View source for OR/15/019 Applying the Toolbox – A pilot study, Uganda

__notoc__
{{OR/15/019}}
The toolbox was applied to investigate borehole‐handpump failures in the Amuria and Katakwi districts of northeast Uganda by the catalyst grant as a pilot study. The main aim of this pilot study was to assess the applicability, replicability and overall success of the toolbox, to develop a detailed post construction audit dataset of failed water points, which can be used to examine the immediate, and underlying root causes of the water point failure, and to generate a systematic evidence base on water point functionality.

The water points examined in the study were selected according to clearly defined criteria to ensure a robust investigation of water point failure and a valid test of the toolbox and fieldwork methodology. These criteria were:
* The study focused exclusively on examining failed water points which had been out of service for more than three months, and considered ‘abandoned’.<br>This provided some guarantee that the failed water points identified by the  reconnaissance fieldwork would still be available as failed water points for the subsequent fieldwork investigations. Water points which had only recently failed in the last few days or weeks, and had not been abandoned in the long‐term, had a much higher likelihood of being repaired by the time the fieldwork took place. This meant the study did not capture water points which were non‐functional for short (days and weeks) periods of time due to mechanical failure, or water points which are currently functional, but which have failed for some period in the past

* Failed water points were exclusively borehole handpump supplies.<br>Whilst several different forms of groundwater‐based systems are used extensively across the continent (boreholes and hand dug wells and protected springs being the main types) each type is likely to have different patterns of failure – for example, issues of demand pressures, resource availability, and engineering design, and level of community management, are all likely to interact slightly differently for each type of system. Focusing on only one type of system enabled the pilot study undertake a robust and focused investigation of reasons for supply failure. Borehole‐handpump technologies have been the main choice in water supply programmes throughout sub‐Saharan Africa in the last decade.

==Reconnaissance survey ==
Failed water points were identified in the field area by WaterAid’s local NGO partners — WEDA and TEDDO — and District Water staff in Amuria and Katakwi Districts, based on their knowledge and observations from their regular travels throughout the districts, and discussions with communities. The perceived causes of failure were recorded by partners and reported back to the research team. Each water point was visited to verify that it met the selection criteria of having failed for more than 3 months with some remains of the handpump still present, and to discuss with the community if they would be willing for a more detailed investigation to be undertaken involving removal of the hand‐pump and pump rods, and downhole measurements and tests. Key secondary data (e.g. borehole log, driller’s log, construction/completion log, and any water quality analyses and pumping test report completed) were collated if accessible.

The reconnaissance work identified 37 long‐term failed water points in the Amuria and Katakwi Districts. Several different symptoms of failure were captured in this sample, including poor water quality, insufficient yield, and mechanical handpump failure. Detailed community surveys were carried out at 24 of these water points, and technical investigations at a sub‐sample of 10 — time and cost being the main limiting factor. The 10 water points examined by both the community surveys and technical investigations were carefully selected  to  ensure  a  range  of  failure  symptoms  (e.g.  inadequate  water  quality,  insufficient  yield and mechanical failure) and community arrangements (e.g. participation of the community in site selection, presence and capacity of a WUC, ability to finance repairs, access to the hand pump mechanic and other external support) were examined. Appendix 3 provides a full list of the different attributes of each of the sites and the basis of the final 10 sites selected.

==Focused field research — Community surveys ==
[[Image:15019_fig002.jpg|thumb|300px| Well point community discussions in Amuria district.]]

Rapid surveys examining community capacity to manage and finance borehole‐handpump supplies were carried out for 24 of the 37 failed water points identified in the reconnaissance fieldwork (Phase 1).

The survey consisted of a semi‐structured  discussion with each community, guided by a template providing key questions and sub‐questions for more detailed enquiry. The survey took between two and three hours to complete with each community.

Participants included water users (both women  and men) and representatives of the Water User Committee. Group sizes and composition varied from community to community, as there were no restrictions on participation. Although the groups were generally too large   to   ensure   that   every   individual     contributed, facilitators played an important role in maintaining a balanced discussion, particularly ensuring that women had the opportunity to voice their opinions. Market days and local holidays were avoided as far as possible, and where unexpected time conflicts did occur the groups were noticeable smaller.

The community survey fieldwork was led by ODI, and completed over 10 days by two fieldteams working in parallel. Each team included a researcher leading the survey, two WEDA or TEDDO staff who facilitated and translated the discussions, and one WaterAid programme staff member providing logistical support and technical backstopping. The local NGO organisations WEDA and TEDDO (partners of the WaterAid programme in the Amuria and Katakwi field areas) were vital in liaising with communities to ensure members of the Water User Committee (WUCs) or village elders were present to take part in the surveys, as well as to mobilise other participants. These individuals were particularly knowledgeable in reconstructing the history of the failed water point and of the WUC. Their presence was, moreover, a means to ensure legitimacy of the project in the eyes of the community. Visits were also made to the District Water Offices to seek approval to conduct fieldwork in the local area.

Based on the information collected in the community surveys, a smaller sub‐sample of 10 water points was identified for more detailed technical investigation of the reasons underlying the failure. The sub‐sample sites were selected to ensure a cross‐section of the different symptoms of water point failure, and different local institutional arrangements and community management capacities were represented.

It is important to note that equal emphasis was given to community surveys and technical and engineering investigations in the pilot study, but due to time and cost, technical investigations were only carried out at a sub‐sample of the total number of water points examined in the pilot study.

==Focused field research — technical investigations ==
The technical investigations of the toolbox, were applied to 10 water points and completed over 10 days by two field teams working sequentially at each site – an advance team dismantling the borehole and pump and examining its condition and operation, and a follow on team undertaking the downhole tests, groundwater sampling and aquifer testing. Each field team included: a hydrogeologist leading the technical investigations; a member of WaterAid’s programme staff and an engineer from Makerere University who led the borehole and pump inspections; a WEDA/TEDDO staff member and a WaterAid staff member who facilitated the fieldwork, led the community mobilisation and assisted with translations; and a handpump mechanic.

'''Team 1 '''— was the advance team, carrying out dismantling and inspection of handpump condition; investigation of pump operation; investigation of borehole construction, undertaking basic measurements (e.g. location coordinates, borehole depth, rest water‐level, borehole verticality); and some further community discussions at the water point. These observations are essential to determine  whether the factors causing water point failure stem from deficiencies in borehole construction.

'''Team 2 '''— followed on and undertook the below ground work: CCTV survey inspection of borehole construction; aquifer testing (by a bailer test and/or pumping test); groundwater quality sampling and well head measurements of water pH, Eh, SEC, DO, temp; and, dissolved gas sampling (groundwater residence time indicators). These investigations were pivotal to collating sufficient data to establish if siting, available groundwater resource potential, borehole design, construction, and groundwater chemistry were significant factors causing water point failure.


[[category:OR/15/019 A Hidden Crisis: strengthening the evidence base on the sustainability of rural groundwater supplies – results from a pilot study in Uganda | 05]]