[download]13,2 Mb - Eco - Tiras

• inventory of point discharges such as sewageeffluents, industrial effluents, water from mining• water quality and how it varies seasonally and withweather patterns• flow and reliability of source and retention time ifstored• recreational and other human activity• any existing source protection systemsGroundwater• confined or unconfined aquifer, hydrology andrecharge area• flow rate, direction of flow and dilutioncharacteristics• whether fast or slow response to activities andevents on surface• depth of casing and abstraction and any wellheadprotection• inventory of activities in the recharge area that couldaffect water qualityBased on the gathered knowledge hazardidentification and risk assessment with involvement oflaboratories, distribution network (services for watertreatment and pipes or others), health authorities andother stakeholders such as consumers, farmers orindustry is followed whereas all the elements andfindings should be documented and made accessible toall stakeholders and the public.Improvements in order to minimise the risks shouldbe planned and carried out with a broad involvement ofthe public.Detailed information about Water safety plans can befound in the WHO document: Managing drinking-waterquality from catchment to consumer 2 .Experiences with developing Water Safety Plansinvolving schoolsSince several years, WECF, in cooperation with localpartners, has been monitoring water pollution of smallscalewater supply systems such as dug wells in ruralareas of several countries such as Romania, Moldova orUkraine.Poor sanitary conditions and mismanagement ofhuman and agricultural waste cause anthropogenic(man-made) water pollution with nitrates, faecal bacteria.Despite the evidence provided, this has NOT triggeredany action by local or regional authorities to start waterprotection measures. Among the rural citizens andlocal authorities low awareness exists on the relationof anthropogenic pollution, water quality and relateddiseases. In villages with small-scale water supplysystems, financial mechanisms or structures for waterand sanitation are often not available.To address the above-mentioned problems WECFcreated an educational package (WSP toolbox) forschools to develop community based Water Safety Plans(WSP) for local small-scale water supply systems such asdug wells, boreholes and public taps 3 .The aim of the activities on developing WSP forsmall-scale water supply systems involving schoolswas, building local capacity and strengthening and2 http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/wsp0506/en/index.html3 http://www.wecf.eu/english/publications/2008/wspmanuals-revised.phpmobilising the community for improved access to safedrinking water. The WSP toolkit provides schools andother stakeholders with a WSP manual with backgroundinformation about the aims of the WSP, about propertiesof drinking water and sources of pollution and relatedhealth risks. Three different questionnaires wereprepared for the schools: one for citizens, one for thelocal medical staff and one for the authority responsiblefor the local water supply.Based on the sanitary inspection forms of the WHO,checklists for the risk assessment of water sources wereadapted to the local circumstances.Two teachers per participating school were trained byWECF on how to develop with the involvement of theirpupils a WSP for their local community. The schoolswere provided with materials and information for carryingout nitrate quick tests and organo-leptic observations,and were motivated to analyse local water sources andto carry out a longitudinal nitrate monitoring of selecteddrinking water sources.ImplementationIn autumn 2008, school staff of 8 Romanian schoolsdeveloped and started a WSP programme for their pupils.The teachers and the pupils of the participating schoolswere very motivated and enthusiastic about the activities,because the activities were experienced as practical,educative and relevant to the local environment. The resultsdepended considerable on motivation and available timeof the teachers and the pupils. Approximately 500 watersamples were tested for nitrate and other simple testslike pH, observing the turbidity or colour of the samples,were carried out. The pupils, including final conclusionsand recommendations, carried out many interviews andsanitary inspections.Results of interviews with the local water responsibleauthoritiesOne of the results of the interviews was that inone out of the 3 communities with public taps the wellsand the water quality was seldom monitored; for theother 2 communities with public taps regularly waterquality controls were carried out. Citizens have to paylittle money (0.5 Euro/m 3 ) for water delivered by publictaps, water provided by public wells is for free. Therespondents said that the authorities of the communesdo not have additional budget and there are not enoughfinancial means for operation and maintenance of thesystems.Hence water protection measures or maintenance ofthe water sources was very poor in the target villages.Results of interviews with the local health authoritiesThe local doctors of 6 villages answered thequestionnaire. On the question “What is in your opinion themain problem concerning drinking water in the village?“two doctors mentioned the pollution via animal droppings,septic tanks, lack of sewerage and the fact that water isnot tested or protected. In three villages partly served withpartly public taps, the main problem mentioned was partialor a total lack of water supply. Regarding the water quality,the doctors of the four villages mentioned the high nitratesand water infected with Giardia. Most of the intervieweddoctors of the target villages were aware of the lack ofaccess to safe water and related health problems.— 196 —