Tanzanian Villages Site Assessment Final Report

Summary A team of technicians from Majitech Engineering has recently completed preliminary site assessments in 45 villages that are part of the WE3 rehabilitation project. A list of these villages and a map of their locations are attached to this report. A standard form created for these assessments was used and is also attached to this report. Data from 9 of the 12 sites assessed in Singida have not yet been uploaded and hence were not available for use in this report, but will be included in future analysis. At each location, the assessment included:  Conversations with village leadership for water management (village government or COWSO/water committee Chairperson or Executive Officer) and District Water Engineer;  Assessment of existing infrastructure, including borehole depth, diameter, pump type, power source, and issues requiring attention;  Sample taken where possible for water quality analysis at a National Water Laboratory;  Photographs of water-related infrastructure and community consultation;  Use of a video camera inside the borehole, where access was possible; and  Completion of the site assessment form documenting all relevant information, including contact details for village representative. This effort has produced invaluable information for planning the WE3 project. Key outcomes include:  Of the 36 boreholes, 24 boreholes are currently not operational for reasons including broken hand pumps, poor construction and unaffordable power. The 12 functioning boreholes are threatened by power costs that the community can’t afford. Solar-powered submersible pumps were requested by many villages to alleviate the financial burden of electricity tariffs and/or diesel.  Most communities reported more than one technical issue, including plumbing (insufficient distribution points and/or leaking and broken pipes) and insufficient storage.  All communities expressed a need for increased reliable water access for domestic consumption and other purposes, especially livestock, small-scale irrigation and horticultural activities.  Low yields seem to pose a greater challenge to communities than water quality issues.  Most communities already collect a tariff for water use, usually in the range US$0.01-$0.05 for 20 L. All communities but one have a designated water management authority (e.g. COWSO).  Sanitation coverage varied widely, but all communities showed a need for improved sanitation at households and 37% of village populations currently have no access to household sanitation.  Many communities reported limitations to education due to insufficient classroom space.  Many communities also reported only seasonal trading of agricultural produce around harvest times, and two villages have limited market access due to poor road networks. The assessment team frequently reported a lack of documentation about existing infrastructure, including well completion reports and borehole logs. Additionally, static water levels could not be obtained from many boreholes at this time, which prohibited analysis of current aquifer characteristics. It is hoped that these issues will be addressed through the collaborative investigation currently underway between the University of Dodoma and the Ministry of Water and Irrigation. Technical Infrastructure All 36 villages currently have boreholes, which are the focus of this investigation. 24 boreholes are currently not operational. Of those 24, the following issues were noted as the primary cause:  In 4 villages, the system has never been operational, either because it was never fully constructed and commissioned or the pump was never installed.  In 10 villages, the installed hand pump is broken.  In 6 villages, the borehole seems to have been badly designed or constructed: the borehole is silting up or blocked, yield is sporadic and/or insufficient, or the dynamic head is beyond the capacity of the existing pump such that flows are minimal.  In 3 villages, the installed pump is electric, relying on electric grid or diesel power, and the community cannot afford to pay for the power so the pump has been shut off.  In 1 village, the pipe network is so badly broken and leaking that it does not flow. In the 12 villages where the borehole is currently operational, all have noted that rising costs of electricity or diesel fuel are threatening the sustainability of the water source. These villages have all requested an alternative power source, preferably solar. Many villages reported more than one issue with the water supply system, as shown in the figure below. Problems with power supply were the most common reason for inadequate water supply (28 locations) followed by problems with pipe networks (26 locations) and issues with broken or poorly functioning pumps (17 locations).

(1) “Borehole” includes casing and concrete apron, (2) “Pump” indicates need for replacement, (3) “Power” includes need for replacement source (i.e. solar panels), generator, grid connection, etc., (4) “Electric Controls” includes the control box and wiring, (5) “Storage” includes storage tank, (6) “Plumbing” includes pipe network and distribution, (7) “Other” indicates miscellaneous problems that do not fall into the former categories.

In addition, 12 of the 36 villages reported walking times greater than 30 minutes (and up to 70 minutes) to access water and require additional distribution points or an alternative water source that is more accessible.

2 Water Resources Information Where borehole yield could be measured, it ranged widely from less than 1 L/s to nearly 7 L/s and showed no clear regional trends. Some yields could not be established due to broken pumps. There was also no correlation between borehole yield and well depth, or between yield and borehole diameter. Measured yields were generally far below the requirement for domestic use, much less for irrigation.

However, a clear need exists for more studies that assess sustainability of groundwater extraction. An existing map of estimated aquifer productivity by the British Geological Survey did not prove useful for predicting borehole yield, indicating that the coarse resolution of that mapping is insufficient for project planning and site-specific information will need to be gathered. Given the strong seasonality of

3 groundwater recharge, it will be important to understand both seasonal and long-term thresholds for sustainable pumping. Water quality was generally adequate for consumption across the villages. Only three villages had nitrate levels above both the WHO and Tanzanian guidelines for drinking water.

Samples below detection are represented with zero concentration. Water points are grouped by region: (black bars), Kilimanjaro (blue), Mwanza (pink), Mara (yellow), Rukwa (gray), Singida (purple), and Tabora (orange). Only two villages had high fluoride levels, both in the where fluoride is known to be a concern. We recommend further testing fluoride in groundwater within the Mara and Kilimanjaro regions as part of any effort to improve water access there.

Samples below detection are represented with zero concentration. Water points are grouped by region: Kagera (black), Geita (green), Kilimanjaro (blue), Mwanza (pink), Mara (yellow), Rukwa (gray), Singida (purple), and Tabora (orange).

4 Socioeconomic Factors Many villages have an alternative source of water to compensate for their non-functioning borehole, such as a dam, shallow tube well or spring. All of the villages use their water points for domestic purposes. 10 of the 36 villages also use their water points for livestock watering. 34 of the 36 villages specified the desire to use water for agricultural purposes (livestock water, small-scale irrigation and/or horticultural practices) if more water was available. Other proposed uses of increased water services include small businesses such as car washing, commercial sale of water (through a proposed water bottling plant) and a dairy (one village has a dairy plant under construction). Three villages reported that they would use the water for environmental protection through tree planting.

Only 24 out of 36 villages reported statistics on sanitation coverage. The percentage varied widely, with household latrine access ranging from 10% to 96%. Out of a total population of 80,384 in those 24 villages, 50,827 (63%) people currently report some form of household latrine. Only 11 villages reported statistics on improved status of household sanitation facilities. The coverage ranged from 5% to 60%, with an average of 22% of people (9,252 out of 41,530) currently using improved facilities. While the current extent of sanitation coverage is commendable, there is still clearly a great need for improvement: 29,557 people (37%) in 24 villages currently have no access to household sanitation facilities. Improved sanitation coverage shows an even greater need, with an overwhelming majority (78%) of people using unimproved facilities. Tariffs for water collection are currently charged in 20 of the 36 villages. Prices vary greatly, ranging from Tsh. 20 (Tanzanian shillings) per 20 L bucket, to Tsh. 100 for 60 L, and up to Tsh. 50-100 per 20 L bucket. In one village, the tariff is set as Tsh. 2000 per household per year. The current status of tariff collection suggests that there is generally widespread willingness to pay for water services. NB: The current exchange rate is approximately Tsh. 2000 to US$1. Hence current tariffs for use range from $0.01-$0.05 for 20 L. Of the 16 villages where tariffs are not currently charged, 3 water points are managed by schools or health clinics and therefore do not charge for water, and 3 water points are currently managed by the

5 government’s District Water Engineer because they are not yet constructed (management will be transferred to a community authority once the system is commissioned). Of the other 10 villages without tariffs, 9 villages are reported to have a Village Water Committee or Community Water Supply Organisation (COWSO) but do not appear to charge tariffs for water use, and in 1 village there is no reported village water management authority. The locations where tariffs are not currently charged were concentrated in regions around : Mwanza, Mara and Kagera. Every village currently engages in agricultural activities, predominately livestock rearing and growing of staple crops (such as maize, groundnuts, sunflower, legumes, sorghum, paddy rice). Most villages reported seasonal trading of farm produce around harvest times. Two villages have market structures, one of which also has grain milling machines. Two villages reported constraints on market access and trading due to limited road networks. Every village reported some degree of participation in a village community bank program (VICOBA) for savings and loans. Many of these transactions were used for small business operations, including catering services, sewing machines and cloth for dressmaking/tailoring, milling machines, tree planting, renting chairs for festivals, poultry keeping, bee keeping, pottery, dairy cattle, carpentry, soap manufacturing, cattle dipping plant for hire, and other capital expenses for agriculture. Social services were also commonly reported uses for the loans. Religious entities were reported in all 36 villages. Churches of various denominations (including Roman Catholic, Tanzanian Assemblies of God, Anglican Church, African Inland Church and Free Pentecostal Church of Tanzania) were most prevalent, and mosques were also present in 26 villages. No other active non-governmental organization presence was reported in any villages. All 36 villages have at least one primary school (9 villages have more than one primary school) and 27 villages also have at least one secondary school. 21 villages reported that education was constrained by insufficient classroom space, teachers, housing for teaching staff and/or desks. One village reported no water service at its secondary school. Eight villages reported a need for new schools to be built, either because they don’t already have a school or severe overcrowding necessitates a new one. 21 villages currently have or are constructing health care facilities, predominately dispensaries (18) and health centers / clinics (4). Two villages have a district hospital within close proximity. The status of water and sanitation services at these facilities is unknown. Further Information Needed The preliminary site assessments provide valuable insights into some of the communities that will be part of the WE3 project, but were only the first step in the process. The following work is still needed:  Pump tests (48-72 hours in duration) to determine a sustainable aquifer yield.  Further dialogue with many community members, not just village leadership, to determine more specific needs for both water and solar power and to establish any criteria for system design, such as location. Ongoing dialogue will be a fundamental part of project planning and implementation.  Detailed trade-off analysis to optimize design of water and power system.  Collaboration established with local support entity (religious group or other NGO) to provide project support for the community, including facilitating dialogue, holding training workshops, providing education on system use, good hygiene behavior and sensitization to improved sanitation, and providing support for developing small businesses that leverage the new water and power system.

6 Appendix 1: Map of sites with completed preliminary assessments and additional sites that are part of the WE3 rehabilitation project.

7 Appendix 2: List of villages with completed preliminary site assessments.

Village Region Population Longitude (deg E) Latitude (deg) Ngara Mjini Kagera 20968 30.66 -2.50 Kumubuga Kagera 2158 30.96 -2.84 Ntanga Kibebea Kagera 9847 30.90 -2.88 Mugoma Kagera 3110 30.53 -2.52 Mukafigiri Kagera 2836 30.50 -2.61 Murubanga-Mumbisi Kagera 4167 30.81 -2.85 Nyabihanga-Murukakano Kagera 3136 30.55 -2.80 Murusagamba-Mulonzi Kagera 4855 30.75 -2.96 Mwangaza Kagera 5184 31.70 -2.65 Mnekezi Kagera 6198 31.71 -3.30 Nyang’omango Kagera 5122 31.70 -2.65 Ilemela Center Kagera 3888 31.73 -2.38 Kanyama Center Kagera 4567 31.69 -2.61 Nyisanzi Kagera 3579 31.73 -2.44 Mwabasabi Kagera 2000 31.71 -3.30 Bwanga Kagera 4785 31.81 -3.02 Igalula Kagera 2200 31.52 -2.66 Mubaba Kagera 2637 31.44 -3.28 Busiri Kagera 1800 31.09 -2.86 Minazi Mikinda Pwani 10286 38.66 -6.81 Mpiji Charcoal Dam Pwani 13714 38.94 -6.85 Fulwe Morogoro 6171 37.88 -6.75 Kidugalo Morogoro 2064 38.21 -6.78 Kasaki Morogoro 13714 36.98 -6.83 Mwimbi Rukwa 7242 31.67 -8.66 Mambwekenya Rukwa 3352 31.73 -8.73 Kasesya Rukwa 3203 31.31 -8.67 Matai Rukwa 3250 31.53 -8.30 Matai Rukwa 1289 31.53 -8.31 Mkowe Rukwa 986 31.43 -8.25 Mtutumbe Rukwa 1745 31.43 -8.41 Legezamwendo Rukwa 967 31.95 -8.76 Mwazye Rukwa 4447 31.74 -8.43 Kibutuka Lindi 1523 38.41 -10.02 Sangu “A” Mwanza 1234 33.08 -3.32 Sangu “B” Mwanza 960 33.07 -3.31 Isangu Mwanza 926 33.31 -2.74 Gurumwa Mwanza 1440 33.04 -3.31 Kimiza Mwanza 1392 33.46 -3.02

8 Village Region Population Longitude (deg E) Latitude (deg) Kilimo Makuyuni Kilimanjaro 4030 37.58 -3.40 Kilema Pofo Kilimanjaro 6200 37.53 -3.37 Kilototoni Kilimanjaro 5000 37.50 -3.41 Mabogini Kilimanjaro 6000 37.40 -3.45 NASAI Kilimanjaro 8032 37.06 -3.11 WIRI Kilimanjaro 1865 37.06 -3.10 Kisanjuni W/S Kilimanjaro 3250 37.67 -3.63 Shighatini W/S Kilimanjaro 1930 37.69 -3.72 Kisangara W/S Kilimanjaro 6700 37.60 -3.75 Lomwe W/S Kilimanjaro 2600 37.67 -3.71 Vuagha W/S Kilimanjaro 2300 37.69 -3.73 Mgandu&Majengo W/S Kilimanjaro 2760 38.09 -4.51 Makokane Kilimanjaro 1368 38.11 -4.35 Njoro and Ishinde Kilimanjaro 3595 37.68 -3.97 Emuguri Kilimanjaro 1773 37.64 -3.98 Unyankhanya Singida 3396 34.86 -4.88 Mdilu Singida 5632 35.00 -4.59 Msange Singida 5422 35.04 -4.65 Ngimu Singida 2908 35.08 -4.73 Sagara Singida 2569 35.11 -4.67 Mughanga Singida 2202 34.78 -4.51 Kinyagigi Singida 2970 34.94 -4.72 Mvae Singida 2075 34.96 -4.64 Ghalungangu Singida 2912 34.90 -4.54 Majiri Singida 4114 34.96 -6.05 Rungwa Singida 2428 33.52 -6.95 Nkonko Singida 3661 34.97 -6.35 Mkwese Singida 3068 34.81 -5.64 Msemembo Singida 6583 34.96 -5.50 Aghondi Singida 1097 34.85 -5.75 Mpola Singida 3819 34.92 -6.22 Sukamahela Singida 2842 35.00 -5.79 Iseke Singida 2862 35.02 -6.43 Muhalala Singida 1791 34.89 -5.78 Kapiti Singida 1528 34.88 -5.80 Londoni Singida 3677 35.08 -5.32 Kampala Tabora 6000 33.24 -4.76 Sojo Tabora 741 32.86 -3.94 Bukene Tabora 8000 32.88 -4.22 Mahene Tabora 6000 32.91 -4.08

9 Village Region Population Longitude (deg E) Latitude (deg) Ikindwa Tabora 6500 32.90 -4.12 Buhondo Tabora 6500 32.99 -3.98 Uhemeli Tabora 13500 33.26 -4.74 Songambele Tabora 7250 32.10 -4.90 Ukondamoyo Tabora 6170 32.01 -5.12 Matinje Tabora 4072 33.48 -4.04 Mwandihimiji Tabora 3763 33.57 -4.01 Bulumbela Tabora 3501 33.41 -4.17 Bulangamilwa Tabora 6015 33.40 -4.14 Mwalala Tabora 5058 33.91 -4.42 Mgongoro Tabora 3735 33.93 -4.39 Nyamatoke Mara 2343 33.99 -2.05 Mumagunga Mara 1611 33.47 -2.12 Igundu Mara 4118 33.36 -2.07 Bitaraguru Mara 4328 33.85 -1.94 Kiwasi Mara 1680 33.80 -1.88 Magunga Mara 3637 34.12 -1.80 Masurura Mara 3637 34.02 -1.63 Biatika Mara 3604 34.07 -1.75 Kyankoma Mara 4145 34.11 -1.67 Kitaramanka/Rwasereta Mara 3821 34.17 -1.73 Kamugendi Mara 4815 34.07 -1.63 Bumangi Mara 4783 34.02 -1.73 Korotambe Mara 3771 34.40 -1.27 Nyagisya Mara 2481 34.41 -1.39 Kebweye Mara 2574 34.52 -1.34 Nyarwana Mara 5084 34.44 -1.41 Magoto Mara 4223 34.56 -1.36 Gibaso Mara 8355 34.65 -1.53

10