Hydrogeology of southern Madagascar: new mapping tool

BushProof Sàrl, drawing on more than 15 years’ experience of working in southern Madagascar, supported by two hydrogeologists from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), set out to work in an appropriate way on knowledge of aquifers in the regions of southern Madagascar. Together, they financed and created a mapping tool to improve knowledge of the functioning of groundwater in southern Madagascar, which was completed in 2023.

The south of the island of Madagascar has been experiencing prolonged periods of drought for several years. The growing local populations there now have very limited access to water, leading to deteriorating living conditions. However, large quantities of water flow through this area via aquifers whose functioning remains poorly understood.

Hydrogéologie du Sud de Madagascar: nouvel outil cartographique

BushProof Sàrl, mettant à profit une expérience de travail de plus de 15 ans dans le Sud de Madagascar, appuyé par deux hydrogéologues de la Direction du Développement et de la Coopération (DDC), s’est proposé de travailler de manière appropriée sur la connaissance des aquifères des régions du Sud de Madagascar. Ensembles, ils ont financé et créer un outil cartographique afin d’améliorer la connaissance du fonctionnement des eaux souterraines dans le Sud de Madagascar. Cet outil a été réalisé en 2023.

Le Sud de l’île de Madagascar connait, depuis plusieurs années, des périodes prolongées de sécheresse. Les populations locales grandissantes y ont aujourd’hui un accès très restreint à l’eau, ce qui engendre des conditions de vie dégradées. Pourtant, d’importantes d’eau transitent dans cette zone via des aquifères dont le fonctionnement reste mal connu.

El camino hacia el desarrollo de herramientas para el manejo de activos

Esta entrada fue realizada por PRACTICA Foundation como miembro de la RWSN.

En el ultimo post, se mostraron las herramientas para el manejo de activos que se estan desarrollando por la Alianza WASH Internacional. Las experiencias previas demostraron que utilizar un enfoque basado en los usuarios es importante para incrementar el impacto de los proyectos. Para este caso, las actividades principales incluyeron un mapeo de usuarios y sus necesidades, diseño de herramientas y pruebas en campo asi como su promocion en las comunidades.

Aditi Goyal, coordinadora de Smart-tech se refiere al proceso de diseño como uno basado en pequeñas iteraciones.

“Hay muchas maneras de llegar al mismo punto. Lo importante es llegar a donde el usuario necesita que lleguemos“

Ella se refiere a las características, usabilidad y adaptabilidad de las herramientas que se están desarrollando. Destacando la importancia de escuchar los puntos de vista de todos los actores que se encuentra involucrados en el proyecto. De experiencias previas, Aditi está consciente que los primeros borradores siempre tienden a ser completamente diferentes a lo que se entregan como producto final. Sin embargo, el proceso de confrontar y discutir las ideas conlleva a una etapa de maduración de las mismas.

El proceso

A continuación, se presenta el proceso que se ha adoptado para el desarrollo de las herramientas para el manejo de activos:

1. Mapeo de usuarios y sus necesidades

El proceso comienza con trabajo de campo, interactuando con las comunidades locales para entender el contexto en el cual se van a utilizar las herramientas. Este proceso incluye un mapeo de quienes serán los usuarios finales, definir sus características en relación a sus medios de vida, conexión a internet, nivel educación y a la manera en la que actualmente obtienen y utilizan la información relacionada a sus sistemas de agua. Definitivamente, esto contribuye a determinar acertadamente cuales son las características de las herramientas que harán la vida de los usuarios mas fácil. Un enfoque participativo e inclusivo asegura que los grupos vulnerables sean tomados en cuenta durante todo el proceso.

2. Diseño y desarrollo del producto

En esta sección se aborda la forma final que tendrán las herramientas, así como su contenido. Este proceso se lleva a cabo por medio de múltiples iteraciones que deben incluir a todos los actores. De acuerdo a la experiencia de la Alianza WASH Internacional, un buen mapeo de necesidades siempre facilita el proceso de diseño. Comúnmente, este proceso se lleva a cabo por medio de trabajo de campo. Sin embargo, debido a las restricciones impuesta por la pandemia de Covid-19, esto no fue posible para este proyecto.

3. Pruebas, promoción y entrega de las herramientas.

Este proceso no se ha realizado aún. Una vez que las herramientas hayan sido programadas y probadas por las organizaciones locales en Nepal (CIUD y Lumanti) se va a identificar y a proveer de apoyo técnico a una institución local que se encargue de implementar y adoptar las herramientas en todo el país. La aplicación web, el tablero de control y la herramienta de aprendizaje online serán circuladas con todos los grupos para los que ha sido diseñada. Las herramientas se encuentran en un ambiente publico para permitir cambios y mejoras conforme son necesarios (para este proyecto, el ambiente de Moodle ha sido seleccionado). El software recibirá mantenimiento por los próximos 5 años, por la misma compañía que lo desarrollo.

Lecciones aprendidas…hasta ahora.

Algunas reflexiones finales han sido obtenidas de las discusiones que han tomado lugar en el proyecto.

Los comentarios de los usuarios son de suma importancia para lograr herramientas robustas. El equipo de diseño necesita pasar tiempo en el campo, entrevistando a los futuros usuarios y entendiendo las necesidades reales. Muchas veces, lo que creemos que necesitan los usuarios, tiende a ser completamente diferente a lo que realmente necesitan. Flexibilidad, comunicación y buena planeación ayudan a solventar las dificultades en los proyectos. Por ejemplo, para este proyecto no fue posible realizar trabajo de campo debido a las restricciones impuestas por Covid-19. Para superar esto Smart-tech distribuyó las herramientas con el personal de campo para verificar su usabilidad y obtener comentarios con respecto a su implementación en condiciones reales. Estas acciones incrementan la comunicación entre los actores involucrados, ayudando a alcanzar las metas de una manera mas eficiente. Como se refiere Aditi:

‘Tener una planeación adecuada ha sido importante para el proyecto, ya que permite monitorear los productos y revisar si se han alcanzado las metas en tiempo y forma’

Agradecimiento especial para Aditi Goyal por su participación al proveer información para este blog. Este documento has sido creado por la Fundación Practica como miembro de la Alianza WASH Internacional, como p arte del Consorcio WASH SDG. Para mas información por favor contactar: info@practica.org; o visita http://www.practica.org. Foto: CIUD Nepal.

The road map for Asset Management tools development

This is a guest blog by RWSN Member Organisation PRACTICA Foundation.

In the last blog post, the Asset Management tools under development by the WASH Alliance International were presented. Previous experiences demonstrated that including user-centered approaches is key to increase the impact of project activities. The main activities for this project include a needs’ assessment, user story mapping, tool design, field testing promotion and the roll out of the tools.

Aditi Goyal, the e-learning development coordinator at Smart-tech, a Nepalese tech company, refers to this project as a continuous iterative process.

“There are many ways to get to the same place. The important thing here is to get where users take us”

She is referring to the features, usability and adaptability of the tools under development. Highlighting the importance of listening to everyone’s point of view represents an advantage for project implementation. From her previous experiences, she knows that first drafts tend to differ completely to what is delivered as final products. However, they are useful for the maturity process in which the ideas are confronted, shared and thus improved by a continuous feedback process.

The roadmap

Below, we present the process adopted to develop the asset management tools:

1. Need’s assessment and user story mapping

We began the process by going into the field. Enabling the interaction with local communities and understanding the context where the asset management tools would be piloted. This process included mapping of the potential users, defining their characteristics in terms of livelihoods, internet connectivity, literacy rates, and their current way of collecting and using information to perform works related to water system management. This supported in defining what the tools need to do to make their lives easier. A participatory and inclusive approach has been adopted to ensure that vulnerable groups and their needs were also considered in the whole process.

2. Design and development

This included deciding how the tools would look like, how the information would be presented, and the content that needed to be prioritized. This has been a lengthy process since multiple iterations needed to be done until all involved actors agreed on the final product. From the WASH Alliance International experience, a good needs’ assessment will always facilitate the design process. Normally, fieldwork should take place during the iterations to assess whether the development process is on the right track. However, due to the restrictions imposed by the spread of Covid-19, it was not possible to conduct all field verifications during this phase.

3. Testing, promotion and scaling of the tools.

This process has not taken place yet. Once the tools have been programmed and tested, the local partners of the WASH Alliance International in Nepal (CIUD and Lumanti) will identify and provide technical assistance to the institutional hosts who will monitor the implementation and adoption of the tools throughout the country.

The app, dashboard and the e-learning tool will be circulated among different target groups. The tools will be provided in an open-source environment to enable further scaling and improvement (for example for the e-learning Moodle has been selected). The software will be technically maintained and updated for a period of 5 years by the contracted software company.

Lessons learned…so far.

Key lessons have been extracted from the discussions with involved stakeholders regarding their experiences in this and other related projects.

User feedback is extremely important to make a robust tool. The team needs to spend time in the field, talking to future users and understanding their main needs. What we think users want and what they actually need is often quite different.

Flexibility, communication and good planning helps to overcome difficulties in projects. For example, there was no possible to conduct fieldwork due to Covid-19 restrictions. To overcome this issue SmartTech shared the tools with local field officers to do the verification and to obtain feedback about the usability and operability of the tools. These actions enhance communication among involved actors, helping to achieve goals in a more efficient way. As Aditi refers:

‘Following the planning schedule has been important since the beginning of the project, it helps me to track the deliverables and to see whether the goals have been achieved on time’.

Special thanks go to Aditi Goyal for her insights on the process of tool development. This document was developed by Practica Foundation as a member of the WASH Alliance International, partner of the WASH SDG Consortium. For more information please contact: info@practica.org; or visit http://www.practica.org. Photo credit: CIUD, Nepal.

External support programs to improve rural drinking water service sustainability: a systematic review

This is a guest blog by Meghan Miller. Meghan is completing her PhD in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and has conducted both her masters and doctorate research through The Water Institute.

The Water Institute recently published a systematic review on external support programs (ESPs) that target rural, often community-managed water systems. ESPs are of vital importance to long-term functionality and sustainability of rural drinking water service, as all water systems fail eventually and rural water committees can lack the resources and/or capacity to rehabilitate the systems independently.

The purpose of the systematic review was to determine how ESPs in low-, medium- and high-income countries are described and measured. The aims of the analysis were to: create a typology of ESP activities based on ESPs for rural drinking water systems; identify barriers to ESP access and implementation; and determine how ESPs effect the sustainability of rural water systems.

So what do external support programs do?

The types of ESP activities described in the literature were: technical assistance, financial assistance, monitoring and regulation, communication and coordination, administrative assistance, capacity-building, and creation of policies and enforcement of regulations. Technical assistance, financial assistance, and capacity-building were described in the majority of publications included (66%, 57%, and 53% respectively).

Need for a typology of activities and precise language

The language used to describe ESPs was not consistent between publications about low-, middle-, and high-income countries. When ESP activities go underreported, knowledge transfer is limited and support for ESPs is reduced. Communication and coordination between ESP providers is further limited by inconsistent and imprecise language. We identified twenty-one terms that were used to describe ESPs. Some terms imply that support occurs at specific phases or with specific actors. Post-construction support, for example, assumes that projects have a single construction event. The terminology should reflect how and when support is provided. The better ESP terminology is defined, the better we can compare ESPs in different settings.

External support was the most commonly used term (27% of publications) and we propose using the term “external support programs” to describe the continued support for water systems. Based on our analysis we propose the following definition for ESPs: “the set of activities provided by NGOs, government, private and community-based entities to community-member managers to ensure continued safe operation of a drinking water system.”

What are the barriers to external support programs?

Barriers to ESPs were grouped into six categories: inadequate resources, inadequate ESP support, restrictive policies, lack of communication and coordination, little access to ESPs, and insufficient training of water system managers. The barriers to ESP varied by country income classification. Lack of communication within ESPs and between ESPs and stakeholders was most frequently mentioned in publications about high-income countries (36% of the publications); lack of communicate was often characterized by unclear roles and responsibilities, lack of trust between ESPs and stakeholders, inability to resolve disputes and misunderstanding of local context. Insufficient training of staff and insufficient resources for ESP wa identified as the most common barriers to ESP in publications about low and lower-income countries (57% and 45% of publications respectively).

Little comprehensive monitoring and assessment of ESPs

Twenty studies evaluated the effects of ESPs on water service levels. Most publications described ESP activities but did not undertake data collection to assess the programs. Without a rigorous assessment of ESPs, it is difficult to identify the most effective components of ESPs. Proper monitoring requires that stakeholders understand the activities and models implemented by ESP providers. Presence of ESPs and access to spare parts were used as the indicators of ESP activity by studies assessing the effect of ESPs on households and water systems. Better monitoring would include indicators that measure the six types of ESP activities, such as the frequency and attendance rate of water committee training events. Indicators should also measure the effectiveness of different providers – these outcome indicators should be developed according to the type and purpose of the ESP. Additional assessments of ESPs will help stakeholders identify which ESP activities and models promote sustainability. Support programs can then incorporate those that promote sustainability.

Majority of publications report on ESPs for point sources

The majority of publications addressed ESPs for point sources. The focus on point sources ignores water sources in community institutions and the implementation of more complex water systems. Community institutions, such as schools and health care facilities, have different water use characteristics and management structures than community drinking water systems and support to these community institutions will require adaptations to existing ESPs. Piped water systems, compared to point sources, are more complex, have larger one-time repair costs, typically require repairs more frequently, may require specialist technicians, and may require more expensive parts. Descriptions of ESPs in community settings and for more complex systems will improve knowledge about how ESPs for can be adapted to better serve community needs.

Arsenic detected in rainwater harvesting tanks in Bolivia

This is a guest blog by Riley Mulhern, a PhD student at the University of North Carolina. If you are interested in issues related to water quality monitoring, you can join our online community here.

In areas of water scarcity around the globe, made worse by climate change and pollution of groundwater, rainwater harvesting remains an important source of water supply for rural communities.

This is especially true in the Bolivian altiplano, where drought and mining work together to create pockets of severe water stress in what is generally considered a water-rich country. I lived among these communities high in the Andes for two years working with an organization called the Centro de Ecología y Pueblos Andinos (Center for Ecology and Andean Peoples, or CEPA). I assisted CEPA with a small-scale rainwater harvesting project for rural communities with high needs.

Over the course of the project, CEPA monitored the quality of harvested rainwater through consecutive wet and dry seasons. Surprisingly, we detected arsenic in every tank we monitored, 18 in total, whereas no microbial contamination was found.

This finding alerted CEPA to the risk of rainwater contamination in the region. Further testing identified roof dust that flushes into the tanks from the roof catchment as the principle source of arsenic in the rainwater. No arsenic was detected in raw rainwater before it interacted with the roof or tank. The source of the arsenic in the dust, whether naturally elevated in the altiplano soil or mobilized due to mining activity and released into the environment, is unknown, but widespread mining contamination in the area is likely a contributor.

Given these findings, the implementation of rainwater harvesting as an alternative drinking water supply by nonprofit groups and charitable organizations without adequate monitoring and evaluation of water quality is a potential concern. Since rainwater is presumed to be arsenic-free, rainwater harvesting has been promoted as an alternative drinking water source in other areas affected by arsenic contamination of groundwater as well, such as Mexico, parts of Central America, and Bangladesh. It is not safe to assume rainwater will be entirely arsenic-free, however. The levels found in collection tanks in Bolivia were double the WHO health guideline of 10 parts per billion.

As a result, arsenic and other metals should be included as standard monitoring parameters in rainwater projects. Groups implementing rainwater harvesting projects should seek additional partners with the tools and knowledge to perform thorough water quality testing.

This can be accomplished either through basic field tests, which provide semi-quantitative information for initial screening, or through laboratory analysis. Research done at North Carolina State University found that the standard field method—where inorganic arsenic in a water sample is reduced to arsine gas, which then reacts with a mercuric bromide strip to turn color—tends to underestimate the actual arsenic concentration as verified by ICP-MS (a sophisticated method that detects counts of atoms in a sample at specific molecular weights, allowing for a precise quantitative measurement). However, these low-cost and easily transportable kits still offer an accessible and simple screening tool for the presence of arsenic. The ITS Econoquick, for example, provides 300 tests with a 0.3 ppb detection limit for less than $200. For more precise measurements and longer term use, the Palintest Arsenator includes a standardized digital reading of the colorimetric output for $1,200. Both kits were field tested by CEPA and were easy to use for untrained operators.

In addition to greater testing, practitioners should also consider the required first flush volume for their project. First flush systems are essential for any rainwater harvesting scenario to mitigate both microbial and chemical risks. This is especially true when used as a drinking water source. One rule of thumb is that first flush systems should be able to capture at least 4 liters of water for every 10 square meters of roof. The tanks monitored in Bolivia did not meet this standard. Thus, the risk of arsenic contamination of rainwater and simple controls for system design and monitoring should also be communicated widely through knowledge platforms such as RWSN and the RAIN Foundation.

The results of this monitoring study were compiled by CEPA and a Belgian organization, the Comité Académico Técnico de Asesoramiento a Problemas Ambientales (CATAPA). The full results have been published and are accessible through the journal Science of the Total Environment. This work has also been featured previously by EngineeringforChange.org.

About the author

Riley Mulhern is a PhD student at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Gillings School of Global Public Health. He worked previously as a technical water quality adviser for a Bolivian environmental justice nonprofit addressing issues of mining contamination in rural indigenous communities in Oruro, Bolivia. He is from Denver, Colorado and received his B.S. in physics and geology from Wheaton College in Wheaton, IL and M.S. in Environmental Engineering from the University of Colorado Boulder. He has worked previously on water projects in Nicaragua and Haiti.

Photo: Rainwater tank monitored for the study being installed. Photo credit: Maggie Mulhern.

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.

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.

Comprendre l’invisible: les efforts de l’Ouganda pour améliorer l’accès aux données détaillées sur les eaux souterraines

Il s’agit du second d’une série de quatre blogs intitulée ‘Le forage professionnel de puits d’eau: Apprendre de l’Ouganda” de Elisabeth Liddle et d’un webinaire en 2019 sur le forage de puits professionnel. Cette série s’appuie sur les recherches menées en Ouganda par Liddle et Fenner (2018). Nous vous invitons à nous faire part de vos commentaires en réponse à ce blog ci-dessous. [Note : Le blog original a été révisé le 3 avril 2019 pour corriger une représentation inexacte de la situation].

Si l’accès à des sources d’eau améliorées a augmenté de manière progressive dans l’ensemble de l’Afrique subsaharienne rurale, plusieurs études ont soulevé des problèmes concernant la capacité de ces sources à fournir des quantités d’eau sûres et adéquates à long terme (Foster et al., 2018 ; Kebede et al., 2017 ; Owor et al., 2017 ; Adank et al., 2014). La conception et l’emplacement des forages sont essentiels à ce que le point d’eau continue à fournir des quantités d’eau sûres et adéquates. L’accès à des informations détaillées et précises sur les eaux souterraines peut grandement faciliter le choix du site et la conception des forages (UNICEF/Skat, 2016 ; Carter et al., 2014).

La Fondation Skat et l’UNICEF ont été les principaux défenseurs d’un accès plus répandu à des données détaillées sur les eaux souterraines, y compris la récente note d’orientation qui souligne que “l’information sur les eaux souterraines” est essentielle à l’amélioration de la qualité de la mise en œuvre des forages dans les pays à revenus faible et intermédiaire (voir Figure 1 ; UNICEF/Skat, 2016). Dans ce blog, je donne un aperçu de la manière dont l’Ouganda a cherché à améliorer l’accès aux données sur les eaux souterraines ces dernières années.

Fig. 1: Six domaines d’engagement pour l’exploitation professionnelle des eaux souterraines (Skat/ UNICEF, 2018)

La cartographie des ressources en eaux souterraines en Ouganda

Des mesures importantes ont été prises ces dernières années pour améliorer l’accès aux données détaillées sur les eaux souterraines en Ouganda. La plupart de ces activités ont débuté en 2000 lorsque la Direction de la gestion des ressources en eau du Ministère de l’eau et de l’environnement a lancé un projet de cartographie des eaux souterraines à l’échelle nationale. À l’aide de données tirées des rapports d’achèvement des forages que les entrepreneurs de forage doivent soumettre chaque trimestre, la Direction de la gestion des ressources en eau a élaboré une série de cartes pour chaque district. Il s’agit notamment des cartes suivantes :

Carte de localisation des sources d’eau, avec carte géologique à l’appui.
Carte des technologies recommandées par source d’eau (la recommandation de la technologie se base sur la profondeur de l’impact de l’aquifère principal et les données sur le rendement).
Carte des conditions hydrogéologiques – elle comprend 4 sous-cartes : Profondeur présumée du premier impact avec l’eau[1], la profondeur présumée de l’impact avec l’aquifère principal[2], l’épaisseur présumée des morts-terrains[3], etla profondeur statique présumée du niveau d’eau[4].
Carte de la qualité des eaux souterraines : celle-ci met en évidence les zones où la qualité de l’eau pourrait poser problème.
Potentiel des eaux souterraines – Carte du taux de réussite du forage : combine le taux de réussite prévu du rendement [5] et les conditions prévues de la qualité de l’eau.

Tindimugaya (2004) donne plus de détails sur ces cartes, ainsi que les façons dont elles peuvent faciliter le processus de mise en œuvre. Un exemple de cartes pour le district de Kibaale est disponible sur le site Web du Ministère de l’Eau et de l’Environnement.

Ce travail de cartographie est en cours, cependant, en mai 2017, la Direction de la gestion des ressources en eau avait cartographié 85% des districts de l’Ouganda. L’ampleur de ces cartes et le niveau de détail qu’elles contiennent sont remarquables. Ces cartes ont rendu service aux collectivités locales de district, aux organisations non gouvernementales et autres responsables de l’implantation et de la construction des points d’eau.

Des défis persistents

Bien que l’Ouganda ait fait des progrès remarquables au cours des dernières années grâce à ses efforts de cartographie des eaux souterraines, plusieurs défis persistent (Liddle et Fenner, 2018), liés pour la plupart à l’exactitude des données. Lors d’entretiens avec les personnes interrogées en Ouganda dans le cadre de nos recherches, on nous a signalé que dans certains cas (mais pas tous), des données inexactes ont été fournies. Lorsqu’on examine les raisons pour lesquelles des données inexactes sont parfois fournies aux autorités, deux poins clés ont été relevés :

Souvent, il n’y a pas de consultant qualifié sur place à temps plein pour la supervision du forage. Bien qu’il incombe à l’entrepreneur de forage de faire consigner le journal de forage par un membre du personnel, un superviseur indépendant devrait également tenir un journal et vérifier l’exactitude du journal du foreur avant de le soumettre à la Direction de la gestion des ressources en eau. Cependant, sans supervision à temps plein, cela n’est pas possible. De plus, même avec une supervision à temps plein, si le superviseur n’est pas un hydrogéologue, il est peu probable qu’il tiendra des registres précis et détaillés.
Les conditions de paiement forfaitaires “pas d’eau, pas de paiement”, selon lesquelles les foreurs ougandais sont souvent payés (voir le blog “Contrats clés en main pour l’implantation et le forage des puits d’eau“). Ces modalités de paiement exigent des foreurs qu’ils prouvent qu’ils aient foré avec succès un point d’eau pour être payés; par conséquent, certains foreurs auraient exagéré le rendement d’un forage donné afin d’être payés. Les données faussées ainsi obtenues sont préoccupantes, car non seulement ces forages auront du mal à fournir des quantités adéquates d’eau après construction, mais les données liées à leur haut rendement sont ensuite saisies dans la base de données des journaux de forage et utilisées pour produire les cartes hydrogéologiques. Il est essentiel d’améliorer la qualité de la supervision des forages et de veiller à ce que les données ne soient pas faussées de cette façon si l’on veut que les cartes de la Direction de la gestion des ressources en eau soient plus précises à l’avenir.

Dans l’ensemble, l’Ouganda a fait des progrès remarquables au cours des deux dernières décennies en augmentant le niveau d’information sur les eaux souterraines disponible dans le pays. Il y a très peu d’exemples sur le continent africain comparables à ce que l’Ouganda a accompli ! Comme indiqué plus haut, les cartes qui en résultent représentent un grand avantage pour les autorités locales de district, les organisations non gouvernementales et les autres responsables de l’implantation et de la construction des points d’eau.

Il est essentiel pour l’Ouganda d’améliorer la précision des rapports d’achèvement des forages. En outre, d’autres pays pourront prendre conscience de ces défis lorsqu’ils entreprennent leurs propres exercices de cartographie et veiller à ce que les mesures nécessaires soient en place pour prévenir ces problèmes dans leur contexte.

Qu’en pensez-vous?

Alors, qu’en pensez-vous? Avez-vous de l’expérience en matière de collecte ou gestion de données sur les eaux souterraines? Cela devrait-il être entrepris dans votre pays? Vous pouvez répondre ci-dessous en postant un commentaire, ou vous pouvez participer au webinaire en direct le 14 mai (inscriptions ici)

[1] Profondeur présumée du premier impact avec l’eau : la profondeur à laquelle un foreur est susceptible de rencontrer des eaux souterraines pour la première fois. Dans la plupart des cas, le foreur devra poursuivre le forage au-delà de ce point pour que le trou de forage puisse fournir suffisamment d’eau aux utilisateurs.

[2] Profondeur présumée de l’impact avec l’aquifère principal : la profondeur à laquelle un foreur est susceptible de trouver l’aquifère principal qui sera en mesure de fournir des quantités suffisantes d’eau aux utilisateuCarte de la qualité des eaux souterraines : celle-ci met en évidence les zones où la qualité de l’eau pourrait poser problème.

[3] Les morts-terrains désignent les matériaux non consolidés qui recouvrent le substratum rocheux. La carte de l’épaisseur prévue des morts-terrains met en évidence la profondeur prévue des matériaux non consolidé dans l’ensemble de l’Ouganda.

[4] Profondeur statique présumée du niveau d’eau = la profondeur d’eau souterraine attendue sans perturbation de pompage.

[5] Le ” taux de réussite du rendement ” fait référence à un forage capable de supporter un débit de pompage de 500 litres/heure. Si un forage peut maintenir ce taux de pompage, il est considéré comme une réussite en ce qui concerne le rendement.

Références

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, 37^th WEDC International Conference, Hanoi, Vietnam, 2014, Available from https://wedc-knowledge.lboro.ac.uk/resources/conference/37/Adank-1976.pdf

Carter, R., Chilton, J., Danert, K. & Olschewski, A. (2014) Siting of Drilled Water Wells – A Guide for Project Managers. RWSN Publication 2014-11 , RWSN , St Gallen, Switzerland, Available from http://www.rural-water-supply.net/en/resources/details/187

Foster, T., Willetts, J., Lane, M. Thomson, P. Katuva, J., and Hope, R. (2018). Risk factors associated with rural water supply failure: A 30-year retrospective study of handpumps on the south coast of Kenya. Science of the Total Environment,, 626, 156-164, Available from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969717337324

Kebede, S., MacDonald, A.M., Bonsor, H.C, Dessie, N., Yehualaeshet, T., Wolde, G., Wilson, P., Whaley, L., and Lark, R.M. (2017). UPGro Hidden Crisis Research Consortium: unravelling past failures for future success in Rural Water Supply. Survey 1 Results, Country Report Ethiopia. Nottingham, UK: BGS (OR/17/024), Available from https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/516998/

Liddle, E.S. and Fenner, R.A. (2018). Review of handpump-borehole implementation in Uganda. Nottingham, UK: BGS (OR/18/002), Available from https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/520591/

Owor, M., MacDonald, A.M., Bonsor, H.C., Okullo, J., Katusiime, F., Alupo, G., Berochan, G., Tumusiime, C., Lapworth, D., Whaley, L., and Lark, R.M. (2017). UPGro Hidden Crisis Research Consortium. Survey 1 Country Report, Uganda. Nottingham, UK: BGS (OR/17/029), Available from https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/518403/

Tindimugaya, C. (2004). Groundwater mapping and its implications for rural water supply coverage in Uganda. 30th WEDC International Conference, Vientiane, Lao PDR, 2004. Available from https://wedc-knowledge.lboro.ac.uk/resources/conference/30/Tindimugaya.pdf

UNICEF/Skat (2016). Professional water well drilling: A UNICEF guidance note. St Gallen, Switzerland: Skat and UNICEF. Available from http://www.rural-water-supply.net/en/resources/details/775

Remerciements

Ce travail fait partie du projet Hidden Crisis du programme de recherche UPGro – cofinancé par le NERC, le DFID et l’ESRC.

Le travail de terrain entrepris pour ce rapport fait partie de la recherche doctorale des auteurs à l’Université de Cambridge, sous la supervision du Professeur Richard Fenner. Ce travail sur le terrain a été financé par le Ryoichi Sasakawa Young Leaders Fellowship Fund et UPGro : Hidden Crisis.

Merci à ceux d’entre vous de l’Université de Makerere et de WaterAid Ouganda qui m’ont apporté un soutien logistique, y compris sur le terrain, pendant que je menais les entretiens pour ce rapport (en particulier le Dr Michael Owor, Felece Katusiime et Joseph Okullo de l’Université Makerere et Gloria Berochan de WaterAid Uganda). Merci également à tous les répondants d’avoir été enthousiastes et disposés à participer à cette recherche.

Photo: “Carte des technologies recommandées par source d’eau souterraine dans la division Eau du bureau du district de Kayunga” (Source: Elisabeth Liddle).

Category: Mapping and Monitoring