Water Management
There is no comprehensive water resources development policy or strategy (except for the water
supply and sanitation sector with the Sierra Leone Water Company Act of 1991) in Sierra
Leone, for the same reason already mentioned above: water resources have never been a serious
constraint to development in the country
Sierra Leone can be divided into twelve river basins, of which five are shared with Guinea and
two with Liberia. The most important ones, from west to east, are: the Kolente (Great Scarcies),
Kaba, Rokel, Pampana (Jong), Sewa, Moa, and Mano. The groundwater resources of the
country have not been extensively studied. They correspond almost totally to the base flow of
the rivers and the permeability of the substratum is high.
Internal renewable water resources are estimated at 160 km3/year, with surface water accounting
for 150 km3/year of them (Table 2). Seasonal variations are important: only 11-17 percent of the
annual discharge occurs between December and April, with minimum discharge in April.
Internally produced groundwater is estimated to be 50 km3/year. Of that, 40 km3/year is
considered to be overlap between surface water and groundwater.
etlands are important in rice and vegetable production. Sierra Leone signed the Ramsar
Convention on Wetlands in 1999 and 66 Ramsar sites exist in the country.
Sierra Leone has only one major dam, the 68 metre-high Guma dam, built for hydroelectricity
purposes close to Freetown. However, there is considerable potential for the development of
small-scale hydroelectric schemes that could also be designed to accommodate irrigated
agriculture. An inventory identified 21 sites for hydropower development, with a hydroelectric
potential which already exceeds by far the medium-term demand of the country (the total
potential is believed to be much higher).
International water issues
Sierra Leone shares several river basins with neighbouring countries, such as the Kolente (Great
Scarcies) and the Kaba with Guinea, the Mano with Liberia, and the Moa with Guinea and
Liberia. The inflows into Sierra Leone from these transnational watercourses are considered
negligible. Sierra Leone is a member of the Mano River Union, a regional body whose activities
impact on agriculture and rural development.
Water use
Total water withdrawal in the year 2000 was estimated to be 379.9 million m3 (Table 3).
Irrigation is the major water user, with a withdrawal of 353.6 million m3 in 2000, followed by
the municipal sector with 19.6 million m3 and industry with 6.7 million m3 (Figure 1). About 80
percent of the rural population obtains its water from surface sources, including many streams
and ponds. Groundwater is used for a limited number of rural wells and recent installations for
large cities. A good number of provincial towns enjoy pipe- borne treated water.
National targets for water supply and sanitation are 74 percent and 66 percent, respectively, as
stated in the 2008 National Water and Sanitation Policy, with the same targets applied in urban
and rural areas alike. In the absence of up-to-date national estimates of coverage, the latest
estimates from the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) provide the best indication of sector
progress. 3 According to the JMP coverage for water supply reached 49 percent in 2008: while
an impressive 86 percent of the urban population is estimated to have access to an improved
source of drinking water, coverage is only 26 percent in rural areas. The high urban coverage is,
however, contested by sector stakeholders, who argue that it is overly optimistic and does not
take into account the poor quality of water supplied in urban areas through sources that are
nonetheless considered improved, such as protected wells which are used by over 30 percent of
the urban population. According to the JMP, improved sanitation coverage stood at 13 percent
in 2008 (24 percent in urban areas, 6 percent in rural areas) which excludes those accessing
shared facilities (Figure 1). Open defecation in rural areas is high, estimated at 46 percent of the
population.
Comparing national estimates of coverage in 1990 to the 2008 JMP estimates gives a different
picture—a slight upward trend in the case of water supply, and a slight decline in sanitation
coverage
Whilst many recognize the Ministry of Health and Sanitation as responsible for sanitation, in
practice the Environmental Health Department has been neglected, with an annual budget in
2009 not exceeding US$20,000.13 The MoEWR has assumed responsibility for water-related
sanitation policy and as the National Water and Sanitation Policy concedes, “the confusion
surrounding whether full sanitation responsibility should fall under Ministry of Health,
Environment Commission, Local Government or the Ministry responsible for water has not
been fully addressed”
The current practice of making free water available at standpipes is sending the wrong signals
on the responsibilities of consumers and is inconsistent with sustainable delivery of the service.
There is also a policy gap regarding ultimate responsibility for rehabilitating rural WSS
facilities after they have been built.
A water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) database is currently being developed by UNICEF in
collaboration with Statistics Sierra Leone and MoEWR to monitor eight WASH indicators,
namely (a) the percentage of people with access to improved drinking water; (b) the percentage
of water handled safely at household level; (c) the percentage coverage of sanitation facilities;
(d) coverage of improved solid waste disposal; (e) improved waste water management; (f)
percentage of people practicing hand washing with soap/ash at critical times; (g) percentage of
people with access to hygiene promotion activities;
6. Sector Monitoring and Evaluation
and (h) percentage of people with basic knowledge of hygiene practices. The project is being
implemented by Statistics Sierra Leone and the Water Supply Division of the MoEWR in
partnership with the 19 local councils. The measurement of some of these indicators will be
challenging and will require substantial resources to be undertaken on a regular basis. It is also
important that the definitions of these indicators are agreed within a national consultative
process.
Less than one-third of the rural population in Sierra Leone has access to a reliable supply of safe
drinking water from a protected source, and many continue to rely on unprotected wells, rivers,
streams and swamps (MacGrath, 2006). Even where a protected source exists, it is clear that
households use a combination of sources including streams and traditional wells for cooking,
washing and bathing to meet their water needs. Slum-dwellers and poor residents in Freetown
rely on stand posts or unprotected wells where the water quality is questionable. In theory this
water is free, but the poor regularly pay Le100/200 ($0.03-06) or more per bucket to
intermediaries who control local access.
Sierra Leone has some of the worst child survival indicators in world. Under five child mortality
in 2000 was 316 for every 1000 births (Black et al, 2003), which was the worst in the world.
MICS findings (UNICEF, 2006) show a slight improvement, with under five child mortality in
2005 being 267. This remains the highest in the world, and access to basic services, including
water and sanitation, is a root cause.
Table 2: Best Estimates of Access to Improved Water and Sanitation Source: Figures
summarized from Westhof (2006)
Urban Water Supply and Sanitation: A Critical Issue
The urbanization rate in Sierra Leone exceeds the growth in current levels of urban water supply. In
Freetown the main water supply company, Guma Valley Water Company (GVWC) provides an average
daily output of 18m gallons per day, as against a daily estimated demand of 35m gallons/day. Water is
rationed to many areas in the city with almost no customers getting 24-hour supply. In the peri-urban
areas and the densely populated poor urban central areas, customers receive supplies once a month or
none at all. Nationally, only 50% of the urban population have access to water from improved water
sources. With rapid and uncoordinated expansion of urban settlements, more urban residents are likely to
continue depending on vendors and tanker services, at costs far in excess of utility rates.
In addition, water supply sources are no longer able to meet current demand, as is notably the case with
the Guma Dam, Freetown’s major source, which irregularly runs dry. Furthermore, the water is
increasingly polluted as a result of contamination by human and industrial activities.
A graphic description of the problem in Freetown is provided by DFID (2007). High densities and
degraded living conditions in the slums mean that poor people have virtually no access to sanitation.
Pregnant women and sick children, who are unable to walk to the community toilets at the edge of the
slum, use plastic buckets to relieve themselves and then simply tip the contents into the open drain
nearby.
Large numbers of latrines are simple pits, emptying into streams or drains. Freetown is the centre of
governance, and the hub of political life. The cleavages and rivalries over access
to resources between networks that take place here are the main determinant of political stability. This
stability has been hard won, and the role of the military remains central in keeping the peace. However
the 8,000 – 10,000 soldiers and their families and dependants housed in the three main military barracks
in Freetown (Wilberforce, Murray town and Goderich) are not immune from the degradation in basic
services which affects the city. The nexus between poverty, an absence of basic WSS services, and the
threat to regime stability is physically located in these parts of the city.