OR/18/002 Introduction

Liddle, E and Fenner, R. 2017. Review of handpump-borehole implementation in Uganda. British Geological Survey Open Report, OR/18/002.

Access to an improved water has steadily increased in rural Uganda over the past decade, from 63% in June 2007 to 70% in June 2017 according to the Ugandan Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) (Figure 1.1) (MWE, 2007; MWE, 2017). Three groundwater sources dominate this access: springs (25%), shallow wells (25%), and handpump-boreholes (42%) (MWE, 2017). While rural access has increased in Uganda over the last decade (Figure 1.1), a number of sector actors have raised concerns over the extent to which these sources, especially handpump-boreholes (HPBs hereon), are providing safe and adequate quantities of water post- construction. Using a tiered approach to assess functionality enables greater insight to levels of performance of functionality within the country (Bonsor et al., 2018). Work by Owor et al. (2017), using a tiered approach across a representative sample of sites across Uganda, for example, found 55% of handpump-boreholes (HPBs from here on) to be working on the day of testing (Figure 1.2). However, only 34% of these HPBs were able to sustain a yield of ≥ 10 L/min; and only 24% of the HPBs provided sufficient yield and quality (according to WHO 1993 guidelines for drinking water) (Figure 1.2) (Owor et al., 2017). The percentage of rural Ugandans that truly have access to safe and adequate quantities of water is therefore much lower than the 70% access statistic indicates.

File:OR/18/002fig1.jpg

Figure 1.1 Access to an improved water source in rural Uganda over the last decade as reported by the Ugandan MWE (Data sourced from: MWE, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013a, 2014, 2015, 2016a, 2017).

• ‘working’ = HPB was able to produce some form of water (no consideration of how much) on the day of sampling.
• ‘able to sustain 10 L/min’ = HPB was able to sustain a yield of ≥ 10 L/min over a 30 minute constant rate stroke test on the day of sampling. 10 L/min was used as to serve 300 people with 25 lpcd, 10.44 L/min is needed, assuming abstraction over a 12-hour period. For simplicity, this was rounded to 10 L/min.
• ‘safe for human consumption’ = HPB was able to pass water quality tests for TTC and a range of chemical elements (using WHO 1993 standards for drinking water) on the day of sampling.

Figure 1.2 HPB functionality* results from the research project: Hidden Crisis.** Data source: Owor et al., 2017

File:OR/18/002fig2.jpg

* The terms HPB ‘functionality’, ‘non-functionality’, and ‘failure’ are repeatedly used throughout the literature and within country databases, yet their meanings differ from text to text and database to database (Carter and Ross, 2016). Some studies (for example, Cronk and Bartram, 2017; Foster, 2013; Jiménez and Pérez-Foguet, 2011; Whittington et al., 2008) and most country databases say that if water simply flows from the HPB on the day of sampling, it is functional. This definition, however, masks low-yielding HPBs that are unable to supply adequate quantities of water for all who depend on them. Consequently, some studies have extended functionality to account for the quantity of water available/the yield the HPB is able to sustain over a given time period (for example, Gleitsmann et al., 2007; Harvey, 2004). Some studies have also considered water quality (for example, Harvey, 2004), however, most have not (for example, Fisher et al., 2015; Foster, 2013; Jiménez and Pérez-Foguet, 2011; Whittington et al., 2008). User perception of water quality and quantity, however, is rarely included. It must be noted that functionality is typically a snapshot in time (day of sampling); it does not accounted for seasonality or HPB reliability (Carter and Ross, 2016). In the case of the Hidden Crisis research project and this report, functionality considers the yield the HPB is able to sustain over a 30-minute stroke test, and the quality of the water in terms of microbiological and inorganic quality (tested against WHO 1993 drinking water quality standards), and water quality from the water users’ point of view. ** Hidden Crisis randomly sampled 200 HPBs across ten districts in Uganda from June – September 2016. The sampling strategy is explained in Owor et al. (2017).

A number of factors could be causing the HPB functionality problems noted by Owor et al. (2017). Previous HPB functionality studies across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries (for example, Fisher et al., 2015; Walters and Javernick-Will, 2015; Adank et al., 2014; Foster, 2013; Harvey, 2004; Lockwood et al., 2003; Parry-Jones et al. 2001; Hazelton, 2000; Sara and Katz, 1998; Howe and Dixon, 1993; McPherson and McGarry, 1987) have found the reasons for HPB failure to stem from:

1. the quality of work conducted during siting and drilling/installation (D/I), and/or
2. the extent, quality, and oversight of operations and maintenance (O&M) post- construction.

This report focuses on the former. More specifically, this report seeks to understand the siting and D/I process in Uganda and aims to identify any factors within this process that may be adversely affecting the quality of the siting and D/I work, and the subsequent functionality of rural Ugandan HPBs. Communities cannot be expected to keep their HPBs functional if they are delivered a low-quality HPB in the first instance.

As stated in a recent UNICEF/Skat Foundation report (2016:4–5):

“water quality, service reliability, and sustainability require proper borehole siting, design, construction (or rehabilitation) and pump installation. Arguably, the drive for numbers of users over the last 15 years has led to a fall in the quality of project implementation… some sources [that have suffered from premature failure] cannot be fixed because the initial site selection, design of the infrastructure or construction was fundamentally flawed from the outset”.

It was this quote that drove this research.

NB: The phrases ‘high-quality HPBs’ and ‘high-quality work’ and are used a number of times in this report.

‘High-quality HPBs’ refer to HPBs that are able to fulfil their function of providing safe and adequate quantities of water (that users are willing to use) throughout the course of their anticipated lifetime: 25–50 years for the borehole (Danert et al., 2010) and 10 years for the handpump (although fast-wearing parts will need to be replaced throughout this time) (Carter and Ross, 2016).

‘High-quality work’ refers to work, be it siting, D/I, or supervision in the case of this report, that results in high-quality HPBs.

Structure of the report

This report begins by explaining the institutional framework for rural water supply (RWS) in Uganda (Section 2) as well as the recent investment and output figures (Section 3). Section 4 goes on to explain the assessment methodology that was used for this research. Section 5 provides an overview of who is conducting the siting, D/I, and supervision work, how they are procured, the types of contracts that are being used, the prices paid, and their on-the-ground practices. Section 6 then looks at the key concerns that were noted within Section 5, along with the ways in which these are thought to be adversely affecting the quality of siting and D/I work, and ultimately HPB functionality. A series of recommendations are then made in Section 7.

References

Available at: http://www.mwe.go.ug/library/sector-performance-report-2016.

Carter, R. and Ross, I. (2016) ‘Beyond “functionality” of handpump-supplied rural water services in developing countries’, Waterlines, 35(1), pp. 94–110.

Cronk, R, and Bartram, J. (2017) ‘Factors influencing water system functionality in Nigeria and Tanzania: a regression and Bayesian network analysis’, Environmental Science and Technology, 51(19), pp. 11336–11345.

Foster, T. (2013) ‘Predictors of sustainability for community-managed handpumps in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Uganda’, Environment, Science and Technology, 47(21), pp. 12037–12046.

Jiménez, A, and Pérez-Foguet, A. (2011) ‘Water Point Mapping for the Analysis of RWS Plans: Case Study from Tanzania’, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 137(5), pp.439-447.

Whittington, D, Davies, J, Prokopy, L, Komives, K, Thorsten, R, Lukacs, H, Bakalian, A' and Wakeman, W. (2008) How well is the demand-driven, community management model for RWS systems doing? Evidence from Bolivia, Peru, and Ghana, The University of Manchester: Brooks World Poverty Institute, BWPI Working Paper 22.

Gleitsmann, B A, Kroma, M M, and Steenhuis, T. (2007) ‘Analysis of a RWS project in three communities in Mali: Participation and sustainability’, Natural Resources Forum, 31, pp. 142–150.

Harvey, P A. (2004) Borehole sustainability in rural Africa: an analysis of routine field data. 30th WEDC International Conference, 2004, Vientiane, Laos.

Fisher, M B, Shields, K F, Chan, T U, Christenson, E, Cronk, R D, Leker, H, Samani, D, ApoYA, P, Lutz, A, and Bartram, J. (2015) ‘Understanding handpump sustainability: Determinants of rural water source functionality in the Greater Afram Plains region of Ghana’, Water Resources Research, 51, pp. 1–19.

Foster, T. (2013) ‘Predictors of sustainability for community-managed handpumps in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Uganda’, Environment, Science and Technology, 47(21), pp. 12037–12046.

Jiménez, A, and Pérez-Foguet, A. (2011) ‘Water Point Mapping for the Analysis of RWS Plans: Case Study from Tanzania’, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 137(5), pp.439–447.

whittington, D, Davies, J, Prokopy, L, Komives, K, Thorsten, R, Lukacs, H, Bakalian, A, and Wakeman, W. (2008) How well is the demand-driven, community management model for RWS systems doing? Evidence from Bolivia, Peru, and Ghana, The University of Manchester: Brooks World Poverty Institute, BWPI Working Paper 22.

Carter, R, and Ross, I. (2016) ‘Beyond 'functionality' of handpump-supplied rural water services in developing countries’, Waterlines, 35(1), pp. 94–110.

Walters, J P, and Javernick-Will, A N. (2015) ‘Long-term functionality of rural water services in developing countries: A system dynamics approach to understanding the dynamic interaction of factors’, Environment, Science and Technology, 49(8), pp. 5035–5043.

Adank, M, Kumasi, T C, Chimbar, T L, Atengdem, J, Agbemor, B D, Dickinson, N, and Abbey, E. 2014. The state of handpump water services in Ghana: Findings from three districts. 37th WEDC International Conference, 2014, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Lockwood, H, Bakalian, A, and Wakeman, W. (2003) Assessing sustainability in RWS: the role of follow-up support to communities. Bank-Netherlands Water Partnership.

Parry-Jones, S, Reed, R A, and Skinner, B H. (2001) Sustainable Handpump Projects in Africa, Leicestershire: WEDC, Loughborough University.

Hazelton, D G. (2000) The development of effective community water supply systems using deep and shallow well handpump. WRC Report No. TT 132/00.

Sara, J, and Katz, T. (1998) Making RWS sustainable: Report on the impact of project rules, UNDP - World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, The World Bank, Washington D.C., USA.

Howe, C W, and Dixon, J A. (1993) ‘Inefficiencies in water project design and operation in the third world: An economic perspective’, Water Resources Research, 29(7), pp. 1889–1894.

McPherson, H J, and McGarry, M G. (1987) ‘User participation and implementation strategies in water and sanitation projects’, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 3(1) pp. 23–30.

Danert, K, Armstrong, T, Adekile, D, Duffau, B, Ouedraogo, I, and Kwei, C. (2010) Code of Practice for Cost Effective Boreholes, RWSN, St Gallen, Switzerland.