An Analysis of Water Point Mapping Data for the Chikwawa District, Malawi and a Review of Its Use Within the Water Sector

An analysis of water point mapping data for the Chikwawa District, Malawi and a review of its use within the water sector

Holly Clark

A dissertation submitted by Holly Clark to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Strathclyde, in part completion of the requirements for the MSc in Hydrogeology.

I, Holly Clark, hereby state that this report is my own work and that all sources used are made explicit in the text.

15,155 words

August 2014

The place of useful learning The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, number SC015263 Declaration of Author’s Rights

The copyright of this dissertation belongs to the author under the terms of the United Kingdom Copyrights Act as qualified by University of Strathclyde Regulation 3.49. Due acknowledgement must always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this dissertation.

! ii! Abstract

The United Nations Millennium Development Goals target 7c, stated as halving the proportion of people without access to safe water, is on track to be exceeded in Malawi by 2015. However, as water point coverage rates are documented to be continually improving, functionality and the resultant effective coverage are significantly lower. The Government of Malawi and the private sector have implemented many initiatives and to improve sustainability of water points, however functionality rates of approximately 60% depict they have failed to achieve success. Furthermore, inequity in distribution of water points means that many remain without a secure water supply whilst others are continually provided with new water points.

To assess the reality of this situation in the study area of Chikwawa District in southern Malawi, water point mapping data, collected by the non-profit Water For People in 2014 and 2012, was analysed. The mapping exercise produced high-resolution datasets, with almost every water point in Chikwawa mapped and a questionnaire about each water point filled out. Critical indicators taken from the data allowed for analysis of non-functionality rates and reasons for water point failure and inequity in distribution. Additionally, water security risk analysis for each group village was carried out to determine the risk status in 2014 and compare to that of 2012, exhibiting improvements and regressions.

The risk analysis documented that 44% of group villages experienced an increase in coverage but a decrease in functionality. Non-functionality is at 29% with 49% of non-functioning water points having failed due to a lack of available spare parts. It is recommended that developing high quality and high-resolution mapping exercises could provide bottom-up flows of information to government and private sector to ultimately improve decision making and focus resource distribution toward those in need.

! iii! Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the help of Water For People Malawi staff for accommodating and supporting this project. I would especially like to thank Muthi Nhlema for his help with organisation of the water point database and for sharing his wealth of knowledge on the subject. I would like to thank Jonathan of Water For People for his assistance with transport. I would like to thank the enumerators who collected the mapping data for their diligent efforts and for taking the time to meet with me.

Thank you to the Scottish Government Climate Justice Fund for fully funding the work carried out in Malawi and for making this work possible.

Finally, thank you to Professor Bob Kalin for his tireless efforts in supporting this research, his organisation of the projects in Malawi and for sharing his extensive knowledge on the subject.

! iv! Table of Contents

Abstract ...... iii Acknowledgements ...... iv Table of Contents ...... v List of Figures ...... vii List of Tables ...... vii List of Equations ...... viii 1. Introduction ...... 9 1.1. Background ...... 10 1.2. Research Problem ...... 12 1.3. Research Aim ...... 13 1.4. Research Objectives ...... 13 1.5. Study Area ...... 14 1.6. Water Point Mapping and Monitoring ...... 15 2. Literature Review ...... 17 2.1. Policy Framework and Implementation ...... 17 2.2. Evidence-Based Decision-Making ...... 19 2.3. Millennium Development Goals ...... 20 2.4. Sustainability ...... 21 2.5. Approaches to Achieve Sustainability ...... 23 2.5.1. SWAp and IWRM ...... 23 2.5.2. Operation and Maintenance ...... 24 2.5.3. VLOM ...... 25 2.5.4. DRA ...... 25 2.5.5. CBM ...... 26 2.6. Streamlining and Coordination ...... 27 2.7. Use of Water Point Mapping and Monitoring Data ...... 28 2.7.1. Water Point Distribution ...... 29 2.7.2. Water Point Functionality ...... 30 2.7.3. Limitations of Water Point Mapping and Monitoring ...... 31 3. Methodology ...... 33 3.1. Data Source ...... 33 3.2. Measuring Water Point Functionality ...... 34 3.3. Measuring Water Point Coverage ...... 34 3.4. Risk Analysis ...... 35 4. Limitations of Study ...... 40 4.1. Database ...... 40 4.1.1. Data Quantity ...... 40 4.1.2. Data Quality ...... 41 4.1.3. Database Practicability ...... 41

! v! 4.2. Data Availability ...... 41 4.2.1. Population ...... 41 5. Results ...... 43 5.1. Functionality Analysis ...... 47 5.2. Risk Analysis ...... 53 5.3. Summary of Findings ...... 54 6. Discussion ...... 56 6.1. Functionality ...... 56 6.1.1. Institutional ...... 57 6.1.2. Economical ...... 58 6.1.3. Technical ...... 59 6.1.4. Government and Policy ...... 60 6.1.5. Social ...... 61 6.1.6. Sustainable Water Points ...... 62 6.2. Risk Analysis ...... 63 6.3. Use of the Risk Matrix ...... 66 7. Recommendations ...... 68 7.1. Standardising Mapping Practices ...... 69 7.2. Improving Water Point Mapping Practices ...... 69 7.2.1. Enumerator training ...... 69 7.2.2. High-resolution scale mapping ...... 70 7.3. Improving water point monitoring practices ...... 71 7.3.1. Updating Information ...... 71 7.3.2. Nearby Points Function ...... 71 7.3.3. Barcode and QR codes ...... 72 7.4. Collate Data Effectively ...... 72 7.5. Data Sharing and Publicising ...... 72 7.6. Streamlining and Coordination ...... 73 7.7. Drilling Practices Improvement ...... 73 7.8. Summary of Recommendations ...... 74 8. Conclusion ...... 76 9. References ...... 78 Appendix I ...... 88 Appendix II ...... 98 Appendix III ...... 99 Appendix IV ...... 105 Appendix V ...... 111 Appendix VI ...... 117

! vi! List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of study area; Chikwawa District, Malawi ...... 14

Figure 2: Traditional Authorities of Chikwawa District with water coverage rates in 2012...... 15

Figure 3: Water Point Sustainability Nexus ...... 23

Figure 4: Water Point Risk Matrix...... 35

Figure 5: Borehole and hand pump functionality and risk dataset for TA Chapananga, Chikwawa District...... 38

Figure 6: Chapananga TA Risk Matrix 2014. Each plotted point denotes a group village...... 39

Figure 7: Chapananga TA Risk Matrix 2012...... 39

Figure 8: Effective Water Point Coverage ...... 43

Figure 9: Water Point Types 2013/14 ...... 44

Figure 10: Water Point Types 2011/12 ...... 44

Figure 11: Water Point Functionality Map 2011/12 ...... 46

Figure 12: Water Point Functionality 2012/13 ...... 46

Figure 13: Functioning Water Points ...... 48

Figure 14: Non-functioning Water Points ...... 48

Figure 15: Reasons for Borehole Failure 2013/14 ...... 51

Figure 16: Reasons for Borehole Failure 2011/12 ...... 51

Figure 17: Rehabilitated Water Points...... 52

Figure 18: Development of Water Point Mapping and Monitoring Data for Stakeholder Use...... 68

List of Tables

Table 1: Legal Framework in Malawi Water Sector ...... 18

Table 2: Sectors within the water sector and factors that attribute to sustainability .. 22

Table 3: Improved and Unimproved Water Point Types (WSSCC, 2014; Smits, 2013) ...... 33

! vii! Table 4 Failure Rate of Borehole and Hand Pump Water Points ...... 49

Table 5: Failure Rate of Borehole and Hand Pump Water Points at Incremental Time Periods ...... 49

Table 6: Observed Risk Status Change over two mapping periods of 2012 and 2014...... 54

List of Equations

Equation 1: Calculating total boreholes required for ideal coverage rates...... 36

Equation 2: Calculating absolute coverage targets for a group village...... 36

Equation 3: Calculating functionality for a group village...... 37

! viii! List of Abbreviations

CBM Community Based Management

DRA Demand Responsive Approach

EWB Engineers Without Borders

FLOW Field Level Operations Watch

GOM Government of Malawi

GPS Global Positioning System

GWP Global Water Partnership

IIED International Institute for Environment and Development

IMF International Monetary Fund

JMP Joint Monitoring Programme

MDG Millennium Development Goals

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NSO National Statistics Office (Malawi)

O&M Operation and Maintenance

ODI Overseas Development Institute

RWSN Rural Water Supply Network

SADC Southern African Development Communities

SWAp Sector Wide Approach

TWB The World Bank

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

VLOM Village Level Operation and Maintenance

WHO World Health Organisation

WSSCC Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council

! 9! 1. Introduction

As the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG) target date of 2015 approaches, it is important to understand the accuracy of documented water coverage statistics and review current limitations and success of the water sector. This research focuses on analysis of water point mapping data for the Chikwawa District in southern Malawi to determine contemporary, evidence-based statistics and evaluate the risk status of group villages with regards to water point security and sustainability.

1.1. Background

Malawi, situated in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) in southeast Africa is a landlocked country with a highly impoverished population. As of 2014 it is ranked 174th out of 187 countries on the Human Development Index, 4 places lower than in 2013 when it was 170th (UNDP, 2014).

As a signatory in the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (UN, 2010), Malawi has dedicated efforts towards halving poverty rates in the country by the year 2015. The MDG targets, considered somewhat ambitious (Mkondiwa et al., 2015), have experienced global success with the United Nations (UN) declaring in 2010 that a 50% reduction in global poverty rates had been achieved (UNDP, 2014). However, in Malawi 50.7% of the population, estimated at a total population of 17.2-million in 2014 (UN, 2013; UN, 2014a), are expected to be living below the national poverty line and 25% are defined as ultra-poor (NSO, 2012; TWB, 2014, UNDP, 2014b). Poverty alleviation in Malawi is thus proving difficult, particularly in rural settings (NSO, 2005; NSO, 2012; GOM, 2011b), with poverty levels at 43% in rural settings as opposed to 14% in urban centres (Mkondiwa, 2007; GOM, 2011a). Therefore, tackling drivers of poverty in rural settings is paramount to reducing poverty.

! 10! Improving water security is considered as a significant driver in alleviating poverty levels, with progress toward many MDG goals inhibited by a lack of access to secure water supplies (Mkondiwa et al., 2013). MDG Target 7c states an objective of ‘halving the proportion of people without access to safe water by 2015’ (Butterworth et al., 2013; UN, 2014b), whilst Malawi is expected to surpass this target by 20% (Commonwealth Foundation, 2013) approximately 30% still lack access to an improved water supply (GOM 2011b).

Domestic coverage and access of water is of the utmost importance to allow for development in the health sector and reduction of water-borne and related diseases. Water security will also increase productivity and school attendance by reducing the time taken to access water supplies (Harvey, 2008). Providing secure water supplies is an inter-dependent, multi-criteria process reliant on political, socio-economic and technical capacities of the government, private sector and end users (Calaguas and O’Connell, 2002; Zuzani et al., 2013). The provision of water resources is mainly driven and managed by private sector donors and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as UNICEF, Water Aid, Water For People, Red Cross Society of Malawi and African Development Bank (Chavula, 2012).

Although Malawi is abundant in surface water, water provision is highly dependent on groundwater in rural settings as a source of clean and reliable water, due to being drought prone (Welle, 2005; Adelana and MacDonald, 2008; Adams, 2009). Groundwater abstraction via borehole and hand pump is the main form of water provision and advocated by the government as a safe source of water (IIED, 2002; GOM, 2011a). Groundwater development, through installation of boreholes and hand pumps, is considered to be the most feasible method of meeting coverage targets instated in the MDGs (MacDonald and Calow, 2008; UNDP, 2014). The ability to maintain and sustain this resource, particularly in remote villages, is proving challenging for the water sector with breakdowns and non-functionality common (Harvey and Reed, 2006; Morse et al., 2010).

! 11! As population in Malawi increases, currently at an annual rate of 2.65-2.8% increase (NSO, 2008), the water sector is faced with the task of providing water supplies for an ever-expanding demand. Coupled with overhead pressures of the MDG coverage targets, focus is placed on construction and installation of new water points with little capacity and resources focused toward functionality and sustainability of the implemented resource (Bradley and Bartram, 2013).

1.2. Research Problem

Water security is based on availability, sustainability, quality and access of the vulnerable and those in need to the source (Cook and Bakker, 2012; Hall and Borgomeo, 2013). Whilst water point coverage is expected to exceed 2015 targets, the MDGs have been criticised on failing to incorporate considerations of safety and sustainability in water provision (Kayser, 2013). It is apparent that effective coverage, coverage that provides adequate safe water, is considered to be a lot lower than absolute coverage. An issue inherent of the water sector where unequally distributed and irreparable water supplies are prevalent (O’Neil et al., 2014), is one which remains to be understood and solved.

Reasons for water point failure and unequal distribution are context and location specific. They are also poorly understood and accounted for in efforts to solve water supply and sustainability issues.

Recently, water point mapping has been initiated by many aid organisations to record functionality and coverage rates (Seidl, 2013). Additionally, it is gaining traction in its use of informing government and private sector stakeholders in planning and resource distribution efforts, capacity building and improving responses to areas of need (Harvey, 2008; OGP, 2013).

Unfortunately, the effective use of water point mapping data in improving planning and management practices of stakeholders has proven unsuccessful. Poor sectorial coordination, limited technological capacity and

! 12! insufficient mapping practices have resulted in the production of poor datasets (RWSN, 2014). Thus, little success in understanding and improving issues of functionality and equal coverage has occurred (Davis, 2012).

1.3. Research Aim

This paper advocates the use of high-resolution water point mapping data to develop the quality of water point datasets and their usability. Therefore, allowing for bottom-up flows of information to decision-makers to improve resource and capacity distribution, and ultimately achieve sustainability.

High-resolution scale mapping datasets attained from Water For People’s 2014 mapping exercise, mapping almost all water points in the Chikwawa district, is analysed to provide highly comprehensive understanding as to barriers to operation and maintenance, as well as highlight areas and reasons for inequity in coverage.

Comparison of 2014 data to that of a Water For People’s 2012 mapping exercise assesses improvements and regressions in the water sector with regards to communities in the Chikwawa Districts risk to water insecurity.

Additionally, risk matrices are constructed from the water point mapping data to exhibit a possible method of effectively displaying water point data to improve resource management and instate water point mapping data’s use in the water sector.

1.4. Research Objectives

The objectives of the research are as follows:

• To analyse and publicise water point mapping data, determining reasons for non-functionality and unequal coverage • Analyse the risk status of group villages as a factor of coverage and functionality

! 13! • Highlight limitations of water point mapping data and recommend ways to improve upon it • Document a method of initiating the use of water point mapping and monitoring data in government and the private sector to improve and streamline planning and distribution efforts with end users and water point sustainability as the drivers

1.5. Study Area

Chikwawa District is a rural based district residing in southern Malawi’s Lower Shire area (Fig. 1), comprised of 11 Traditional Authorities (TA), which are administrative divisions governed by village chiefs or heads (GOM, 2011b). With a population of 438,895 in 2008 (NSO, 2008), it is now estimated to be in excess of 500,000 inhabitants, with approximately 104 inhabitants per square kilometre. TA Ngabu is the most populous, accounting for 33% of the total population of Chikwawa (Chimaliza, 2009).

Figure 1: Location of study area; Chikwawa District, Malawi

! 14! A reported 17% of the rural population do not have access to an improved water supply (TWB, 2014a) and water point non-functionality rates of improved supplies is an estimated 30% (Matamula, 2008). With Chikwawa being highly susceptible to droughts and season dependent surface waters, groundwater accounts for approximately 70% of water provision in the area (Chimaliza, 2009).

1.6. Water Point Mapping and Monitoring

Water For Peoples mapping exercise has accumulated data from the 11 TAs in Chikwawa District (Fig. 2) using smartphone technology and software developed by Akvo.

Figure 2: Traditional Authorities of Chikwawa District with water coverage rates in 2012 (Water For People, 2012). The software application, namely Field Level Operations Watch (FLOW) (Akvo, 2014), allows for GPS coordinates to be determined using the inbuilt

! 15! GPS of smartphones, specific indicators about the water point allocated at this GPS coordinate can be entered into the application in the form of a questionnaire. This data is then sent and compiled wirelessly to Water For People Malawi in an excel spreadsheet, creating an extensive database of mapped water points and useful indicators on the point. The data is also presented on an online open source platform.

Water Point monitoring exercises update the status of a water point through reassessment of indicators, usually on an annual basis. Monitored water points provide information on trends and changes in the water sector and provides for contemporary datasets.

Nine government enumerators collect the data over an eight-week period; each enumerator is assigned a traditional authority or authorities based on their local knowledge of the area. The enumerator locates water points used by communities, establishes if water is available from the resource and interviews a member of the community, often a village chief or member of the water user committee, to construct answers to a questionnaire regarding the use and functionality of the water point.

Appendix VI lists the questions used in the mapping exercises questionnaire.

! 16! 2. Literature Review

2.1. Policy Framework and Implementation

A global strategy to address water security and access for the poor in developing countries in the 1980s, as part of the International Decade of Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation, has led to policy reform in Malawi advocated by The World Bank (TWB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) (Ferguson and Mulwafu, 2007; Mulwafu, 2010; Hope and Rouse, 2013). The policy reform and development (Table 1) significantly altered management structures throughout many sectors, including the Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development (MoIWD). Greater authority was allocated to local governments and chiefs at the district and Traditional Authority level and empowerment of end users, through establishment of Water User Committees, was considered to increase the sustainability of water sources (Ferguson and Mulwafu, 2001; Mulwafu and Msosa, 2005; Ferguson and Mulwafu, 2007; O’Neil et al., 2014).

This decentralisation structure instated over a 15-year period (O’Neil et al., 2014), established additional responsibilities and participation of stakeholders allowing for them to equally influence and shape policy with a bottom-up approach rather than top-down (Ferguson and Mulwafu, 2001; Mulwafu, 2010).

Decentralisation strategies have progressed, with a high standard of policy being established on paper by the government in lieu with international protocols such as the MDGs targets. However, the situation on the ground has failed to see benefits of these policies due to poor implementation (Ferguson and Mulwafu, 2001; Welle, 2005; Mulwafu, 2010). Fragmented, top-down, externally influenced approaches to instating decentralisation strategies has led to uncoordinated sectors and confusion into minister and stakeholder responsibilities and roles (Ferguson and Mulwafu, 2001; O’Neil et al., 2014). Therefore, government bodies often lack the resource capacity to respond to and support end users. As a result, the private sector has

! 17! compensated for this inadequacy, often straining their resources and financial capacity (IIED, 2002; Hope and Rouse, 2013).

Table 1: Legal Framework in Malawi Water Sector (Ng’ong’ola, 1999; GOM, 2002; Mulwafu and Msosa, 2005; Mulwafu, 2010; Mkondiwa et al., 2013; GOM, 2013)

Year Legal Document Policies Comments

1969 Water Resources Act Regulatory framework for Outdated. water resources and sanitation

1994 Water Resources Guidance for water resource Addresses sustainability Management Policy and management but neglects integrated Strategies water resource management (IWRM)

1995 Water Works Act Framework for water boards Outdated. Requires management and duties revision.

1998 National Framework for provision and Outdated. Requires Decentralisation Policy: maintenance of water revision. Water Sector supplies

1999 National Water Revision of the Water Considered international Development Project Resources Management agreements; MDG and Phase I Policy SADC protocol and sustainability.

2002 Poverty Reduction National strategy outline for Supports community Strategy Papers stakeholder activities in based management alleviating poverty incentives. Little focus on management strategies.

2005 National Water Policy Revision of National Water ‘Water and sanitation for Development Project all, always’ – considers sustainability, IWRM, capacity building, private sector integration

2013 Water Resources Act Updated regulatory Incorporates IWRM, framework for water capacity building and resources and sanitation. sustainability, outlining Replaced 1969 Water standardised guidelines Resources Act. and regulations.

! 18! It is evident that many of the policies instated in the water sector fail to understand the situation on the ground, and thus lack the ability to respond to end user needs and demands (Ferguson and Mulwafu, 2007).

2.2. Evidence-Based Decision-Making

Evidence-based decision-making needs to be instated to understand priorities, appropriately deploy funds and effectively channel resources toward those who remain at high risk of water insecurity (Gutierrez, 2005; Butterworth et al., 2013; Grey et al., 2013; Hope and Rouse, 2013).

For the multi-sectorial issue of water security; science, engineering, socio- economic and institutional limitations and capacities need to be considered inter-dependently (Fig. 3). Sound data sources and information flows can support and advise decision-making in each of these sectors and influence government and private sector practices (Grey et al., 2013). Evidence-based decision-making allows for transparent, sustainable and accountable policies and practices to be established.

Decision-making processes are inadvertently influenced by personal incentives and gains of the implementing and influential stakeholder (Gutierrez, 2005; Welle, 2005). Use of timely, accurate and appropriate water point data coupled with transparent, comprehensible presentation can make decision-making representative of need and empower the poor to demand for what they are entitled to (Hope and Rouse, 2013). Evidence- based knowledge, which cannot be contested by more dominant stakeholders, prevents marginalising and ignoring the poor’s needs (Mazungu, 2004; Welle, 2005; Hope and Rouse, 2013).

Administering and allocating water points is often decided centrally with a lack of available data on effective coverage rates and current functionality rates (Gutierrez, 2005) and is thus, lacking in knowledge on where to appropriately site new water points and rehabilitate broken ones. For example, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, in 2002, committed to

! 19! constructing 7500 new boreholes to those in need, yet a decade later many group villages are still neglected in terms of water coverage questioning the method of resource allocation (Gutierrez, 2005).

Water Point data used for forecasting and future investment is limited, low- resolution and thus of a poor quality for defining specific areas of need (Sugden, 2003). The importance of ground-truthing large scale, low- resolution coverage statistics, such as those presented in the MDGs, is paramount if policies are to become effective and end user responsive (Mazungu, 2004; GWP, 2000a).

Initiating appropriate management decisions, which are pro-poor and end user orientated, allows for sustainable outcomes rather than enhanced overall coverage targets (Simon, 1956; Hall and Borgomeo, 2013).

2.3. Millennium Development Goals

Much of the policy being instated in developing countries is in line with MDG targets. The MDGs primary objective is to half the number of people in 2000 living in poverty globally by 2015, at which point new targets are to be instated based on progress (UN, 2014a).

There are 8 development goals, of which MDG 7 target on environmental sustainability (IIED, 2002), specifically 7c, encompasses the goal of ‘halving the proportion of people without access to safe water by 2015’ (Gulyani et al., 2005; UN, 2014b).

Progress on this target is monitored by the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP), a partnership of UNICEF and the World Health Organisation (WHO) (Butterworth et al., 2013) Globally, this target is on track to be met (Jansz, 2011) and within Malawi it is already stated as having been met and will exceed the target by a projected 20% (Commonwealth Foundation, 2011).

! 20! 2.4. Sustainability

As water coverage targets improve in Malawi as reported by the MDGs, poverty continues to persist (Mkondiwa et al., 2013). Improved water access and poverty alleviation are considered to correlate, but with 780 million still without access to safe and reliable water supplies (Beddington, 2013; Bradley and Bartram, 2013), 875 million still collecting water from a distance greater than 500m (Bartram, 2008; GOM, 2001) and 672 million expected to be without access to an improved water point after the 2015 targets are met, it is apparent that water coverage is possibly not as adequate as documented (Mkondiwa et al., 2013).

Target 7 of the MDGs establishes environmental sustainability as its key objective, yet in the water sector sustainability is lacking whilst coverage increases.

The reason for unrealistic water coverage rates is due to a number of interdependent reasons. With MDG coverage targets exerting a significant pressure on governments and in-country non-governmental organisations, water points are being instated relatively rapidly without consideration for hydrogeology, maintenance, longevity and equity in terms of allocation (MacDonald and Calow, 2008; Hope and Rouse, 2013). This ultimately results in water points that are not secure, fail rapidly and become abandoned but are often still counted in national coverage statistics (WSSCC, 2014).

However, poor sustainability of water points is not a direct result of MDG pressures. Water Point non-functionality and disrepair is an inherent problem within developing countries water sectors, with donor money water point investments providing safe water until the provision resource breaks down at which point many communities have to rely on an unimproved source (IIED, 2002).

! 21! Table 2: Sectors within the water sector and factors that attribute to sustainability (WELL, 1998; RWSN, 2005; Mkondiwa et al., 2013; RWSN, 2014)

Sector Sustainability Factors

Government and Policy Capacity Policy implementation Lack of education, support and training for water point end users

Institutional (stakeholders and Spare part supply private sector) Capacity Streamlining and coordination of stakeholders Management of stakeholders Intentions and incentives of stakeholder aims

Environmental Water Point protection Climate change influences Groundwater protection

Technical (infrastructure, Infrastructure and construction quality and technology science and engineering) choice

Economical Income and availability of finance High cost of spare parts Willingness to pay Perceived value of water

Social (end users Supply driven and demand driven approaches Community based maintenance and operation Lack of ownership, responsibility and involvement Lack of demand Acceptability of CBM, DRA and water point Capacity User community efficiency and cohesion

This challenge of sustaining water points is not solely a technical and infrastructural problem but a political, social, environmental and economical,

! 22! multi-faceted problem (Fig. 3) (Mazungu, 2004; Gutierrez, 2005; RWSN, 2014).

2.5. Approaches to Achieve Sustainability

Key approaches instated in the water sector to attempt to attain sustainability over the past two decades (RWSN, 2005) are documented in the following sections.

Government and Policy

Economics Institutions

Water Point Sustainability

Society Environment

Technical

! ! Figure 3: Water Point Sustainability Nexus: IWRM and SWAp concept

2.5.1. SWAp and IWRM

Sector Wide Approaches (SWAp) and the concept of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) (Fig. 3) form the basis for recently formed water sector policy. IWRM established as part of the Dublin Principles (1992), states that ‘water development and management should be a participatory action involving all stakeholders, including end users, planners and policy-makers’ (Dublin Principles, 2002; Mazungu, 2004).

! 23! SWAp and IWRM came to fruition as management of water resources was proving increasingly complex and needed a holistic approach to benefit both the end user and drive developing countries toward water security (Mulwafu and Msosa, 2005; Harvey, 2008). The concept has been promoted by organisations such as the Global Water Partnership to achieve sustainable water security and targets of the MDGs, as many of the issues surrounding poverty relate to water provision (GWP, 2000b; Mulwafu and Msosa, 2005; Mkondiwa et al., 2013).

However, for concepts such as IWRM and SWAp to work and integration to be achieved, a knowledge base of the capacity of stakeholders involved must be established if all sectors are to work efficiently and effectively (Beddington, 2013). All sectors must have the ability to carry out their responsibility otherwise the concept fails and sustainability is not likely to be reached, hindered by one or many of the sectors involved.

2.5.2. Operation and Maintenance

Bradley and Bartram (2013) acknowledge that one of the greatest problems with water point infrastructure sustainability is that focus is on provision of new facilities rather than on skilled labour and maintenance and rehabilitation of those already instated. Much financial aid and aid projects alike are focused on new infrastructure rather than repair. The majority of water points in developing countries could have a significantly increased lifespan if maintenance and sufficient installation practices were carried out (IIED, 2002).

Poor operation and maintenance is caused by a number of factors, including poor supply chains of spare parts, insufficient funds to pay for spare parts and repair of water point, an unwillingness to pay and a lack of knowledge and understanding of the breakdown and thus how to repair it (van Beers, 2001).

! 24! 2.5.3. VLOM

Village Level Operated and Maintained (VLOM) hand pumps are a concept that has gained traction in the water sector (van Beers, 2001). It aims to provide hand pumps for boreholes and tube wells that are low maintenance and considered to increase the longevity of the water point (Skinner and Shaw, 1999). This concept has led to wide scale use of the Afridev hand pump, with durable, corrosion resistant infrastructure and hook-eye construction resulting in a relatively tool-less operation and maintenance (Colin, 1999; Skinner and Shaw, 1999).

However this concept has been severely inhibited by logistical and financial problems of spare parts supply (van Beers, 2001). Distribution chains and unwillingness for end users to purchase spare parts has resulted in VLOM hand pumps such as the Afridev becoming non-functional and abandoned (Osafo-Yeboah, 1994).

The relative failure of VLOM is thought to be due to a lack of end user involvement. Often water points are provided on a supply-driven incentive as part of a top-down approach to provision resulting in the end user lacking a sense of ownership and responsibility (DeGabriele, 2002).

2.5.4. DRA

The Demand Responsive Approach (DRA) strategy is stated within the Government of Malawi’s National Water Policy (2005). This approach has been widely accepted by governments and NGO’s as a method of improving sustainability through demand-based provision rather than supply-based (Breslin, 2003). Thus, the concept not only considers the hardware required for maintenance and operation but the end users and the institutions that manage them (ODI, 2002).

DRA works by sensitising end users to the benefits of an improved water point and providing the incentives and drivers for communities to demand a water point. It works on the theory that a ‘demanded’ water point, where the

! 25! end users have a major role and active engagement in the implementation of the water point, will increase sustainability of that water point through increased sense of ownership (Mulwafu and Msosa, 2005) and subsequent incentive for maintenance and repair (DeGabriele, 2002; Breslin, 2003). DRA is considered to be a cost effective method through provision only to those who are in need and thus reduced and more efficient implementation practices and improved functionality of those implemented (Mulwafu and Msosa, 2005).

However, the concept of DRA is limited by a lack of capacity for government to implement the policy, sensitise communities to the concept and control external stakeholders. Good policy on paper, but with little success in implementation on the ground (Breslin, 2003; Welle, 2005).

2.5.5. CBM

Community based management has been put in place extensively over the developing world, it is promoted and instated by NGO’s and governments and was implemented in Malawi in 1990. It is the practice of sensitising and empowering communities to take ownership, responsibility and thus maintain a water point (Harvey, 2008), based on the concept of DRA with a comprehensive assessment of end users need and capacity (Mkondiwa et al., 2013). It attempts to instil a participatory integrated approach of operation and maintenance practices incorporating end users, implementers and policy makers (van Beers, 2001; Mulwafu and Msosa, 2005).

However, as stated previously with 780 million still without adequate access to safe water (Beddington, 2013; Bradley and Bartram, 2013) and water point functionality rates ranging from between 45%-75% in Malawi (Kang and Campbell, 2013), it is apparent that these approaches to sustainability may not be as successful as originally expected (RWSN, 2005; Mulwafu and Msosa, 2005). CBM, although it has experienced much traction in the private sector, has failed to result in sustainability. Many of the problems around CBM are similar to those acknowledged in the VLOM concept whereby

! 26! limited government and private sector capacity to provide adequate supply chains, training and delegation has resulted in failure even where communities have incentive and drive to operate and maintain the water point. CBM has failed by designating all maintenance and operation responsibilities to the end user when it is unrealistic to expect an end user to have the capacity and attain the support necessary to ensure sustainability (Harvey, 2008; Ferguson and Mulwafu, 2001).

CBM allows for external implementers to claim sustainability has been achieved through provision of insubstantial training prior to leaving the area and closing the project. This results in end users not having the finance and capacity to sustain the resource provided to them (Riekel, 2002; Harvey, 2008). Donor-driven projects are often susceptible to intermittent funding and support often failing the end user recipient in terms of water point functionality, longevity and sustainability (Tanyimboh et al., 2010).

2.6. Streamlining and Coordination

Jansz (2011) acknowledges that sustainability fails when one of the factors or sectors required allowing for a fully functioning water point is inadequate or is unacknowledged. It is therefore necessary to designate and streamline all stakeholders to work in cooperation with end users demands and requirements. Unfortunately, the government doesn’t have the capacity and knowledge to support this incentive and allow for sufficient resource allocation of spare parts for repair and maintenance (O’Neil et al., 2014). Often many of the problems materialise in failure of hardware but the root of this sustainability problem is based in government policy inadequacies and a lack of social sensitisation and implementer coordination (O’Neil et al., 2014).

Private sector and donors can often work in isolation, in fragmented and inefficient programmes, duplicating work of others due to a lack of communication (Mulwafu and Msosa, 2005; Kang and Campbell, 2013). With approximately 100 NGOs working within the WASH sector, it is imperative that they work toward a common goal and can adhere to coherent

! 27! policies emplaced by empowered and enforcing governments (Kang and Campbell, 2013; O’Neil, 2014). If implementers were to work in line with policy, which was based on sound evidence from the end user level, toward a common goal of improved functionality and coverage, time and significant amounts of money could be saved (Riekel, 2002).

At present, policy and law in Malawi is of a good standard within the water sector (Mulwafu, 2010). The failure lies as implementers do not adhere to, or are unaware of its content and are thus unaware of the roles they should play within the sector (Harvey, 2008). Approximately 75% of expenditures within the water sector is from external organisations, thus the projects implemented are not controlled by governmental policy but by NGO targets and donor incentives (Stoupy and Msukwa, 205; Welle, 2005; Gutierrez, 2007).

Furthermore, donor-driven projects as opposed to policy driven projects results in counting beneficiaries as a means of calculating success, this is documented in inconclusive coverage rates which fail to depict the true picture on the ground, such as that experienced with MDG targets (Breslin, 2010).

2.7. Use of Water Point Mapping and Monitoring Data

As documented in Table 2, water point sustainability is a multi-sectorial issue, which requires multi-criteria, context specific solutions (Jansz, 2011). To provide sound, evidence-based policies and a representative understanding of the problems behind sustainability, water point mapping and monitoring is becoming more apparent as a successful method of determining both geographical problem areas as well as sectorial problem areas of water point sustainability and coverage. The main incentive for water point mapping and monitoring programmes is in improving evidence- based knowledge to effectively and efficiently tackle problems of service sustainability, health security and water point security (Kayser, 2013).

! 28! Water Point mapping and monitoring compiles data on a range of critical indicators, based on the influencing sectors documented in Table 2, and are considered to provide an understanding, measurement and quantification of areas of sustainability failures and successes (Breslin, 2010; Kayser, 2013). Water Point mapping is the process of locating water points and assessing distribution in relation to population data (Rabbani, 2009). Water Point monitoring is the process of repeatedly, often annually, collecting data on specific indicators, often through questionnaires, to understand functionality rates, reasons for failure and issues of water point sustainability and identify trends and changes through time (Breslin, 2010). This data is to be used to respond to areas of failure and learn from areas of success.

Water Point sustainability indicators are used to amalgamate a comprehensive understanding of the on-the-ground situation and use this in guiding policy and stakeholder decision-making. Thus the more useful indicators attained, the better the influence upon forming sufficient policy (Kayser, 2013). Indicators used vary, but most water monitoring programmes include water point type, water quality, water quantity, time period and reasons for non-functionality, accessibility and number of users and affordability (Breslin, 2010; Kayser, 2013; RWSN, 2014).

2.7.1. Water Point Distribution

Improving overall water point coverage has been stated as a target of the Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development in alignment with the MDGs (GOM, 2009), however water points geographical distribution and coverage must be taken into account, as it is highly unequal in rural Malawi. Inequity is defined as a certain geographical area or social group, be it gender-, ethnicity- or health-related, is negatively affected by water point allocation (Taylor, 2008). Every citizen should have access to a water point within 500m of residence or within a round trip time frame of no more than 30 minutes (GOM, 1999b; GOM, 2001; NSO, 2011)

! 29! Inequity in distribution is primarily a result of poorly regulated water point allocation, with stakeholders such as non-governmental organisations and faith-based organisations often by-passing governments when instating water points and allocating on personal incentives, targets and biases (Sugden, 2013). This results in borehole allocation disregarding end users’ needs and the scientific capabilities of the aquifer and surface waters (Mulwafu and Msosa, 2005). Government lacks the capacity and evidence- based data to enforce regulated water point allocation and furthermore has its own biased incentives for water point allocation based on political persuasions (EWB, no date). This poorly informed, biased decision-making results in some villages being repeatedly provided and supplied with water resources whilst others are consistently neglected (EWB, no date; Welle, 2005).

2.7.2. Water Point Functionality

Water Points allocated without consideration of proper construction, hydrogeology, hydrology and end user capacity and incentive can result in poorly maintained, poorly functioning and poor yielding water points which often result in abandonment (Riekel, 2002).

A functioning water point in Malawi is defined as a water point with a flow equal to or in excess of 0.2l/s (Baumann and Danert, 2008). A safe, secure or improved point is one that is protected from contamination (JMP, 2014; WHO, 2014, Pullan et al., 2014) and provides accessible water of a sufficient quality and adequate quantity, defined as 36 litres per person per day for domestic purposes (Baumann and Danert, 2008; MacDonald and Calow, 2008; DeGabriele, 2009). Water Point functionality in Malawi is at approximately 60% (Sugden, 2013), however the definition of water point functionality is not conclusive (RWSN, 2005) and should be assessed from all sectors as defined in Table 2 with both technical and socio-economic factors affecting the functionality and failure rate. For example, borehole and hand pump failure in Malawi can range from 15-50% (RWSN, 2005).

! 30! It is a necessity to understand the reasons for failure and the failure rate at a village level, to allow for the capacity, resources and supply chains to be provided to support maintenance (Riekel, 2002). Ultimately, water point monitoring should allow, not only for an indication of coverage in terms of have and have-nots, but also an understanding of why (Kayser, 2013).

2.7.3. Limitations of Water Point Mapping and Monitoring

Unfortunately, water point monitoring programmes and processes are underdeveloped and insufficient enough to allow for sound databases upon which to accurately base and shape policy (Welle, 2005). Data attenuation through local and national scale surveys are limited, inaccurate and disjointed with inadequate indicators being used (Sugden, 2003). Inaccurate and lacking indicators in water point monitoring practices provide unreliable datasets, which negatively contribute to coverage and functionality statistics (Gutierrez, 2005).

At present, issues in terms of year on year identification and record-keeping of water points is difficult and can be a laborious task, subject to high levels of human error if unique identification methods are not in place (Davis, 2012; RSWN, 2014). Record keeping and the ability to continually update data on water points, rather than continually re-map areas of water points, is imperative for improved response times and efficient capacity building (RWSN, 2014). Planning and responding to out of data is of little use and cost ineffective, thus the need for up-to-date, continual data attenuation is necessary (Rabbani, 2009). Furthermore, technology restraints still exist in the form of inaccurate GPS, poor technology and software capacity and intermittent signal to transmit data from the field to the database (RWSN, 2014).

Developing methods and technologies to improve water point monitoring data collection efficiency and accuracy is paramount. Furthermore developing and designing formats in which to portray the collected data to

! 31! make it useful is important if it is to be used effectively and appropriately or used at all.

Additionally, it is to be noted that if water point mapping and monitoring practices are to be carried out by the private sector they too must be aligned and regulated by government. It is important for the exercises not to be duplicated and for them to be standardised so as data can be amalgamated, compared, used to manage resources and work toward the same end goal (RWSN, 2014).

! 32! 3. Methodology

3.1. Data Source

The data used in the study and development of risk models is sourced from the NGO Water For People’s 2012 and 2014 water point mapping databases. The 2014 mapping process was carried out from early-March to early-May to collect information on all, or as many as possible, water points within the Chikwawa District, both improved and unimproved (Table 3).

The specific data collected included location of water point, water point type and whether it is an improved water point, availability of water and how many people are served by the water point, construction and rehabilitation dates, repair time and water quality information.

Table 3: Improved and Unimproved Water Point Types included in FLOW database (WSSCC, 2014; Smits, 2013)

Improved Water Points Unimproved Water Points

Borehole fitted with hand pump Unlined wells without an apron

Shallow well fitted with hand pump Scoop holes

Standpipe supplied by a piped supply Surface water: rivers, lakes and ponds

Tube well fitted with hand pump Unprotected dug well

Protected Spring Unprotected spring

Gravity Fed System

The information obtained from the questionnaire can be used as indicators for developments and changes in water provision within the technical, social, institutional and financial sectors (RWSN, 2014). The data allows for a comprehensive understanding of where issues and constraints may exist in relation to improving water point coverage and functionality. Mapping also allows for a spatial understanding to the data.

! 33! The 2014 database is used in conjunction with 2012 water point mapping data collected through similar means by Water For People in 2012. The two databases are compared and related to identify trends and changes over the time period.

3.2. Measuring Water Point Functionality

The primary indicator used to analyse water point functionality is the availability of water on the day of the enumerators visit. This is a relatively simplistic method of measuring functionality, acting on a binary method whereby water is either available or unavailable, preventing determination of deteriorating and deficient water points (Kayser, 2013). Therefore, the simple functionality analysis is accompanied by an analysis of multiple indicators from the water point mapping data so as to define reasons behind non-functionality and inefficient water points. Such indicators include information on rehabilitation and failure rates, repair or water point down times, reasons why a borehole does not provide a sufficient amount of water or has been in-operational for more than 1 day in the past 30 days.

Each water point is categorically assigned to an institutional, technical, economic, political or social problem based on the answer provided to the questions in the database.

3.3. Measuring Water Point Coverage

Water Point density is defined by the number of boreholes per group village and its respective population size (Stoupy and Sugden, 2003), thus if a group village has a population of 1500 and has 3 water points, the water point density is one water point for every 500 people. The water point density determined by the Government of Malawi should be 250 people per water point (Guttierez, 2007).

Water Point coverage can be represented in absolute terms, whereby the existence of a water point regards the proximal community as served, and in effective terms, where coverage is specific exclusively to water points which

! 34! are improved and functioning and thus provide effective water point coverage (Mulwafu and Msosa, 2005). Absolute coverage is used in the risk models and related to functionality to provide a risk status for each group village mapped.

To determine inequity in water point coverage, the indicator ‘how many people in the community do not have access to the water point?’ was referred to and the sum of this indicator is provided as the percentage of the population that is poorly served by a water point due to inadequate proximity. Inequity is further determined and quantified in the risk analysis.

3.4. Risk Analysis

A risk probability matrix is constructed for each traditional authority in Chikwawa, plotting coverage against functionality for each group village to categorise the risk status of the group village in terms of water security and scarcity (Fig. 4). This process is carried out to determine risk statuses when considering all improved water points present, as well as the risk status exclusively to borehole and hand pump coverage and functionality (Fig. 5).

%"Coverage" 0! 20! 40! 60! 80! 100! 120! 140! 160! 180! 200! 0! 10! 20! 30! 40! 50! 60!

%"Functionality" 70! 80! 90! 100!

Figure 4: Water Point Risk Matrix. 100% coverage is defined as ideal for the population size whereas values in excess of 100% reduce necessity of 100% functionality. Red is regarded as high risk, yellow moderate risk and green low risk.

! 35! Absolute percentage coverage is defined through calculation of the sum of total water points for each group village and is related to the ideal number of water points for a population representative of that of the group village. As in compliance with the Malawian Government standard of 250 people being served by a water point (Gutierrez, 2005; Rabbani, 2009), the ideal number of water points is calculated by dividing the population estimate by the number of water points present, including both functioning and non- functioning water points.

For example, from the 2014 mapping database, the group village of Kuwani in traditional authority Chapananga, with a population estimate of 3797 and thus an ideal water point number of 15 (eq.1), is calculated to have an absolute water point coverage rate of 92%, which is reduced to 72% if only borehole and hand pumps are considered (eq. 2).

Equation 1: Calculating total boreholes required for ideal coverage rates.

3797 !"#$%!!"#$ℎ!"#$!!"#$%&"' = = 15.2 250

Equation 2: Calculating absolute coverage targets for a group village.

11 !"#$%&'(!!"#$ℎ!"#!!"#$%&'$ = ! = 0.723!(72%) 15.2

The population is estimated by an annual 2.65% increase on the 2008 census data (NSO, 2008). Population for newly founded villages, or villages where census data was not available, are assigned a value based on an average of the traditional authority’s other group villages population data.

Percentage functionality is determined by calculating the number of functioning water points and relating to the total number of water points for the group village. An example for Kuwani group village is provided in Equation 3 whereby 4 out of 11 boreholes are defined as non-functioning.

! 36! Equation 3: Calculating functionality for a group village.

7 !"#$ℎ!"#!!"#$%&'#()&%* = = 0.636!(64%) 11

Thus the group village of Kuwani is plotted on the risk matrix with a functionality of 64% and a coverage rate of 72% to obtain a moderate risk status (Fig. 4).

Figures 6 and 7 exhibit the risk status of group villages in TA Chapananga in 2012 and 2014. Borehole and hand pump data, taken from the database (Fig, 5), is presented on the risk matrices for each group village and can be compared for each mapping period.

Appendices III, IV and V document the risk matrices for all TAs in 2012 and 2014. Appendix I provides an in depth analysis of risk status changes for group villages between 2012 and 2014.

! 37!

Figure 5: Borehole and hand pump functionality and risk dataset for TA Chapananga, Chikwawa District.

! 38!

Chapananga % Coverage 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 Siyamphanje 20 Madeu Changambika 40 Lundu Tombondera Galonga Misomali Chithumba 60 Simonzi Kuwani Nsaliva II % Functionality %Functionality Kunyondo 80 Gola Kanzimbi KuntolaListon Muonda Kalimanjera Mkhutche 100 Chakumanika Changambika Changoima Chapasuka Chaphata Chikuse Chimphepo Chingwata Chithumba Chitungwani Siyamphanje Gadama Gagatambo Galonga Gola Imfanjawo Jana Kabwatika Kalima Kalimanjera Kanzimbi Khuleyo Kuntola Kunyondo Kuwani Liston Lundu Madeu Misomali Mkadana

Figure 6: Chapananga TA Risk Matrix 2014. Each plotted point denotes a group village.

Chapananga % Coverage 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 0 Nasambi Chikuse

Gagatambo Chithumba 50 Sezu Simonzi Kuwani Kanzimbi Tombondera % Functionality %Functionality Misomali Gadama Kalimanjera Patalawo Galonga 100 Kuwani Galonga Kalimanjera Chikuse Lundu Misomali Jana Muonda Zalela Kanzimbi Tombondera Mtombosola Timbenawo Chimphepo Kalima Bismon Changoima Chaphata Chithumba Chitungwani Imfanjawo Kachibade Kuntola Madeu Sezu Sila Zuze Patalawo Kabwatika Liston

Figure 7: Chapananga TA Risk Matrix 2012.

! 39!

4. Limitations of Study

4.1. Database

4.1.1. Data Quantity

The most prominent issue encountered with the database is missing data and difficulties with water point identification. Many of the mapped water points in the database do not have information on group village, village and traditional authority locality. With a lack of mapped geographic boundaries available to partition GPS coordinates into exact villages and group villages, the authoritative area of some water points is estimated. Water points are mapped based on their GPS coordinates and those with missing location data are designated to belong to the same village or group village as that of the water point in closest proximity. This, evidently, can result in misrepresented interpretations of risk status for group villages, however, it was important to include all data attained in the water point monitoring exercise to provide true representations of functionality and coverage rates.

Due to the use of a different smartphone model in 2012 than used in 2014, and with technological advances in GPS signals, the GPS coordinates taken in 2012 do not correspond with those of 2014 for the same area. This makes record keeping and tracking of specific water points difficult and inaccurate. Furthermore, it was established that taking two readings from the same point using the same smartphone device often resulted in two slightly differing GPS coordinates, failing the concept of geocode generation. The smartphones generate a geocode for each water point based on the GPS coordinates, acting as a unique identifier thus allowing for an easy means of identification of specific water points and record keeping. Limitations in smartphone GPS coordinates result in a new geocode being generated with every entry at the same water point and prevent unique identification.

! 40! A meeting with the enumerators was set up to attempt to fill missing and poor quality data, however proved difficult as many of the enumerators had difficulty in recalling exact information and were indefinite in answering many of the questions and the exercise was constrained by time limitations.

4.1.2. Data Quality

Some of the data collected is difficult to interpret with different and inconsistent spelling of village names and water points leading to complications in assigning water points to group villages and comparing to the 2012 data. Efforts were made to systematically identify and compare water points from 2014 to 2012; however, identifying spelling discrepancies is highly subjective.

Caution must be taken when considering answers to questionnaires as personal incentives of those providing the answers may affect the true situation. Furthermore, enumerator interpretation of answers and input into the smartphone may not represent the true situation.

4.1.3. Database Practicability

Data storage and presentation is not user-friendly. A mass amalgamation of data on an excel spreadsheet is not intuitive to use, is time consuming to sort into useable data and is subject to human error in the sorting process.

4.2. Data Availability

4.2.1. Population

Data on accurate population figures, particularly at a group village level is not available. The last census carried out was 2008 with the next to be carried out in 2018. Population from the 2008 census and estimated data from the 2012 Water For People mapping exercise allowed for an estimation to be established by placing an annual increase of 2.65% on the existing population data.

! 41! For newly established villages, or those that had not been previously mapped and lacked population data, a population estimate was placed on those through an average of population values for group villages within the same TA.

! 42! 5. Results

Specific indicators are identified from the 2011/12 and 2013/14 FLOW databases to analyse water point functionality, distribution and coverage as well as the resultant risk status of group villages in the Chikwawa District. The 2013/14 water point mapping exercise mapped 2195 water points including public institution water points which share with the communities, 2111 water points were mapped in the 2011/12 exercise.

Waterpoint Coverage

Unserved!due!to!non8 16%! functionality! 26%! Unserved!due!to!inequal! distribution! 15%! Served!Population!

Unserved!due!to!unimproved! 43%! waterpoint!

Figure 8: Effective Water Point Coverage

Water Point coverage in Malawi is approximately 85-89% according to United Nations Millennium Development Goal indicators (UN, 2014a). For Chikwawa, a population of 518,287 is projected for 2014 from the 2008 Population and Housing Census (NSO, 2008), resulting in 105% water point population coverage with 2195 water points each serving 250 people. However, this estimation masks the true status on the ground with only a potential 15% of the population effectively covered with a sufficient water point in Chikwawa due to 26% of water points not functioning and 16% of the population served by an unimproved water point and thus not providing a secure, safe water source. A further 43% of the population are inadequately served due to poor distribution and are considered to have inadequate access to a secure water point within a 500m radius (Fig. 8).

! 43! Waterpoint Type 2013/14

Private Tap with Piped Supply Unimproved 5% Waterpoint 18%

Malda Handpump 3%

Kiosk with Piped Supply Afridev 3% Handpump 61% Gravity Fed System 10%

Afridev Handpump Climax Handpump Gravity Fed System Kiosk with Piped Supply Malda Handpump Mark II Handpump Noria Pump Play Pump

Figure 9: Water Point Types 2013/14

Waterpoint Type 2011/12

Private Tap with Unimproved Piped Supply Waterpoint 4% 12%

Malda Handpump 4% Afridev Gravity Fed Kiosk with Piped Handpump System 62% Supply 11% 4%

Afridev Handpump Climax Handpump Gravity Fed System Kiosk with Piped Supply Malda Handpump Mark II Handpump Noria Pump Play Pump

Figure 10: Water Point Types 2011/12

! 44! It is apparent from Figure 8 that issues of inequity in distribution and maintenance of water points are prominent in the Chikwawa district but not necessarily documented in national statistics and Millennium Development Goal coverage indicators. It is therefore of sufficient importance to understand the reasons for water point failure and inequity.

Within Chikwawa approximately 60% of water points are Afridev hand pumps, 10% gravity fed systems and 18% unimproved water points in 2013/14 (Fig. 9). Comparatively, unimproved water points in 2011/12 was lower at 12% (Fig. 10) with borehole and hand pumps, gravity fed systems and, kiosks and private supplies all decreasing by 1% from 2011/12 to 2013/14 (Fig. 10).

Using an indicator on water point use, whereby an estimation has been provided by community members as to how many people use the water point daily, it is calculated that, on average, each water point has 449 users, almost double the government standard of 250 (Gutierrez, 2007; Rabbani, 2009).

Furthermore, approximately only 53% of water points are functioning, 29% non-functioning and 18% are unimproved water points in 2013/14. In 2011/12 the data shows 56% functionality, 32% non-functionality and 12% unimproved water points. Thus, functionality and improved water point coverage has decreased between the two time periods.

To understand the reason behind this retrogressive phenomenon, it is important to evaluate the data in relation to functionality trends and spatial correlation. Figures 11 and 12 illustrate the water point functionality distribution at the two water point mapping time periods. It is apparent that between the two time periods, areas where water points have degraded from functioning to non-functioning has also resulted in the use of unimproved water points emerging due to unavailability of a functioning water point within an accessible distance.

! 45!

Figure 11: Water Point Functionality Map 2011/12

Figure 12: Water Point Functionality 2012/13

! 46! Analysis of the data shows that water point functionality not only affects coverage but could also increase communities’ dependability on unimproved water points, such as surface waters and scoop holes when the improved water point fails to provide.

Understanding the reasons for non-functionality specific to Chikwawa is thus important to strengthen the capacity and supply chains to provide for water point operation, maintenance and rehabilitation to increase the longevity and reliability of a water point. By recognising areas of poor functionality and ineffective coverage, streamlined and appropriate water point allocation can be instated and monitored.

Furthermore, determining the risk status of a group village dependent upon the water point functionality and coverage allows for improved equity in distribution and allocation of water points, as well as allowing an understanding of where to channel maintenance and rehabilitation capacity. Expectantly, this could prevent retrogression to use of unimproved water points.

5.1. Functionality Analysis

From the 2013/14 database 1167 water points are functioning, 627 are non- functioning and 401 are unimproved. The functionality and non-functionality rates for the water point types recorded in 2013/14 are documented in Figures 13 and 14.

Using indicators on construction and rehabilitation dates from the 2013/14 water point mapping survey, the average lifespan of a water point is 14.04 years with only 19% of borehole and hand pump water points being rehabilitated, comparative to a 28% non-functionality rate. This borehole and hand pump lifespan correlates well with global trends, particularly with relation to Afridev hand pump longevity and is found to be at the topmost end of the lifespan range of 10-14 years (Sugden, 2013).

! 47! Functioning Waterpoints

Unimproved Waterpoint Type Borehole and Pump 22%

Gravity Fed System

Private Tap with Kiosk with Piped Supply Piped Supply 5% Borehole and Pump Private Tap with Piped 61% Supply Gravity Fed System Protected Shallow Well 9% Unimproved Waterpoint Type

Figure 13: Functioning Water Points

Non-Functioning Waterpoints

Unimproved Borehole and Pump Waterpoint Type 19% Gravity Fed System Private Tap with Kiosk with Piped Supply Piped Supply 4% Borehole and Private Tap with Piped Pump Supply Gravity Fed 63% System Protected Shallow Well 12% Unimproved Waterpoint Type

Figure 14: Non-functioning Water Points

Failure rate for borehole and hand pumps is calculated at around 10.5 borehole and hand pumps a year with approximately 60% of rehabilitations occurring within 15 years of construction at a steady rate of 20% every five years. This is relative to under 4% of all borehole and hand pumps for each 5-year period after construction. Borehole and hand pump failure rates,

! 48! calculated from the 2013/14 database, are documented in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4 Failure Rate of Borehole and Hand Pump Water Points

Time Period Number Borehole % Rehabilitated % All % Increase Rehabilitated Boreholes Boreholes

5 56 20.44 3.96

10 112 40.88 7.92 100.00

15 165 60.22 11.66 47.32

20 210 76.64 14.84 27.27

30 240 87.59 16.96 14.29

30+ 266 97.08 18.80 10.83

Table 5: Failure Rate of Borehole and Hand Pump Water Points at Incremental Time Periods

Time Period Number Rehabilitated % of Rehabilitated % All (years) Boreholes Boreholes Boreholes

0-5 56 20.44 3.96

6-10 56 20.44 3.96

11-15 53 19.34 3.75

16-20 45 16.42 3.18

Yearly Average 10.5 3.83 0.74

21-30 30 10.95 2.12

30+ 26 9.49 1.84

Total 266 97.08 18.80

Unknown 8

Total 274

! 49! Reasons behind this relatively high failure rate are analysed from the 2013/14 data using the indicator on why a borehole and hand pump has been non-functional for more than 1 day in the past 30 days (Fig. 15). This indicator provides a detailed understanding of where failures in technical, economic, political and social components of the operation and maintenance procedures are prominent for the Chikwawa District.

It is apparent from the 2014 data that institutional issues are of greatest prominence in borehole failure, with a lack of spare parts availability accounting for 49% of non-functioning boreholes. Additionally, 5% of water points are not functioning due to a lack of knowledge on how to fix and maintain the water point hindering rehabilitation and operation with a further 8% of water points broken for reasons the community do not understand and are thus unlikely to be able to fix the water point. Other technical reasons for borehole and hand pump failure such as no water flow, low yield and salty water, accounting to approximately 3% of water point failures are directly due to poor hydrogeological understanding when constructing and siting the borehole leading to inadequate yields and a poor water supply regardless of operation and maintenance knowledge of the end users. Technical reasons for borehole failure amalgamate to 29% in 2014 and 22% in 2012 (Fig. 15; Fig. 16).

Of second most prominence is an economical issue where a lack of money within the end user group or community supported by a water point results in an inability to maintain, pay for spare parts and rehabilitate the water point when it breaks. This results in many resorting to cost free alternatives, such as unimproved water points and other communities’ water points, ultimately adding excess strain to other water points which may result in their failure due to overuse and abuse.

However, comparing this data to the 2011/12 data it is evident that this issue is improving in terms of reasons behind borehole failure with lack of parts becoming more of a concern. It is also promising that the proportion of

! 50! borehole and hand pumps broken due to a lack of knowledge on how to fix and maintain the resource has decreased by 9% with a lack of parts being the main debilitating reason rather than how to install them.

Reasons"for"Borehole"Failure"2013/14" Broken!Parts/ Unknown!Reason! System! 8%! Broken!Parts/System! 7%! No!plumber/ knowledge!on! Unknown!Reason! how!to!Lix/ Pipe!Washed!Away! mainain! 5%! No!plumber/knowledge!on! how!to!Lix/mainain! Lack!of!Money! No!water!Llow! Low!Water!Pressure! 2%! 28%! Low!Yield! Vandalism! No!water!Llow! 1%! Vandalism! Lack!of!parts! 49%! Lack!of!parts!

Low!water!table!

Salty!water!

Figure 15: Reasons for Borehole Failure 2013/14

Reasons"for"Borehole"Failure"2011/12"

Unknown!Reason! Unknown!Reason! No!plumber/ Pipe!Washed!Away! 2%! knowledge!on! how!to!Lix/ No!plumber/knowledge!on! mainain! how!to!Lix/mainain! 16%! Low!Water!Pressure! Low!Water! Low!Yield! Pressure! 1%! No!water!Llow! Lack!of!Money! Vandalism! Vandalism! 37%! 0%! Lack!of!parts! Lack!of!parts! 40%! Broken!Parts/System! Political!! Low!water!table! 1%! Low!water! Broken! Salty!water! table! Parts/System! Siltation! 1%! 1%!

Figure 16: Reasons for Borehole Failure 2011/12

! 51! With broken parts, primarily u-seals and pump rods, increasing by 6%, it is evident that parts supply is a major constrictor in allowing for system rehabilitation and maintenance. It is apparent that even if the expertise, or software, is available to maintain the resource, the hardware is not.

This issue highlights possible reasons behind inequity in distribution of functioning water points whereby functioning and rehabilitated water points may be focused around market centres where supplies are more readily available (Fig. 17).

Figure 17: Rehabilitated Water Points. Map highlights the inequity in areas where borehole rehabilitation is focused, considered to be due to proximity to market centres.

The average borehole and hand pump down time, the time from breakdown to being adequately repaired, is calculated at 121.32 days with a median of 30 days.

! 52! 5.2. Risk Analysis

Risk analysis for each group village included in the mapping survey was carried out and plotted on risk matrices. Identified changes in risk from 2012 to 2014 are presented in Table 3.

In 2014, 67% of the group villages mapped in 2012 were revisited and the water points mapped again. Allowing the ability to monitor and analyse changes over time for 67% of group villages. Reasons for group villages not being mapped again in 2014 could be due to the group village not existing anymore, the group village changing name due to a change in village head, the group village water points are abandoned and not mapped or it has not been visited and mapped by enumerators in 2014.

Additionally, 42 new group villages have been mapped in 2014, this is most probably due to newly formed group villages and group villages which were previously dependent upon another group villages water point, gaining a water supply. It is also considered to be due to improved mapping practices of the enumerators, reaching more group villages in 2014 than mapped in 2012, with 208 group villages being mapped in 2012 and 220 in 2014.

Analysis of changing risk statuses of group villages between 2012 and 2014 exhibits that almost 21% of group villages have improved in risk status, approximately 17% have regressed and have a higher risk status in 2014 than in 2012 whereas nearly 30% have experienced no change in terms of their risk to water insecurity (Table 6).

Appendices I and II provide a detailed account of risk status changes between 2012 and 2014, with consideration of changes in functionality and coverage as well as the resultant risk status, for each group village.

! 53! Table 6: Observed Risk Status Change over two mapping periods of 2012 and 2014.

Observed

Change

Total % 2012 & 2014 WP 2014 & 2012 % % Chapananga Kasisi Katunga Lundu Makhwira Masache Maseya Mulilima Ndakwera Ngabu Ngowe Total Improved 13 1 4 2 3 2 1 6 14 0 46 31 21 Regression 7 2 1 1 2 0 5 1 2 14 2 37 25 17 No Change 13 3 3 7 7 5 2 4 6 14 1 65 44 30 Total Water 33 6 4 12 11 8 9 6 14 42 3 14 - - Points 8 Mapped in 2012 and 2014 Newly 8 0 1 3 2 2 2 7 15 2 42 - 19 mapped in 2014 Not mapped in 5 0 8 3 2 2 6 0 0 4 0 30 - 13 2014 Total 46 6 12 16 16 12 17 8 21 61 5 22 - 10 0

5.3. Summary of Findings

• Limited institutional capacity to supply spare parts effectively accounts for 49% of non-functioning borehole and hand pumps

• Inability and/or unwillingness to pay for the water resources repair and maintenance accounts for 28% of non-functioning borehole and hand pumps

• Technical limitations caused by poor drilling practices and poorly trained area mechanics accounts for 29% of failed borehole and hand pumps

! 54! • Lack of Government capacity for policy implementation and private sector regulation is considered to be a root problem for non- functionality

• Top down approaches are still in place with the end users’ needs and capacity not being fully acknowledged

• Water Point siting is not equitable or based on need, with low risk group villages being provided with more resources whilst others still remain high risk with no water points

• Generally, coverage rates are increasing and functionality rates are decreasing

! 55! 6. Discussion

6.1. Functionality

It is evident from analysis of the water point mapping database that water point surveys have the ability and potential to provide comprehensive interpretation of water sector problems and limitations. Evidence-based data allows for identification of spatial and sectorial problem areas, resulting in the ability to provide focused and appropriately channelled decision-making and resource distribution (Welle, 2005).

Absolute coverage, or the design capacity of those water points installed (GOM, 2011), is significantly disproportionate to the actual effective capacity (EWB, no date), documenting that international and national level statistics mask the true disparities in terms of functionality and coverage.

The mapping data documents that sustainability issues and their drivers, which have previously been acknowledged and extensively documented by researchers and aid organisations, are still apparent within the Malawi water sector. With 26% of the population effectively not served due to a non- functioning water point, it is apparent that many of the programmes and approaches put in place to tackle sustainability failures have not been successful in the Chikwawa District. This has ultimately resulted in an ad- hoc system of management within the district water sector (O’Neil et al., 2014).

However, it is important to note that the theories behind these programmes and approaches are not necessarily wrong rather that they are constrained by interdependent and contextual limitations within each of the sectors in Table 2. Within the Chikwawa district, water point failure is accountable to all of the sectors presented in Table 2, with varying degrees of liability attributed to each.

! 56! 6.1.1. Institutional

Institutional issues dominate water point failure; with a lack of spare parts provision accounting for 49% of non-functioning boreholes. Thus, the issue is less of a hardware issue, but of software (Jansz, 2011) whereby there is limited institutional capacity and resources, both in the private sector and government (Gutierrez, 2005; Mulwafu, 2010), to provide spare parts adequately. Many of the VLOM hand pumps, such as the Afridev, are imported infrastructure with supply chains for spare parts being administered by the private sector as opposed to the state (Harvey and Reed, 2006). However, a lack of sectorial coordination, communication and overall evidence-based knowledge means that supply chains are not reflective of demand and are not channelled toward areas of need (Harvey, 2008; Gutierrez, 2005). It is apparent, that while much consideration has been given to community sensitisation and ownership, little has been given to the logistics behind support for maintenance processes (Riekel, 2002).

It is therefore imperative that supply chains are properly established, based on a demand response approach, understanding where supplies need to be channelled as well as having knowledge of breakdown rates to quantify spare part provisions (Harvey and Reed, 2006). To provide such a service, it needs to be knowledge based if it is to meet demand and work towards sustainability (Butterworth et al., 2013). Building reliability of, and confidence in, spare parts supply chains for maintenance would support O&M, DRA and CBM based programmes and incentives (van Beers, 2001; Harvey and Reed, 2006; Jansz, 2011; Butterworth et al., 2013).

Harvey (2008) identified spare part provision as being unprofitable in as a private sector jurisdiction, resulting in a lack of incentive to provide adequate supply chains. It can be argued, however, that if contemporary water point monitoring data and failure rate knowledge was adequate to allow for supply to match with demand, the operation has potential to become economically viable in the private sector.

! 57! Institutional support must also be extended to remote areas and private sector or governmental aid and subsidies must be provided, as it may be more costly and timely to attain spare parts and pay for driller transport and time (van Beers, 2001, EWB, no date).

The need for post-construction institutional response to breakdown and repairs is evident within Chikwawa. Improving supply chains based on demand and reducing repair response times is compulsory for CBM, O&M, VLOM and DRA incentives to work. Furthermore, not being able to provide hardware for repair of non-functioning water points undermines the value of water point data collection, where does the value lie in being able to identify and locate non-functioning water points but lack the capacity to repair and rehabilitate them (RWSN, 2014).

6.1.2. Economical

Approximately 28% of boreholes are deemed non-functional due to a lack of money in 2014. Although this reason has reduced by nearly 10% from 2012, it is still the second most prominent reason for borehole failure in Chikwawa. Unfortunately, this reason is relatively ambiguous and defining the specific economic issues for Chikwawa from the water point data is difficult. However, as many of those interviewed during the water point monitoring exercise were village representatives and water committee members, it can be ascertained that many of the problems reside in inability or unwillingness to pay for the water point resource (Mkondiwa et al., 2013).

Mulwafu (2003) identifies that often Malawians do not attach a monetary value to water as they, along with many others in both developing and developed countries, view it as a human right rather than a commodity. This causes barriers to CBM incentives whereby communities payment for the improved source subsequently provides a monetary incentive and financial capacity for water committees to continually maintain and repair the resource (RWSN, 2014). Often, implementers fail to understand or acknowledge the social dynamics of the community they are providing to and disregard issues

! 58! of trust, social cohesion and corruption (van Beers, 2001). This can also reduce community members’ incentives and willingness to pay for the resource, whilst some may be willing to pay while others are not, resulting in inequities in ownership and social tensions.

Failures for payment also reside in the cost of spare parts and water tariffs being too much. Tariffs and spare part costs are defined by national government, which may not be aware of the financial capacity of end users (Harvey, 2008). Need for subsidies or cost-sharing incentives from government, external donors and original implementers may be necessary to prevent economic barriers affecting water point sustainability (van Beers, 2001; Jansz, 2011).

6.1.3. Technical

Technical limitations to water point maintenance and functionality consist of infrastructure hardware failures, poor construction practices, poor technology choice and a lack of scientific understanding (Breslin, 2003). These failures result in broken parts, no water flow, low yield and salty water, and account for approximately 6% of failures in 2014 and 18% of failures in 2012 in Chikwawa.

Often technical failures arise due to unskilled personnel siting, constructing and rehabilitating boreholes (Chavula, 2012). Area mechanics, drillers and those trained through CBM incentives are commonly inadequately experienced and skilled due to weak training programmes. Furthermore, they regularly lose interest, incentive, skills and may even move or fall ill rendering their skills useless (van Beers, 2001). In 2014, a further 23% of boreholes are non-functional due to a lack of knowledge on the problem and on how to fix it. Compared to 2012, with 4% being non-functional due to this problem, it is apparent the problem is becoming more recognised and of greater concern.

! 59! Boreholes are repeatedly sited and drilled without hydrogeological consultation and supervision, resulting in lowering of the water table, insufficient yields, dry bores, fracture closure through overburden and salty undrinkable water (Riekel, 2002; Breslin, 2003). This lack of knowledge about quantity, quality and sustainability of the groundwater is imperative if the borehole is to be used, maintained and not become a waste of donor money (MacDonald and Calow, 2008). It is also apparent that washing facilities and pit latrines are located in close proximity to boreholes causing contamination concerns.

Poorly constructed boreholes by poorly educated or time pressured drillers can reduce performance through silt clogging if sufficient time is not taken to flush the borehole. The Water Resources Act (Malawi) (2013) Part VI, documents construction and development guidelines which should be adhered to, but are often not by contractors, often due to poor training and knowledge on these guidelines (GOM, 2013).

Implementing organisations often reduce time consuming practices such as bore flushing and may use cheaper infrastructure alternatives to maximise donor money and reach coverage targets quicker, thus satisfying donors and overhead pressures from incentives such as the MDG targets (MacDonald and Calow, 2008). Donors and implementing organisations need to recognise the monetary value and resources wasted through construction without consideration of safety and longevity of the water point (van Beers, 2001; MacDonald and Calow, 2008) Borehole deterioration through inadequate construction and maintenance resulting in failure, abandonment and construction of a new water point is an all too recurrent cycle within the water sector and must be tackled through education of drillers and implementation of hydrogeologists (Riekel, 2002; Breslin, 2003).

6.1.4. Government and Policy

Weak governmental support, capacity and policy implementation acts as a root problem for most of the reasons for borehole failure stated (Gutierrez,

! 60! 2005). Decentralisation and reform has left the district and MoIWD lacking in coordination and clarification of their roles and responsibilities, resulting in an inability to implement and enforce policy (Mulwafu and Msosa, 2005; O’Neil et al., 2014). Failures in water demand management, poorly coordinated and conflicting stakeholders within the sector, unclear and inadequately promoted legislation and policy, as well as under resourced, under staffed and corrupt government all leads to failures further down the administrative bodies and weak government support (Ferguson and Mulwafu, 2001; Mulwafu and Msosa, 2005; Harvey, 2008; Mulwafu, 2010; Kang and Campbell, 2013).

The potential of the government and districts needs to be realised and supported by the private sector and donor organisations to allow it to have a senior role in managing, regulating and standardising their activities and participation to be in line with national and international policy (Welle, 2005; Mkondiwa et al., 2013; O’Neil et al., 2014). Disadvantages of this incentive for the private sector and NGOs are inherently obvious; as policy guidelines may interfere and constrain personal targets of the organisation (Ferguson and Mulwafu, 2001).

A lack of government capacity and support has also resulted in government based water point monitoring programmes failing (Calaguas and O’Connell, 2002). This is detrimental to the sustainability goal as nationwide, government led water point monitoring programmes are considered to be the most sustainable as NGO based work can often be intermittent, transient and funding dependent (Mulwafu and Msosa, 2005).

6.1.5. Social

Problems related directly to social issues are not represented by the waterpoint monitoring database, with only vandalism being directly attributable to social implications. Many of the problems concerned with CBM practices have already been highlighted as well as the concept of implementation of water points with consideration of the community’s social harmony and cohesion (Harvey and Reed, 2004).

! 61! It is apparent that many of the acknowledged problems for water point non- functionality are a product of a lack of understanding of end user capacity, needs and attitude. Many of the implementing organisations are external and provide inappropriate technology choices for that community’s capacity and capital wealth (van Beers, 2001; Gutierrez, 2005), assume training on maintenance ensures sustainability (IIED, 2002) or fail to provide training at all, work on a supply driven basis without consideration of the end user and ultimately negate CBM and government policy incentives (Harvey, 2008).

Social structures, customs, beliefs and unofficial laws around water points are not documented or publicised and are appropriated by elders in the village and can be localised and contextual.

6.1.6. Sustainable Water Points

It is considered by Sugden (2003) that the critical factors leading to a sustainable, functioning water supply are access to money, spare parts and technical skills. So why, over a decade later, is water point monitoring data showing that these factors are the most prominent barriers to achieving functionality and are thus not recognised and accounted for in private sector and government endeavours. The IIED (2002) state local government capacity to support and maintain the resource as a key component of reaching sustainability, however much of the capacity is within the private sector who are presently working in a disjointed, ephemeral and uncoordinated manner.

Engineers Without Borders (EWB) define the method of fixing a faulty pump as follows:

1. Collect funds from community members for spare parts and labour 2. Source spare parts to repair 3. Source adequate skills to repair

! 62! With inadequate finance, spare parts and a lack of knowledge on the problem and on how to fix it contributing to almost 90% of reasons for borehole failure in Chikwawa, it is evident why the functionality rate is 29%, and subsequent dependability on unimproved water points is as high as 18% in 2014.

6.2. Risk Analysis

The change in group villages risk status from 2012 to 2014, exhibited fully in Appendices III, IV and V and quantified in Appendix I, and documents the inequity, inconsistency and complexity of water point allocation practices. It attests that whilst 21% of group villages have improved in risk status thus reduced the risks to water insecurity, 17% have become higher risk, whilst others are continually neglected and remain high and moderate risk.

Unfortunately, few of the trends and changes data analysis from the 2012 and 2014 databases has documented are of a surprise, or depict success stories. It is a trend recognised extensively across developing nations whereby resources are distributed unequally, with those already low risk being provided with more resources and higher risk communities being provided with nothing (Gutierrez, 2005). In Chikwawa, this is evident whereby villages with a low risk status in 2012 have seen extensive coverage improvement, such as Khokhwa group village in Ngabu TA where coverage has increased by 234%. High-risk group villages, such as Konzere in Masache remain high risk with 0.4% increase in coverage with additionally 25% decrease in functionality.

It is apparent that the phrase ‘some for all, not more for some’, coined in 1990, nearly 2 and a half decades ago, at the United Nations International Drinking Water Decade conference in Delhi is still not come to fruition (Calguas and O’Connell, 2002). This inherent problem, documented time and again by researchers and aid organisations has failed to be attributed with a solution (Calguas and O’Connell, 2002; Taylor, 2008).

! 63! Reasons behind inequity in water point distribution are abundant and unfortunately many water-monitoring programmes fail to attempt to understand the problem in its indicators and questionnaires. The issues considered here, and those which are focused on in development of the risk model, are primarily uncoordinated sectors and stakeholders, as well as a lack of evidence-based information to base decisions upon.

Similar problems to those discussed in the analysis of functionality and sustainability are highlighted whereby a lack of information flow from the ground to the central decision makers has resulted in poor decisions being made, inappropriate channelling of resources and significant errors being made (Welle, 2005; Gutierrez, 2005). Therefore, water point allocation is based on weak and an out-dated quantification of need with the outputs from decision-makers and implementers not targeting poorly served areas (Taylor, 2008).

A lack of evidence-based knowledge limits the ability for the government to regulate and control the private sector. Unregulated borehole drilling practices result in the private sector siting boreholes without consideration of science, need and with personal incentives as the driver (Harvey and Reed, 2004). For example, religious based groups can inadvertently focus water point allocation toward certain target groups and neglect others, whereas non-governmental organisations often work in a project-to-project basis focusing in certain, accessible areas and continually providing to the same areas.

Another major trend established from data analysis is that coverage rates have increased whilst functionality rates have decreased resulting in a migration of many group villages found to be in the bottom left of the risk model, toward the top right. This is not necessarily a negative migration, with some group villages improving their risk status from high- to moderate-risk and moderate- to low-risk. For example, Ndakwera group village in Ndakwera TA experienced coverage improvement of 418% but with a

! 64! functionality regression of 58% and Nsaliva group village in Chapananga TA saw a 236% increase in coverage but a 40% decrease in functionality.

Approximately 44% of group villages that were mapped in 2012 and in 2014 coverage rates improved but functionality reduced. A further 11% improved in coverage without improvements in functionality. Although this trend has allowed for many group villages to improve in risk status, continuation of this trend will result in regression of risk statuses if water point construction rates do not continually sustain failure rates.

This process of instating new water points to compensate for those non- functioning is evidently highly unsustainable and consumes excessive amounts of donor and government money (Hope and Rouse, 2013). Highlighting the need for government control and regulation of drilling and private sector practices to ensure that new water points are allocated in high- risk areas and non-functioning water points are rehabilitated in conjunction with construction of new water points in attempts to reach low risk statuses. This government regulated and coordinated approach to water point allocation and construction is a more efficient and effective use of private sector and government money, resources and time.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that 44% of group villages mapped in 2012 and 2014 exhibit the same risk status at both mapping periods, however only 1 group village (0.7%) exhibits no change in functionality and coverage. This documents that practices in the water sector are highly active but are failing to adequately improve both coverage and functionality. Where 18% of group villages mapped in both mapping exercises document an improvement in coverage and functionality, a further 14% have seen a regression in both these fields.

An additional trend acknowledged in the data is that as population increases, group villages are progressively migrating left on the risk matrix toward high risk, as coverage rates reduce with increase in population. This population

! 65! increase is not being catered for, resulting in more pressure being placed on those water points present causing a higher risk of breakdown and failure.

Sustainability and equity is far from apparent in Chikwawa, however evidence that 46% of water points have improved in risk status since 2012 shows the capacity and potential for improvement is available. With improved management based on sound monitoring data and efficient information flows, it is possible that risk statuses could be improved year on year toward water security for all.

6.3. Use of the Risk Matrix

Not only does the risk matrix provide an analysis of the water point monitoring data, but it also has the capability to work as a reference tool, channelling resources appropriately and responding to demand by assessing areas of need. It identifies problem areas and can be cross-referenced with water point monitoring questionnaire data to identify problems and focus the correct resources to correct for them. Such a comprehensive tool is focused at combatting institutional and governmental limitations that act as a basis for many of the reasons for borehole failure and inequity.

The key factors the matrix has set out to achieve:

• Coordination and streamlining of stakeholders towards a results orientated end goal • End user sensitive projects • Establish areas of demand sensitisation • Build an understanding of trends and changes • Improve response times and capacity

Transparency is one of the key components of the risk matrix providing an accessible reference tool by all stakeholders. It will act to reduce biases in water sector decision-making, such as water point siting (Fischhoff, 2013), and provide an irrefutable information basis for drilling and siting practices to be regulated from. It will streamline stakeholders towards a common goal of

! 66! provision for those in need; preventing wasted and duplicated efforts and therefore increasing the capacity of the sector (Breslin, 2003).

The matrix must be used in conjunction with a demand driven response to need, siting boreholes where there is modelled need works as a top-down provisional approach. The role of the matrix is therefore not to determine where to drill and provide water resources but to channel efforts toward empowering and sensitising the under-served to their entitlements and understanding their capacity and abilities (Breslin, 2003).

Understanding trends and changes can improve capacity and resource channelling ultimately leading to improved response times and capacity of government and implementers instilling confidence in these systems and supporting the CBM, DRA and VLOM exercises.

! 67! 7. Recommendations

Water Point monitoring data can be a powerful tool if used effectively. It can be used as a method of providing sound evidence to the government and private sector to define areas of focus and need,

Figure 18: Development of Water Point Mapping and Monitoring Data for Stakeholder Use.

! 68! The following recommendations are based on limitations encountered in use of the water point dataset, issues highlighted by enumerators in Chikwawa, issues discussed by Water For People, Malawi and reiterates the importance of recommendations previously provided in recent research and literature. The potential to develop water point mapping and monitoring exercises for stakeholder use is presented in Figure 16.

7.1. Standardising Mapping Practices

Firstly, water point mapping practices must be streamlined and standardised. Many of the water point monitoring programmes are carried by the private sector, which can result in intermittent, donor driven, uncoordinated and duplicated practices. Standardising water point monitoring practices through using a standard set of critical indicators for water security can streamline all water point mapping projects so the data is easily comparable and consolidated, resulting in usable and effective datasets (RWSN, 2014).

7.2. Improving Water Point Mapping Practices

7.2.1. Enumerator training

The dataset and the indicators must not be too complex and the enumerator must be trained to adequately carry out the exercise to a sufficient standard. It is recommended that enumerators are sensitised and educated on the end use of the data they are collecting, providing both incentive and understanding on how to pose questions and get adequate, useful answers. It was noted that the enumerators targets were quantity based, although important it must also be emphasised to them the importance of data quality and content to prevent issues of missing data. As unique identification technologies, such as geocodes, currently do not work, it is important to educate the enumerators to the importance of properly identifying the water point by including group village and village data.

It was also highlighted by enumerators, that often community members were reluctant to provide time and information towards the monitoring project as

! 69! they were being asked the same questions as the year before but seeing little results and changes (personal communication, 2014b). Improving the training of the enumerators on the use of the data could help to diffuse such problems and promote confidence and support in the water point monitoring exercises. Furthermore, this highlights the need to improve the efficiency and usability of monitoring and mapping data to instate its use within the government and private sector to ultimately improve response times and rightfully channel resources. Thus, communities will not be neglected as documented by enumerators’ experiences, and the community will gain confidence in the government and private sectors supply chains and service provision.

It is important to determine the intended use of the water point database prior to carrying out the mapping exercise to match methodology with achieving the best outcomes (Welle, 2005). It was noted that the smartphone FLOW app has the ability for mandatory questions, preventing submission without a provided answer. At present, the mandatory questions are standardised, but could be altered and adapted for the purpose of the mapping exercise and the intended use of the data collected. As unique identifiers are yet to be effectively established, it is of importance that location based questions, such as TA, group village and village name all become mandatory questions.

7.2.2. High-resolution scale mapping

As documented by Water For People Malawi’s mapping and monitoring practices, mapping at a local level at a high-resolution scale, where every water point is targeted to be mapped, is possible, practical and provides a wealth of usable data. Bradley and Bartram (2013) highlight that this scale of water point mapping is important for resource allocation and planning to be instated adequately. It is therefore recommended that mapping and monitoring at this scale is necessary if the situation on the ground is to be acknowledged, addressed and responded to effectively. Additionally, by mapping sites of contamination and collating household data allows for a

! 70! comprehensive, holistic understanding of the situation, data can be cross- referenced and analysed from a multi-sectorial and multi-criteria approach to resolve encountered issues. As highlighted by the Open Government Partnerships work in Tanzania, small-scale water point data contributes toward revolutionary changes and can create permanent, sustainable services (OGP, 2013).

7.3. Improving water point monitoring practices

For water point monitoring data to gain traction in shaping and influencing water sector policies and resource distribution practices, it must be improved to a more efficient, usable tool.

7.3.1. Updating Information

The technology used, in this instance Akvo FLOW smartphone technology and field survey app, sets limitations on the ability to collect and update information adequately. An inherent problem apparent across many of the technologies and mapping programmes used is a lack of unique identifiers and inaccurate GPS signal preventing a record of the same water point to be kept and updated (RWSN, 2014). It is important that water point can be updated in real time rather than remapped annually and correlated with the previous mapping exercise. As stated by Rabbani (2009) it must be a ‘living and usable tool’. As stated previously, geocode generation is an unsuccessful method of unique identification, limited by the relatively poor resolution of the GPS signals on smartphones.

7.3.2. Nearby Points Function

To tackle this record keeping and updating issue, Ofiesh (2012) has highlighted the use of a ‘nearby point function’ where the FLOW field survey app allows enumerators and users to input the GPS coordinates and select from a list of points previously mapped in close proximity to this. This could improve the matching and correlation process currently having to be carried

! 71! out year on year with mapping databases. The matched points can then be attributed with the same unique code and cross-referenced in the database.

7.3.3. Barcode and QR codes

Ofiesh (2012) also highlights Akvo FLOWs work in installing barcodes on to each

Water Point and the FLOW field survey app already includes a barcode- scanning tool, however success and funding of both installing the barcodes and having efficiently working scanners is yet to occur. QR codes are becoming more widely used and smartphones are capable at detecting them, and are being considered as another option of unique identification working on the same principle as barcodes.

7.4. Collate Data Effectively

For data to be useable it must be collated in a format that can be used, currently amalgamation of data on an excel spreadsheet makes it difficult and timely to analyse. Collating data on an online interface such as that of Akvo and Water For Peoples mapped water points platform can allow for a more visually pleasing and easily analysed dataset.

7.5. Data Sharing and Publicising

Sharing of collected data is paramount for a coordinated approach to water security. Not only of information datasets but also of failures and successes, working methods and training practices. An all-inclusive platform for sharing and collating data, much like that of the Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN) but larger scale, should be established and the importance of contributing towards this incentive needs to be publicised to the private sector and government.

! 72! 7.6. Streamlining and Coordination

If water point monitoring data is to support and improve water point sustainability and security initiatives and policies, all implementers must be working toward this common target and remove personal gains and goals. The private sector must work in cooperation with the government and its policies in relation to water point monitoring practices for this to become a reality. Continued disregard for government policies and focus on their personal targets must be tackled.

Streamlined, standardised and shared water point mapping and monitoring data can allow for the government to be empowered with regard to regulation and enforcement of policy. Sound, up-to-date, accountable and accessible datasets from end user and water point based monitoring, can provide irrefutable evidence for which governments can back up policies and enforce them, to in turn streamline and coordinate its own efforts as well as that of the private sector. Subsequently, supply chains and resource allocations should be more efficient and build capacity with end user needs as the driver.

For streamlining and coordination to occur, it should ideally be controlled and regulated by the government in power. The policy and much of the capacity and to allow for this is in place, however, negligence and ignorance of the private sector to the government’s policies results in poor adherence to these policies. The government needs to publicise the policies in place and work toward the enforcement mechanisms, such as penalties for failing to adhere to legal documentation and guidelines.

Initiatives such as InsideNGO exhibit the benefits and the ability of coordination within a sector, developing initiatives such as this to incorporate local governments and districts is important for sector wide sustainability,

7.7. Drilling Practices Improvement

It is apparent that poor technical knowledge and drilling needs to be addressed. Borehole installation practices must be standardised, regulated

! 73! and supervised by hydrogeologists. Technical specifications and construction standards not only need to exist on paper, as they do in Malawi, but be widely available and effectively used and adhered to (IIED, 2002). Awareness needs to be heightened as to the importance for private sector implementers to inform the government of drilling incentives and the need for a hydrogeologist’s consultation and supervision.

Drilling contractors must be reliable, accountable and properly trained. They must adhere to specifications provided by the government and private sector implementers must support the costs and time frame for this drilling process to occur. Furthermore, the area mechanics responsible for maintenance and repair after the borehole is drilled, must be fully trained in the boreholes construction and should have adequate experience, approximately 2-3 months working with drillers to gain the skills and knowledge base to be an effective, trusted area mechanic (personal communication, 2014).

7.8. Summary of Recommendations

Ultimately, it is recommended that water point mapping and monitoring is improved to a standard that allows it to efficiently provide data on breakdown frequencies and reasons, and identify areas of water provision need and demand. Efficiently in terms of streamlining the efforts of mapping programmes as well as efficient, continual updating mechanisms so as data is up-to-date.

This knowledge base should be usable and accessible to all stakeholders and address the cause of failure and allow for barriers to be removed by effectively channelled resources. Ultimately, a sufficient supply chain and efficient response time to water security problems will instil confidence in end users and Water User Committees (IIED, 2002, EWB, no date) and allow for community based sustainability initiatives such as CBM, DRA and VLOM to succeed.

! 74! Summary of reccommendations:

• Private sector coordination and streamlining, working toward a common target in line with and in support of government and policy, preventing duplication of efforts and cost inefficiencies • Use water point mapping and monitoring data to provide evidence based data to the government so as to effectively channel resources and capacity toward areas of need • Standardise water point mapping and monitoring practices and indicators used to allow for consolidation and unification of data • Share and promote the data to improve private sector and government knowledge on areas of need to prevent biased incentives entering the water sector • Share and promote failures and problem areas to improve and bring awareness to the need for improved training standards, drilling practices and capacity building • Improve water point mapping exercises to be more efficient and accurate and allow for data updating as opposed to remapping • Train and sensitise enumerators to the purpose of the exercise and the end use of the collected data so as to make collection practices more quality orientated • Map and monitor continually at a high-resolution scale to gain truly representative data • Present water point monitoring datasets in a transparent, legible and accountable manner to increase usability

! 75! 8. Conclusion

It is evident that many of the sustainability issues surrounding non- functionality and poor coverage rates, documented throughout the water sectors of developing countries, still exist in Chikwawa District, Malawi. Reasons for this are considered to be due to poor resource and capacity distribution and a lack evidence-based knowledge upon which the government can make decisions and regulate the private sector.

Many of the sustainability problems highlighted are high-level institutional problems, but it is believed their solution can be found in the improvement of bottom-up information flows, such as that from high resolution mapping exercises. Water For People is working to continually improve water point mapping and monitoring practices which, when used and publicised properly, can be a significant tool in shaping top-down distribution channels such as spare parts supply and influence decision-making, such as allocation of new water point construction.

It is important that water point mapping exercises are of a high quality, are standardised practices and are shared and publicised to other stakeholders and the government. Supporting the government with a wealth of high- resolution data can allow for needs based distribution of resources and capacity, empower districts and end users to demand water points and coordinate private sector implementers.

Improved information collection results in improved datasets, which in turn results in more informed decision-making. Presenting water point dataset information in a useable and accessible format, such as that of the risk matrices, is expected to improve the use of water point mapping data in decision-making processes.

To achieve sustainability, the situation on the ground must be known and understood; high-resolution water point mapping can provide this information. Through continual development of data collection and accumulation, it is

! 76! thought that water point mapping data, and analysis therein, can provide the tool to sustainability and water for everyone, forever.

! 77! 9. References

Adams, S. (2009) Basement aquifers of southern Africa: Overview and research needs In: Titus, R., Beekman, H., Adams, S. and Strachan, L., The Basement Aquifers of Southern Africa, Water Research Commission, Gezina, South Africa: 1-4

Adelana, S. M. A. and MacDonald, A. M. (2008) Groundwater research issues in Africa, In: Adelana, S. M. A and MacDonald, A. M. eds., Applied Groundwater Studies in Africa, International Association of Hydrogeologists selected paper on hydrogeology, Taylor and Francis Group, London, UK

Akvo (2014) Akvo FLOW: What is Akvo FLOW? [online] [11 August 2014] Available from: http://akvo.org/products/akvoflow/

Bartram, J. (2008) Improving on haves and have-nots, Nature March 452: 283-284

Baumann, E and Danert, K. (2008) Operation and Maintenance of Rural Water Supplies in Malawi: Study Findings, Swiss Resource Centre and Consultancies for Development

Beddington, J. (2013) Catalysing sustainable water security: role of science, innovation and partnerships, Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 371: 20120414

Biswas, A. K. (2008) Integrated Water Resource Management: Is It Working? Water Resource Development 24(1): 5-22

Bradley, D. J. and Bartram, J. K. (2013) Domestic water and sanitation as water security: monitoring, concepts and strategy, Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 371: 20120420

Breslin, E. D. (2003) Demand response approach in practice: why sustainability remains elusive, Water and Poverty Dialogue Initiative at the 3rd World Water Forum, Japan, March 2003

Breslin, E. D. (2010) Rethinking Hydrophilanthropy: Smart Money for Transformative Impact, Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 145(1): 65-73

Butterworth, J., Welle, K., Bostoen, K. and Schaefer, F. (2013) WASH sector monitoring In: Calow, R., Ludi, E. and Tucker, J. eds. Achieving Water

! 78! Security: Lessons from research in water supply, sanitation and hygiene in Ethiopia, Practical Action Publishing, Warwickshire, UK

Calaguas, B. and O’Connell, M. (2002) Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and Water: Failing the poor? Discussion Paper, Water Aid, London, UK

Chavula, G. M. S. (2012) Malawi, In: Pavelic, P., Giordano, M., Keraita, B., Ramesh, V. and Rao, T. eds. Groundwater Availability and Use in Sub- Saharan Africa: A Review of 15 Countries, International Water Management Institute, Sri Lanka

Chimaliza, M., 2009, Sanitation and Hygiene Mapping, Chikwawa District, Water For People, Chikwawa District Assembly, Malawi

Colin, J. (1999) VLOM for Rural Water Supply: Lessons from experience, WELL, London

Commonwealth Foundation (2013) National Report: Malawi, A civil society review of progress towards the Millennium Development Goals in Commonwealth countries, Commonwealth Foundation, London, UK

Cook, C. and Bakker, K. (2012) Water Security: debating an emerging paradigm, Global Environmental Change 22: 94-102

Davis, S. (2012) Why physical unique identifiers on water points will improve sustainable services, Rural Water Supply Network [online] [01 July 2014] Available from: https://rwsnblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/why-physical- unique-identifiers-on-water-points-will-improve-sustainable-services-2/#more- 146

DeGabriele, J. (2002) Improving Community Based Management of Boreholes: A Case Study from Malawi, Broadening Access and Strengthening Input Market Systems, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA

DeGabriele, J. (2009) Sanitation Sector status and Gap Analysis: Malawi, Global Sanitation Fund: Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative Council

Dublin Principles (1992) The Dublin Statement of Water and Sustainable Development [online] [15 June 2014] Available from: https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/hwrp/documents/english/icwedece.html#con servation

! 79! Engineers Without Borders Canada (EWB) (no date) Malawi Water and Sanitation Program: Water Point Functionality and Distribution Strategy 2009-2012

Ferguson, A. and Mulwafu, W. (2001) Decentralisation, Participation and Access to Water Resources in Malawi, BASIS, Wisconsin, USA

Ferguson, A. and Mulwafu, W. (2007) If Government Failed, how are we to succeed? The Importance of History and Context in Present-day Irrigation Reform in Malawi, Community-based Water Law and Water Resource Management Reform in Developing Countries, Oxfordshire, CAB International

Fischhoff, B. (2013) Judgement and Decision Making In: Fischoff, B. eds. Judgment, Decision Making and Risk, Routledge, Oxon, UK

Global Water Partnership (GWP) (2000a) Towards Water Security: A framework for action, Global Water Partnership, Stockholm

Global Water Partnership (GWP) (2000b) Integrated Water Resources Management, TAC Background Papers 4: 22

Government of Malawi (GOM) (1999a) Ministry of Water Development, Community Based Rural Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Education, Lilongwe, Malawi

Government of Malawi (GOM) (1999b) Water Resources Management and Policy Strategies, Ministry of Water Development, Lilongwe, Malawi

Government of Malawi (GOM) (2001) Joint Review of Malawi Water and Sanitation Sector: Issues and Priorities, Ministry of Water Development, Lilongwe, Malawi

Government of Malawi (GOM) (2002) Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, Final Draft, Lilongwe, Malawi

Government of Malawi (GOM) (2005) Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development National Water Policy, Lilongwe, Malawi

Government of Malawi (GOM) (2006) Chikwawa District Development Plan 2006- 2009

! 80! Government of Malawi (GOM) (2009) Water and Sanitation Sector Joint Sector Review Report, Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development, Lilongwe, Malawi

Government of Malawi (GOM) (2011a) Water Resources Investment Strategy, Component 1 – Water Resources Assessment Annex 1(i) – Water Resources Assessment for WRAs 1-4 DRAFT, Second National Water Development Project, Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development, Lilongwe, Malawi: 238

Government of Malawi (GOM) (2011b) Welfare Monitoring Survey 2011, Lilongwe, Malawi

Government of Malawi (GOM) (2013) Water Resources Act (Malawi), Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development, Lilongwe, Malawi

Grey, D., Garrick, D., Blackmore, D, Kelman, J., Muller, M. and Sadoff, C. (2013) Water security in one blue planet: twenty-first century policy challenges for science, Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 371: 20120406

Gulyani, S., Talukdar, D. and Kariuki, R. M. (2005) Water for the Urban Poor: Water Markets, Household Demand and Service Preferences in Kenya, Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Board Discussion Paper Series, Paper No. 5, The World Bank

Gutierrez, E. (2007) Delivering pro-poor water and sanitation services: The technical and political challenges in Malawi and Zambia, Geoforum 38(5): 886-900

Hall, J. and Borgomeo, E. (2013) Risk-based principles for defining and managing water security, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 371: 20120407

Harvey, P. (2008) Poverty Reduction Strategies: opportunities and threats for sustainable rural water services in sub-Saharan Africa, Progress in Development Studies 8(1): 115-128

Harvey, P. and Reed, R. (2004) Rural Water Supply in Africa: Building Blocks for Handpump Sustainability, WEDC, Loughborough University, UK

! 81! Harvey, P. and Reed, R. (2006) Sustainable supply chains for rural water supplies in Africa, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability 159(1): 31-39

Hope, R. and Rouse, M. (2013) Risks and responses to universal drinking water security, Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 371: 20120417

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) (2009) Where every drop counts: tackling rural Africa’s water crisis, Briefing

Jansz, S. (2011) A study into rural water supply sustainability in Niassa province, Mozambique, Water Aid

Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) (2011) Drinking Water: Equity, safety and sustainability, JMP Thematic Report on Drinking Water 2011, WHO/UNICEF

Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) (2014) Introduction [online] [01 July 2014] Available from: http://www.wssinfo.org/definitions-methods/

Kafakoma, R. and Silungwe, C. (2003) Operational Research Report on Water Ownership and Access Rights in Malawi: Customs, practice and statutory laws, COMWASH Project, Lilongwe, Malawi

Kalin, R. (2014) Discussion on reccommendations11 August.

Kang, M. J. and Campbell, M. (2013) Seeking Systematic Change in Malawi’s Wash Sector

Kayser, G. L., Moriarty, P., Fonseca, C. and Bartram, J. (2013) Domestic Water Service Delivery Indicators and Frameworks for Monitoring, Evaluation, Policy and Planning: A Review, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 10(10): 4812-4835

Lyon, A., Sansom, K., DeGabriele, J., Mhlanga, D. and Msilimba, G. (2012) Malawi Sector Performance Report 2011: Irrigation, Water and Sanitation

MacDonald, A. M. and Calow, R. C. (2008) Developing groundwater for secure rural water supplies in Africa, Desalination 248: 546-556

Manzungu, E. (2004) Water For All: Improving Water Resource Governance in Southern Africa, Gatekeeper Series no. 113, International Institute for Environment and Development

! 82! Matamula, S. (2008) Community Based Management for Sustainable Water Supply in Malawi, Access to Sanitation and Safe Water: Global Partnerships and Local Actions, 33rd WEDC International Conference, Accra, Ghana 2008

Mkondiwa, M., Jumbe, C. B. L. and Wiyo, K. A. (2013) Poverty-Lack of Access to Adequate Safe Water Nexus: Evidence from Rural Malawi, African Development Review 25 (4): 537-550

Morse, T. D., Taulo, S. and Lungu, K. (2010) Gap Analysis Research Needs in Environmental Health, Malawi, Report to the National Commission of Science and Technology

Mulwafu, W. O. (2010) Water Rights in the Context of Pluralism and Policy Changes: The Case of Malawi, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 35: 752- 757

Mulwafu, W. O. and Msosa, H. K. (2005) IWRM and poverty reduction in Malawi: A socio-economic analysis, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 30: 961-967

Mulwafu, W. O., Chipeta, C., Chavula, G., Ferguson, A., Nhoma, B. G., and Chilima, G. (2003) Water Demand Management in Malawi: Problems and Prospects for its Promotion, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 28: 787-796

National Statistics Office (Malawi) (NSO) (2005) Integrated Household Survey 2004-2005, Household Socio-economic Characteristics Report Volume 1, Zomba, Malawi

National Statistics Office (Malawi) (NSO) (2008) 2008 Population and Housing Census [online] [09 August 2014] Available from: http://www.nsomalawi.mw/images/stories/data_on_line/demography/census_ 2008/Main%20Report/ThematicReports/Population%20Projections%20Mala wi.pdf

National Statistics Office (Malawi) (NSO) (2011) Welfare Monitoring Survey 2011, MWI_2011_WMS_vO1, Zomba, Malawi

National Statistics Office (Malawi) (NSO) (2012) Integrated Household Survey 2010-2011, Household Socio-economic Characteristics Report Volume 1, Zomba, Malawi

Ng’ong’ola, D. H. (1999) Policies Influencing Patterns of Use of Water Resources in Malawi, Water Resources Management Policy and Strategies: Ministry of Water Development, Mvalo & co., Lilongwe, Malawi

! 83! O’Neil, T., Cammack, D, Kanyongolo, E., Mkandawire, M. W., Mwalyambwire, B. W. and Wild, L. (2014) Fragmented governance and local service delivery in Malawi, Overseas Development Institute Report, London, UK

Ofiesh, C. (2012) Updating data points in Akvo FLOW [online] [21 July 2014] Available from: http://akvo.org/blog/updating-data-points-in-akvo-flow/

Open Government Partnership (OGP) (2013) Inspiring Story – Water point mapping Tanzania [online] [03 July 2014] Available from: http://www.opengovpartnership.org/country/tanzania/case-study/inspiring- story-water-point-mapping

Osafo-Yeboah, A. (1994) Using the Afridev hand pump Norrip’s experience, 20th WEDC Conference, Affordable Water Supply and Sanitation, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1994

Pullan, R. L., Freeman, M. C., Gething, P. W. and Brooker, S. J. (2014) Geographical Inequalities in Use of Improved Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation across Sub-Saharan Africa: Mapping and Spatial Analysis of Cross-sectional Survey Data, PLoS Med 11 (4)

Rabbani, E. (2009) Water Point Monitoring System in Machinga District, Malawi: Design and Development, Water Aid Malawi Country Programme Report

Riekel, T. (2002) Maintenance of Rural Water Supply Boreholes in Africa: An overlooked issue, Department of Water Affairs, Botswana

Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN) (2005) Sustainable Handpumps, RWSN Strategy Paper

Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN) (2014) Water Point Mapping: Indicators, pump functionality, accuracy of GPS, using and sharing data: Synthesis of discussion and activities May & June 2014

Sehatzadeh, M. (2011) Groundwater Modelling in the Chikhwawa district, lower Shire area of southern Malawi MSc Thesis, Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo

Seidl, B. (2013) It Take a Village to Track a WASH Project, WASH Funders [online] [o7 July 2014] Available from: http://www.washfunders.org/Blog/(tag)/Monitoring%20%26%20Evaluation

! 84! Simon, H. (1956) Rational choice and the structure of the environment, Psychological Review 63: 81-97

Skinner, B. and Shaw, R. (1999) VLOM Pumps Technical Brief 41, WEDC, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK

Smits, S. (2013) Everyone? Yes, everyone! [online] [10 August 2014] Available from: https://waterservicesthatlast.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/everyone-yes- everyone/

Sorenson, S. B., Morssink, C. and Campos, P. A. (2011) Safe access to safe water in low-income countries: Water fetching in current times, Social Science & Medicine 72(9): 1522-1526

Stoupy, O. and Msukwa, O. (2005) Innovative Spatial Indicators to Monitor Water Supply Millennium Development Goal, Africa GIS Conference, Tshwane, SA, 2005

Stoupy, O. and Sugden, S. (2003) Halving the Number of People without Access to Safe Water by 2015 – A Malawian Perspective Part 2

Sugden, S. (2003) Indicators for the water sector: examples from Malawi, Water Aid Malawi

Tanyimboh, T. T., Ward, K., Prasad, T., Jarvis E. and Kanyoza, A. (2010) Multi- objective optimisation and multi-criteria decision-making for water networks, In: Boxall and Maksimović eds., Integrating Water Systems, Taylor and Francis Group, London, UK

Taylor, B. (2008) Water: more for some…or some for more?: Monitoring equity in water and sanitation, Water Aid Tanzania on behalf of TAWASANET

The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) (2002) Poverty Reduction and Water: ‘Watsan and PRSPs’ in sub-Saharan Africa, Water Policy Brief, Overseas Development Institute, London, UK

The World Bank (TWB) (2014a) Data: Improved Water Source, Rural (% of rural population with access) [online] [07 July 2014] Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.H2O.SAFE.RU.ZS

The World Bank (TWB) (2014b) Malawi [online] [12 July 2014] Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/country/malawi

! 85! United Nations (UN) (2010) The Millennium Development Goals Report, Department of Economic and Social Affairs [online] [01 august 2014] Available from: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20Report%202010%20En%20 r15%20-low%20res%2020100615%20-.pdf#page=60

United Nations (UN) (2013) World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision, Volume I: Comprehensive Tables, Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Population Division, Population Estimates and Projections, United Nations, New York, USA

United Nations (UN) (2014a) Millennium Development Goals Indicators [online] [09 August 2014] Available from: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=665

United Nations (UN) (2014b) Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability [online] [10 August 2014] Available from: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/environ.shtml

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2014a) The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2014, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UNDP, New York, USA

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2014b) About Malawi [online] [10 August 2014] Available from: http://www.mw.undp.org/content/malawi/en/home/countryinfo/

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2014c) Human Development Reports, International Human Development Indicators [online] [10 August 2014] Available from: http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries van Beers, P. (2001) Leasing, a new hand pump O&M concept, People and Systems for Water, Sanitation and Health, 27th WEDC Conference, Lusaka, Zambia 2001 van Koppen, B. (2006) Guidelines for Local-Level Integrated Water Resource Management: Based on experiences from the SADC IWRM Demonstration Projects in Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland and Zambia

Water and Environmental Health at London and Loughborough (WELL) (1998) DFID guidance manual on water supply and sanitation programmes, WEDC [online] [31 July 2014] Available from:

! 86! http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/Publications/guidance- manual/prelims.pdf

Water For People (2012) Chikwawa District Council Water Point Mapping Database 2011 Round 2

Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC) (2013) Malawi: Trends and targets: improved sanitation and drinking water coverage [online] [30 July 2014] Available from: http://www.wsscc.org/countries/africa/malawi/trends-and-targets

Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC) (2014) WASH Targets and Indicators Post-2015: Recommendations from International Consultations [online] [30 July 2014] Available from: http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/post-2015-WASH- targets-factsheet-12pp.pdf

Welle, K. (2005) Learning for Advocacy and Good Practice – Water Aid Water Point Mapping: Report of findings based on country visits to Malawi and Tanzania, Overseas Development Institute, London, UK

World Health Organisation (WHO) (2014) Definitions of Indicators [online] [20 July 2014] Available from: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/jmp04_2.pdf

Zuzani, P. N., Ackim, R. and Kalulu, K. (2013) Sustainability of Piped Water Supply Schemes in Rural Malawi through Community Management, Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research 3(10): 113-118

! 87! Appendix I

Risk Status Analysis for Chikwawa Traditional Authorities from 2012 to 2014

Table 1: Chapananga Risk Status

Chapananga

Group Village 2011/12 Risk 2013 /14 Risk Status Coverage Functionality Status Risk Status Change Change Change

Bismon High - - - -

Chakumanika - High - - -

Changambika - Moderate - - -

Changoima Moderate Moderate No Change -9.543608041 4.761904762

Chapasuka - Low - - -

Chaphata Low Low No Change -45.01125281 12.5

Chikuse High High No Change -8.544919174 75

Chimphepo High High No Change 8.356892084 0

Chingwata - High - - -

Chithumba - Moderate - 97.51843492 -31.67420814

Chitungwani High Moderate Improvement 56.79784488 -50

Gadama High High No Change 19.20128145 50

Gagatambo High Low Improvement 344.6891105 -22.58064516

Galonga Moderate High Regression -21.03869176 -21.42857143

Gola - High - - -

Imfanjawo High Low Improvement 210.0612972 -9.230769231

Jana Low High Regression -97.02457956 -100

Kabwatika High Moderate Improvement 42.444142 20

Kachibade High - - - -

Kalima High High No Change 0 0

Kalimanjera Low Low No Change 26.97185052 0

Kanzimbi Moderate High Regression 3.048230878 -20

Khuleyo - High - - -

! 88! Kuntola High Low Improvement 56.37558193 0

Kunyondo High Moderate Improvement 61.67781128 50

Kuwani Moderate Moderate No Change 21.85243665 63.63636364

Liston High Low Improvement 98.81422925 0

Lundu High Moderate Improvement 53.32501296 50

Madeu Moderate High Regression 34.40606596 -71.42857143

Misomali Moderate Moderate No Change 58.52305443 -24.18300654

Mkadana - High - - -

Mkhutche High High No Change 49.5049505 50

Mtombosola Low - - - -

Muonda High Moderate Improvement 116.8224299 -50

Nansambi High Low Improvement 103.0927835 12.5

Nsaliva High Low Improvement 236.8333089 -40

Nsaliva II Moderate Low Improvement 73.13703714 60

Patalawo High - - - -

Sezu High High No Change -32.5732899 -100

Sila High High No Change 0 -20

Simonzi High Moderate Improvement 14.27371537 0

Timbenawo Moderate High Regression 5.15051775 -100

Tombondera Moderate Moderate No Change -36.17783271 75

Siyamphanje Moderate High Regression 19.69538255 -17.14285714

Zalela Moderate - - - -

Zuze Moderate High Regression -29.6692374 0

Table 2: Kasisi Risk Status

Kasisi

Group 2011/12 Risk 2013/14 Risk Risk Status Coverage Functionality Village Status Status Change Change Change

Chikhambi Moderate Low Improvement 110.9976686 2.777777778

Fombe High High No Change 103.1078538 -10

! 89! Kandeu Moderate Moderate No Change 33.07541961 -40

Kavalo Moderate Moderate No Change -1.344502536 -12.5

Mbenderana Moderate High Regression 20.69435894 22.11538462

Njereza Low Moderate Regression -11.19054486 -14.28571429

Table 3: Katunga Risk Status

Katunga

Group 2011/12 Risk 2013/14 Risk Risk Status Coverage Functionality Village Status Status Change Change Change

Chimoto High High No Change -28.47212525 50

Chinkole Moderate High Regression 15.18542262 -60

Kabudula High - - - -

Kaputeni Low Low No Change -73.26007326 -33.33333333

Morgen Moderate - - - -

Mpokonyola Moderate Moderate No Change -11.54423988 -22.22222222

Mtondeza Low - - - -

Ntondeza Low - - - -

Patalawo Low - - - -

Salumenju Moderate - - - -

Supuni High - - - -

William Moderate - - - -

Table 4: Lundu Risk Status

Lundu

Group 2011/12 Risk 2013/14 Risk Risk Status Coverage Functionality Village Status Status Change Change Change

Besitala High Low Improvement 531.4734589 28.57142857

Billiat Moderate Low Improvement 32.03066069 0

Chipakuza High High No Change 39.2808298 5.555555556

Kholongo Low - - - -

! 90! Kutulo High Moderate Improvement 30.65984069 32.14285714

Mafale Moderate High Regression -26.92435311 10

Malemia High - - - -

Mangulenje Low Low No Change 54.91555653 3.409090909

Matelekela High High No Change -1.365293963 0

Nkhabeka Moderate Low Improvement 259.3314364 -37.5

Nkhwazi High High No Change 54.86876722 33.33333333

Pangilesi High High No Change 19.32302273 -25

Sekeni High High No Change 31.46848283 -6.818181818

Tizola II High - - - -

Thomu - Moderate - - -

Tomali Moderate Moderate No Change -16.9694311 8.333333333

Waya - High - - -

Table 5: Makhwira Risk Status

Makhwira

Group Village 2011/12 Risk 2013/14 Risk Risk Status Coverage Functionality Status Status Change Change Change

Chagambatuka Moderate Low Improvement 52.95520944 21.65775401

Champhanda High Low Improvement 123.3045623 75

Chikuse High - - - -

Gangu Moderate Moderate No Change 9.595180547 -36.84210526

Jana Moderate Low No Change 30.40556057 -2.083333333

Kabvalo - High - - -

Kanyimbiri Moderate Moderate No Change 14.10363948 14.28571429

Malata - Moderate - - -

Mazangoza High - - - -

Mmodzi Moderate Moderate No Change 11.32613888 -7.777777778

Mpama Moderate Moderate No Change 13.34756204 -15

Nantusi High High No Change 3.506113209 -44.64285714

! 91! Nchipeta - High - - -

Nyambalo High High No Change 42.0891611 -34.54545455

Nyangu Moderate High Regression 8.232418631 -65.27777778

Savala Moderate High Regression 8.622999129 -17.85714286

Table 6: Masache Risk Status

Masache

Group 2011/12 Risk 2013/14 Risk Risk Status Coverage Functionality Village Status Status Change Change Change

Jackson Moderate Moderate No Change -4.90831614 -33.33333333

John - High - - -

Kamchewere Low Moderate Improvement -29.98737374 0

Konzere High High No Change 0.435131471 -25

Lombe Low Low No Change 32.02764896 -13.19444444

Masache Moderate Low Improvement -12.11647405 33.33333333

Mphonde Moderate - - - -

Nankumba Moderate Low Improvement 11.62834642 0

Ng’ombe Low - - - -

Ntayamanja Moderate Moderate No Change 114.4688645 -41.66666667

Thendo Moderate Moderate No Change 38.18614423 -15.15151515

Timbenawo - High - - -

Table 7: Maseya Risk Status

Maseya

Group 2011/12 Risk 2013/14 Risk Risk Status Coverage Functionality Village Status Status Change Change Change

Chambuluka Moderate - - - -

Dziwazina Moderate - - - -

Frank Low High Regression -49.50257088 -100

Josephy Moderate High Regression 30.54661757 -67.5

Kadzumba Moderate Moderate No Change -20.97928416 -33.33333333

! 92! Kalima Low High Regression -120.2886762 33.33333333

Maide Moderate High Regression -158.9242054 -84.61538462

Matchana - High - -29.95374351 -16.66666667

M’bande Low - - - -

Misiri Moderate - - - -

Mkwana High Moderate Improvement 35.08509631 0

Muyaya High Moderate Improvement 93.64563176 -33.33333333

Namatchuwa Moderate - - - -

Ntondeza Low Moderate Regression 44.07259696 -66.66666667

Samu High High No Change -73.74631268 -50

Tome - High - - -

Zimora Low - - - -

Table 8: Mulilima Risk Status

Mulilima

Group 2011/12 Risk 2013/14 Risk Risk Status Coverage Functionality Village Status Status Change Change Change

Belo Low Low No Change 66.27144785 0

Chadula - High - - -

Kajawo Moderate Moderate No Change 33.37348789 -1.428571429

Kavalo - High - - -

Medramu Moderate Moderate No Change -16.29813375 -3.333333333

Namila Moderate Low Improvement 17.7200393 0

Nkhwitcho Low Low No Change -14.98231521 0

Ntuwana Low Moderate Regression -49.78887684 -33.33333333

Table 9: Ndakwera Risk Status

Ndakwera

Group Village 2011/12 Risk 2013/14 Risk Risk Status Coverage Functionality Status Status Change Change Change

! 93! Chawatama - High - - -

Chagaka - Moderate - - -

Farao Moderate Low Improvement 105.8021721 -14.28571429

Kadinga - Moderate - - -

Kampani Low High Regression -49.93969767 -44.87179487

Kodo - High - - -

Lazaro Moderate Low Improvement 26.82189123 -16.66666667

Mandalika High Moderate Improvement -12.5082021 50

Mandauka - High - - -

Mandrade Moderate Moderate No Change 79.4777072 -30.55555556

Mankhokhwe High High No Change 7.344804716 50

Mchenga Moderate Low Improvement 77.00406183 5

Mkanyoza Moderate Moderate No Change 77.00358852 -44.44444444

Msiyamphanje - High - - -

Mvula Low Moderate Regression -103.6185141 20

Ndakwera Moderate Low Improvement 418.6016142 -58.33333333

Nsingano Low Low No Change 51.24951191 -2.857142857

Nyampemba Low Low No Change 315.4328507 -16.66666667

Suweni High High No Change 14.75997303 -50

Thamba - High - - -

Zalela High Moderate Improvement 28.09981419 16.66666667

Table 10: Ngabu Risk Status

Ngabu

Group Village 2011/12 Risk 2013/14 Risk Risk Status Coverage Functionality Status Status Change Change Change

Balala Low Moderate Regression -34.30660108 -8.333333333

Bapitoni - Moderate - - -

Beka Moderate Low Improvement 217.4598215 41.66666667

Billy Moderate Low Improvement 214.9057169 -16.66666667

! 94! Chamanga Moderate High Regression 3.755868545 -66.66666667

Chambuluka Moderate High Regression 4.129217635 -21.42857143

Chaonanjiwa Moderate Moderate No Change -16.81587056 33.33333333

Chapomoka High Moderate Improvement 37.97910247 0

Chimbaza High Low Improvement 194.5525292 50

Chipambana I - Low - - -

Chipampana - High - - - II

Chipambana - High - - - III

Chipondeni - Moderate - - -

Chipwaila Moderate Moderate No Change 43.67862527 -8.333333333

Chizenga Moderate Moderate No Change 2.404039647 -9.615384615

Fodya Moderate High Regression -49.18032787 -100

Goma Moderate Moderate No Change 43.56338693 -29.3040293

Gonyo - High - - -

Jana - High - - -

Jasi Moderate High Regression 18.16547923 -35.04273504

John - Low - - -

Jombo Moderate Moderate No Change 56.59986302 -38.34586466

Juwanisi - High - - -

Kaliza High Moderate Improvement 52.6379246 0

Kalulu High Moderate Improvement 35.02479574 47.5

Kaluwa Moderate High Regression 32.56015123 -100

Kamoga - High - - -

Khokhwa Low Low No Change 234.3324294 -37.77777778

Kholongo Moderate Moderate No Change -78.76332918 22.22222222

Kulima High Low Improvement 137.0058553 -6.666666667

Kumwembe Moderate High Regression -38.158414 0

Kutama - High - - -

! 95! Machilika High Low Improvement 621.7705232 -40

Malamia Moderate - - - -

Malemia High Moderate Improvement 19.67771392 -7.692307692

Malikopo/ Moderate Low Improvement 60.45698738 0

Msomo

Miloisi - High - - -

Mkumaniza - High - - -

Mphamba Moderate Low Improvement 205.459442 -22.79411765

Mpheza Moderate Moderate No Change 75.9514375 -27.33333333

Mphonde Moderate Low Improvement 181.4306008 -37.5

Mphungu Moderate Moderate No Change 32.13140434 0

Mwananjobvu - High - - -

Mzangaya - High - - -

Ngombe - High - - -

Nkhakamira Moderate - - - -

Nkhwangwa Moderate High Regression 8.911703279 -40.90909091

Nkhwazi High Moderate Improvement 45.17326047 83.33333333

Nkumaniza Low Moderate Regression -5.093841838 -26.95652174

Nsangwe Moderate Low Improvement 328.2426732 0

Nsomo Low Moderate Regression -1.395510624 -14.28571429

Nyambiro Low Low No Change 33.20002051 -26.22377622

Sande Moderate High Regression -51.67279734 0

Saopa Moderate Moderate No Change 46.67277193 -19.78021978

Saopa/ Fodya Low Moderate Regression 10.00499364 -33.33333333

Thendo - High - - -

Therere Moderate High Regression -21.32960015 -3.968253968

Thonje Low Moderate Regression -55.90352137 0

Tsabeta Moderate - - - -

Ubale High - - - -

! 96! Table 11: Ngowe Risk Status

Ngowe

Group Village 2011/12 Risk 2013/14 Improvement Coverage Functionality Status Risk Status or Regression Change Change

Billy - High - - -

John Moderate High Regression -59.63523681 -25

Masache - High - - -

Masanduko High High No Change - -

Mwananjobvu Moderate High Regression 150.0674742 0

! 97! Appendix II

Observed Change Number of Group % Village

Improved Coverage and Reduced 65 43.92 Functionality

Improved Functionality and Reduced 11 7.43 Coverage

Both Improved 26 17.57

Both Regressed 21 14.19

Only Coverage Improved 16 10.81

Only Functionality Improved 0 0.00

Only Coverage Reduced 7 4.73

Only Functionality Reduced 1 0.68

No Change 1 0.68

Total 148 100

! 98! Appendix III

Traditional Authorities Risk Matrices 2012 for Borehole and Hand Pump

! 99!

! 100!

! 101!

! 102!

! 103! ! 104! Appendix IV

Traditional Authorities Risk Matrices 2014 for Borehole and Hand Pump

! 105!

! 106!

! 107!

! 108!

! 109!

! 110! Appendix V

Traditional Authority Risk Matrices 2014 for All Water Points

! 111!

! 112!

! 113!

! 114!

! 115!

! 116! Appendix VI

FLOW Questionnaire:

1. Name of community 2. Type of community 3. Name of interviewee 4. Title of interviewee 5. Is this an improved water source/system? 6. Does the system have household or public taps? 7. How many household taps are there? 8. Are there any household meters on this system? 9. How many meters have been installed? 10. What is the type of water point? 11. How many people use this water source? 12. Is there anyone in the community that does not have access to an improved water point? 13. How many people do not have access to the improved water system? 14. Why doesn’t everyone have access to the improved water system? 15. What year was the water point/system constructed? 16. Has the water point/system been rehabilitated? 17. What year was the water point/system rehabilitated? 18. What is the farthest distance a user walks one way to collect water from the water point/system? 19. What is the longest amount of time (in minutes) it takes round trip for a user to collect water from the water point? 20. Does the water source provide enough drinking water for the community every day of the year? 21. What months are there shortages? 22. How many hours a day is water available? 23. Is any water treatment done at the water point? 24. What treatment is being done?

! 117! 25. Has the water system been down for more than 1 day in the last 30 days (except for routine maintenance)? 26. How many days did it take to get repaired? 27. Why was the system down for more than 1 day? 28. Have any major repairs/additions been completed on the point/system in the past year? 29. What was repaired/replaced/upgraded? 30. How much did the repairs/upgrades cost? 31. Are there any current problems with the system that require attention? 32. What is the current problem? 33. Is water available from the system on the day of visit? 34. Why isn’t water available from the system on the day of visit? 35. Was E. coli tested for? 36. What was the result for E. coli? 37. Was residual chlorine tested for? 38. How much residual chlorine was present? 39. Was water quality testing done in the last 12 months? 40. Did the enumerator review the water quality test results? 41. How many seconds does it take to fill a 20 litre container? 42. Is there a service provider responsible for this water point/system? 43. What is the type of service provider? 44. Is there a latrine within 50 metres of the water point? 45. Is there evidence of stagnant water within 50 metres of the water point?

! 118!