Liberia Waterpoint Atlas

Final Review Version

31.8.2011

Liberia

WASH Consortium

Please send comments to Maximilian Hirn: [email protected] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Liberian Waterpoint Atlas is the result of a comprehensive mapping exercise carried out in 2011. Led by the Ministry of Public Works, all improved waterpoints of Liberia were surveyed – over 10,000 in total. This Atlas not only provides detailed maps of these, but also a systematic analysis of the collected data.

The in-depth information has yielded insights that provide the empirical basis for investment planning and help formulate basic policy recommendations. Among the many aspects of Liberia’s waterpoint infrastructure described in this Atlas, five critical insights and associated recommendations stand out:

Five Insights & Recommendations

A clear case for increased investment: There are over 10,000 improved waterpoints in Liberia, of which just above 60% are fully functional. This is not enough. Over 800,000 Liberians are entirely uncovered, and over 2 million lack adequate access. More than 1,700 schools do not have an improved waterpoint. To ensure improved access for all Liberians and each school, another 10,000 points are needed. There is thus a clear empirical case for funding an initial 8,200 points as envisaged in the Sector Strategic Plan.

Prioritize – lack of access is concentrated in a narrow corridor: More than 75% of Liberians without adequate access to improved water are concentrated in a narrow “corridor of need” around major roads and towns (see Map 4). Funding for communal waterpoints should thus be distributed between counties based on relative lack of access and then prioritized across districts along the corridor of highest need. To avoid the neglect of areas of intense want (zero access) but moderate population, 20% of funds should be set aside for a special “no community left behind” program tackling remoter locations.

Maintenance must improve: Current breakdown rates are unacceptably high. Of the pumps built in 2010, 15% are already broken down. More than a third of those built in 2004 are. Three steps should be taken to address this: Firstly, active community water committees significantly reduce the likelihood of pump breakdown, yet thousands of points still have none. This needs to change. Secondly, spare-part supply-chains need to be strengthened and more pump mechanics need to be trained. Finally, planning and vetting of constructors must be improved.

Focus on Afridev pumps: More than 80% of all waterpoints in Liberia are of just one type – the Afridev handpump. Moreover, Afridev pumps perform above average even when controlling for age and other relevant variables. Future construction should thus focus as much as possible on Afridev pumps to build on its good performance, and to realize efficiency gains e.g. by concentrating training of mechanics and spare-part supply chains on a single model.

Strengthen coordination, decentralize capacity: To direct funding and enforce guidelines (e.g. on pump type), coordination at the center needs to improve. To successfully construct and monitor infrastructure, capacity at the periphery needs to rise. Waterpoint building activity by major NGOs peaked in 2006-08 – now is the time for the Liberian government to take over.

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 I. Introduction ...... 3 II. Scope and methodology of the mapping exercise ...... 3 Definition of a “improved” waterpoint ...... 3 III. National Results ...... 5 Total Number and Functionality ...... 5 Further characteristics of Liberia’s improved waterpoints ...... 9 Distribution, Coverage and Access ...... 12 Distribution of functional improved waterpoints relative to schools ...... 17 IV. Investment Requirements and Priorities ...... 17 Investment Planning as set forth in the WASH Sector Strategic Plan ...... 17 Total required waterpoints (new and rehabilitated) ...... 18 Investment Prioritization ...... 19 Five policy recommendations ...... 21 V. County Maps……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..24 Annex A: Estimated Cost of a New Improved Waterpoint ...... 42 Annex B: Waterpoints by District and Clan ...... 43

I. Introduction

The Liberia Waterpoint Atlas is the product of a comprehensive mapping exercise carried out by the Ministry of Public Works and its partners in the first half of 2011. Over 10,000 improved waterpoints across all of Liberia’s counties, districts and clans have been mapped during this period. It is the first time that a complete map of all improved waterpoints of Liberia has been made available. This Atlas presents and analysis the data in detail, and proposes a set of distinct policy recommendations.

The waterpoint mapping exercise has been led by the Liberian Ministry of Public Works, with support from the Ministry of Health and the Liberian Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information Services (LISGIS). Assistance was also provided by national and international partners of the Liberian Government, including the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), UNICEF, CHF/USAID, and the NGOs that form the Liberian WASH Consortium, in particular OXFAM.

This Atlas is structured in four broad sections: The next section will outline the scope and methodology of the mapping project, including all relevant definitions such as what is meant by a “improved” waterpoint. This is followed by a chapter giving an overview of the key statistics, insights and maps at the national level. Subsequently, the current Strategic Sector Plan is considered, and total investment requirements and prioritization are discussed and key insights are summarized. Finally, county-level maps are provided

All the waterpoint data that was used for the statistical analysis and maps in this Atlas is available online in great detail and different formats (Stata, Excel, ESRI Shapefiles). To download the data, please visit Liberia’s Water, Sanitation and Hygiene sector website at: http://www.wash-libera.org

II. Scope and methodology of the mapping exercise

This project mapped and surveyed all improved waterpoints in both urban and rural Liberia, covering the entire national territory. The mapping exercise was thus comprehensive and not on a sample basis. The data in this Atlas is up-to-date as of March 2011 for rural areas, and June 2011 for urban areas.

Definition of an “improved” waterpoint

The definition of an “improved” (or “protected”) waterpoint follows international and Government of Liberia (GoL) standards. According to the international definition provided by the World Health Organization and UNICEF, an improved waterpoint is “one that, by nature of its construction or through active intervention, is protected from outside contamination, in particular from contamination with faecal matter.”i

It is important to note that this definition is essentially a technical one – if a water source is constructed in a way that one can assume it is protected, then the point is counted as improved. The water itself is

3 not tested under this definition. Thus, for instance, a public standpipe that is technically fully functional is assumed to be an improved source of water– the water itself is not being tested. This is a necessary simplification, because it is generally not possible and cost efficient to test the water quality in a laboratory for each and every waterpoint in large or remote areas.

Table 1: List of improved versus unimproved/unimproved water-sources

Improved water sources Unimproved Water sources Piped water into house or yard Unprotected spring/creek Public tap or standpipe Unprotected dug-well Pump on hand-dug well or borehole Water sold from handcart Protected Spring / creek Tanker-truck Rainwater collection Surface water (e.g. lake, river) Protected dug well Bottled water (case-by-case)

This exercise mapped only waterpoints i.e. it excluded piped water (except public standpipes). Given the current absence of piped water networks outside the capital Monrovia, and the limited nature even within the capital city, a point-source map still gives a representative picture of the supply of improved water in Liberia in general. For the calculation of required new points, however, the planned expansion of piped water supplies in Monrovia, Buchanan, Kakata and Zwedru was taken into account.

The survey found that protected springs are very rare in Liberia and rainwater collection in improved- tanks is all but absent. As will be shown in detail in the sections below, the vast majority of waterpoints consists of manual pumps on top of protected hand-dug wells or boreholes, with some stand-pipes and elevated tanks (water kiosks), especially in urban areas.

Liberia has many dug-wells without pump on top, but these were all classified as unimproved for the purpose of this exercise. Thus, like all other unimproved sources, they are not included in the map.

Pictures 1 to 3: Examples of unprotected wells in Liberia

Wells without pumps have been classified as unimproved because they generally lack a lid, and even if they do, these are usually (though not always) haphazardly constructed. Unimproved sources have not been mapped, because it would have multiplied the workload without adding to the primary purpose of this Atlas, which is to show where the population has access to improved waterpoints, and where it does not, and how access to improved points could best be expanded.

III. National Results

Total Number and Functionality

The total number of improved waterpoints in Liberia is just above 10,000. Of these 6,371 (63.7%) are technically fully functional, 1,098 (11%) are functional but with problems and 2,532 (25%) have been classified as broken down systems.

Even among the 63.7% technically functional waterpoints, 1,019 report a perceived water quality problem i.e. the water is not “Soft, Clean, Sweet” according to the users.ii . A wide range of complaints is covered by this bad-quality indicator, from rusty, to salty, oily, colored or otherwise negatively affected. In more than 300 cases, this is so serious that the waterpoints – though technically functional – have actually been abandoned for drinking (though may still be used for tasks such as washing). The total number of technically functional points that are actually in use for drinking is thus only 6,015 (60.1%)iii.

Table 2: Number and functionality of Liberia’s protected waterpoints

A further issue affecting actual use is seasonality. At least 935 of the functional, in-use waterpoints only give enough water during the rainy season i.e. the number of fully functional, in-use waterpoints that provide a steady supply of water throughout the dry season is only 5,080 (50.8% of all waterpoints).

Map 1 below shows the location of all functional, in-use waterpoints across Liberia (more detailed county maps are provided in later sections). Lighter background tones indicate better average service, calculated as a simple ratio of population per functional in-use waterpoints. Ideally, the population per waterpoint should be 250 or lower, because technically a typical waterpoint’s capacity is limited to servicing at most 250 to 300 persons safely and sustainably.iv This target figure is only reached in Bomi county. Note that the ratio of (county) population per waterpoint does not take into account the

5 distribution of waterpoints relative to the population within an area. Thus, some sub-areas within a county may have much worse service than the average.

Map 1: Distribution of functional in-use waterpoints and average population per waterpoint

Table 3 breaks down the number of points by county, showing both the total and how many of these are fully functional and in-use.

Table 3: Number of waterpoints per county by functionality

Alarmingly, among the 1,121 points that were constructed in the year 2010, 171 (15%) are already broken down, and 122 (11%) report a problem. The percentage broken down rises steadily as one moves back in time – of those points constructed in 2004, more than a third (35.7%) are broken down, and a further 11% are reporting problems. Figure 1 shows the high breakdown rates and their increase over time.

This rate of pump Current Functionality by Construction Date breakdowns is unacceptably 80% and unsustainably high. As 70% will be discussed below, 60% Functional community water 50% committees can be shown 40% to reduce the likelihood of 30% pump-breakdown and 20% Impaired 10% increasing their incidence is (functional with 0% problems or broken thus one way to address down) this issue. Training more local pump mechanics, and improving the availability of

7 spare-parts is another. Finally, planning of pump construction needs to be further professionalized and supervised.

Among the broken down or functionally impaired points, the cause of damage is most commonly related to the pump, as shown in Table 4. Specifically, this ranges from issues like stolen handles and stolen pump-heads to damage to u-seals and valves. Well related problems are the second largest category, usually relating to spoiled, polluted or dry wells. It is likely that pump-related damages are much easier and more cost-efficient to address, and rehabilitation efforts should thus prioritize points that do not have well-related issues.

Table 4: Damage types by category

The high-demand for easily accessible waterpoints is shown by the fact that almost half of those waterpoints that have technical problems or have broken down continue to be in use, even though these are not improved anymore. The total number of waterpoints that are in use – whether or not they are still fully functional and improved, is thus 7,667 at present (76.7% of all points).

Picture 4: Continued use of an unimproved, broken down waterpoint

In identifying waterpoints suitable for rehabilitation, stakeholders should focus on the subset of broken down or impaired systems that are still in-use (indicating drinkable water) and have no well-damage (which is usually the most expensive to fix). There are approximately 1,800 such points in the country.

Further characteristics of Liberia’s improved waterpoints

The Liberian Waterpoint survey collected a considerable amount of information on each waterpoint that was mapped, which is summarized in this section. This information on the characteristics of the waterpoints provides crucial additional planning inputs.

As Table 5 below highlights, over 90% of all improved waterpoints in Liberia are handpumps, and more than 80% of all points are actually of just one type of handpump – the Afridev model. This is a significant insight. Given the enormous predominance of Afridev pumps, there is a strong argument to be made that future construction of handpumps should also focus on that model in order to make spare-part supply chains and training of mechanics more efficient. As the information presented below shows, this argument is reinforced by the relatively good performance of the pump in terms of breakdown rates.

Table 5: Waterpoint types in Liberia

The high percentage of functional and in-use Afridev pumps (62.7%) compared to models such as Vergnet and Kardia is undoubtedly influenced by the fact that the average construction date of Afridev (and India Mark) pumps is significantly more recent than that of Consallen, Kardia and Vergnet pumps. While the average construction date of Afridev pumps is around 2006, the average construction dates of the latter three types are between 1996 and 2000. Indeed, more than 90% of the current Afridev handpumps were built after 2003 and while the percentage of Afridev handpumps today is over 80% of all waterpoints, before 2003 it was only 62%. This suggests a post-conflict shift towards Afridevs.

However, more recent average construction is not the only reason for the good performance of the Afridev pump. The Afridev model also performs better than average if one considers only the pumps constructed after 2003. Among all pumps constructed in the last 8 years, 65% are fully functional, but this figure rises to 67% for Afridev pumps alone. Econometric analysis confirms this. A logistic regression confirms that controlling for age and other relevant variables, the probability for pump impairment (i.e.

9 the pump being broken down or functional but with problems) decreases significantly if the pump is an Afridev pump. It also decreases significantly if the pump is managed by a community committee (i.e. if there is local ownership and maintenance), if money is collected by that committee (either monthly or upon a breakdown), and the closer the pump location is the Monrovia or a county capital (which makes it easier to procure spareparts and know-how). v

Pictures 4 and 5: Waterpoint mapper with Afridev pump and Afridev handpump overviewvi

It is interesting to note that in spite of some old waterpoints, most are actually of relatively recent construction. More than 85% of Liberia’s improved waterpoints have been constructed since 2003, and more than 60% since the last election in 2005.vii

The data on construction dates also shows that building of waterpoints Table 6: Construction date of waterpoints in Liberia accelerated enormously after the end of the war as Liberians started to rebuild their country and international actors rushed in to meet emergency needs. This emergency relief phase has peaked in 2007, with a slow decrease of annual construction since. Indeed, the construction for most major INGOs has petered off after a peak in 2006-08 (this is true for ACF, CCF,DRC, the EU, Living Water, NRC, Solidarite, Tearfund, ZOA

10 and UNICEF/UNHCR/UNMIL, with the emergency specialist Red Cross peaking even earlier in 2005). By contrast, albeit still at a low level, the building activity of the Government of Liberia, communities, private individuals and companies has steadily increased since 2005, and that of smaller NGOs has remained fairly stable. This is a hopeful result showing that Liberians are slowly but steadily increasing their share in reconstruction work, even as INGOs still play a large role in the sector.

The primary installers of waterpoints in Liberia since the war are listed in Table 7 below. Less than twenty international NGOs have built over 3,500 waterpoints since 2003, or 45% of the total construction. The remainder has been constructed by small NGOs, the Liberian government, private individuals and communities, companies and churches. It is interesting to note that points installed by communities and private individuals have one of the highest functionality rates, providing another pointer towards the importance of local ownership.

Table 7: Main installers of handpumps after 2003

Another important variable related to ownership is whether a waterpoint is managed by a local community. Overall, 57% (5,697) of all waterpoints reported to have a local water committee. Of these, almost 80% (4,422) collected money for the maintenance of the point, but only 25% did so regularly once a month, whereas over 50% only in case of a breakdown. As has been pointed out above, local management by a water committee and fee collection both significantly decrease the likelihood of breakdown.

Three questions that were only asked in urban communities are whether a waterpoint is regularly treated (e.g. with Chlorine), whether water is sold by the gallon and if so, at what price. It emerged that 63% of the approximately 2,700 urban waterpoints are regularly treated, but that only 360 urban points sell by the gallon. It should be noted that in some communities, water is sold by tanker trucks or small carts, and payments are sometimes made for the act of fetching water from otherwise free sources. These transactions have not been captured here. However, for the urban points that sell directly by the gallon, more than 90% price water at 5 Liberty Dollars or less per gallon, the mean price being 4.3 Liberty Dollar.

Distribution, Coverage and Access

In Liberia as a whole, approximately 76% of the population lives within 1.5 miles of a fully functional, in- use waterpoint. This may be referred to as coverage. The flipside of this is that 24% of the population, that is, more than 800,000 Liberians are entirely uncovered i.e. outside a reasonable, walkable distance of even just a single improved waterpoint. Map 2 below illustrates this.

Map 2: Areas of settlement within 1.5 miles of a functional, in-use improved waterpoint.

Covered areas are highlighted in light-green, whereas dark-grey represents settled areas further than 1.5 miles from the next fully functional, in-use waterpoint. Light-grey areas are also beyond 1.5 miles from the next waterpoint, but do not contain settlements. The coverage figure, however, is problematic and overly optimistic, because it does not take into account how many persons there are in the vicinity of each waterpoint. Thus, an area may be fully covered in the sense that every inhabitant is within 1.5 miles of a waterpoints, but if there are too many inhabitants for each point, many will not actually have sustainable access to improved water.

According to the UNICEF WASH Technology Information Package (2010), the waterpoint types predominantly employed in Liberia have a maximum capacity of 250-300 persons per point. viii More than 250-300 persons per point cannot be adequately served, and the sustainability of the point will also be negatively impacted due to overuse, breakage and well-depletion. As Map 1 and Table 8 highlight, the average population per waterpoint in Liberia is generally significantly above 500 persons per point.

Table 8: Current coverage, population per point and access by county

The measure of “coverage” is thus of limited use because it does not take into account how many potential users share each point. “Population per point” provides an approximate measure of the average number of users per point within a county, but is also sub-optimal because it does not take into account that the population is very unevenly distributed within an area as large as a county or district. Building waterpoints in one area of the county will lower the “population per point” ratio for the whole county, even though only the inhabitants in the immediate vicinity of the new points actually benefit. The ratio could be at under 250 persons per point, even as some areas of the county remain uncovered.

The most realistic measure of service availability is thus access. The access statistic only counts waterpoints in the vicinity of the population. Access is defined as the percentage of the population that can be supplied taking into account that each waterpoint only has a capacity of serving 250 persons in an improved, sustainable manner, and that only waterpoints in the vicinity of a settlement can supply that settlement. To illustrate this, imagine a city of 5,000 people who all live within 1.5 miles of one single central waterpoint. This city would have coverage of 100%, because everyone is within 1.5 miles of a point, but the access rate would only be 5%, because the single waterpoint can only supply 250 out of the 5,000 inhabitants in an improved and sustainable manner.

Map 3: Number of persons without access (by planning area of max. 9 square-miles)

Overall, access provided by improved waterpoints is only 40% in Liberia. In other words, the existing waterpoint infrastructure in Liberia is only suitable to provide access for 1.4 million out of the total population of 3.5 million (2008).

Viewed differently, approximately 2.1 million Liberians lack adequate access. Map 3 above shows how the Liberians without access are distributed across the county. Thus, full access (green) means that there is at least one waterpoint per 250 persons within that square planning area. Light-orange means that within that cell, the population is 1-250 persons higher than the number that can be safely and sustainably covered by the existing waterpoints in that area (i.e. a maximum of 250 persons per point).

As can be seen on Map 3 above, most persons without access are clustered together. As Map 4 below highlights, there is actually a “corridor of need” that consists of the area that lies within 3 miles of a paved and primary road or within 10 miles of a county capital. This “corridor of need” contains about 1.5 million (75%) of the Liberians currently without access to adequate improved water supply.

Map 4: The “corridor of need” that contains 75% of Liberians without access to improved water

This same corridor is also the home of over 70% of Liberia’s population and approximately 80% of the existing functional, used waterpoints. However, due to the very high population, even though the existing waterpoints are already concentrated in the same area (even slightly disproportionately so), these population dense areas is nevertheless where most absolute lack of access can be found.

This makes a very important point: While it is true that many remote settlements are severely undersupplied, one must realize that the vast majority of those without improved and sustainable access actually live close to roads and major towns.

Map 5: The “corridor of need” also contains the vast majority of the population and existing waterpoints

Distribution of functional improved waterpoints relative to schools Improved water supply is particularly important for schools, where children congregate in a concentrated fashion and disease can easily spread.

Across Liberia, there are at least 4,136 registered schools according to the latest LISGIS survey, excluding Bong county which was not captured in the available dataset. Of these schools, 1,703 are currently lacking an improved, functional waterpoint that is within 0.25 miles of the school (i.e. 5-10 minutes walking distance at casual speed), and 1,273 do not even have a waterpoint within 0.5 miles of the school (i.e. 20-30 minutes walking distance).

Table 9: Schools without a functional, in-use improved waterpoint within 0.25 miles

IV. Investment Requirements and Priorities

Investment Planning as set forth in the WASH Sector Strategic Plan Liberia’s recently developed WASH Sector Strategic Plan 2012-17 has created a basic framework and guidance for sector financing over the next six years. With respect to waterpoints, the recent August 2011 meeting at Wulki Farms proposed the building of a total of 2,600 handpumps, and the rehabilitation of an additional 5,600 pumps, as well as the training of 1,400 pump mechanics as outlined below in table 10. The results of the waterpoint mapping exercise provide a strong empirical basis for this ambitious plan, which would be a significant step towards addressing the identified needs.

Table 10: Waterpoint investment proposal suggested by the Wulki Farm Strategic Sector Plan workshop

Total required waterpoints (new and rehabilitated)

According to the Waterpoint Atlas analysis, achieving 100% communal access i.e. providing each Liberian with an improved, reasonably close waterpoint “with no more than 250 users per point) would require the construction or rehabilitation of approximately 8,775 points.

The figure of 8,775 required additional waterpoints takes into account that a major AfDB project to introduce or expand piped coverage is already underway which will rehabilitate basic infrastructure and establish “"2800 metered connections and 40 water kiosk”ix in Monrovia, Buchanan, Kakata and Zwedru. This will introduce improved water supply capacity equivalent to almost 700 waterpoints.x

Building dedicated points for each school without an improved waterpoint within 0.25 miles would require another 1,700 points (though detailed planning may find that some schools, especially in Monrovia are close and small enough to share a point). The total of required new or rehabilitated points would thus be approximately 10,600 waterpoints. Given ongoing annual population growth of above 2%, these estimates based on population figures from the 2008 census are likely an estimate on the lower side.

It should be noted that the current Strategic investment plan is very optimistic about the costs, assuming a very high number of points to be rehabilitated at costs considerably lower than building a new point. However, at present there are only 3,630 points that have problems or are completely broken down. Moreover, these points are not always at the same location where additional points are actually required (e.g. at schools). Until community mobilization and pump mechanic training shows effect, the high infrastructure depreciation rate may lead to much of the planned rehabilitation not creating additional points towards the 10,500 target, but simply keeping newly built points from falling into disrepair.

Even so - the 8,200 new and rehabilitated waterpoints proposed in the Strategic Sector Investment Plan would be a big step forward towards alleviating critical need for safe water. The inclusion of pump- mechanic training and community mobilization in the SAP are particularly critical components in light of the information on breakdown rates presented above.

Table 11: Breakdown of required new communal waterpoints (see Table 12 for schools)

Investment Prioritization

The need for funding the construction and rehabilitation of over 8,000 handpumps as envisaged in the Sector Strategic Plan finds a strong empirical basis in the above analysis of the waterpoint data. Beyond this, the Waterpoint Atlas can help formulate principles to guide the prioritization of mobilized funding (as well as detailed district-level planning during later implementation).

The Liberian WASH compact and the National Water Supply and Sanitation Policy (NWSSP) emphasize “the need for increased coverage as a priority over improved service”xi This confirms two things – firstly, at the national and county level, funding for construction and rehabilitation of waterpoints should be distributed according to where the largest number of Liberians are without access.

Counties with a relatively higher level of access (e.g. Bomi) would still receive funding, but only in proportion to their remaining need. This would then be in line with the national policy and WASH compact goal of prioritizing the extension of access over the improvement of services. Building disproportionately many points in a well-served county such as Bomi, which is already providing almost full access (see Map 3, Table 8) would further improve service levels by lowering the population per

19 point, but not increase access once 100% is reached. Table 12 below shows the suggested prioritization across counties by relative need.

At the county level, funding should be prioritized following a three-pronged approach: (a) a program for schools; (b) a primary investment program for communal waterpoints; and (c) a “no community left behind” special program targeting remoter locations with clear needs but outside the main corridor of need where most people live and most lack of access is concentrated.

Table 12: Prioritization across counties by relative need

Funding allocated to schools should be distributed at county level to schools by need and efficiency. Data on number of pupils was not available at the time of this analysis, but two available variables can be used to rank school priority: Firstly, those schools currently furthest from a functioning improved waterpoint should be prioritized over those which do not have a point within 0.25 miles, but still relatively close. Secondly, efficiency gains may be realized if building activity initially focuses on schools that are clustered together, so that a given point may be able to serve more than one school (provided there are not too many pupils).

The primary funding program for communal waterpoints at county level should prioritize construction and rehabilitation activity across districts and clans according to clusters of highest need. This would again be in line with the principles espoused by the WASH Compact and national policy. This way of allocating funds will tackle the “corridor of need” identified in the previous section head on. This is where both the population and need is concentrated. In the example below, the “corridor of need” which would receive priority in each district is identified for the example of Grand Bassa. Redder and

20 darker planning areas identify the areas with most persons without access. The associated districts would be prioritized accordingly.

Maps 6 an 7: Prioritizing within counties across districts by highest need

In addition to providing support first where absolute need is highest, there are also efficiency gains to be realized by initially focusing on areas where need is concentrated (this will e.g. keep transport costs down).

The disadvantage of this approach, however, is that areas that may have very low service but only moderate population – especially if they are relatively remote – will not receive attention until priorities along the “corridor of need” are met. Given limited funds and population growth, a pure allocation of funds by highest absolute needs would unfairly disadvantage more remote areas.

Thus, up to 20% of total funding for communal points should be set aside for a special “no community left behind” program. Such a program would identify planning areas with very low service (e.g. no waterpoints at all) and at least moderate population, and then target these in particular. It is in these more remote, less populated areas, that training of mechanics, and community mobilization programs to educate about the advantages of an improved water supply may be most needed.

Five policy recommendations

In light of the information presented above, five insights and related policy recommendations stand out:

A clear case for increased investment: There are over 10,000 improved waterpoints in Liberia, of which just above 60% are fully functional. This is not enough. Over 800,000 Liberians are entirely uncovered, and over 2 million lack adequate access. More than 1,700 schools do not have an improved waterpoint. To ensure improved access for all Liberians and every school, another 10,000 must be built or repaired. There is thus a clear empirical case for funding an initial 8,200 points as envisaged in the Sector Strategic Plan.

Area Working and Working But with Broken Down Schools without County District Popuation BOMI COUNTY (Sq. Miles) Protected* problems System water points

Dowein 13188 118 99 20 42 3 COCounty Maps Klay 23397 235 136 39 69 5 Bomi Senjeh 30027 207 130 14 63 4 Suehn Mecca 17507 178 55 28 41 10 Bomi Total 84119 738 420 101 215 22

Population per Estimated Cost Water Points Required County District Functional Water Access for 100% Access with rehab Point** All New (optimistic scenario) Dowein 133 96% 4 18000 4000 Klay 172 97% 6 27000 6000 Bomi Senjeh 231 89% 18 81000 18000 Suehn Mecca 318 80% 19 85500 19000 Bomi Total 200 91% 47 211500 47000

All waterpoints Functional & in-use Percentage of type Type of Waterpoint functional & in-use Number % Number % % Afridev 696 92% 388 92% 56% Consallen 3 0% 0 0% 0% India Mark 52 7% 32 8% 62% Unknown or Unclear (e.g. head missing/stolen) 3 0% 0 0% 0% Grand Total 754 100% 420 100% 56%

BOMI Average Age 2006 Percentage of Water Points with committees 53% Number impaired (broken or with problems) 316 Problem Type Pump Problem 51% Well Problem 14% Apron Problem 14% Other 21%

BONG COUNTY Area Working and Working But Broken Down Schools without water County District Popuation (Sq. Miles) Protected* with problems System points*****

Boinsen 8210 104 16 1 12 N/A BONG Fuamah 28823 362 4 1 2 N/A Average Age 2005 Jorquelleh 79129 503 121 19 74 N/A Percentage of Water Points with committees 55% Kokoyah 3702 101 5 3 8 N/A Number impaired (broken or with problems) 351 Kpaai 25949 259 43 4 34 N/A Panta 16473 173 39 5 24 N/A Problem Type Pump Problem 41% Bong Well Problem 36% Salala 43617 342 13 9 16 N/A Sanoyeah 30330 424 6 4 4 N/A Apron Problem 17% Suakoko 29180 240 54 10 30 N/A Other 5% Tukpahblee 11731 143 29 3 9 N/A Yeallequelleh 36097 379 67 12 21 N/A Zota 20240 327 60 15 31 N/A Bong Total 333481 3357 457 86 265 N/A

Water Estimated Cost Population per Points County District Functional Access Required with rehab Water Point** for 100% All New (optimistic scenario) Access Boinsen 513 49% 26 211500 166000 Fuamah 7,206 3% 138 117000 106500 Jorquelleh 654 35% 234 621000 295500 Kokoyah 740 33% 13 1053000 1014500 Kpaai 603 47% 72 58500 72000 Panta 422 50% 43 324000 222500 Bong Salala 3,355 8% 178 193500 106000 Sanoyeah 5,055 3% 136 801000 773000 Suakoko 540 39% 85 612000 472000 Tukpahblee 405 58% 24 382500 340500 Yeallequelleh 539 45% 100 108000 100000 Zota 337 62% 45 450000 289000 Bong Total 730 32% 1094 4932000 3703500

Type of Waterpoint All waterpoints Functional & in-use Percentage of type functional & in-use Number % Number % % Afridev 753 91% 430 94% 57% Consallen 24 3% 9 2% 38% India Mark 21 3% 11 2% 52% Kardia 16 2% 5 1% 31% Not a manual pump 1 0% 1 0% 100% Unknown or Unclear (e.g. head missing/stolen) 9 1% 1 0% 11% 25 Grand Total 824 100.00% 457 100.00% 55%

Area (Sq. Working and Working But with Broken Down Schools without GBARPOLU COUNTY County District Popuation Miles) Protected* problems System water points

Belleh 15257 919 1 2 4 15 Bokomu 9873 228 14 5 4 8 Bopolu 17719 888 110 26 18 27 Gbarpolu Gbarma 15851 324 73 23 24 15 Gounwolaila 11196 278 5 0 2 17 Kongba 13492 1162 17 2 6 12 Gbarpolu Total 83388 3799 220 58 58 94

Water Points Estimated Cost Population per Functional Water County District Access Required for 100% Point** Access with rehab All New (optimistic scenario) Belleh 15,257 42% 71 319500 298500 Bokomu 705 30% 36 162000 130500 Bopolu 161 83% 30 135000 30000 Gbarpolu Gbarma 217 80% 21 94500 21000 Gounwolaila 2,239 11% 48 216000 209000 Kongba 794 30% 58 261000 233000 Gbarpolu Total 379 43% 264 1188000 782000

Type of Waterpoint All waterpoints Functional & in-use Percentage of type functional & in-use Number % Number % % Afridev 333 97% 217 99% 65% India Mark 4 1% 3 1% 75% Kardia 1 0% 0 0% 0% Not a manual pump 4 1% 0 0% 0% Unknown or Unclear (e.g. head missing/stolen) 1 0% 0 0% 0% Grand Total 343 100% 220 100% 64%

Area (Sq. Working and Working But with Broken Down Schools without water County District Popuation GRAND BASSA Miles) Protected* problems System points Commonwealth2 34893 8 77 10 21 0 District # 1 24612 450 24 18 28 18 District # 2 25722 723 36 7 18 34 COUNTY District # 3 52417 904 79 43 41 35 Grand Bassa District # 4 27562 457 9 2 9 33 Neekreen 32563 202 37 17 24 29 Owensgrove 13914 113 17 6 11 7 St. John River City 10010 168 7 2 4 15 Grand Bassa Total 221693 3025 286 105 156 171

Water Points Estimated Cost Population per Functional County District Access Required for 100% with rehab Water Point** All New Access (optimistic scenario) Commonwealth2 363 63% 0**** 0 0 District # 1 1,026 19% 114 513,000 352,000 District # 2 715 26% 110 495,000 407,500 District # 3 664 33% 184 828,000 534,000 Grand Bassa District # 4 3,062 10% 121 544,500 506,000 Neekreen 880 46% 8**** 36,000 8,000 Owensgrove 818 39% 96 432,000 372,500 St. John River City 1,430 16% 41 184,500 163,500 Grand Bassa Total 727 33% 819 3,033,000 2,343,500

Type of Waterpoint All waterpoints Functional & in-use Percentage of type functional & in-use Number % Number % % Afridev 409 73% 241 84% 59% Consallen 59 11% 19 7% 32% India Mark 2 0% 1 0% 50% Kardia 31 6% 14 5% 45% Not a manual pump 17 3% 6 2% 35% Unknown or Unclear (e.g. head missing/stolen) 7 1% 1 0% 14% Vergnet 34 6% 4 1% 12% Grand Total 559 100% 286 100% 51%

GRAND BASSA Average Age 2006 Percentage of Water Points with committees 32% Number impaired (broken or with problems) 261 Problem Type Pump Problem 59% Well Problem 8% 27 Apron Problem 28% Other 5% Area Working and Working But with Broken Down Schools without GRAND CAPE County District Popuation (Sq.Miles) Protected* problems System water points MOUNT Commonwealth 6547 77 39 5 8 2 Garwula 26936 313 99 15 33 14 Grand Cape Mount Golakonneh 23518 695 44 9 26 20 Porkpa 42615 494 54 30 35 18 Tewor 27460 246 72 27 35 19 Grand Cape Mount Total 127076 1825 308 86 137 73

Estimated Cost Population per Functional Water Points Required with rehab County District Access Water Point** for 100% Access All New (optimistic scenario) Commonwealth 168 72% 9 40500 -5000

Garwula 272 67% 47 211500 43500 Grand Cape Mount Golakonneh 535 40% 91 409500 287000

Porkpa 789 33% 142 639000 411500 Tewor 381 56% 55 247500 30500

Grand Cape Mount Total 413 48% 344 1548000 767500

Type of Waterpoint All waterpoints Functional & in-use Percentage of type functional & in-use Number % Number % % Afridev 420 77% 263 85% 63% Consallen 50 9% 17 6% 34% India Mark 37 7% 15 5% 41% Kardia 11 2% 6 2% 55% Not a manual pump 26 5% 7 2% 27% Vergnet 1 0% 0 0% 0% Grand Total 545 100% 308 100% 57%

Grand Cape Mount Average Age 2003 Percentage of Water Points with committees 76% Number impaired (broken or with problems) 223 Problem Type Pump Problem 56% 28 Well Problem 12%

Apron Problem 17% Other 15% Area Working and Working But with Broken Down Schools without GRAND GEDEH County District Popuation (Sq.Miles) Protected* problems System water points

B'hai 10367 242 18 8 25 5 Grand Gedeh Cavala 13314 494 20 3 16 11 Average Age 2005 Gbao 12324 680 18 6 19 12 Percentage of Water Points with committees 57% Gboe-Ploe 6271 638 0 1 1 9 Grand Gedeh Number impaired (broken or with problems) 157 Glio-Twarbo 9030 531 17 1 6 4 Problem Type Pump Problem 56% Konobo 24705 623 10 2 6 17 Well Problem 28% Putu 16426 421 33 1 17 3 Apron Problem 7% Tchien 32821 515 67 17 28 14 Other 9% Grand Gedeh Total 125258 4144 183 39 118 75

Water Points Estimated Cost Population per Functional County District Access Required for 100% Water Point** with rehab Access All New (optimistic scenario) B'hai 576 63% 32 144000 28500 Cavala 666 31% 49 220500 154000 Gbao 685 30% 45 202500 115000 Gboe-Ploe No water point 0% 33 148500 141500 Grand Gedeh Glio-Twarbo 531 47% 24 108000 83500 Konobo 2,471 9% 103 463500 435500 Putu 498 50% 41 184500 121500 Tchien 490 48% 78 351000 193500 Grand Gedeh Total 684 34% 405 1822500 1273000

Type of Waterpoint All waterpoints Functional & in-use Percentage of type functional & in-use Number % Number % % Afridev 305 89.18% 175 95.63% 57% Consallen 1 0.29% 0 0.00% 0% India Mark 1 0.29% 0 0.00% 0% Kardia 7 2.05% 4 2.19% 57% Submersible pump 1 0.29% 0 0.00% 0% Unknown or Unclear (e.g. head missing/stolen) 3 0.88% 0 0.00% 0% Vergnet 24 7.02% 4 2.19% 17% Grand Total 342 100.00% 183 100.00% 54%

Working and Working But Schools without water County District Popuation Area (Sq.Miles) GRAND KRU Protected* with problems points Barclayville 11573 208 41 4 14 Bleebo 1710 43 8 1 1 COUNTY Bolloh 1917 49 0 0 1 Buah 643 107 5 1 0 Dorbor 2364 91 0 0 7 Dweh 928 33 9 0 0 Felo-Jekwi 2011 63 4 0 1 Fenetoe 1696 16 0 0 5 Forpoh 1545 29 0 0 2 Grand Kru Garraway 9525 130 33 2 2 Gee 2543 27 16 1 0 Grand Cess Wedabo 10809 163 22 2 8 Kpi 1597 71 3 0 2 Lower Jloh 1285 137 0 0 8 Nrokwia-Wesldow 1876 90 10 0 4 Trenbo 3631 96 19 0 1 Upper Jloh 1573 100 2 0 4 Wlogba 687 35 3 0 0 Grand Kru Total 57913 1488 175 11 60

Type of Waterpoint All waterpoints Functional & in-use Percentage of type functional & in-use Number % Number % % Afridev 192 82% 146 83% 76% Consallen 16 7% 14 8% 88% India Mark 4 2% 2 1% 50% Kardia 12 5% 9 5% 75% Unknown or Unclear (e.g. head missing/stolen) 1 0% 1 1% 100% Vergnet 10 4% 3 2% 30% Grand Total 235 100% 175 100% 74%

Grand Kru Average Age 2007 Percentage of Water Points with committees 97% Number impaired (broken or with problems) 56 Problem Type Pump Problem 32% Well Problem 29% Apron Problem 11% 30 Other 29%

Estimated Cost Population per Water Points Broken Down County District Functional Access Required for with rehab System All New Water Point** 100% Access (optimistic scenario)

Barclayville 7 282 36% 21 94500 21000 Bleebo 2 214 82% 2 9000 2000 Bolloh 0 No water point 0% 9 40500 40500 Buah 1 129 83% 2 9000 2000 Dorbor 0 No water point 0% 16 72000 72000 Dweh 0 103 89% 1 4500 1000 Felo-Jekwi 4 503 50% 5 22500 8500 Fenetoe 0 No water point 0% 5 22500 22500 Forpoh 0 No water point 0% 6 27000 27000 Grand Kru Garraway 9 289 26% 9 40500 9000 Gee 0 159 100% 0 0 0 Grand Cess Wedabo 9 491 47% 33 148500 64500 Kpi 2 532 0% 8 36000 25500 Lower Jloh 0 No water point 0% 11 49500 49500 Nrokwia-Wesldow 1 188 96% 2 9000 2000 Trenbo 9 191 95% 2 9000 2000 Upper Jloh 0 787 22% 11 49500 42500 Wlogba 1 229 100% 0 0 0 Grand Kru Total 45 331 56% 143 643500 143000

LOFA COUNTY Working and Working But with Broken Down Schools without County District Popuation Area (Sq.Miles) Protected* problems System water points

Foya 73312 238 59 4 21 54 Kolahun 60557 866 132 23 39 38 Quardu Boundi 18785 129 34 5 23 6 Lofa Salayea 23578 485 60 6 38 10 Vahun 17137 150 12 3 16 7 Voinjama 42790 737 141 13 61 26 Zorzor 40704 1206 83 7 45 42 Lofa Total 276863 3811 521 61 243 183

Population per Water Points Estimated Cost County District Functional Water Access Required for Point** 100% Access with rehab All New (optimistic scenario) Foya 1,243 23% 251 1129500 1042000 Kolahun 459 47% 151 679500 462500 Quardu Boundi 553 41% 46 207000 109000 Lofa Salayea 393 56% 56 252000 98000 Vahun 1,428 18% 62 279000 212500 Voinjama 303 70% 76 342000 83000 Zorzor 490 45% 120 540000 358000 Lofa Total 531 43% 762 3429000 2365000

Type of Waterpoint All waterpoints Functional & in-use Percentage of type functional & in-use Number % Number % % Afridev 778 94% 502 96% 65% Consallen 41 5% 13 2% 32% India Mark 2 0% 0 0% 0% Kardia 3 0% 1 0% 33% Not a manual pump 2 0% 2 0% 100% Unknown or Unclear (e.g. head missing/stolen) 3 0% 3 1% 100% Grand Total 829 100% 521 100% 63%

Lofa Average Age 2006 Percentage of Water Points with committees 76% Number impaired (broken or with problems) 304 Problem Type Pump Problem 54% Well Problem 37% 32 Apron Problem 7% Other 3% Working But Schools Area Working and Broken Down MARGIBI COUNTY County District Popuation with without water (Sq.Miles) Protected* System problems points Firestone 61988 153 134 18 37 22 Gibi 14250 214 12 3 4 19 Margibi Kakata 88704 398 266 17 86 22 Mambah Kaba 44981 222 116 25 77 20 Margibi Total 209923 987 528 63 204 83

Estimated Cost Water Points Population per Functional County District Access Required for with rehab Water Point** All New 100% Access (optimistic scenario) Firestone 463 45% 125 562500 370000 Gibi 1,188 17% 54 243000 218500 Margibi Kakata 333 63% 155 697500 337000 Mambah Kaba 388 49% 126 567000 210000 Margibi Total 398 52% 460 2070000 1135500

Type of Waterpoint All waterpoints Functional & in-use Percentage of type functional & in-use Number % Number % % Afridev 554 65% 365 69% 66% Consallen 12 1% 4 1% 33% India Mark 55 6% 34 6% 62% Kardia 3 0% 1 0% 33% Not a manual pump 148 17% 97 18% 66% Other handpump model 3 0% 2 0% 67% Submersible pump 2 0% 2 0% 100% Unknown or Unclear (e.g. head missing/stolen) 66 8% 23 4% 35% Vergnet 10 1% 0 0% 0% Grand Total 853 100% 528 100% 62%

Margibi Average Age 2006 Percentage of Water Points with committees 34% Number impaired (broken or with problems) 267

Problem Type Pump Problem 55% Well Problem 19% Apron Problem 13% 33 Other 13%

Schools Area Working and Working But Broken Down MARYLAND COUNTY County District Popuation without water (Sq.Miles) Protected* with problems System points Maryland Gwelekpoken 10060 125 12 1 5 3 Harper 38024 122 112 12 34 5 Karluway#1 8494 131 20 0 16 3 Karluway#2 17159 166 34 7 25 9 Nyorken 10057 78 12 3 10 5 Pleebo/Sodoken 43223 178 109 23 48 6 Whojah 8921 81 4 2 4 7 Maryland Total 135938 881 303 48 142 38

Estimated Cost Population per Water Points County District Functional Water Access Required for with rehab All New Point** 100% Access (optimistic scenario)

Gwelekpoken 12 31% 29 130500 109500 Harper 114 72% 46 207000 46000 Karluway#1 20 52% 21 94500 38500 Maryland Karluway#2 34 52% 41 184500 72500 Nyorken 12 28% 32 144000 98500 Pleebo/Sodoken 109 55% 83 373500 125000 Whojah 4 11% 36 162000 141000 Maryland Total 305 52% 288 1296000 631000

Type of Waterpoint All waterpoints Functional & in-use Percentage of type functional & in-use Number % Number % % Afridev 389 76% 260 67% 67%

Consallen 13 3% 3 1% 23% India Mark 45 9% 21 5% 47% Kardia 1 0% 0% 0% Not a manual pump 2 0% 2 1% 100% Unknown or Unclear (e.g. head missing/stolen) 2 0% 1 0% 50% Vergnet 57 11% 16 4% 28% Grand Total 509 100% 303 78% 60%

Maryland Average Age 2005 Percentage of Water Points with committees 69% Number impaired (broken or with problems) 190 Problem Type Pump Problem 63% 34 Well Problem 21% Apron Problem 15%

Other 1% Area Working and Working But Broken Down Schools without MONTSERRADO County District Popuation (Sq.Miles) Protected* with problems System water points

Careysburg 29712 133 84 3 29 1 COUNTY Commonwealth1 11876 38 58 2 20 1 Montserrado Greater Monrovia 970824 57 863 165 228 331 St. Paul River 71831 176 303 35 73 37 Todee 33998 295 87 13 51 1 Montserrado Total 1118241 699 1395 218 401 371

Population per Estimated Cost Water Points County District Functional Access Required with rehab Water Point** All New (optimistic scenario) Careysburg 354 71% 36 162000 50000 Commonwealth1 205 32% 54 243000 166000 Montserrado Greater Monrovia 885 28% 2430 10935000 9559500 St. Paul River 237 60% 279 1255500 877500 Todee 391 57% 68 306000 82000 Montserrado Total 686 35% 2867 12901500 10735000

Type of Waterpoint All waterpoints Functional & in-use Percentage of type functional & in-use Number % Number % % Afridev 1379 63% 917 66% 66% Consallen 41 2% 19 1% 46% elephant pump 27 1% 25 2% 93% India Mark 245 11% 160 11% 65% Kardia 36 2% 28 2% 78% Not a manual pump 390 18% 222 16% 57% Other handpump model 1 0% 1 0% 100% Unknown or Unclear (e.g. head missing/stolen) 58 3% 24 2% 41% Vergnet 8 0% 2 0% 25% Grand Total 2185 100% 1398 100% 64%

Montserrado Average Age 2007

Percentage of Water Points with committees 44% Number impaired (broken or with problems) 620 Problem Type Pump Problem 46% Well Problem 21% Apron Problem 22% 35 Other 11%

Schools Area Working and Working But Broken Down County District Popuation without water NIMBA COUNTY (Sq.Miles) Protected* with problems System points Boe & Quilla 18262 322 9 1 7 17 Buu-Yao 40007 327 61 7 17 27 Doe 35918 494 41 10 56 25 Garr-Bain 61225 153 67 5 28 18 Gbehlay-Geh 32176 217 73 11 12 25 Gbi & Doru 8131 791 13 4 19 6 Gbor 10875 51 0 0 0 14 Kparblee 11424 112 13 6 21 6 Nimba Leewehpea-Mahn 26883 153 46 11 52 17 Meinpea-Mahn 24157 268 38 4 27 12 Sanniquellie Mahn 25370 187 95 18 23 2 Twan River 37479 287 11 3 7 49 Wee-Gbehyi-Mahn 32934 166 78 21 42 10 Yarmein 22718 211 35 6 12 7 Yarpea Mahn 21647 147 26 6 15 9 Yarwein Mehnsonnoh 25584 396 45 6 31 15 Zoe-Gbao 27236 131 24 5 8 30 Nimba Total 462026 4413 675 124 377 289

Type of Waterpoint All waterpoints Functional & in-use Percentage of type functional & in-use Number % Number % % Afridev 1081 91% 625 93% 58% Consallen 27 2% 8 1% 30% India Mark 50 4% 25 4% 50% Kardia 20 2% 10 1% 50% Not a manual pump 7 1% 6 1% 86% Other handpump model 1 0% 0 0% 0% Unknown or Unclear (e.g. head missing/stolen) 4 0% 0 0% 0% Vergnet 2 0% 1 0% 50% Grand Total 1192 100% 675 100% 57%

Nimba Average Age 2005 Percentage of Water Points with committees 67% Number impaired (broken or with problems) 501 Problem Type Pump Problem 45% Well Problem 24% 36 Apron Problem 10% Other 21%

Estimated Cost Water Points Population per Functional County District Access Required for with rehab Water Point** All New 100% Access (optimistic scenario) Boe & Quilla 2,029 15% 86 387000 359000 Buu-Yao 656 34% 123 553500 469500 Doe 876 29% 120 540000 309000 Garr-Bain 914 81% 189 850500 735000 Gbehlay-Geh 441 42% 82 369000 288500 Gbi & Doru 625 28% 34 153000 72500 Gbor No water point 6.5%** 48 216000 216000 Kparblee 879 35% 36 162000 67500 Nimba Leewehpea-Mahn 584 43% 86 387000 166500 Meinpea-Mahn 636 38% 66 297000 188500 Sanniquellie Mahn 267 74% 35 157500 14000 Twan River 3,407 8% 150 675000 640000 Wee-Gbehyi-Mahn 422 57% 64 288000 67500 Yarmein 649 44% 62 279000 216000 Yarpea Mahn 833 29% 61 274500 201000 Yarwein Mehnsonnoh 569 42% 73 328500 199000 Zoe-Gbao 1,135 6% 62 279000 233500

Area Working and Working But with Schools without water County District Popuation Broken Down System RIVERCESS (Sq.Miles) Protected* problems points

Beawor 3854 211 3 0 5 5 COUNTY Central Rivercess 8303 694 14 1 2 12 Doedain 13041 399 12 7 4 13 Fen River 12630 99 28 1 18 10 Rivercess Jo River 8921 279 9 1 8 11 Norwein 13900 234 25 5 8 18 Sam Gbalor 3714 143 4 0 2 9 Zarflahn 7146 75 31 4 9 4 Rivercess Total 71509 2134 126 19 56 82

Estimated Cost Population per Functional Water Points Required for County District Access Water Point** 100% Access with rehab All New (optimistic scenario) Beawor 1,285 2% 18 81000 63500 Central Rivercess 593 30% 37 166500 156000 Doedain 1,087 27% 50 225000 186500 Fen River 451 52% 27 121500 55000 Rivercess Jo River 991 20% 40 180000 148500 Norwein 556 41% 45 202500 157000 Sam Gbalor 929 26% 16 72000 65000 Zarflahn 152 53% 14 63000 17500 Rivercess Total 504 36% 247 1111500 849000

Type of Waterpoint All waterpoints Functional & in-use Percentage of type functional & in-use Number % Number % % Afridev 177 86% 118 94% 67% Not a manual pump 5 2% 3 2% 60% Unknown or Unclear (e.g. head missing/stolen) 1 0% 0 0% 0% Vergnet 23 11% 5 4% 22% Grand Total 206 100% 126 100% 61%

Rivercess Average Age 2004 Percentage of Water Points with committees 53% Number impaired (broken or with problems) 75 38 Problem Type Pump Problem 73% Well Problem 9% Apron Problem 15% Other 3% Area Working and Working But with Broken Down Schools without water County District Popuation (Sq.Miles) Protected* problems System points RIVERGEE Chedepo 10518 336 39 0 12 6 Gbeapo 10934 78 22 1 3 4 COUNTY Glaro 4992 362 3 0 3 2 Karforh 5829 134 8 3 1 3 Nanee 6002 95 1 0 0 8 River Gee Nyenawliken 5159 95 24 4 2 0 Nyenebo 5703 135 9 1 11 6 Potupo 7464 320 43 2 11 8 Sarbo 5320 209 17 3 14 3 Tuobo 4868 185 20 0 9 8 River Gee Total 66789 1949 186 14 66 48

Estimated Cost Population per Functional Water Points Required County District Access with rehab Water Point** for 100% Access All New (optimistic scenario) Chedepo 270 71% 16 72000 30000 Gbeapo 497 51% 24 108000 94000 Glaro 1,664 14% 22 99000 88500 Karforh 729 35% 25 112500 98500 Nanee 6,002 8% 27 121500 121500 River Gee Nyenawliken 215 90% 5 22500 1500 Nyenebo 634 43% 18 81000 39000 Potupo 174 65% 11 49500 4000 Sarbo 313 70% 9 40500 9000 Tuobo 243 64% 11 49500 18000 River Gee Total 359 53% 168 756000 476000

Type of Waterpoint All waterpoints Functional & in-use Percentage of type functional & in-use Number % Number % % Afridev 228 82% 162 87% 71% India Mark 14 5% 8 4% 57% Kardia 3 1% 3 2% 100% Not a manual pump 7 3% 2 1% 29% Other handpump model 1 0% 0 0% 0% Vergnet 26 9% 11 6% 42% Grand Total 279 100% 186 100% 67%

RiverGee Average Age 2007 Percentage of Water Points with committees 76% Number impaired (broken or with problems) 80 39 Problem Type Pump Problem 50% Well Problem 18% Apron Problem 15% Other 18% Schools Working and Working But with Broken Down County District Popuation Area (Sq.Miles) without Protected* problems System SINOE water points

Bodae 3539 107 0 0 0 0 Bokon 4373 54 0 0 0 0 COUNTY Butaw 3432 93 16 6 5 3 Dugbe River 9239 261 27 5 4 21 Greenville 15715 33 57 11 5 4 Jaedae 3539 113 3 2 0 0 Jeadepo 7895 648 2 2 0 30 Juarzon 6088 76 15 9 3 1 Sinoe Kpayan 10661 390 43 12 7 20 Kulu Shaw Boe 8555 511 17 2 2 2 Plahn Nyarn 6677 108 19 9 2 2 Pynes Town 3067 300 7 1 8 6 Sanquin Dist# 1 2118 141 9 2 1 2 Sanquin Dist# 3 3152 173 0 0 0 6 Sanquin Dist#2 3256 121 3 1 1 4 Seekon 7024 360 0 0 0 7 Wedjah 4061 241 11 3 10 4 Sinoe Total 102391 3730 229 65 48 112

Type of Waterpoint All waterpoints Functional & in-use Percentage of type functional & in-use Number % Number % % Afridev 313 90% 212 93% 68% Consallen 10 3% 3 1% 30% India Mark 3 1% 2 1% 67% Kardia 18 5% 11 5% 61% Not a manual pump 1 0% 1 0% 100% Vergnet 1 0% 0% 0% Grand Total 346 100% 229 100% 66%

Sinoe Average Age 2007 Percentage of Water Points with committees 75% Number impaired (broken or with problems) 113 Problem Type Pump Problem 39% Well Problem 42% Apron Problem 18% Other 2%

Estimated Cost Water Points Population per Functional County District Access Required for with rehab Water Point** All New 100% Access (optimistic scenario) Bodae No water point 0% 15 67500 67500 Bokon No water point 0% 23 103500 103500 Butaw 215 73% 9 40500 2000 Dugbe River 342 53% 28 126000 94500 Greenville 276 89% 7 31500 7000 Jaedae 1,180 12% 15 67500 60500 Jeadepo 3,948 7% 37 166500 159500 Juarzon 406 68% 10 45000 3000 Sinoe Kpayan 248 65% 34 153000 86500 Kulu Shaw Boe 503 37% 24 108000 94000 Plahn Nyarn 351 69% 12 54000 15500 Pynes Town 438 52% 12 54000 22500 Sanquin Dist# 1 235 89% 4 18000 7500 Sanquin Dist# 3 No water point 0% 26 117000 117000 Sanquin Dist#2 1,085 39% 9 40500 33500 Seekon No water point 0% 37 166500 166500 Wedjah 369 43% 16 72000 26500 Sinoe Total 447 47% 318 1431000 1035500

Annex A: Estimated Cost of a New Improved Waterpoint

Estimated costs to build water point with Afridev hand pump (hand-dug well)

BILL OF QUANTITY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE (1) HAND- DUG WELL AT

APPROXIMATE DEPTH OF 13 METERS OR 40 FEET

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST A. DIRECT MATERIA ESTIMATE 1.0 1.2M X 0.6 Re-in forced concrete culvert pc 20 100.00 2,000.00 2.0 1.2m diameter Re-in forced concrete well top pc 1 100.00 100.00 3.0 ¼” aggregate Cu.m 1 40 40.00 4.0 Beach sand Cu.m 2 20 40.00 5.0 4” concrete blocks Pc 45 0.45 20.25 6.0 Cement Bag 10 10.00 100.00 Sub- total: Direct materials estimate cost USD$ 2,300.25 B.WELL PROTECTION 1.0 Afridev Hand pump complete for installation units 1 375 375.00 2.0 Vandal Proof jacket units 1 50 50.00

3.0 PVC GLUE Can 1 15 15.00

4.0 PVC Cleaner Can 1 15 15.00 5.0 PTFE Tape roll 2 5 10.00 Sub- total: well protection USD$465.00 B. TRANSPORTATION/OPERATION 1.0 Fuel for mobilization and decentralization Gal 40.00 4.75 190 2.0 Gasoline for dewatering pump Gal 10 4.50 45 3.0 Fuel for material transportation Gal 75 4.75 356.25 Sub- total: Transportation/Operation USD$591.25

D. LABOR/MANPOWER 1.0 Supervisor(1) m/d 7 15.00 105.00

2.0 Well technicians(4) m/d 7 10. 280.00 Sub-total labor/manpower 385.00 GRAND TOTAL USD$3,741.5 Note: Manufacturing on site can reduce cost; however equipment may be needed and cost may very depending on the location of well site.

Followin the Sector Investment Plan assumptions, and recognizing that 10-20% flexible cost component should be added, and transport costs to more remote areas included, an average price of US$ 4,500 was assumed.

Annex B: Waterpoints by District and Clan

Note – these tables will be added in the final version that will be distributed to the counties. If you are interested in clan-level maps and statistics now, please visit the WASH sector website to download the full dataset and district maps: http://www.wash-liberia.org

i This definition is provided on the official website of the WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation: http://www.wssinfo.org/ ii Reported quality problem are not based on laboratory tests, but refers to users reporting the water not to be “Soft, Clean, Sweet”, but instead e.g. rusty, colored, salty or otherwise negatively affected. iii If one adjusts for the number of taps (i.e. a higher capacity kiosk with 10 taps is counted as 10 waterpoints instead of one), then this figure rises to 6296. iv UNICEF, WASH Technology Information Packages – for UNICEF WASH Programme and Supply Personel; 2010. See entries for Afridev, India Mark and Vergnet pumps. v Logit regression of impaired (yes/no) on a number of variables.

. logit impaired age afri ccommittee cinstal nearmonr near_county pay

Iteration 0: log likelihood = -5844.4267 Iteration 1: log likelihood = -5582.9511 Iteration 2: log likelihood = -5581.3218 Iteration 3: log likelihood = -5581.3205 Iteration 4: log likelihood = -5581.3205

Logistic regression Number of obs = 9002 LR chi2(7) = 526.21 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -5581.3205 Pseudo R2 = 0.0450

------impaired | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] ------+------age | -.0476075 .0044719 -10.65 0.000 -.0563722 -.0388427 afri | -.3360468 .0625796 -5.37 0.000 -.4587006 -.2133929 ccommittee | -.6047069 .0476676 -12.69 0.000 -.6981337 -.5112801 cinstal | -.8203917 .1155421 -7.10 0.000 -1.04685 -.5939332 nearmonr | .0728497 .0229518 3.17 0.002 .0278651 .1178344 near_count~p | 1.277389 .1307318 9.77 0.000 1.021159 1.533618 pay | -.286416 .1396687 -2.05 0.040 -.5601616 -.0126703 _cons | 95.1287 8.963188 10.61 0.000 77.56117 112.6962 ------vi Second image from: UNICEF, WASH Technology Information Packages – for UNICEF WASH Programme and Supply Personel; 2010. vii Note that age is unknown for approximately 1,000 points. This are disproportionately broken down points and thus likely of relatively older construction. viii UNICEF, WASH Technology Information Packages – for UNICEF WASH Programme and Supply Personel; 2010. See entries for Afridev, India Mark and Vergnet pumps. ix http://www.afdb.org/en/projects-and-operations/project-portfolio/project/p-lr-e00-003/ [September 2011] x It is assumed that each piped high-capacity urban water kiosk supplies water equivalent to at least 10 regular handpumps, and that each metered domestic connection will supply 5 families of 5. Thus, the additional access provided by the AfDB project will be equivalent to almost 700 waterpoints that can supply 250 persons each [Total equivalent number = (40*10 + (5*5*2800/250))= 680]. xi Liberia WASH Compact, Final Draft, p.6;