2.1.1 Protected Water Source (evaluation) Form
2.1.2 Field work
2.1.3 Analyses
A simple Protected Water Source (evaluation) Form had been developed in September 1995 by the international consultant, Mr. P. Warren, in collaboration with the project staff, in particular the national expert, Mr. D.R. Chapa. This form was subsequently translated in Nepali, printed and tested in the month of Chaitra 2052 (March-April 1996) (see Annex A in Field Document 1/97).
It was concluded that some modifications, especially simplifications should be made in this form. However, no new form was designed. Instead the field workers were instructed as to which questions to ignore and which to fill in.
Water supply systems should be evaluated at the moment in time of highest stress: towards the end of the dry season, or between the months of Chaitra (March-April) and Jesth (May-June). The previous evaluation took place in Chaitra 2052. Field work for this years' evaluation was done in Jesth 2054 (May-June). Jesth is actually a pre-monsoon month, with increased chances of rainfall. However, such rainfall is usually too little to have a positive effect on groundwater levels and related discharge in water sources. This was also the case in 2054.
As during the previous evaluation, the field work was carried out by the five project Group Promoters (all women) based in the Bhusunde Khola watershed. In general they did a good job. Some problems arose in the correct identification of some of the older water source protection works, and some of these were unintentionally omitted.
Work on some other sources was still under way during the evaluation. These were not included.
Analyses of the evaluation results started soon after the actual evaluation took place. The first step was translation into english, followed by verification and comparison with last years evaluation data. This revealed a number of inconsistencies that were clarified by the Group Promoters. Subsequently the data of the evaluation forms were entered in a computer spreadsheet program (Quatro Pro), which has also database features. Further analyses consisted mainly of simple direct cross-checking (with a pen and a piece of paper). This combination of computerized and traditional analyses worked quick and efficiently.
2.2.1 Number of protected water sources and related water taps
2.2.2 Cleanliness of water tanks and cleaning arrangements
2.2.3 Water pipe leakage
2.2.4 Presence and functioning of tap stands
2.2.5 Water point sanitary conditions
2.2.6 Quality of water flow
2.2.7 Quantity of water flow
The first water source protection works supported by the project in the Bhusunde Khola watershed started early in 2050 and were completed in that same year (April 1993 - April 1994). In the PRA and micro-planning exercises that took place in November-December 1993 a substantial number of water sources was prioritized for protection works to be implemented in 1994 (appr. 2051). However, these works were in most cases delayed to 1 995 and even 1996 (appr. 2052 and 2053), because during much of 1 994 project activities were affected by the bridging period between phase 1 and phase 2.
Another Participatory Rural Appraisal and Planning exercise was carried out between October 1995 and January 1996 (2052), and 52 water source protection works were included in the resulting 26 Community Action Plans (see also Field Document 3/97). Of these 52, 18 were screened out in participatory feasibility analyses and other applied criteria, while two were "taken over" by other agencies. Of the remaining 34 planned and feasible water source protection works, 31 were actually implemented during 1996 and the first 6 months of 1997 (2053 and the first 2 months of 2054) (see also Field Document 4/97).
A series of 5 Participatory Evaluation and Re-Planning Workshops were conducted in the period October - December 1996 (2053). During these the implementation of a number of as yet non-accomplished water source protection works was rescheduled, and a number of additional works were also included (see also Field Document 7/96).
In total 52 protected water sources were evaluated in Jesth 2054 (May-June 1997). Of these, 9 (17%) had been completed in 2050, 2 (4%) in 2051, 14 (27%) in 2052, 22 (42%) in 2053, and 5 (10%) in 2054 (see Table 1 and Figure 1). A total of 76 water points were associated with these 52 sources, of which 12 (16%) were completed in 2050, 3 (4%) in 2051, 26 (34%) in 2052, 29 (38%) in 2053, and 5 (7%) in 2054 (see Table 1 and Figure 3).
The number of water taps or water points per protected source varied from one to six (and not seven as had been erroneously reported in the previous evaluation). Out of the 52 protected water sources included in the evaluation, 34 (65%) were equipped with one water tap, 11 (21%) with two taps, 4 (8%) with multiple taps systems, while 3 (6%) had no tap, but only consisted of an improved collection tank (traditional "kuwa") (see Table 1 and Figure 2).
Out of a total of 76 water points, 73 (96%) were water taps, and 3 (4%) were improved traditional "kuwa's" (see Table 1). Out of 73 taps, 34 (47%) belonged to single tap systems, 22 (30%) were part of double tap systems, and 17 (23%) were part of multiple tap systems. In the previous evaluation only 12% of the taps were part of a single tap system.
Though it had previously been concluded that "multi-tap systems ... should be avoided or designed with more care in order to ensure functioning of all attached taps" (see Field Document 1/97), this is not necessarily the reason that more recently constructed water source protection works have fewer water taps. It could very well be, that fewer high discharge water sources are available.
The inclusion of improved traditional "kuwa's", all located in the project's concentration area, also seems to indicate that all water sources that have potential to serve as "normal" water supply system, i.e. with water taps, have already been treated in that particular area (Chhoprak wards #7, 8 and 9).
It should also be noted that 4 out of 9 (44%) water tanks completed in 2050 were reported to be cracked as a result of mass soil movement. Three of these are located in Chhoprak ward #1 and one in Chhoprak ward #3, an area characterized by unstable and very steep slopes. Landuse around these tanks should have been restricted, but at least in one case the author observed paddy cultivation almost up to the collection tank in an extremely erosion prone area.
A large majority of the water collection tanks, 41 out of 52 (79%) was found to be clean. The rest was considered to be dirty (9 cases or 17%), very dirty (1 case or 2%), or not reported (1 case or 2%). Not a single water tank was considered to be very clean (see Table 2 and Figure 4).
There seemed to be a clear deterioration of tank cleanliness status with age of the installation. Only 56% of water tanks completed in 2050 or 2051 was clean, while 64%, 95% and 100% of the tanks completed in 2052, 2053 and 2054 respectively were clean (see Figure 5a-d).
Tank cleaning arrangements existed for 39 (75%) of the tanks. There was a clear increase of tank cleaning arrangements with the completion year. Only 6 (55%) of the tanks completed in 2050 or 2051 hade cleaning arrangements, as well as 9 (64%), 19 (86%) and 5 (100%) of those completed in 2052, 2053 and 2054 respectively (see Table 3 and Figure 6a-d).
Contrary to the 1996 evaluation, there was now a very clear relation between tank cleanliness and cleaning arrangements (see Table 4). Only in 2 cases was the tank clean while there were no cleaning arrangements, both of which had been completed recently, in 2053. Both these water tanks without cleaning arrangements are likely to become dirty in future years.
During the 1996 evaluation, only 9 out of 15 tanks completed in 2052 had cleaning arrangements, but all 1 5 were actually clean. During the 1 997 evaluation, still only 9 of the tanks completed in 2052 had cleaning arrangements, but this time only these 9 tanks were actually clean. The tanks without cleaning arrangement, and which had been clean in 1996, were classified in 1997 as dirty or very dirty.
There was no noticeable water leakage in the pipes of 56 out of 73 reported upon tap stands (77%). There was little leakage in 10 cases (14%) and much leakage in 7 cases (10%) (see Table 5).
Of the tap stands completed in 2050 and 2051, 47% showed no pipe leakage, 33% little leakage and 20% much leakage. Taps stands completed in 2052 and 2053 showed no signs of pipe leakage in 85% and 81% respectively, while those completed in 2054 had no leakage at all (100%) (see Figure 7a-d).
When comparing the 1997 evaluation data of the tap stands completed in 2050 and 2051 with the 1996 evaluation data, it appears that the number of taps with no pipe leakage had - contrary to expectation - actually slightly increased from 43% to 47%. Cases with little pipe leakage had substantially increased from 14% to 33%. Those with much pipe leakage had actually decreased from 40% in 1996 to 20% in 1997. This indicates improvements in care and maintenance in 1997 of these older installations as compared to 1996.
Further analyses shows that of the 9 tap stands completed in 2050 and 2051 attached to water tanks with cleaning arrangements, 7 (78%) had no pipe leakage, and 2 (22%) little pipe leakage, while none (0%) had much pipe leakage. Of the 6 tap stand attached to water tanks without cleaning arrangements, 3 (50%) had much pipe leakage, another 3 (50%) had little pipe leakage, and none (0%) had no pipe leakage.
Not all water points are actually equipped with a water tap (or faucet). Apart from the occasional improved "kuwa" (traditional collection tank without tap), water taps have some times not yet been installed, or have been removed (most likely because they malfunction). In 58 out of 73 case (79%), water points were equipped with a functioning water tap, while in 10 cases (14%) there was no tap, and in 5 cases (7%) a tap was present but not functioning (see Table 6).
Contrary to expectations the tap stands completed in 2052 had poorest performance, with 8 cases (36%) of no or not functioning taps, while of those completed in 2050 only 1 case (9%) was reported to be missing, while 11 (92%) had functioning taps.
When comparing results of the 1996 and 1997 evaluations, it appears that the absolute numbers of absent or malfunctioning taps had remained stable, while the amount of functioning taps sharply increased from 31 to 58 (see Figure 8a).
When comparing the 1996 and 1997 evaluation results concerning water taps completed in 2050, it appears that the number of functioning taps has sharply increased from 4 (36%) in 1996 to 11 (92%) in 1997 (see Figure 8b). This also indicates improved care and maintenance in 1997 as compared to 1996.
Water point sanitary conditions varied from good to bad, with 40 out of 76 (53%) in good condition, while 27 (36%) were reported to be fair and 5 (7%) were reported to be bad, 4 (5%) were not reported upon (see Table 7 and Figure 9a). There appears to be a clear relation between sanitary conditions of the water points and the completion year of their installation. Only 33% of water points completed in 2050 and 2051 were classified as good, while 40% were classified as fair and 27% as bad. Of those completed in 2052, 42% were good, 46% fair, 4% bad and 8% not reported upon. Water points completed in 2053 and 2054 scored 69% and 67% good, 28% and 17% fair, 0% bad, and 3% and 17% not reported (see Figure 10a-d).
During the 1996 evaluation, the majority of the water points, 82%, had fair sanitary conditions, and only 13% were good, while 4% were bad. There has been a remarkable increase in sanitary conditions of the water points between the 1996 and 1997 evaluations (see Figure 9a). This does not only concern the newly completed water points, but also and in particular the older installations. Comparison of the 2053 and 2054 evaluation data of water points completed in 2050, showed a remarkable increase from 0 (0%) to 5 (42%) of good cases, and related sharp decreases in fair cases from 10 (91%) to 3 (25%) cases, while bad cases increased from 1 (9%) to 4 (36%). These data confirm earlier indications of improved care and maintenance of the protected water sources and water supply systems.
The quality of water flow from the taps and "kuwas" was only evaluated using clarity as criteria. The vast majority, 67 (88%) were providing clear water, while 4 (5%) had dirty water, 5 (7%) was not reported or had no water at the time of evaluation, and none (0%) had very clear water4 (see Table 8 and Figure 11). The oldest installations had a greater likelihood of dirty or no water: those completed in 2050 provided only in 8 cases (67%) clear water.
4 It should be noted, that there was no definition of "very clear".
When comparing these data with the 1996 evaluation, it appears that there was some deterioration in water quality, in 1996 all water points (100%) had clear water. There could be two reasons for this, the fact that the 1997 evaluation took place later in the dry season (less water flow), and some deterioration in the installations themselves (some of the older water tanks show cracks and other damage due to land slips).
Water flow or discharge was measured at the water taps, in seconds to fill a 1 liter bottle. Measured water flow varied from "1" second to fill a 1 liter bottle, to "300" seconds (i.e. 5 minutes), while a number of taps had no water at all, or were not reported upon. These reported data were grouped in intervals of 1-10 seconds, 11-20 seconds, 21-30 seconds, 31-60 seconds, and more than 1 minute.
The highest fraction of water taps, 29% (21 cases) fell within the 1-10 seconds interval, with a further 19% (14 cases) in the 11-20 seconds interval, and 10% (7 cases) in the 21-30 seconds interval. Thus 57% of the taps (42 cases) fell within the relatively good category of 1 -30 seconds to fill a 1 liter bottle. A total of 22% (16 cases) fell within the 31-60 seconds category, and 11% (8 cases) in the more than 1 minute category. The rest, 10% (7 cases), had no water or was for some other reason not reported upon (see Table 9 and Figure 12).
Compared to the 1996 evaluation data, there was a clear reduction in water flow. Of the water taps completed between 2050 and 2052, 35 were in the 0-30 seconds interval in Chaitra 2052 (March-April 1996), but only 20 were in this interval in Jesth 2054 (May-June 1997). It is assumed that this difference is largely due to the fact that the 1997 evaluation was carried out later in the dry season, and to a lesser extent to damage that has occurred to the some of the older water collection tanks.
There also seems to be a relation between water flow and location of the protected water source: 50% of the water taps which need more than 30 seconds and more than 1 minute to fill a 1 liter bottle, are located on the North facing slopes of the watershed, in Khoplang VDC.
2.3.1 Protected water sources state and functioning
2.3.2 Changes in 1997 as compared to the 1996 evaluation
2.3.3 Protected water source evaluation
In general, the water source protection and water supply works completed by the project in the Bhusunde Khola watershed between 2050 and 2054 were functioning acceptably well in the dry month of Jesth 2054 (May-June 1997). However, in a significant number of cases water flow was extremely low (11%), or altogether absent (10%). This is partly due to the fact that the evaluation took place during the period of greatest stress (last month of the dry season), and partly due to damage occurring in some of the older water collection tanks, apparently as a result of mass soil movements. These damaged installations are located on very steep and instable South facing slopes, while landuse around the tank had not been adequately restricted and no particular conservation measures had been applied.
Water sources on the North facing slopes of the watershed (i.e. Khoplang VDC) have a larger than average likelihood to have very low discharge flows during the dry season.
The inclusion of improved traditional water collection sites, without water taps ("kuwa's"), and the fact that recently constructed water source protection works have fewer water taps, indicates that fewer high discharge water sources with potential to serve as "normal" water supply systems, are available, in particular in the project concentration area (Chhoprak wards #7, 8 and 9).
There were also other signs of wearing and deterioration with age of the water source protection works, including pipe leakage, malfunctioning of taps (faucets), cleanliness of water tanks and sanitary conditions of water points. However, this seemed more related to the presence or absence of cleaning arrangements than of the age of the installation.
By comparing the results of the 1996 and 1997 evaluation data, it appears that water tanks without formal cleaning arrangements will remain "clean" for about 1 year, while taps stand sanitary conditions deteriorate much faster.
Several positive trends can be observed when comparing the results of the 1996 and 1997 evaluation data, especially when comparing tanks constructed in 2050, 2051, and to a lesser extent 2052. The percentage of protected water sources with tank cleaning arrangements significantly increased, and so did the cleanliness of the tanks. Pipe leakage of older installations decreased, and presence and functioning of water taps, as well as water point sanitary conditions sharply increased. However, in some installations the situation deteriorated, in particular in those that remained without cleaning arrangements.
The Group Promoters, who had filled out the evaluation forms, were questioned about these data, in particular they were asked whether they had more easily used terms like good and clean in 1997 than in 1996. They unanimously replied that this was not the case, and that there was a genuine improvement of the sanitary conditions, presence and functioning of water taps, and so on, because the concerned user groups were stronger and more active than before.
The water source protection works that were completed in 2050 and 2051 were constructed during the first phase of the project, when less stringent criteria were used for user groups to qualify for project assistance. Hence, these protected water sources completed in 2050 and 2051 never had a strong user group to ensure their maintenance. However, during the second phase of the project, user group capacity building was much more emphasized, and consequently a number of new groups has started to take care of the protected water sources completed in 2050 and 2051. This explains the large difference and general improvement in water tank cleanliness, pipe leakage, functioning and cleanliness of water points completed in 2050 and 2051 between the 1996 and 1997 evaluations.
In this respect, it is important to note that in particular woman groups have been created and activated during the past two years. Whereas in the first years of the project all agreements for water source protection works were made with male dominated user groups, now more than two thirds of such agreements are signed by women groups.
Those installations that did not benefit from a new a strengthened user group further deteriorated during this period (see also Figures 8b and 9b).
These data would seem to provide evidence for the hypothesis that the participatory development approach, in which strong and self-reliant user groups play a pivotal role, results in greater sustainability of small scale infrastructure works.
The protected water source evaluation provided valuable data on the quality of this activity, though little technical information. It was found that the field work of the evaluation does not take much time, one evaluator can cover several protected water sources and related taps in one day. The quality of the data gathered was positively influenced by the fact that the field workers, the Group Promoters, had carried out a similar evaluation in the same area in 1996.
Similarly, the analyses and report writing of the evaluation also did not take too much time, mainly because the number of question in the questionnaire had been very limited. Comparison of the 1997 evaluation data with the 1996 evaluation data provided much deeper insight in the processes taking part in the project area, and which do not only reflect on the water source protection activity itself.
Thus, the limitations of the evaluation also became clear. Where it was found that much improvement was due to better care taking of stronger and more self-reliant user groups, it was an omission not to have included the names of these user groups in the questionnaire. Similarly, where obviously faucets had been replaced and maintenance and repairs made, no questions were asked as to how this had been organized, and who had paid for this.
It was also noted that the evaluation provided no indications regarding the use of that was made of the water: for human consumption, for livestock and stall-feeding, for vegetable production, etc. Such data would have been valuable to make an attempt at an economic evaluation of water source protection.
If, however, such additional questions would have been asked, time required for field work and analyses would have very significantly increased, and reporting time would have been much longer.
