Myths of the Rural Water Supply Sector

Considerable investments have been made in rural water supplies. For example, between 1978 and 2003 the World Bank alone lent approximately US$ 1.5 billion to the sector¹. Springs have been protected; wells have been dug or drilled, and fitted with handpumps; piped water schemes have been constructed.  However, the sobering fact is that progress is still much too slow, and rural water supply coverage significantly lags behind that of urban water supply:

• Eight out of ten people without access to an improved water supply live in a rural area.  This corresponds to 780 million rural dwellers, compared to 136 million urban dwellers²
• In sub-Saharan Africa, the disparity is even greater with 272 million rural dwellers lacking access to safe water, compared to 54 million in urban areas²
• In Africa, the number of rural dwellers without access to safe water supplies went up from 243 million in 1990 to 272 million in 2006.

However, not only has progress been slow, but, more shamefully, many of the constructed services have not continued to work over time. It has been estimated that only two out of three installed handpumps are working at any given time. Thousands of people, who once benefited from a safe drinking water supply, now walk past broken handpumps or taps and on to their traditional, dirty water point.  Despite the best intentions, the fact is that we, sector professionals and practitioners, have contributed towards the problem in numerous ways.

Over the years, some principles have been established as to what underpins the success and sustainability of rural water supply.  Expressions such as ‘demand responsive approach’, ‘appropriate technology’, ‘village level operation and maintenance’, ‘community management’ and ‘private sector participation’ have become well entrenched in policy and strategy. However, subscription to these and other principles has not yielded the results expected.  Sometimes they are very poorly implemented; in other cases they are simply inadequate.  It is thus time for us to reflect on some of the paradoxes and major myths of rural water supply service delivery.

This paper sets out the myths of the rural water supplies sector. As you read it, you may decide that some of these are not myths at all, but are glaringly obvious.  Take the example of the myth that “building water supply systems is more important than keeping them working”. Your reaction may be that this is not a myth, and that you are well aware of the importance of operation and maintenance. But then ask yourself what you are actually doing in your programmes to address this major problem.  Many of us are well aware that the issues set out in this paper are myths.  Nevertheless, most of us carry on as before. A rehabilitation programme tends to use the same management and maintenance principles and training (if any) even where these previously led to long term breakdown