Through my blogging, I often get asked what I think the “ideal” water supply technology is. Generalizing across Africa can be a little difficult, but for groundwater extraction in Malawi at least, the AfriDev pump, hooked up to a deep borehole, gets my vote.
Some quick reasons:
1. The Government of Malawi has a handpump standardization policy, which restricts handpumps to two types: AfriDevs and Malda. Government policy forbids the use of other types of handpumps.
2. Malda pumps are only for shallow groundwater extraction, and so are generally only used on shallow wells. Following policy, this leaves AfriDevs for boreholes.
3. In 2005, a survey of over 42,000 waterpoints in Malawi indicated that AfriDevs, on average, had by far the highest functionality rate at 79.6%, versus 63.3% for all non-AfriDev handpumps.
4. AfriDevs, not including the borehole, generally cost less than $1,000, or around 1/14th of the reported cost of a Playpump. They are cost-competitive with most other conventional handpumps.
5. AfriDevs have by far the best spare part supply distribution network in the country. AfriDev spares are available in most major trading centers. This is not true for any other type of handpump.
6. Because there are so many of them in the country, 21,795 as of 2005 compared with 2,819 for the next leading pump type, AfriDevs enjoy serious economies of scale for maintenance and spare parts distribution. There are already many people in the country who know how to fix these pumps.
7. Water quality testing can be done after the installation of an AfriDev – this isn’t the restricted domain of the Playpump or any other type of pump.
8. Communities generally are very satisfied with AfriDev pumps, relative to other options (probably the most important thing.) Government workers and NGO staff focusing on operation and maintenance of rural water infrastructure also almost uniformly prefer AfriDevs to other types of pump.
I’m not trying to say that AfriDevs are the best possible water technology. Rural water provision with boreholes is still expensive, and other options using shallow wells, rope pumps, self-supply, point-of-use treatment, etc. are interesting, and may have a place. However, this doesn’t mean that any and all ideas are valid – especially ones like the Playpump which deliver worse results than AfriDevs for more money. And given the economies of scale AfriDevs currently enjoy in Malawi, I can’t think of a better technology for use on groundwater extraction from boreholes.
Just for the record, I don’t work for an organization that installs AfriDevs – I have many responsibilities but primarily I’m focused on water and sanitation information management training for government staff. My only vested interest in promoting AfriDevs is that after a lot of time in the field, a lot of talking with communities, a lot of conversations with government employees and field-level NGO workers, a lot of reading, and a lot of thinking on the subject, I really think they’re by far the best (borehole based) technology for rural water supply in Malawi. Given that they’re also mandated through government policy, and that most serious development organizations make heavy use of AfriDevs, clearly I’m not the only one with this opinion.
Thanks for the information Owen. Most appreciated.