Of borrowing for boreholes, toilets
After voting in the new Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government through the most controversial results in multiparty Malawi, a meeting of triumphant legislators was organised at Parliament to debate issues that would help shape the future. As a Malawian, I followed most of the proceedings in Parliament, mostly through radio and newspapers.
What attracted me most was a debate on the first Bill: Sustainable Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Infrastructure Project Loan Authorisation, which sought to allow government to borrow K9 billion from the African Development Bank (AfDF) and K3 billion from the Nigerian Trust Fund.
The money, I learnt, was for government to facilitate provision to Malawians of access to safe water and improved public institution sanitation and hygiene. The “whys” of safe water and improved sanitation and hygiene are presumed to be very obvious even to a primary school pupil.
I also learnt that these projects are expected to be implemented in Phalombe, Mangochi, Nkhotakota, Ntcheu and Rumphi.
From the minister’s presentation, it was indicated that similar projects have successfully been implemented under similar sourcing mechanisms in Ntchisi and Mzimba between 2005 and 2008.
The second phase of the project was implemented in Lilongwe, Machinga, Zomba and Mulanje between 2010 and 2013. I, however, noticed that the Bill received mixed reactions across the aisle. A majority of MPs, almost all from DPP and some few from opposition and independent benches supported the Bill. No wonder, the Bill was finally passed.
But during contributions, there were some opposition MPs, notably first timers and mostly from MCP, who vehemently opposed the passing of the Bill. Their argument was that with 50 years of independence, Malawi cannot be borrowing money for construction of boreholes and public toilets.
The problem with the Bill, according to the MPs, is that they expect the country after 50 years of independence, to have nothing to do with toilets. As regards boreholes, most MPs think that Malawi currently needs gravity fed systems (GFS) or reticulation of water from high yielding boreholes (aquifers) through piped water and not boreholes.
It is important for MPs to know that, as a rule of thumb, GFSs operate from higher altitude. Whether the GFS source is a surface water source, in form of river, lake, dam or underground water in form of a spring, the source should be from a higher altitude than the areas being served by the system. In this case, altitude is a limiting factor.
In the absence of a gravity dependent system, one can install a mechanised borehole to pump water from a high yielding aquifer to a strategic storage reservoir and treatment plants and supply areas below the reservoir through a reticulated piped system. Or indeed, pump water from the reservoir to supply areas in need.
To install this type of system in rural areas will mean expecting rural households to sustain the operation and maintenance of the system, which, considering the costs, is not feasible (if city dwellers default water bill payment, what more with rural folks?). In addition, for this type of system, the amount of water an aquifer can provide is a limiting factor. Hence, both systems of water supply are geographically dependent.
However, you need to realise that there are some areas whose geographical features are neither of the two scenarios above. They are geographically flat (limited by altitude) or their aquifers are not high yielding to satisfy reticulation system standards (limited by aquifer yields).
The question to MPs who opposed this Bill because they just hate boreholes is: Do you neglect people in these geographically challenged areas without any safe water source? Or you may consider providing them at least a borehole so they access safe water.
Your guess is as good as mine. I hope no MP who comes from areas that cannot accommodate either GFS or reticulation systems spoke badly about boreholes. If there were one, then that was pure madness and, if I might add, political suicide.
When WASH developers plan water supply projects, they consider sustainability of such systems. They consider whether a technology is appropriate for such a location. After years of research, mostly by government, Afridev boreholes have been designed to be operated and maintained at village level for reasons of sustainability so that when government is through with one area in terms of coverage, the next investment should target other needy areas.
If we give our rural folks inappropriate and unsustainable technologies, the ones they cannot repair when broken down, we end up moving in circles without increasing coverage.
In fact, boreholes supply around 65 percent of all of Europe’s drinking water. Almost the whole of Botswana, including Gaberone, and most of Lusaka and many more cities in the world, including parts of New York, are supplied by boreholes. (See freshwater.org/wp content/uploads/…/
During the same debate, the same overzealous MPs had problems with borrowing for construction of latrines in primary schools, market and health centres. My conclusion was that these MPs do not prioritise improvement of sanitation and hygiene in public institutions.
I doubt if these MPs know the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), our current status and what we need to do to achieve this, especially on access to sanitation and hygiene. The deadline for achievement of the MDGs is next year.
Do our MPs know that in most market centres and primary schools in their constituencies there are no toilets? If there are, then they are dilapidated and poorly managed.
I wish MPs who were against the Bill to know that the planned latrines will incorporate menstrual hygiene facilities to ensure that the girl child is kept in school even in times of menstruation.
Some may still argue: Why borrow money for projects when Malawi has been independent for 50 years? Why can’t a 50-year-old Malawi not fund these activities from its own budget?
I would have no qualms if such questions came from mere citizens, but not MPs whose responsibility, among others, is to allocate budgetary funds for national development, including for provision of communal water supply through GFS, reticulation systems and boreholes, and sanitation and hygiene facilities in public institutions.
It is in fact the same MPs who allocate meager resources to departments responsible for water supply and sanitation services.
According to Wes Network’s water supply and sanitation sector budget analysis (March 2013), there were declining levels of financing in the WASH sector in Malawi. The study found that between 2009 and 2013, the budget for the then Ministry of Water Development and Irrigation depended mostly on donors due to very low funding from government.
Instead of crying for more funding for drugs in hospitals, we should focus on preventive primary healthcare strategies that prevent illnesses such as diarrhea. And there is no better way than providing adequate water and sanitation facilities using appropriate technologies whose benefits are sustainable.
—The author is a WASH specialist, but writing in his own capacity
