Small-scale water supply and sanitation

Small-scale water supply and sanitation

Skopje, 17 June 2015


Oliver Schmoll Programme Manager Water and Sanitation

Skopje, TFYR Macedonia 17 june 2015



Why focusing on small supplies?

• They are many

• Backbone of water supply in rural areas and small towns: – One third of the European

population lives in rural areas – One quarter of the pan-European

population is supplied by small systems

• Need for decentralised solutions for technical, hygiene, and economic reasons Source: WHO and UNICEF 2012

Country Rural Albania 46 Bosnia and Herzegovina 51 Bulgaria 26 Croatia 42 Hungary 30 Montenegro 37 Romania 47 Serbia 43 TFYR Macedonia 41



What is a “small” water supply”?

• Size of the supply: – Population served or volume of water

supplied – Typically categorised by regulations

• Organisational set-up: – Community managed – Publicly or municipality managed – Privately owned and operated

• Technical specification: – Centralised vs. non-centralised



Common features and challenges

• Not regulated or differently regulated

• Limited technical, personal and financial resources

• Relatively higher per unit costs

• Involvement of untrained and part-time staff

• Lack of sense of responsibility

• Inaccurate perception of water-related health risks

• Lack of access to support networks



Critical pollution risk issues

• Inadequate local sanitation practices

• Poor manure management

• Poor sanitary protection

• Aged or disrupted infrastructures

• High vulnerability to heavy rainfall and thaw

Generally lower compliance in smaller systems



Surveillance in small communities

• Disease surveillance in small communities: – Largely under-reported – Ad-hoc, response-based vs. systematic

• Limited routine water quality surveillance: – Coverage of many systems in widespread areas – Limited manpower to advise, inspect and control – Limited lab capacities in rural areas – Poor enforcement – One sample per year at best



Probability rate of microbiological failure

Type of source Groundwater 1.0 Surface water 2.4 Spring 2.3

Treatment Treatment 1.0 No treatment 1.8

Rain on day prior to sample (mm)

0 1.0 1-9 1.3 10-99 1.4 100-999 1.7 1000-9999 2.1

Source: Hunter et al 2008



Excurse to Georgia: Rapid situation assessment

• Water safety of small scale supplies and associated health outcomes are of priority concern

• Little routine monitoring in rural areas

• Systematic baseline analysis in two exemplary districts in 2011 and 2012

• “Rapid” one-off exercise



Excurse to Georgia: Summary survey design

Technologies covered in survey

Population covered in survey

Samples/inspections included in survey

Type No. Fraction No. Fraction Location No.

Borehole 26 21 % 39,000 66 % Source 122

Spring 23 18 % 10,837 18 % Storage reservoir 33

Dug well 71 56 % 2,770 5 % Distribution system 79

Unknown 6 5 % 6,910 12 % Household container 26

Total 126 100 % 59,517 100 % Total 260



Excurse to Georgia: Parameters and sampling Microbial Physico-

chemical Organoleptic

Total coliforms

Escherichia coli

Fecal streptococci

Nitrate (NO3-)

Ammonia (NH4+)

Iron (Fe)

Fluoride (F)

Copper (Cu)

pH

Free chlorine residual

Turbidity

Temperature

Taste and odor

Total dissolved solids (TDS)



Excurse to Georgia: Sanitary inspections

• Major sanitary risk factors identified: – Cracks or breaks in

the infrastructure – Old and leaking pipes – Unsanitary conditions

around the source – Latrines / sewers near to source – Animal access to source



Parameter Dusheti Marneuli

Microbiological

Total coliforms 33 % 27 %

Escherichia coli 40 % 32 %

Faecal streptococci 66 % 79 %

Physico-chemical and organoleptic

NO3, NH4, Fe, Cu, F and turbidity 100 % 100 %

Chlorine residuals 22 % 0 %

TDS 98 % 91 %

Overall compliance

All parameters 26 % 20 %

Excurse to Georgia: Compliance levels



Excurse to Georgia: Comparative risk analysis for Marneuli

E. coli count (1/100 ml )

Sanitary inspection score

0-2 3-5 6-8 9-10

>100 2 2 1 0

11-100 15 34 8 0

1-10 30 25 9 0

<1 23 32 3 0

Risk level Low Intermediate High Very high

Priority action level

No action required

Low action priority

Higher action priority

Urgent action required

Proportion 13 % 47 % 38 % 3 %



Excurse to Georgia: Conclusions

• Microbial contamination is significant, chemical contamination is currently not of concern

• Low overall compliance with the national standards

• Disinfection is absent or, where in place, inadequate

• Significant number of sanitary risk factors

• Routine ongoing surveillance is lacking

• Limited public awareness on water hygiene



Is it worth to improve?

• Positive benefit-cost ratio for reduction of acute diarrhoeal illness likely to be prevented: – Costs of legislation – Investment in improvement

interventions – Direct cost of illness

(e.g. health care) – Indirect cost of illness

(e.g. loss of work and schooling)

Subregion Benefit-cost-ratio (mean value)

Eur-A 2.5

Eur-B 21.3

Eur-C 3.9

Source: Hunter et al 2012



Increased policy recognition in Europe

• Unites all countries across region

• Explicit programmes and regulations in various countries

• Recognised by European Commission in the 7th Environmental Action Programme: – Systematic data collection exercises

• Thematic priority area under the Protocol on Water and Health: co-lead by Germany, Serbia and NGO WECF



Needs for improvement /1

• Strengthen national evidence base for informed decision making

• Targeted rapid assessments of drinking-water quality

• Develop guidance for establishing “intelligent” surveillance strategies: – Ongoing drinking-water quality surveillance – Disease surveillance – Local outbreak detection and response approaches



Needs for improvement /2

• Create enabling environment: – Resource centers – Ongoing capacity building – Access to easy-to-understand guidance – Partnership arrangements

• Scale-up WHO Water Safety Plan approach: – Viable and applicable in small supplies – Develop “demonstration” projects



Protocol on Water and Health The Oslo 2014-2016 programme of work

Improving governance for

water and health

Capacity building on good practices

Strengthening the evidence base

Rapid

assessments

Safe and efficient management

Information sharing and

regional networking

Equitable access

Development of a good practice document for policy makers

Prevention and reduction of WRD




Protocol on Water and Health The Oslo 2014-2016 programme of work

Improving governance for

water and health

Water Safety Plan uptake for small

systems

Safe and efficient management

Universal access in rural areas

Equitable access

Risk-based surveillance in

rural areas

Prevention and reduction of WRD


Explicit target setting on small-

systems



Improving the evidence base

Non-systematic initial overview

(2011)

In-country rapid assessment study

(GEO 2013)

Systematic questionnaire survey

(2014)

Country consultations and assessments

(2014-2016)

TFYR Macedonia

2015



Consultation aspects

• Review the evidence base on the situation of small-scale water supplies and sanitation

• Identify knowledge/data gaps that hinder a comprehensive assessment of the situation and potential health risks

• Review of regulatory requirements and institutional responsibilities related surveillance

• Review of specific challenges

• Review of existing and/or planned policies, programs and/or initiatives aiming at improving the situation



Source: Rod Shaw

Thank you

Blagodaram

Faleminderit



Discussion points

1. What are the key challenges related to small systems?

2. What are the available information describing the prevailing conditions of small systems?

3. What knowledge or information is missing for a comprehensive situation assessment?

4. What are the institutional responsibilities related to surveillance of small systems?

5. Are there existing or planned policies, programs or initiatives aiming at improving small systems?

What are the key challenges related to small systems?

What are the available information describing the prevailing conditions of small systems?

What knowledge or information is missing for a comprehensive situation assessment?

What are the institutional responsibilities related to surveillance of small systems?

Are there existing or planned policies, programs or initiatives aiming at improving small systems?

Small-scale water supply and sanitation

Documents

Transcript of Small-scale water supply and sanitation