bsf borehole status review final - rural water supply thanks to the ministry of water resources and...

Status Review of BSF’s borehole drilling

component in South Sudan (2006-2012)

Government of South Sudan

Department for International Development (DFID)

Lucie Leclert – BSF WASH monitor

BMB/Euroconsult Mott MacDonald

Acknowledgements

The BSF Secretariat would like to thank in particular all the grant recipients, including the grant

recipients from previous BSF phase, for their time and efforts to execute this status review.

Special thanks to the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation, and especially to Eng. Isaac

Liabwel, Under Secretary of the MWRI, Peter Mahal Dhieu, Director General of Rural Water

Supply & Sanitation, Emmanuel Parmenas, Director General of Planning and Manhiem Bol

Malek, Director Water Supply and Development for their availability, regular feedback and advice.

Lucie Leclert

[email protected]

[email protected]

Status Review of the BSF drilling activities (2006-2012)

Euroconsult / BMB Mott MacDonald ii

Content

Chapter Title Page

List of Abbreviations iv

Executive Summary v

1. Introduction to BSF 1

2. Background 2

3. Purpose 4

4. Concept 4

4.1 Functionality vis-à-vis sustainability ______________________________________________ 4

4.2 Conceptual framework ________________________________________________________ 5

5. Methodology 7

5.1 Materials for data collection ____________________________________________________ 7

5.2 Method for data collection _____________________________________________________ 8

5.3 Limitations of the status review methodology ______________________________________ 9

6. Results of the Boreholes’ Status Assessment 9

6.1 Information received __________________________________________________________ 9

6.2 BSF Borehole functionality rate ________________________________________________ 10

6.3 Analysis of the reasons for non-functionality ______________________________________ 10

6.4 Analysis of the reasons for reduced functionality ___________________________________ 12

6.5 Analysis of the main factors that influence functionality ______________________________ 13

6.6 Other factors that can influence functionality ______________________________________ 15

7. Feedback from NGOs on their drilling activities implementation and impact of the

BSF monitoring approach 17

7.1 Types of contract used and its impact on borehole sustainability ______________________ 17

7.2 Impact of the introduction of independent drilling supervision _________________________ 19

7.3 Feedback from NGOs on their training component _________________________________ 20

8. Conclusion 21

9. Recommendations 24

10. Literature 26


Euroconsult / BMB Mott MacDonald iii

Annexes

Annex 1 BSF IA extention. WASH Monitor ToR 28

Annex 2 Institutional and legal context of the WASH Sector 30

Annex 3 Spare parts : Background, Status and views for the future 32

Annex 4 Water quality : Background, current status and indicators 34

Annex 5 Some definitions 35

Annex 6 Borehole Status Review Package: Note sent to the NGOs 37

Annex 7 Borehole Status Review Package : Data Collection Sheet 42

Annex 8 Borehole Status Review Package : Questionnaire to NGOs 44

Annex 9 Key Dates of the Status Review 45

Annex 10 Total boreholes drilled for BSF per NGO and per State 46

Annex 11 Records received per NGO, State and Phase and functionality status 48

Annex 12 Average cost per completed borehole per grant recipient per BSF phase 50

Annex 13 Supporting tables for Unit costs analysis 54

Annex 14 Combined Lessons learned BSF : WASH 56

Annex 15 Examples of types of trainings provided by NGOs 58

Tables

Table 1. BSF Phases, financial envelopes and periods. ................................................................. 1

Table 2. Percentage of population with access to improved water source (various sources) ......... 2

Table 3. Contribution of BSF borehole drilling and repair/rehabilitation activities to MDGs ............ 3

Table 4. Information to collect during the BSF borehole field assessment ..................................... 8

Table 5. Number and percentage of non-functional boreholes reported on per BSF phase......... 11

Table 6. Reasons for actual non-functionality ............................................................................... 11

Table 7. Number of boreholes with reduced functionality and reasons for it................................. 13

Table 8. Breakdown of the functionality status depending on the activeness of the WUC ........... 13

Table 9. Breakdown of the functionality status per type of facilities .............................................. 14

Table 10. Breakdown of the functionality rate per type of underlying geology .............................. 15

Table 11. NGOs’ selection of drilling supervisor ............................................................................ 20

Figures

Figure 1. Conceptual framework : classification of operational status of a borehole ...................... 5


Euroconsult / BMB Mott MacDonald iv

List of Abbreviations

BoQ Bill of Quantities

BSF-IA Basic Services Fund – Interim Arrangement

BSF-IAe Basic Service Fund – Interim Arrangement extension

CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement

CWD County Water Department

DFID Department for International Development

GoS Government of Sudan

GRoSS Government of Republic of South Sudan

JAM Joint Assessment Mission

LS Lump Sum

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MDTF Multi Donor Trust Fund

MWRI Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation

NBHS National Baseline Household Survey

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

O&M Operation and Maintenance

PMA Pump Mechanic Association

PWD Payam Water Department

RWSS Rural Water Supply and Sanitation

SDWS State Directorate of Water and Sanitation

SHHS Sudan Household Health Survey

SPLM Sudan People’s Liberation Movement

SSWICH South Sudan Water Information Clearing House

WASH Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene

WES Water Environment Sanitation (Database)

WIMS Water Information Management System

WUC Water User Committee


Euroconsult / BMB Mott MacDonald v

Executive Summary

In South Sudan, many NGOs are involved in the Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) sector.

Over the four rounds of BSF (2006-2012), 29 NGOs received funding for drilling new boreholes. A

total of 578 hand pump boreholes have been drilled under BSF, providing access to safe water to

144,500 people (based on 250 people per borehole1), assuming all water points are still

functional2.

To guide NGOs towards a more consistent, efficient and sustainable way to implement drilling

activities and to engage in capacity building activities, advice was provided to gradually bring the

NGO sector in line with MWRI sector guidelines and recommendations. Improvements to the

sustainability of borehole drilling, operation and maintenance can be achieved through the

implementation of the following recommendations:

� MWRI and the BSF Secretariat strongly recommended the use of Bill of Quantities (BoQ)

instead of Lump-Sum (LS) contracts;

� MWRI and the BSF Secretariat strongly recommended the need to systematically carry out a

geophysical survey before the start of any drilling activity;

� MWRI and the BSF Secretariat strongly recommended that the services of a full-time drilling

supervisor is used, preferably from the local authorities;

� MWRI and the BSF Secretariat strongly recommended that there is an increased focus on

training and capacity building to ensure the sustainability of the boreholes.

The aim of this status review, requested by DFID, was first, to assess the current operational

status of BSF boreholes drilled between 2006 and 2012, through a borehole functionality

assessment, and, second, to evaluate the impact of the recommendations provided to the

implementing agencies, through requesting information and feedback on how they have been

implementing their drilling activities and the soft component associated to it. The main limitations

of this status review included the risks of biased information (as the data was collected mainly by

the NGOs that constructed the boreholes) and the fact that it took place during the rainy season,

reducing the possibility to access some boreholes.

Regarding the borehole functionality assessment, 69% of the newly drilled boreholes were

assessed, with a good coverage per State and BSF phase. The 31% of the boreholes on which

no information was received are mostly the inaccessible boreholes, or the boreholes made by

NGOs that have withdrawn from the area; implying that these might also be the boreholes with a

higher occurrence of breakdowns or reduced functionality.

The functionality rate as established by the assessment was high, reaching 96.5%. The

boreholes are relatively new, which contributes to the high functionality rate. The assessment of

1 The number of beneficiaries for one borehole is estimated to 250, as, in the Technical Guidelines ‘for the Construction

and the Management of Borehole with Handpump (MWRI, 2009), it is indicated that it is 500 beneficiaries in emergency

situation and 250 beneficiaries for normal situation. As it is impossible to define ‘normal’ situation’ (as it greatly varies

per areas in South Sudan) . Not to over-estimate, it was decided to count on 250 beneficiaries per borehole, keeping in

might that the reality is between 250 and 500. 2 Various other water supply activities were funded under BSF, mostly including the rehabilitation of 535 existing

boreholes, providing renewed access to close to 134,000 people.


Euroconsult / BMB Mott MacDonald vi

functionality status went one step further by analysing the reasons for reduced functionality or

breakdown. Out of the total reported boreholes, 76.8% were fully functional. Non-functional

boreholes were mainly as a result of a technical break down. Water quality was also a reason for

not using a borehole. The main reasons for reduced functionality were difficulties with pumping

and an objectionable taste or colour.

Factors that can influence functionality are numerous and interrelated. One of the key findings of

this status review is that the existence of a Water User Committee (WUC) appears to have a

positive impact on functionality rate. Therefore, it is important to continue providing training of

WUC, with a special focus on early warning signs and preventive maintenance. Refresher WUC

trainings will also help communities and water pump caretakers to remain active and to continue

collecting fees for potential repair needs. Boreholes located in health facilities had a higher

functionality rate compared with community boreholes or boreholes located in schools.

The feedback from the NGOs on the way they implement drilling activities demonstrated that BoQ

contracts, geophysical surveys and drilling supervision are more and more practiced. Efforts to

systematically implement those recommendations should continue to be advocated, as it is

believed to have a positive impact on borehole functionality and sustainability.

There is a general consensus amongst NGOs that lack of (preventive) maintenance is a result of

lack of ownership, which depends on the extent to which communities value water. NGOs have

been actively engaging in training activities in parallel to their drilling activities, including training

of WUC as well as pump mechanics. From an ownership perspective, repair should be executed

by communities or the local pump mechanics (and not by NGO). Donors should restrict funding to

those activities that will enable communities to execute preventive maintenance and the small

repairs. Examples of such activities are the implementation of refresher WUC trainings,

continuous sensitisation of communities on the need to pay for the delivery of water, provision of

tool kits, refresher training of pump mechanics, supporting the County Water Department (CWD)

in having an updated list of pump mechanics as well as the repair activities that have been

performed, activities related to the development of Pump Mechanics Associations (PMA) and the

private sector for the provision of spare parts. Rehabilitation however requires the services of

contractors.

Rehabilitation of a borehole from a cost perspective is more efficient than drilling a new borehole

(provided that the reasons for the status of the borehole are technical and can be solved). One

key recommendation for future funding programs could thus be to focus on rehabilitation. That

would help increase the low functionality rate county wide (30-50% of the boreholes in South

Sudan are non-functional, according to the Water Policy, 2007) in the most cost effective way.


Euroconsult / BMB Mott MacDonald 1

1. Introduction to BSF

After decades of civil war3, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed in January

2005. This was a turning point in South Sudan’s history. Since the CPA, the Government of

Republic of South Sudan (GRoSS), with support of international donors, has been actively

engaging in activities to improve its citizen’s access to basic services. Written in 2005, The Sudan

Joint Assessment4 (JAM) sets the framework for the consolidation of peace, and for attaining

broad-based growth, poverty reduction and sustained human development and presents the

requirements for reconstruction and development for the six year interim period between the CPA

and the referendum for independence of South Sudan. Reaching the targets for improving access

to basic services and developing infrastructure are key priorities.

This is the context in which the Basic Services Fund (BSF) was established, initiated by the

Department for International Development of the UK (DFID). Its overall goal was to expand

access to education, health and water and sanitation to communities recovering from conflict.

While it was originally supposed to end in June 2008, the fund was extended and other donors

started to contribute (Government of Canada, the Netherlands and Norway). Since its start, 4

phases have been consecutively implemented. Up to today (November 2012), a total of

96,093,529 GBP has been spent on education, health and WASH projects (Table 1).

Table 1. BSF Phases, financial envelopes and periods.

Phase Total Contract (GBP) Managed Funds (GBP) NGO grants Grant Periods

BSF1 17,984,643 16,221,447 14 From 1-04-06 to 31-12-08

BSF2 23,568,485 21,554,792 25 From 1-01-09 to 31-06-10

BSFIA 42,676,292 39,970,000 38 From 1-07-10 to 31-12-11

BSFIA e 20,000,000 18,347,290 26 From 1-01-12 to 31-12-12

Total 104,229,420 96,093,529

Since 2006, this integrated approach contributed to the establishment of operational primary

schools, primary health clinics, drinking water points and latrines; in parallel with capacity

building, including training of teachers and health professionals, Water Users Committees (WUC)

and pump mechanics, and management training of local beneficiary groups and County and

State authorities. The strong capacity building and training component has aimed at ensuring the

sustainability of the investment, and that access to basic services is maintained at minimum

levels.

The last phase of BSF (BSF-IAe) focused on providing basic services in the health and education

sector, and ensuring that supported facilities (health facilities and schools) have access to

improved water sources and sanitation.

3 The second civil war started in 1983 and ended in January 2004. 4 Carried out jointly by the World Bank and the United Nation, with the full endorsement, guidance and participation of the

Government of Sudan (GOS) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM).



2. Background

General context

Though South Sudan is generally well endowed with water resources, it faces major challenges in

terms of access to water, as a large part of the existing infrastructure was neglected or even

destroyed during the war. Data on trends shows limited progress since 1990 (JAM, 2005). At the

signing of the CPA in January 2005, only 27% of the population of 8 million inhabitants had

access to improved water supply (Water Policy, 2007), The number of water points was

estimated to 6,500, with 65% out of order (JAM, 2005). The total population per water point

ranged from 1,000 to 64,000 and average water collection journeys in un-served areas were up to

8 hours (JAM, 2005).

Different sources indicate that the situation in terms of access to improved water sources is

improving. One of the JAM objectives was that, at the end of 2011, 3,500 boreholes would have

been drilled and equipped with hand pumps (3,000 new boreholes and 500 rehabilitated

boreholes). According to the WIMS5, the number of water points in the country is around 10,000

as of 2010, which shows that the target has been reached. However, the functionality rate in 2011

still seems to be low: The Water Policy (2007) and the WASH Sector Strategic Framework (2011)

indicate that 30-50% of the water points are non-operational at any time in the different States.

A great deal still needs to be done to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Though

difficult to estimate precisely, the percentage of population having access to improved water

source is an indicator monitored by various sources throughout the year. The Sudan Household

Health Survey (SHHS) 2006 and 2010 shows an increase of the percentage of population having

access to improved water source from 48.3 % in 2006 to 68.7% in 2010 (according to the WHO

definition of access6). Table 2 summarises the different estimates provided by each source.

Table 2. Percentage of population with access to improved water source (various sources)

Source 19902 2004 2005 2006 2009 2010

NBHS1

55% tot pop

53% rural pop

67% urban pop

SHHS 48.3% tot pop 68.8% pop

Water

Policy

27% tot pop

JAM Limited improvement between 1990 - 2004

25-30% rural

pop

1 NBHS: National Baseline Household Survey

2 Baseline MDG

The current monitoring method assesses progress solely on the basis of the types of facilities used. It

does not take into account other important parameters, such as the availability of adequate quantities

5 The MWRI has a Department called Water Information Management System (WIMS) Department, created to manage

an integrated database that provides a systematic way of gathering information about water to assist in decision making at

all levels of the Water Sector. 6 http://www.wssinfo.org/definitions-methods/introduction/



of water for domestic use, the number of service hours available, the distance to a water source, or the

time household members spend to access sources and facilities (SPHERE project, 2012). Drinking

water quality is also not taken into account as there is still limited capacity to test water quality in the

country7. Though it is becoming a key priority to the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation

(MWRI), water quality monitoring is currently conducted in an uncoordinated way by line ministries,

humanitarian agencies and NGOs (see Annex 4 for more details on the current capacity for water

quality monitoring and testing in South Sudan). When taking into account the above mentioned

parameters as well as the estimated low functionality rates of boreholes in South Sudan, the

actual access of population to improved water sources has been estimated to reduce to 34%,

according to the South Sudan Development Plan 2011-2013 (SSDP)8. If one takes 2010 as the

baseline, then the target set in 2005 in the JAM to double rural safe water from the 2004 baseline

of 25-30% by the end of 2011 has not been reached.

Annex 2 provides an overview of the Institutional and legal context of the WASH sector.

Rural water supply achievements through BSF

In South Sudan, many NGOs are involved in the rural water supply sector. Over the four rounds

of BSF, 29 NGOs have received funds for drilling and repair/rehabilitation of new boreholes.

Besides drilling, they have also engaged in activities to ensure the sustainability of the borehole,

following the recommendations of the BSF Secretariat. A total of 578 new hand-pump boreholes

(including the target of 27 boreholes for the on-going BSF-IAe phase) were drilled and 535

boreholes were repaired or rehabilitated9. A definition of maintenance, repair and rehabilitation is

provided in Annex 5. In Annex 10, the breakdown of boreholes drilled per NGO for each BSF

phase is provided10

.

MDG 7, Target 10 is: ’To reduce by half the proportion of people without access to safe drinking

water for 2015’. Considering a total population of South Sudan of 10 million people, BSF has

contributed to increasing the access to improved water sources to 2.7% of the population (see

Table 3).

Table 3. Contribution of BSF borehole drilling and repair/rehabilitation activities to MDGs

No of boreholes

under BSF

People served/borehole Total population served % of population in 2012

Emergency Normal Emergency Normal Emergency Normal

New 578 500 250 289,000 144,500 2.9% 1.4%

Rehab 535 500 250 267,500 133,750 2.7% 1.3%

Total 556,500 278,250 5.6% 2.7%

7 Multi-parameter field test kits exist and are, in some cases, used by NGOs. 8 In the SSDP, the percentage of 34% of people with access to improved water sources is taken as a baseline for 2010. It

does not distinguish rural or urban areas. However, the objectives for urban and rural areas are set both independently

but both based on this 34%, which seems inaccurate. The target set for 2013 for urban and rural areas are respectively:

45% and 40%. 9 The focus on repair and rehabilitation started with BSF-IA. Before that, those boreholes were not clearly reported on. 10 For BSF-IAe, the total number of drilled boreholes indicated is the total target for the phase. The actual number drilled

as per the end of QPR 3 for BSF-IAe is 16.



3. Purpose

Borehole functionality is a major challenge in South Sudan. The National Water Policy (echoed in

the WASH sector Strategic Framework) states that only 30-50 % of the boreholes are functional

in South Sudan at any time.

Throughout the last six years that BSF facilitated drilling and rehabilitation of boreholes in South

Sudan, the BSF Secretariat has gradually optimised its monitoring approach and the related

advice given to the implementing agencies in order to improve the sustainability of the boreholes

drilled. As the management of the BSF by Euroconsult / BMB Mott MacDonald comes to an end

by the end of December 2012, DFID requested the BSF Secretariat to conduct a status review of

the drilling activities since 2006. The ToR of the WASH Monitor for the execution of this status

review is provided in Annex 1.

The purpose of this status review is twofold :

- to assess the current operational Status of BSF boreholes drilled between 2006 and

2012, through a borehole functionality assessment

- to evaluate the impact of the recommendations provided to the implementing agencies,

through NGO’s feedback on how they implement drilling activities

4. Concept

4.1 Functionality vis-à-vis sustainability

Functionality is a simple snapshot view of whether or not water supply systems are working at the

time of inspection. It cannot on its own tell anything about the reasons for the particular state that

the water point is in, or why it may be providing an adequate service, intermittent service or no

service at all. Functionality data are of limited value, but they are often the best indication

available of inadequacies in sustainable service provision.

The sustainability of services is a challenge that professionals in the water sector have been

concerned about for many years. Sustainability is defined here as “continues to work over time

and ‘with the indigenous human and financial resources available’. (If the inputs are external e.g.

donor/NGO, then can it be termed sustainable?). Functionality on the other hand is about whether

a service is operating at a particular point in time. The partial functionality or non-functionality of a

service may provide a trigger for more detailed investigations of sustainability11

.

11 After Richard C Carter et al. ; WaterAid, UK: IRC Symposium 2010, Pumps, Pipes and Promises - User financing of

rural hand pump borehole water services; from www.washcost.info.



4.2 Conceptual framework

Figure 1 summarises the degrees in types of ‘operational status’ of a borehole. It was developed

based on observations and discussions in the field.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework : classification of operational status of a borehole

The approach followed for the borehole functionality assessment goes beyond a standard

functionality assessment. It aims to get substantial information on the current operational status of

BSF’s newly drilled boreholes by:

� Analysing the degree of functionality (fully functional, reduced functionality, or non-functional);

� The problems that led to reduced functionality or non-functionality;

� The reasons why those boreholes have not been repaired;

� The limiting factors that jeopardise their functionality.

As depicted in Figure 1, a borehole can be in use but still having a reduced functionality. The

approach for this survey is to quantify those different degrees of functionality so as to reach a

Serious breakdown

Rehabilitation needed

Functional but hard to pump

Functional but water taste/colour issues

In use

Not in use

Constructed at unfavourable

location

Bad water quality

No pump mechanic came

(transport or availability issue)

Functional but turbid water

Functional but low yield

(throughout the year)

What is the

operational status

of the borehole ?

No spare part available

The community has not

informed anyone (yet)

Functional but no water in the dry

season

Completely functional

The community is not able (yet)

to pay for the repairs



better understanding of the main factors that have an impact on borehole sustainability (some of

which could potentially lead to a break down). The reasons for reduced functionality can be :

� Low yield throughout the year

Low yield means a lesser yield than the yield of a hand pump (700 litres per hour). A low yield

can be an aquifer characteristic; in that case this would have been found out during analysis of

the test-pumping results. It can also be due to a borehole completion problem, for instance the

borehole has been sited at the wrong location, has not been drilled deep enough, has not been

installed properly, or not properly developed. Other (technical) reasons can include well

diameters (Larger Diameter wells recharge quicker and can sustain higher abstraction rates),

clogging of the filter screen or even a screen with too small a filter size, the grain size of the

packing material around the well which can create locally lower permeability (This can be caused

by the grouting material or sand being forced lower down around the screen).

� Seasonal water supply, i.e. the borehole will have a reduced yield in the dry season, or even

dry up in the course of the dry season

The most probable reason is that the borehole was not drilled deep enough. This may happen

with boreholes in basement rocks that are only tapping water from the overburden which is being

depleted over the dry season and not from the fractured bedrock, or with shallow boreholes in

sedimentary aquifers, that only penetrate the upper water-bearing layer which is of insufficient

extent and also recharged directly from rainwater. The wrong positioning of the screen and the

fact of carrying out the groundwater exploration and subsequent pumping tests during or just after

the wet season can also lead to lower than expected yield.

� Bad taste of the water, coloured water, or turbid water

Problems of water taste and colour, and turbidity, though both water quality issues, are put in two

different categories in Figure 1 as the causes for the water quality issues are different. Taste

issues or coloured water issues are mainly related to the characteristics of the aquifer; mostly it is

related to iron content (reddish colour and metallic taste), and salinity. Although this water is fit for

human consumption, it is excessively hard and salty, and therefore objectionable to the

population. However, turbid water /water with suspended particles is usually the result of a

construction/design issue, for example insufficient well development or placement of the screens

opposite a geological formation that should not have been screened, or inappropriate filter pack.

Turbid water is therefore in most cases in fact the result of a technical failure.

� Difficulty to pump

Difficulty of pumping can have various causes. The causes can be due to borehole completion

issues: for example, the alignment during installation can be improper; either due to poor

installation, or due to non-vertical borehole, or even a default in the manufacture, where bearings

were not properly aligned and designed. When communities complain about ‘hard to pump’, they

might also mean that the water takes long to come, which might be explained by the fact that the

pumps can take long to fill up the column, which can be caused by either a leakage in the pipes,

or the effect of a deep aquifer. This means that the difficulty in pumping may either have a

technical or a geological reason.

Apart from an actual break down, there are other reasons for communities not to use a borehole.

An objectionable water quality or an unfavourable location can lead communities to opt for other

water sources options, even though these might be more unsafe. Examples of unfavourable



locations include proximity of a river, too far from the community settlement or close to an army

camp. Inaccessibility of the borehole due to insecurity or floods is another possible reason.

In case of a break down, two categories have been distinguished:

� A break down that can be repaired by a pump mechanic;

� A serious breakdown that can only be addressed by rehabilitation;

In the case of repairs that can be handled by a pump mechanic, the survey aims to understand

the reasons why the repair has not happened as yet, which may include the following situations:

� The community has actually informed no one of the breakdown;

� Though the information on the break down was communicated, no pump mechanics came

(which might be due to logistical limitations such as no transport or a accessibility problem);

� The fact that no spare parts are available at local level (which can similarly be due to a

transport and/or accessibility problem). An overview of the background, the status and the

future development of the spare parts’ supply chain is provided in Annex 3.

� The community is not (yet) able to pay for the repairs.

5. Methodology

5.1 Materials for data collection

Since the beginning of BSF in 2006, a total of 29 NGOs received funds for drilling 578 new

boreholes. To execute the status review, each NGO received a so called BSF Borehole Status

Review Package composed of the following:

BSF Borehole Status Review Package

- A general note (Annex 6), explaining the scope and the objectives of the status review

- A data collection sheet (Annex 7) for the borehole functionality assessment to

serve as a support in the field to collect data from the communities about the borehole’s

operational status12

.

- A questionnaire (Annex 8) addressed to the NGOs on construction, independent

supervision, activities to ensure borehole’s sustainability and government involvement, to

be filled by the NGOs

Each NGO was requested to report on all their boreholes and to send their questionnaire back to

the BSF Secretariat. No random sampling method was used for the borehole functionality

assessment. Getting a representative sample would be difficult as too many variables are

involved including, amongst others, type of underlying geology, implementing NGO, age of

borehole, type of contract used for the drilling, drilling company contracted, accessibility,

availability of spare parts, degree of ownership by the community, etc. For the boreholes who

were not (or hardly) accessible during the period of the status review, NGOs could do a quicker

assessment, by simply calling a community member or a local pump mechanic to give the

information on whether the borehole is functional or not. The BSF Monitor also visited some

12 The questions of the data collection sheet were transposed into an excel spreadsheet, in which, per NGOs the list of

boreholes (name, location and geographic coordinate) that was drilled was indicated.



NGOs and has assessed about 70 boreholes with them. In a few cases, NGOs had withdrawn

from the site where they drilled boreholes (case of AMREF, AMA) which made data collection

difficult.

The involvement of the governmental institutions at all levels is an essential component of this

status review. Therefore, the data collection sheet, the questionnaire and the methodology was

developed in close collaboration with the MWRI. Field visits of the BSF WASH monitor would

mostly start by a meeting with a representative of the State Directorate of Water and Sanitation13

(SDWS) and County or Payam Water Department (CWD or PWD). When possible, someone

from the CWD would accompany the WASH Monitor and the NGO WASH expert to the sites and

assist in executing the assessment. Their feedback has also been taken into account in the

interpretations and the conclusion of this report. The timeline of the status review is included in

Annex 9.

5.2 Method for data collection

Data collection for the borehole functionality assessment

During the assessments, the NGOs were recommended to ask the questions to a group rather

than an individual, as this raises discussions among them and the final answer is more likely to

be closest to reality. In case of a borehole located in a school or a health center, the NGOs were

recommended to talk to a member of the parent Teachers Association or to a health worker.

Table 4 summarizes the information to collect when on the site of the borehole.

Table 4. Information to collect during the BSF borehole field assessment

General information

� Name of borehole, Location (Payam, County), Geographic coordinates

� Name of drilling company and drilling date

� Location of the borehole : Health facility, school or community

� Is the borehole functional?

� Information on WUC (including gender aspects)

If the borehole is functional If the borehole is not functional

Questions so as to understand whether the

borehole has some minor issues that could

lead to a complete breakdown in the close

future

Questions on the reasons why the borehole is not being

used. If it is because the borehole has broken down, then

the objective of the assessment will be :

� To understand what was exactly the issue

� Why it has not been repaired yet

Questionnaire for NGO

The questionnaire sent to the NGOs aimed at collecting information and feedback from NGOs on:

� Construction aspects, including type of contract used with the contractors, the approach to dry

boreholes, whether they requested the services of a supervisor during the drilling

� Methods to ensure drilling activities’ sustainability (type of training, follow up activities…)

� Opinion on the sector’s main shortcomings

� Involvement of the government

13 The SDWS is a directorate of the State Ministry of Physical Infrastructure



5.3 Limitations of the status review methodology

Non-controllable factors

The status review was carried out between May and November 2012, which coincides with the

rainy season. Some boreholes were thus not accessible and could not be reported on.

Some boreholes were drilled by NGOs that are no longer based in that area.

Possible biases

The information provided in this report is based on the assumption that NGOs really executed the

status review. NGOs that have been more committed to execute the status review properly might

have spent more time at each borehole and therefore had more time to discuss with the

communities and to spot functionality issues. Other NGOs who might have executed the

assessment quicker might have not noticed any issues with the borehole at first sight. It therefore

does not seem appropriate to look at the functionality rate per NGO and draw conclusions from it.

The answers given during the borehole assessment highly depend on the person from the

community that is being interviewed, i.e. whether (s)he is part of the WUC, the time (s)he could

dedicate for the questions, and his/her knowledge of the status of the borehole.

Methodological points that could have been improved

Some questions in the data collection sheet could have been formulated in a different way, which

would have led to slightly different reactions from the community. For example, the question ‘is

everything working fine with the borehole?’ was always confirmed. As long as the borehole

provides water, the answer to this question will be ‘yes’ even though there is a functionality

problem

When the borehole is functional, the question: ‘Has it ever broken down?’ could have been

added, as well as the questions ‘For how long did it need repairs’ and ‘who came to repair it’.

6. Results of the Boreholes’ Status Assessment

6.1 Information received

Records on 400 boreholes out of a total of 578 new boreholes drilled through BSF were received,

providing an assessment rate of 69%. The breakdown per NGO, State and BSF phase is

provided in Annex 10, tables A, B and C.

Almost all NGOs have reported on some or all their boreholes, except for those that have

withdrawn from the specific area (AMA, AMREF). Others, and especially when NGOs do not have

a core activity in the water sector, have not at all reported (World Relief, Care, Save the Children,

and Medair).

Reported boreholes are spread over the four phases: 57% of the boreholes drilled during BSF 1,

64% of BSF 2, and 81% of BSF IA. For BSF-IAe, only the boreholes reported up to the QPR3



(16) have been included. The functionality rate was calculated based on the total reported

boreholes (and not the total number of boreholes drilled).

Except for Lakes State, the results cover the whole country. However, the percentage of reported

boreholes strongly varies per State, with, for example, 91% of reported boreholes in Eastern

Equatoria and 96% in Western Equatoria, as opposed to 13% in Warrap and 29% in Western Bar

El Gazal. This is mainly due to variations in accessibility.

Inaccessibility during the rainy season is the main factor that has restricted NGOs to visit and

report on all their boreholes14

. It is difficult to know whether the 31% of the boreholes not reported

on would follow the same trend as the 400 boreholes reported on. One may expect that the

occurrence of breakdowns or reduced functionality in limited access areas during the rainy

season is higher, as accessibility challenges also reduce the possibility:

� For the communities to inform the authorities about potential functionality issues;

� For the pump mechanics to be able to reach the area where repairs need to be executed; and

� For the spare parts to reach the CWD and, in a second place, the site of the breakdown

The analysis in the following sessions is based on the information received. A unit cost analysis

was executed and is provided in Annex 12 and Annex 13.

6.2 BSF Borehole functionality rate

Out of the 400 boreholes of which reports were received, 386 have been reported functional and

14 non-functional, leading to a functionality rate of 96.5%. This is a very high rate in view of South

Sudan’s reported overall functionality rate of 50-70% to the young age of BSF boreholes is

expected to be one of the reasons for higher functionality rates than a spot-check of all boreholes

ever drilled in the country.

Functional means that the borehole is in use at the time of spot-check, but it does not mean that

the borehole has no functionality problems. 306 boreholes were reported to be without any

noticeable issues, leading to a percentage of 77% of boreholes that are fully functional. In order

to have a meaningful discussion on the status of boreholes drilled under BSF up to now, the

focus was put on the parameters related to reduced functionality. It is also important to note that

the status at spot-checking does not mean that it never broke down before. Some boreholes had

broken down earlier but were rehabilitated or repaired.

6.3 Analysis of the reasons for non-functionality

A non-functional borehole may be the result of a break down, an objectionable water quality or an

unfavourable location of the borehole. Overall, 3.4% (14 boreholes) of the boreholes are not

functional at the time of the spot-check, assuming that the boreholes reported on per BSF phase

provide a representative sample for that phase. The majority of the non-functional boreholes (11)

14 Another option that was given to them was to contact someone living in the vicinity of the borehole and asking about its

functionality without doing the full assessment. This explains why, in some cases, the sum fully functional + reduced

functionality (361) does not always equal total functional borehole; in those cases only ‘non-functional’ or ‘functional’

would be reported, which does not make it possible to determine either full functionality or reduced functionality



are down because of a break-down, whereas three boreholes are non-functional due to an

objectionable water quality. BSF-2 has the highest percentage of non-functional boreholes, at

10.5%. One of the non-functional boreholes was reported to have a low yield, implying that the

borehole does not yield sufficient water for a hand pump. This borehole should not have been

installed with a hand pump. It may be classified as a dry borehole. Table 5 provides an overview

of the non-functional boreholes for the 4 BSF Phases.

Table 5. Number and percentage of non-functional boreholes reported on per BSF phase

BSF1 BSF2 BSFIA BSF IAe Total

Total Bh reported (number of completed

bh)

89 (156) 95 (149) 201 (247) 16 (27) 401 (579)

Percentage reported on 57% 64% 81% 59% 69%

Total Bh non-functional 2 10 2 0 14

Percentage non-functional: 2.2% 10.5% 1.0% 0%

- Total Bh broken down 2 7 2 0 11

- Total Bh not functional for other

reasons

3 3

The borehole assessment form included questions that aim at identifying the undermining factors

why the broken down boreholes were not repaired as yet (see Table 6).

Table 6. Reasons for actual non-functionality

Issues that jeopardise the possibility of repairs (as per Figure 1)

Repairs cannot be executed by a pump

mechanic

For nine boreholes, the response was that repairs can be

executed by a pump mechanic.

For two boreholes, a pump mechanic would not be able to repair

it, with the following additional comments: ‘a new borehole is

needed’, and ‘the area has a salty aquifer’

The community has not informed anyone

yet

For nine boreholes, the information had been transmitted.

For two boreholes, the community had not informed anyone

(one out of the two said that the WUC is not active so they did

not call a pump mechanic; also, the caretaker is not skilled to

execute the repair)

The community has informed but no

pump mechanic came yet (transport or

availability issue)

Two have informed pump mechanics, six the CWD, four no

detail

Out of the nine that have informed someone, seven said that

they are still waiting for the pump mechanic to come and one

said that a new borehole is needed

No spare parts available Not directly mentioned. The lack of spare parts has been

mentioned in many case by the local authorities as the main

reason why pump mechanics cannot execute repairs

The community is not able to pay for the

repairs

One stated that they are mobilising the community to collect the

funds and the other one has collected the funds already. The

others do not have an active WUC.

Serious breakdown : rehabilitation

needed

Reported in one case.



Six out of the 11 broken down boreholes were reported to be non-functional for over six months,

whereas three boreholes were reported to be down for one week to one month (no info on the

remaining two). Only one borehole was reported to be in need of rehabilitation.

Though the communities seem to submit the information of the breakdown (to the CWD or the

pump mechanic), it appears getting a pump mechanics to execute the repairs is the main limiting

factor. According to local authorities and MWRI, it is mainly due to the fact that no spare parts are

available at local level. Even if the pump mechanic would go to the borehole site, (s)he would not

be able to replace the broken parts. Other reasons may be logistical challenges to reach the

borehole site.

6.4 Analysis of the reasons for reduced functionality

Although almost 97% of BSF’s boreholes were reported in use at the time of the assessment,

some of these are only partially functional. As Table 7 displays, overall, 54 (13%) of BSF’s

boreholes reported on are in use but have issues that need to be addressed in order to make

them fully functional. The highest percentage of reduced functionality boreholes is reported for

those boreholes longest in use, drilled during BSF 1 (19%). The main issues reported are that it is

hard to pump the water (25 boreholes, or 46 % of all cases of reduced functionality), and/or that

the water has an objectionable taste or colour (23 boreholes, or 43% of reported cases of

reduced functionality). Other issues reported on include a low yield (13%), no water during part of

the dry season (11%), and turbid water (6%); these issues are technical issues that have their

origins in challenges during the actual drilling of the boreholes, and one may argue that these

boreholes should not have been installed with a hand pump.

Of the 25 reported boreholes that are hard to pump, the majority is reported to have technical

problems with the hand pump, including a loose handle, worn-out bearing, head assembly in poor

condition, and leakages of the pipes and cylinder (68% of the cases of hard pumping). Other

reasons for difficulty with pumping appear to be related to deep static water levels.

Sometimes, more than one issue is mentioned contributing to the reduced functionality. When the

water gets a milky colour after rain, or smells, and the borehole is dry part of the year, or drying

up after filling a couple of jerricans, this indicates that the water is tapped from a shallow aquifer

that is quickly recharged by rain but that is also of limited extent; moreover, this water is likely to

be contaminated; three boreholes are clearly tapping from a seasonal and shallow aquifer. All in

all, 18 boreholes (33% of reported reduced functionality cases) are reported to have a bad smell

or taste, or colour. For seven boreholes, high iron content is a problem, leading to a rusty smell

and taste, and water with an orange colour.

In 2009, Medair has a salt water issue in Melut County from boreholes founded during BSF-1. As

they had indicated, out of 10 boreholes drilled, nine were installed with a handpump, of which

eight had water with high salinity (water with chloride, sodium and total dissolved solids far

exceeding WHO guidelines15

). Although this water is fit for human consumption, it is excessively

hard and salty, and therefore objectionable to the population. By February 2009, 60% of these

nine boreholes were still being used. As Medair did not report during this BSF status overview

exercise, it was not possible to validate the status of these boreholes and to include it in the

assessment results.

15 See also Euroconsult / BMB MottMacDonald, February 2009.



Table 7. Number of boreholes with reduced functionality and reasons for it

BSF1 BSF2 BSFIA BSF IAe Total

Total Bh reported 89 95 201 16 401

Total Bh functional 87 85 199 16 387

Total Bh with reduced functionality 17 10 26 1 54

% Bh with reduced functionality 19% 11% 13% 6% 13%

- Functional but low yield (throughout the year) 4 1 2 0 7

- Functional but no water in the dry season 1 3 2 6

- Functional but water taste/colour issues 9 2 10 1 23

- Functional but turbid water 1 2 3

- Functional but hard to pump 11 2 12 0 25

In most cases of reduced functionality, no one took the initiative to inform the CWD or a pump

mechanic of the functioning issues.

6.5 Analysis of the main factors that influence functionality

In this section, only the factors that clearly influence the functionality rate according to the results

of the borehole functionality assessment will be presented.

Presence of an active WUC

For this status review, an active WUC is considered to be a WUC that reported having regular

meetings. Some collect water fees on a regular basis, while others collect funds when the

borehole needs to be repaired.

During the WUC training, the importance of collecting fees on a regular basis is also explained.

The information on the patterns of water user fees collection seems inconsistent and not reliable;

therefore comparison between communities not paying fees, and those paying fees on a need

basis or on a regular basis was not possible. Table 8 gives the distribution of the functionality

status according to the activeness of the WUC.

Table 8. Breakdown of the functionality status depending on the activeness of the WUC

WUC status

Bh

Reported

Functional

Not

funct

Funct

rate(%)

%

fully

funct

Funct

(sum)

Reduced

Funct

Fully

funct

WUC active 295 290 33 257 5 98.3 87.1

WUC not active or not existing 71 63 19 44 8 88.7 62.0

Total reported 366 353 52 301 13 96.4 82.2

As Table 8 displays, the percentage of fully functional boreholes is:

� 87% for boreholes that have an active WUC ;

� 62% for boreholes that used to have a WUC (but not active anymore) or stated not having a

WUC16

.

16 The boreholes that do not have a WUC were put in the same category as the borehole with a WUC which is not active

anymore. This is, because the answer to this question from the community is subjective. If the person interviewed is

young or not very aware of the training that occurred in the past, he/she might say that there has never been a WUC.



This demonstrates that active WUCs on average have a greater chance of having a fully

functional borehole. This confirms what the Water Policy (2007) states: ’Sustainability of

community-based water supplies depends on the active participation of user communities in

planning, design, operation and maintenance of schemes. Where water users are not adequately

involved in the process and schemes do not reflect the needs and priorities of end users,

including women and children, there is less incentive for user communities to invest time and

money in maintaining them’.

Ownership of the borehole

In BSF, boreholes have been constructed for communities but also for institutions (health facilities

and schools). Table 9 displays the functionality rate per type of facility for which the borehole was

constructed.

Table 9. Breakdown of the functionality status per type of facilities

Type of

borehole

Bh

Reported

Functional

Not

funct

Funct rate

(%)

% fully

functional

Total

funct

Reduced

funct

Fully

funct

Community 310 299 44 240 11 96% 77%

Health Centre 53 53 6 41 0 100% 77%

School 37 34 4 26 3 92% 70%

Total 400 386 48 307 14 96% 76%

Health facilities seem to have the highest functionality level, with 96% functionality rate and 77%

of fully functional boreholes. This can be explained by the fact that Village Health Committees or

Health workers are dependent on safe water for their activity and do not have time to walk to the

next water source in case of a breakdown. Therefore, their involvement in maintenance and in

bringing the information in case of a breakdown is expected to be higher. They might also have

more transport options to the County capital to inform the CWD in case of a borehole issue. Most

boreholes drilled in health facilities were drilled by NGOs with a health focus. Those NGOs

monitor the activities of those health facilities on a regular basis and are thus able to check the

status of the borehole and support the information flow to the CWD or providing advice on

maintenance.

Community boreholes have a functionality rate of 96% and 77% of the boreholes are fully

functional. School boreholes have a slightly lower functionality rates, with a 92% functionality rate

and 70% fully functional boreholes. This can be explained by the fact that maintenance needs are

higher with children playing around the borehole, walking on the platform and pumping in a

playful way.

Underlying geology

Not all NGOs were able to provide the information on the underlying geology per borehole. This

information was completed using the Hydrogeological Map of Sudan17

. When coordinates of the

borehole were not clearly within a geological unit, the boreholes were put under the category

‘boundary zone’. Table 10 displays the breakdown of the functionality rate per type of underlying

geology.

17 UNMIS GIS production Unit, August 2006, scale : 1:3,500,000



Table 10. Breakdown of the functionality rate per type of underlying geology

Underlying

geology

Total

bh

Bh

Reported

Functional Not

funct

Funct rate

(%)

%fully

functional Total funct Reduced

Funct

Fully

funct

Unconsolidated

Sediment18

220 160 157 6 151 3 98% 94%

Basement rock 226 181 172 40 116 9 95% 64%

Boundary zone 132 59 57 8 40 2 97% 67%

According to Table 10, the type of underlying geology seems to impact the functionality rates.

Boreholes in sediments have a higher functionality rate, with 98% functional with some issues,

and 94% fully functional boreholes, while boreholes in Basement rock have a functionality rate of

95%, and only 64% are fully functional.

In South Sudan, boreholes in sedimentary formations are in most cases successful and even

high-yielding, whereas boreholes in Basement rocks have much lower yields and lower success-

rates. The lower percentage of fully functional boreholes is therefore partly caused by low

borehole yields. In addition, a high iron content of the water with its impact on colour and taste

also occurs more in Basement rocks than in sedimentary formations. Finally, the intake depth of

the handpump has an effect on the ease of pumping and the force exerted on the handpump to

lift the water. The India MII handpumps used in South Sudan have an optimum intake that

reaches down to 30 meters below ground level (mbgl); with greater depths, the strain on the

handpump becomes more important, which may reduce the lifespan of the handpump, even with

the use of the extra deep handpump. Based on the few records on handpump intake depth, there

seems to be however no difference for borehole drilled in sediments or in basement, with an

average intake depth of 39 m bgl.

Functionality rates per State

As Table F of Annex 11 displays, the functionality rates vary per state. The rate of fully functional

boreholes is the lowest in Western Bar El Gazal, followed by Warrap State. Jonglei and Upper

Nile are the states where all BSF boreholes reported on are fully functional. This difference per

state gives an indication of the influence of the type of underlying geology, but it may also be due

to a difference of cultures (including aspects of leadership and involvement) and the general need

for improved water source in an area (safe water coverage). More in-depth studies are required to

establish which parameter impacts most on success-rates per State.

6.6 Other factors that can influence functionality

Factors that can influence functionality are numerous and interrelated. Factors not yet mentioned

that can influence the functionality of a borehole may be classified into two categories:

� Factors that can be positively influenced; and

� Natural factors that are determined by its location. The latter category includes factors like the

age and frequency of use of the borehole, and the underlying geology19.

18 Basement Rock refers to undifferentiated gneisses and granites of the Basement Complex (Precambrian). Sediments

may be either part of the Alluvial Formation (Recent) or unconsolidated sands, with some gravels, clays and shales of

the Umm Rawaba Formation (Tertiary to Quaternary)



Factors that can be influenced include the level of ownership of the community and thus their

willingness to maintain the borehole through preventive maintenance. This could be positively

influenced by continuous training of WUC (maybe also refresher training) and sensitising the

community to the need of preventive maintenance. Another influencing factor is the quality of

construction, i.e. drilling depth and design and development of the borehole. This can be

positively influenced by using Bills of Quantities (BoQ) contracts instead of Lump Sum contracts

(LS) as well as professional drilling supervision.

Functionality per NGO

Besides the possibility of biased reporting, it is difficult to compare the functionality rate among

NGOs as the implementing NGO does not have a direct influence on the functionality status.

What would have an influence is more the quality of the construction of the borehole (dependent

on the experience of the contractor, the quality of the construction and materials used, and the

selection of an appropriate design as well as effective well development). The NGOs may

however influence these factors:

� By using BoQ rather than LS contracts (See section 7.1);

� By systematically executing professional geophysical surveys;

� By ensuring that a supervisor is fulltime on site during the drilling and construction process

(see section 7.2).

Comparing NGOs’ functionality rates based on the type of contract used or the type of

supervision deployed is complex as not all NGOs have reported on those aspects. Some NGOs

have also switched from BoQ to LS contracts, or introduced (part-time) supervision at some point

in time during the BSF contract period. Table D of Annex 11 displays the borehole functionality

rates per NGO.

Optimisation of the BSF monitoring approach

Table E of Annex 11 provides the breakdown of the functionality status per BSF phase. The

percentage of full functional boreholes varies per phase, being 68% for BSF-1, 62% for BSF 2

and 86% for BSF IA. BSF-1 and BSF-2 have the lowest percentage of fully functional boreholes.

The age of the borehole and thus the increased likelihood that it breaks down might be an

explanation; however, the difference can also be due to a change of approach used over the

different phases.

19 However, systematically executing a geophysical survey will reduce the occurrence of dry boreholes in Basement

areas.



7. Feedback from NGOs on their drilling activities implementation

and impact of the BSF monitoring approach

Based on lessons learned, the BSF Secretariat has gradually optimized the approach for

monitoring progress of drilling projects implementation (Annex 14). Advice provided to NGOs has

thus been adjusted to reach a more sustainable implementation of the WASH projects. Main

advice has been given on the following aspects:

� The type of contract used between NGOs and contractors and the need to execute

systematically a geophysical survey before the start of any drilling activity (section 7.1);

� Requesting the services of a full-time drilling and construction supervisor (section 7.2);

� Increasing the focus on capacity building and training of WUC.

NGOs have also been asked to report on their training activities and their opinion on the main

shortcomings of the sector. In total, 20 NGOs have responded (fully or partially) to the

questionnaire (Annex 8).

7.1 Types of contract used and its impact on borehole sustainability

In South Sudan, the quality of contractors’ services provided in borehole drilling can vary

significantly. As indicated in the Water policy (2007): ‘the private sector offers a number of

potential advantages in terms of efficiency and flexibility but the difficulties of access in the

Southern Sudan mean that competition is far from perfect. Regulation is mostly through contracts

but there is currently no mechanism for independent monitoring and enforcement, resulting in

significant variation in the quality of services currently provided. Despite growing demand, the

number of private operators equipped and capable of providing quality services in Southern

Sudan remains small.’

The selection of contractors is essential for NGOs to ensure the sustainability (from a

construction point of view) of a borehole. Two different types of contracts may be used: BoQ or

LS. Some NGOs have their own drilling rigs, and invoice for materials, labour and depreciation of

the equipment.

In a LS contract, the contractors, apart from a technical proposal, submit a quotation with a fixed

price per borehole, without providing the details of the costs per unit quantity for each activity and

each material that will be used. Most of the time, a ‘no water no pay’’ clause included, which

means that, in case of a dry borehole, the contractor will not get paid for the work actually

performed. The terms of agreement can give a maximum amount of attempts (2 or 3). Executing

a geophysical survey to increase the borehole success-rate is the decision of the contractor

(though strongly recommended by the MWRI). For a BoQ, the contractor is awarded based on

the contractor’s approach and experience, and value for quoted prices for services and materials.

The contractor will be paid based on the actual works done, as certified by the drilling supervisor.

MWRI strongly recommends the use of BoQ contracts and has developed standard borehole

designs in their technical guidelines. In addition, even in sediment areas where the risk of dry

boreholes is low, MWRI enforces that borehole drilling must be preceded by a geophysical

survey, to increase the knowledge of the hydrogeological condition of the country. The BSF

Secretariat also recommended the use of BoQ contracts in BSF-IA, and a drilling supervision and



contract management workshop was organised on 2-3 November 2011 for all grant recipients

with a water component in their BSF-IA contract. In this workshop, guidelines on geophysical

siting, drilling supervision, and water quality testing were discussed in detail with the participants.

MWRI and the BSF Secretariat advise that the BoQ includes a budget line for a geophysical

survey to be carried out by an external company so that in case of a dry borehole, the contractors

will be paid for the work done. Despite MWRI’s recommendations and technical guidelines, LS

are still widely used by NGOs implementing drilling projects. Out of 20 NGOs who responded to

the questionnaire, eight are using LS contracts, nine BoQ and four have their own drilling rig

(CRS, World Vision, Oxfam GB, and ADRA). Reasons put forward by NGOs to still use LS

contracts are:

� It is easier to negotiate the total contract price;

� The responsibility for the dry boreholes remains with the contractors so they will also take the

responsibility to do a geophysical survey or not (however, the impact of using poor materials

and development will not have consequences immediately;

� If the NGO does not have technically qualified staff, it is the easiest solution as it does not

require control of the design and specifications (only trust in the drilling company)20

;

� In some cases, the difficult accessibility of sites may result in less drilling contractors quoting,

leading to NGOs having to accept the terms of the one or two contractors that do bid.

Some NGOs have also, over time, changed from one type of contract to another following the

recommendations from MWRI and/or BSF Secretariat. Intersos on the other hand switched from

BoQ to LS for the implementation of their BSF-IA drilling activities (target of 18 boreholes). The

geophysical survey was executed by a specialised company (WE Consult), while Intersos used a

BoQ contract with UHEC to drill on the selected (and approved by BSF) sites. Out of the first four

boreholes, three were dry (which means a success rate of 25 % while executing a geophysical

survey was assumed to reduce the risk to 20-25 %). Intersos therefore decided to drill the

remaining boreholes using a LS contract, leaving the responsibility of the geophysical survey to

UHEC to avoid the risk of paying for other dry boreholes. In total, they completed 17 successful

boreholes, while 11 were dry. The surprising situation is that the drilling company reduced the unit

cost for drilling the remaining 14 boreholes for the lump sum no-water-no-pay contract to USD

13,900 per borehole, from an estimated cost of USD 17,400 per borehole for the BoQ contract,

where he would be paid for all works regardless of the success-rate (A unit costs analysis is

provided in Annex 12). The only explanation for this is that the contractor had misinterpreted the

BoQ or that the unit prices in the BoQ were unrealistic, so that the actual price of a borehole was

much less than anticipated based on the estimated quantities.

Though BoQ contracts are in theory cheaper than LS, it is not always the case in South Sudan. A

comparison of the average price of the boreholes drilled in BSF-IA shows that LS contracts are

slightly cheaper (see Annex 12). This might be explained by the fact that contractors are not able

to provide an accurate estimate for each item of the BoQ, leading to an overestimation per item.

NGOs with their own drilling rig (CRS, World Vision, Oxfam GB, and ADRA) have reported having

a functionality rate of 100% and a rate of fully functional borehole of 100% (except for World

Vision: 42.9%). This could be explained by :

� The quality of the construction is better;

� Quality control can be easier;

20 It should however be noted that strong supervision at key moments is still of paramount importance , to ensure the

contractor is respecting the required standards in terms of depth, materials, water quality and quantity.



� Those boreholes are quickly repaired in case of breakdown (and could be explained by a

better follow up from the NGO).

Interviews with three different drilling companies within the framework of this status review

revealed that contractors tend to prefer LS as it means for them less administrative work and less

supervision; it is therefore much easier to manage. This was also mentioned by ADRA, however,

they do recognise that in Basement rocks the risk of dry boreholes is very high, and therefore the

risks to work at a loss in case of LS contracts.

7.2 Impact of the introduction of independent drilling supervision

All aspects of the drilling process, including amongst others the optimum depth of the borehole,

the accuracy and appropriateness of the borehole design and the use of quality material can be

positively influenced by independent professional supervision on site, from the first day of the

drilling until the validation of the borehole once that the pumping test has indicated a yield high

enough and after the water quality test. The active supervision of adequate constant rate and

step pumping tests during development will help ensuring that robust data is collected to

determine the sustainable yield. “Independent” refers to supervision by someone not serving the

interests of the drilling company. In the ideal situation, the supervisor is therefore involved at the

initial stages including site selection, geophysical survey, as well as during actual drilling, well

development, test pumping, water quality sampling and hand pump installation. During BSF-IA,

the BSF Secretariat strongly recommended NGOs to use the service of an independent

supervisor so as to help assuring that minimum quality standards are adhered to while optimizing

the costs of drilling.

An independent supervisor can be an expert from a hydrogeological consultancy company. Other

options are an expert from the CWD or the SDWS or a WASH expert from the NGO itself.

This will only be beneficial if they are skilled enough to perform the supervision.

20 NGOs have responded to the questions on independent supervision (Annex 8). According to

the information received, 18 NGOs have had a supervisor on site during their drilling activities.

What differs is whether the CWD was involved and whether the supervision was full time or part

time. Eleven NGOs have reported to have involved the CWD in the supervision (seven on a full

time basis and four on a part time basis, with or without an NGO staff member).

One reason reported by some NGOs on why only seven NGOs actually have a full time

supervisor from the CWD is that there is a general lack of qualified engineers at county level who

are able to execute professional supervision and double check the design and the material used

by the contractors21

. Therefore, most NGOs (14) involved one of their WASH experts on a full-

time basis for the supervision. In eight cases, the NGO WASH expert was accompanied by a

supervisor from the CWD (full time or part time). In case the CWD supervisors were not available

to be on site on a full time basis, they were at least asked to be present for the drilling and water

quality test (Concern, MRDA, HARD). Two NGOs did not have any supervisor on site at all

(ADRA, CMSi). The fact that those two NGOs are not specialised in drilling may have led to a

lack of knowledge in the procedures to follow.

21 This can be illustrated by one particular case of a borehole drilled by Malteser (Mambe 1). Despite the supervision of a

CWD representative, the drainage of the borehole was constructed towards the road, creating flooding of the road.



Intersos had an interesting way to ensure good supervision while building the SDWS’s capacity :

when the water projects of Intersos started, they hired a skilled employee from SDWS on a full

time basis for monitoring the water projects, the supervision of the construction and to provide

training to the communities. ZOA used the services of an independent company advised by BSF

as none from their qualified own staff had time to support the supervision by the Payam pump

mechanic. Table 11 provides the overview of how NGOs have taken up independent drilling

supervision in their drilling projects for BSF during BSF-IAe.

Table 11. NGOs’ selection of drilling supervisor

Type of drilling supervisor deployed # of

NGOs who responded to this question 20

NGOs who had an employee from their organization and an employee of the CWD full time 5

NGOs with an employee from their organization and an employee of the CWD part time 3

NGOs who had only an employee from their organization 6

NGOs who only had a full- time supervisor from the CWD 2

NGOs who only had a part-time supervisor from the CWD 1

NGOs who used the services of an independent company 1

NGOs who did not use supervision 2

In BSF IA, 10 NGOs added a budget line for construction supervision. The price varied greatly

depending on whether it was for hiring a WASH supervisor or only facilitating the transport of the

CWD to the site and per diem.

As full time independent drilling supervision is not yet commonly done in South Sudan, it is only

natural that drilling companies do not like to be supervised, especially in those cases where

drilling supervisors are incompetent. The BSF Secretariat therefore organized and funded a 2-day

drilling supervision and contract management course for NGOs working under BSF as well as

State Supervisors in Juba on 2-3 November 2010, to partially address knowledge gaps in drilling

supervision. It has to be borne in mind that drilling supervision is for a large part learnt on-the-job,

and that experience thus comes with time.

In addition, the NGO WASH Cluster (http://groups.google.co.ke/group/southern-sudan-wash-

forum?lnk=srg&hl=en) is currently working on a list of recommended drilling companies based on

the results and experiences of NGOs.

7.3 Feedback from NGOs on their training component

There is a general consensus from the NGOs that lack of (preventive) maintenance is a result of

lack of ownership, which depends on the extent to which communities value safe water.

Therefore, NGOs have been actively engaging in training activities in parallel to their drilling

activities. Examples of training provided by NGOs are provided in Annex 15. These training

activities include training of WUCs (including water point care takers) as well as pump mechanics.

The objective of the WUC training seems to be the same throughout the country, with a special

focus on hygiene, basic O&M of the water point, preventive maintenance and linking the

community to the CWD and the pump mechanics. Communities shall be mobilised and trained to

gradually take over full responsibility for management and financing the operation and



maintenance of RWSS schemes (Water Policy, 2007). On average, WUC training sessions last

between 2 to 5 days, and are carried out either by an international NGO staff member who

speaks the local language, a local NGO or a member of the County or State Water Department.

Ideally, communities should be involved during the geophysical siting, and community

mobilisation should happen before the actual drilling.

There is no standard way to providing training in South Sudan. Each NGO has its own approach,

involving more or less the local government, and its own training materials. Concerning the

training of pump mechanics and water point caretakers, as mentioned earlier, it is not completely

clear what each NGO actually does and the term ‘pump mechanics’ is sometimes used wrongly,

referring actually to water point caretakers (especially if the NGOs mention that they give a 2

days training to pump mechanics: this small training period suggests the training of water point

caretakers).

Keeping a WUC and the water point caretaker motivated to be continuously involved and

responsible as volunteers turns out to be another challenge, especially after the project period,

when regular interaction with the community stops. According to Winrock International, UNICEF

and SNV (2012), ‘Preventive maintenance is a term that is often used but is probably not

understood, much less, practiced.’ Concerning water fee collection, WUC members most of the

time understand the point of paying water user fees, but after some time, they stop collecting fees

on a monthly basis and decide to pay only when it will be needed. However, when the moment

comes to buy spare parts or hire a pump mechanic, a relatively larger sums (and sometimes

prohibitively so) have to be collected urgently causing the communities to remain without safe

water supply for a while until all required funds are in.

Regarding the pump mechanics, some NGOs (Swiss Red Cross, ZOA) have raised the point that

the amount and distribution of pump mechanics is sufficient. The main issue according to these

NGOs is the insufficient access to spare parts; this is the result of long distances from storage

sites, no means of transport, and lack of financial resources of the communities to pay for the

spare parts and the services. As ADRA indicated, there is a need for clearer mechanisms in the

way CWDs request spare parts. As there is in most cases no local, private sector supply chain

system for spare parts, the communities rely on NGO or RWSS support/intervention. Oxfam GB

and ADRA also added that there is payment for the trained pump mechanics by the community or

beneficiaries.

8. Conclusion

In general, NGOs were receptive to the survey. A total of 69% of the boreholes were assessed

(400 out of 578), with overall a good coverage per State and per Phase. The rainy season was

the main limitation for NGOs visiting and reporting on boreholes: the 31% of the boreholes of

which no information was received are mainly the inaccessible boreholes, or the boreholes

constructed by NGOs that have withdrawn from the area. These may also be the boreholes with a

higher occurrence of breakdowns or reduced functionality. Indeed, the accessibility challenges

and the fact that the implementing agency is not on site to provide follow up support reduce the

possibility for communities to inform authorities of a breakdown and/or get the spare parts, and

the pump mechanics to repair it.



Concerning the 69% boreholes assessed, the functionality rate was found to be high, reaching

96.5%. The boreholes are relatively new (they have been drilled a maximum of six years ago),

which contributes to the high functionality rate. The assessment of borehole functionality status

went one step further by analysing the reasons for breakdown or reduced functionality. Non-

functional boreholes were mainly the result of a technical break down. Water quality was also a

reason for not using a borehole. Out of the total reported boreholes, 76.8% were fully functional.

The main reasons for reduced functionality were difficulties with pumping and an objectionable

taste or colour.

The existence of a WUC responsible for the borehole maintenance who inform a pump mechanic

or the CWD in cases of breakdown proved to have a positive impact on the functionality rate. It

was difficult to collect reliable information on the patterns of water user fees collection, therefore

comparison between communities not paying fees, paying fees on a need basis or on a regular

basis was not possible. Boreholes located in health facilities also had a higher functionality rate

compared with community boreholes or boreholes located in school, most probably due to the

fact that health workers are more committed to maintain the borehole and will be quicker to inform

the CWD in case of functionality problems. Other factors that can influence functionality are

numerous and interrelated, ranging from technical aspects (design, quality of construction,

handpump maintenance, underlying geology, and water quality) to social aspects, such as

involvement of the WUC (if any), cultural behaviour, commitment and value given to the water (if

no other alternative water supply). Though this status review attempted to capture this variety of

factors, it was difficult to conclude on the impact on one individual factor on the final functionality

rate.

Over the years, based on lessons learned and in line with MWRI sector guidelines and

recommendations, the BSF Secretariat gradually adjusted its advice to the implementing partners

in order to optimise drilling activities and the activities to ensure the sustainability of the

boreholes. Amongst others, it was recommended to use BoQ contracts, to systematically execute

geophysical surveys, and to deploy independent supervision during the drilling process,

preferably involving the CWD or the SDWS. It seems that although most NGOs have taken into

account those recommendations, the practices are not yet mainstreamed. The direct impact of

those measures could not be quantified in this status review. What can however be concluded is

that:

� Concerning the use of BoQ: it is still not common practice in South Sudan to use BoQ

contracts though it is becoming more and more frequently used compared to six years ago.

However, it has not yet led to lower price for construction;

� Concerning geophysical surveys: Though in complex Basement rock formation it does not

automatically reduce the rate of dry borehole, it is helping building the information on

underlying geology and aquifer country wide;

� Concerning the deployment of drilling supervision: though capacities from the CWD are

sometimes lacking, it improves the coordination between NGOs and CWD while building the

technical capacity of CWD. It can also help the NGOs to be more aware of MWRI procedures

and guidelines.

Efforts to systematically implement the recommendations from MWRI and the BSF Secretariat

should continue to be advocated, as it is believed to have a positive impact on borehole

functionality and sustainability.



There is a general consensus from the NGOs that the lack of (preventive) maintenance results

from a lack of ownership, which depends on the extent to which communities value water and

consequently their willingness to pay for water services. NGOs have been actively engaging in

training activities in parallel to their drilling activities, including training of WUC (including water

point care taker) as well as pump mechanics. Though the objective of the trainings is the same,

each NGO has its own approach, its own training manual and is involving to some extent the local

government to carry out the training. MWRI is aware of the need to develop a standard manual

and the process is being initiated.

A community’s aversion to preventative maintenance and cost contribution can be partially

explained by the fact that, for a long time, they have survived on other unsafe water sources

(unprotected springs, streams, etc.) and still use them to date. As a result, communities continue

resorting to those sources whenever they are available (particularly during the rainy season),

even when they have been sensitised time and again on the health implications of using unsafe

water.

Less than one decade ago, water points were constructed without initial participation of the

community due to the emergency situation. When hand pumps malfunctioned, NGOs would take

the responsibility, and communities seem to still expect the same today. Community ownership,

behaviour change and capacity building at all levels (from MWRI, State, County and Payam to

local pump mechanics and WUC) are long processes that require time and perseverance, and,

last but not least, education. One may wonder how this process can adequately be monitored and

followed up by implementing agencies in the framework of short-term grants or funding

mechanisms.



9. Recommendations

1. Keep on training Water User Committees

As the existence of an operational WUC appears to have a direct impact on the functionality

status, there is a need to provide refresher trainings focusing on early warning signs and initial

mal-functioning before the borehole breaks down, so that repairs can be smaller and cheaper.

2. Strengthening the capacities of the government

There is a general consensus at the national level, both with NGOs and MWRI, that the use of a

BoQ contract and full time supervision during the drilling process has a positive impact on

borehole functionality and sustainability. Efforts to systematically implement those

recommendations should be pursued, which requires skills at state level. Generally, attention

should be given to capacity building of the government at various levels, from a technical,

managerial and logistical perspective.

3. Supporting the development of the private sector

The development of the private sector as far as supply of spare parts is concerned would

facilitate the options of communities to execute a repair. Pump mechanics should be supported to

form PMA. This would help them to have more negotiation power, to divide the activities, to

request more easily support (transport, spare parts) from the CWD and therefore remain

motivated. However, those initiatives will remain scarce as long as UNICEF and some NGOs

continue to provide the CWD with free of charge spare parts. This practice discourages local

traders from importing spare parts from abroad and therefore blocks the normal trading fluxes.

Promoting a business approach will create awareness within communities on the need to pay for

water services and create resources for spare parts and fees to motivate pump technicians. It is

important to mention that even a mature private sector will not replace the role of the government

water departments at all levels. The CWD still needs to get involved and committed to support

communities in maintaining boreholes especially when highly technical skills are required.

4. Repairs and rehabilitation

As the Water Policy (2007) states, ‘Investment in creating new water sources to reach the desired

service level in rural population and achieve greater equity in access to water are noble

objectives, but such investment cannot be at costs of maintenance.’ Through BSF, repairs and

rehabilitation started to get funded with BSF IA, in 2010. Funding and implementing agencies

(NGOs) should continue giving special attention to funding rehabilitation (such as UNICEF) and

facilitating repairs execution.

Rehabilitation requires the services of contractors and cannot be executed by the communities

and/or pump mechanics. Rehabilitation of a borehole from a cost perspective is more efficient

than drilling a new borehole. One key recommendation for future water supply programmes could

thus be to focus on rehabilitation. However, the reason for non-functionality should be established

first for each borehole, as some boreholes may not have been used at all because of location,

water quality or water quantity issues.

In some cases, a borehole is not functional while only a minor repair is needed. Repairs should

then be executed by communities or the local pump mechanics. NGOs executing these repairs

jeopardise the communities’ sense of ownership, though it increases the number of people

benefiting from access to improved water sources. Communities will tend to rely even more on



NGO support and will no longer take the initiative to have the repair done. The recommendation

in that regard is that donors only fund activities that will enable communities to execute the

repairs. Examples of such activities are, as mentioned earlier, refresher WUC training, sensitising

communities on the need to pay water fees, provision of tool kits, refresher training of pump

mechanics, supporting the CWD in having an updated list of pump mechanics as well as the

activities performed, activities related to the development of PMAs and private sector for the

provision of spare parts.

5. Need for a more long-term approach from funding mechanisms

The creation of community ownership, behaviour change and building of capacity at all levels

(from MWRI, State, County and Payam to local pump mechanics and WUC) are long term

processes that require time and perseverance, and education. In the case of BSF, grants were

provided for a duration between one year and one and a half year, which made it difficult for

NGOs to engage in long term capacity building activities or to ensure monitoring over a long

period of time. This short term approach from donors is mainly due to the fact that, in emergency

situations such as the one that South Sudan used to face during the war (or is still facing in

particular areas), there is a need for quick actions and basic facilities. However, this can operate

at the expense of sustainability. South Sudan is in a transition phase and needs long-term,

sustained interventions where communities are involved from the identification of the project to

the management and the financing of the operation and maintenance. As the JAM stated (2005),

getting the right balance between humanitarian assistance and long-term recovery is a major

challenge. The recent development in donors’ approach seems to show that donors have

reconsidered the relevance of short-term grants and are willing to engage in longer term funding

mechanisms.



10. Literature

Euroconsult Mott MacDonald, 2009. Capacity building Assessment MWRI, Directorate of Rural

Water and Sanitation. April 2009.

Euroconsult Mott MacDonald, February 2009. Borehole siting, borehole drilling, borehole

rehabilitation and borehole contract management – Evaluation of Best Practices in BSF Project

Area, Southern Sudan. Basic Services Fund for Southern Sudan.

GoSS, 2007. Water Policy. November 2007.

GoSS, 2011. South Sudan Development Plan 2011-2013. Realising freedom, equality, justice,

peace and prosperity for all. Juba, August 2011.

Joint Assessment Mission Sudan,2005. Framework for Sustained Peace, Development and

Poverty Eradication. World Bank, UN, GoSS and SPLM. March 18th, 2005.

Klaassen, W. & Mnyeruke, T. 2010. A Needs Identification Study of the South Sudan Water

Sector. Nuffic. September 2010. Draft.

MIWR- GONU, MWRI-GoSS. 2009. Technical Guidelines for the construction and Management

of Boreholes with Hand Pump. A manual for Field Staff and Practitioners. In partnership with

UNICEF. April 2009.

MoH and SSCCSE, 2010. Sudan Household Health Survey, Southern Sudan Commission for

Census, Statistics and Evaluation and Ministry of Health, Government of Southern Sudan.2010.

MWRI-GoSS, 2011. Water, Sanitation & Hygiene Sector Strategic Framework. August 2011.

MoH and SSCCSE, 2006. Sudan Household Health Survey, Southern Sudan Commission for

Census, Statistics and Evaluation and Ministry of Health, Government of Southern Sudan.2006.

NBS, 2009. National Baseline Household Survey 2009. Report for South Sudan. National Bureau

of Statistics.

Ray Kumar Daw, 2012. Maintenance of handpumps and Supply Chain for Spare Parts in South

Sudan. Winrock International, UNICEF South Sudan, SNV South Sudan. Draft.

SSCCSE, 2006. Poverty in Southern Sudan. Estimates from NBHS 2009. March 2010. SSCCSE, 2011. Statistical Yearbook for South Sudan. Centre for Census, Statistics and Evaluation. 2011.

The Sphere Project, 2012. Humanitarian Charter and Millennium Standards in Disaster

Response. 2011 Edition of the Sphere Handbook 2 September 2012.

WHO-UNICEF, 2012. Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation. Update 2012.

http://www.wssinfo.org/documents-links/introduction/

Zoa, 2011. Terekeka West Water Source Assessment Report. January 2011.



Interesting links

� WASH legal documents and MWRI technical guidelines. http://www.bsf-south-

sudan.org/content/policies-guidelines

� MWRI : http://www.mwri-goss.org/

� WIMS : http://www.sswich-mwrigoss.org/

� Rural water supply network : http://www.wssinfo.org/documents-links/introduction/



Annex 1 BSF IA extention. WASH Monitor ToR

Background & Justification

BSF’s purpose is to increase the coverage, access and use of the population of Southern Sudan

of Basic Services in Primary Education, Primary Health, and Water & Sanitation in a sustainable

way. BSF’s main expected results are the establishment of primary schools, primary health

clinics, boreholes and latrines. These results are accompanied by training of professional in

healthcare, teacher training, training for members of the communities and local authorities.

BSF started in January 2006 with GBP 7.9m for grants for 6 NGOs (round 1). Its second phase

(BSF-2 from 1 Jan 2009-31 Dec 2010) issued GBP 20 m (rounded) in grants to 25 NGOs (round

2 and 3). BSF-IA (Interim Arrangement from 1 July 2010-31 December 2011) issues GBP 35m

(rounded) BSF’s to 32 NGOs.

In phase-1 the fund assisted 64 schools, 63 primary health clinics, 219 boreholes and 1203

latrines. In phase-2 the fund assisted 87 schools, 113 clinics, 248 boreholes and 1000 latrines.

The targets for BSF-IA are 37 primary schools, 218 clinics, 378 boreholes, 2673 latrines. The

targets of BSF-IA extension (grants run from 1 January-31 December 2012) are assistance to

250 clinics, 15 schools, 50 classrooms, 68 water points (boreholes and others) and 94 latrine

stances.

The WASH component in BSF-IAe is reduced from GBP 10m (27% in BSF-IA) to GBP 860,000

(5%) in BSF-IAe because WASH is not included in the lead donor’s longer a priority sectors for

investments in South Sudan. But WASH is still included as an integrated part of the BSF-IAe

grants in Primary Health and Primary Education because health facilities are not sustainable and

not effective without access to safe water. And enrolment in primary education, particularly for

girls, will not develop without adequate water and sanitation facilities.

These terms of reference include the monitoring of the implementation in BSF-IA extension and in

addition they include follow-up of the implementation and impact of BSF-IA and BSF-2. This

follow-up is important for reasons of sustainability and value for money, in particular because:

� The analysis of unit prices for the BSF-IA boreholes (repaired and new) can only be

completed when all invoices are in and this is the case by the end of January 2012;

Position Monitor for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene promotion (WASH) projects

Project BSF-IA extension

Duty station Juba, Southern Sudan

Duration 200 days ( at max 26 days per month)

Period 1 January 2012-28 February 2013

Project name Basic Services Fund-Interim Arrangement extension (BSF-IAe)

Launched January 2005/06

Project authority GOSS Steering Committee chaired by Ministry of Finance

Fund GBP 20 m

Donors DFID ( lead donor) and Sweden

Management contract BMB MM 1 January 2012-28 February 2013



� In BSF-IA the Service provider introduced the “independent “ drilling supervisor to assure that

minimum quality standard are adhered to and the effectiveness of this needs to be analysed;

in other words do boreholes have a longer “maintenance-free” longevity as a result;

� Compare effectiveness and efficiency of new versus repaired boreholes

� Lessons learnt from the Community-lead Total Sanitation in particular for schools and its effect

on attendance

� Hand-over and integrate all BSF water points into MWRI’s SWITCH data base.

Qualifications:

The successful candidate has a master degree in rural development and at least 5 years field

experience in developing countries with fragile states. Previous experience in humanitarian

assistance and non-profit organizations is a pre-requisite. The nature of the assignments (project,

international, deadlines, travel) requires a flexible personality, team player, articulate

communicator, good verbal and written commend of the English language, highly computer

literate.

In close cooperation with the BSF secretariat, in particular with the Team leader, the position

assists the BSF team in providing a service oriented secretariat for Grant recipients where they

can come for help and support and to assure that all interventions are completed in time: in

particular she/he will assist in:

� Field inspection and monitoring visits to project sites to verify progress and adherence to

technical qualifications for boreholes, newly drilled and rehabilitated ones (verify diagnosis);

� Survey boreholes and sanitation of BSF phase 1,2, and IA and follow up on operational and

quality aspects;

� Assist in monitoring of all training efforts in particular those for community members for WASH

and school children;

� Consult with Parent Teacher Associations (primary school WASH), Village Health committees

(for primary health clinics) and water point committees (for boreholes);

� Assure participation on field visits of GoSS staff (central and/or state and/or county);

� Drafting short reports on field trip highlighting main findings, conclusions and

recommendation;

� Verification financial monthly invoices for construction for WASH;

� Documentation prices and unit costs for all construction in WASH;

� Updating indicator values for WASH (MDGs).

� Contribution to project progress reports;

� Perform any other duty as required.



Annex 2 Institutional and legal context of the WASH Sector

With the formation of GRoSS in October 2005 the MWRI was created. Its objective is to develop

policies, standards, guidelines, plans and monitoring for water resources management,

development, and utilization; and for provision of sanitation and hygiene services. The MWRI has

a Water Information Management System (WIMS) Department, created to manage an integrated

database that provides a systematic way of gathering information about water to assist in

decision making at all levels of the Water Sector. It compiles information on water points,

including technical specifications, location and status. One of its mandates is also to manage

drinking water quality information such that it can be centrally accessed by all the relevant

authorities at Government, State and County levels. Initially, the WIMS22

was referred to as the

South Sudan Water Information Clearing House (SSWICH), which was a project started in 2009

following up on the achievement of the Water Environment Sanitation (WES) Database.

The Water Policy of South Sudan was prepared in November 2007. It outlines the country key

issues and priorities in the WASH sector. Access to sufficient water of acceptable quality to

satisfy basic needs is considered a human right and shall be given highest priority in development

of water resources (General Principles of Water Policy, 2.3.3). Water is also defined both as an

economic and social good owned by all riparian people (General Principles of Water Policy, 2.3.1

and 2.3.4) and it is the duty of the GRoSS to ensure effective development and use of water

resources for the benefit of all, including poor and vulnerable groups (General Principles of Water

Policy, 2.3.3).

The Water policy also sets the priorities and the frame for O&M of water points: Regarding rural

water supply, it states that rural communities shall be supported to take an active role in planning,

managing and financing RWSS schemes on a sustainable basis (Guiding Principles for Rural

Water Supply and Sanitation, 4.1.5). More specifically, water users should be supported to make

informed technology choices which take account of local needs and priorities and existing

capacity for management and financing of O&M (Specific Objectives for Rural Water Supply and

Sanitation, 4.2.5) and users should be encouraged to contribute towards O&M costs while

ensuring that poor and vulnerable groups are not disadvantaged (Specific Objectives for Rural

Water Supply and Sanitation, 4.2.6). Those aspects should constitute the frame for any

implementing organisations active in the WASH sector. Involvement of private sector and NGOs

in the delivery of goods and services shall be actively encouraged and supported wherever

appropriate. (Guiding Principles for Rural Water Supply and Sanitation, 4.1.6).

In August 2011, MWRI with support from UNICEF developed the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

Sector Strategic Framework, with the idea to provide the outline for the operational

implementation of the South Sudan Water Policy. The WASH Strategic Framework, ‘shall pave

the way to move from ad-hoc emergency relief intervention to a holistic, Government-led planning

and implementation of well-targeted interventions in order to move gradually towards achieving

the MDG’. The JAM (2005) had already identified the need to ‘move away from intensive, short-

term initiatives inspired by humanitarian concerns’, to long term and better planned recovery

projects.

22 http://www.sswich-mwrigoss.org/



The development of the Rural WASH Sub-sector Action and Investment Plan23

(2012-2015)

(Facilitated by UNICEF) and the Water Act Bill (Facilitated by GIZ) are in the pipeline. In addition

to infrastructure development, improving and monitoring water quality aspects is becoming

increasingly a key priority.

The Objective of the SSDP is to increase the access to improved water resources from 34% in

2010 to 45% in 2013 for urban areas and 40% for rural areas. Table 1 provides the breakdown

until 2013 of the objectives of the SSDP in terms of percentage of the population having access

to improved water resources.

Table 1. Objective of the SSDP in terms of percentage of the population having access to

improved water resources.

Source 2010 2011 2012 2013

SSDP Baseline : 34% 35% 38% 45%

23 In process, after a workshop hold the 20th and 21st of October



Annex 3 Spare parts : Background, Status and views for the future

UNICEF24

started to be active in South Sudan in the late 1980s, with the establishment of

Operation Lifeline Sudan, in April 1989 in response to a devastating famine and the effects of a

long-term civil war. Two major areas of activities were identified: Health and WASH. When areas

would fall out with the Government of Sudan, UNICEF, lead agency for the WASH activities,

would mobilize resources for borehole construction and rehabilitation, provision of spare parts

and support for maintenance of the facilities through campaigns of trainings.

Since that date, UNICEF has remained the major provider of spare parts in South Sudan. The

spare parts have been directly distributed to the 10 States who are then responsible for the

distribution at lower level. NGOs also play a role in the spare parts supply chain. As spare parts

are not often available at local level, some NGOs procure spare parts from neighbouring

countries and use them for the execution for their own repair and rehabilitation programs.

While the Water policy (2007) mentions that communities should contribute to the O&M costs, it

seems that to date, communities have been dependent on external support and supplies. Once

such a situation is in place, reversing it is very difficult, unless, as mentioned in Winrock

International, UNICEF and SNV (2012), some very radical decisions are taken and implemented.

MWRI, UNICEF and other development partners are aware of this new challenge, mainly caused

by the fact that South Sudan is now in a transition phase between humanitarian relief to recovery

stage. UNICEF’s current approach to supplying spare parts is focussing on areas that need

emergency response. On a yearly basis, needs in terms of emergency response per State are

analysed and included in the KAP. This serves as a basis of the year after. But as UNICEF

mentioned (in an interview in November 2012) there is still some work to be done in how to define

emergency and how to better ‘plan the supply’ to respond to it.

UNICEF also focuses on support to rehabilitation of existing facilities. This support goes through

the governmental institutions and the existing capacities. It consists of financial support and

provision of the necessary spare parts. This support does not take place in all States. It is based

on identified needs from the National level and funding opportunities. Special attention is given to

areas with Guinea worms and rehabilitation of boreholes in health or school facilities.

The Technical Working Group of the Water Cluster initiated two surveys to understand the nature

of shortage of spare parts for hand pump maintenance in mid-2011. Under the guidance of the

MWRI, a consortium consisting of Winrock International, UNICEF and SNV took the initiative to

hire a consultant to consolidate the outputs of these surveys and carry out field visits to get

additional observations. This survey is based on the responses of 34 respondents (29 counties)

and 18 NGOs working in seven States and based on field visits in Western Equatoria, Eastern

Equatoria, Northern Bar El Gazal and Warrap.

According to Winrock, UNICEF, and SNV (2012), the spare part supply network is ‘A passive

conduit for transmission of handpump spare parts given free of charge by a number of sources to

24 Result of negotiations between the UN, the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army

(SPLM/A) to deliver humanitarian assistance to all civilians in need, regardless of their location or political affiliation



State and Counties. It is an overstretched system with no planned basis, very difficult logistics

and independent actors sometimes undermining each other’s effort to reach the same objective.

Currently it is not consistent with the stated objective stated in the Strategic Framework of the

government to make communities responsible for their water point’.



Annex 4 Water quality : Background, current status and indicators

Prior to 2006, a limited number of government owned facilities to deliver drinking water, through

conventional treatment, existed. There was also a general lack of technical and organisational

capacities to be able to perform adequate routine water treatment processes. The limited number

of laboratories then also exacerbated the situation, as there was no monitoring system for water

quality.

The MWRI acknowledges the importance of water quality monitoring and is currently giving it a

higher priority. The water policy (2011, General principles 2.3.3) states ‘Access to sufficient water

of acceptable quality to satisfy basic needs is considered a human right and shall be given

highest priority in development of water resources’. In addition to the Water Policy and the WASH

Strategic framework, Water Quality Technical Guidelines for South Sudan have been developed

(2011) as well as an Operations Manual for Water Quality monitoring for South Sudan.

Drinking water quality monitoring is currently conducted in an uncoordinated way by line

ministries, humanitarian agencies and NGOs. There is still no organised system reporting on

drinking water quality from such activities. Although one of the mandates of the WASH

Information Management System (WIMS) is to manage drinking water quality information, this

exercise is still in its juvenile stage.

Each State Directorate for Water and Sanitation (SDWS) has been provided with at least one,

potable water quality testing kit; capable of performing basic water quality test in the field. Some

NGOs have also their own water quality testing kit. There is also a central water quality laboratory

in Juba, which also receives water samples for basic water quality testing. However, for testing

microbiological water quality, the water sample has to reach the laboratory within 6 hours, which

is in many cases a challenge. As part of the Water Supply and Sanitation Project25

(WSSP), a

water quality laboratory has been constructed in each State (but not yet operational). Equipment

and reagents to test for the basic physical, chemical and microbiological parameters are being

brought to the State and training is currently being carried out.

Monitoring the progress toward MDG 7, Target 10: ’to reduce by half the proportion of people

without access to safe drinking water’’ for 2015 is difficult as periodic and standardized water

quality testing is not yet applied is South Sudan (as well as in many other developing countries

(WHO-UNICEF). In their effort to define and measures progress in access to drinking water

sources around the world, WHO and UNICEF have used the terms ‘use of an improved water

source’ as an indicator instead of ‘access to safe water source’ used in the MDG, where

‘improved’ was determined by the type of technology. An improved source is one that increases

the likelihood that it provides safe water. Hand pump borehole is considered to be an improved

technology to deliver safe water (WHO-UNICEF). ‘Use of an improved water sources’ is the

indicator being used for the National Baseline Household Survey (NBHS) of the National Bureau

of Statistics and the Sudan Health and Household Survey (SHHS).

25 The Water Supply and Sanitation Project (WSSP) was designed in 2009 with a total budget of USD30 million fully

financed by MDTF (administered by the World Bank/IDA), and encompasses both rural and urban water and sanitation.

The project became effective on 7th May 2010 and is expected to end on 30th December 2012.



Annex 5 Some definitions

Maintenance, repairs and rehabilitation

Different actors can have different ways of defining and differentiating maintenance, minor

repairs, major repairs and rehabilitation, which can lead to confusion. These terms are thus

defined in Table 1.

Table 1. Classification of typical repairs for hand pump equipped boreholes26

Classification Activities Who can do it? Costs

estimation

Who covers the

costs27?

Routine

maintenance

- Clearing drains and surroundings

- Maintenance of the fence

- Periodical replacement of fast

wearing parts (buckets, values, etc…)

Community with

water point care

taker

50 US$/year

- The communities

through water fees

collection

- or the NGOs

Minor Repair - Repair of damaged parts outside

routine service

- Replacement of damaged slow

wearing parts (handle, chain, few

pipes/rods, cylinder)

- Repair of cracks to platform or drain

Communities

with Water pump

care taker. If too

complex, a

skilled pump

mechanic or

other artisans

100 US$

- The communities

through water fees

collection

- or the NGOs

- The government (Most

spares part will be

provided free of charge

by UNICEF)

Major repairs

(can also be

classified of

rehabilitation

in some case)

- Fishing of dropped pipes and rods

- Cleaning of borehole

-Repairs of borehole casing and

screen

- Replacement of platform and drain

- Replacement of rising mains

Skilled pump

mechanics

2000 US $

- NGOs


spares parts will be


by UNICEF) through

donor money

Rehabilitation One or more of the following

activities:

- Flushing and redevelopment of the

borehole

- replacement of worn out parts

- Fishing out of pipes

cylinder, rods, pipes, etc.

- installing new casings/screens

-Test pumping of the well and taking

a water sample for testing

Need for a

drilling company

depends on

location

(mobilisation

fees).

- NGOs


spare parts will be


by UNICEF) through

donor money

Remark: According to Winrock International, UNICEF and SNV (2012), the average cost for a

repair is estimated at 1,100 $.

26 Based on the following source document : Government of Uganda, Ministry of water and Environment, 2007. Water

and Sanitation Sector District Implementation Manual Version 1.

27 This column indicates who are currently covering those costs in South Sudan and not who should cover the costs to

make the system sustainable. Who should be responsible for those costs to make the system sustainable has been a key

discussion.



Water point care taker vs. pump mechanic

It is only since a few years that the distinction between water point care taker and a pump

mechanic is being made. According to the survey of Winrock International, UNICEF and SNV

(2012), only 10% of the NGOs that responded to their questionnaire made the distinction between

caretakers training and pump mechanics training. A water point care taker is a nominated person,

part of the WUC, who is given basic training on maintenance and small repairs of the

superstructure. This person should have some knowledge of mechanics, but it is not always the

case28

. A water point care taker, as indicated in Table 1, is expected to do the basic maintenance

and the small repairs. In some cases, they have received, after the WUC committee training, a

tool kit and were taught how to dismantle a borehole and change the fast wearing parts.

A pump mechanic is someone which has undergone a training in basics mechanics or

engineering, and who has gained experience in hand pump repairs. Many of them are working on

a voluntary basis for the County Water Department (CWD). Others are employed at State Level.

Winrock International, UNICEF, SNV (2012) define pump mechanics as ‘someone able to

perform all maintenance needs associated with a handpump i.e. not a caretaker who is likely to

perform only preventive maintenance and very simple repairs.’

28 Discussions are taking place on the fact that not only one person of the WUC should be trained as water point care

takers, otherwise, if this person leaves, the community would be left without responsible person. On the other hand, if

too many communities’ members are being trained, the risk is that none of them will feel responsible.



Annex 6 Borehole Status Review Package: Note sent to the NGOs

Survey on hand-pump boreholes’ operational status in South Sudan

BSF IAe – Lucie Leclert (WASH Monitor)

24/05/12

1. Justification and Value for Money

Sustainable development of South Sudan strongly depends on improving the access of

communities to safe and clean water resources. A lot still needs to be done to meet the

Millennium Development Goal 7 target 10: ‘’To reduce by half the proportion of people without

access to safe drinking water’’.

Considering the hydro-geological conditions of the country and the urgent need for water of most

communities, donors have engaged in funding boreholes drilling all over South Sudan. Since

2006, the Basic Service Fund (BSF) has financed the drilling and repair/rehabilitation of hand-

pump boreholes through NGOs. In total, BSF contributed to the construction of 556 new hand-

pump boreholes and the rehabilitation of 535 existing hand-pump boreholes. Under the

assumption that all hand-pump boreholes (newly drilled and rehabilitated) are still operational, it

would mean that 545,500 people29

got access to improved water supply.

Value for Money is an approach widely used for Aid Programs. The Value for Money of a hand-

pump borehole is not only reflected by its unit price, but also by its efficiency and its

effectiveness. Its purpose being to supply water, the ‘Value for Money’ of a handpump borehole

depends on:

� Whether it is actually being used by the community

� Whether it is properly functioning

� How long it remains well-functioning.

In South Sudan, many NGOs are involved in drilling activities. Besides drilling, they also engage

(in principal) in activities to ensure the sustainability of the borehole. Methods and approaches for

construction supervision and contracting as well as for training and capacity building can differ

and have an impact of the well-functioning and the sustainability of the borehole.

29 Calculated on the assumption that a borehole serves 500 beneficiaries.



2. Hypothesis and purpose

This survey is based on the hypothesis that boreholes newly drilled are too often not functional

anymore after a short period of time.

The purpose of this survey is thus to assess the current operational status of BSF hand-pump

boreholes that were drilled in the period 2006-2011 as well as whether the mechanisms and the

enabling conditions for their sustainability are in place.

3. Approach

Definition

Different actors can have different ways of defining and differentiating maintenance, minor

repairs, major repairs and rehabilitation, which can lead to confusion. These terms are thus

defined in the table below30

.

Classification Activities Who is responsible? Costs estimation

Routine

maintenance

- Clearing drains and surroundings

- Maintenance of the fence

- Periodical replacement of fast

wearing parts (buckets, values, etc…)

Community with water

point care taker

50 US$/year

Minor Repair - Repair of Damaged parts outside

routine service

- Replacement of damaged slow

wearing parts (handle, chain, few

pipes/rods, cylinder)

- Repair of cracks to platform or drain

Communities (via the

WUC). They can also

ask the services of

pump Mechanics or

other artisans

100 US$

Major repairs (can

also be classified of

rehabilitation in

some case)

- Fishing of dropped pipes and rods

- Cleaning of borehole

-Repairs of borehole casing and screen

- Replacement of platform and drain

- Replacement of rising mains

Local Government 2000 US $

Rehabilitation

- Flushing and redevelopment of the

borehole

Local government (to

mobilise NGOs and/or

funds)

Depend on location

(mobilisation fees)

30 Base on the following source document : Government of Uganda, Ministry of water and Environment, 2007. Water and

Sanitation Sector District Implementation Manual Version 1.



Conditions for a sustainable borehole

A borehole will be in good-functioning stage and remains so for a long period of time if:

� The design, construction and validation after test pumping and water quality test have been

properly done

� The maintenance and the repairs are well undertaken by the Community and the water point

care taker, or, when more serious repairs, by the (trained) artisans (pump mechanics)

� The Payam (or County) Water Department is strongly involved and able to mobilise spare

parts (or mobilise funds for rehabilitation)

The quality of the design and construction of a borehole can vary depending on:

� The quality and the experience of the contactor

� The quality of the material used

� The type of contract with the contractor (NGOs’ own equipment, lump sum or bill of quantity

contract)

� Whether there has been proper (independent) supervision from the first day of the drilling until

the validation of the borehole once that the pumping test has indicated a yield high enough for

a hand pump and after the water quality test (i.e. good supervision and contract)

� The quality of the supervision (qualification of the supervisor, part time or full time)

Adequate maintenance and repairs depend on various factors:

� The level of ownership for the boreholes of the community

� The effectiveness of the WUC

� The ability of the community to mobilise money to pay for the pump mechanic or the spare

parts

� The availability of skilled pump mechanics and if they have means of transport

� The availability of spare parts for pump repairs

The involvement of the governmental entities at local level (County or Payam) also plays an

important role to ensure regular M&E of the borehole and ensure that spare parts are available.

Ideally, they should be informed by the community when there is an issue on the borehole and

should send a pump mechanic. It also plays a role in mobilising funds to finance the rehabilitation

of boreholes (on request of the communities).

The influence of each factor mentioned above will highly depend on the context and will probably

differ per borehole, per Payam or per NGOs. The results of this survey will provide more

feedback on these influencing factors.



Classification of the boreholes status

The conceptual figure below summarises the different ‘operational status’ of a borehole and the

reasons for it. (The numbers in the boxes are linked to the questionnaire’s questions).



1. Methodology

a. The population

To get a good assessment of the current operational status of hand-pump boreholes in South

Sudan, the sample of boreholes to assess for this survey should ideally not only include those

drilled under BSF but also those funded by other donors. However, considering the timeframe for

this survey and the fact that we, as Management Consultant for BSF on request of DFID, already

have information on the BSF boreholes, it was decided to focus on the BSF boreholes.

b. Source of information

� From previous reports of other WASH monitors (for the methodology)

� From previous surveys (ZOA31)

� By requesting NGOs to assess the status of previously drilled boreholes and report

� The BSF WASH monitor will also, in some case, join the NGOs to the field and assist them in

the execution of the survey and the collection of the data

c. What is expected from the NGOs

It is part of NGOs’ strategy to ensure the sustainability of the newly drilled boreholes by

monitoring their status. This survey can be seen as an impact review. The survey is developed to

enable us to get a better insight on the reasons why a borehole is functional or not, and provide

feedback on the limiting factors that impact its sustainability. It is expected from the NGOs that

they assess as many boreholes as they can (preferably 100%), before the 20th of August. Though

the aim of this survey is not to compare NGOs’ performance, the percentage of boreholes

assessed per NGOs will be reported on the final report to the government, DFID and other

donors.

The documents to be filled are :

- An excel spread sheet in which the information for each borehole should be

reported. When going to the field to collect the information, the questionnaire (annex

2) can be used to support the data collection

- Some additional/general questions on the construction, the independent

supervision, the borehole’s sustainability and the involvement of the local

government.

31

Zoa, 2011. Terekeka West Water Source Assessment Report, January 2011.



Annex 7 Borehole Status Review Package : Data Collection Sheet

The first page has to be filled no matter is the borehole is functional or not.

In the second page, if the borehole is functional, please fill the green (first) part. If the borehole is not

functional, please fill the red (second) part.

The numbers before certain answers can be ignored. They are referring to the conceptual figure in

the note.

General information Possible answers

Date of assessment

Name of Assessor

Name of borehole

Geographic coordinates

Where is the borehole located School Community Health centre

Date it was drilled

Current status of the borehole 1. Functional 2. Non-functional

What is the alternative source of water?

It is still being used? No Yes Sometimes

Is there a Payam Water Department? No Yes Yes, but not very active

Assessor observation on the borehole’s status

Platform ok? Yes No Fenced ? Yes No

Drainage system ok? Yes No Pump ok ? Yes No

Concrete draining water

collection ponds? Yes No

Water coming out easily and

sufficiently? Yes No

Assessor’s Rating

(1-bad to 5-excellent) 1 2 3 4 5

Additional comments?

WUC Possible answers

Is there a WUC? No Yes Yes but not operational anymore

Does the WUC have regular meetings? No Yes Only when there is a problem

How many members?

How many women?

Are you paying a user fee? Yes No

Additional comments?



If the borehole is functional Possible answers

Borehole functioning issues

Is everything working fine with the borehole? 1.1.Yes 1.2. No.

If not, what is the problem ?

If not, can you repair it yourself ? Yes No

If not, did you inform a pump mechanic ? Yes, we are waiting Yes, but he could not do anything

No, not yet Other. Specify

Borehole yield and water quality

Is the taste of the water OK ? Yes No

1.2.1. Is the yield of the borehole satisfying? Yes 1.2.1. No 1.2.1.It has been decreasing over the years

Do you have to queue for the water sometimes ? 1.2.2.Often Sometimes Never

Is it hard to pump? Yes 1.2.2. No

Do you have water throughout the year ? Yes 1.2.1. No

Do you always have clear water? Yes 1.2.3. No

Additional comments ?

If the borehole is not functional Possible answers

Why are you not using the borehole ?

2.1. It is broken down 2.2.3. Too far from community

2.2.2.Water quality problem 2.2.1. Too low yield

2.2.4.Too hard to pump 2.2.5.Other water sources close by

2.2.6. Other, specify…..

In case there is a technical breakdown

Is it the first time that it breaks down? Yes No

Since when it is broken down ?

Less than a week A week to a month

A month to 6 months More than 6 months

Why do you think it broke down ? Lack of maintenance Too many users

Construction issue Other (detail)

Do you think it can be repaired ? 2.1.2. Yes 2.1.3. No 2.1.1. I don’t know

Have you informed someone that the borehole is

broken down ?

Yes, The NGO Yes. the water department

Yes, a pump mechanic 2.1.1. No, Noone

If yes, has a pump mechanic come already ? 2.1.2.No, we are waiting Yes, but could not repair

2.1.5.No, we are still mobilising funds Other (detail)

Why could not he repair the borehole ? 2.1.3. No spare parts available 2.1.5. Bh needs complete rehab

Other (fill below)

Other specify :

Additional comments ?



Annex 8 Borehole Status Review Package : Questionnaire to NGOs

Concerning the construction

- Do you have your own drilling equipment or do you use the services of a drilling contractor?

- What is your relationship with /trust in the drilling company ?

- Do you use Lump-Sum contract or Bills of Quantities contract with the contractor ? Why ?

- What do you do in case of a dry borehole?

Independent Supervision In BSF-IA (2010-2011), the ‘independent’ drilling supervisor was introduced with the idea that it would assure that minimum quality standard are adhered to from the start of the drilling till the water quality test.

- Have you requested the services of an independent supervisor?

- Who was he? (Government, your NGOs, private company?)

- Has he been on site full time or part time? What do you request him to check more in particular? Please provide details.

- If you have used the services of an independent supervisor, what has been the impact of this measure on the sustainability of the drilled borehole to your opinion? Did it improve the quality of the boreholes that were drilled? Please detail.

For ensuring borehole’s sustainability

- How do you keep track of the borehole’s status?

- How often do you visit the site where you drilled the borehole?

- Do you think the lack of maintenance is a major issue? If yes, what do you for it?

- Which type of trainings do you normally carry out to make sure that the borehole will be properly maintained? How many days of trainings do you provide and who do you involve? (please detail the type of trainings you provide and how you select the participants)

- How do you ensure that the WUC are properly trained and remain active?

- What is, according to you, the main reason for the lack of sustainability of the boreholes and what would you suggest solve/improve it?

Concerning the involvement of the local government

- Is there a Payam or County Water Department?

- How involved are they to help communities with the maintenance and the repair of the hand-pump boreholes?

- How much are you involving them in your work? Please provide details.



Annex 9 Key Dates of the Status Review

April - Consultation with key NGOs (meeting in their headquarter in Juba) and getting

feedback and recommendations on the methodology to use and already inform

them on the upcoming status review

- Preparation of a first draft of the BSF Borehole Status Review Package

Consta

nt in

volv

em

ent a

nd c

om

mu

nic

atio

n o

f the M

WR

I

May

- Testing of the data collection sheet in the field with ZOA in Tali and preparing

the final Borehole Status Review Package

June - 7th June :Sending to Each NGO their Borehole Status Review Package (to

send back before the 20th of August)

- Field Visit to start data collection

July - 9th July : First reminder to all NGOs to send back their Borehole Status Review

Package filled

Aug - 14th August : Sending the second reminder to the NGOs

- Combining the received results

Sept - Contacting NGOs who have not sent their Borehole Status Review Package

- Starting the analysis

Oct

- Preparation of the first draft of the Report

Nov - Evaluation mission of DFID

- Collection of the final records (that were not accessible in the rainy season)

Dec

- Submission of the final report



Annex 10 Total boreholes drilled for BSF per NGO and per State

Table A: Total boreholes with BSF per NGO

NGO BSF-1 BSF-2 BSF-IA BSF-IAe Total

ACF

7

7

ACTED

39

39

ADRA

10 10 20

AMA

49

49

AMREF 20

20

ARC

5

5

AVSI

7 4

11

CARE

1 1 2

CARITAS CH 19

19

CMSI

8

1 9

Concern

7

7

CRS

15

15

HARD

3 4 2 9

Intermon OXFAM

18 17

35

INTERSOS

17

18

IRC 21

21

MALTESER

5 11 16

MEDAIR 10

10

MERLIN 10

10

OXFAM GB 73 29 21

123

OXFAM Novib

6

6

SCiSS

3 2 5

SC-US 3

3

SWISS RED CROSS

19

19

Tearfund b

28

28

UMCOR

10 24

34

WORLD RELIEF

1

1

World Vision

4 5

9

ZOA

29

29

Total 156 148 247 27 578

Remark: For BSF-IAe, the target has been included (27) and not the actual number of boreholes

drilled as per November 2012 (16)



Table B: Total boreholes drilled with BSF per State

State BSF-1 BSF-2 BSF-IA BSF-IAe Total

CEQ 20 8 44 1 73

EEQ 29 7 19

55

Jonglei

28

28

LAKES

1 3 2 6

NBeG 21 10 36 1 68

UNITY 42 19 1 1 63

Upper Nile 44 29 21 10 104

Warrap

49 20

69

wBeG

21 42 1 64

WEQ

4 33 11 49

Total 156 148 247 27 578

Table C: Total boreholes drilled with BSF per State per type of facility

State Community School Health

Facility

Total

CEQ 58 5 10 73

EEQ 33 10 12 55

Jonglei 28

28

LAKES 2 2 2 6

NBeG 55 6 7 68

UNITY 58 3 2 63

Upper Nile 91 5 8 104

Warrap 64 5

69

wBeG 54 6 4 64

WEQ 19 8 22 49

Total 461 50 67 578



Annex 11 Records received per NGO, State and Phase and functionality status

Table D: Total boreholes received per NGO and functionality status

NGO

Total

bh Bh

Reported % reported

Average

rating

Functional

Not funct

Funct

rate

(%)

% fully

functional Total funct

Reduced funct

Fully funct

ACF 7 4 57 3.0 2 2 2 50.0 50.0

ACTED 39 5 13 4.2 5 3 2 100.0 40.0

ADRA 20 14 70 4.0 14 14 100.0 100.0

AMA 49 0 0

0.0 0.0

AMREF 20 0 0

0.0 0.0

ARC 5 5 100 4.0 5 1 4 100.0 80.0

AVSI 11 10 91 3.9 10 3 7 100.0 70.0

CARE 2 0 0

0.0 0.0

CARITAS CH (1) 19 17 89 2.6 17 4 4 100.0 23.5

CMSI 9 9 100 3.2 5 2 3 4 55.6 33.3

Concern 7 7 100 4.0 7 7 100.0 100.0

CRS 15 15 100 4.0 15 15 100.0 100.0

HARD 9 7 78 3.4 5 5 2 71,4 71.4

Int. OXFAM (1) 35 29 83 3.7 28 6 6 1 96.6 20.7

INTERSOS 17 17 100 3.8 17 9 8 100.0 47.1

IRC 21 21 100 2.9 19 11 8 2 90.5 38.1

MALTESER 16 16 100 3.0 16 2 14 100.0 87.5

MEDAIR 10 0 0

0.0 0.0

MERLIN 10 8 80 3.4 8 2 6 100.0 75.0

OXFAM GB 123 93 76 3.7 93 93 100.0 100.0

OXFAM Novib 6 6 100 4.2 6 6 100.0 100.0

SCiSS 5 0 0

0.0 0.0

SC-US 3 0 0

0.0 0.0

SRCC 19 19 100 3.8 16 6 10 3 84.2 52.6

Tearfund b 28 28 100 4.0 28 28 100.0 100.0

UMCOR 34 34 100 4.0 34 34 100.0 100.0

Word Relief 1 0 0

0.0 0.0

World Vision 9 7 78 4.6 7 4 3 100.0 42.9

ZOA 29 29 100 4.0 29 1 28 100.0 96.6

Total 578 400 69 3.7 386 306 14 96.5 76.8

(1) Those boreholes were reported on but, due to accessibility challenges, the NGOs could only report on

whether they were functional or non- functional, but not the full assessment. Therefore, the sum fully

functional + reduced functionality (361) does not equal total functional borehole. The difference of 25

corresponds to 16 of Intermon Oxfam and 9 of Caritas that were reported as functional but with no further

details. This could also modify slightly the functionality rate as well as the % fully functional



Table E: Total borehole received per BSF phase and functionality status

Phase

Total

bh Bh

Reported % reported

Average

rating

Functional

Not funct

Funct

rate

(%)

% fully

functional Total funct

Reduced funct

Fully funct

BSF 1 156 89 57 3.4 87 17 61 2 97.8 68.5

BSF 2 148 94 64 3.7 84 10 58 10 89.5 62.1

BSF IA 247 201 81 3.9 199 26 173 2 99.0 86.1

BSF IAe 27 16 59 3.1 16 1 15 0 100.0 93.8

Total 578 401 69 3.7 386 54 306 14 96.5 76.8

For the BSF-IAe, it was assumed that the ones in progress for the BSF-IAe are fully functional

Table F: Total boreholes received per State and functionality

State

Total

bh Bh

Reported % reported

Average

rating

Functional

Not funct

Funct

rate

(%)

% fully

functional

Total funct

Reduced funct

Fully funct

CEQ 73 53 73 3.8 49 3 46 4 92.5 86.8

EEQ 55 50 91 3.6 50 10 31 100.0 62.0

Jonglei 28 28 100 4.0 28 28 100.0 100.0

LAKES 6 0 0

0

NBeG 68 66 97 3.6 63 11 52 3 95.5 78.8

UNITY 63 31 49 3.8 28 6 22 3 90.3 71.0

Upper Nile 104 85 81 3.7 84 84 100.0 100.0

Warrap 69 13 19 3.5 12 6 6 1 92.3 46.2

wBeG 64 29 45 3.7 26 3 7 3 89.7 24.1

WEQ 48 46 96 3.6 46 15 31 100.0 67.4

Total 578 400 69 6.7 386 54 306 14 96.5 76.8

For the BSF-IAe, it was assumed that the ones in progress for the BSF-IAe are fully functional



Annex 12 Average cost per completed borehole per grant recipient per BSF phase

The average direct cost per completed borehole32

varies per grant recipient depending on the

concluded contract, after contract negotiations. Part of the boreholes were paid according to LS

no—water-no-pay contracts, where the contract amount equals the amount of completed

(successful) borehole times a lump sum value; in that case the terminology unit cost applies.

Other boreholes were drilled using BoQ contracts, where the final invoiced price per borehole

differs according to actual quantities achieved during the completion of the borehole, and final

costs therefore differ from the contract amount. The cost includes all activities and materials to

arrive at a functional borehole, but exclude costs of personnel administrating the project. Activities

included in the costs are mobilisation to the site, geophysical sitting, drilling, drilling supervision,

well development and test-pumping, water quality tests and construction of platform and hand

pump installation. In most cases the grant recipients subcontracted these works. In case they

used their own drilling rig, the costs depend in what the contract recipient invoice, but typically

this would include the depreciation costs of the rig, costs for materials and fuel, and costs for the

drilling team. The cost however excludes the purchase of spare part kits or the training of water

user committees and/or pump mechanics.

The BSF-IAe phase is currently on-going. Up to present (2012/11/05), a total of 562 boreholes

have been invoiced for the four phases, which forms the basis of the cost calculations. In order to

get an overview of the costs incurred for borehole drilling, and the inherent cost-efficiency of the

borehole drilling component under BSF1 – BSF IAe, average borehole costs have been

determined per grant recipient and per phase, as listed in Annex 8. A subjective classification of

costs per borehole has been made of which the legend has been included as the first table of

Annex 8. The tables in Annex 8 show that there are large cost variations per completed borehole

amongst the grant recipients, from an average cost per borehole as low as GBP 4,853 in Phase 1

(IRC) to as high as GBP 15,433 in Phase 2 (World Vision).

The weighted average cost of completing a borehole over the various phases is provided in Table

F. Table 1 also provides the number of boreholes per phase and in which geological unit they

have been drilled according to the Sudan Hydrogeological Map (UNMIS GIS Unit, August 2006,

scale : 1:3,500,000).

Table 1. Average cost per completed borehole per phase

32 Defined in this context as a borehole installed with a hand pump and invoiced to BSF

Phase Average cost / bh Number of bh bh in

Basement

bh in

sediments

bh in boundary zone

Basement / sediments

BSF-1 £ 5,974 156 36 77 43

BSF-2 £ 8,819 148 40 60 48

BSF-IA £ 7,550 247 133 73 41

BSF-IAe £ 8,362 11 11 0 0

Total number of boreholes invoiced 562

Completed, not invoiced yet 6



Figure 1 shows the difference in average completed borehole costs per phase. It follows that the

average cost of completing a borehole at GBP 8,819 was highest in BSF-2, and lowest in BSF-1

(GBP 5,974).

Figure 1. The average cost of completing a borehole for the four phases under BSF.

There are many factors influencing the cost of a borehole, including the mobilization costs and

insurance, the type of contract (lump sum or bill of quantities-based), the depth of the borehole,

the design of the borehole and the type of bidding (open bidding, restricted bidding, or only

inviting one driller to bid, or not bidding but using the NGO’s own drilling rig). These factors are

impacted by the distance of the drill sites from the base of the drilling contractor, the accessibility

of the area in terms of seasonal flooding, the type of underlying geology, the internal procedures

of the NGO or the client (donors represented by BSF Secretariat), and the presence of an

external drilling supervisor.

The aspect of mobilisation costs in terms of travelling distance for the drilling contractor is hard

to determine, as it is as this stage not known where the drilling contractors for the various phases

were travelling from. However, IRC employed a Ugandan contractor who drilled for BSF in the

remote part of Western Bahr-el-Ghazal, for the cheapest cost for all BSF Phases. On the other

hand, AMREF drilled with a Southern Sudanese drilling company (based in Juba, Central

Equatoria) in nearby Terekeka County, for the highest average cost per borehole. Though not

conclusive statistically, it does not seem to be a determining factor in establishing the cost for a

borehole.

Accessibility of the drill sites in the wet season is a challenging factor mostly in the sedimentary

formations, but also parts of the Basement areas can be inaccessible. The main issue at hand

seems to be the implementation period (“window”) where rigs can access the sites during the dry

season, and drillers have to plan carefully when to start the drilling and when to complete, as late

completion will have the risk that the rig gets stuck in that area for a couple of months and cannot

drill any other wells; incorporating that risk in the contract cost is impossible as it would render the

contract prohibitively high.

Underlying geology: Boreholes in sedimentary formations in South Sudan are nearly always

producing sufficient water, and therefore one drilling attempt per site is sufficient, unless a

technical failure occurs. Boreholes in Basement rocks in South Sudan require extensive

geophysical surveys and even then, the chances of drilling dry boreholes can be as high as 39%

(Intersos in BSF-IA drilled 28 boreholes to arrive at 17 completed boreholes). Therefore, the

£-

£1,000

£2,000

£3,000

£4,000

£5,000

£6,000

£7,000

£8,000

£9,000

£10,000

BSF-1 BSF-2 BSF-IA BSF-IAe

Cost / Borehole [GBP]

Cost / Borehole [GBP]



expenses per completed borehole are comparatively higher in Basement formations than in

sedimentary formations.

Figure 2 provides the distribution of boreholes over the different major geological units in South

Sudan for the various BSF phases. BSF-1 has the smallest fraction of boreholes in the low

potential Basement rocks (23%), and also has the least average borehole cost. However, BSF-2,

with the highest average borehole cost has only a marginally bigger percentage of boreholes in

Basement rocks (27). During BSF-IA, more than half of the boreholes (54%) were drilled in

Basement rock, yet the average borehole cost was lower than during the BSF-2 phase.

Figure 2. Percentage-wise distribution of completed boreholes in geological units for the four BSF

phases.

Of the 21 NGOs having worked under BSF that reported in the questionnaire, nine used a BOQ

contract33,

for which contractors are paid according to works done, also for dry boreholes. These

BOQ contracts reported on, signed and invoiced against in Phases IA and IAe, have not resulted

in comparatively reduced contract costs; in fact this has resulted in average costs varying

between GBP 8,163 (UMCOR) and GBP 9,899 (Malteser).

Four NGOs reported that they drilled with their own rig (Oxfam GB, World Vision, CRS and ADRA

partly); the average borehole cost of these grant recipients varies considerably over the BSF

phases. Oxfam GB remains in the average cost ranges per phase, whereas ADRA ’s average

borehole costs are higher than the average rates per BSF phase.

Table 2 Average cost per borehole [GBP] with grant recipients using own drilling equipment.

Grant Recipient BSF-1 BSF-2 BSF-IA

Oxfam GB 6,567 8,500 6,959

World Vision 15,433 9,000

CRS 5.236

ADRA 13,144

External drilling supervision was recommended as one of the lessons learnt to increase the quality of

works and cost-effectiveness of boreholes (the latter in the case of BOQ contracts). This approach was

introduced for all grant recipients in BSF phases IA and IAe. It can be concluded for the few BOQ contracts

reported upon, that the average borehole cost has not significantly reduced as compared to the other

contracts signed for that phase; however. The weighted average borehole cost for phase IA was smaller

33 Acted, Hard, Malteser, Oxfam Novib, Red Cross, Umcor, and Intermon Oxfam

23% 27%

54%

100%

28%

32%

17%

0%

49%41%

30%

0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

BSF-1 BSF-2 BSF-IA BSF-IAe

Number of boreholes in

sediments

% of boreholes in

boundary zone Basement

/ sediments

% of boreholes in

Basement



than that of the previous phase indicating that the average cost for LS contracts reduced as compared to

BSF-2. It can also be noted that there are other influences that the type of contract cannot affect e.g.

Fluctuations in the inflation rate, price of metal, fuel, labour…

For the NGOs having used LS contracts in BSF-IA, the average unit cost (not weighted) seems to

be slightly cheaper than for boreholes drilled under BoQ, being of GDP 7,885 for boreholes with

LS contract and GDP 8,103 for boreholes with BoQ. This difference is not sufficient to draw

conclusion on the influence of the types of contract when compared to the impact of other factors.

The JAM (2005) applied a unit rate of USD 12,000 (equivalent to about GBP 7,500) for the

construction of boreholes in Southern Sudan. This was achieved in BSF-1 but not in the

subsequent phases.

The higher costs for BSF-IAe boreholes could be explain by the fact that implementing NGOs

were not specialised in water thus maybe not able to compare bids of different drillers and be

critical on price. It could also be explained by the fact that, except for Malteser and ADRA, other

NGO would get funds for one or two boreholes, meaning that the mobilisation costs would have

to be divided for a limited amount of borehole.

All in all, a much more in-depth study is required to analyse the combined effect of all factors

influencing the drilling costs in South Sudan implemented through the BSF Secretariat. The

competitiveness of the bidding exercise, and the availability of drillers (to what extent drillers are

willing to bid for certain inaccessible or otherwise unfavourable areas) may also well have an

impact on the average cost. However, in the absence of conclusive explanations, it seems

reasonable to conclude that using the average rates for the various phases, grant recipients can

be informed that their proposed costs are too high, and need to be further revised downwards, if

average costs exceed GBP 9,000.



Annex 13 Supporting tables for Unit costs analysis

Grant recipients BSF-1

Actual

cost/borehole

[GBP]

Achieved No. of

boreholes

AMREF 10,333£ 20

CARITAS 19

Merlin / AVSI 6,133£ 10

IRC 4,853£ 21

MEDAIR 6,000£ 10

OXFAM GB 6,567£ 73

SC-US 7,524£ 3

Weighted average BSF-1 5,974£ 156

Grant recipients BSF-2

Actual

cost/borehole

[GBP]

Achieved No. of

boreholes

AMA 9,109£ 49

AVSI 9,220£ 7

CMS £ 7,907 8

HARD £ 9,965 3

OXFAM-GB £ 8,500 29

Intermon OXFAM £ 10,137 18

Swiss Red Cross £ 6,300 19

UMCOR £ 8,276 10

World Relief £ 8,000 1

World Vision £ 15,433 4

Weighted average BSF-2 8,819£ 148

Grant recipients BSF-IA

Targeted

cost/borehole

[GBP]

Target No. of

boreholes

Actual

cost/borehole

[GBP]

Achieved No. of

boreholes

ACTED 5,921£ 33 5,955£ 39

ACF-USA 7,061£ 7 6,370£ 7

ADRA 10 13,144£ 10

ARC 7,238£ 4 6,337£ 5

AVSI cat II 6,333£ - 9,639£ 4

Care - 1

CMS Ireland cat II 8,000£ 1 0

CONCERN 9,763£ 7 7,598£ 7

CRS 8,957£ 15 5,236£ 15

HARD 7,500£ 3 7,408£ 4

Intermon OXFAM 9,945£ 17 8,089£ 17

Intersos 9,306£ 18 11,496£ 17

Malteser - 9,850£ 5

OXFAM GB 6,959£ 25 4,791£ 21

TEARFUND 9,143£ 28 7,961£ 28

SCiSS 7,508£ 3 6,362£ 3

UMCOR 8,163£ 12 7,582£ 24

Oxfam Novib 9,002£ - 9,000£ 6

World vision cat II

9,000£ 9 9,879£ 5

ZOA 8,000£ 26 8,502£ 29

Weighted average BSF-IA 7,550£ 247



Grant recipients BSF-IAe

Actual cost/borehole [GBP]

Achieved No. of boreholes

Achieved but not yet invoiced

CCM £ 7,500 0

Malteser £ 8,362 11

Hard 1

ADRA 4

Care 0

CMSI 1

SCiSS 0

Average BSF-IA £ 7,931 11 6

Weighted average BSF-IAe £ 8,362



Annex 14 Combined Lessons learned BSF WASH

Throughout the four phases of BSF, the way to implement the WASH component has evolved. By

gaining more knowledge and identifying shortcomings, the BSF Secretariat has gradually

optimized the approach for monitoring progress of WASH projects implementation following the

lessons learnt throughout the years, which helped making remarkable progress towards its

targets in raising safe water coverage. Advices provided from the BSF Secretariat to the grant

recipients have also been adjusted for a more sustainable implementation of the WASH projects.

The main improvements occur on the following aspects:

- Drilling contracts

Almost all drilling contracts for the first two phases were lump sum per successful borehole drilled

(LS). Usually, and especially in the absence of healthy competition, LS contracts turn out to be

more costly, as the drilling contractor wants to ensure that the contract has a decent profit by

covering any risk of drilling a dry borehole through an increased price per borehole. To enable a

good technical assessment of material and design before and during the execution of the drilling

and also to make supervision easier, the BSF Secretariat has strongly advised NGOs to have a

BoQ contract with Contactors, and particularly from BSF-IA. This involved that, in case of a dry

borehole (under the condition that the site was selected after geophysical survey, see paragraph

below), the work executed will be paid for. From BSF- IA, there was an additional budget to pay

for the dry boreholes in addition to the budget agreed with the NGOs.

- Geophysical survey

To avoid the risks of dry boreholes, the BSF Secretariat, from BSF-IA, strongly recommended to

execute a geophysical survey before to start drilling activities. The price for this survey should be

part of the BoQ or, if the contractor does not have the necessary equipment, should be

additionally budgeted for and executed by a specialized company.

- Drilling supervision

Requesting an independent supervisor during the drilling activities did not used to be widespread

in South Sudan. The need for independent supervision was already identified in BSF-1. From

BSF-2 onwards, the BSF Secretariat strongly advised the grant recipients to request the services

of an independent supervisor, either a qualified supervisor from the County or State Water

Department, or an external independent supervisor. Costs for it could be budgeted for. In the last

phase of BSF, the NGOs reported having used the supervision services of County or State Water

Department Staff, some of which attended the training.

- Water quality testing

Water quality testing before to validate a new and rehabilitated water point was a major deficiency

while this is an essential criterion before to install the hand pump and leave the borehole for use

of the communities. The BSF Secretariat has been requesting that water points ‘water quality at

least comply with the standard established by the MWRI’. Boreholes with unacceptable water

quality will be paid for but no hand pump should be installed. Standard water quality forms have

been developed by the MWRI and should be submitted by the NGOs or the Contractor to the

county (or State) water department.

- Reporting

Field reports, geophysical survey reports, borehole drilling logs, and water quality reports need to

be handed in to the County or State Water Department to feed to the SSWICH database. This



should include both successful and unsuccessful boreholes. As this flow of information has

appeared to be unreliable, and on request of the MWRI, the NGOs were requested to also send a

copy of those forms to the BSF Secretariat. The BSF Secretariat would then hand over those

forms directly to the MWRI to accelerate the feeding of the Water Information Management

System : WIMS (previously called SSWICH). Currently, the MWRI is setting up WIMS offices at

State level and staff are being trained to collect and computerise this information at State level.

Sensitisation campaigns are being carried out to incite NGOs and contractor to hand over

systematically the forms to the State Office.

- Repair and Rehabilitation

Repair/rehabilitation of boreholes is more cost effective (with the benefit measured in terms of

increased access to safe drinking water) than drilling new boreholes. This lesson learned was

taken into account from BSF-2 where borehole rehabilitation and repairs started to be funded

(BSF-1 only funded the drilling of new boreholes). Since BSF-2, 535 boreholes were repaired and

rehabilitated. However, grant recipients do not always distinguish between rehabilitation and

repair and have been reporting minor repairs as rehabilitation. Rehabilitation of boreholes should

include new platform, pump, cylinder, rods, etc. A rehabilitated borehole should, in order to give it

a longer lifespan, also be flushed and disinfected. In BSF-IAe however, the distinction in the

reporting format was made.



Annex 15 Examples of types of trainings provided by NGOs

ACF provides a one day training to WUC while the assessment and repair of the water point is

occurring. Training subjects include administration (roles and responsibilities of WUC members)

and accountancy (user fee collection, accountability, record keeping). Occasionally, a second day

of training can be offered covering general maintenance and water point management (interaction

with users and local authorities). ACF indicated that they are in the process of creating a more

rigorous caretaker training that will take an additional 2 days. It will go into details for the pump

parts, inspection and practical training exercises. The main focus will be for caretakers to

understand their role in planned preventative maintenance (daily, weekly and monthly inspections

and simple repairs or replacements).

Pump mechanics are also trained by ACF for 2 days. ACF has focused on strengthening pump

mechanics skills while also helping them form associations in which they can hone private

business and logistics management skills.

UMCOR conducts several trainings including, water management committee trainings (2 care

takers, chairperson, secretary, treasury and 4 committee members per water point). The

members are taken through 2 days practical and 2 days theory training. The WUC are trained on

their roles and responsibilities on management, active participation, and transparency and being

accountable to the community they serve. In addition to follow up visit from the NGO, the local

chiefs and County Water Departments are also advised to regularly call for meetings with the

group to ensure they remain active. Pump mechanics training lasts 5 days. UMCOR also

provides refresher trainings to pump mechanics that play a pivotal role in the repair of water

points thus ensuring their continued operation.

For each borehole drilled, World Vision provides 5 days training for WUC, focussing on the roles

and responsibilities of water user committee members, management and leadership skills,

community participation and mobilization, user fee management, record keeping, personal

hygiene, common hygiene and sanitation related diseases and role of RWSS department and the

community in managing water points. The person conducting the training in the local CWDE

representative, and a staff member of the World Vision will supervise. They also provide training

of pump mechanics, focusing on Operation and Maintenance of INDIA MK II hand pumps, trouble

shooting and how to channel any mal-functioning issues related to the borehole to the RWSS

office both at the Payam and County level.

Intersos will carry out WUC training of 5 days. The training will be provided by the local

employee of Intersos that used to work for the SDWS.

In the case of ZOA, the WUC training is generally a 7 days training. The objectives of the different

modules and lessons are to make communities understand the importance of safe water supplies

and to enable them to deal with technical, health and social problems in relation to water in an

appropriate way. ZOA is in consortium with a local NGO called Compass, who has local

employee providing the training to the communities.

Intermon Oxfam reported to be providing training for water user committee for 2 days. The hand

pump mechanics training will include 2 people from each WMC (50% of the positions are offered

to women. However, sometimes it is not possible to reach this ratio). They are trained then

trained for 5-7days. RWD participates in the facilitation of these trainings.



IRC delivers 3 days WUC training for each water point focusing on basic water point

management, hygiene and sanitation and training for care takers.

In the case of Malteser, 3 to 5 days trainings are provided for Water User Committees,

conducted by official trainers from the State Directorate of Water and Sanitation in Yambio.

Malteser also provides trainings for community elected “Care Takers/Pump Mechanics” to ensure

a proper maintenance and usage of the boreholes. For each Borehole there are five of these

“Care Takers/Pump Mechanics” invited to attend the Workshops. The trainings are conducted by

two official trainers requested from the State Directorate of Water and Sanitation in Yambio and

last for 7 days. The syllables for these Workshops are as follows:

- Introductions to a standard tool kit

- Usage of each tool by care takers

- How to remove a cylinder head

- Application of grease to the chain

- Fitting of minor spare parts i.e. nuts

- How to do borehole fencing

(which seems to be more Water point care training subject than real pump mechanics)

ACTED reported to carry out training for 3 days, focusing on practical aspects on O&M of

borehole and supporting communities to link with the CWD

Swiss Red Cross conducted training of pump technician was conducted for 5 days covering

basic maintenance skills.

AVSI reported to carry out trainings of Pump Mechanics, and Water Users Committees; and this

normally takes a period of two to three weeks, depending on the availability of the resources.

Oxfam GB reported that pump mechanics trainings are executed by a qualified water technician

for seven days theory followed by 14 days practical in the field. There after the trainees are

supervised by qualified water technicians throughout, whenever there is a broken pump till they

are competent to handle all types of borehole repairs. They ensure the long term impact of the

borehole drilled by providing refresher retraining of village pump mechanics, and supply of fast

moving kits ( depending on the accessibility and as long as the project does not close down in

that particular site).

CRS facilitates Hand Pump Mechanic and Hygiene Promotion Training targeting the local

community around the water points. Five people are selected (3 for Hand Pump Mechanic

Technicians and 2 for Hygiene Promoters training) from each newly drilled and rehabilitated bore-

hole. The training is categorized in two phases. Phase 1 is two weeks and phase 2 is 1 week. All

the trainees will first undergo hygiene and sanitation awareness training and in the cause of the

training HIV/AIDS awareness and Peace Building is also included in the training as cross-cutting

modules. The Hand Pump Mechanic Technicians after undergoing the said training will then

undergo theories and field practices on dismantling and assembling dysfunctional bore-holes.

CRS send them back to their communities equipped with the tools and repair kits.

ADRA provides WUC training for ten members (5 males and 5 females) per borehole for five

days training in management affairs related to the borehole, while for the pump technicians, the

training is for two weeks and includes the provision of tool boxes for repair of the boreholes.

bsf borehole status review final - rural water supply thanks to the ministry of water resources and...

Documents