SAFETY Contribution of Water Safety planning and implementation in - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

| Everyone Forever

MOVING TOWARDS WATER SAFETY

Contribution of Water Safety planning and implementation in promoting water quality in Kamwenge district

Kanweri Grace Water For People-Uganda 6TH NATIONAL CSO FORUM 21st September 2016

OUTLINE

• 1. About Water For People
• 2. Background to Water Safety Planning
• 3. Water quality testing results
• 4. Scope of the intervention
• 5. Before and after WSP
• 6. Lessons Learnt
• 7. Challenges and recommendations

UNIQUE PROGRAMMING

Sanitation as a Business

Water For People-Uganda promotes a market-based approach to sanitation by supporting sanitation businesses and testing different sanitation solutions to increase demand and supply of sanitation services.

Water as a Business

Water For People – Uganda works together with the private sector to promote water businesses that will charge fees to manage and maintain water systems, ensuring water flows in Kamwenge.

EF Replication

Water For People is known locally and nationally as an NGO with a unique approach to advancing water and sanitation in Uganda by focusing on access (Everyone) and sustainability (Forever).

Background to Water Safety planning

• Contributes to SDG 6

Aimed at improving water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous materials in water.

Target 6b encourages strengthening the participation of local communities in improving water management.

WATER QUALITY TESTING

• Comprehensive water quality analysis
• Microbiological analysis: Coliform Forming Units

(CFU/ 100ml)

• Physical analysis: Electrical conductivity, PH,

Turbidity.

• Chemical analysis: Iron

Presentation Outline

Water Quality Testing Results : CFU/100ML

36% 40% 12% 12% Classification of Sources by the number of CFU/100ml > 0 <= 25 > 25 <= 50 > 50 42 sources that had more than 25 CFU/100ml were selected to pilot the water safety planning intervention

Presentation Outline

Water Quality Testing Results per technology

• A sample of 321 water points were surveyed/ tested.
• Only 36% of the tested sources were found to have 0CFU/100ml.

Boreholes 24% Shallow Wells 2% Protected Spring 19% Public Stand Posts 47% Rain Water Catchment 2% Unprotected Sources 6%

Proportion of Source Types in Conformity with WHO Drinking Water Standards (0CFU/100ml)

NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE INTERVENTION

• 1. Dissemination of Water Quality results
• 2. Training at Sub county Level
• 3. WSP Team Development

Presentation Outline

NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE INTERVENTION

Water Source Assessment for risks Action planning and implementation

Presentation Outline

WSP- IMPLEMENTATION

SUB SEQUENT WATER QUALITY MONITORING

COMPARISON OF BEFORE & AFTER SITUATION

SN SC Community Name Name of the point Type of Point CFU/100ml_ March 2016 (before WSP) CFU/100ml_ July 2016 (after WSP) 4 Bihanga Kabingo|Kitash enya Bifakubaho shallow well Protected Hand pump 50 5 Buhanda Bujumiro|Kengy eya B Kengeya central shallow well Protected Hand pump 65 9 6 Buhanda Kakasi|Iryangab i 1 Iryangabi 111 water spring water spring 50 7 Buhanda Kakasi|Nsinda 1 Kyabwayo spring protected spring 49

8 Kamwenge Ganyenda Gayitano Shallow Well Protected shallow well 40 80

Most common risks

• latrines upstream of the

source within 30m from the water point.

• pollutants around the water

source eg animal excreta, washing.

• stagnant water on the

platforms, drainage channels of hand pumps and protected springs.

• Lack of fences around the

water sources .

• The loose pedestals of

the hand pumps at the base.

• Lack of runoff diversion

channels.

• Cracked slabs and

inspection covers.

Presentation Outline

COSTING FOR WATER SAFETY PLANNING Activity Cost District and sub county level training 1,200,000 UGX ($357) Community training at water source level 850,000 UGX ($250) Water quality monitoring/ quarter 100,000UGX ($30)

TEAMS/PARTICIPANTS INVOLVED

• District: DHI, County Health Inspectors, Water

Officer and CDO

• Sub county : CDO, Health Assistant, HPM, Sub

County Chief, LC3 Chairperson

• Parish- Area parish chief LC2 Chairperson
• Village/water source: Land Owner, Caretaker of

Source, Village LC1 and Water Source Chairpersons

LESSONS LEARNT

• Water quality testing is key to getting communities

appreciate water safety planning interventions

• Identification water safety issues through a participatory

process is important for success

• having the land owner on the team the WSP team is very

key; makes possible negotiation for land

• Having a team with complementary skills and strengths is

important

• None-Payment for water has an effect on WSP
• For more resilient cases, chlorination is preffered.

CHALLENGES

• Some of the land owners are not willing to give

the community more land.

• Relocating toilets within the Minimum Safe

Distance (MSD) of the water source (10- 15 meters) is a challenge.