From Colombia to Kyrgyz Republic and Uganda: how we help countries adopt state-of-the art information systems for better management of rural water services

How many countries have you worked in where an up-to-date national information system for rural water services is used for decision-making?

SUSANNA SMETS (World Bank/RWSN Sustainable Services) & ANTONIO RODRÍGUEZ SERRANO (World Bank/RWSN Mapping & Monitoring (re-blogged from the World Bank)

How many countries have you worked in where an up-to-date national information system for rural water services is used for decision-making?

How many well-intended monitoring initiatives did you encounter which are no longer being used?

Your answers are likely to be “few” and “many”, as government-led information systems to support planning and decision making for fragmented rural water services are not easy to develop, institutionalize, and sustain.

It is widely recognized that information systems are a key building block to achieve sustainable rural services delivery – a top development priority given that 8 out 10 people without basic water services live in rural areas, leaving 628 million people unserved. The good news is that a customizable, tried and tested solution already exists, so that countries can leap-frog a cumbersome development process and – more importantly – go through a fast learning curve when adopting and institutionalizing the Rural Water and Sanitation information System or “SIASAR” as their national rural sector monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system.

Following the initiative of the governments of Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama, 11 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean are using the innovative open-data platform “SIASAR”. Different actors are using this tool for decision making, strategic planning, rural water performance monitoring, and for taking appropriate actions to prevent services from deteriorating, ensuring that water keeps flowing from the taps and communities receive timely support. SIASAR has been supported by the World Bank since its inception in 2010. In particular, Global Water Security and Sanitation Partnership (GWSP), a multi-donor trust fund housed within the World Bank’s Water Global Practice, provides funding to SIASAR.

With its adaptability and multi-language capability, SIASAR has now been introduced in the Kyrgyz Republic (in Russian and Kyrgyz languages), and a pilot has also been planned in Uganda. Within the context of the Kyrgyz Republic’s national rural water program, supported by the World Bank-supported Sustainable Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, SIASAR has now gradually been introduced as the sector’s M&E system, covering data on system status and service provider performance for almost a third of its 1800 remote and mountainous villages. This will help to target investments and achieve the Kyrgyz Government’s vision to reach universal access by 2026.

With support from GWSP and the World Bank’s office in Colombia, the South-South Knowledge Exchange Facility helped bring Kyrgyz and Ugandan delegations together in Colombia. This knowledge exchange allowed them to receive peer-to-peer advice on how to introduce, roll out, and use SIASAR, and to learn about effective policy instruments, regulations, and institutional arrangements for sustainable rural water supply and sanitation service provision.

With support from GWSP and the World Bank’s office in Columbia, the South-South Knowledge Exchange Facility helped bring Kyrgyz and Ugandan delegations together in Colombia.

Specifically, the delegations learned about Colombia’s differentiated policy and regulatory instruments for rural areas, including tariff policies, water quality and environmental regulations, technical standards for water supply and sanitation, financing modalities for investments, and of course the SIASAR information systems for evidence-based decision making. Through field visits, the responsibilities of local and regional governments in rural service delivery in Colombia were better understood. The three-way translation between Spanish, English, and Russian put in place and the excellent collaborative spirit by all parties helped to overcome the communication challenge. These delegates took away important lessons on the adaptation process for SIASAR, such as:

SIASAR implementation and scale-up requires dedicated human and financial resources at the national and regional levels, including both sectoral and IT experts.
A clear roadmap for SIASAR adoption is necessary, bringing in multiple partners to support implementation. Anchoring in national legislation and fostering linkages with other national statistical information systems is critical.
SIASAR can cater analysis to the need of different actors and increases transparency and accountability of service provision.
SIASAR has helped to inform and influence investment programs to close the urban-rural service gap, accompanied by a range of measures to support rural service providers.

Depending on where they were in the adoption of SIASAR, the Kyrgyz delegation was keen to grasp the process of institutionalization, while the Ugandans were exposed to the range of capabilities and practical first steps that have now led to a first pilot, supported by the Uganda Integrated Water Management and Development Project (IWMDP).

Seeing solutions in action can be a great motivation. The knowledge exchange with Colombiastimulated learning and encouraged officials from Kyrgyz and Uganda to try and adopt solutions to their own circumstances. A guide is now available that can help any country go through the process and prepare for the steps of adopting SIASAR.

SIASAR has proven to be an effective tool for improving the monitoring, evaluation, planning, and coordination of water supply and sanitation services in participating countries in Latin America and beyond. Through knowledge exchange activities like this and future GWSP technical assistance, we hope to support more countries in adopting the system and joining the initiative, while we commit to continuous improvement of the capabilities of the system.

Just how much do countries rely on groundwater point sources for their drinking water?

Preliminary analysis of census and national survey data from the 2019 Joint Monitoring Programme, by Dr Kerstin Danert

An important issue for those of us that think a lot about groundwater is the extent that various countries rely on it for their drinking water.

The data presented in the table below has been prepared from the 2019 data published by the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and UNICEF (see https://washdata.org/data). Each country has an associated Country File (an excel spreadsheet) with collated data on Water, Sanitation and Hygiene use. This data is gathered from national censuses as well as household surveys such as the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) and many others. The country files given excel spreadsheets on the JMP website (not to mention the underlying surveys) contain a wealth of data!

The table below shows the percentage of the population that rely on groundwater point sources as their main source of drinking water for every country and territory for the most recent year for which census or survey data is available. The data is presented for urban, rural and total populations. Groundwater point sources include protected and unprotected wells and springs, as well as tube wells and boreholes. Countries may have slightly different nomenclature for the above terms, but these are harmonised in the country tables produced by the JMP.

It is important to note that the data only includes point sources. Water that is bought from vendors, sold in bottles/sachets or transmitted in pipes may also originate from groundwater, but this information is not generally collated by the censuses or surveys and thus cannot be reflected. Consequently, the actual dependency of a particular on groundwater for drinking may be considerably higher. In addition, national governments may also make calculations based on the infrastructure available and assumed number of users per source. Due to the different methods of data collection and calculation, these estimates may differ from that collected by the household survey or census.

Please note that the analysis below has not been peer-reviewed, and so if you are intending to use the data, please do check in the respective JMP country file. You can access Country Files on: https://washdata.org/data. Click on map to select country, download “Country file” and open the “Water Data” tab. In case you spot any mistakes in the table below, please respond in the comments in the blog below or contact the author directly, via rwsn@skat.ch.

Table 1 Groundwater point source as main drinking water source (% of the population classified as urban, rural and total)

	Urban		Rural		Total
Country	Census/ Survey Year	Ground-water point source as main drinking water source (% of the urban pop.)	Census/ Survey Year	Ground-water point source as main drinking water source (% of the rural pop.)	Census/ Survey Year	Ground-water point source as main drinking water source (% of the total pop.)
Afghanistan	2017	57.3%	2017	71.5%	2017	68.1%
Albania	2012	6.4%	2012	14.7%	2012	10.2%
Algeria	2013	6.6%	2013	19.6%	2013	11.3%
American Samoa					2010	0.5%
Andorra					2005	6.6%
Angola	2016	17.7%	2016	43.0%	2016	26.8%
Anguilla	2009	0.7%			2009	0.7%
Antigua and Barbuda					2011	0.4%
Argentina	2013	9.1%	2010	37.7%	2010	15.0%
Armenia	2016	0.1%	2016	2.6%	2016	1.1%
Aruba					2010	1.3%
Australia	2013	0.1%	2013	1.1%	2013	0.5%
Azerbaijan	2017	0.1%	2017	12.1%	2017	5.4%
Bahamas					2010	2.9%
Bahrain					1995	1.4%
Bangladesh	2016	66.4%	2016	94.7%	2016	84.9%
Barbados			2010	0.1%	2012	0.1%
Belarus	2012	2.7%	2012	32.9%	2012	11.1%
Belize	2016	0.3%	2016	4.1%	2016	2.5%
Benin	2014	39.4%	2014	56.8%	2014	48.9%
Bhutan	2017	0.3%	2017	0.6%	2017	0.5%
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)	2017	5.0%	2017	42.2%	2017	16.5%
Bosnia and Herzegovina	2012	3.6%	2012	11.4%	2012	8.9%
Botswana	2017	0.1%	2017	14.9%	2017	5.3%
Brazil	2017	0.4%	2017	8.4%	2017	1.6%
British Virgin Islands					2010	1.9%
Brunei Darussalam	2011	0.1%	2011	0.1%	2011	0.1%
Bulgaria	2001	0.4%	2001	2.7%	2001	1.1%
Burkina Faso	2017	17.1%	2017	85.6%	2017	72.9%
Burundi	2017	8.6%	2017	68.1%	2017	61.5%
Cabo Verde	2007	0.1%	2012	15.1%	2012	5.1%
Cambodia	2016	13.5%	2016	47.2%	2016	40.2%
Cameroon	2014	35.5%	2014	74.1%	2017	50.0%
Canada	2011	0.1%	2011	0.7%	2011	0.3%
Caribbean Netherlands					2001	27.3%
Cayman Islands	2010	4.9%		0.0%	2010	4.9%
Central African Republic	2010	49.1%	2010	92.1%	2010	75.4%
Chad	2015	48.0%	2015	82.4%	2015	74.6%
Chile	2017	0.6%	2017	4.0%	2017	2.4%
China	2013	7.4%	2013	43.1%	2016	22.4%
Colombia	2018	0.4%	2018	13.7%	2018	3.3%
Comoros	2012	5.1%	2012	21.3%	2012	16.2%
Congo	2015	24.9%	2015	65.7%	2015	38.3%
Cook Islands					2011	0.0%
Costa Rica	2018	0.0%	2018	0.5%	2018	0.2%
Côte d’Ivoire	2017	33.9%	2017	71.0%	2017	49.5%
Croatia	2003	3.3%	2003	18.0%	2003	20.0%
Cuba	2011	13.5%	2014	41.9%	2011	18.2%
Curaçao					2011	0.9%
Czechia	2003	1.5%	2003	7.1%
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea	2017	17.1%	2017	58.1%	2017	33.1%
Democratic Republic of the Congo	2014	33.0%	2014	79.4%	2014	63.5%
Djibouti	2017	0.6%	2017	55.5%	2017	10.9%
Dominica	2001	0.6%	2001	6.3%	2009	0.3%
Dominican Republic	2016	0.1%	2016	2.3%	2016	0.7%
Ecuador	2017	1.1%	2017	17.1%	2017	6.1%
Egypt	2017	0.4%	2017	2.1%	2017	1.4%
El Salvador	2017	3.0%	2017	12.3%	2017	6.6%
Equatorial Guinea	2011	44.7%	2011	51.9%	2011	48.4%
Eritrea	2010	3.4%	2010	36.0%	2010	24.6%
Estonia	2010	1.7%	2010	18.8%	2010	6.7%
Eswatini	2014	3.7%	2014	31.5%	2014	24.0%
Ethiopia	2017	5.1%	2017	62.3%	2017	52.0%
Falkland Islands (Malvinas)			2016	43.7%
Fiji	2014	1.1%	2014	13.6%	2014	7.2%
Finland	1999	1.0%	2005	5.0%	2005	1.0%
French Guiana	1999	5.0%	1999	6.0%	2015	13.5%
Gabon	2013	3.3%	2013	37.8%	2013	8.2%
Gambia	2013	14.4%	2013	60.0%	2013	32.6%
Georgia	2017	4.9%	2017	46.9%	2017	22.2%
Germany	2007	0.8%	2007	0.8%	2007	0.0%
Ghana	2017	11.3%	2017	56.7%	2017	36.0%
Greece	2001	0.2%	2001	3.8%
Grenada	1999	4.0%	1999	18.0%
Guadeloupe	2006	0.8%	2006	0.3%	2006	0.8%
Guam					2010	0.1%
Guatemala	2015	5.0%	2015	19.6%	2015	13.4%
Guinea	2016	32.8%	2016	75.3%	2016	59.0%
Guinea-Bissau	2014	41.0%	2014	78.0%	2014	61.7%
Guyana	2014	1.3%	2014	5.5%	2014	4.4%
Haiti	2017	8.1%	2017	56.5%	2017	37.5%
Honduras	2017	2.0%	2017	4.2%	2017	3.0%
Hungary	1990	5.0%	1990	28.9%
India	2016	23.8%	2016	63.7%	2016	50.5%
Indonesia	2018	35.2%	2018	66.9%	2018	49.6%
Iran (Islamic Republic of)	2015	1.8%	2015	4.6%	2015	0.8%
Iraq	2018	0.5%	2018	4.6%	2018	1.8%
Ireland	2006	0.0%	2006	0.5%
Italy					2001	3.9%
Jamaica	2014	0.0%	2014	1.2%	2014	0.6%
Jordan	2016	0.3%	2016	0.7%	2016	0.4%
Kazakhstan	2015	3.2%	2015	21.0%	2015	11.5%
Kenya	2017	21.2%	2017	54.1%	2017	46.2%
Kiribati	2014	0.0%	2014	0.0%	2014	0.0%
Kyrgyzstan	2014	1.1%	2014	11.3%	2014	8.1%
Lao People’s Democratic Republic	2017	9.0%	2017	46.0%	2017	34.7%
Latvia	2003	2.4%	2003	12.5%
Lebanon					2016	10.9%
Lesotho	2015	5.5%	2015	27.8%	2015	21.4%
Liberia	2016	58.7%	2016	74.7%	2016	65.3%
Libya	1995	35.8%	1995	26.9%	2014	19.1%
Madagascar	2016	24.5%	2016	61.6%	2016	57.6%
Malawi	2017	16.3%	2017	86.0%	2017	73.8%
Malaysia	2003	0.8%	2003	6.7%
Maldives	2014	0.1%	2014	0.2%	2017	0.5%
Mali	2018	19.5%	2018	72.3%	2018	56.2%
Marshall Islands	2017	0.2%	2017	2.5%	2017	0.6%
Martinique	1999	0.5%			2015	0.4%
Mauritania	2015	6.5%	2015	49.4%	2015	29.1%
Mayotte		0.0%			2013	2.5%
Mexico	2017	0.8%	2017	9.5%	2017	2.8%
Micronesia (Federated States of)	2010	3.6%	2010	10.7%	2010	9.1%
Mongolia	2016	12.8%	2016	52.7%	2016	25.8%
Montenegro	2013	5.1%	2013	29.2%	2013	14.1%
Montserrat	1998	2.0%	1998	100.0%	2001	0.1%
Morocco	2012	1.0%	2012	27.2%	2012	10.2%
Mozambique	2015	21.4%	2015	62.5%	2015	49.6%
Myanmar	2016	34.3%	2016	74.8%	2016	64.0%
Namibia	2016	0.6%	2016	23.4%	2016	11.8%
Nauru	2011	1.6%	2011	0.0%	2011	1.6%
Nepal	2016	41.8%	2016	46.8%	2016	44.4%
New Caledonia					2014	3.1%
Nicaragua	2014	4.4%	2014	59.9%	2016	21.4%
Niger	2017	33.9%	2017	71.0%	2017	49.5%
Nigeria	2018	45.3%	2018	73.1%	2018	60.0%
Niue			1999	20.0%	2010	0.0%
North Macedonia	2011	1.5%	2011	15.1%	2011	7.7%
Northern Mariana Islands	2000	1.3%		0.0%	2010	1.1%
Oman	2014	5.1%	2014	10.0%	2014	6.4%
Pakistan	2016	30.4%	2016	44.0%	2016	39.1%
Panama	2015	0.7%	2015	14.6%	2017	0.0%
Papua New Guinea	2017	2.8%	2017	7.5%	2017	7.1%
Paraguay	2017	2.1%	2017	9.2%	2017	4.8%
Peru	2017	1.5%	2017	11.1%	2017	3.8%
Philippines	2017	8.4%	2017	37.6%	2017	23.9%
Portugal	2001	0.1%	2001	0.7%
Puerto Rico					1995	1.8%
Republic of Korea					2015	1.0%
Republic of Moldova	2012	16.9%	2012	65.1%	2012	47.1%
Réunion					2015	0.2%
Romania	1994	11.3%	1994	81.0%
Russian Federation	2009	3.4%	2009	19.5%	2009	8.6%
Rwanda	2017	17.2%	2017	58.4%	2017	50.4%
Saint Kitts and Nevis	1999	27.0%	1999	27.0%	2007	0.3%
Saint Lucia	2012	0.5%	2012	2.0%	2012	1.6%
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines			1999	20.0%	2012	0.1%
Samoa	2016	2.6%	2016	5.6%	2016	5.0%
Sao Tome and Principe	2010	4.5%	2010	11.7%	2010	6.9%
Saudi Arabia					2017	0.2%
Senegal	2017	7.2%	2017	35.0%	2017	22.5%
Serbia	2014	2.4%	2014	11.7%	2014	6.2%
Sierra Leone	2017	54.7%	2017	68.9%	2017	62.6%
Sint Maarten (Dutch part)					2011	7.4%
Slovakia	2003	2.3%	2003	2.3%	2011	13.1%
Solomon Islands	2015	8.6%	2016	27.6%	2015	17.5%
Somalia	2017	9.5%	2017	60.5%	2017	34.1%
South Africa	2017	0.5%	2017	10.1%	2017	3.8%
South Sudan	2017	66.5%	2017	80.1%	2017	77.3%
Spain	2003	0.6%	2003	0.3%
Sri Lanka	2016	17.3%	2016	51.0%	2016	45.3%
Sudan	2014	2.2%	2014	13.2%	2014	9.8%
Suriname	2017	3.1%	2017	5.4%	2017	3.8%
Syrian Arab Republic	2018	4.2%	2018	11.6%	2018	8.4%
Tajikistan	2017	5.2%	2017	18.7%	2017	15.4%
Thailand	2016	1.8%	2016	6.2%	2016	4.2%
Timor-Leste	2016	20.0%	2016	33.6%	2016	29.9%
Togo	2017	36.6%	2017	61.2%	2017	51.8%
Tonga	1999	28.0%	1999	24.0%	1996	1.7%
Trinidad and Tobago	2011	0.9%	2011	1.0%	2011	0.9%
Tunisia	2015	0.5%	2015	10.8%	2015	3.7%
Turkey	2013	5.0%	2013	40.0%	2013	13.0%
Turkmenistan	2016	4.4%	2016	34.3%	2016	22.6%
Turks and Caicos Islands	1999	22.0%	1999	40.0%	2012	1.7%
Tuvalu	2007	1.7%	2007	0.5%	2007	1.1%
Uganda	2017	35.8%	2017	79.6%	2017	71.9%
Ukraine	2018	11.5%	2018	61.2%	2018	27.8%
United Arab Emirates	2003	0.2%			2018	0.1%
United Republic of Tanzania	2017	19.4%	2017	50.5%	2017	41.2%
United States of America	2015	3.0%	2015	45.2%	2015	11.1%
Uruguay	2017	0.0%	2017	3.1%	2017	0.2%
Uzbekistan	2015	6.9%	2015	22.7%	2015	14.2%
Vanuatu	2016	1.6%	2016	4.8%	2016	4.0%
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)	2011	4.3%	2011	25.6%	2011	6.8%
Viet Nam	2016	19.5%	2016	57.2%	2016	45.2%
West Bank and Gaza Strip	2017	1.2%	2017	3.2%	2017	1.5%
Yemen	2013	2.3%	2013	43.1%	2013	31.6%
Zambia	2015	26.7%	2015	76.8%	2015	55.8%
Zimbabwe	2017	11.1%	2017	77.5%	2017	57.0%

Photo: Groundwater provides over 80% of the rural population with its main source of drinking water in South Sudan. Photo taken in 2014 in Northern Bahr el Ghazal by Kerstin Danert.

India pledges piped water to every rural home within 5 years

India is turning its back on the handpump and is going full bore for piped water supplies.

India is turning its back on the world’s most popular handpump to which it lent its name (India Mark II) and is going full bore for piped water supplies.

The Times of India report : “With more than 80% rural households yet to get piped water supply, the government on Tuesday announced to roll out a new mission to ensure “Nal se Jal” ater from the tap) for each house in villages in the next five years as promised in BJP’s election manifesto.”

This promises to be the most ambitious rural water supply programme in the world and this important transition from point source to piped will be watched with interest by many other countries around the world.

You can read more here:

Ne laisser personne de côté dans les zones rurales, c’est plus qu’une question d’approvisionnement en eau potable.

“Ne laisser personne de côté”. Que signifient réellement ces mots et quelles en sont les implications pour nous, les professionnels de l’eau en milieu rural, ainsi que pour le financement des programmes et des projets que nous mettons en œuvre ?

Le mot de la présidente du RWSN: Kelly Ann Naylor, UNICEF, Co-auteur : Dr Kerstin Danert, responsable du Thème Développement Durable des Eaux Souterraines de RWSN

Le thème de la Journée mondiale de l’eau de 2019, du World Water Development Report des Nations Unies, de la Semaine mondiale de l’eau à Stockholm et de la série de webinaires RWSN du printemps 2019 était le même : “Ne laisser personne de côté”. Que signifient réellement ces mots et quelles en sont les implications pour nous, les professionnels de l’eau en milieu rural, ainsi que pour le financement des programmes et des projets que nous mettons en œuvre ?

La résolution 70/1 de l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies intitulée “Transformer notre monde : l’Agenda 2030 pour le développement durable” stipule qu’il ne faut laisser personne de côté. Cela nous demande d’analyser qui a été exclu de la prestation de services, de la prise de décision et du développement ; de découvrir pourquoi ; de déterminer ce qui peut être fait et de prendre des mesures pour que les personnes marginalisées dans le passé soient incluses maintenant et à l’avenir. Deuxièmement, il s’agit de travailler de manière transversale entre disciplines et “thèmes de développement” pour combler les lacunes.

Permettez-moi d’illustrer le premier point par un exemple fictif : “Le pays X a connu une croissance économique rapide au cours des deux dernières décennies, qui s’est traduite par une amélioration substantielle de la richesse et du niveau de vie des populations dans trois des cinq régions du pays. Entre-temps, la vie de la majorité des habitants des deux autres régions, essentiellement rurales, n’a guère changé en cinquante ans. Une proportion non négligeable de la population y vit toujours dans l’extrême pauvreté et n’a pas de sécurité. L’écart de richesse entre les différentes régions du pays s’est creusé et, pour aggraver la situation, les populations les plus pauvres des régions les plus pauvres ont peu de voix ou d’influence dans la prise de décision au niveau national. L’objectif de Ne laisser personne de côté exige de demander au gouvernement et aux partenaires, ainsi qu’aux bailleurs de fonds, de comprendre pourquoi ces deux régions sont restées marginalisées, d’explorer ce qui peut être fait pour remédier au déséquilibre et de prendre des mesures. S’attaquer aux inégalités spatiales (géographiques) comme le montre l’exemple ci-dessus n’est qu’un exemple parmi d’autres des mesures prises pour ne laisser personne de côté. Selon le contexte, les inégalités se manifestent dans de nombreuses dimensions, y compris, mais sans s’y limiter, le sexe, la capacité, l’âge, l’origine ethnique, les castes et l’éloignement. Il peut également y avoir des chevauchements entre ces dimensions.

Le deuxième point, qui porte sur le fait de travailler de manière transversale entre plusieurs thèmes de développement, est bien illustré dans les objectifs de développement durable (ODD) qui sont interdépendants. Les professionnels de l’eau, de l’assainissement et de l’hygiène (WASH) peuvent se concentrer sur l’ODD 6 – Eau potable et assainissement, mais l’eau potable est directement intégrée dans l’ODD 1 – Mettre fin à la pauvreté (services de base), l’ODD 5 – Egalité des sexes (temps consacré au travail domestique non rémunéré, et femmes occupant des postes de direction) et l’ODD 4 – Éducation de qualité (Eau, Assainissement et Hygiène (EAH) dans les écoles). Tous ces éléments sont tout aussi importants que l’ODD 6.

Ce point est également ressorti d’une évaluation récente du programme d’approvisionnement en eau potable en milieu rural d’UNICEF: si nous voulons nous assurer que personne n’est laissé de côté et nous attaquer fondamentalement à la pauvreté rurale, nous devons, en tant que professionnels de l’eau en milieu rural, envisager de dépasser les limites de l’eau potable et du “monde de l’EAH”. Pour transformer la vie des populations, les infrastructures de l’eau doivent répondre à un plus large éventail de besoins ruraux – approvisionnement domestique, jardins familiaux, entreprises rurales et transformation rurale ainsi que l’eau potable. Nous devons aborder les questions de genre afin que les femmes et les enfants ne “fassent pas le travail d’un tuyau ” car ils passent une grande partie de leur vie à transporter de l’eau sur de longues distances. Nous devons veiller à ce que les personnes handicapées puissent satisfaire leurs besoins en eau et mener une vie digne.

D’ici la fin de l’année, l’UNICEF publiera de nouvelles directives sur l’équité dans le secteur de l’EAH. Nous espérons que cela contribuera non seulement aux efforts que vous entreprenez déjà, mais que ces directives pourront vous inspirer à faire encore plus pour remédier aux inégalités. Entre-temps, commencez à poser des questions sur les personnes qui sont laissées pour compte, ainsi que sur ce qui peut être fait et pourquoi. De plus, songez à contacter vos collègues et amis qui travaillent pour transformer le monde rural, ou sur les questions de genre, la nutrition et l’éducation pour voir s’il existe des moyens de travailler ensemble pour ne laisser personne de côté en milieu rural.

Leaving no one behind in rural areas is about more than drinking water supplies

‘Leaving No One Behind’ – what do these words actually mean, and what are the implications for us rural water practitioners, as well as those funding the programmes and projects that we implement?

Word from the RWSN Chair: Kelly Ann Naylor UNICEF, Co-author: Dr Kerstin Danert, RWSN Sustainable Groundwater Development Theme Leader in the latest RWSN Update (June 2019)

The theme of the 2019 World Water Day, the United Nations World Water Development Report the World Water Week in Stockholm and the early 2019 RWSN webinar series was ‘Leaving No One Behind’. What do these words actually mean, and what are the implications for us rural water practitioners, as well as those funding the programmes and projects that we implement?

‘Leave No One Behind’ is stated in the UN General Assembly Resolution 70/1 entitled: Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Leave no one behind calls upon us to find out who has been excluded from service provision, decision-making and development; to find out why; to explore what can be done and to take action to ensure that people who have been marginalised in the past are included now, and in the future. Secondly, it is about joining hands across disciplines and ‘development themes’ to address gaps.

Let me try to illustrate the first point with a fictitious example: “Country X has witnessed rapid economic growth over the last two decades, leading to substantial improvements in the wealth and living standards of people in three of the country’s five regions. Meanwhile, the lives of the majority of people in the other two, predominantly rural regions have barely changed over fifty years. A sizable proportion of the population there are still living in extreme poverty and have no safety net. The gap in wealth between different parts of the country has widened, and, to make matters worse, the poorest people in the poorest regions have little voice, or influence in decision-making at national level. Leave no one behind calls upon government and partners, as well as funders to understand why these two regions have remained marginalised, to explore what can be done to address the imbalance, and to take action. Addressing spatial (geographical) inequalities as shown in the above example is just one example of taking action to leave no one behind. Depending on the context, inequalities manifest themselves in many dimensions, including, but not limited to gender, ability, age, ethnicity, cast and remoteness. There may also be overlaps.

The second point, about joining hands and working across development themes is well illustrated in the interlinked Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) practitioners may focus on SDG 6 – Clean Water and Sanitation, but drinking water is directly embedded within SDG 1 – No Poverty (basic services), SDG 5 – Gender Equality (time spent on unpaid domestic and care work and women in managerial positions) and SDG 4 – Quality Education (WASH in schools). These are all just as important as SDG 6.

This point was also highlighted in a recent evaluation of the Rural Water Supply programme of UNICEF: if we are to ensure that no one is left behind and fundamentally tackle rural poverty, we, as rural water practitioners need to consider move beyond the confines of drinking water and ‘the WASH world’. To transform people’s lives, water infrastructures need to cater for a wider spectrum of rural needs – domestic supply, household gardens, rural businesses and rural transformation as well as drinking water. We must address gender issues so that women and children no longer ‘do the work of a pipe’ as they spend large parts of their lives hauling water over long distances. We must ensure that people with disabilities are able to meet their water needs and lead dignified lives.

By the end of 2019, UNICEF will publish new guidance on equity in WASH. We hope that this will not only contribute to the efforts that you are already undertaking, but that it can inspire you to do even more to address inequalities. In the meantime, start asking questions about who is being left behind, as well as why and what can be done. Moreover, consider reaching out to colleagues and friends working on rural transformation, gender transformation, nutrition and education to see if there are ways that you can work together to leave no one behind in rural areas.

New JMP report offers fresh insights into rural water progress and challenges

The new JMP report is out with WASH data up to 2017! This is an initial look at some key points relating to rural water supply

The WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) is one of the central data and analysis resources for the WASH sector and each new report and data update is generally grabbed eagerly by WASH data geeks, like me.

This being RWSN, I’m specifically interested in rural water supply and what I present below is a hasty digest of some key facts and figures in the latest 2019 JMP report specifically relating to rural drinking water access.

I’m sure other WASH bloggers will also add the analysis, but I found the stuff on inequalities very interesting and useful. Some things that jumped out at me include:

What can we learn from Paraguay, Morocco and other countries that have made good progress?
Rural water supply challenges are not just about Sub-Saharan Africa: Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Jamaica, Nicaragua and others are going backwards; and in terms of absolute numbers of people, China, India, Indonesia and Pakistan still have millions of rural people
Lower wealth quintiles often get left behind, but not always.
The new 3 elements of “Safely Managed” water are interesting and highlight an urgent need for systematic water quality monitoring – which a new RWSN Topic this year, as part of the Mapping & Monitoring Theme, thanks to our friends at the University of North Carolina.

Global Headline Facts & Figures

Here are some nuggets that will doubtless be seen in powerpoint presentations, funding proposals and journal papers over the coming year:

“2000-2017: Rural coverage of safely managed services increased from 39% to 53%. The gap between urban and rural areas decreased from 47 to 32 percentage points.”
“In 2017: 5.3 billion people used safely managed services. An additional 1.4 billion used at least basic services. 206 million people used limited services, 435 million used unimproved sources, and 144 million still used surface water.”
“46 out of 132 countries are on track to achieve ‘nearly universal’ basic water services by 2030, but rural areas and the poorest wealth quintiles have furthest to go”
“The greatest increase was recorded in Sub-Saharan Africa, where a quarter of the current population has gained access to at least basic drinking water since 2000”
“In 2017: Eight out of ten people still lacking even basic services lived in rural areas. Nearly half lived in Least Developed Countries“
“207 million people still used sources where water collection exceeded 30 minutes. Two thirds (135 million) of these people lived in countries in Sub-Saharan Africa but six out of eight SDG regions contained at least one country where >10% of the population used limited water services in 2017. The burden of water collection falls disproportionately on women.”

The report also reminds us that WASH is not just about SDG6, there are direct and indirect references in:

SDG 1.4 (No Poverty) its indicator 1.4.1 “Proportion of population living in households with access to basic services (including access to basic drinking water, basic sanitation and basic handwashing facilities)”
SDG 4.a (Education) and its indicator: 4.a.1 Proportion of schools with access to… (e) basic drinking water, (f) single-sex basic sanitation facilities, and (g) basic handwashing facilities
SDG 3.8 (Health) and its indicator on proportion of health care facilities with basic WASH services.

Since the emergence of SDG6.1 there has been a question about what “Safely Managed” water means. Well now there is some data available of the three elements chosen by the JMP team:

“Accessible on premises”
“Available when needed”
“Free from contamination”

However, there is only data for 14 countries for all three of these, but from those: “Between 2000 and 2017, water quality in rural areas improved from 42% to 53% free from contamination”

Regional/Country Progress and inequalities

Without doubt, the rural water supply star country is Paraguay: “Paraguay increased rural coverage of basic water from 53% to 99% and reduced the gap between richest and poorest by over 40 percentage points.”

Elsewhere:

“In almost all countries, service levels are higher in urban areas than in rural areas, but different patterns of inequality are observed.”
“In Latin America and the Caribbean, 12% of the rural population lacked basic water services in 2017, compared to 29% in 2000”
“In Haiti rural basic water coverage has increased among the richest but decreased among the poorest thereby widening the gap between them”
“In Nicaragua, rural basic water coverage has decreased among both groups.”

Country progress to achieving Basic Rural Water Coverage by 2030 (figure above):

16 countries on track, including: Morocco, Tajikistan, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Azerbaijan, Iraq, El Salvador, Kazakhstan, India, Vietnam, Tunisia, Brazil, Lithuania, Suriname, Panama. The most progress is being made by Morocco (+2.5%/year)
61 countries are making progress, but too slowly. The best progress is being made by Afghanistan and Mozambique (+2.1%/year)
17 countries are going backwards, including: Iran, Fiji, Malaysia, North Korea, Serbia, Jamaica, Comoros, Gambia, Lesotho, Nicaragua, Guinea, Zimbabwe, Djibouti, Burkina Faso, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Solomon Island. The biggest declines have been in Burkina Faso, Comoros and the Solomon Islands (-0.9%/year).

Which countries have the biggest rural water supply challenges?

The JMP data can examine this question in different ways – and a few new ones too. This is a quick-and-dirty dive into the data to look at which countries are struggling and should be given priority:

A column on water quality/contamination criteria is not included because the aggregated data for rural water is not available – and in many cases probably doesn’t exist.

These are just a few highlights, please take the time to read the report and explore the data portal.

Seawater intrusion – a challenge for the 21st century

This is a guest blog by Ramon Brentführer, which was originally published in GeoDrilling International. You can read the original article here.

Coastal zones have always formed focal points for human settlement and economic activity. Globally, some 37% of the world’s population lives within 100 km of the coast and two-thirds of the world’s cities are here with an extraordinary population growth. Water demand is rising and this is especially the case for coastal zones. Whereas China is considered to be the hotspot of this development with a projected population of about 200 million inhabitants in low elevation areas in 2030, the coastal area of India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Vietnam also experience strong population growth. Furthermore, the population growth rates in Africa are estimated to be the highest worldwide, especially in countries of Western Africa. Moreover, changing lifestyles, agricultural expansion and economic development boost the demand for water in coastal areas. The growing need for water is a good business opportunity for drilling companies that drill wells for domestic, agricultural or industrial customers.

However, heavy groundwater abstraction in coastal zone is prone to problems: The vicinity of the water resources to the ocean represents a risk of salinization. When freshwater is abstracted from a well close to the coastline, seawater might intrude into the aquifer. The new publication “Groundwater Management in Coastal Zones” gives practitioners a guideline to evaluate risks and a scope for action in such sensible hydrogeological conditions and the dynamic physical and social environment of coastal zones.

Seawater intrusion is not a future scenario – it is already reality in several regions worldwide. In Tianjin, one of the most rapidly developing and water scarcest regions in China, already 400 000 people were affected by salinity problems and 8000 irrigation wells were shut down. Some farmers continued to use groundwater for irrigation, which resulted in soil salinization and a reduction of farm yields by up to 60%. Dar es Salaam is one of Africa’s fastest growing urban centers. The city with currently 4.1 million inhabitants, is expected to reach more than 10 million inhabitants by 2030. Only half of the population is served with piped water. The remainder of the population, mostly living in informal and low-income settlements obtains its water from up to 10 000 unauthorized boreholes from the shallow aquifer under the city. This has caused seawater intrusion where chloride concentrations exceed the WHO drinking water standard of 250 mg/l. On the Balearic Island of Mallorca, the tourism industry has grown extensively with almost 10 million visitors in the year 2015, which is more than 10 times its number of residents. The high water demand in the dry summer month and the high permeability of the aquifers caused seawater intrusion. The list of cases for seawater intrusion is long and the reasons and drivers for seawater intrusion are divers and often interconnected.

Therefore, a sustainable groundwater management in a coastal zone is difficult but not impossible. A crucial pre-condition is the good understanding of the groundwater system, which requires a well-designed monitoring network. Experiences from different regions in the world have shown that there is an inadequate monitoring and lack of groundwater information. This includes static data, like aquifer properties, but also dynamic data like groundwater recharge and abstraction rates. A well-designed monitoring system and database form a further prerequisite for the enforcement of regulatory instruments like well licensing and abstraction permits. Another condition for a sustainable groundwater management is good governance. Groundwater governance is negotiated (formally or informally) between various actors and embedded in regional and local power relations. Therefore, the information about groundwater´s role in a regions economic development, cross-sectoral coordination and legislative enforcement is necessary to create good governance. Traditional command-and control-approaches generally fail to solve complex groundwater issues such as over-extraction. Consequently, integral and participatory approaches constitute the state-of-the-art in groundwater management. Therefore all relevant stakeholders, like water users, public administration, political groups, and financing institutions as well as scientific institutions and the private sector, should participate in the decision making process.

Different management approaches and solutions have been developed to tackle the challenge of a sustainable groundwater management. In South Downs in England or on the Pacific Island of Kiribati an optimized abstraction strategy prevents elevated groundwater salinity by monitoring and a limitation of the abstraction to available resources. An innovative approach for demand control measures has been tested in Oman, where the pumps of agricultural groundwater users were equipped with prepaid metering system. The principal aim should always be, to keep the demand for water as low as possible. Alternative complementary water resources like treated wastewater or desalination are emerging technologies . In some cases, the economic development of megacities has become so immense that water has to be transferred from other basins like in the city of Tianjin in China. Additional engineering approaches are physical or hydraulic barriers. In Los Angeles, treated wastewater is induced into coastal-near boreholes to create a hydraulic pressure .and hinder seawater to intrude into the aquifer.The application of these approaches depends very much on the local physical and social conditions but should be embedded in the two already mentioned preconditions: understanding of the groundwater system and good groundwater governance with an efficient and strong institutional framework. The limited capacity of groundwater systems to meet water demand needs a rethinking of water supply, which should be based on innovative solutions and a diversification of water sources. Water availability should be a guiding principle in economic development and spatial planning, and the focus should be not only be on direct human needs but also on the health of ecosystems. This balancing act will be a delicate one in many coastal regions, but it will have to be faced in order to meet the challenges brought by the rapid changes of the 21^st century.

About the author

Ramon Brentführer is policy advisor for groundwater management in development cooperation at the Federal Institute for Geoscience and Natural Resources. He is a geologist and holds a master’s degree in integrated water resources management. Ramon is a co-author of the publication “Groundwater Management in Coastal Zones”.