The state of rural water supply in Uganda

Transcription

1 How the decisions made and actions taken during the planning, procurement, and implementation of improved water source installation affect post-construction service delivery in Uganda: A systems based analysis. E.S. Liddle University of Cambridge Sylff fellow from Massey University SRA Thousands of handpump-equipped boreholes (HPBs) have been installed across sub-saharan Africa over the past four decades; however, a number have been found to be dry/low-yielding, unsafe for human consumption, and in some cases marked with appearance, taste, and odour problems. Subsequently, many users have been unable or unwilling to use these HPBs and have reverted to using unimproved water sources. There is therefore an ever-increasing need to understand the causal factors behind this failure if future HPBs are to be safeguarded from such failure and to ensure that recipient communities truly benefit from receiving an improved water source. Multiple studies have investigated the possible reasons behind HPB failure, finding that two key areas contribute most to failure (for example, Bonsor et al., 2015; Fisher et al.., 2015; Walters and Javernick-Will, 2015; Adank et al., 2014; Foster, 2013; Harvey, 2004; Lockwood et al., 2003): 1) the quality of work during HPB site selection, drilling, construction, installation, and platform works, and 2) the extent and quality of operations and maintenance work post-construction. My PhD research focuses on the former, specifically, how the decisions made and the actions taken during the planning, procurement, and implementation of HPB drilling projects in Uganda may be affecting the quality of work during HPB site selection, drilling, construction, installation, and platform works, and subsequently, the quality and quantity of water that these HPBs are then able to deliver to rural Ugandan communities post-construction. To understand these causal factors in a holistic, system-wide manner, I am using two systems-based analytical tools for analysis: Causal Loop Diagrams and Bayesian networks (see Liddle and Fenner (2017) for more details). The state of rural water supply in Uganda As of June 2016, 67% of rural Ugandans (total rural population = million) had access to an improved water source. However, at the same time, 14% of all improved water sources were deemed to be in state of failure, hence, in reality, only 57.62% of rural Ugandans had access to an improved water source (Ministry of Water and the Environment, 2016). These statistics become even more troublesome when one considers that these failure rates only account for those that were unable to

2 produce water on the day of inspection, with no regard being given to those that were low yielding, unsafe for human consumption, or marked with poor appearance, taste, or odour. Unfortunately, problems are known to exist within these factors; in 2016 for example, 59% of improved sources across 45 districts failed to meet national drinking water standards for E. coli (Ministry of Water and the Environment, 2016). Who is responsible for providing rural water sources in Uganda? Having undergone decentralisation in 1997, today, the planning, procurement, and implementation for rural water supply projects is driven by the district local governments (DLGs) with support from the Ministry of Water and the Environment (MWE) and a multitude of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Being firmly committed to privatisation, all site selection work, drilling, and drilling supervision is conducted by the private sector. To operate in Uganda, Drilling Contractors must have a valid permit which is renewed annually. MWE has recently (June 2016) introduced a similar permitting process for Groundwater Consultants (who are theoretically engaged for the site selection and drilling supervision). It is illegal for DLGs and NGOs to contract non-permitted Drilling Contractors, and from July 2017, the same will be true for Groundwater Consultants. Uganda fieldwork The SRA grant allowed me to visit Uganda on two separate occasions, February 2017 (2 weeks) and May 2017 (3 weeks). These visits allowed me to understand how the planning, procurement, and implementation process for HPB drilling projects works in Uganda and the challenges therein. A total of eighty semi-structured interviews were conducted during these visits and these included Ministry of and Environment (MWE) officials, Drilling Contractors, Groundwater Consultants, the Ugandan Drilling Contractors Association, NGO/Development Partners, and District Local Governments. Below I explain of one of my key findings from this time in Uganda. The use of turnkey, lump sum, no water, no pay contracts and the implications of this The use of turnkey contracts, where a Drilling Contractor is procured to do both the site selection work and the drilling is extremely common, both for DLG and NGO projects. In these situations, the Drilling Contractor is paid via a lump sum, no water, no pay contract. While it may seem to make sense to give all the work to one company and to then not pay them if they are unable to find water, several concerns were raised by MWE staff and a number of other respondents due to the fact that this type of contract and payment encourages Contractors to cut corners during the work. As Contractors will not be paid for dry boreholes or for any additional depths drilled to find water, there is an on-going need for Contractors to save money wherever possible so that they have a buffer to

3 cover the costs of drilling dry boreholes for which they will not be paid. Additionally, there is an on-going need to limit the number of dry boreholes, hence a need to find water at all costs. Needing to save money and find water at all costs is now believed to be affecting the quality of HPB drilling work as explained below. Concern # 1: A very simple way of saving money when drilling is to drill fewer metres than what the original lump sum price was based on. One way of doing so is to select a site where the water table is the highest, and given that site selection is the Drilling Contractor s responsibility under turnkey contracts, this is easily achievable. There are two problems with this practice, however. Firstly, the water table is typically the highest in valley areas, near swamps/wetlands, and near riverbanks, all of which are of great concern when it comes to contamination sources, especially in the wet season. Therefore, while the HPBs may pass water quality tests at the time drilling, this may be a different story during the wet season or x years time as contaminants continue to accumulate in these areas. Concern # 2: As a continuation of the site selection issue explained above, another way to save on the number of metres drilled is for the Contractor to simply stop drilling as soon as they hit water. When this occurs, it is likely that they have not tapped into the main aquifer, and issues concerning the quantity of water are likely to manifest. Concern # 3: Using low quality materials is another way for Drilling Contractors to save during drilling. For example, through the use of corrosive pipes (galvanised iron) rather than non-corrosive pipes (stainless steel), because stainless steel is four times more expensive than galvanised iron. In some cases, however, Drilling Contractors are not purposefully taking short cuts; rather, they are unwilling to use stainless steel if it was not specified in the contract price, as under a lump sum, because they will not be remunerated for this additional cost. There are three further problems, however, with the use of turnkey contracts that act to exacerbate the problems above: Concern # 4: As the mentality under turnkey contracts is that it is the Contractors responsibility to find water, with there being no financial loss for the NGO/DLG if they do not, there is very little input from NGOs/DLGs in site selection. Instead, NGOs/DLGs trust that the Contractor will choose an appropriate site. Following up on the Contractors work in this area was then repeatedly described as micro-management by NGO and DLG staff. This is particularly concerning given the findings explained above, where some Drilling Contractors are reportedly siting where it is easiest for them to drill with little regard to sustainable quantities of water, contaminant sources, and community access. Concern # 5: As DLGs/NGO s do not have to pay for dry boreholes, there is a much lower need for them to guarantee the quality of work; if the borehole is dry, they will not suffer. Subsequently, there

4 is limited incentive for having a Groundwater Consultant on-site for supervision. This lack of supervision has the potential to cause a number of issues, especially given the on-going desire of Drilling Contractors to save money as they drill on the types of contracts explained above. Concern # 6: It is important to note that many of the concerns explained may not be the direct result of the use of turnkey contracts, but rather the fact that turnkey contracts are being paid in a lump sum, no water, no pay form. Under lump-sum payments, the price the Drilling Contractor will be paid is decided before work starts and in most cases a stock-standard price is used. They will therefore not be paid for any additional metres they have to drill to find water at a sustainable quantity or any additional needed to do so. Drilling Contractors are becoming increasingly frustrated with having to spend additional money on boreholes simply because the DLGs/NGOs continue to pay non-site specific prices. Conclusions While the example explained above was just one of the problems noted while in Uganda, it helps to show that the reasons behind HPB failure are systemic, and often further removed than we may think at first. While the direct causal factor for a dry HPB post-construction may be the depth to which the borehole was drilled, the true causal factors are more complicated and complex and are rooted in the decisions made and actions taken, in this case, during procurement and contract management. Through systems-based analysis, I will further highlight how an array of issues are affecting the quality of service these HPBs are able to provide post-construction and offer meaningful solutions going forward. Overall, the time I spent in Uganda under the SRA grant was a great success and extremely beneficial for my own personal learning as well as for my PhD research. I would like to personally thank SYLFF for funding this trip, I greatly appreciate the support. References 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, 2014, Hanoi. <wedc.lboro.ac.uk/resources/conference/37/adank-1976.pdf> Fisher, M.B., Shields, K.F., Chan, T.U., Christenson, E., Cronk, R.D., Leker, H., Samani, D., Apoya, P., Lutz, A. and Bartram, J. (2015) Understanding handpump sustainability: Determinants of rural water source functionality in the Greater Afram Plains region of Ghana, Water Resources Research, 51: doi: /2014WR016770

5 Bonsor, H.C., Oates, N., Chilton, P.J., Carter, R.C., Casey, V., MacDonald, A.M., Etti, B., Nekesa, J., Musinguzi, F., Okubal, P., Alupo, G., Calow, R., Wilson, P., Tumuntungire, M. and Bennie, M. (2015) A Hidden Crisis: strengthening the evidence base on the current failure of rural groundwater supplies, 38 th WEDC International Conference, 2015 Loughborough University. < Foster, T. (2013) Predictors of sustainability for community-managed handpumps in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Uganda, Environment, Science and Technology, 47(21): doi: /es402086n Harvey, P.A. (2004) Borehole sustainability in rural Africa: an analysis of routine field data, 30th WEDC International Conference, 2004, Vientiane. < Liddle, E.S. and Fenner, R. (2017) Water point failure in sub-saharan Africa: the value of a systems thinking approach, Waterlines, 36(2): doi: Lockwood, H., Bakalian, A. and Wakeman, W. (2003) Assessing sustainability in rural water supply: the role of follow-up support to communities, Bank-Netherlands Water Partnership. < Ministry of Water and the Environment (2016) Uganda Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2016, Ministry of Water and the Environment, Kampala, Uganda. <envalert.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/spr-2016_final.pdf> Walters, J.P. and Javernick-Will, A.N. (2015) Long-term functionality of rural water services in developing countries: A system dynamics approach to understanding the dynamic interaction of factors, Environment, Science and Technology, 49(8), pp doi: /es505975h