Since our most recent blog the research team has been primarily field based in some of the more remote regions of Tonkolili, in Sierra Leone. The team has been engaged in a simplified and more quantitative approach to understanding the widespread nature of the failure of water supply systems which we have encountered throughout this field research.
Using the information and trends that were uncovered in the initial research period we have moved on to the final stage of the research project. This final stage involves simplifying the surveys questions, in-line with our initial research findings. Doing so has allowed us to engage with more communities in a single day. This involves much more travelling in any given day and, particularly now that the rains have started, much more walking! In total almost 100 villages have been reached in Tonkolili in the final stage of the project.
The reason that we have altered the approach to the research was that the initial in-depth period of studying each community’s relationship to their water supplies indicated almost continuously reoccurring problems. More importantly it also highlighted the weaknesses in current efforts to understand the systems that were provided as part of the relief efforts following the civil war in Sierra Leone.
It was expressed in my previous blog that there are problems with simplifying the nature of failure to ‘working/not working’. I want to take the opportunity in this blog to explore this statement in more detail. The problem that we have found is that there are an increasing number of organisations quoting huge failure rates of water supply systems, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. However definitions of what is classified as failure are hard to come by. Therefore the true extent and nature of the problem remains unknown.
It appears reasonable, when seeking to understanding the current status of water supply systems, to show up at each village and (with the communities permission) attempt to see if any water comes from the pump. If there is none, mark it as non-functional, otherwise it is clearly functional. Add up the total and you have an indication of how many pumps are working at any given time. Unfortunately this oversimplification doesn’t really indicate very much at all.
Take village A, they have recently encountered a problem with their pump. However, with technicians at hand, and spare parts available, this ‘failure’ should only take a day or two to fix. Our initial stage of research indicated that if the problem encountered is fixable, and there are resources such as spare parts, tools and skilled personnel available, then fixing the problem could take less than a week. Therefore if every village that we encountered, which had a non-functioning well, was like village A then the ‘failure’ reported in many reports has been over-dramatised.
Village A
However, as a contradiction of village A, take village B. They were given a well in response to their water supply needs in 2004. However the well lining collapsed in the first week of being provided with the system. The failure has not only affected the lining, but also the well walls and pulley systems. The well itself has no water and unless it is completely re-dug, never will. Furthermore – as a permanent large hole in the middle of a village, it continues to pose a threat to the local children. There has, unfortunately, been more than one case study we have noted where a child has fallen into a well – suffering severe injury and in one case, death. If every non-functioning well was like village B then the real magnitude of failure has been downplayed. It could be argued, at the very least, that the water supply systems provided are a complete waste of money and very possibly lethal to the local community.
Village B
There are further examples that indicate why a binary approach to failure is flawed. Take Village C- they were provided with a hand-pump well in late 2007. Ever since it was installed it has been fully functional (i.e. it has never lost the ability to pump water from that aquifer). However, shortly after installation part of the well wall collapsed. The collapse, due to poor construction quality, has badly affected the well formwork. To correct this problem this well would have to undergo major rehabilitation to be returned to an ideal state. As the well sits just below a flood plain it is highly likely that it will become contaminated with surface water when it rains. This asks the question: how should this well be marked on the ‘functional/non-functional’ part of the failure surveys? Though a simple method should be to mark this as failed, where is the lines drawn in this regard? Should the same be done when similar failure is noted on other areas such as the well cap, the well area, the apron, or the spillways? And how bad does the damage have to be to warrant being marked as failed? Hairline, finger-width or football sized cracks?
Village C
Ultimately Village C is the best indication that some wells exist in an intermediary stage of failure. If all villages we encountered are like Village C then any reporting on failure is exceptionally flawed if it doesn’t include a wide range of potential failure mechanisms. Furthermore, there is a whole range of factors that fall into this category – such as seasonal failure (e.g., no water during the dry season), poor water quality (or even rejection of the water due to its aesthetic properties – regardless of its safety), poor yields from the aquifer or pump, community rejection of the water extraction technology – the list goes on!
Finally there is the community of Village D. Their well is fully functional – there are no noted signs of weaknesses in any component of its structure. The preliminary water quality tests indicate that the well water is ideal. Though there are small areas for improvement, they are within the village’s capacity to address. However there is one major problem – the well was given to an individual – in this case the village chief. Surveys in the peripheries of the village clearly indicate that there are large parts of the community that are restricted from using the source; the village chief clearly uses the well as his personal property. The low usage explains its lack of technical issues. Though Village D is an extreme example, there is more than one case study which indicates that certain sections of communities are intentionally restricted from using the water from their improved source. However, if only technical specifications are relied upon, then this well is marked as a ‘success’, it will only appear as ‘functional’ in the reports. The implications are that this village, or the individuals affected, will be passed over for future interventions.
Village D
There are more situations that have arisen as part of our research than can be discussed here. Though the big question remains – which of the four village’s types discussed here are most common? The answer is that most villages exhibit wells that are a combination, though there are many clear cut cases of each example. What this project seeks to display is a better understanding of how the wells systems can be classified. By breaking down the components of a well – and asking questions with regards to the impact, risk and costs of failures, it is possible to understand, in more depth, what the real situation is. Similarly, understanding that failure is not restricted to only technical but also to social issues is a big step in fully evaluating the water supply systems that were provided as a response to the war in Sierra Leone.
Our research team has shown that it is possible to give a more accurate indication of the condition of the water supply systems in Sierra Leone. By creating a framework of questions that conform to a specific criteria; with respect to risk, impact and the communities ability to respond to their wells issues, and crucially without over simplifying the problem, it is possible to receive a fair indication of the water systems current condition. The implications for planning, developing policy and understanding where future innovation can be applied are immense.
Paul Byars
