Liberia Waterpoint Atlas€¦ · The Liberian Waterpoint Atlas is the result of a comprehensive...

Liberia Waterpoint Atlas Final Review Version

31.8.2011

Please send comments to Maximilian Hirn: [email protected]

Liberia

WASH Consortium

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.delafg.ec.europa.eu/en/images/logo_ECHO_EN.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.delafg.ec.europa.eu/en/echa/index.htm&h=455&w=515&sz=13&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=1atgfI42Iq8aTM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=131&prev=/images?q=european+commission+logo&gbv=2&svnum=10&hl=en&sa=G

https://www.ippc.int/cds_upload/1134062884664_Coats_of_Arms_Liberia.gif

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://warpost.blogsome.com/wp-admin/images/unicef logo.jpg&imgrefurl=http://warpost.blogsome.com/&h=200&w=200&sz=16&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=8qlVfyRCdfD1ZM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=104&prev=/images?q=unicef+logo&gbv=2&svnum=10&hl=en&sa=G

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://healing-malaria.info/LogoWorldBank150.jpg&imgrefurl=http://healing-malaria.info/News.html&h=150&w=150&sz=15&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=a44z55XGOIX2KM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=96&prev=/images?q=World+Bank+logo&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&sa=N

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Liberian Waterpoint Atlas is the result of a comprehensive mapping exercise carried out in 2011. Led

by the Ministry of Public Works, all improved waterpoints of Liberia were surveyed – over 10,000 in total.

This Atlas not only provides detailed maps of these, but also a systematic analysis of the collected data.

The in-depth information has yielded insights that provide the empirical basis for investment planning

and help formulate basic policy recommendations. Among the many aspects of Liberia’s waterpoint

infrastructure described in this Atlas, five critical insights and associated recommendations stand out:

Five Insights & Recommendations

A clear case for increased investment: There are over 10,000 improved waterpoints in Liberia, of which

just above 60% are fully functional. This is not enough. Over 800,000 Liberians are entirely uncovered,

and over 2 million lack adequate access. More than 1,700 schools do not have an improved waterpoint.

To ensure improved access for all Liberians and each school, another 10,000 points are needed. There is

thus a clear empirical case for funding an initial 8,200 points as envisaged in the Sector Strategic Plan.

Prioritize – lack of access is concentrated in a narrow corridor: More than 75% of Liberians without

adequate access to improved water are concentrated in a narrow “corridor of need” around major roads

and towns (see Map 4). Funding for communal waterpoints should thus be distributed between counties

based on relative lack of access and then prioritized across districts along the corridor of highest need.

To avoid the neglect of areas of intense want (zero access) but moderate population, 20% of funds

should be set aside for a special “no community left behind” program tackling remoter locations.

Maintenance must improve: Current breakdown rates are unacceptably high. Of the pumps built in

2010, 15% are already broken down. More than a third of those built in 2004 are. Three steps should be

taken to address this: Firstly, active community water committees significantly reduce the likelihood of

pump breakdown, yet thousands of points still have none. This needs to change. Secondly, spare-part

supply-chains need to be strengthened and more pump mechanics need to be trained. Finally, planning

and vetting of constructors must be improved.

Focus on Afridev pumps: More than 80% of all waterpoints in Liberia are of just one type – the

Afridev handpump. Moreover, Afridev pumps perform above average even when controlling for age and

other relevant variables. Future construction should thus focus as much as possible on Afridev pumps to

build on its good performance, and to realize efficiency gains e.g. by concentrating training of mechanics

and spare-part supply chains on a single model.

Strengthen coordination, decentralize capacity: To direct funding and enforce guidelines (e.g. on

pump type), coordination at the center needs to improve. To successfully construct and monitor

infrastructure, capacity at the periphery needs to rise. Waterpoint building activity by major NGOs

peaked in 2006-08 – now is the time for the Liberian government to take over.

2

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1

I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3

II. Scope and methodology of the mapping exercise ................................................................................ 3

Definition of a “improved” waterpoint ................................................................................................. 3

III. National Results ................................................................................................................................ 5

Total Number and Functionality ............................................................................................................... 5

Further characteristics of Liberia’s improved waterpoints ....................................................................... 9

Distribution, Coverage and Access ......................................................................................................... 12

Distribution of functional improved waterpoints relative to schools ................................................ 17

IV. Investment Requirements and Priorities ........................................................................................ 17

Investment Planning as set forth in the WASH Sector Strategic Plan .................................................... 17

Total required waterpoints (new and rehabilitated) .............................................................................. 18

Investment Prioritization ........................................................................................................................ 19

Five policy recommendations ................................................................................................................. 21

V. County Maps……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..24

Annex A: Estimated Cost of a New Improved Waterpoint ......................................................................... 42

Annex B: Waterpoints by District and Clan ................................................................................................. 43

3

I. Introduction

The Liberia Waterpoint Atlas is the product of a comprehensive mapping exercise carried out by the

Ministry of Public Works and its partners in the first half of 2011. Over 10,000 improved waterpoints

across all of Liberia’s counties, districts and clans have been mapped during this period. It is the first

time that a complete map of all improved waterpoints of Liberia has been made available. This Atlas

presents and analysis the data in detail, and proposes a set of distinct policy recommendations.

The waterpoint mapping exercise has been led by the Liberian Ministry of Public Works, with support

from the Ministry of Health and the Liberian Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information Services (LISGIS).

Assistance was also provided by national and international partners of the Liberian Government,

including the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), UNICEF, CHF/USAID, and the NGOs

that form the Liberian WASH Consortium, in particular OXFAM.

This Atlas is structured in four broad sections: The next section will outline the scope and methodology

of the mapping project, including all relevant definitions such as what is meant by a “improved”

waterpoint. This is followed by a chapter giving an overview of the key statistics, insights and maps at

the national level. Subsequently, the current Strategic Sector Plan is considered, and total investment

requirements and prioritization are discussed and key insights are summarized. Finally, county-level

maps are provided

All the waterpoint data that was used for the statistical analysis and maps in this Atlas is available online

in great detail and different formats (Stata, Excel, ESRI Shapefiles). To download the data, please visit

Liberia’s Water, Sanitation and Hygiene sector website at: http://www.wash-libera.org

II. Scope and methodology of the mapping exercise

This project mapped and surveyed all improved waterpoints in both urban and rural Liberia, covering

the entire national territory. The mapping exercise was thus comprehensive and not on a sample basis.

The data in this Atlas is up-to-date as of March 2011 for rural areas, and June 2011 for urban areas.

Definition of an “improved” waterpoint

The definition of an “improved” (or “protected”) waterpoint follows international and Government of

Liberia (GoL) standards. According to the international definition provided by the World Health

Organization and UNICEF, an improved waterpoint is “one that, by nature of its construction or through

active intervention, is protected from outside contamination, in particular from contamination with

faecal matter.”i

It is important to note that this definition is essentially a technical one – if a water source is constructed

in a way that one can assume it is protected, then the point is counted as improved. The water itself is

http://www.wash-libera.org/

4

not tested under this definition. Thus, for instance, a public standpipe that is technically fully functional

is assumed to be an improved source of water– the water itself is not being tested. This is a necessary

simplification, because it is generally not possible and cost efficient to test the water quality in a

laboratory for each and every waterpoint in large or remote areas.

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

Improved water sources Unimproved Water sources

Piped water into house or yard Unprotected spring/creek

Public tap or standpipe Unprotected dug-well

Pump on hand-dug well or borehole Water sold from handcart

Protected Spring / creek Tanker-truck

Rainwater collection Surface water (e.g. lake, river)

Protected dug well Bottled water (case-by-case)

This exercise mapped only waterpoints i.e. it excluded piped water (except public standpipes). Given the

current absence of piped water networks outside the capital Monrovia, and the limited nature even

within the capital city, a point-source map still gives a representative picture of the supply of improved

water in Liberia in general. For the calculation of required new points, however, the planned expansion

of piped water supplies in Monrovia, Buchanan, Kakata and Zwedru was taken into account.

The survey found that protected springs are very rare in Liberia and rainwater collection in improved-

tanks is all but absent. As will be shown in detail in the sections below, the vast majority of waterpoints

consists of manual pumps on top of protected hand-dug wells or boreholes, with some stand-pipes and

elevated tanks (water kiosks), especially in urban areas.

Liberia has many dug-wells without pump on top, but these were all classified as unimproved for the

purpose of this exercise. Thus, like all other unimproved sources, they are not included in the map.

Pictures 1 to 3: Examples of unprotected wells in Liberia

5

Wells without pumps have been classified as unimproved because they generally lack a lid, and even if

they do, these are usually (though not always) haphazardly constructed. Unimproved sources have not

been mapped, because it would have multiplied the workload without adding to the primary purpose of

this Atlas, which is to show where the population has access to improved waterpoints, and where it

does not, and how access to improved points could best be expanded.

III. National Results

Total Number and Functionality

The total number of improved waterpoints in Liberia is just above 10,000. Of these 6,371 (63.7%) are

technically fully functional, 1,098 (11%) are functional but with problems and 2,532 (25%) have been

classified as broken down systems.

Even among the 63.7% technically functional waterpoints, 1,019 report a perceived water quality

problem i.e. the water is not “Soft, Clean, Sweet” according to the users.ii . A wide range of complaints is

covered by this bad-quality indicator, from rusty, to salty, oily, colored or otherwise negatively affected.

In more than 300 cases, this is so serious that the waterpoints – though technically functional – have

actually been abandoned for drinking (though may still be used for tasks such as washing). The total

number of technically functional points that are actually in use for drinking is thus only 6,015 (60.1%)iii.

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

A further issue affecting actual use is seasonality. At least 935 of the functional, in-use waterpoints only

give enough water during the rainy season i.e. the number of fully functional, in-use waterpoints that

provide a steady supply of water throughout the dry season is only 5,080 (50.8% of all waterpoints).

Map 1 below shows the location of all functional, in-use waterpoints across Liberia (more detailed

county maps are provided in later sections). Lighter background tones indicate better average service,

calculated as a simple ratio of population per functional in-use waterpoints. Ideally, the population per

waterpoint should be 250 or lower, because technically a typical waterpoint’s capacity is limited to

servicing at most 250 to 300 persons safely and sustainably.iv This target figure is only reached in Bomi

county. Note that the ratio of (county) population per waterpoint does not take into account the

6

distribution of waterpoints relative to the population within an area. Thus, some sub-areas within a

county may have much worse service than the average.

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

7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Current Functionality by Construction Date

Functional

Impaired(functional withproblems or brokendown)

Table 3 breaks down the number of points by county, showing both the total and how many of these are

fully functional and in-use.

Table 3: Number of waterpoints per county by functionality

Alarmingly, among the 1,121 points that were constructed in the year 2010, 171 (15%) are already

broken down, and 122 (11%) report a problem. The percentage broken down rises steadily as one moves

back in time – of those points constructed in 2004, more than a third (35.7%) are broken down, and a

further 11% are reporting problems. Figure 1 shows the high breakdown rates and their increase over

time.

This rate of pump

breakdowns is unacceptably

and unsustainably high. As

will be discussed below,

community water

committees can be shown

to reduce the likelihood of

pump-breakdown and

increasing their incidence is

thus one way to address

this issue. Training more

local pump mechanics, and

improving the availability of

8

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

supervised.

Among the broken down or functionally impaired points, the cause of damage is most commonly related

to the pump, as shown in Table 4. Specifically, this ranges from issues like stolen handles and stolen

pump-heads to damage to u-seals and valves. Well related problems are the second largest category,

usually relating to spoiled, polluted or dry wells. It is likely that pump-related damages are much easier

and more cost-efficient to address, and rehabilitation efforts should thus prioritize points that do not

have well-related issues.

Table 4: Damage types by category

The high-demand for easily accessible waterpoints is shown by the fact that almost half of those

waterpoints that have technical problems or have broken down continue to be in use, even though

these are not improved anymore. The total number of waterpoints that are in use – whether or not

they are still fully functional and improved, is thus 7,667 at present (76.7% of all points).

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

In identifying waterpoints suitable for rehabilitation, stakeholders should focus on the subset of broken

down or impaired systems that are still in-use (indicating drinkable water) and have no well-damage

(which is usually the most expensive to fix). There are approximately 1,800 such points in the country.

9

Further characteristics of Liberia’s improved waterpoints

The Liberian Waterpoint survey collected a considerable amount of information on each waterpoint that

was mapped, which is summarized in this section. This information on the characteristics of the

waterpoints provides crucial additional planning inputs.

As Table 5 below highlights, over 90% of all improved waterpoints in Liberia are handpumps, and more

than 80% of all points are actually of just one type of handpump – the Afridev model. This is a significant

insight. Given the enormous predominance of Afridev pumps, there is a strong argument to be made

that future construction of handpumps should also focus on that model in order to make spare-part

supply chains and training of mechanics more efficient. As the information presented below shows, this

argument is reinforced by the relatively good performance of the pump in terms of breakdown rates.

Table 5: Waterpoint types in Liberia

The high percentage of functional and in-use Afridev pumps (62.7%) compared to models such as

Vergnet and Kardia is undoubtedly influenced by the fact that the average construction date of Afridev

(and India Mark) pumps is significantly more recent than that of Consallen, Kardia and Vergnet pumps.

While the average construction date of Afridev pumps is around 2006, the average construction dates of

the latter three types are between 1996 and 2000. Indeed, more than 90% of the current Afridev

handpumps were built after 2003 and while the percentage of Afridev handpumps today is over 80% of

all waterpoints, before 2003 it was only 62%. This suggests a post-conflict shift towards Afridevs.

However, more recent average construction is not the only reason for the good performance of the

Afridev pump. The Afridev model also performs better than average if one considers only the pumps

constructed after 2003. Among all pumps constructed in the last 8 years, 65% are fully functional, but

this figure rises to 67% for Afridev pumps alone. Econometric analysis confirms this. A logistic regression

confirms that controlling for age and other relevant variables, the probability for pump impairment (i.e.

10

the pump being broken down or functional but with problems) decreases significantly if the pump is an

Afridev pump. It also decreases significantly if the pump is managed by a community committee (i.e. if

there is local ownership and maintenance), if money is collected by that committee (either monthly or

upon a breakdown), and the closer the pump location is the Monrovia or a county capital (which makes

it easier to procure spareparts and know-how). v

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

It is interesting to note that in spite of some old waterpoints, most are actually of relatively recent

construction. More than 85% of Liberia’s improved waterpoints have been constructed since 2003, and

more than 60% since the last election in 2005.vii

The data on construction dates also

shows that building of waterpoints

accelerated enormously after the end of

the war as Liberians started to rebuild

their country and international actors

rushed in to meet emergency needs. This

emergency relief phase has peaked in

2007, with a slow decrease of annual

construction since. Indeed, the

construction for most major INGOs has

petered off after a peak in 2006-08 (this is

true for ACF, CCF,DRC, the EU, Living

Water, NRC, Solidarite, Tearfund, ZOA

Table 6: Construction date of waterpoints in Liberia

11

and UNICEF/UNHCR/UNMIL, with the emergency specialist Red Cross peaking even earlier in 2005). By

contrast, albeit still at a low level, the building activity of the Government of Liberia, communities,

private individuals and companies has steadily increased since 2005, and that of smaller NGOs has

remained fairly stable. This is a hopeful result showing that Liberians are slowly but steadily increasing

their share in reconstruction work, even as INGOs still play a large role in the sector.

The primary installers of waterpoints in Liberia since the war are listed in Table 7 below. Less than

twenty international NGOs have built over 3,500 waterpoints since 2003, or 45% of the total

construction. The remainder has been constructed by small NGOs, the Liberian government, private

individuals and communities, companies and churches. It is interesting to note that points installed by

communities and private individuals have one of the highest functionality rates, providing another

pointer towards the importance of local ownership.

Table 7: Main installers of handpumps after 2003

Another important variable related to ownership is whether a waterpoint is managed by a local

community. Overall, 57% (5,697) of all waterpoints reported to have a local water committee. Of these,

almost 80% (4,422) collected money for the maintenance of the point, but only 25% did so regularly

once a month, whereas over 50% only in case of a breakdown. As has been pointed out above, local

management by a water committee and fee collection both significantly decrease the likelihood of

breakdown.

12

Three questions that were only asked in urban communities are whether a waterpoint is regularly

treated (e.g. with Chlorine), whether water is sold by the gallon and if so, at what price. It emerged that

63% of the approximately 2,700 urban waterpoints are regularly treated, but that only 360 urban points

sell by the gallon. It should be noted that in some communities, water is sold by tanker trucks or small

carts, and payments are sometimes made for the act of fetching water from otherwise free sources.

These transactions have not been captured here. However, for the urban points that sell directly by the

gallon, more than 90% price water at 5 Liberty Dollars or less per gallon, the mean price being 4.3

Liberty Dollar.

Distribution, Coverage and Access

In Liberia as a whole, approximately 76% of the population lives within 1.5 miles of a fully functional, in-

use waterpoint. This may be referred to as coverage. The flipside of this is that 24% of the population,

that is, more than 800,000 Liberians are entirely uncovered i.e. outside a reasonable, walkable distance

of even just a single improved waterpoint. Map 2 below illustrates this.

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

13

Covered areas are highlighted in light-green, whereas dark-grey represents settled areas further than

1.5 miles from the next fully functional, in-use waterpoint. Light-grey areas are also beyond 1.5 miles

from the next waterpoint, but do not contain settlements. The coverage figure, however, is problematic

and overly optimistic, because it does not take into account how many persons there are in the vicinity

of each waterpoint. Thus, an area may be fully covered in the sense that every inhabitant is within 1.5

miles of a waterpoints, but if there are too many inhabitants for each point, many will not actually have

sustainable access to improved water.

According to the UNICEF WASH Technology Information Package (2010), the waterpoint types

predominantly employed in Liberia have a maximum capacity of 250-300 persons per point. viii More

than 250-300 persons per point cannot be adequately served, and the sustainability of the point will also

be negatively impacted due to overuse, breakage and well-depletion. As Map 1 and Table 8 highlight,

the average population per waterpoint in Liberia is generally significantly above 500 persons per point.

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

The measure of “coverage” is thus of limited use because it does not take into account how many

potential users share each point. “Population per point” provides an approximate measure of the

average number of users per point within a county, but is also sub-optimal because it does not take into

account that the population is very unevenly distributed within an area as large as a county or district.

Building waterpoints in one area of the county will lower the “population per point” ratio for the whole

county, even though only the inhabitants in the immediate vicinity of the new points actually benefit.

The ratio could be at under 250 persons per point, even as some areas of the county remain uncovered.

14

The most realistic measure of service availability is thus access. The access statistic only counts

waterpoints in the vicinity of the population. Access is defined as the percentage of the population that

can be supplied taking into account that each waterpoint only has a capacity of serving 250 persons in

an improved, sustainable manner, and that only waterpoints in the vicinity of a settlement can supply

that settlement. To illustrate this, imagine a city of 5,000 people who all live within 1.5 miles of one

single central waterpoint. This city would have coverage of 100%, because everyone is within 1.5 miles

of a point, but the access rate would only be 5%, because the single waterpoint can only supply 250 out

of the 5,000 inhabitants in an improved and sustainable manner.

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

15

Overall, access provided by improved waterpoints is only 40% in Liberia. In other words, the existing

waterpoint infrastructure in Liberia is only suitable to provide access for 1.4 million out of the total

population of 3.5 million (2008).

Viewed differently, approximately 2.1 million Liberians lack adequate access. Map 3 above shows how

the Liberians without access are distributed across the county. Thus, full access (green) means that there

is at least one waterpoint per 250 persons within that square planning area. Light-orange means that

within that cell, the population is 1-250 persons higher than the number that can be safely and

sustainably covered by the existing waterpoints in that area (i.e. a maximum of 250 persons per point).

As can be seen on Map 3 above, most persons without access are clustered together. As Map 4 below

highlights, there is actually a “corridor of need” that consists of the area that lies within 3 miles of a

paved and primary road or within 10 miles of a county capital. This “corridor of need” contains about 1.5

million (75%) of the Liberians currently without access to adequate improved water supply.

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

16

This same corridor is also the home of over 70% of Liberia’s population and approximately 80% of the

existing functional, used waterpoints. However, due to the very high population, even though the

existing waterpoints are already concentrated in the same area (even slightly disproportionately so),

these population dense areas is nevertheless where most absolute lack of access can be found.

This makes a very important point: While it is true that many remote settlements are severely

undersupplied, one must realize that the vast majority of those without improved and sustainable

access actually live close to roads and major towns.

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

17

Distribution of functional improved waterpoints relative to schools

Improved water supply is particularly important for schools, where children congregate in a

concentrated fashion and disease can easily spread.

Across Liberia, there are at least 4,136 registered schools according to the latest LISGIS survey, excluding

Bong county which was not captured in the available dataset. Of these schools, 1,703 are currently

lacking an improved, functional waterpoint that is within 0.25 miles of the school (i.e. 5-10 minutes

walking distance at casual speed), and 1,273 do not even have a waterpoint within 0.5 miles of the

school (i.e. 20-30 minutes walking distance).

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

IV. Investment Requirements and Priorities

Investment Planning as set forth in the WASH Sector Strategic Plan

Liberia’s recently developed WASH Sector Strategic Plan 2012-17 has created a basic framework and

guidance for sector financing over the next six years. With respect to waterpoints, the recent August

2011 meeting at Wulki Farms proposed the building of a total of 2,600 handpumps, and the

rehabilitation of an additional 5,600 pumps, as well as the training of 1,400 pump mechanics as outlined

below in table 10. The results of the waterpoint mapping exercise provide a strong empirical basis for

this ambitious plan, which would be a significant step towards addressing the identified needs.

18

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

Total required waterpoints (new and rehabilitated)

According to the Waterpoint Atlas analysis, achieving 100% communal access i.e. providing each

Liberian with an improved, reasonably close waterpoint “with no more than 250 users per point) would

require the construction or rehabilitation of approximately 8,775 points.

The figure of 8,775 required additional waterpoints takes into account that a major AfDB project to

introduce or expand piped coverage is already underway which will rehabilitate basic infrastructure and

establish “"2800 metered connections and 40 water kiosk”ix in Monrovia, Buchanan, Kakata and Zwedru.

This will introduce improved water supply capacity equivalent to almost 700 waterpoints.x

Building dedicated points for each school without an improved waterpoint within 0.25 miles would

require another 1,700 points (though detailed planning may find that some schools, especially in

Monrovia are close and small enough to share a point). The total of required new or rehabilitated points

would thus be approximately 10,600 waterpoints. Given ongoing annual population growth of above

2%, these estimates based on population figures from the 2008 census are likely an estimate on the

lower side.

It should be noted that the current Strategic investment plan is very optimistic about the costs,

assuming a very high number of points to be rehabilitated at costs considerably lower than building a

new point. However, at present there are only 3,630 points that have problems or are completely

broken down. Moreover, these points are not always at the same location where additional points are

actually required (e.g. at schools). Until community mobilization and pump mechanic training shows

effect, the high infrastructure depreciation rate may lead to much of the planned rehabilitation not

creating additional points towards the 10,500 target, but simply keeping newly built points from falling

into disrepair.

19

Even so - the 8,200 new and rehabilitated waterpoints proposed in the Strategic Sector Investment Plan

would be a big step forward towards alleviating critical need for safe water. The inclusion of pump-

mechanic training and community mobilization in the SAP are particularly critical components in light of

the information on breakdown rates presented above.

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

Investment Prioritization

The need for funding the construction and rehabilitation of over 8,000 handpumps as envisaged in the

Sector Strategic Plan finds a strong empirical basis in the above analysis of the waterpoint data. Beyond

this, the Waterpoint Atlas can help formulate principles to guide the prioritization of mobilized funding

(as well as detailed district-level planning during later implementation).

The Liberian WASH compact and the National Water Supply and Sanitation Policy (NWSSP) emphasize

“the need for increased coverage as a priority over improved service”xi This confirms two things – firstly,

at the national and county level, funding for construction and rehabilitation of waterpoints should be

distributed according to where the largest number of Liberians are without access.

Counties with a relatively higher level of access (e.g. Bomi) would still receive funding, but only in

proportion to their remaining need. This would then be in line with the national policy and WASH

compact goal of prioritizing the extension of access over the improvement of services. Building

disproportionately many points in a well-served county such as Bomi, which is already providing almost

full access (see Map 3, Table 8) would further improve service levels by lowering the population per

20

point, but not increase access once 100% is reached. Table 12 below shows the suggested prioritization

across counties by relative need.

At the county level, funding should be prioritized following a three-pronged approach: (a) a program for

schools; (b) a primary investment program for communal waterpoints; and (c) a “no community left

behind” special program targeting remoter locations with clear needs but outside the main corridor of

need where most people live and most lack of access is concentrated.

Table 12: Prioritization across counties by relative need

Funding allocated to schools should be distributed at county level to schools by need and efficiency.

Data on number of pupils was not available at the time of this analysis, but two available variables can

be used to rank school priority: Firstly, those schools currently furthest from a functioning improved

waterpoint should be prioritized over those which do not have a point within 0.25 miles, but still

relatively close. Secondly, efficiency gains may be realized if building activity initially focuses on schools

that are clustered together, so that a given point may be able to serve more than one school (provided

there are not too many pupils).

The primary funding program for communal waterpoints at county level should prioritize construction

and rehabilitation activity across districts and clans according to clusters of highest need. This would

again be in line with the principles espoused by the WASH Compact and national policy. This way of

allocating funds will tackle the “corridor of need” identified in the previous section head on. This is

where both the population and need is concentrated. In the example below, the “corridor of need”

which would receive priority in each district is identified for the example of Grand Bassa. Redder and

21

darker planning areas identify the areas with most persons without access. The associated districts

would be prioritized accordingly.

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

In addition to providing support first where absolute need is highest, there are also efficiency gains to be

realized by initially focusing on areas where need is concentrated (this will e.g. keep transport costs

down).

The disadvantage of this approach, however, is that areas that may have very low service but only

moderate population – especially if they are relatively remote – will not receive attention until priorities

along the “corridor of need” are met. Given limited funds and population growth, a pure allocation of

funds by highest absolute needs would unfairly disadvantage more remote areas.

Thus, up to 20% of total funding for communal points should be set aside for a special “no community

left behind” program. Such a program would identify planning areas with very low service (e.g. no

waterpoints at all) and at least moderate population, and then target these in particular. It is in these

more remote, less populated areas, that training of mechanics, and community mobilization programs

to educate about the advantages of an improved water supply may be most needed.

Five policy recommendations

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

22

A clear case for increased investment: There are over 10,000 improved waterpoints in Liberia, of which

just above 60% are fully functional. This is not enough. Over 800,000 Liberians are entirely uncovered,

and over 2 million lack adequate access. More than 1,700 schools do not have an improved waterpoint.

To ensure improved access for all Liberians and every school, another 10,000 must be built or repaired.

There is thus a clear empirical case for funding an initial 8,200 points as envisaged in the Sector Strategic

Plan.

Prioritize – lack of access is concentrated in a narrow corridor: More than 75% of Liberians without

adequate access to improved water are concentrated in a narrow “corridor of need” around major roads

and towns (see Map 4). Funding for communal waterpoints should thus be distributed between counties

based on relative lack of access and then prioritized across districts along the corridor of highest need.

To avoid the neglect of areas of intense want (zero access) but moderate population, 20% of funds

should be set aside for a special “no community left behind” program tackling remoter locations.

Maintenance must improve: Current breakdown rates are unacceptably high. Of the pumps built in

2010, 15% are already broken down. More than a third of those built in 2004 are. Three steps should be

taken to address this: Firstly, active community water committees significantly reduce the likelihood of

pump breakdown, yet thousands of points still have none. This needs to change. Secondly, spare-part

supply-chains need to be strengthened and more pump mechanics need to be trained. Finally, planning

and vetting of constructors must be improved.

Focus on Afridev pumps: More than 80% of all waterpoints in Liberia are of just one type – the

Afridev handpump. Moreover, Afridev pumps perform above average even when controlling for age and

other relevant variables. Future construction should thus focus as much as possible on Afridev pumps to

build on its good performance, and to realize efficiency gains e.g. by concentrating training of mechanics

and spare-part supply chains on a single model.

Strengthen coordination, decentralize capacity: To direct funding and enforce guidelines (e.g. on

pump type), coordination at the center needs to improve. To successfully construct and monitor

infrastructure, capacity at the periphery needs to rise. Waterpoint building activity by major NGOs

peaked in 2006-08 – now is the time for the Liberian government to take over.

24

COCounty Maps

BOMI COUNTY Dowein 13188 118 99 20 42 3

Klay 23397 235 136 39 69 5

Senjeh 30027 207 130 14 63 4

Suehn Mecca 17507 178 55 28 41 10

84119 738 420 101 215 22

Working and

Protected*

Area

(Sq. Miles)PopuationDistrictCounty

Broken Down

System

Working But with

problems

Bomi Total

Bomi

Schools without

water points

All Newwith rehab

(optimistic scenario)

Dowein 133 96% 4 18000 4000

Klay 172 97% 6 27000 6000

Senjeh 231 89% 18 81000 18000

Suehn Mecca 318 80% 19 85500 19000

200 91% 47 211500 47000

Estimated Cost

County District

Bomi

Bomi Total

Water Points Required

for 100% AccessAccess

Population per

Functional Water

Point**

Percentage of type

functional & in-use

Number % Number % %

Afridev 696 92% 388 92% 56%

Consallen 3 0% 0 0% 0%

India Mark 52 7% 32 8% 62%

Unknown or Unclear (e.g. head missing/stolen) 3 0% 0 0% 0%

Grand Total 754 100% 420 100% 56%

Type of Waterpoint

All waterpoints Functional & in-use

2006

53%

316

Pump Problem 51%

Well Problem 14%

Apron Problem 14%

Other 21%

Percentage of Water Points with committees

Average Age

BOMI

Number impaired (broken or with problems)

Problem Type

25

Percentage of type

functional & in-use

Number % Number % %

Afridev 753 91% 430 94% 57%

Consallen 24 3% 9 2% 38%

India Mark 21 3% 11 2% 52%

Kardia 16 2% 5 1% 31%

Not a manual pump 1 0% 1 0% 100%


Grand Total 824 100.00% 457 100.00% 55%

Type of Waterpoint All waterpoints Functional & in-use

Boinsen 8210 104 16 1 12 N/A

Fuamah 28823 362 4 1 2 N/A

Jorquelleh 79129 503 121 19 74 N/A

Kokoyah 3702 101 5 3 8 N/A

Kpaai 25949 259 43 4 34 N/A

Panta 16473 173 39 5 24 N/A

Salala 43617 342 13 9 16 N/A

Sanoyeah 30330 424 6 4 4 N/A

Suakoko 29180 240 54 10 30 N/A

Tukpahblee 11731 143 29 3 9 N/A

Yeallequelleh 36097 379 67 12 21 N/A

Zota 20240 327 60 15 31 N/A

333481 3357 457 86 265 N/A

CountyBroken Down

System

Working But

with problems

Working and

Protected*

Area

(Sq. Miles)PopuationDistrict

Bong

Bong Total

Schools without water

points*****

All Newwith rehab


Boinsen 513 49% 26 211500 166000

Fuamah 7,206 3% 138 117000 106500

Jorquelleh 654 35% 234 621000 295500

Kokoyah 740 33% 13 1053000 1014500

Kpaai 603 47% 72 58500 72000

Panta 422 50% 43 324000 222500

Salala 3,355 8% 178 193500 106000

Sanoyeah 5,055 3% 136 801000 773000

Suakoko 540 39% 85 612000 472000

Tukpahblee 405 58% 24 382500 340500

Yeallequelleh 539 45% 100 108000 100000

Zota 337 62% 45 450000 289000

730 32% 1094 4932000 3703500

County

Bong

Bong Total

Estimated CostWater

Points

Required

for 100%

Access

Access

Population per

Functional

Water Point**

District

2005

55%

351

Pump Problem 41%

Well Problem 36%

Apron Problem 17%

Other 5%

BONG

Average Age



Problem Type

BONG COUNTY

26

Belleh 15257 919 1 2 4 15

Bokomu 9873 228 14 5 4 8

Bopolu 17719 888 110 26 18 27

Gbarma 15851 324 73 23 24 15

Gounwolaila 11196 278 5 0 2 17

Kongba 13492 1162 17 2 6 12

83388 3799 220 58 58 94

Broken Down

System

Working But with

problems

Schools without

water points

Working and

Protected*

Gbarpolu Total

Gbarpolu

Area (Sq.

Miles)PopuationDistrictCounty

All Newwith rehab


Belleh 15,257 42% 71 319500 298500

Bokomu 705 30% 36 162000 130500

Bopolu 161 83% 30 135000 30000

Gbarma 217 80% 21 94500 21000

Gounwolaila 2,239 11% 48 216000 209000

Kongba 794 30% 58 261000 233000

379 43% 264 1188000 782000

Estimated CostWater Points

Required for 100%

Access

AccessPopulation per Functional Water

Point**County District

Gbarpolu

Gbarpolu Total

Percentage of type

functional & in-use

Number % Number % %

Afridev 333 97% 217 99% 65%

India Mark 4 1% 3 1% 75%

Kardia 1 0% 0 0% 0%



Grand Total 343 100% 220 100% 64%


GBARPOLU COUNTY

27

County District PopuationArea (Sq.

Miles)

Working and

Protected*

Working But with

problems

Broken Down

System


points

Commonwealth2 34893 8 77 10 21 0

District # 1 24612 450 24 18 28 18

District # 2 25722 723 36 7 18 34

District # 3 52417 904 79 43 41 35

District # 4 27562 457 9 2 9 33

Neekreen 32563 202 37 17 24 29

Owensgrove 13914 113 17 6 11 7

St. John River City 10010 168 7 2 4 15

221693 3025 286 105 156 171Grand Bassa Total

Grand Bassa

All Newwith rehab


Commonwealth2 363 63% 0**** 0 0

District # 1 1,026 19% 114 513,000 352,000

District # 2 715 26% 110 495,000 407,500

District # 3 664 33% 184 828,000 534,000

District # 4 3,062 10% 121 544,500 506,000

Neekreen 880 46% 8**** 36,000 8,000

Owensgrove 818 39% 96 432,000 372,500

St. John River City 1,430 16% 41 184,500 163,500

727 33% 819 3,033,000 2,343,500

Estimated Cost

County DistrictPopulation per Functional

Water Point**Access

Water Points

Required for 100%

Access

Grand Bassa

Grand Bassa Total

Percentage of type

functional & in-use

Number % Number % %

Afridev 409 73% 241 84% 59%

Consallen 59 11% 19 7% 32%

India Mark 2 0% 1 0% 50%

Kardia 31 6% 14 5% 45%



Vergnet 34 6% 4 1% 12%

Grand Total 559 100% 286 100% 51%


2006

32%

261

Pump Problem 59%

Well Problem 8%

Apron Problem 28%

Other 5%

GRAND BASSA

Average Age



Problem Type

GRAND BASSA

COUNTY

28

Commonwealth 6547 77 39 5 8 2

Garwula 26936 313 99 15 33 14

Golakonneh 23518 695 44 9 26 20

Porkpa 42615 494 54 30 35 18

Tewor 27460 246 72 27 35 19

127076 1825 308 86 137 73

Schools without

water pointsCounty District Popuation

Area

(Sq.Miles)

Working and

Protected*

Working But with

problems

Broken Down

System

Grand Cape Mount

Grand Cape Mount Total

All New

with rehab

(optimistic

scenario)

Commonwealth 168 72% 9 40500 -5000

Garwula 272 67% 47 211500 43500

Golakonneh 535 40% 91 409500 287000

Porkpa 789 33% 142 639000 411500

Tewor 381 56% 55 247500 30500

413 48% 344 1548000 767500


for 100% AccessCounty District

Estimated Cost

Population per Functional

Water Point**Access

Grand Cape Mount

Grand Cape Mount Total

Percentage of type

functional & in-use

Number % Number % %

Afridev 420 77% 263 85% 63%

Consallen 50 9% 17 6% 34%

India Mark 37 7% 15 5% 41%

Kardia 11 2% 6 2% 55%


Vergnet 1 0% 0 0% 0%

Grand Total 545 100% 308 100% 57%


Grand Cape Mount

2003

76%

223

Pump Problem 56%

Well Problem 12%

Apron Problem 17%

Other 15%

Average Age



Problem Type

GRAND CAPE

MOUNT

29

B'hai 10367 242 18 8 25 5

Cavala 13314 494 20 3 16 11

Gbao 12324 680 18 6 19 12

Gboe-Ploe 6271 638 0 1 1 9

Glio-Twarbo 9030 531 17 1 6 4

Konobo 24705 623 10 2 6 17

Putu 16426 421 33 1 17 3

Tchien 32821 515 67 17 28 14

125258 4144 183 39 118 75

Broken Down

System

Schools without

water pointsCounty District Popuation

Area

(Sq.Miles)

Working and

Protected*

Working But with

problems

Grand Gedeh

Grand Gedeh Total

All Newwith rehab


B'hai 576 63% 32 144000 28500

Cavala 666 31% 49 220500 154000

Gbao 685 30% 45 202500 115000

Gboe-Ploe No water point 0% 33 148500 141500

Glio-Twarbo 531 47% 24 108000 83500

Konobo 2,471 9% 103 463500 435500

Putu 498 50% 41 184500 121500

Tchien 490 48% 78 351000 193500

684 34% 405 1822500 1273000


Water Point**Access

Water Points

Required for 100%

Access

Estimated Cost

County District

Grand Gedeh

Grand Gedeh Total

Percentage of type

functional & in-use

Number % Number % %

Afridev 305 89.18% 175 95.63% 57%

Consallen 1 0.29% 0 0.00% 0%

India Mark 1 0.29% 0 0.00% 0%

Kardia 7 2.05% 4 2.19% 57%

Submersible pump 1 0.29% 0 0.00% 0%

Unknown or Unclear (e.g. head missing/stolen) 3 0.88% 0 0.00% 0%

Vergnet 24 7.02% 4 2.19% 17%

Grand Total 342 100.00% 183 100.00% 54%


2005

57%

157

Pump Problem 56%

Well Problem 28%

Apron Problem 7%

Other 9%

Average Age



Problem Type

Grand Gedeh

GRAND GEDEH

30

Barclayville 11573 208 41 4 14

Bleebo 1710 43 8 1 1

Bolloh 1917 49 0 0 1

Buah 643 107 5 1 0

Dorbor 2364 91 0 0 7

Dweh 928 33 9 0 0

Felo-Jekwi 2011 63 4 0 1

Fenetoe 1696 16 0 0 5

Forpoh 1545 29 0 0 2

Garraway 9525 130 33 2 2

Gee 2543 27 16 1 0

Grand Cess Wedabo 10809 163 22 2 8

Kpi 1597 71 3 0 2

Lower Jloh 1285 137 0 0 8

Nrokwia-Wesldow 1876 90 10 0 4

Trenbo 3631 96 19 0 1

Upper Jloh 1573 100 2 0 4

Wlogba 687 35 3 0 0

57913 1488 175 11 60


pointsCounty District Popuation Area (Sq.Miles)

Working and

Protected*

Working But

with problems

Grand Kru

Grand Kru Total

Percentage of type

functional & in-use

Number % Number % %

Afridev 192 82% 146 83% 76%

Consallen 16 7% 14 8% 88%

India Mark 4 2% 2 1% 50%

Kardia 12 5% 9 5% 75%


Vergnet 10 4% 3 2% 30%

Grand Total 235 100% 175 100% 74%


2007

97%

56

Pump Problem 32%

Well Problem 29%

Apron Problem 11%

Other 29%

Grand Kru

Average Age



Problem Type

GRAND KRU

COUNTY

31

All Newwith rehab


Barclayville 7 282 36% 21 94500 21000

Bleebo 2 214 82% 2 9000 2000

Bolloh 0 No water point 0% 9 40500 40500

Buah 1 129 83% 2 9000 2000

Dorbor 0 No water point 0% 16 72000 72000

Dweh 0 103 89% 1 4500 1000

Felo-Jekwi 4 503 50% 5 22500 8500

Fenetoe 0 No water point 0% 5 22500 22500

Forpoh 0 No water point 0% 6 27000 27000

Garraway 9 289 26% 9 40500 9000

Gee 0 159 100% 0 0 0

Grand Cess Wedabo 9 491 47% 33 148500 64500

Kpi 2 532 0% 8 36000 25500

Lower Jloh 0 No water point 0% 11 49500 49500

Nrokwia-Wesldow 1 188 96% 2 9000 2000

Trenbo 9 191 95% 2 9000 2000

Upper Jloh 0 787 22% 11 49500 42500

Wlogba 1 229 100% 0 0 0

45 331 56% 143 643500 143000

Access

Water Points

Required for

100% Access

Estimated Cost

Broken Down

System

Population per

Functional

Water Point**

County District

Grand Kru

Grand Kru Total

32

LOFA COUNTY

Foya 73312 238 59 4 21 54

Kolahun 60557 866 132 23 39 38

Quardu Boundi 18785 129 34 5 23 6

Salayea 23578 485 60 6 38 10

Vahun 17137 150 12 3 16 7

Voinjama 42790 737 141 13 61 26

Zorzor 40704 1206 83 7 45 42

276863 3811 521 61 243 183

Lofa

Lofa Total

Working But with

problems

Broken Down

SystemCounty District Popuation Area (Sq.Miles)

Working and

Protected*

Schools without

water points

All Newwith rehab


Foya 1,243 23% 251 1129500 1042000

Kolahun 459 47% 151 679500 462500

Quardu Boundi 553 41% 46 207000 109000

Salayea 393 56% 56 252000 98000

Vahun 1,428 18% 62 279000 212500

Voinjama 303 70% 76 342000 83000

Zorzor 490 45% 120 540000 358000

531 43% 762 3429000 2365000

Population per

Functional Water

Point**

AccessCounty District

Lofa

Lofa Total


Required for

100% Access

Percentage of type

functional & in-use

Number % Number % %

Afridev 778 94% 502 96% 65%

Consallen 41 5% 13 2% 32%

India Mark 2 0% 0 0% 0%

Kardia 3 0% 1 0% 33%



Grand Total 829 100% 521 100% 63%


2006

76%

304

Pump Problem 54%

Well Problem 37%

Apron Problem 7%

Other 3%

Lofa

Problem Type



Average Age

33

2006

34%

267

Pump Problem 55%

Well Problem 19%

Apron Problem 13%

Other 13%

Problem Type

Margibi


Average Age


MARGIBI COUNTY

Firestone 61988 153 134 18 37 22

Gibi 14250 214 12 3 4 19

Kakata 88704 398 266 17 86 22

Mambah Kaba 44981 222 116 25 77 20

209923 987 528 63 204 83

County

Schools

without water

points

Margibi Total

Margibi

Working and

Protected*

Area

(Sq.Miles)

Broken Down

System

Working But

with

problems

PopuationDistrict

All Newwith rehab


Firestone 463 45% 125 562500 370000

Gibi 1,188 17% 54 243000 218500

Kakata 333 63% 155 697500 337000

Mambah Kaba 388 49% 126 567000 210000

398 52% 460 2070000 1135500

County District

Margibi

Margibi Total


Required for

100% Access

AccessPopulation per Functional

Water Point**

Percentage of type

functional & in-use

Number % Number % %

Afridev 554 65% 365 69% 66%

Consallen 12 1% 4 1% 33%

India Mark 55 6% 34 6% 62%

Kardia 3 0% 1 0% 33%

Not a manual pump 148 17% 97 18% 66%

Other handpump model 3 0% 2 0% 67%

Submersible pump 2 0% 2 0% 100%


Vergnet 10 1% 0 0% 0%

Grand Total 853 100% 528 100% 62%


34

Maryland Gwelekpoken 10060 125 12 1 5 3

Harper 38024 122 112 12 34 5

Karluway#1 8494 131 20 0 16 3

Karluway#2 17159 166 34 7 25 9

Nyorken 10057 78 12 3 10 5

Pleebo/Sodoken 43223 178 109 23 48 6

Whojah 8921 81 4 2 4 7

135938 881 303 48 142 38

PopuationDistrictCounty

Schools

without water

points

Maryland Total

Working and

Protected*

Area

(Sq.Miles)

Broken Down

System

Working But

with problems

All Newwith rehab


Gwelekpoken 12 31% 29 130500 109500

Harper 114 72% 46 207000 46000

Karluway#1 20 52% 21 94500 38500

Karluway#2 34 52% 41 184500 72500

Nyorken 12 28% 32 144000 98500

Pleebo/Sodoken 109 55% 83 373500 125000

Whojah 4 11% 36 162000 141000

305 52% 288 1296000 631000

County

Maryland Total

Maryland


Required for

100% Access

Access

Population per

Functional Water

Point**

District

Percentage of type

functional & in-use

Number % Number % %

Afridev 389 76% 260 67% 67%

Consallen 13 3% 3 1% 23%

India Mark 45 9% 21 5% 47%

Kardia 1 0% 0% 0%



Vergnet 57 11% 16 4% 28%

Grand Total 509 100% 303 78% 60%


2005

69%

190

Pump Problem 63%

Well Problem 21%

Apron Problem 15%

Other 1%

Problem Type

Maryland



Average Age

MARYLAND COUNTY

35

2007

44%

620

Pump Problem 46%

Well Problem 21%

Apron Problem 22%

Other 11%

Problem Type

Montserrado

Average Age



Careysburg 29712 133 84 3 29 1

Commonwealth1 11876 38 58 2 20 1

Greater Monrovia 970824 57 863 165 228 331

St. Paul River 71831 176 303 35 73 37

Todee 33998 295 87 13 51 1

1118241 699 1395 218 401 371Montserrado Total

Montserrado

Working But

with problems

Broken Down

SystemCounty District Popuation

Area

(Sq.Miles)

Working and

Protected*

Schools without

water points

All Newwith rehab


Careysburg 354 71% 36 162000 50000

Commonwealth1 205 32% 54 243000 166000

Greater Monrovia 885 28% 2430 10935000 9559500

St. Paul River 237 60% 279 1255500 877500

Todee 391 57% 68 306000 82000

686 35% 2867 12901500 10735000

Population per

Functional

Water Point**

AccessCounty District

Montserrado

Montserrado Total


Required

Percentage of type

functional & in-use

Number % Number % %

Afridev 1379 63% 917 66% 66%

Consallen 41 2% 19 1% 46%

elephant pump 27 1% 25 2% 93%

India Mark 245 11% 160 11% 65%

Kardia 36 2% 28 2% 78%

Not a manual pump 390 18% 222 16% 57%



Vergnet 8 0% 2 0% 25%

Grand Total 2185 100% 1398 100% 64%


MONTSERRADO

COUNTY

36

Boe & Quilla 18262 322 9 1 7 17

Buu-Yao 40007 327 61 7 17 27

Doe 35918 494 41 10 56 25

Garr-Bain 61225 153 67 5 28 18

Gbehlay-Geh 32176 217 73 11 12 25

Gbi & Doru 8131 791 13 4 19 6

Gbor 10875 51 0 0 0 14

Kparblee 11424 112 13 6 21 6

Leewehpea-Mahn 26883 153 46 11 52 17

Meinpea-Mahn 24157 268 38 4 27 12

Sanniquellie Mahn 25370 187 95 18 23 2

Twan River 37479 287 11 3 7 49

Wee-Gbehyi-Mahn 32934 166 78 21 42 10

Yarmein 22718 211 35 6 12 7

Yarpea Mahn 21647 147 26 6 15 9

Yarwein Mehnsonnoh 25584 396 45 6 31 15

Zoe-Gbao 27236 131 24 5 8 30

462026 4413 675 124 377 289

Schools

without water

points

Area

(Sq.Miles)PopuationDistrictCounty

Nimba

Nimba Total

Broken Down

System

Working But

with problems

Working and

Protected*

Percentage of type

functional & in-use

Number % Number % %

Afridev 1081 91% 625 93% 58%

Consallen 27 2% 8 1% 30%

India Mark 50 4% 25 4% 50%

Kardia 20 2% 10 1% 50%




Vergnet 2 0% 1 0% 50%

Grand Total 1192 100% 675 100% 57%


NIMBA COUNTY

2005

67%

501

Pump Problem 45%

Well Problem 24%

Apron Problem 10%

Other 21%

Nimba

Problem Type

Average Age



37

All Newwith rehab


Boe & Quilla 2,029 15% 86 387000 359000

Buu-Yao 656 34% 123 553500 469500

Doe 876 29% 120 540000 309000

Garr-Bain 914 81% 189 850500 735000

Gbehlay-Geh 441 42% 82 369000 288500

Gbi & Doru 625 28% 34 153000 72500

Gbor No water point 6.5%** 48 216000 216000

Kparblee 879 35% 36 162000 67500

Leewehpea-Mahn 584 43% 86 387000 166500

Meinpea-Mahn 636 38% 66 297000 188500

Sanniquellie Mahn 267 74% 35 157500 14000

Twan River 3,407 8% 150 675000 640000

Wee-Gbehyi-Mahn 422 57% 64 288000 67500

Yarmein 649 44% 62 279000 216000

Yarpea Mahn 833 29% 61 274500 201000

Yarwein Mehnsonnoh 569 42% 73 328500 199000

Zoe-Gbao 1,135 6% 62 279000 233500

County District

Nimba


Required for

100% Access


Water Point**

38

RIVERCESS

COUNTY Beawor 3854 211 3 0 5 5

Central Rivercess 8303 694 14 1 2 12

Doedain 13041 399 12 7 4 13

Fen River 12630 99 28 1 18 10

Jo River 8921 279 9 1 8 11

Norwein 13900 234 25 5 8 18

Sam Gbalor 3714 143 4 0 2 9

Zarflahn 7146 75 31 4 9 4

71509 2134 126 19 56 82Rivercess Total

Working and

Protected*

Area

(Sq.Miles)PopuationDistrictCounty


points

Rivercess

Broken Down SystemWorking But with

problems

All Newwith rehab


Beawor 1,285 2% 18 81000 63500

Central Rivercess 593 30% 37 166500 156000

Doedain 1,087 27% 50 225000 186500

Fen River 451 52% 27 121500 55000

Jo River 991 20% 40 180000 148500

Norwein 556 41% 45 202500 157000

Sam Gbalor 929 26% 16 72000 65000

Zarflahn 152 53% 14 63000 17500

504 36% 247 1111500 849000

District

Rivercess

Rivercess Total

Estimated CostWater Points Required for

100% AccessAccess


Water Point**County

Percentage of type

functional & in-use

Number % Number % %

Afridev 177 86% 118 94% 67%



Vergnet 23 11% 5 4% 22%

Grand Total 206 100% 126 100% 61%


2004

53%

75

Pump Problem 73%

Well Problem 9%

Apron Problem 15%

Other 3%

Rivercess

Problem Type



Average Age

39

RIVERGEE

COUNTY Chedepo 10518 336 39 0 12 6

Gbeapo 10934 78 22 1 3 4

Glaro 4992 362 3 0 3 2

Karforh 5829 134 8 3 1 3

Nanee 6002 95 1 0 0 8

Nyenawliken 5159 95 24 4 2 0

Nyenebo 5703 135 9 1 11 6

Potupo 7464 320 43 2 11 8

Sarbo 5320 209 17 3 14 3

Tuobo 4868 185 20 0 9 8

66789 1949 186 14 66 48

CountySchools without water

points

River Gee Total

River Gee

Working and

Protected*

Area

(Sq.Miles)

Broken Down

System

Working But with

problemsPopuationDistrict

All Newwith rehab


Chedepo 270 71% 16 72000 30000

Gbeapo 497 51% 24 108000 94000

Glaro 1,664 14% 22 99000 88500

Karforh 729 35% 25 112500 98500

Nanee 6,002 8% 27 121500 121500

Nyenawliken 215 90% 5 22500 1500

Nyenebo 634 43% 18 81000 39000

Potupo 174 65% 11 49500 4000

Sarbo 313 70% 9 40500 9000

Tuobo 243 64% 11 49500 18000

359 53% 168 756000 476000

County District

River Gee

River Gee Total

Estimated Cost


for 100% AccessAccess


Water Point**

Percentage of type

functional & in-use

Number % Number % %

Afridev 228 82% 162 87% 71%

India Mark 14 5% 8 4% 57%

Kardia 3 1% 3 2% 100%



Vergnet 26 9% 11 6% 42%

Grand Total 279 100% 186 100% 67%


2007

76%

80

Pump Problem 50%

Well Problem 18%

Apron Problem 15%

Other 18%

RiverGee

Problem Type

Average Age



40

Bodae 3539 107 0 0 0 0

Bokon 4373 54 0 0 0 0

Butaw 3432 93 16 6 5 3

Dugbe River 9239 261 27 5 4 21

Greenville 15715 33 57 11 5 4

Jaedae 3539 113 3 2 0 0

Jeadepo 7895 648 2 2 0 30

Juarzon 6088 76 15 9 3 1

Kpayan 10661 390 43 12 7 20

Kulu Shaw Boe 8555 511 17 2 2 2

Plahn Nyarn 6677 108 19 9 2 2

Pynes Town 3067 300 7 1 8 6

Sanquin Dist# 1 2118 141 9 2 1 2

Sanquin Dist# 3 3152 173 0 0 0 6

Sanquin Dist#2 3256 121 3 1 1 4

Seekon 7024 360 0 0 0 7

Wedjah 4061 241 11 3 10 4

102391 3730 229 65 48 112

PopuationDistrictCounty

Schools

without

water points

Sinoe

Sinoe Total

Working and

Protected*Area (Sq.Miles)

Broken Down

System

Working But with

problems

Percentage of type

functional & in-use

Number % Number % %

Afridev 313 90% 212 93% 68%

Consallen 10 3% 3 1% 30%

India Mark 3 1% 2 1% 67%

Kardia 18 5% 11 5% 61%


Vergnet 1 0% 0% 0%

Grand Total 346 100% 229 100% 66%


2007

75%

113

Pump Problem 39%

Well Problem 42%

Apron Problem 18%

Other 2%

Sinoe

Problem Type

Average Age



SINOE

COUNTY

41

All Newwith rehab


Bodae No water point 0% 15 67500 67500

Bokon No water point 0% 23 103500 103500

Butaw 215 73% 9 40500 2000

Dugbe River 342 53% 28 126000 94500

Greenville 276 89% 7 31500 7000

Jaedae 1,180 12% 15 67500 60500

Jeadepo 3,948 7% 37 166500 159500

Juarzon 406 68% 10 45000 3000

Kpayan 248 65% 34 153000 86500

Kulu Shaw Boe 503 37% 24 108000 94000

Plahn Nyarn 351 69% 12 54000 15500

Pynes Town 438 52% 12 54000 22500

Sanquin Dist# 1 235 89% 4 18000 7500

Sanquin Dist# 3 No water point 0% 26 117000 117000

Sanquin Dist#2 1,085 39% 9 40500 33500

Seekon No water point 0% 37 166500 166500

Wedjah 369 43% 16 72000 26500

447 47% 318 1431000 1035500

Sinoe

Sinoe Total

County


Required for

100% Access


Water Point**District

Annex A: Estimated Cost of a New Improved Waterpoint

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

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

APPROXIMATE DEPTH OF 13 METERS OR 40 FEET

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST

A. DIRECT MATERIA ESTIMATE

1.0 1.2M X 0.6 Re-in forced concrete culvert pc 20 100.00 2,000.00

2.0 1.2m diameter Re-in forced concrete well top pc 1 100.00 100.00

3.0 ¼” aggregate Cu.m 1 40 40.00

4.0 Beach sand Cu.m 2 20 40.00

5.0 4” concrete blocks Pc 45 0.45 20.25

6.0 Cement Bag 10 10.00 100.00

Sub- total: Direct materials estimate cost USD$ 2,300.25

B.WELL PROTECTION

1.0 Afridev Hand pump complete for installation units 1 375 375.00

2.0 Vandal Proof jacket units 1 50 50.00

3.0 PVC GLUE Can 1 15 15.00

4.0 PVC Cleaner Can 1 15 15.00

5.0 PTFE Tape roll 2 5 10.00

Sub- total: well protection USD$465.00

B. TRANSPORTATION/OPERATION

1.0 Fuel for mobilization and decentralization Gal 40.00 4.75 190

2.0 Gasoline for dewatering pump Gal 10 4.50 45

3.0 Fuel for material transportation Gal 75 4.75 356.25

Sub- total: Transportation/Operation

USD$591.25

D. LABOR/MANPOWER

1.0 Supervisor(1) m/d 7 15.00 105.00

2.0 Well technicians(4) m/d 7 10. 280.00

Sub-total labor/manpower 385.00

GRAND TOTAL USD$3,741.5

Note: Manufacturing on site can reduce cost; however equipment may be needed and cost may very depending on the location of well site.

Followin the Sector Investment Plan assumptions, and recognizing that 10-20% flexible cost component should be added, and transport costs to

more remote areas included, an average price of US$ 4,500 was assumed.

Annex B: Waterpoints by District and Clan

Note – these tables will be added in the final version that will be distributed to the counties. If you are

interested in clan-level maps and statistics now, please visit the WASH sector website to download the

full dataset and district maps: http://www.wash-liberia.org

i This definition is provided on the official website of the WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation: http://www.wssinfo.org/ ii Reported quality problem are not based on laboratory tests, but refers to users reporting the water not to be

“Soft, Clean, Sweet”, but instead e.g. rusty, colored, salty or otherwise negatively affected. iii If one adjusts for the number of taps (i.e. a higher capacity kiosk with 10 taps is counted as 10 waterpoints

instead of one), then this figure rises to 6296. iv UNICEF, WASH Technology Information Packages – for UNICEF WASH Programme and Supply Personel; 2010. See

entries for Afridev, India Mark and Vergnet pumps. v Logit regression of impaired (yes/no) on a number of variables.

. logit impaired age afri ccommittee cinstal nearmonr near_county pay

Iteration 0: log likelihood = -5844.4267





Logistic regression Number of obs = 9002

LR chi2(7) = 526.21

Prob > chi2 = 0.0000

Log likelihood = -5581.3205 Pseudo R2 = 0.0450

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

impaired | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]

-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------

age | -.0476075 .0044719 -10.65 0.000 -.0563722 -.0388427

afri | -.3360468 .0625796 -5.37 0.000 -.4587006 -.2133929

ccommittee | -.6047069 .0476676 -12.69 0.000 -.6981337 -.5112801

cinstal | -.8203917 .1155421 -7.10 0.000 -1.04685 -.5939332

nearmonr | .0728497 .0229518 3.17 0.002 .0278651 .1178344

near_count~p | 1.277389 .1307318 9.77 0.000 1.021159 1.533618

pay | -.286416 .1396687 -2.05 0.040 -.5601616 -.0126703

_cons | 95.1287 8.963188 10.61 0.000 77.56117 112.6962

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ vi Second image from: UNICEF, WASH Technology Information Packages – for UNICEF WASH Programme and

Supply Personel; 2010. vii

Note that age is unknown for approximately 1,000 points. This are disproportionately broken down points and thus likely of relatively older construction. viii

UNICEF, WASH Technology Information Packages – for UNICEF WASH Programme and Supply Personel; 2010. See entries for Afridev, India Mark and Vergnet pumps. ix http://www.afdb.org/en/projects-and-operations/project-portfolio/project/p-lr-e00-003/ [September 2011]

x It is assumed that each piped high-capacity urban water kiosk supplies water equivalent to at least 10 regular

handpumps, and that each metered domestic connection will supply 5 families of 5. Thus, the additional access provided by the AfDB project will be equivalent to almost 700 waterpoints that can supply 250 persons each [Total equivalent number = (40*10 + (5*5*2800/250))= 680]. xi Liberia WASH Compact, Final Draft, p.6;

http://www.wash-liberia.org/

http://www.wssinfo.org/

http://www.afdb.org/en/projects-and-operations/project-portfolio/project/p-lr-e00-003/

Liberia Waterpoint Atlas€¦ · The Liberian Waterpoint Atlas is the result of a comprehensive...

Documents

Transcript of Liberia Waterpoint Atlas€¦ · The Liberian Waterpoint Atlas is the result of a comprehensive...