Our colleagues at the International Institute for the Environment and Development (IIED), an environmental establishment thinktank, have published a worthy briefing on urban backyard wells, used by 30% of the urban poor.
Entitled ‘Urban wells: a vital but ignored resource’, IIED says that this briefing reflects on an IIED project on water resource management. It showcases research revealing the immense significance of ‘invisible’ water to the urban poor.
Below we give the link to the original paper, plus our initial response.
Download the paper from http://pubs.iied.org/G03127.html?s=RA&b=d
Our response:
Can urban backyard wells provide safe water?
by Henk Holtslag and Paul Osborn, 300in6
The article ‘Urban wells: a vital but ignored resource’ in the Reflect and Act series of July 2011 indeed adds a welcome new dimension to the agenda of water resource managers, and creates a new link with the community of water quality professionals.
Above all, it is right to emphasise that some 30% per cent of the urban poor in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa rely on groundwater from backyard wells – even though the article presents it almost as a new revelation and not as the cruel fact-of-life that it is! In rural areas, this percentage is 50% or higher. We therefore applaud the common sense of the authors in urging governments, NGOs and water specialists to support the sound use of family wells rather than ignoring or, even worse, blocking them.
The reality is that in most cities in developing countries, the poor are not reached with piped water systems for technical or financial reasons. Where technically possible, rainwater harvesting and family wells can be an intermediate solution – we stress the hope that it is a transit point on the long oath to reliable safe water supply.
One of the reasons given for ignoring family wells is the problem in guaranteeing good water quality. This is a very real concern since nearby latrines can easily contaminate the groundwater. However, as mentioned in the article, having water nearby stimulates using more water which has a positive effect on hygiene and income. The part that is used for drinking can be bought at water kiosks or treated at the point of use with options in household water treatment and safe storage (HWTS). Conventional options are boiling or using chlorine. Nowadays, there is a regular flow of new options which are cheaper, more effective and more attractive. These include solar disinfection (also known as SODIS), chlorine tablets with a spearmint taste, locally-produced chlorine and silver products. New water filters treat 5,000 -15,000 litres at a filtration speed of 50 to 100 litres/day and produce water that is free of bacteria and turbidity. The costs of new disinfection options start at 20 dollar cents/ person/year while the entry? investment? costs for new filter options start at USD 10.
The challenge now is in scaling-up. This can be done through a combination of a wide-scale hygiene education (and social marketing) with building up commercial supply chains with new user-friendly HWTS products.
As the authors point out, investment in safe water at the point-of-use can drastically reduce health-related costs at both the family and government level — it should be recalled that the WHO, in 2004, reported cost-benefits up to 60 times on investments. Another dramatic figure is that more than 50% of all hospital beds worldwide are occupied with patients with water-borne diseases.
We support the authors of the article and urge donors, financial partners and governments in developing countries to increase access to safe drinking water by hygiene campaigns and promotion of the sound and sustainable use of urban, as well as rural, family wells.
More information:
Our website www.300in6.org features a wide overview of HWTS options and approaches, including the renewed popular primer with detailed case studies ‘Safe Water at the Base of the Pyramid’.
The International Network on Household Water Treatment and Safe Storage systems is at www.who.int/household_water
[ end of response ]