Tailored approaches of data collection for improved water system management in resource constrained contexts: lessons from Ethiopia

ABSTRACT

Access to water has improved globally; however, nearly 800 million people continue to lack access, particularly in resource constrained contexts. Current efforts are not on track to meet the Sustainable Development Goals aim of safe and affordable drinking water for all. Innovative and contextualized solutions are required. This article describes a university–government collaboration in Ethiopia that addressed key data limitations, without which equity-based decision-making was not possible. These efficient and cost-effective ways for obtaining and managing data support improved decision-making, and also identified avenues for improving water system governance through policy shifts and citizen participation.

KEYWORDS:

• Resource constrained contexts
• best-fit approaches
• policy
• governance
• Ethiopia
• Africa

Introduction

Despite being recognized as a basic human right, one-quarter of humanity lacks consistent access to safe drinking water, a burden particularly borne by people living in rural and remote areas in the Global South (UN, 2022; UNICEF, 2022). The outcomes for those without such access include direct impacts of higher disease burdens and mortality rates, particularly for infants and children, and indirect impacts of lower education attainment and gendered barriers to accessing education (Coles & Wallace, 2020; Ortiz-Correa et al., 2016; Sommer et al., 2015). Since the start of the Millennium Development Goals (2000–2015), significant progress has been made in expanding access to safe drinking water, with two billion people having gained such access (UNICEF, 2022). The emphasis on access to safe drinking water was continued and expanded within the Sustainable Development Goals, in SDG 6. However, progress on Target 6.1, which is to ‘achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all’, remains a serious challenge, as nearly 800 million people lack such access as of 2022 (UNICEF, 2022). Most of these people live in resource-constrained settings that require innovative approaches.

The Sustainable Development Goals aimed to be operationalized using two new approaches. First, the Sustainable Development Goals should leave no one behind, an integrated objective that was adopted in response to some of the shortcomings of the Millennium Development Goals whereby ‘success’ could be claimed while still neglecting many (see, for example, Cimadamore et al., 2016; Deif & Cochrane, 2022). Second, that the Sustainable Development Goals should prioritize those most behind, which was in response to widening inequalities and advocating for a more equity-based approach to resource and service allocation. These objectives, however, assume that we know who is being left behind and who are the most behind relative to others. In many resource-constrained contexts in the Global South, this is not the case. In many parts of rural Ethiopia, for example, district and zonal administrations do not have detailed information about who has access to water and who does not. Furthermore, although these offices may have aggregate numbers about the water points in their respective catchment area, many do not have data about the functionality of the water access points or the geographic location, the latter of which would be able to evaluate the accessibility based on the average number of people each water point can serve. As a result, when international and local partners approach the government with offers to support the expansion of access to safe drinking water and the building of water infrastructure, these government offices do not have the required data to ensure that those in most need are prioritized.

Water projects in particular have a high rate of failure in resource-constrained contexts (Ramalingam, 2013; Skinner, 2009), requiring a reorientation towards ‘best-fit’ approaches that not only consider the context, but also align with existing informational systems and are suited to available resources for institutionalization. This paper shares the results of a collaboration between a zonal administration in Ethiopia and two universities (Hawassa University in Ethiopia and Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar) in creating tailored solutions that are appropriate to the context and designed for sustainable management. The contribution of this paper is not in finding a novel solution per se, but that it is tailored to a specific resource-constrained context wherein the government collaborator is able to take ownership of the project for continued benefit in the long term. This project has the potential for adapting and scaling in similar, resource-constrained, contexts. As a starting point, this collaboration began with a common challenge of insufficient data, and worked to provide the missing data on geographic distribution of water points (focusing on shallow wells). Based upon this foundation, and using these data, a database was collaboratively created that would be owned and managed by the zonal administration for continuity of data access. Lastly, to ensure the data are always accurate and updated, policy recommendations were developed to propose that all actors working on water access in the zone are required to submit up-to-date information, which is to become mandatory via revisions to the requirements of working within the zone (as part of the annual operational approval process).

The next section presents the global context on access to water, providing data as of 2022 and situating the issue within the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Within that section, we synthesize available evidence on the importance of access to water and some of the lessons learned in seeking to achieve safe water access for all. This contextual section situates the importance of access to water for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Whereas water and nutrition experts may be well aware of this evidence base, in this project it was particularly important when engaging with decision-makers, which is why we have included this synthesis (to support the adapted scaling of these types of interventions in other contexts). The third section presents the case study area, Wolaita Zone in Ethiopia, followed by a description of the methodology employed in the fourth section. These sections are largely descriptive; this detail has been included as it allows other collaborative efforts to know what was done at each stage (based on expressions of interest from two other regional states of Ethiopia, this descriptive detail enables adaptive replication). The fifth section outlines the findings of the data collected, providing insight on how data were critical to being able to identify those most in need and allowing for their prioritization in action as well as policy gaps that needed to be addressed to transform the water governance system. The final section reflects on lessons learned through this collaboration.

Global context on access to water

Water in the 2030 agenda

Almost 800 million people lack access to essential water supply and 2 billion people lack access to appropriate sanitation (Abellán & Alonso, 2022), while approximately one in four people globally lack consistent access to safe drinking water (UN, 2022; UNICEF, 2022). Although the number of people without safely managed services for drinking water decreased by 193 million between 2015 and 2020, it is estimated that 8 of 10 people who lack basic services reside in rural areas, and that attaining universal access will require a four times expansion of present levels of progress (WHO/UNICEF, 2021). Reaching the 2030 target will not be achieved unless additional resources are provided and new approaches utilized, the latter of which need to be tailored to specific needs and contexts to not only address needs but ensure continuity of benefits. This paper contributes to the latter, where resources are constrained and capacity-limited, to explore tailored approaches that support the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals within the geographic contexts where the challenges are the greatest.

The lack of access to safe water is a complex problem; in some cases, it is due to a lack of infrastructure, in other places it is complicated by environmental factors such as water scarcity or flooding; in yet other contexts the barriers may be related to capacity as infrastructure is insufficient or non-functional due to poor maintenance or lack of replacement parts (Adeyeye et al., 2020; Birhan et al., 2023). One in four handpump water points are non-functional in sub-Saharan Africa (Foster et al., 2019), emphasizing the scale of the sustainability challenges. We do not just need suitable water infrastructure; we need infrastructure that has continuity of benefits for the long term. For these reasons, UNICEF classifies water access in different types (safely managed, basic, limited, unimproved, surface water). Although this may give the appearance of static situations, in reality the number of people experiencing these situations fluctuates, such as when seasonal rivers or severe winters block access to water points in mountainous areas or when shallow wells run dry for parts of the year. This is the situation in the area of study in this paper, where ravines and mountainous areas prevent seasonal access to water resulting in a diversity of water access points (e.g., due to seasonal rivers and the area having limited transportation infrastructure, with only one asphalt road). Addressing the specific barriers of each locality requires contextualized approaches that are tailored to particular situations, with a vision for long-term sustainability (in other words, avoiding the unfortunately common experience that projects are deployed with short-term funding and on a fixed-term project basis, which contributes to the vast number of non-functional water points).

There has been significant progress in the most recent two decades in improving access to safe drinking water globally. However, achieving the targets for SDG 6, which includes the provision of universal equitable access to safe drinking water at an affordable price (Beard & Mitlin, 2021; Gimelli et al., 2018), demands that those most in need be prioritized for intervention (recognizing that the resources and capacities required may be comparatively more due to the existence of overlapping challenges, such as fragility and resource constraints; Behailu et al., 2017). At the global level, with the exception of Europe and North America, and to an extent Northern Africa and Western Asia, reaching safely managed water for all will be a daunting task for 2030 (Price et al., 2021). Even reaching basic water access for all by 2030, particularly for Sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania, appears unlikely at the current pace of advancing access (WHO/UNICEF, 2021). Furthermore, the countries with the largest gaps to fill are those that do not have the financial capacity to deliver on the implementation and management of the needed water systems (Adeyeye et al., 2020). One estimate has suggested that Ethiopia would need to invest US$ 3.2 billion ‘per year to achieve the water, sanitation, and hygiene SDG targets (6.1 & 6.2)’ (SMM, 2019). Thus, the need to examine innovative options in resource constrained contexts to ensure limited resources are used as effectively as possible while being driven by the objective of starting with those most in need first.

The importance of access to water

The lack of access to safe water is a matter of life and death. Globally, between 0.8 and 1.8 million deaths annually are related to unsafe water as well as poor sanitation and hygiene (Landrigan et al., 2018). Particularly for the most vulnerable, such as infants and children, water-borne diseases contribute to ill health and death, an occurrence disproportionately experienced by the poor. In 2016 alone, about 297,000 deaths of children under five years of age were attributed to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH)-related diarrhoeal deaths, and the total for all age groups was 829,000 deaths (Prüss-Ustün et al., 2019). Although improving sanitation has decreased child mortality by 10% between 1990 and 2015 (Headey & Palloni, 2019), unsafe water and unimproved sanitation were the second and third most important risk factors among children under five years for child mortality (Troeger et al., 2018). In addition to childhood illnesses and mortality, the lack of access to water can result in long-term negative health consequences. For example, high rates of chronic kidney disease are observed in low-income countries, associated with dehydration and the availability of safe water (Olusanya et al., 2019). The global COVID-19 pandemic reiterated the basic function that access to safe water has, and its connection with other basic services, such as sanitation and hygiene (Donde et al., 2021). In Ethiopia, 70 million people are utilizing unimproved sanitation facilities (Baye, 2021). Multiple studies have explored the negative health impacts of water stress for children, contributing to high mortality rates, primarily due to its implications on hygiene, sanitation and food security (Liu, 2021).

This article focuses on access to safe water as it is a focal enabler for other Sustainable Development Goals and can act as a primary barrier for progress on other Sustainable Development Goals if it is not secured (Bayu et al., 2020). For example, for SDG1, the lack of access to water has been shown to disproportionately harm the poor via a ‘poverty penalty’ because accessing this basic good costs more for those who need it most, putting further strain on already limited financial resources (Braimah et al., 2018; Mendoza, 2011). Similarly, the lack of access to safe water contributes to higher rates of water-borne illnesses (discussed in more detail below) which result in additional healthcare costs. Safe drinking water is critical to achieve all the dimensions of food security (Nounkeu & Dharod, 2021). There are also gendered burdens related to the lack of water, discussed in more detail below (Wijesiri & Hettiarachchi, 2021). Conversely, access to water enables opportunities, as resources are not consumed by higher rates for access to water or for treating illness related to unsafe drinking water. Instead, these resources can be used productively. It is for this reason that Venkataramanan et al. (2020, p. 1) argue that ‘access to water is essential for ensuring water security, food security, public health, gender equity and economic development’. In other words, access to safe water is a key enabler for achieving the rest of the Sustainable Development Goals, without which progress on many Sustainable Development Goals will be constrained.

Lessons learned in seeking water access for all

Resources are not the only constrainer inhibiting access to safe water for all. Poor governance and ineffective policy can create barriers even when there is political will and available resources. On the former, the World Water Vision notes governance as a key challenge (Global Water Partnership, 2006), whereas on the latter, affordable access to safe water is partly a function of effective policy and responsive governance (Beard & Mitlin, 2021). According to the OECD (2015), the global water crises is ‘primarily’ that of crises emanating from lack of proper governance schemes. The OECD (2015) defines water governance as a ‘range of political, institutional and administrative rules, practices and processes (formal and informal) through which decisions are taken and implemented, stakeholders can articulate their interests and have their concerns considered, and decision makers are held accountable for water management’ (OECD, 2015, p. 5). As this paper will demonstrate, governance in its applied sense includes physical infrastructure (e.g., water pumps and systems), knowledge management systems (e.g., databases), policies (e.g., how partners collaborate with government), financial resources, capacity (e.g., data management and analysis, infrastructure maintenance), political will and public participation.

Given the complex reasons why people do not have access to safe water, there is no one-size-fits-all solution that can be rolled out at scale globally. Instead, lessons learned from activities and experiences around the world provide insight into what is working, what is not working, innovations for transformation, and barriers for success. The collaboration highlighted below draws on this global evidence base and aims to arrive at a ‘best-fit’ solution, rather than a ‘best practice’ from a different context; this might be termed an evidence-informed bottom-up approach (or what Easterly has more simply termed the ‘searcher’ model; Easterly, 2006). What does the available evidence point us toward? When resources and capacity allow, integrated approaches between sectors (e.g., health and education) as well as multiple activity types (e.g., infrastructure and awareness raising) can be effective (Abellán & Alonso, 2022). Public–private partnerships can encourage entrepreneurial approaches to alleviate resource constraints (Opryszko et al., 2013). These, however, can have unintended, negative impacts of furthering inequality and/or a lack of sustainability as corporate partners have different motivations than the government for engaging in service provision (Harvey et al., 2019). Technological solutions, although they may be effective in pilots and in specific settings, are frequently not suitable for many contexts (Sadoff et al., 2020). Significant investment is required for management systems (including but beyond infrastructure) to ensure water systems operate at their full potential and avoid wastage and loss (Carter et al., 1999). One of the key lessons, and one which the collaboration highlighted in this paper also focuses upon, is the lack of data and monitoring. Implementation without an evidence base and accompanying data management systems can result in duplication and inefficiencies (Ortigara et al., 2018). Similarly of focus in the collaboration described in this paper is the emphasis on management systems, which the African Development Bank has also highlighted as fundamental for avoiding failures of the past (ADB, 2020).

A useful tool to guide initial planning includes a comprehensive framework of water governance developed by the OECD that incorporates policy (‘what’), institutions (‘who’) and instruments (‘how’). This water governance framework aimed to help those who would voluntarily adopt it, to assess their progress towards a better outcome (OECD, 2018). The framework has crafted 12 principles that include: (1) clear roles and responsibilities, (2) appropriate scales within basin systems, (3) policy coherence, (4) capacity, (5) data and information, (6) financing, (7) regulatory frameworks, (8) innovative governance, (9) integrity and transparency, (10) stakeholder engagement, (11) tradeoffs across users, rural and urban areas and generations, and (12) monitoring and evaluation. The principles are clustered in three major areas of effectiveness, efficiency, and trust and engagement. Effectiveness implies the role of governance in having sustainable water policy and goals cascaded at different levels of the governance structure. Efficiency suggests having a proper governance structure ‘maximising the benefits of sustainable water management and welfare at the least cost to society’ (OECD, 2018, p. 4). Trust and engagement ‘relate to the contribution of governance to building public confidence and ensuring inclusiveness of stakeholders through democratic legitimacy and fairness for society at large’ (OECD, 2018, p. 4).

Case study: Boloso Sore district, Wolaita Zone, Ethiopia

Ethiopia is home to the second largest population in Africa (~120 million; following Nigeria), gross domestic product per capita stands at less than US$1,000 per year, and more than one in four people live in poverty (World Bank, 2022). Although the demographic, economic and poverty profiles present significant challenges for the Government of Ethiopia, given this the country has made some significant gains over the most recent three decades. Notably, access to basic services has expanded significantly and poverty has declined substantially; yet these gains went alongside repressive forms of governance (for more, see Dejene & Cochrane, 2019). Progress, however, depends on definitions (recall the UNICEF categories noted earlier in this paper). For example, the Government of Ethiopia reported that the country met its MDG 7C objective (to halve the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation) in 2015, with 57% of the population having increased access to ‘safe drinking water’ compared to a 1990 baseline of 14% (WHO, 2015). A WASH sector report presented for ministers at a ministerial meeting held in Costa Rica in 2019 claimed that 75% of the rural population and 65% of its urban counterpart have ‘access to clean water’ (SMM, 2019). That success may be deceiving because, according to Marvin, ‘it uses an infrastructure-based approach in its definition of safe drinking water’ (Marvin, 2021). The population being monitored comprises those who have access to facilities that, in theory, provide water. It makes no mention of whether the facilities are operational, providing the promised service, or whether the water is safe. A study in rural Ethiopia, using data collected in 2017, suggested that functionality of water points is at 65% (Anthonj et al., 2018). Using a different measure, the WHO and UNICEF report that the percentage of the population in Ethiopia using safely managed water services was 5% in 2000 and is only 13% in 2020 (World Bank, 2022).

Ethiopia has to overcome three major challenges in its effort to achieving the WASH Sustainable Development Goal targets. These are institutional capacity, finance and lack of a suitable and comprehensive management system. The institutional capacity that is the focus of this project refers to ‘weak sector governance and absence of regulatory mechanism, limited attention to operation and maintenance, and human resource constraints’ (SMM, 2019). According to (Tesfaye, 2021, p. 1), in ‘rural Ethiopia, the functionality and reliability of communal water points, as well as the time and energy women and girls spend for travelling and queuing for water are issues that sharply portray the inequalities pertaining to drinking water on a global scale’.

The Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Region, where this study is focused, is one of the areas in Ethiopia where a relatively significant proportion of the population depends on ‘unimproved’ sources (Damtew & Geremew, 2020). These unimproved sources contribute to childhood stunting, which affects more than one in three Ethiopian children, with undernutrition being linked to an environmental root cause, including the lack of access to safe water and poor sanitation conditions (Gizaw et al., 2022). The federal and regional governments are aware of these challenges; for example, the country’s Growth and Transformation Plan II (GTP II, 2015–2020) sought to increase rural piped water to 20% by 2025 and improve accessibility of that water within 1 km for 85% (National Plan Commission [NPC], 2016). However, this ambition has not been translated into national-level action. The government does not have a (federal or regional) system that maps where there is water access (and conversely where it is lacking), resulting in inefficient use of funding (particularly when international partners seek to build water wells and other water access points).

The lack of data is due to the lack of a monitoring system in Ethiopia, which is one of the focal challenges that have been identified in previous studies (e.g., Lockwood, 2019). Standardized and coordinated monitoring aids higher-level decision-making and action prioritization. Monitoring and data gathering are critical for giving information that might help to improve the efficiency of rural water supply operations, yet such data are largely absent or in unusable forms (e.g., number of non-functional water points in a zone, without identifying where or which or why). Monitoring would improve transparency in a multi-actor sector and provide useful data for decision-makers (Lockwood, 2019). The government recognizes that a dependable monitoring system capable of disseminating, analysing and harmonizing data to support decision-making is required (Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Electricity [MoWIE], 2018) and policies place a high priority on developing criteria and indicators for evaluating service delivery (MoWIE, 2018). However, the current national system does not have clear roles and responsibilities with regard to reporting, monitoring and evaluation (Marvin, 2021; MoWIE, 2018). Regular monitoring is not possible due to a lack of institutional or logistical capabilities. Low financing, as well as a lack of data collecting and storage systems at the service provider level, are cited by the ministry as barriers to rigorous monitoring (MoWIE, 2018).

In this study, we are primarily interested in addressing evidence gaps, co-creating a database for knowledge management and water system governance, and recommending policy revisions to ensure long-term continuity of benefits of the water system via regular, required updating from donors, international non-governmental organizations, community-based organizations and other entities operating in the water sector. With regard to the OECD framework, the principles that guided this project included: (1) clear roles and responsibilities for governmental, non-governmental and donor stakeholders engaging in the water sector; (2) policy coherence, and more specifically addressing policy gaps to enable greater coherence; (3) data and information, not only by providing missing data but establishing mechanisms to ensure greater data availability via policy changes; (4) proposals for additional forms of stakeholder engagement, based on the lessons learned of this project implementation. These principles were possible because the process was collaborative from the outset, planned alongside the Wolaita Zonal Administration, and designed as an applied research project that would result in a product for the Zonal Administration to manage in the long-term and recommendations to institutionalize benefit continuity.

Wolaita Zone is situated within the Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Region (Figure 1). According to the Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Region annual abstract, the total population of the region was estimated to be 21,457,529, of which 83% reside in rural areas (SNNP Plan Commission, 2011/2019). The overall safe drinking water coverage is reported to be 63.9% (rural 60.2% and urban 75.2%; SNNP Plan Commission, 2011/2019). The woreda (district) selected for this study was Boloso Sore, located within Wolaita Zone in the Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Region (see Figure 2). The projected population of Boloso Sore woreda in 2021 was 258,522 (based on the last census, Central Statistical Agency, 2007).

Figure 1. Map of Ethiopia, Wolaita Zone, and Boloso Sore woreda.

Figure 2. Spatial distribution water schemes status in Bolosso Sore woreda, 2021.

According to available data, in 2019 Boloso Sore woreda was served by a total of 206 rural water schemes, including: hand-dug wells fitted with a hand pump (64), hand-dug wells fitted with a rope pump (1), shallow wells fitted with a hand pump (69), water springs (56), deep wells with a distribution system (9) and water springs with distribution system (7). Various international partners (governmental and non-governmental organizations) work within the woreda (district) on water access related activities, including the Japan International Cooperation Agency and World Vision Ethiopia (these two partners have been involved in the construction of water points in the woreda).

We envisioned that this project could be taken as a pilot or model for other zonal administrations in Ethiopia as well as other resource-constrained contexts, to strengthen water systems at scale. In doing so, we believe this collaboration serves at least four of the above-mentioned OECD principles of the water governance indicator framework, namely: (5) Data and information, (8) Innovative governance, (10) Stakeholder engagement, and (12) Monitoring and evaluation. In order to enable any change, we started with addressing the data and information gaps, which is where the university partners in this project played a key role (documenting the portfolio of water points in the zone, collecting all the required data for the envisioned database and mapping the water points using a geographical information system to assess geographical disparities in access). To achieve all of the objectives, multiple layers of stakeholders were involved and in support of this collaboration, including the lower levels of governance (namely, the kebele/community-level administrations and their staff).

The collaboration described in this paper may serve as an example for policy-makers, within Ethiopia and beyond, to further discuss and understand not only the necessity for regular data collection and monitoring of rural water supply schemes aimed at developing an up-to-date database but also the usability of it. This is vital, especially in seeking to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 6.1 target. It would also enable Ethiopian water-sector specialists to check for inconsistencies, inadequacies and bottlenecks in the present water service coverage and functionality. Water monitoring systems can assist Ethiopia’s water-sector participants in aligning maintenance and operation concerns with the actual status of the water-supply schemes and prioritizing improvements before moving forward with larger-scale Sustainable Development Goal targets (for advanced water systems).

Methodology

The first step in this research process was establishing a collaboration between researchers at Hawassa University and Hamad Bin Khalifa University with the Zonal Administration. The researchers had previously worked in the zone and had liaised with the Zonal Administration in previous projects, which provided a foundation for the collaboration to move forward. The initial meetings with water-sector experts from the Zonal Administration set to establish a common vision for what the challenges and barriers were as well as what sorts of options were feasible for the administration to manage in the long term (i.e., we wanted to avoid creating a ‘solution’ that was destined to failure due to financial or capacity constraints). These meetings identified the lack of data as a primary challenge, followed by the lack of a detailed database on water points that the administration could regularly update. As a team, we also discussed the appropriate scale for this initiative (e.g., the entire zone, multiple districts, or one district), to co-plan and co-create the activities of the collaboration. We opted for one district as the data-collection process was significant (more than 100 water points) and would serve as a first step, a sort of pilot initiative, which would allow for a process of learning before moving to a larger scale.

Upon this iterative and collaborative decision-making basis, the research team took the lead in collecting data for each shallow-well water point, adding to a database that included a mutually agreed upon set of details about each water point. Shallow wells were the most common water point in the woreda (district) and provided us with water-point type to pilot this approach with. Shallow wells are simple fittings that mostly use manual pumps. As the technology is not complicated, the local community itself administers such water points. The gap, however, is that the concerned parties, the woreda and zonal water-sector offices, did not have up-to-date data on the specific location of each water point or the specific status of each water point (the Zonal Administration did have aggregate data). The lack of specific data made water governance challenging, but more importantly did not allow for evidence-based decision-making about maintenance and new infrastructure allocation.

Addressing the above-described gaps requires technology-assisted mechanisms and the creation of a database for monitoring and follow-up, which this project aimed to introduce. In order to map the spatial distribution of shallow-well water sources across kebeles in Boloso Sore woreda, within Wolaita Zone, we needed mobile research teams with handheld GPS devices, which allowed for the specific coordinates of each water point to be recorded along with a list of details regarding it. This is a technology that the Zonal Administration was already using for other projects, and thus the tools and software were easily integrated into the government processes (and the zone already had required technical capacity). The additional details that were collected included the features of water points including the number of household beneficiaries, the amount of water pumped per second, and functionality status of the shallow wells (we sought additional data, such as date of construction, the entity responsible for construction, and maintenance schedule; however, these were not consistently available). The data collectors were three experts from Wolaita Zone Water, Mines and Energy Departments, which meant that they were familiar with the subject matter and the woreda.

Once the geographic coordinates of the shallow-well water points were recorded by handheld GPS devices the data were encoded in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and then exported into ArcGIS desktop version 10.1 and converted to shapefile (both software being used by the Zonal Administration, in comparison to other software packages that they did not have licences for and/or had lower levels of capacity to manage internally). The shapefile was transformed to World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984 UTM Zone 37 N coordinate projection system. The result allowed the research team to spatially analyse and visualize the water points and assess the results based on a range of factors, such as spatial distribution density, functionality and number of household beneficiaries (as shown in the Results section). We employed the norms and standards set by the government of Ethiopia in its Growth and Transformation Plans (GTP I and GTP II) to estimate the proportion or number of populations to be served per water point. Using these standards, we estimated the maximum number of people served per shallow-well scheme using the average rural household size (5 people per household, according to the last census (Central Statistical Agency, 2007); Ethiopia has not conducted a Census since then). We then multiplied the number of shallow-well points by the average household size. The Excel spreadsheets also served as the basis for the database that would be handed over to the Zonal Administration for long-term management (if forms of public participation are integrated into the methodology, these data sets would need to be made public and presented in formats accessible to everyone).

We have emphasized the tailored nature of this research collaboration not only because we consider the experience valuable, but also because in this specific resource-constrained context – and others like it – new approaches that are tailored to contexts where suitable solutions can have continued benefits are needed (as opposed to many high-cost projects that have not been able to be transitioned and sustained by the government). Acknowledging that in-kind human resources (primarily time) were provided by the Zonal Administration, Hawassa University and Hamad Bin Khalifa University, this entire project collaboration effort was run on a budget of US$1000. The vast majority of that budget was spent on hiring research assistants and covering fuel costs for motorbikes, as the water points were spread throughout a district in areas that lack suitable roads for vehicle access and we conducted a census of shallow wells in the whole woreda. This is important because system change in resource-constrained contexts requires new forms of collaboration (Cochrane, 2020; Cochrane et al., 2017) and tailored approaches to enable activities that have continued benefit over the long term. We undertook this pilot project in one woreda, and did not include all water points (but limited to shallow wells). However, with some additional economy of scale and continued collaboration these activities could be rapidly expanded to cover the entire Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Region (and beyond) with a modest budget (particularly in the context of the many water projects operated by international non-governmental organizations; as of 2022). Including the pilot woreda, there are nine rural woredas in Wolaita Zone, all of which could be mapped in this fashion for less than US$10,000, and a similar scaling could occur across the region.

Results

The first significant finding from our exhaustive assessment of shallow wells is that the available data were inaccurate. Bolosso Sore woreda has a total of 121 shallow wells, 112 being shallow wells and 9 shallow boreholes. These water points have never been mapped, and although we expected that water experts at the zonal and woreda administrations would have insight into the geographic water access distribution, we anticipated geographic gaps due to the lack of geographic data. The spatial distribution of water schemes status presented in Figure 2 depicts both the functional and non-functional communal water points in the woreda. What was unexpected was the extent to which data were missing, and specifically the number of water points that existed but were not in the Zonal Administration data (the discrepancy is surprising because the government has representatives in each kebele, who offer a range of services – e.g., often a primary school, health post with basic services, a basic safety net under the Productive Safety Net Program, agricultural extension services, and depending on the location other supportive services might include a livestock and environmental officers). Each of these services collect data and provide them upwards to the woreda and then to the Zonal Administration for aggregation, and then to the regional government and federal Central Statistics Agency. Access to drinking-water supply was a key part of the Millennium Development Goals, for which Ethiopia reported significant success (WHO, 2015). Upon this basis we assumed that the available data would be generally accurate; however, we found they were not. The first lesson, therefore, is that geographic mapping was not the first step, as we assumed, but identifying the correct number of water points, and then beginning the mapping and data collection process. The OECD framework notes the importance of data and information, which was also identified as a gap in the planning process in this project. What was learned in this process is that available data may not be accurate, suggesting the need for additional forms of validation (such as random selection validation).

According to the data collected from Wolaita Zone Water, Mines and Energy Department 17.1% of the rural water-point schemes in the Zonal Administration are non-functional. Our data are generally in line with these data, as the water points we assessed identified that 13.2.% (n = 15) were non-functional for shallow wells. However, the inclusion of two different water points highlighted significant variation in functionality based on water-point type: 44.5% (n = 4 out of 9) of shallow borehole water points were non-functional (see Figure 3). This finding emphasizes the need to classify water-point types into water management systems, not only for the purposes of upkeep and repairs but also for geographic distribution, as one geographic area might have a higher frequency of a water point more prone to non-functionality, resulting in water access inequalities (even if water points are evenly distributed based on the population). From a planning perspective, in relation to the OECD framework outlined earlier in this paper, the implication of this finding is that data management systems require tailored classifications (where ‘best practices’ might miss or have inappropriate assumptions). Establishing categories can be done in a collaborative way, particularly where technical capacity within government agencies is limited, whereas implementation and monitoring requires government leadership (to ensure all actors in the water sector are using the standardized categories and submitted required data to the respective water authority). Although beyond the scope of this study, future research could conduct an ethnography of water data to explore how the politics and politicization of data may be intertwined with certain forms of water governance (and within broader governance systems).

Figure 3. Functionality status by water schemes in Wolaita Zone, 2021.

This risk is demonstrated by the actual experience of people in the pilot zone, with the data showing variable functionality.¹ Based on the data collected, the coverage across the kebeles have significant variations in functionality status of water supply schemes across the woreda. For example, one kebele (Dache Gofara) had only one water point, which was non-functional; three communities had several water points but half or more were non-functional; and 14 kebeles had all water points functional (see Figure 4). This implies a serious concern about the governance of water schemes, especially in the rural areas of the study site, and as shown below, in particular geographies of the zone.

Figure 4. Water point functionality by kebele, Bolosso Sore woreda, 2021.

Evidence collected by the zonal-level water experts involved in this collaboration suggested that the primary reasons reported for the non-functionality of the shallow-well water points in the woreda was due to the lack of stakeholders’ cooperation in the management of the schemes, followed by limitations in capital or finance, as well as low quality or insufficient amounts of water discharge at the source. In the case of borehole water schemes, almost half of these water points were non-functional. One of the main reasons for their non-functionality included the malfunctioning of the pump equipment. The identification of root causes of failures suggests that new forms of stakeholder participation are required to enhance water sector governance, particularly in contexts where the government presence and/or capacity is limited (e.g., in rural and remote areas).

For the water points assessed in this pilot study, the majority are managed either by the community members themselves or the local government officials placed within the community (e.g., the role of privately held or non-governmental organization-run water points were not present). The vast majority were in fact managed by the community themselves (97.5%, n = 116), whereas only a few were managed by government institutions (e.g., Dubo School and Areka Agricultural Research Center), which has implications for the OECD framework on stakeholder engagement and specifically the roles and responsibilities that community members can/should have in the water governance system. If a community-based mechanism were adopted that enabled community members to alert the woreda or zonal administration about non-functionality, this would allow for two-way data sharing, enabling citizen participation and putting in place mechanisms for more effective government responsiveness to needs. With the spread of mobile coverage, including 3G and 4G Internet in this zone, a simple SMS-based information exchange system could be developed for these purposes. Ethiopia has already adopted such approaches, such as using SMS messages for farmers to access commodity prices (allowing them to obtain a greater share of the value of their crops when selling to traders; see Tadesse & Bahiigwa, 2015). This sort of communication mechanism provides communities with a means of direct communication and it also reduces the data collection burden from the government. We encourage such initiatives being piloted, and if found to be an effective support for improved water governance, considered for integration in future initiatives.

In assessing the (maximum) number of people served per water point, we used the national standards for shallow borehole water points with a hand pump (Table 1; FDRE, 2018). Based on the data collected, these woreda-level community-managed shallow-well schemes can serve only an estimated 28,000 people (112 × 250 people per scheme). That is only 57% of the woreda population. If the functionality of the shallow-well schemes is considered, the maximum proportion of the population that can be served declines to 48.5%, leaving the remaining more than half of the population under-serviced or unserved. On the other hand, the same data show that shallow borehole schemes can serve only an estimated 13,050 people (9 × 1,450 people per scheme). That is only 33.7% of the woreda population. If the functionality of the shallow borehole schemes is considered, the maximum proportion of the population that can be served declines to 18.8%, leaving the remaining 81.2% of the population under-serviced or unserved.

Table 1. Number of people served by water point, by type (FDRE, 2018).

Type of water point	One WASH Programme Document Phase II-National Standard for GTPI and GPTII (FDRE, 2018)	One WASH Programme Document Phase II-National Standard for GPTII (FDRE, 2018)
Dug well with Indian Mark II/Afridev Pump	270	160
Shallow borehole with hand pump	500	250
Spring at a spot	350	200
Shallow borehole with submersible pump	1500	1450
Spring with piped scheme	4000	3000
Deep borehole with piped scheme	3500	2000

Source: Adank and Hailegiorgis (2018), Adank et al. (2019).

In most cases, this means utilizing unsafe water sources, purchasing transported water, or walking and carrying water for long distances. The uneven distribution of that burden is shown in Tables 2 and 3. As noted earlier, there are compounding geographic burdens in the east and south of the woreda, meaning that functional water points may be added further away due to the low coverage in neighbouring kebeles. As per the GTP-II standard set by the Government of Ethiopia, and taking into account the population of the kebeles in the woreda (Table 1), the variation of water access shows that water access ranges from a relatively high level of coverage of 83.3% in Hambicho kebele to 0% coverage in Dache Gofera kebele.

Table 2. Shallow borehole scheme service coverage by kebeles in Bolosso Sore

Kebele	No. of user HHs 1.5 km radius	No. of functional shallow boreholes	SB × capacity to serve (functional SBs × 1450)	No. individuals (user HHs × 5)	Percentage coverage
Adimanicho Arefita	659	0	0	3295	0
Dolla	2400	0	0	12,000	0
Gara Goda	618	0	0	3090	0
Yukara	578	0	0	2890	0
Gurumo Koyisha	1185	1	1450	5925	24.5
Danigara Madalicho	783	1	1450	3915	37.0
Danigara Salata	693	1	1450	3465	41.8
Sore Homiba	575	1	1450	2875	50.4
Woyibo	192	1	1450	960	151.0
Total	7683	5	7250	38,415	18.9

HHs = households; SB = shallow borehole.

Source: Field collection data.

Table 3. Shallow well scheme service coverage of kebeles in Bolosso Sore

Kebele	No. of user HHs 1.5 km radius	No. of functional shallow wells	SW capacity to serve (functional SW × 250)	No. individuals (user HHs × 5)	Percentage coverage
Dache Gofara	70	0	0	350	0.0
Dola	259.8	1	250	1,299	19.2
Woybo Woga	276	2	500	1,380	36.2
Afama Adila	126	1	250	630	39.7
Dubo	502	4	1,000	2,510	39.8
Doge Woybo	491	4	1,000	2,455	40.7
Yukara	360	3	750	1,800	41.7
Tiyo Hembicho	459	4	1,000	2,295	43.6
Tadisa	342	3	750	1,710	43.9
Adimanicho Arefita	110	1	250	550	45.5
Afama Mino	110	1	250	550	45.5
Dangere Selata	110	1	250	550	45.5
Gido Homba	957	9	2,250	4,785	47.0
Basa Gofera	714	7	1,750	3,570	49.0
Chama Hembecho	885	9	2,250	4,425	50.8
Gara Goda	488	5	1,250	2,440	51.2
Hembecho Tadagi	95	1	250	475	52.6
Werimuma	660.6	7	1,750	3,303	53.0
Sore Homba	540	6	1,500	2,700	55.6
Shoye Homba	894	10	2,500	4,470	55.9
Achura Mazegaja	175	2	500	875	57.1
Achura	611	7	1,750	3,055	57.3
Legama	258	3	750	1,290	58.1
Matala Himbecho	258	3	750	1,290	58.1
Korke Doge	78	1	250	390	64.1
Hembecho	60	1	250	300	83.3
Total	9,889.4	96	24,000	49,447	48.5

HHs = Households; SW = shallow well.

Source: Field collection data.

One of the aims of this pilot collaboration was to find effective mechanisms to support evidence-based decision-making. This was particularly the case when partners came to the administration seeking to support the zone with water infrastructure to improve water access, as the zonal administration had no data regarding geographic distribution, functionality or coverage rates when geographic distribution, water-point type, functionality and population were taken into account. This pilot collaboration demonstrates that this can be done in cost-effective ways, and also identified new opportunities whereby this pilot could be improved before scaling (e.g., the two-way information sharing system for communities and water offices to provide details on functionality of water points, particularly for water points that are community managed). However, these partners also contributed to the problem by not institutionalizing or properly handing over information to the respective government offices. This includes basic information such as type of water point, water depth, maintenance schedules, required parts and where such parts could be procured when needed. These partners are usually international non-governmental or intergovernmental organizations, who are required to submit their annual plans to the authorities for approval before starting activities. As part of this collaboration, we explored policy shifts that would ensure all actors engaging with the water sector would be required to submit data to the database managed by the zonal authority. One potential policy shift, which had yet to be put in place at the time of this writing, is to require that such data be submitted as a condition of working in the zone, and before any further activities would be approved such data must be submitted. As per the OECD framework, this relates less to policy coherence per se and more to addressing policy gaps so that water-sector governance is strengthened. To avoid this being misconstrued as a control mechanism, it would need to be clearly communicated as a way for the database to be kept up-to-date to ensure the benefits of the water sector are maintained and sustained. If adopted, this would create a new governance structure that, if it works effectively, would also be scaled up to other districts (and even the country). The result would be regular updating of the database by the actor involved. This might be complemented by the above-suggested community-based feedback mechanisms as well.

Conclusion

The collaborative water project described in this paper started with a problem: water access is low, evidence regarding water points was limited, what data did exist were not geographically mapped to assess coverage based on population and both human and financial capacity were limited to address the challenges faced. The OECD framework principles supported the adaptive implementation of this collaboration, seeking specifically to co-plan and co-create interventions that are suited to the resource- and capacity-constrained context of rural and remote areas. This process required reconsidering the roles and responsibilities of the key actors, particularly donors and non-governmental organizations in developing and/or maintaining water infrastructure, community members who are primarily managing the infrastructure, and government actors seeking to ensure access to water for all residents. Policy gaps contributed to missing and/or inaccurate data, and options and lessons emerging from this collaboration identify avenues for strengthening the data quantity and quality. The governance of rural water schemes at a community level requires the development and maintenance of a proper database that guides all concerned stakeholders regarding what has been done, who was involved in development and management of these facilities, and where critical gaps exist.

The contribution of this paper is that it presents lessons for resource-constrained contexts, sharing lessons on innovations for situations wherein the resources for large, new infrastructure did not, and does not, exist. New approaches are required for success in such a scenario, which take the specific challenges and needs into account as well as the capacity and resource context. This collaboration showed that with willing partners (two universities and a zonal government), the foundations of more effective decision-making can be done efficiently and effectively for minimal cost. This model thus shows a pathway for scaling initiatives in resource-constrained settings. Developing a feasible governance framework and having an up-to-date database to record the status of these water facilities is not only vital, but feasible. This collaboration facilitated improved governance of these water schemes by providing much-needed information on their status and identified service coverage gaps/disparities. With these data, the zonal administration is able to avoid the duplication of efforts by all stakeholders involved in the development and management of water schemes in the area and make more evidence-based decisions to improve water access equitably. The process identified new opportunities for citizen participation for community-managed water points and provided policy recommendations to improve the water governance system.

Tailored solutions that are designed for scaling within resource-constrained contexts require much more research attention. Top-down or international best practices might be effective where resources and capacity support their implementation. Given resource and capacity limitations in many of the areas of the world that are being left behind on SDG6, innovative approaches are required. Collaborations involving local stakeholders, who understand the constraints as well as the opportunities, can create new ‘best-fit’ (rather than best-practice) approaches to support the scaling of water solutions in resource-constrained settings, thereby enabling progress on SDG6. This paper provides an example of a taored approach, sharing lessons for scaling in Ethiopia well as countries facing similar challenges and constraints.

Acknowledgements

Open Access funding provided by the Qatar National Library.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. The water points functionality assessment was conducted based on whether the water schemes are providing service to the user community at the time of field data collection.