Reality check!

Unfortunately, development agencies have had little success resolving the arsenic crisis. First, most of the delivered water supplies did not benefit the poor. One villager mentions: "In theory, we decided upon the placement of the water supply. In practice, it was the union chairman who installed it at the house of a friend". This injustice is compounded by development organisations and funding agencies in a rush to install a predetermined number of water supplies. Second, many of the installed water supplies were not maintained and eventually abandonned. A few cases are provided in the picture below (click to enlarge). This happens because some of the 'solutions' are either too sophisticated as a first technical step or simply socially inappropriate.

Water supplies installed under the National Policy for Arsenic Mitigation (NPAM) are said to have reached less than 14% of the population at risk. If that wasn't bad enough, the number of people still exposed to arsenic is probably much higher because the supplies are in reality not community-based; or because they have broken down within a year of so after their installation. The lesson is that if implemented improperly 30 deep tube wells will only serve 30 well-to-do families; if done properly 3 deep tube wells may serve 300 poor families.

Implementation in the AMRF projects In 2005, we started implementing our projects in Jessore and Munshiganj. In each village, we roughly follow three phases: surveying, organising and facilitating. 1. In a surveying phase, we test wells for arsenic in order to identify exposed communities, we carry out household surveys to identify poorer communities, and we identify potential arsenicosis patients.

This leads to the selection of villages, and to an understanding of the local context. 2. In an organising phase, we work directly with the local communities. We assist them to select a site and install a safe water supply. We provide training on arsenic and its risks, and we organise village meetings to elect a 'People's Organisation'. The initial surveys help us understand the local power relations, and to ensure representation of the poor (because usually the rich dominate). We also distribute medicine to patients, and help them set-up vegetable gardens to improve their diets.

This leads to the establishment of safe drinking water supplies and the provision of health support. Many projects have failed to benefit the poor, because they are implemented in a hurry to meet the targets set by donor agencies. In doing so, organisations ignore steps that we have found to be essential (such as land selection or local elections). While essential, these steps are no guarantee. Many things can still go wrong in the long-term, and we should not suddenly stop our involvement, but must gradually reduce our direct involvement, which takes us to the facilitating phase.

3. Ultimately, the 'People's Organisation' must look after the water supply, and the community (through village volunteers for example) must look after the 'People's Organisation'. We expect that this will improve the sustainability of our approach. On a final note: Some of the long-term risks associated with deep tube-wells (see programme approach) can only properly be dealt with by well-established forms of social organisation, which will take time to develop. The bulk of drinking water projects unfortunately pay too little attention in facilitating their formation and monitoring their functioning. Donor agencies generally focus on quick and tangible results, and underestimate the slow, but crucial, social processes.

More information

A more detailed overview of the process and activities is provided here. You can also look at a selection of photos of activities. For further information, please download our project proposal or have a look at our progress and yearly reports. We have also developed posters and brochures in Bangla for information dissemination in our project areas. These are available for download, or you may contact us to place an order.