The sustainability of drinking water supply infrastructure remains a challenge in rural areas of low-and middle-income countries. Through this research to identify factors contributing to functionality, we analyzed monitoring data from ten non-governmental organization drinking water supply programs across nine sub-Saharan African and South Asian countries. Data were from 1,805 randomly selected water points, including tap stands, spring protections, rainwater collection systems, and hand pumps.
We found an impressive 92% of sampled water points constructed within the prior year were functional, versus only 79% of those constructed earlier (average 3.5 years, range: 1–12 years old).
Tap stands from piped water systems exhibited 74% lower odds of functioning than boreholes with hand pumps within the older construction sample. This disparity underscores the necessity of considering the suitability and reliability of various water supply systems in rural contexts.
As global efforts to expand piped water services align with international development goals, our results advocate for a nuanced approach. Higher water service levels offer undeniable benefits, but the accompanying technological, institutional, and financial requirements must be carefully weighed. Particularly in rural settings, where challenges of limited resources and infrastructure maintenance persist, comprehensive strategies are essential to mitigate risks and maximize the effectiveness of water supply interventions.
Read the full Open Access paper here:
Murray, A. L., Stone, G., Yang, A. R., Lawrence, N. F., Matthews, H., & Kayser, G. L. (2024). Rural water point functionality estimates and associations: Evidence from nine countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.Water Resources Research, 60, e2023WR034679. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023WR034679
Este año celebramos los 30 años de la fundación formal de la Red de Abastecimiento de Agua en Zonas Rurales. Desde unos inicios muy técnicos como grupo de expertos (en su mayoría hombres) la Red de Tecnología de Bombas de Mano- hemos evolucionado hasta convertirnos en una red diversa y vibrante de más de 13.000 personas y 100 organizaciones que trabajan en una amplia gama de temas. En el camino, hemos ganado una reputación de imparcialidad, y nos hemos convertido en un convocante global en el sector del agua rural.
La RWSN no sería lo que es hoy sin las contribuciones y los incansables esfuerzos de muchos de nuestros miembros, organizaciones y personas. Como parte de la celebración del 30º aniversario de la RWSN, estamos llevando a cabo una serie de blogs en rwsn.blog, invitando a nuestros amigos y expertos del sector a compartir sus pensamientos y experiencias en el sector del agua rural.
Este blog fue escrito por nuestro miembro de RWSN, Brian Mulenga, quien es el oficial de saneamiento de Water For People Malawi.
Brian Mulenga
Dé un paseo por las comunidades rurales de Malawi y se encontrará con al menos un pozo que está roto o completamente abandonado. Numerosas reuniones de aldeas a las que he asistido terminan con la solicitud habitual de los líderes locales tradicionales de más pozos… incluso en comunidades que técnicamente tienen una cantidad adecuada de pozos según lo estipulado por las políticas gubernamentales. Peor aún, ¡los usuarios no saben qué hacer después!
Con las recientes elecciones de 2019, estamos por ver más pozos perforados en las aldeas que los políticos prometieron como una estrategia para obtener más votos. Pero uno podría preguntarse: “¿Debemos continuar perforando más pozos mientras el número de pozos no funcionales continúa aumentando?”
Mantener los sistemas de agua en áreas rurales funcionando para siempre, sin que las comunidades vuelvan a depender del apoyo material de ninguna organización externa, ha resultado difícil de lograr. Sin embargo, esto representa uno de los principales logros de sostenibilidad que la mayoría de las organizaciones en el sector del agua pretenden lograr.
Si bien muchas organizaciones y gobiernos han invertido mucho en el diseño de modelos sostenibles que empoderan a las comunidades para que posean y administren sistemas de abastecimiento de agua en zonas rurales, algunas organizaciones quieren que se las vea ‘trabajando’ y, por lo tanto, como ‘niñeras’ de las comunidades. Estas organizaciones siempre quieren estar allí para rehabilitar cualquier pequeña falla en el pozo o incluso ofrecer perforar más pozos nuevos sin tener en cuenta las políticas gubernamentales o los modelos sostenibles. Con nobles intenciones, algunas organizaciones benéficas o personas generosas no solo han destruido las mismas comunidades a las que pretenden ayudar, sino que también han agotado sus recursos limitados que podrían haberse utilizado de manera más inteligente para apoyar a otras comunidades que urgentemente necesitan agua segura y adecuada.
Durante décadas, los expertos en el sector del agua han discutido y presentado diversas teorías sobre por qué la infraestructura de suministro de agua rural, especialmente los pozos, falla rápidamente o deja de funcionar antes de su vida útil prescrita, lo que lleva a períodos prolongados de inactividad o incluso abandono. Algunos expertos creen que la capacidad de una comunidad para llevar a cabo con eficacia el mantenimiento planificado de pozos y recaudar tarifas correctamente calculadas de los usuarios para comprar y reemplazar las partes desgastadas del pozo brinda un vistazo de un sistema de agua sostenido… pero esto no articula completamente lo que motivará y equipará a una comunidad para mantener un pozo en funcionamiento en todo momento, para siempre.
Entonces, ¿cómo podemos mejorar la propiedad comunitaria y la sostenibilidad de los sistemas de suministro de agua rural? Una simple intervención practicada por comunidades rurales en el distrito de Chikwawa en Malawi parece estar brindando una solución a esta antigua pregunta. Los bancos de pozos usan un modelo de negocios simple pero efectivo que permite a los usuarios de agua tomar prestada parte del fondo de mantenimiento del pozo, usarlo para sus propias actividades económicas varias y luego devolverlo a una tasa de interés acordada. Esto no solo multiplica los fondos para la operación y el mantenimiento de los pozos, sino que también mejora los medios de vida económicos de los(as) usuarios(as) del agua en la comunidad. Elimina los desafíos que enfrentan las mujeres rurales pobres relacionados con la obtención de un pequeño préstamo en un banco comercial, como viajar largas distancias, el papeleo tedioso y las entrevistas. Si bien las consideraciones técnicas en la perforación e instalación de pozos siguen siendo vitales, la transformación de un pozo en un epicentro económico en la comunidad ha motivado a los usuarios a proteger sus pozos y asegurarse de que estén en pleno funcionamiento en todo momento.
El éxito de los bancos de pozos en las comunidades rurales del distrito de Chikwawa representa un gran hito hacia la sostenibilidad de la infraestructura de suministro de agua rural. Dicen que “el agua es vida”. En lo profundo de las comunidades rurales del distrito de Chikwawa, esta expresión no solo es sinónimo de una vida saludable, sino también de los beneficios económicos que ahora posee el agua.
Sobre el autor: Brian Mulenga trabaja como Oficial de Saneamiento en Water for People en Malawi. Su formación profesional es en Salud Ambiental (Salud Pública). Su trabajo consiste en proporcionar apoyo técnico y orientación a organizaciones no gubernamentales socias con las que trabaja en materia de saneamiento, garantizando que el número de letrinas/baños reportados correspondan con las que se encuentran físicamente en las zonas de impacto.
¿Le ha gustado este blog? ¿Le gustaría compartir su perspectiva sobre el sector del agua rural o su historia como profesional del agua rural? Invitamos a todos los miembros de la RWSN a contribuir a esta serie de blogs del 30º aniversario. Los mejores blogs serán seleccionados para su publicación y traducción. Por favor, consulte las directrices del blog aquí y póngase en contacto con nosotros (ruralwater[at]skat.ch) para obtener más información.Si aprecia el trabajo de la RWSN y desea apoyarnos económicamente, puede hacerlo aquí.
This year we are celebrating 30 years since the Rural Water Supply Network was formally founded. From very technical beginnings as a group of (mostly male) experts – the Handpump Technology Network- we have evolved to be a diverse and vibrant network of over 13,000 people and 100 organisations working on a wide range of topics. Along the way, we have earned a reputation for impartiality, and become a global convener in the rural water sector.
RWSN would not be what it is today without the contributions and tireless efforts of many our members, organisations and people. As part of RWSN’s 30th anniversary celebration, we are running a blog series on rwsn.blog, inviting our friends and experts in the sector to share their thoughts and experiences in the rural water sector.
This is a guest blog by RWSN Member, Brian Mulenga who is the Sanitation Officer of Water For People Malawi.
Brian Mulenga
Take a walk around rural communities of Malawi, and you will come across at least one borehole that’s either broken down or completely abandoned. Numerous village meetings I have attended end with the usual request by local traditional leaders for more boreholes…even in communities that technically have an adequate number of boreholes as stipulated by government policies. Worse still, users do not know what to do next!
With the recent elections in 2019, we are yet to see more boreholes being sunk in villages that were promised as a strategy by politicians to get more votes. But one could ask: “Should we continue sinking more boreholes while the numbers of non-functional ones continue rising?”
Keeping water systems in rural areas functioning forever, without communities ever again depending on material support from any outside organization, has proved to be elusive. Yet this represents one of the top sustainability accomplishments that most organizations in the water sector aim to achieve.
While many organizations and governments have heavily invested in designing sustainable models which empower communities to own and manage rural water supply systems, some organizations want to be seen as ‘working’ and thereby ‘baby-sitting’ communities. Such organizations always want to be there to rehabilitate any small borehole fault or even offer to drill more newboreholes without regard to government policies or sustainable models. With noble intentions, some charity organizations or generous individuals have not only destroyed the very communities they aim to help but have also strained their limited resources which could have been more wisely used to support other communities in dire need of safe and adequate water.
For decades, experts in the water sector have argued, and come up with diverse theories, on why rural water supply infrastructure, especially boreholes, fail quickly or become non-functional before their prescribed life span, leading to stretched periods of downtime or even abandonment. Some experts believe that the ability of a community to effectively conduct planned borehole maintenance and collect properly-calculated tariffs from users to buy and replace worn-out borehole parts provides a glimpse of a sustained water system…but this does not fully articulate what will motivate and equip a community to keep a borehole functioning at all times, forever.
So how can we improve community ownership and sustainability of rural water supply systems? One simple intervention practiced by rural communities in Chikwawa District in Malawi seems to be providing a solution to this age-old question. Borehole banks use a simple yet effective business model that allows water users to borrow part of the borehole maintenance fund, use it for their own various economic activities, and later pay it back at an agreed-upon interest rate. This not only multiplies funds for borehole operation and maintenance but also enhances the economic livelihoods of water users in the community. It eliminates the challenges encountered by poor rural women related to securing a small loan at a commercial bank, such as traveling long distances, tedious paperwork, and interviews. While technical considerations in borehole drilling and installation remain vital, transforming a borehole into an economic epicenter in the community has motivated users to secure their boreholes and ensure they are fully functional at all times.
The success of borehole banks in rural communities of Chikwawa District represents a huge milestone toward the sustainability of rural water supply infrastructure. They say, “water is life.” Deep in the rural communities of Chikwawa District, this idiom is not only synonymous with healthy living, but also the economic benefits that water now possesses.
About the author: Brian Mulenga works as Sanitation Officer at Water for People in Malawi. His professional background is in Environmental Health (Public Health). His job entails providing technical support and guidance to partner non-governmental organizations that they work with on sanitation and ensuring that the number of latrines/bathrooms reported corresponds to what is physically in impact areas.
Did you enjoy this blog? Would you like to share your perspective on the rural water sector or your story as a rural water professional? We are inviting all RWSN Members to contribute to this 30th anniversary blog series. The best blogs will be selected for publication. Please see the blog guidelines here and contact us (ruralwater[at]skat.ch) for more information. You are also welcome to support RWSN’s work through our online donation facility. Thank you for your support.
My book, I Tried to Save the World and Failed, reflects on a time and effort to find rural water solutions in Mexico, Malawi and Cambodia that could be used everywhere
by Larry Siegel
My book, I Tried to Save the World and Failed,reflects on a time and effort to find rural water solutions in Mexico, Malawi and Cambodia that could be used everywhere. The effort started during the Vietnam war while working on an Army Civil Affairs team. There I was confronted with the reality that not everyone turns on the tap and drinks good water. Several of the rural communities I worked in desired more water, cleaner water, and more convenient water. Echoes of that experience grew from travels in later years.
A drinking water partnership formed when as a Congressional staffer I worked on the Safe Water Act of 1974. Years later I joined with a few of those colleagues to form Safe Water International (SWI), which had dreams of a silver bullet solution for the billion or so citizens around the world with only contaminated water to drink.
SWI put Rotary funds and private donations to the task of seeking that silver bullet through rural drinking water projects in Mexico, Malawi, and Cambodia. As these projects moved from one country to the next, it became clear that every rural drinking water project demanded a long-term commitment to the project community.
It is said that 35% of water well projects break down or are abandoned by users. Sad to say, the work of SWI in three countries met this unfortunate goal. As a consequence, I Tried to Save the World seeks to identify lessons learned from those drinking water efforts in remote rural communities. The observations that result come largely from field work and then from reflection in succeeding years on the successes and failures of those projects.
The book closes with a set of lessons aimed at sustainability. The lessons are not meant to be the final word. It is hoped they will provoke discussion on how to go about achieving project sustainability.
While there are stories of disappointment, there is also praise for the commitment and perseverance of all who undertake work to improve the health and sanitation of those desperately in need of help. The closing anthem of the book is “Help is Help.” Even unsuccessful projects can bring life-long benefits to those who for some short space of time have safe water and good sanitation.
Competing narratives surround the role of ‘area mechanics’ in Malawi
In November 2017 I started my ‘politics of water’ blog as an outlet to share experiences and findings from my research in rural Malawi on water governance and service sustainability.
The first instalment describes my initial impressions of Balaka District while the second explores the relationship between extension workers and rural communities.
This might have left you wondering – what about everyone else?
Area Mechanics receive hands-on training in water point repairs (Author’s own)
Water services in Malawi are decentralised, at least in theory. This means two things. Firstly, district councils, together with district water offices, are mandated to develop and monitor water infrastructure in rural areas.
Secondly, communities are expected to maintain and repair their water points with minimal external assistance. For more serious problems, local ‘area mechanics’ are their first port of call, followed by the district water office.
In reality, district water offices are severely under resourced, there are currently few area mechanics, and the effectiveness of community-based management varies considerably. However, where they are present, area mechanics are thought to play an important role in keeping water points functioning.
Area Mechanics: volunteers or entrepreneurs?
So what is an area mechanic? This sounds like a simple question, but the answers are complex and contradictory.
The area mechanics Thoko interviewed in Balaka for her MSc research tended to consider themselves, foremost, as volunteers working for the greater good of the community. After all, they were selected from the local community and have strong social ties with the people they serve. An area mechanic may be a relative, a neighbour or a fellow churchgoer, even the village headman himself. Trustworthiness was emphasised by communities as an important criteria.
This training manual describes area mechanics as ‘artisans in advanced hand pump repair operating on a payment basis’ (GoM 2015)
The depiction of area mechanics as volunteers has been echoed in my own conversations with extension staff and NGO workers, but in combination with another term – entrepreneur. According to national policy, area mechanics are meant to operate as independent businesspersons. They are given training and a few basic tools, after which they are expected to make a small profit to sustain their operations. They are also encouraged to sign written contracts with communities to clarify payment for services.
This model is clearly aimed at economic viability and is meant to incentivise area mechanics by providing them with an income. Arguably, the model has failed to gain traction locally because it ignores the social context in which area mechanics operate.
A third view is that area mechanics are integral to formal water governance arrangements – in other words part of, or plugging a gap in, the government’s extension system. This may not be stated explicitly, but is implicit in the use of government issued ID cards.
To give another example, area mechanics are sometimes (but not always) introduced to communities by a government representative in order to establish their legitimacy. Several of the area mechanics Thoko spoke to wanted their role to be formalised to enable them to negotiate fees with communities, or conversely in the hope of receiving material and financial support from government.
The ambiguity of water mechanics
Despite appearances, none of these narratives is mutually exclusive, and they may be employed at different times depending on the context. As one extension worker explained to me:
“Area mechanics are entrepreneurs by design and should make communities aware of that. They are supposed to have a signed agreement. The area mechanic needs to be paid, a little.”
Area mechanics often prefer working as a team – two heads being better than one! (Author’s own)
He then went on to clarify:
“It is not payment as such but a token of appreciation. It is up to them if they want to work for free. However they shouldn’t deny assistance to a Water Point Committee just because they don’t have money.”
The ambiguity surrounding area mechanics can be confusing and could be viewed as a failure of policy (or its implementation). But, in my view, that conclusion would be overly simplistic and misses the point.
The co-existence of these different narratives, or interpretations of policy, leaves room for negotiation and pragmatism. These are arguably important ingredients for success, especially when adapting policies to local realities. In short, the role of area mechanics in Malawi’s water governance system is not yet set in stone.
In addition to my PhD fieldwork this blog draws on previous work by the authors under the UPGro Hidden Crisis project. Check out our report on the political economy of rural water supplies in Malawi.
Guest Blog from Mr Gift Jason Wanangwa, a Groundwater Development Officer with the Malawi Government’s Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development.
Guest Blog by GIFT JASON WANANGWA
Introduction
Malawi is one of the least developed countries in Africa. It has a population of more than 17 million people, 84% of whom live in rural areas and rely solely on groundwater for their daily water needs for social and economic development.
Studies of the drilling practices in Malawi by UNICEF (GoM/UNICEF 2011; GoM 2012) and borehole forensics activities done by students of the University of Strathclyde under the Climate Justice Fund-Water Futures Programme (CJF-WFP Work Records 2017-2018) as well as MSc Hydrogeology masters research students activities into drilling practices in Malawi (Polmanteer, 2014) have all revealed some shortcomings which explained problems in rural water supply through boreholes like poor siting, low yield of boreholes, weak drilling procedures and poor water quality or mechanical failures of pumps and boreholes. This was attributed much to poor drilling supervision.
“Communities themselves, when a borehole is drilled, are supposed to be responsible. They are supposed to have fundraising for maintenance. This is challenging. Often breakdowns are due to simple things. They say ‘we are lacking x, y ,z’. And we ask ‘don’t you have the funds’? But they say ‘no we don’t have money, we are poor, we can’t contribute’. And we try to tell them ‘but this water point is for you, it is yours to look after.’ They don’t take it as their own. They have to take responsibility. Sometimes they go to the councillor or MPs for support.” (Extension worker, Malawi)
In November I wrote a blog describing my first impressions of life in Balaka, Malawi, where I am doing my PhD fieldwork. To recap, my research concerns the sustainability of rural water services. I am particularly interested in the role that actors at the district-level play in developing and, crucially, maintaining these services. Several months on, I am starting to make sense of my experiences shadowing extension workers in their day-to-day work. What strikes me is how these actors have to navigate competing interests and find creative ways to get their jobs done. In this blog I focus on their relationship with communities (service users).
How do extension workers secure cooperation from communities?
A community in Balaka learns how to look after their new water point (author’s own)
In my conversations with government and NGO staff, it was evident that the ‘community-based management’ (CBM) model for water governance is not only enshrined in national water policies, but has become deeply embedded in development practice. CBM means that while government or other external agencies may provide the infrastructure, responsibilities for day-to-day management lie with communities. In other words, communities are expected to look after the water point and cover the costs of repairs. Extension workers play a supporting role, providing training, monitoring and technical advice. This approach is meant to empower service users and ensure that services are more efficient and effective.
As the opening quote illustrates, extension workers have internalised key elements of the CBM model and this does inform their decisions, whether consciously or unconsciously. But policy implementation also entails negotiation. Extension workers have to mediate between the demands of formal policies and government institutions, the interests of communities and their leaders (which are not homogenous) and the influences of other actors such as NGOs or politicians.
What went wrong? An extension worker chats to water users about their faulty pump (author’s own)
In this respect, policies on paper are often an inadequate guide to action. I find the concept of bricolage (Cleaver, 2012) useful to understand how extension workers navigate between these different interests, drawing on a variety of resources. The bricoleur is a kind of amateur handyman, making do with the tools available, whether old or new. This might include formal and informal institutional arrangements, social relations or networks, material and financial resources, ideas and technologies, and so on. The result (policy in practice) is often a hybrid.
How is an extension worker a bricoleur?
Firstly, my research participants tend to see themselves as a bridge between state and citizen, not only representing their Ministry but also communicating people’s needs to the District Council and development partners (donors/NGOs). In carrying out their roles, extension workers shift between ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ positions, drawing on social networks, their status as government employees, and cultural norms.
The insider: Often extension workers are not originally from the areas (or ethnic groups) which they currently serve, hence they have to make an effort to gain and maintain trust from communities. They do this primarily through the development of personal relationships, in other words building social capital. For example, participants talked about stopping to drink beer or attending funerals as an important part of their job.
The outsider: Extension workers are afforded a certain status vis-à-vis community members in recognition of their technical expertise and as government employees. Government employees can also leverage support from local leaders such as village headmen who are expected to facilitate policy interventions.
Access to different resources shapes the practices of extension workers as bricoleurs
Cultural norms play a role in reinforcing these relationships. Hierarchy is accepted and less powerful people tend to depend on more powerful people, whether traditional or state elites. In rural contexts of Malawi, these hierarchies can undermine community self-help as ordinary people tend to wait for orders or assistance from ‘above’ and rarely question the activities of their ‘betters’. This might give extension workers a degree of authority but clearly has disadvantages for a CBM model aimed at citizen empowerment.
Secondly, cooperation from communities is by no means guaranteed but is essential for CBM to work. Extension workers do meet with resistance, and express frustration when community members make their task difficult. For example, a common problem is the collection of water user fees, which in theory provide the funds needed for water pump repairs. People will often assert they cannot afford to pay, labelling themselves as ‘too poor’.
Extension workers employ several strategies in dealing with resistance. The first is evident in the quote above, namely reiterating key elements of the national water policy. Communities are reminded that they have responsibility for managing the water point and raising funds for its maintenance. It is emphasised that they are the ‘owners’ of that water point. Moreover, if they do not take action there are consequences – they will not have water.
Learning the ropes – I help to reassemble a hand pump (author’s own)
Another strategy is to enlist the support of the village headman, for example calling a meeting in which a problem is discussed communally and a solution agreed. This seems to be an effective way of securing consensus, at least verbally. Extension workers can also resort to threats, for example removing the handle of the pump (effectively cutting off the water supply) until the community has complied. For new projects, the infrastructure can be built in a different village, one where the community is more willing to cooperate. However, antagonistic strategies are a last resort and consensus is generally preferred.
To sum up, extension workers play a crucial role in translating policy into practice, operating at the interface between state and society. Shadowing individuals in the field and getting involved in community training and water points repairs is helping me to better understand what this means in reality. I have seen, first-hand, the constraints the water office faces in terms of financial and material resources and their consequent reliance on other actors (particularly NGOs) to deliver services.
At the same time, I have come to appreciate the dedication and creativity with which extension workers carry out their work and engage with communities. Being a bricoleur is certainly necessary to ‘get the job done’ in rural Balaka.
RWSN member, Muthi Nhlema, has challenged the government of Malawi over how groundwater is used for rural water supplies: 30% of water points are not working across the country and he points to declining groundwater levels being a major factor. Mr Nhlema therefore challenged the wisdom of further drilling and groundwater development, if the use of the water resource is unsustainable.
Received wisdom still suggests that community management is an important component of sustainable water supply in rural areas and small towns. Despite a shift in emphasis “from system to service”, and the idea of “community management plus”, in reality the basic community management model remains standard practice in many countries. And yet there is plenty of evidence that it is seriously flawed in two key ways. My own research, a mixed methods study covering 338 water points in Malawi (Chowns 2014, Chowns 2015) demonstrates this clearly.
First, community management is inefficient. Preventive maintenance is almost never done, repairs are often slow and sub-standard, and committees are unable to collect and save funds. Average savings are only 2% of the expected level, and only 13% of committees have enough money to buy a single replacement rod.
Equally disappointingly, community management is disempowering. It reinforces existing village power relations, and breeds conflict rather than strengthening social capital. Often, this conflict is around misuse of funds. Many committees are defunct; and when they do exist, as one woman said, ‘the committee is higher than the community’ – meaning downward accountability simply doesn’t happen.
There are exceptions, of course, but they are few and far between. So we need to take off our rose-tinted spectacles and ask why community management is so enduring, despite its failures.
Why does it remain so popular? Because it’s a fig-leaf for state and donor failure. Community management enables government officials and donors alike to abdicate responsibility for ensuring long-term sustainable water services. Instead, they can blame ‘lazy communities’ for ‘lack of ownership’, and suggest that ‘more training is needed’.
I think we need to question the community management model at a more fundamental level. Slight amendments won’t do the job; a more radical re-thinking is required. Currently, community management transfers responsibility from people with access to finance, skills, and networks (officials & donors) to people with much more limited access to all those things (rural villagers). This isn’t just ineffective – it’s unfair.
So what might work better? Here are three suggestions.
Build better water points. As a social scientist I am happy to acknowledge that engineering really matters! There are still far too many poorly-constructed water points being installed.
It’s superfluous and expensive to train multiple committees of 10-12 people each, when all that is really needed may be one skilled Area Mechanic with a bike, a phone, and (crucially) an effective means of financing his or her work (see next point…)
Pay for results. There’s promising evidence in many sectors that, actually, top-down accountability is part of the solution. Civil society can’t stand in for a dysfunctional state; investment has to help build state capacity. Funding needs to flow through ministries and districts, not bypass them – but they need to be held to account for performance, too.
Currently, community management remains the dominant model because it works better for agencies and governments than for communities themselves. In no other public service sector is so much responsibility placed on users. We don’t expect communities to bear all the recurrent costs of health or education services, so why should we do so for water?
It’s time to acknowledge that community management is both inefficient and disempowering, stop trying to reform it, and look towards replacing it instead.
Dr Ellie Chowns is a Research Associate at the University of Sheffield, working with Professor Frances Cleaver on a project with the Geneva Water Hub: “The everyday politics of participatory water governance: cooperation and conflict in community management”.
photo: Broken Afridev in Malawi (Erich Baumann, Skat/RWSN 2008)
As part of that UNDP and the World Bank established a joint Water & Sanitation Program (WSP, which still exists as part of the World Bank) and one of its flagship projects was the Hand-pump Project, led by Saul Arlosoroff, which rigorously tested all the hand-pumps around the world that they could get their hands on. Their final report “Community Water Supply: the Hand pump Option” (1987) is still the defining text in hand-pump literature.
The hand-pump project also defined Village Level Operation & Maintenance (VLOM), the concept of making hand-pumps easier to maintain by the users so that minor breakdowns could be repaired quickly. The India Mark II was not a VLOM pump because it required specialist tools and some skill and strength to make repairs to the pump cylinder down in the borehole. This was addressed through a design revision, imaginatively called the India Mark III. However the hand-pump team throught they could still do better and so two handpump design projects began.
Guest Blog by GIFT JASON WANANGWA
Rural Water Supply Network - blog 