Research from Zambia questions whether too much emphasis is being put on replacing traditional water sources by conventionally protected systems. This is particularly true for smaller communities, which are unlikely to be able to afford to maintain a handpump even if spare parts were available. It is also true for communal systems, which are being promoted even where most family groups already have semi-private supplies (family wells) in which they are much more willing to invest.

The research funded by the British Department for International Development, (DFID) investigated 2,300 traditional sources and undertook over 200 pilot projects with communities, making low-cost improvements to existing sources. The findings included:

• Lining of wells provides water with as low a risk of contamination as a conventionally protected well at a fraction (one-tenth) of the cost. Both methods lead to a vast improvement in quality over traditional unlined wells. Management of the source and the hygiene around it appear to be as important as the physical changes implemented.
• Scoopholes, which are traditionally bailed, generally have water equal in quality to fully lined hand-dug wells with windlasses, drainage, soakaways and a cover (conventionally protected well). Lining them does not usually improve quality greatly, but does make them more reliable, so people do not have to go to more distant sources in the dry season.
• People are prepared to pay a large part of the cost, especially where the source is owned by a single family (although still usually used by many). A small subsidy can lead to enormous changes and encourages others to dig new wells, and deepen existing ones.
• The concept of low-cost improvements is very popular with users. In almost all cases, the number of users increased significantly after improvements were carried out, and the demand for improvements far exceeds supply. As a result, districts are now obtaining funds from government and other sources to take on implementation.
• Many who had previously gone long distances to take drinking water from springs and scoopholes felt comfortable taking it from nearer wells once these were improved, reducing water collection time and effort.
• Low-cost pumps (such as the rope pump) are far more popular, but no more expensive than a windlass.
• Smaller communities often prefer lower technology solutions, and the problems they perceive often do not require the replacement or relocation of the source. The confidence engendered by solving their own problems and instigating their own development is an aspect that conventional source protection, however participatory, rarely achieves, since so much of the motivation, skills and materials come from outside.

The initial response of government to the concept of low-cost improvements was scepticism and a feeling of 'going backwards'. However, government was the key player in the research and, as far as possible, policy makers and planners were involved, helping in designing surveys, identifying key issues, presenting results of piloting and drafting manuals. In this process they helped produce credible data and analysis, which led to their own conversion in a way that simply presenting them with the findings would not have. It also led to a high level of cooperation among ministries.

The approach is complementary to conventional source protection, offering sustainability and ownership often not achievable in other ways. In some districts over a third of people live in communities of less than 20 households. This approach, now being promoted by government, UNICEF, NGOs (such as WaterAid) and donors within the country, offers an opportunity to make small differences for a large number of people for whom a larger technological leap is at present not sustainable or even attainable in the near future.

Definitions of universal access tend to lead to a drive to provide everyone with access to a handpump, working or not, or even conventionally protected wells. This marginalises and demotivates smaller, more dispersed, communities and needs to be re-evaluated in the light of these findings.

Contact: For further information contact Sally Sutton, SWL Consultants, at sally@ssutton.fsbusiness.co.uk, and see the Knowledge and Research website www.hrwallingford.co.uk/projects/dfid-kar-water....

Source: Sally Sutton

Tags: water collection