government/UNDP (1993) reported that the planned optimum distancethat a woman should carry water is 500 metres. But as women have a particular obligation inmaintaining a continual supply of water, they have often been involved in providing time and resources
for the maintenance of boreholes and other water points.
About 94% of the respondents were willing to pay or contribute to development of additional water
sources. They cited a number of reasons for wanting to assist in this endeavour. Provision of freewater was cited by only 10 % of the respondents while reduction of congestion at water points andreduction of distance to travel to water sources were mentioned by more respondents. Overall, 77%of the respondents indicated that they do not pay for water services. The highest number of
respondents that pay for water services were recorded at Ngwenya and Mtsiriza. It was noted that at
Ngwenya, even those that have wells sell their water while at Mtsiriza, kiosks are the main water
selling points. Only about 30% were satisfied with provision of water services and another 31%
indicated that payment for water services affects the amount of water drawn for domestic use.
2.4.2

Labour for fetching water

The girl child draws the most water (68.7%) followed by the mother/wife (54.1%) and the boy child(29.1%). Overall, 57% of the respondents indicated that the amount of effort it takes to draw water
affects the amount of water drawn. Tasks that require manual effort in drawing water included
walking, drawing, pumping and carrying water. These require human energy and appeared to affectperformance of other livelihood activities. A major implication of labour constraint is the increased
burden on women who are already severely stressed with their manifold responsibilities and thelimited availability of affordable labour-saving technologies (Malawi Government/UNDP, 1993). For

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

37

the girl- or boy-child, and the girl in particular, it is the inordinate amount of time and energy taken
away from school activities that is detrimental to their well-being and life-long vocational development.
2.4.3

Water consumption and hygiene

In general, peri-urban populations sampled are using between 20.76 and 24.73 litres of water perperson per day. Slightly higher amounts are used in the dry season and during weekends. There wasa 23% increase in the amount of water used in the dry season compared to that used in the wet
season. When days of the week are compared, it is evident that there is an overall 18% increase in
the amount of water that is used during weekends compared to that used during weekdays. Substantive
increases in the amount of water used in the dry season comes from a 43-45% and 52-63% increasein the amount of water used for drinking and that used for gardening, respectively. During weekends
when compared to weekdays, increase in water use came from a 49-66% increase in the amount ofwater used for washing clothes. The lowest amounts are used at Dzenza and Mchezi locations. The
Malawi Government (2002) reported that per capita consumption for high income connections andfor public standpipes are about 100 and 25 litres per day, respectively.
The study showed that 80% of the respondents dispose wastewater haphazardly. This is in tandemwith studies that have shown that 75-95% of the population in towns where sanitation studies havebeen conducted had no access to adequate storm water drainage (Malawi Government, 2002).
This results in the pollution of local water sources and may contribute to the likelihood of waterborne
diseases. In this study, it was shown that wells provide the main source of water-borne diseases.
There were no incidences of diseases reported arising from use of water from kiosks. Overall, theincidence of water-borne diseases appeared to be small.
2.4.4

Potential of rooftop rainwater harvesting

About 80% had attempted to catch water from the roof catchments for various purposes or reasons.
The 20% that had not attempted harvesting rainwater cited three reasons: (a) they did not have a
corrugated iron sheet roof, (b) they wanted better sources of water rather than rainwater; and (c) they
have other sources of water. Eighty eight percent of the respondents had drunk or used rainwater andfelt that rainwater is cooler, safer, gets soapy faster, does not have chemicals and is lighter than waterfrom other sources. Other felt though that it is saltier (11.7%), bitter (9.6%) and dirtier (5.0%) thanother sources. These observations could be ascribed to contamination of roof surfaces or collection
receptacles used.
Respondents were shown colour pictures of four different types of storage tanks (brick, stone, plastic,
and drums) and were asked for their preferred storage tank and the perceived advantages anddisadvantages of each storage tank. Forty four percent ranked brick tanks as the best; followed by
36.5% for plastic tanks, 10.8% for stone-walled (masonry) tanks and lastly, 8.5% for drums. Ninety
four percent of the respondents indicated willingness to pay or invest in a rainwater storage tank.

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

38

Amongst these, 82% opted to invest in kind rather than through cash outlay. Various in-kind investments
were mentioned but the most popular were moulding bricks and providing manual labour.

2.5

Conclusion

This baseline study has shown that peri-urban populations sampled were using between 21 and 25
litres of water per person per day, most of which is fetched by the girl-child, adult females, and theboy-child. Slightly higher amounts of water are used in the dry season owing to increases in theamount of water used for drinking and that used for gardening, respectively. When water use duringdays of the week was compared, it was evident that more water is used during weekends comparedto that used during weekdays as a result of increase in the amount of water used for washing clothes.
Water for gardening and washing clothes can easily be harvested from roof catchments. It was foundthat peri-urban communities were willing to pay or contribute to development of additional water
sources; this was not necessarily to obtain free water, but to reduce the drudgery associated withlifting and fetching water from distant sources. The quality of rainwater for domestic use was appraisedfavourably and communities were willing to invest in water harvesting and storage endeavours.

Chapter Three
Construction of Rooftop Rainwater Harvesting Systems
3.1

Introduction

During the rainy season, a lot of water is generated from roof catchments, which goes to waste. This
amount of water can be harvested and stored in surface tanks for various uses. However, many
people who would like to harvest rainwater lack the resources and technical know-how to store it.
Tanks can be made of plastic or metal and can be constructed from bricks, cement, or stone. In
Malawi, nearly everyone makes bricks and therefore it represents a ready-made option. The choiceof a suitable tank size will depend on: (a) availability of funds; (b) amount of water required by thehousehold between rain seasons (consumption); (c) roof catchment area; (d) total seasonal rainfall;and (e) available materials and technology (Wanyonyi, 2004 ). It is noted that there is no need to havea tank capacity equal to the annual run-off volume from the roof catchment as water is being consumed
on a daily basis. To keep the tank from getting contaminated, it is recommended that tanks should belocated away from drainage from livestock, housing, bath or toilets.
The efficiency of any rainwater catchment depends to a great extent on the gutter and downpipes.
Qualified tinsmiths’ (or plumbers’) work is required to fix gutters for catchment and indeed,
maintenance of the architectural look of ready-built structures especially needs precise workmanship.
In planning and designing for integration of rooftop rainwater harvesting in existing infrastructure,
consideration will need to be placed on review of policies and ordinances that govern suchinfrastructure (Lazaro et al., 2000). Ultimately, high quality harvested water suitable for humanconsumption does justify more meticulous storage methods than for other use. Therefore, each kindof water harvest and the intended purpose must be taken into account when designing waterstorage facilities.
Elsewhere, experience has shown that unless beneficiaries contribute in some way towards theimplementation of activities in their communities, they do not identify with them, treat them as theirown and most importantly, do not maintain them (Mills, 2004). Contributions can take many forms
but the most favoured input is in the form of unskilled labour and the provision of locally available
construction materials.

39

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

40

3.2

Methodology

Roof catchments, location of tanks, bill of quantities, and community contribution were determinedand discussed with coordinators of centres. They in turn briefed their committees for their acceptanceof the same. Follow up meetings at each site were held with local leaders (chiefs, development
committee leaders, community-based organisation leadership) for sensitization on rainwater
harvesting technologies and they were informed about the project, using pictorial briefs prepared in
the local language and distributed.
Communities contributed to the project costs by providing local construction materials, namely riversand, quarry and bricks. They also provided labour for drawing water and identified their own local
builders to be trained by masons employed by the project. Construction protocols were modified
following those used by the Lilongwe Water Board and similar work detailed by the Kenya Rainwater
Association.
Roof catchment sizes and corresponding yield of water and bill of quantities were determined. But
based on the funds available, tanks containing only 50 m3 of water were designed for construction.
The tank at Lumbadzi was twice the size of other tanks constructed to contain about 100 m3 of water.
The centre voluntarily provided matching funds for the purpose. At Mchezi and Kauma, gutters weremade by local professional welders using flat iron sheets while at Lumbadzi, gutters were made from
PVC pipes by local carpenters. This was deliberate to compare and demonstrate expertise thatwould be required to make and erect the gutters. The rainwater harvesting systems were completed
at three locations, namely, Lumbadzi, Kauma, and Mchezi before the rains in October 2005.

3.3

Results

3.3.1

Location 1, Kauma: Kauma Orphan Support Initiative (Adziwa Ministry)

The centre has 15 houses in three rows of five and each with a roof size of about 72 m2. Three of thefive houses are adjacent to one another and the rainwater harvesting system was modelled on thesethree houses. The actual roof catchment size based on the three roof houses was 215.8 m2 with apotential yield of water in the quantity of 122 m3 as tabulated below.
Table 3.1: Roof catchment size and potential yield of water at Kauma
Tank size
Roof catchment area (m2)
Measured/ actual 215.8
Constructed
215.8

Volume of tank (m3 )
122.4
50

Radius of tank (m)
3.95
2.8

Height of tank (m)2.5
2.0

A 50-m3 brick storage tank was constructed and the approximate total costs incurred by the project
and the community are shown in Table 3.2. The tank required MK 248,218.12 or US$2,277.23. Thisis quite close to the figure of US$2,112.16 in the project support document or the estimate discussed

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

41

with communities. However, the community contributed 30 % of the project costs, which was higher
than the 21.4 % estimated. This was because the time for providing materials required for construction
work was very short and communities resorted to purchasing them rather than providing themthrough their collective labour. Gutters were constructed by experienced artisans out of flat metal
sheets. Pictorial elements of the work are shown in the following pages.
Table 3.2: Cost of construction of 50 m3 brick tank and guttering at Kauma
Item
Cost in MK
Contribution by project (based on 50 m3 tank)
Cement
71,500.00
Mesh in slabs
20,920.68
Reinforcement
9,525.94
Builders’ accessories
13,754.00
Roofing woodwork
7,775.00
Taps/ yard piping
6,902.50
Gutters/ materials
21,475.00
Gutters/ fixing
10,500.00
Labour for mason and handyman
11,965.00
Total
174,318.12

Item
Cost in MK
Contribution by beneficiary community
Bricks + transport
14,000.00
River sand + transport
24,000.00
Poles
900.00Quarry stone+ transport
18,000.00
Labour
17,000.00

Total

73,900.00

Overall total = MK 248,218.12
Estimated total= MK 230,673.80
Overall total US$ (at US $1 = MK109) = 2,277.23

3.3.2

Location 2, Mchezi: RECAPO Orphan Care Centre

Construction of the brick storage tank was sited at the house belonging to the coordinator for theorphan care centre. The house is used as the nerve centre for coordination of activities of thiscommunity-based organisation known as RECAPO. The amount of roof area determined was 182.6
m2 with a potential yield of 125 m3 of rainwater as tabulated below.
Table 3.3: Roof catchment size and potential yield of water at Mchezi
Tank size
Determined
Constructed

Roof catchment area (m2)
182.57182.57

Volume of tank (m3 )124.8850

Radius of tank (m)
4.46
2.8

Height of tank (m)2.5
2.0

A 50-m3 brick storage tank was constructed and the approximate total costs incurred by the project
and the community are shown in Table 3.4. The tank required MK226,718.12 or US$2,079.98. Thisis quite close to the figure of US$2,112.16 in the project support document or the estimate discussedwith communities. The community contributed 23 % of the project costs which was closer to the21.4 % estimated. At this location as well, the time available for providing materials required forconstruction work was very short, so the communities resorted to purchasing them rather than

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

42

providing them through their collective labour. Gutters were constructed by experienced artisans outof flat metal sheets. Pictorial elements of the work are shown in figures 3.1-3.4.
Table 3.4: Cost of construction of 50 m3 brick tank and guttering at Mchezi
Item
Cost in MK
Contribution by project (based on 50 m3 tank)
Cement
71,500.00
Mesh in slabs
20,920.68
Reinforcement
9,525.94
Builders’ accessories
13,754.00
Roofing woodwork
7,775.00
Taps/ yard piping
6,902.50
Gutters/ materials
21,475.00
Gutters/ fixing
10,500.00
Labour for mason and handyman
11,965.00
Total
174,318.12

Item
Cost in MK
Contribution by beneficiary community
Bricks + transport
15,900.00
River sand + transport
5,100.00
Dambo sand+ transport
6,600.00
Quarry stone+ transport
7,800.00
Labour
17,000.00

Total

52,400.00

Overall total = MK 226,718.12
Estimated total= MK 230,673.80
Overall total US$ (at US $1 = MK109) = 2,079.98

3.3.3

Location 3, Lumbadzi: Mtendere Orphan Care Centre (Blessings Hospital)

There are 25 houses in three rows of eight each housing 12 children at this centre. A storage tank
was constructed midway between two houses. The total roof catchment size based on two houses
was 175 m2 with a potential yield of water in the amount of 120 m3 as tabulated below.
Table 3.5: Roof catchment size and potential yield of water at Lumbadzi
Tank size
Roof catchment area (m2) Volume of tank (m3 )Measured/ actual 175.04
119.73
Constructed
175.04119.73Radius of tank (m)
4.365
4.365

Height of tank (m)2.0/2.32
2.0

A 100-m3 brick storage tank was constructed to drain two houses and the approximate total costs
incurred by the project and the centre are shown in Table 3.6. The tank required MK364,505.55 or
US$3,344.09. This is slightly lower than the estimated figure of MK391,412.40 or US$3,590.94 in the
project support document or presented to the centre. The centre contributed 35.6 % of the project
costs, which was matching funds to the project’s contribution which was equal to the cost of a 50 m3
tank calculated at MK 230,673.80. At this location, the owner provided matching funds to construct
a 100-m3 tank. Gutters were constructed out of PVC pipes. The pipes required accessories such as
elbows, stoppers and others for installation use so as to remove the need for bending and welding ofgutters made out of sheet metal. Pictorial elements of the work are shown in figures 3.9-3.12.

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

43

Table 3.6: Cost of construction of 119.73 m3 brick tank and guttering
Item
Contribution by project (based on
50 m3 tank)
CementMesh in slabs
Reinforcement
Builders’ accessories
Roofing woodwork
Taps/ yard piping
Gutters/ materials
Gutters/ fixing
Labour for mason and handyman
Total

Cost in MK

Item
Cost in MK
Contribution by beneficiary community

71,500.00
41,841.36
19,051.88
13,754.00
15,550.00
13,805.00
30,433.31
5,000.00
23,930.00
234,865.55

BricksSand
Quarry stone
CementLabour

18,000.00
5,000.00
24,000.00
65,000.00
17,640.00

Total

129,640.00

Overall total = MK 364,505.55
Estimated total = MK 391,412.40
Overall total US$ (at US$1 = MK109) = 3,344.09

3.4

Discussion

3.4.1

Construction works

The brick work was ably accomplished by local builders after training them and using materials
sourced locally as community contribution to the project. There was a need, however, to criticallymake sure that the bricks used were of high quality to provide the needed structural strength required
for storage of water.
The placement of gutters, while it appeared simple, provided a unique challenge as ably articulated
by local artisans. The most critical challenges for both iron sheet and PVC piped gutters was toprovide the necessary slope to carry roof runoff away without water standing in the gutter. It wasobserved that most houses, including the ones in the project, were constructed without theconsideration of gutters in terms of roof shape (protrusions and roof height), lengths, and direction ofslope. Placement of gutters was therefore a challenge wherein the right slope had to be maintained
without loosing facial outlook or beauty of the original structures. The study further found out thatshaping and placement of PVC gutters was simpler than for iron sheet gutters.
3.4.2

Construction costs

At all locations, the work was completed without setbacks arising from failure by the recipients toprovide construction materials. However, there were delays in receiving initial materials from recipientsto start construction. Further, because of the time remaining before the onset of the rains, communities

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

44

resorted to buying materials such as bricks or quarry, instead of making them. This added to the cost
incurred by the communities.
The cost of erecting gutters inclusive of materials and labour was K175.14 and K202.43 per m2 ofroof catchment area for metal and PVC gutters, respectively. In terms of cost of erecting the entire
water harvesting system, the cost for each were MK248,218.12 or US$2,277.23 for Kauma, MK
226,718.12 or US$2,079.98 for Mchezi, and MK364,505.55 or US$3,344.09 for Lumbadzi. Alternatively,
the costs per m3 of water were US$33.45 for Lumbadzi, US$41.59 for Mchezi and US$45.55 for
Kauma, respectively. The beneficiaries contributed 23% and 30% of the cost at Mchezi and Kauma,
respectively, compared to an estimated contribution of 21.4%. At Lumbadzi, the centre contributed
35.6% of the cost as matching funds.
In Kenya at Laikipia, where a cost-sharing approach was used, self-help groups were contributing
40% to the cost of erecting 6 m3 ferrocement tanks which was equivalent to 27,000 Kenyan shillings
or US$386 per tank or US$64 per m3 of water (Mbugua, 2003). However, the total cost per 6 m3 tank
was US$915 or US$154 per m3 of water. Based on simple calculations using these Kenyan figures,to construct a 50 m3 would cost US$7,625. In Tigray, Ethiopia, in 2003 as well, brick tanks of 10 m3
capacity cost US$259.34 to construct (Mills, 2004). Again, based on simple extrapolation, this would
translate to US$25.9 per m3 of stored water or US$1,297 for a 50 m3 tank.
In Malawi, a few demonstration brick tanks of 4 m3 were built by the Department of Land Resources
Conservation in 2003 at US$636.36 each without community contribution (Nthara, pers.
communication). Extrapolating from these figures, it would cost US$8,750 to construct a 50 m3 tank.

3.5

Conclusion

The construction of storage tanks for rooftop rainwater harvesting was accomplished using local
artisans and cost-sharing partnerships with grassroots’ structures running orphan care centres inperi-urban areas of Lilongwe City. Technical expertise in the brick work was ably transferred to the
local builders. The construction and placement of gutters was also accomplished using local
artisans. However, because of lack of designing for gutters in most housing and corporate structures,
it will be advisable to use experienced artisans lest harvesting runoff drainage through gutters proves
too challenging. The work will contribute to laying down standard procedures of construction as wellas techniques of erecting and positioning various sections of the tank and gutters.

Chapter FourFinancial Analysis of Rooftop Rainwater Harvesting
Systems
4.1

Introduction

This section illustrates several steps that have been taken in the process of project financial analysis.
The Economic Cost-Benefit Analysis was not carried out because of insufficient national numçraire(unit of account) for determination of the shadow prices for commodities; a very important aspectin evaluating economic project worth. The project focused mainly on one consumer group (lowincome communities/ orphanages) as communal water points. Under this section the following
have been discussed:
1. Analysis of present water consumption (before implementation)
2. Determination of water demand
3. Financial Cost-Benefit Analysis.
Data used in the analysis were derived from the questionnaires that were given to the concerned
communities; from the Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development, and from the Lilongwe Water
Board. The 2005 populations at the orphanages were used to further formulate and design thisproject. No demographic projection was carried out because they are community-based institutions.
Instead a 5% population increase has been considered for the design horizon of five years from 2005
to 2010. Further data in the analysis were based on information collected from the following sources:
1. Ministry of Community Services and Social Welfare
2. Lilongwe Water Board
3. Site visits
4. Socio-Economic Survey data by the Project Team.
Without the Water Harvesting Project in the target areas of study, the quality and quantity of water
sources do not meet required standards. This report has utilised the savings made by the Lilongwe
Water Board and the benefits from boreholes and wells accruing to the beneficiary communities
within the project.
All prices are expressed in constant values of the base year, 2005. The currency is Malawi Kwacha(MK) based on an exchange rate of 1 Euro = MK 152. The project lifetime was put at five years
because of the sizes of the brick wall tanks; year 2010 being the last year when benefits and costs

45

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

46

due to the project are expected to accrue. The tanks were downsized in order to cut costs but ofcourse be able to exert the necessary impact to the affected communities.

4.2

Analysis of Volume and Cost of Present Demand

4.2.1

Present water consumption

In the analysis of volume and cost of present demand, this report has considered a random samplingof the current set up in the area in question. The principal sources of water for the orphanages andsurrounding households are boreholes (32%) and Lilongwe Water Board’s water kiosks (34%).
Other sources of water are wells and rivers and account for the remainder. Detailed data for thepresent consumption, according to the survey, shows that it is 22.74 litres per capita per day (lpcd).
The consumption was estimated on the basis of daily quantities of water collected from specificsources. In the second step, estimate was collected for number of days and months the sourceswere not used. The normal estimated demand for non-connected households for the purposes ofthis report is 30 litres per capita per day (lpcd) and the average household size is six.
4.2.2

Present cost of supply

A larger percentage of all the orphanages and households around them obtain water from alternative
sources other than Lilongwe Water Board piped water. The costs relate to collecting time, cash
expenditure for expensive water, investments in wells, medication and death costs due to water
borne diseases are also high.
The average collecting time per household is a minimum of 30 minutes per trip or pail and theaverage consumption per household is 150 litres per day. It thus takes a household in excess of threehours per day to collect 0.15 m3 of water. The value of time is estimated on the basis of the observed
wage rate for unskilled labour in construction works pegged at MK12 per hour in the project area.
The cash expenditure for water obtained from kiosks, neighbours and wells constitute a major partof the supply cost. These households obtain water from their neighbours at high prices, in extreme
cases at MK3.00/pail (works out to MK150/m3) as opposed to MK47/m3 at LWB source.
The investment cost for alternative sources range from MK5,000.00 for shallow wells to MK
500,000.00 for motorised boreholes. The cost of storage facilities in this part of the city is MK
6,000.00 per 200-litre plastic container at Lilongwe Urban Market.
Table 4.1 depicts the present supply cost of water from the most important alternative sources as
they are used by both connected and non-connected households and orphanages. Also shown isthe proportion of water obtained from that source as a percentage of total water consumed.

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

47

Table 4.1: Present supply cost of water from the most important alternative sources as they are usedby both connected and non-connected households
Facility
Lilongwe Water Board
Wells/Boreholes
Total / Average

Water consumed
(%)
34%
66%
100%

Financial demand price (MK)/ m3
SourceStorage
Total
47
106
153
100
106
206
74
106
180

The financial demand price of water obtained from wells and neighbours is approximately MK206/
m3 while the financial demand price for water obtained from LWB piped water supply is MK153/ m3.
Thus, the weighted average financial demand price is MK180/m3.

4.3

Water Demand Forecast

4.3.1

Introduction

The population that would be saved by the project in the year 2005 is illustrated in Section 2.3. The
project supply capacity is projected to be 300m3. Benefits are expected to accrue from 2005 to 2006.
It is important to note that in this project, the roof area as catchment has mainly determined thecapacity of the tank because the actual demand surpassed the roofing capacity to catch rainwater.
Therefore, the pilot project aims at empowering people and transfer of knowledge, and it may only
offset a maximum demand of 20% during the dry season (tank water would be used for drinking only
during the dry season) and 100% during the rainy season (tank may get filled anytime). For the
purpose of evaluation the cost-benefit analysis, 80% of the project water is considered conservative.
The rest of the demand will still be met by the other sources.
4.3.2

Population coverage

The population in the service area (4,172 people in 2005) is expected to grow at an average annual
rate of 5%, over the five years due to expansion of the orphanages. The population is expected toincrease to 7440 by the year 2010. Demographic increase of population of the orphanages has notbeen considered as their growth is basically dependent on the operators. Therefore a rate of increaseof 5% (Lilongwe Water Board rate of increase for institutions) has been employed.
Table 4.2.: Population projections for the service area served by project
Population growth rate
Population at and around the orphanages
Coverage
Population served with project

Unit%
Persons%
Persons

Year 2005
4,172
75
3,129

Year 2010
5
7,440
75
5,580

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

48

4.3.3

Demand without project

Existing consumers
Without the project, the water supply systems will be maintained and operated at a level that isrequired to continue providing the existing level of service. In the absence of the country economic
indices, this report only considers the rise of price of water per year of 20%. The total per capita
demand of water of 30 lpcd in 2005 will be maintained because there is no inducement for an
increase.
Consumers of water from other sources
The relevant data is presented in Table 4.3. In the ‘without project’ demand projection, the focus ison the without-project demand for water obtained from other (than rainwater harvesting tanks) sources
for the portion of population that will be supplied as a result of the project. It is the consumption ofwater from other sources that will be displaced as a result of the project. The number of new
consumers is obtained by deducting the existing population served (Table 4.3) from the targeted
population to be served. Ultimately, 5,580 additional consumers will benefit from the project in 2010.
Table 4.3: Demand for water without project
Without Project
Persons served
Increase in per capita demand
Total per capita demand
Per capita rainwater consumption
Per capita water consumption (other source)
Total rainwater consumption
Total water consumption (other sources)
Total water consumption (rainwater + other sources)

4.3.4

Unit
Person
%
lpcd
lpcd
lpcd
m3
m3
m3

Year 2005
3,129
0
30
0
15
0
47
47

Year 2010
5,580
0
30
0
15
0
84
84

Demand with the project

According to Engineering Studies and Water Services Sector Study (carried out by COWIconsult andNORCONSULT in 1994) the standard consumption levels for low-income high density areas in
Lilongwe City range from 40 – 60 lpcd. This report recommends an average of 40 lpcd (based on
similar orphanage set up in other supplied low-income areas).
In accordance with the report quoted above, the per capita water demand is expected to increase
moderately in a linear direction from 15 lpcd before the project in 2005 to 40 lpcd by 2010. After 2010
no further per capita demand increase is expected.

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

49

Table 4.4: Demand for water with projectWith Project
Persons served
Increase in per capita demand
Total per capita demand
Per capita rainwater consumption
Per capita water consumption (other source)
Total rainwater consumption
Total water consumption (other sources)
Total water consumption (rainwater + other sources)

4.3.5

Unit
Person
%
lpcd
lpcd
lpcd
m3
m3
m3

Year 2005
3,129
15
30
22.5
7.5
70.4
23.47
93.87

Year 2010
5,580
30
40
30
10
167.4
55.8
223.5

Consumers base and project water consumption

Since the financial demand price of water from wells and boreholes is above the price of utilising
rainwater, and since supplies of piped water are constrained, the rainwater-harvesting project is
expected to replace a bigger proportion of water previously obtained from other sources. The demand
forecast has assumed that a bigger proportion of water from other sources (apart from rainwater) will
be replaced, which is the difference between the ‘with-project’ and the ‘without-project’ consumption.

4.4

Financial Cost–Benefit Analysis

4.4.1

Project revenues

The project water has been converted into equivalent financial revenues had the water been from
Lilongwe Water Board. All other data needed to calculate the financial revenues (i.e., the projectwater sold, tariffs and connections) stem from previous inclusion of infraction. From year 2005
onwards, very few influences arising from the project have been projected and hence are minimal.
Table 4.5: Project financial revenues per year
Project water soldProject water sold/day
Tariff
Project revenues from sales
Total project Revenues

4.4.2

Unit
m3
MK/m3
MK’000
MK’000Year 2005
25,69681
2,081.38
2,081.38

Year 2010
61,101
117
7,148.82
7,148.82

Tariff assumptions, investments, operation and maintenance

The following tariff assumptions were assumed:
1. Full cost recovery for the system installation..
2. All customers in the project area will fall within the tariff category of domestic customers.
3. An average tariff of the first two bands of the domestic tariff category has been used.

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

50

4. The tariff adjustment has been based on changes in the level of inflation at 20% annuallyfrom the current base rate onwards to the end of the project period.
In terms of investment, the cost of the chosen mode of harnessing rainwater includes metallic
roofing, gutters, down pipes, brick tank and physical contingencies. These items were calculated at
10 % of the project cost sub total. Thus, the initial project cost is estimated to be MK237,468.12 (theaverage cost of one 50 m3 tank) and this report is based on the product of six sites, the amount of
which would be MK1,424,808.72. The investment costs assumed 100% disbursement during 2005.
In the absence of the national adjustment factors to transform the financial values to economic
values that reflect the difference between financial and economic values, the assessment of previous
similar structures has demonstrated that the operation and maintenance cost regimes of the tanks
are as follows (expressed as a age of the total project investment): labour (0.05 %); chlorine forpurification (0.07 %); and other materials (0.9 %) throughout the life of the facility. An adjustment forincrease of the price of labour has been made. The wages have been assumed to increase by 20%
on income per annum, in line with inflation.

4.5

Conclusion

The data for calculating Financial Investment Rate of Return (FNPV) and Financial Net Present
Value (FIRR) are presented in the Table 4.6. The project costs are deducted from the project
revenues on an annual basis to estimate the net present cash flow of the project.
The Financial Investment Rate of Return (FIRR) of 48% is well above the 22.5 % borrowing rate, anda positive Financial Net Present Value (FNPV) of MK 12 million by 2010, with a payback of 6.7
months, which is much less than five years (Project Lifetime), indicate that the project is financially
viable.
An NGO/CBO that would like to invest in safe water in any low income community that is not provided
with municipal water can exploit this technology and realise the maximum benefits of the investment.

Discounted Payback Period
FIRR (Financial Internal Rateof Return)

Assumed Savings
Net cash flow
NPV Factors @ 22.5%
NPV @ 22.5%

Total project benefits

LabourChemicals
Other O&M materials
Total O&M
Total Expenditure

Operation and maintenance

DESCRIPTION
Investment
Initial Investment
10% Contingencies
Total Initial Investment%
48%

Months

MK
Fig.
MK

6.70

2,081,380.00
514,090.41
1.00
514,090.41

1,567,289.59

1,424,808.72
142,480.87
1,567,289.59

MK
MK
MK

MK
MK
MK
MK
MK

Year 2005

Unit

Table 4.6: Financial cost–benefit analysis-

2,204,220.00
2,188,233.65
0.82
1,786,313.18

783.64
1,097.10
14,105.61
15,986.35
15,986.35

Year 2006-

3,427,060.00
3,407,876.38
0.67
2,270,971.35

940.37
1,316.52
16,926.73
19,183.62
19,183.62

Year 2,007.00-

4,649,900.00
4,626,879.65
0.54
2,516,981.00

1,128.45
1,579.83
20,312.07
23,020.35
23,020.35

Year 2008-

5,872,740.00
5,845,115.58
0.44
2,595,665.64

1,354.14
1,895.79
24,374.49
27,624.42
27,624.42

Year 2009-

7,148,820.00
7,115,670.70
0.36
2,579,499.20

1,624.97
2,274.95
29,249.39
33,149.30
33,149.30

2010

12,263,520.78

25,384,120.00
23,697,866.36

5,831.57
8,164.20
104,968.28
118,964.05
1,686,253.64

1,424,808.72
142,480.87
1,567,289.59

Total

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES
51

Chapter Five
Evaluation of Performance of Rooftop Rainwater
Harvesting Systems and Framework for Scaling up
5.1

Introduction

The key to unlocking Malawi’s water potential is enabling users of all types and stakeholders toundertake new initiatives by lessening or removing constraints to increased access to water. This
may require that policies and water provision mechanisms and technologies are appropriate forusers’ needs; that dissemination mechanisms for the same are broadened, and that water provision
mechanisms and technologies are realistic in terms of inputs and costs. Indeed, oblivious of various
financing mechanisms, there is often the overemphasis on cost of technology. This report highlights
various financing mechanisms to aid farmers to access the rainwater harvesting technologies apartfrom the community contributory approach used in this project.
Further, it is noted that in planning and designing rainwater harvesting, consideration should beplaced on existing policies and ordinances that govern various land-use practices and infrastructuredevelopment (Lazaro et al., 2000). Yet, present water policy documents and frameworks of the
Malawi Government such as the Strategic Plan for the Ministry of Water Development (2003-2006),
Water Policy of 2005 (which is a revision of the 1994 and 2000 policies), the Water Resources Act(1969), all remain inexplicit on water harvesting. The work reported herein and other works remain
persuasive pieces of evidence to argue for policy and institutional reviews towards garnering thisimportant water resource.
It is also noted that water resources issues touch on the interests of many people and institutions.
This project attempts to model processes that will enrich the planning of water and sanitation
programmes and projects with rainwater harvesting components. Based on these observations,project activities towards synthesizing a framework for scaling up rooftop rainwater harvesting wereassessed.

5.2

Methodology

A questionnaire was prepared and administered to six individuals (three women and three men), at
Kauma and Mchezi orphan care centres. A check-list of questions was also prepared andadministered to two key informants, namely, the coordinators and a committee member of the52

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

53

centres, respectively. The check-list was also administered to a focus group for discussion. The
study evaluated the project based on methods used elsewhere using criteria that include: suitabilityof the technology, required maintenance and operational skills, environmental and health impacts,
and cost. The study also invited stakeholders that included: policy makers, NGOs, CBOs, institutions,civil society and others for an exhibition tour and assessment of the project using a different formatof the same evaluation criteria. The stakeholders scored on a scale of 1-5, each evaluation criterion
against a narrative by the beneficiaries and iterative exchange between the two, and their own
informed judgement.

5.3

Results

5.3.1

Adequacy of water

At Mchezi, the beneficiaries indicated that they started drawing water from the tank in May 2006.
Water was being drawn for use at the orphan care centre only. In August, the tank was open to allother users. Each household was allowed two 20-litre pails per day. The water lasted till the second
week of October 2006. At Kauma, the beneficiaries started drawing water in September 2006 andthe water lasted for only six weeks. Each household was allowed up to five 20-litre pails per day. All
beneficiaries indicated that the water was barely sufficient for their household needs although theymostly had stopped drawing water from other sources. To make up for any deficits, they drew waterfrom the river and wells since there was very little flow at the boreholes and kiosk. During the rains,
the beneficiaries drew water from the overflow when the tanks filled-up. They were not allowed to
draw water from the tanks through the tap. The beneficiaries were asked whether they thought it waspossible to get more water from the rain having seen the rainwater harvesting system that was
installed. The most interesting response was from Mchezi where it was suggested that gutters be
installed on other roofs and be connected to the tank that had been built. This had been done at
Kauma.
5.3.2

Requirements for operation and maintenanceThe beneficiaries indicated that the tap for the tank at Kauma needed replacement because it had
clogged due to accumulation of waste material. They were able to replace it because there was aspare tap bought by the centre. At Mchezi, the tank wall developed a crack. The users were able torepair the crack after contributing funds for purchase of sealant/cement. It was learnt that the tank at
Kauma filled up once while the one at Mchezi filled up three times. They effectively used the overflow
by capturing it in drums. When asked whether there were any problems faced by women, the aged
or disabled, or any member of the community in ability to draw water from the tank, the beneficiaries
indicated that none of the members had experienced any problems.

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

54

5.3.3

Permanence of structure and risk of failure

The beneficiaries were asked about the ease of work and durability of the brick and mortar tankduring and following construction. Their responses are captured in Table 5.1. In general; they feltthat the systems were well constructed given that reinforcement steel was used in the foundation andtank wall. There were also problems articulated that included concern for the environmental impacts
from use of fuelwood to cure bricks.
Table 5.1: Evaluation of the construction and performance of brick tanks
Positive elements

Problems

1. Bricks locally made and cheap
2. Tank was built strong and looked beautiful

1. Burnt bricks require fuelwood for curing
2. Bricks absorb water and can lead to break down oftank if not well constructed
3. Requirement of hard and strong bricks difficult to attain

3. Water is clean
4. Short period of time to construct

In terms of operational risks, the users were asked if they ever thought the gutters, taps and tank could
breakdown while collecting or storing water. Those that thought so felt that pressure of water could
destroy the tank while others indicated that they were used to seeing underground storage tanks forwater. Those that did not think of breakdown felt that the reinforcements in the foundation and tankwall were adequate to maintain structural integrity of the tank. They had no contingency plans
except for reverting back to other sources of water and the constructors if a breakdown were tooccur.
5.3.4

Environmental and health impacts

Beneficiaries were asked whether the rooftop rainwater harvesting system had any impact on water
conservation and management. They felt that: (a) the system reduced runoff and soil erosion; (b) thesystem captured rainwater which could otherwise go to waste; and (c) since the tank is covered, thesystem provides water that is less contaminated and safer. The beneficiaries used the water for (a)washing, (b) cleaning house, (c) bathing, and (d) cooking. At Mchezi, they used the water for drinking
as well after treating it with chlorine at a rate of one teaspoon per 20 litres of water. They stated thatrainwater was different from other types of water in the following ways: (a) less soap is used; (b) notsalty; (c) lighter to the taste and feel; and (d) uses less energy for cooking than other water. There
were no incidences of illness arising from use of water from the tanks.
5.3.5

Costs of construction and maintenance

When asked whether the rainwater harvesting system was worth the investment or effort, beneficiaries
indicated that it was worthwhile and cited that: (a) they had averted using unsafe water from the wells
and river and water scarcity during dry months; (b) orphan children benefited from the water as theSMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

55

nursery school used to be closed during the dry months; and, (c) the facility had lessened the
distance to fetch water in view of old age of some of the users. The beneficiaries felt that thecontribution by the community or centre was reasonable or affordable. They indicated that, in fact,
their contribution of brick, mortar and labour, was far less compared to the total cost of the project.
They were willing to pay or contribute to the maintenance cost of the systems constructed as personaland community obligations as well as having seen the advantages of storing rainwater for avertingwater deprivation in dry months. They pointed out that they were ready to construct an additional(institutional/ community) tank. However, in view of rampant poverty, they stated that the best way tofinance this kind of project was to follow a similar approach which further engendered ownership ofthe facilities. When asked whether they would be willing to pay or invest in the system for their own
use at their households, they all indicated a wish to have their own systems. Very few methods werementioned for financing similar household projects but one that stood-out was the merry-go-roundmethod where groups co-sponsor a project at a time until all projects for members of the group arefinanced.
5.3.6

Requirements for scaling-out and scaling-up

The beneficiaries were not aware of any individual or centre that had constructed their own rooftop
rainwater harvesting system, having seen the system at hand. However, at Mchezi, the centre hadrecorded up to 1000 visitors that included eight schools and CBOs expressing interest in adopting
the technology. At Kauma, the centre registered up to 300 visitors and 10 schools and CBOs expressing
interest in the technology.
The beneficiaries were asked to mention any project that had been initiated as a result of therainwater harvesting system. At Kauma, the centre has constructed a large underground tank tocapture runoff to supplement water for irrigation previously harnessed through a solar powered
borehole whose water is salty and not suitable for the purpose. At Mchezi, the tank provided water tocomplement water requirements for vegetable and pig production schemes that had been initiatedas shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2: Enterprises developed parallel to water harvesting initiatives
Attributes of enterprises
Type of enterprise
Size of enterprise
How water was usedSocial benefits

Enterprise 1
Vegetable production
10 beds x 3 m2
Watering the plants once a dayfrom used water
Depended on availability of waste
water ~3 water cans (30l) /bed/day
Vegetables were fed to livestock, notyet slaughtered for sale
Not indicatedEnvironmental benefits

Not indicated

How much water was used
Economic benefits

Enterprise 2
Pig production
2 pigs/ household for 23 households/ kraals
Making feed
For pigs to drink
5 litres/day
Not sold yet
Potential to assist orphans/ vulnerable
households after sales
Not indicatedATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

56

The beneficiaries were asked what they would advise any organization that intended to scale-out thisproject. They indicated the following:
1. It is a cheap and economic method of storing water because of use of local materials
2. The system can be constructed anywhere and appears adaptable to rural areas
3. There is reduction of soil erosion from runoff arising from built areas
4. It is a way of reducing water-borne diseases once water is well-treated by chlorine
5. The construction is permanent and strong, making it a lasting investment
6. It is an ideal means to avert water scarcity in dry months
7. There are no additional expense accruing from daily cost of purchasing water
8. The distance to fetch water is reduced by having a point source of water
9. Commitment is needed by all members concerned before and after construction

5.4

Discussion

5.4.1

Access to water: the gender dimension

Apart from contributing time and energy to agricultural production tasks, women also manage
household activities including the care of family members. The Malawi Government (1994) reported
studies which showed that women in Malawi spent almost as much time in farm work (20%) as indomestic activities (23%). Yet, domestic responsibilities are often viewed as deterrent for women inincreasing agricultural production. In a study conducted in two villages in Lilongwe, Central Malawi,a man’s work day lasted 4-6 hours while a woman’s work day lasted 12 hours with household tasks
taking 4-6 hours, where gathering firewood and collecting water were the two major time consuming
activities carried out by women. It was further reported that women spend 39 days in a year caring forthe sick or being sick themselves (Malawi Government, 1994). Perhaps what is further critical tonote is that most of the woman’s tasks include odious physical work and distance, which must be
performed daily with the crudest tools, under the toughest conditions. There is thus a limit to how far
women’s time and energies can be stretched. When the limit is reached, agricultural production orhousehold needs suffer. Given that not much has been achieved in the area of work load reduction,
the roof rainwater harvesting initiative remains a vital option towards reducing drudgery associatedwith access to water for domestic use particularly, to ease the pressure of work on women.
5.4.2

Adequacy of water

The size of the storage tank to be built will depend on the rainfall amount and distribution, the roof
catchment area, anticipated use, the number of users, the estimated daily consumption, the available
funds and resources, and the availability and distance to alternative water supplies (Wanyonyi, 2004).
In this study, the size of storage was determined by three principal factors: (1) the need to provide forthe care centres; (2) the need to sell the technology; and (3) the availability of funds to cater for all thesix sites envisaged for the project. However, utilisation, by hindsight may also determine adequacy
as was shown in this work.

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES57

One of the anticipated consequences of the availability of water from the tanks was resolution onequitable usage of the water. This was left to the centres to negotiate a water-demand management
protocol but with the knowledge that the tanks contained 50 m3 of water. The centre at Mchezi
provided water to the centre activities first for three months, and later provided access to households
during the critical driest three months at 40 litres per household per day for another three months. In
other words, water consumption improved by 40 litres per household per day or from 18 to 25 litres
per person per day. At Kauma, the centre provided water to the households at 100 litres per day withthe water lasting less than two months. Water consumption improved by 100 litres per household per
day or from 27 to 43 litres per person per day. At both locations, it was learnt that in reality, households
largely depended on this water during the dry period.
It is evident that the water rationing system at Mchezi was thought through properly and equitably. It
is noted that leadership at Mchezi was vested in committee decisions unlike at Kauma where anoutreach office backstops committee activities. Further, it should be noted that the water harvesting
systems were constructed at centres rather than at households. The average household size at
Mchezi is 5.71. The Malawi Government (2002) estimates water consumption of 25 and 30 litres perperson per day for public standpipe and other sources, respectively for high density areas. It further
argues that consumption rates are generally high for a developing country suggesting wastage as
the reason. Using the latter consumption rate, a household in Mchezi would use water from the 50
m3 tank for 292 days or nine months. Alternatively, given the three driest months in Malawi, a tank sizeof 15 m3 would provide 30 litres of water per person per day for a household size of 5.71. It should be
noted that the calculated annual total yield of water from the roof catchments at Mchezi and Kauma
were 124.9 m3 and 122.4 m3 respectively, taking into account long term rainfall characteristics andrunoff efficiencies.
While arguably rooftop rainwater harvesting cannot replace conventional domestic water delivery
systems, and it is not intended to, it does provide substantial supplemental water both in the wet anddry seasons to meet a shared vision for clean and safe water and with many other spin-off social
benefits that conventional systems do not provide.
5.4.3

Affordability of technology

The capital cost of the technology and the associated operational costs are important criteria for its
acquisition or adoption. It is argued, however, (Makoko, 2001) that for some technologies, it would
not be possible to recoup the capital cost from the end-users themselves and some alternative
financing mechanisms are necessary in order for users to access the technology if it is considered
suitable. Makoko (2001) further argues that for certain technologies, the operational costs, besides
affecting the profitability of an enterprise, are influenced by the knowledge, skills and experience of
operators and tend to increase with time. This report considers that it is the capital cost of erecting
rooftop rainwater harvesting systems that is pivotal rather than costs of operation and maintenancebecause of the sedentary nature of the technology. If therefore, the materials and methods forconstruction are meticulously selected so as to lower capital costs, these systems appear a cost-

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

58

effective lasting investment for accessing water. A number of innovative ways of funding constructionof water harvesting systems have been attempted and are illustrated below and do show that thesesystems are within the means of communities.
The familiar cost-sharing approach at funding water harvesting projects was employed in Laikipia,
Kenya, where 700 tanks of 6 m3 or 10 m3 were built in one year (Mbugua, 2003). The arrangement
was through a partnership between local groups and a development agency where the agency
contracted a partner in the private sector businesses who specialised in tank construction and was
willing to provide technical training to self-help groups. The agency and local groups contributed
60% and 40% of the costs, respectively, with the agency paying for the services of the private sector
partner.
In Bushenyi District in Uganda, an NGO, whose role was merely that of facilitating, piloted a project
on domestic rainwater harvesting using grassroots democratic structures (Karungi, 2004). The
communities met the total cost of tank construction. Three groups of 12 members with structured
constitution and committees were identified and guided on requirements and costs for 5 m3 tanks.
However, they were left to negotiate amongst themselves on matters relating to raising total funds forthe tanks and construction schedule and other parameters. For instance, members agreed thatthose that want tanks larger than 5 m3 were to finance additional costs by themselves, and provide
surety for members to access water from tanks that have been completed. These and other parameters
are the premises of the merry-go-round approach to cost-sharing which even beneficiaries at Kauma
used in construction of their houses at the orphan care centre, with guidance of the church.
Another approach used by women groups in Rakai, Uganda, is the raising of a savings programme
known as a kitty (Rugasira et al., 2002). The kitty-approach is where members contribute money andeach month the kitty is given to one of the members in rotation for construction of a tank (and otheractivities). Other bylaws and agreements are developed to guide the group.
These approaches illustrated here are not by any means a panacea for technology scaling out inMalawi. However, the fact that these groups functioned well and had water harvesting systems toshow means that communities have great potential that can be activated by development workers
and donors without recourse to thinking (about affordability of a technology) on their behalf.
5.4.4

Health aspects of rainwater capture and storage

Access to good quality water is one of the most important factors that determine the public healthstatus of people all over the world. Mbaka (2004) observed that water-associated health hazards areeither biological or chemical, following ingestion of contaminated water or other material. In thisstudy, owing to technical reasons, no determination was made of biological and chemical
contamination of rainwater stored. However, studies elsewhere, such as in the peri-urban areas of
the City of Nairobi, Kenya, showed that most water tanks were improperly designed, located anderected such that faecal contamination of the harvested water from wind-blown dust contaminatedSMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

59

by humans, livestock, rodents, birds and other organisms had occurred. During the study, 73% of thesamples collected failed the Kenya Bureau of Standards requirement for un-piped drinking water. It
is therefore important that in order to safeguard public health, rainwater, just like other sources ofwater, be treated before consumption. The beneficiaries at Mchezi location in Lilongwe treated theirwater before utilization while those at Kauma indicated that they did not treat it because they did notuse it for drinking. This justification was not adequate because adults cannot at all time monitor
children who may be inclined to drink the water.
5.4.5

Grassroots governance structures and water and livelihood nexus

This evaluation study revealed different responses to the rainwater harvesting project based on
differences in leadership and governance structures but with singular results. While previously there
was no theme on water within the operational plan of the orphan care centre at Mchezi, upon
inception of the project, the executive committee identified a sub-committee to look after water andsanitation issues and to work with the technical experts on the rainwater harvesting project. All
members of the committees are volunteers with no salaries for their labour and other resources. The
structure of committees, while sounding bureaucratic, appeared to have brought a sense of purpose
and unity to members. They are not directly supported by any NGO or faith community but they solicit
funds from various sources as an independent community-based organisation or contribute funds
as community action. The centre is thus home-grown and looks after itself. In like manner, theyfinanced their part contribution to the cost of constructing the tank as well as subsequent maintenancework undertaken. Using other sub-committees, the centre initiated parallel projects on vegetable
cultivation and pig rearing to benefit from availability of water from the tanks. The water harvesting
initiative attracted visitors and benefactors such as LEAD Southern Africa (www.lead.org), Sasakawa
Global 2000, Monsanto, Plan International and Care International.
At Kauma, the project worked through paid employees for the care centre which is supported by achurch. The community contributed their labour during construction of the tank but materials were
provided by the church on behalf of the community. However, the centre has a large winter cultivation
project and a poultry project where the orphan care community was heavily involved during
construction of the tank. Owing to problems with brackish water being used for winter irrigation
coming out of a solar-powered borehole, an underground tank has been built to capture all surface
runoff from the centre to be used for irrigation. Expertise for winter cultivation was drawn from aninternational NGO, Sasakawa Global 2000, while that for construction of the underground tank was
obtained from the Department of Land Resources Conservation.
The project provided a discussion forum on the hydrological cycle and its relationship to rainwater
harvesting; on the project and other technologies and their linkages with livelihoods, and provided
pictorial handouts on water harvesting technologies and the strategic plan for the Rainwater
Harvesting Association of Malawi. It is satisfying therefore, to note that both centres have satisfactorily
attempted to add value to the technology by engaging in socio-economic activities related to foodand income security with water harvesting acting as a spring-board. This is what is contained in the

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

60

handouts given and the discussion forums held. More importantly perhaps, their vision and direction
are in concert with what the project had envisaged.
5.4.6

Evolution of an institutional and policy framework

The Africa Water Vision 2025 suggests that scarcity of water in Africa is not entirely due to natural
phenomena (UN-Water/Africa Secretariat, 2004a). It suggests that it is due, in part, to low levels ofdevelopment and exploitation of water resources even though there is a growing demand for waterin response to population growth and economic development. The basic challenge is providing
increased water supply to meet the various end use needs, mainly through increasing the capability
to harness the flow and stock of available water resources, while improving the quality and efficiency
of utilisation of water resources (UN-Water/Africa Secretariat, 2004b).. The main task for any
institutional and policy framework is therefore, the need to meet individual, community and livelihood
needs in a sustainable manner that conforms with the requisite technical, hydrological, environmental,
economic and social and legal conditions. The following five lessons from this work highlights theparameters and bounds for establishing frameworks for integrating rainwater harvesting in multisector development of water resources for domestic use.
Knowledge base and capacity of decision makers and practitioners
It is argued that policy on its own is of little value without the political will and the resources toimplement it. The corollary is that plans and strategies without policy tend to be haphazard andsubject to the changing fashions of the development and donor agencies (Ngigi, 2003). In Malawi,
there is evidence that the Ministry responsible for water supply and irrigation has adopted andincluded water harvesting as integral to the National Water Policy (Malawi Government, 2005). The
objective of such policies should be that water harvesting initiatives and innovations need to besupported and improved, especially on various aspects that need standardisation. For this, teamwork and collaboration is required from several sectors and departments. They include thoseconcerned with the physical environmental situation, technical soundness, socio-economic, andcultural aspects, all of which influence adoption and implementation.
Scientific capacities to study and monitor rainwater resources
The function of scientific study is to create innovations through research (knowledge creation,organization and management) and outreach. The present limitation in integrating water harvestingin conventional water supply programmes and projects in Malawi, like elsewhere, is linked toinadequate capacity for the collection, assessment and dissemination of data on how to achieve theintegration in the development, planning and implementation of projects for the built environment.
Studies should be consultative to ensure that research outputs remain relevant to national andregional development needs. In the context of this work, the aim would be to provide researchservices that promote equity, efficiency and sustainability in harnessing rainwater resources. Often
research has been rather slow to adapt to changing demands in the development process owing to
declining funding sources. There are also inequalities in the infrastructure and variant competenceSMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

61

of the human resource to drive the transformation. This therefore requires resource mobilization
and rationalization to exploit existing and potential opportunities that exist in present researchestablishments and other partner institutions engaged in civil works.
Capacity-building networks and financing mechanisms
One of the major constraints in the development of water resources in most of Africa has been
identified as inadequate human and institutional capacity. Most countries do not have an adequate
number of highly motivated, innovative, and skilled water professionals who can deal effectively withthe complex issues of water scarcity. This project has attempted to achieve synergy andcomplementarity with emerging research and capacity building networks in implementing a key
initiative in peri-urban areas.
In Malawi, the Malawi Water Partnership, a member of the Global Water Partnership, and the
Rainwater Harvesting Association of Malawi, were established in 2001 and 2003, respectively. Theyboth are programmes addressing research for development and capacity building, with the latteremphasising harnessing of rainwater resources. Perhaps what is critical about such networks is thatthey unearth vision drivers that spur governments, development partners, and the end users, into
innovative thrusts towards the direction and speed of water resources development for now and thefuture. These networks need to be supported at policy and institutional level, and through increasing
financial commitments towards achieving national anchoring of water resources development
reforms and innovations.
Awareness of ethical, historical, cultural and social dimensions of water
Another important lesson from this work is where the question of ‘who is responsible’ for the water
facility was no longer relevant as is the case with municipal water. Construction of the roof top system
was rooted in recognition of ethical, cultural and social systems which created opportunities forresponse paradigms that were rooted in local relevance and ownership, and sound grassroots
partnerships. It is often feared that poverty is the number one socio-economic factor that inhibits
investments in water resources development by local people. Contrary to this, water harvesting wasseen as a point of entry to better and extended management and care of orphans, reduction in thenumber of hours spent fetching water and the associated disruption of daily household and social
calendars, and better management of households by the HIV/AIDS infected and affected. Rooftop
water harvesting is indeed a cross-cutting and important driving force that governments anddevelopment partners can harness for the water vision for themselves and for Africa.

5.5

Conclusion

First, this project has shown that it is possible to short-circuit the processes behind water deprivationin poor households by investing in available technological and sociological resources. Thus, it isconcluded that it is not necessarily the number of people water is made available to or the numberof months that water is made available through water harvesting but the processes that contribute to62

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 46

unavailability of water where rainwater can arguably avert water deprivation for the vulnerable
populations in peri-urban areas.
Second, the harvesting and supply of good quality water will depend on the formulation of soundpolicies that regulate the health aspects pertaining to the design, management, protection andutilization of not only the roof catchments but also the conduits of supply and receptacles in which
the harvested water is stored. Regular monitoring should be carried out to determine the healthquality of harvested water.
Third, it is noted that one of the gauges of a community’s acceptance of a new idea is the willingness
to participate and cost share. It was noted that in all the situations where the idea of cost sharing wasintroduced in the project, it was readily accepted and the part to be contributed by the community
members was deemed to be within their reach. This is important for participatory technology
development and promotion of innovation.

Acknowledgement

This paper is based on research carried out under the auspices of the African Technology Policy
Studies Network’s (ATPS) Water and Environment Programme funded by the Royal Dutch Government– Activity no: 10385-DCO0020791. The authors thank Dr. Kevin Chika Urama of the Macaulay
Institute, Aberdeen, UK for his contributions to the study in his capacity as the ATPS Lead Resource
Person for the W&E programme. His review comments and support during the writing-up stages ofthe project is appreciated. The authors also thank the ATPS Communications and Outreach
Department for their editorial support.

63

References

Centre for Science and Environment. 2003. A water harvesting manual for urban areas. Case studies
from Delhi. New Delhi, India.
Hatibu, N. and Mahoo, H. F. (Ed.). 2000. Rainwater Harvesting for Natural Resources Management.
A Planning Guide for Tanzania. Technical Handbook No. 22, RELMA/SIDA, Nairobi.
Karungi, G. 2004. Democratizing rainwater harvesting in Sheema, Uganda. SEARNET Briefs 8, 6.
Kiggundu, N. 2003. Roofwater harvesting, an entry point to sustainable development in rural areas:
the Ugandan experience. In: Mloza-Banda, H. R. Proceedings of the Rainwater Harvesting
Stakeholders’ Symposium, December 18-19, 2003, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Kopen van, B. 2000. From bucket to basin: managing river basins to alleviate water deprivation.
World Water Vision of the World Water Commission. International Water management Institute,
Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Lazaro, E.A., E.M. Senkondo and G.J. Kajiru. 2000. Fitting rainwater harvesting into the socio-economic
environment: ensuring acceptability and sustainability. Rainwater Harvesting for Natural
Resources Management. A Planning Guide for Tanzania. Technical Handbook No. 22, RELMA/
SIDA, Nairobi.
Makoko, M. 2001. Irrigation Technologies Diagnostic Study. Smallholder Floodplains Development
Programme. Lilongwe, Malawi.
Malawi Government. 1969. Water Resources Act. Ministry of Water Development. Lilongwe, Malawi
Malawi Government/ UNDP. 1993. Situational analysis of poverty in Malawi. Lilongwe, Malawi.
Malawi Government. 2002. State of the Environment Report, 2002. Ministry of Natural Resources
and Environmental Affairs. Environmental Affairs Department, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Malawi Government. 2003. The Ministry of Water Development Strategic Plan 2003-06 Ministry of
Water Development. Lilongwe, Malawi.
Malawi Government. 2005. National Water Policy. Ministry of Water Development. Lilongwe, Malawi.
Mbaka, M. 2004. Roof-caught rainwater as a source of microbial infection to consumers in someperi-urban areas around the city of Nairobi, Kenya. SEARNET Briefs 5, 10-11.
Mbugua, J. 2003. How a partnership in Laikipia, Kenya built 700 water tanks in a year. SEARNET
Briefs 4, 7-8.
Mills, L. 2004. Evaluation of the water harvesting schemes in Tigray, Ethiopia. Working Paper 1.
Water Harvesting Structures. EU SCR Framework Contract. Ethiopia.
Mloza-Banda, H. R. 2004. Towards rainwater harvesting in Malawi: Combating food insecurity andwater deprivation and for environmental protection. In: Mloza-Banda, H. R. Proceedings of the
Rainwater Harvesting Stakeholders’ Symposium, December 18-19, 2003, Lilongwe, Malawi.

64

SMALL SCALE RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR COMBATING WATER DEPRIVATION AT ORPHAN CARE CENTRES

65

Nega, H. and P. M. Kimeu. 2002. Low cost methods of rainwater storage. Results from field trials in
Ethiopia and Kenya. RELMA Technical Report Series 28. Regional Land Management Unit
(RELMA), Swedish International Development (SIDA). 58pp.
Ngigi, S. N. 2003. Rainwater harvesting for improved food security. Promising technologies in the
Greater Horn of Africa. Greater Horn of Africa Rainwater Partnership/Kenya Rainwater Association.
206pp.
Rugasira, J., M. Abaru, and R. Winberg. 2002. Empowering rural communities: rainwater harvestingby women groups in Rakai, Uganda. Technical Report No. 29. Regional Land Management
Unit (RELMA), Nairobi, Kenya. 20pp.
Senkondo, E. M. M., A.S.K. Msangi, P. Xavery, E.A. Lazaro & N. Hatibu. 2003. Profitability of rainwater
harvesting for agricultural production in selected semi-arid areas of Tanzania. In: Mloza-Banda,
H. R. Proceedings of the Rainwater Harvesting Stakeholders’ Symposium, December 18-19,
2003, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Uganda Rainwater Harvesting Association. 2004. Findings of Ugandan study for domestic roofwater
harvesting. Kabale, Uganda, 5-7 July 2004.
UN-Water/Africa Secretariat. 2004a. The Africa Water Vision 2025: Equitable and sustainable use ofwater for socioeconomic development. Economic Commission for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
UN-Water/Africa Secretariat. 2004b. Reports and presentations of the Pan-African implementationand partnership conference on water (PANAFCON). Economic Commission for Africa Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, December 8-13 2003.
Wanyonyi, J. M. 2004. Improving rainwater quality for domestic use. In: Mloza-Banda, H. R.
Proceedings of the Rainwater Harvesting Stakeholders’ Symposium, December 18-19, 2003,
Lilongwe, Malawi.
World Health Organisation. 1984. Guidelines for drinking water quality, Vol.1. Recommendations,
World Health Organization, Geneva.

H.R. Mloza-Banda and D.D. Singa are lecturers at Bunda College, University of Malawi, Lilongwe,
Malawi while A. Chikuna works with Lilongwe Water Board, Lilongwe, Malawi.

ATPS Working Paper SeriesATPS Working Paper Series
No.
1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
23
24
25
26
27

Title and Author(s) of Publication
The Effect of Economic Reform on Technological Capability by T. Adeboye, M. S. D. Bafachwa, O. A.
BamiroMethodological Issues in Science and Technology Policy Research by T. Adeboye, N. Clark
Rehabilitation in the Manufacturing Sector in Tanzania by S. M. Wangwe
Agricultural Policy and Technology in Sierra Leone by C. Squire
Effectiveness of Agricultural Research Extension in Sierra Leone by A. K. Lakoh
Generation and Utilization of Industrial Innovation in Nigeria by O. Oyeyinka, G. O. A. Laditan, A. O.
Esubiyi
Irrigation in the Tuli Block, Botswana Water Conservation Techniques of Optimal Strategies by I. N.
MasondeEndogenous Technology Capacity and Capability under Conditions of Economic Policies of Stabilizationand Structural Adjustment by S. E. Chambua
Technology and Female-Owned Business in the Urban Informal Sector of South-West Nigeria by R. O.
SoetanTechnology Innovations Used to Overcome the Problem of Resource Scarcity in Small Scale Enterprises
by C. W. Ngahu
Financing of Science and Technology Institutions in Kenya during Periods of Structural Adjustment by M.
Mwamadzingo
Impact of Economic Liberization on Technologies in Enterprises Processing Agricultural Produce by P.
MadayaTechnology and Institutions for Private Small and Medium Firms by B. Oyeyinka
Institutiona Reform, Price Deregulation and Technological Change in Smallholder Agriculture by E. C.
Eboh
Adoption of Agricultural Technologies by Rural Women under the Women-in-Agriculture Program in
Nigeriaby D. S. Ugwu
Electrical Power Utilities and Technological Capacity Building in Sub-Saharan Africa by Brew-Hammond
Investigation into Factors that Influence the Diffusion and Adoption of Intentions and Innovations from
Research Institutes and Universities in Kenya by Bwisa, H. M. and A. Gacuhi
The effects of Economic Reforms on the Quality on the Quality of Technological Manpower Development
in Nigeria by H. E. Nnebe
Issues in Yam Minisett Technology Transfer to Farmer in Southern Nigeria by Michael C. Madukwe,
Damain Ayichi, Ernest C. Okoli
Technological Response to Telecommunication Development: A Study of Firms and Institutions in Nigeria
by Adeyinka F. Modupe
Technological Respone to Telecommunication Development: A Study of Firms and Instituions in Nigeria by
Adeyinka F. Modupe
Gender Differences in Small Scale Rice Farmers’ Access to Technological Inputs in Enugu State of Nigeria
by David Nwoye Ezeh
Adoption of Sustainable Palm Oil Mini-Processing Technology in Nigeria by Nkechi Mbanefoh
Domestic Energy Situation in Nigeria: Technological Implications and Policy Alternatives by Olabisi I. Aina
Technological Capability in the Nigerian Leather Industry: A Firm-Level Case Study by Uka Enenwe,Enwere Dike, Anthony Ihuoma, Mike Duru
Agricultural Research and Delivery in the South-Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia: A Case Study of the SG-

28
29
30
31
32
33
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

41.
42.
43.

44.

45.

2000 Approach in Hitosa District by G. Yiemene
Impact of Computer Technology Adoption on Banking Operations in Nigeria by A. I. Odebiyi
Agricultural Technology Adoption on Small-Holder Farmers: Policy Policy Options for Nigeria byJ. O. Olusi
Donor Funding and Sustainability of Rural Water Supply andSanitation Technologies in Swaziland by U. AjaOkorie and Aja Okorie, M. Mabuza
Promotion of Production and Utilization of Ceramic Roofing Materials in the Informal Housing Industry in Sierra
Leone by Tamba Jamiru
Technology Transfer and Acquisition in the Oil Sector and Government Policy in Nigeria by R.I.Chima, E.A.,
Owioduoki,R.I. Ogoh
Acquisition of Technological Capability in Africa: A Case Study of Indigenous Building Materials Firms in
Nigeria by Yomi Oruwari, Margaret Jev,Opuene Owei
Analysis of Indigenous Knowledge in Swaziland: Implications for Sustainable Agricultural Development byMusa A. Dube, Patricia Musi
Analysis and Comparison of the Agricultural Development Programme and University Agricultural Technol
ogy Transfer Systems in Nigeria by M.C. Madukwe, E.C. Okoli, S.O. Eze
Extension Services and Enterprise Development: Study of Technology Extension Services to Small nd
Medium Size Manufacturing Firms in by Frederick U. Ngesa, Justus M., Ombati, Milcah Mutuku
Women and Engineering in Nigeria: Towards Improved Policy Initiatives and Increased Female Participation
by A.J. Badekale
The Gender Variable in Agricultural Technology: A Case of Rural Farmers in Machakos District-Eastern
Kenya by Esther Njiro
The Impact of Information Technology on the Nigerian Economy: A Study of Manufacturing and Services
Sectors in the South Western and South Eastern Zones of Nigeria by David Ola Kajogbola
Socio-Economic Consequences of Technological Change on the Rural Non-Farm Igbo Women Entrepren
eurs of South-Eastern Nigeria: Implications for Farm and Non-Farm Linkages by Jonathan O. Alimba,
Justina, Uzoma Mgbada
The Role of Development Financial Institutions in the Acquisition of Technological Capabilities by Small andMedium Enterprises in Kenya by G.S. Namusonge
Engineering Education for Industrial Development: Case Studies of Nigeria, Ghana and Zimbabwe
by A.A. Afonja, K. Sraku-Lartey and S.A. Oni
Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Agricultural Technology: A Comparative Study of
Small Scale Surface Irrigation Technology in Nigeria and Swaziland by Kevin Urama and EmmanuelMwendera
An Assessment of the Effects of Technology Transfer on Gender Roles within a Community: the development
tea and coffee production among smallholder farmers in Kiambu District, central province Kenya by Winifred
N. Karugu
Assessment of Community Water and Sanitation in Ghana by Roseemma Mamaa Entsua-Mensah, George
Essegbey, Godfred Frempong and Charlotte Engmann

For more information this series and ATPS Contact:

The Director
The African Technology Policy Studies Network
3rd Floor, The Chancery, Valley Road
P.O. Box 10081 00100 General Post Office
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254-20-2714092/168/498
Fax: +254-20-2714028
Email: info@atpsnet.org
Website: http://www.atpsnet.org