Understanding small NGOs' access to and use of geological data and expertise in delivering SDG 6 in eastern Africa

Groundwater use can be a sustainable way of improving access to clean water for vulnerable and poor communities in rural Africa (MacDonald & Calow 2009). Population growth, increasing food insecurity, and climate change impacts make the importance of groundwater resources and their careful management critical to the delivery of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as highlighted during World Water Day in 2022 (United Nations 2022).

Using groundwater resources to help achieve the ambitions of sustainable development goal (SDG) 6 – clean water and sanitation for all – will require geological data and expertise (Upton & MacDonald 2021). Geologists (sometimes referred to as Earth scientists or geoscientists) understand Earth and environmental processes and how these might affect groundwater availability and quality (Lubchenco et al. 2015; Gill 2017; Omisore 2018; Upton & MacDonald 2021). Without effective monitoring and management, there is the potential for the abstraction of more water than is sustainable (Foster et al. 2008; MacDonald & Calow 2009) or contamination either through human activities including farming (Lapworth et al. 2017) and poor sanitation (Gabrielsson et al. 2020) or from geogenic sources (Kut et al. 2016). Poor understanding of hydrogeological conditions before drilling can result in boreholes failing quickly (Pavelic et al. 2012).

Such geological knowledge – though critical to effective water resource management – is not always understood, accessible, or used (Robbins et al. 2006; Liu et al. 2008; Howard & Bartram 2010) by other stakeholders. Organisations such as the British Geological Survey (BGS), International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Groundwater Relief, and UNESCO have programmes to increase access to and use of free geological data and expertise for the sustainable development of water resources in Africa (UNESCO 2009; Martínez-Frías & Mogessie 2012; BGS 2017). These initiatives, while important, do not yet have full coverage across the continent and are typically not at the scale required for local-level decision making. The lack of access to data is exacerbated by weaknesses in data collection and management. For example, boreholes are drilled with no central records of the underlying geology encountered during drilling being kept (Chakava et al. 2014), meaning that repeated exploratory drilling needs to take place (Macdonald & Davies 2000).

While evidence suggests that practitioners are unable to access good quality geological (including groundwater) data and expertise (Acreman 2005), the extent of and reasons for this challenge are largely unknown. Nussbaumer et al. (2016) examined groundwater management by water service providers in the peri-urban areas of Lusaka, Zambia and showed that there were limitations in the use of existing hydrogeological information due to a lack of capacity to interpret monitoring data. Robbins et al. (2006) reported that periods of past decentralisation and fragmentation of groundwater monitoring and management in southern and eastern Africa also led to challenges in developing, archiving, and using hydrogeologic data for groundwater management. Water practitioners can vary significantly, and this paper focuses on the use of geological data, and barriers preventing access and use, by small NGOs. Small NGOs can be dynamic actors in delivering clean water and sanitation services to the poorest sectors of society and have the potential to be cost-effective and efficient (Lewis 2015). Small NGOs can have strong grassroots links and the potential to innovate and adapt quickly, reaching areas less accessible by governments (James 2013). Technologies for assessment and exploration of groundwater resources are both relatively expensive and require specific expertise to produce satisfactory projections of groundwater availability which may be beyond the capacity of small NGOs (Pavelic et al. 2012).

In this context, the aim of this study is to understand whether small NGOs in eastern Africa have access to and use geological information and expertise to deliver clean water and sanitation services. Identifying barriers preventing access to and use of geological information and expertise can inform the design of actions and the revision of processes and systems to improve access and use and support realisation of the ambitions of SDG 6.

A mixed-methods approach that entailed both an online survey and key-informant interviews to collect and analyse qualitative and quantitative data in a single study was used (Creswell & Clark 2017). This methodology provided insights into the access to and use of geological data and expertise by small NGOs in eastern Africa where literature and scientific evidence were limited (Schwartz et al. 2001; Cossham & Johanson 2019).

Both the survey and interviews targeted practitioners that had participated in the delivery of clean water and sanitation services in eastern Africa while working within or in partnership with small NGOs. Eastern Africa was loosely defined to entail the majority of the countries that are geographically located in the east of Africa including Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Burundi, Rwanda, Mozambique, Madagascar, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, and Malawi. Similarly, it was difficult to define ‘small NGO’ by any internationally recognised manner, so this was left to respondents to interpret in their own context to maximise the possible number of respondents.

The interview guide and online survey questions were developed to obtain information to help answer the following questions:

• What types of geological data do small NGOs use to inform their decision making, in the context of water and sanitation programmes?

• How and where do small NGOs access these geological data?

• How do small NGOs use geological data in their water and sanitation programmes?

• What support do small NGOs receive from geologists in academia, governmental institutions, the private sector, and other NGOs?

• Does success and sustainability of implemented programmes correlate with the use of geological data and expertise?

• What actions (and by whom) could improve this science-to-practice interface?

The online survey was made available on the Qualtrics platform (Mc Elhinney et al. 2016) from June to mid-July 2021. The link to the survey was shared via social media groups such as the Community of Women in Water, Rural Water Supply Network (in particular its Sustainable Groundwater group), alumni groups of Cranfield University, and on platforms such as LinkedIn. As a result, 44 respondents completed the online survey. We anonymised survey participants by numbering them as ‘Respondent #’ when presenting their responses in later sections.

The in-depth, semi-structured interviews were carried out via Microsoft Teams concurrently with the online survey, from June to July 2021. Convenience sampling was done through the voluntary recruitment of participants who attempted the online survey. Snowball sampling was also adopted when participants referred colleagues in similar fields. As a result, 16 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants, including geologists, WASH practitioners, and academics working with or in small NGOs in eastern Africa contributing to the provision of clean water services.

Results indicate that survey respondents and key informants had all used or attempted to use geologic data while carrying out water projects. A bias of the sampling strategy was that people working in small NGOs that had not used geological data either did not attempt the survey or dropped out halfway through. Their participation would have helped to understand why geologic data are not used and the challenges faced by their small NGOs in terms of access to and use of geological data and expertise. Overall, it was difficult to assist the respondents via the online survey that was advertised via various social media platforms as it was left to their judgement on whether they had relevant experiences to share. Only fully completed surveys were included in our analysis as they resulted in the extraction of meaningful information since the questions were linked in terms of flow and obtaining tangible results. Respondents from Uganda were overrepresented as the link was shared across the principal author's social media platform with most contacts being from Uganda.

All recorded interviews were transcribed and then underwent conventional content analysis as a flexible method of analysing text data (Cavanagh 1997). The conventional content analysis allowed categories to emerge from the data (Hsieh & Shannon 2005). This was done by reading all the data repeatedly to obtain a sense of the content (Tesch 1990). Then data were scanned to extract codes by highlighting text that appeared to capture key concepts. Similar codes were then grouped under themes and subheadings (Hsieh & Shannon 2005). These themes were then used to inform the results (Greter et al. 2021).

Participants' consent was sought prior to surveys (via the completion of a form prior to beginning the survey) and interviews (via email before the interview took place). All respondents were informed of the study's rationale and that their involvement was voluntary. The study was reviewed and approved by Cranfield University Ethics (CURES) system (CURES/13856/2021) to ensure that the research met appropriate ethical principles and standards. All information was used for its intended and agreed purpose, with processes in place to ensure contributions could not be traced back to an individual.

There were 16 KIIs and 44 online survey respondents which should give a broad impression from small NGOs. All 16 KI interviewees and 39 out of 44 online survey respondents worked on projects that aimed at delivering clean water, sanitation, and hygiene in eastern Africa while collaborating with or working for a small NGO. Seven of 16 interviewees had a geological background and 7 of 16 were WASH experts (this included 1 person who sat in both groups, that is with both a geological background and who identified as a WASH expert). Of the 39 online survey respondents that carried out projects across eastern Africa more than half (n = 23) of the respondents contributed to projects carried out in Uganda. Of the 16 interviewees, the majority (n = 11) had carried out projects in Uganda, with other countries of focus including Kenya (n = 6), Tanzania (n = 3), and also South Sudan, Ethiopia, Burundi, Rwanda, Mozambique, Madagascar, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, and Malawi. Some survey respondents and interviewees had worked in multiple countries. A total of 21 out of the 39 survey respondents working on water projects, and all of the interviewees, worked in a rural setting. The average size of the NGOs that implemented these water projects ranged from 10 to 20 employees. Twenty-nine of the 39 respondents used geological data and/or expertise in WASH projects, and all of the interviewees were either geological experts or had used geological data in WASH projects.

A total of 25 out of 39 survey respondents and 12 out of 16 interviewees stated that small NGOs in eastern Africa had access to several geological data sources. The geological data sources most frequently mentioned by the respondents and interviewees included national government institutions, particularly water resources departments in respective countries, and open online sources that used tools such as Geographical Information Systems (GIS) (Esri 2022), and the Groundwater Atlas (BGS 2020).

All respondents and interviewees pointed out that these sources could provide relevant geological data supporting water and sanitation-related activities such as hydrogeology data, geophysical assessments, borehole records, pumping test data, groundwater monitoring records, water quality and quantity data, remote sensing data, and geological maps. Such data were used for groundwater management, conservation of water resources, construction of sand dams, and catchment protection. Moreover, interviewees 7 and 11 highlighted the role of geological data sources and tools for sanitation projects, such as creating open defaecation maps and the siting of septic systems:

A total of 29 out of 39 respondents used geological data and/or expertise in WASH projects. Twenty respondents mentioned facing challenges while trying to access and use geological data for projects including nine who said that access to data was impossible or limited. According to respondent 12 and interviewee 4, the geographical setting influenced how much data were accessible to small NGOs in eastern Africa:

Respondents and interviewees also raised issues about the geological data quality, particularly of data released by governments and free online sources for the use of small NGOs. Four respondents and four interviewees called these data ‘incomplete’, ‘unreliable’, and ‘outdated’. Interviewee 3, for example, explained that the available data within certain countries was not only outdated but covering only a small area. So even when small NGOs accessed the data, they had to supplement it with their own fieldwork:

Interviewee 3 also pointed out the poor storage conditions of datasets at government level citing an example of the data records in a few districts in Uganda that were still in paper form and had been eaten by rodents:

Another challenge raised by two respondents and three interviewees in accessing geological data was data secrecy among different stakeholders to gain an advantage in the competition for grants at the expense of others:

Interviewee 16 explained that data secrecy caused problems in determining who was drilling wells and which areas had potential for groundwater.

Eight respondents and 10 interviewees singled out cost as a significant barrier for small NGOs to access data and expertise, as exemplified by respondent 15:

There were frequent statements about how expensive it was to hire geological experts. In Uganda, rates for a survey ranged between 800 and 1,000 USD per site for expert surveyors or 100 and 300 USD for inexperienced surveyors who might end up ‘water witching’ or ‘dowsing’ – a technique not based on any scientific principles (Deming 2001), according to Interviewee 3.

A total of 20 respondents mentioned that government and most online sources were free. This was, however, disputed by two respondents who had faced challenges regarding data access, while two interviewees claimed that they needed to bribe the person in charge of the data to speed up the process despite the government data being free:

However, interviewees 8 and 9 who are hydrogeological experts and consultants working with small NGOs in eastern Africa (Kenya, Malawi, and Uganda) supported the idea of paying a fee to access the data, as it costs money, personnel, time, and effort to manage databases. They argued that it would improve the quality of databases that could be used by small NGOs in the future. They highlighted the need for small NGOs to plan for such expenses in their budgets, citing that the availability of geological data and expertise from the government involved facilitation by government personnel.

Nine interviewees named bureaucracy (difficulty navigating government processes) as a barrier for small NGOs to access geological data. In particular, interviewee 3 highlighted the long process of receiving clearance, petitioning, and making requests at each level of the bureaucracy. Data were restricted to only government officials, although it was supposed to be readily available for all, including small NGOs:

Nine respondents and nine interviewees pointed out the inability of small NGOs to interpret the available data records or to be able to utilise the open online data sources to make informed decisions when planning water and sanitation programmes. Respondents 10 and 15 exemplify this as follows:

Moreover, due to a lack of knowledge of what data or expertise they needed, respondents and interviewees indicated that small NGOs did not plan or budget well for this aspect of water programmes, thus receiving limited funds. Additionally, interviewees 3 and 8 pointed to incidents in which small NGOs in Uganda and Kenya were scammed due to the lack of knowledge on what data were relevant for their work. Interviewee 14 also stated that small NGOs in East Africa called experts on board after making mistakes in the implementation, like drilling a few dry wells at the start and realising that they needed additional expertise.

Eight interviewees highlighted the influential role of donors for small NGOs in eastern Africa, as they were the main source of the finances required to deliver programmes. Interviewee 3 explained how donors influenced the fixed budget and timeframes within which small NGOs executed projects through an example of a project carried out in northern Uganda:

Interviewee 4, on the other hand, mentioned about delayed timeframes due to small NGOs' funding restrictions in obtaining and generating high-quality geological data and expertise:

In some instances, small NGOs chose to leave a hydrogeologist out (despite their need for hydrogeology experts) due to time constraints imposed on them by donors, as mentioned by interviewee 3. Eight interviewees called for donors to be more flexible when funding small NGOs' work in eastern Africa, appreciating uncertainties in groundwater management and being more supportive towards implementing partners:

Interviewee 12, who is a donor for many WASH programmes in eastern Africa, did not respond to any of these points but highlighted that most funders focused on building new infrastructure rather than its sustainability.

Seven respondents and four interviewees argued that there were few geological experts in eastern Africa, as exemplified by Interviewee 13:

Local geological expertise is also referred to as being a male-dominated field. Interviewee 3 (male) argued that woman in the geological profession in Uganda were few:’

Another key issue raised by seven interviewees regarding local expertise was on the local experts' preference to work for big projects that pay better when compared to small-scale projects:

However, based on testimonies of two interviewees, one from a geological consultancy and another from an international NGO, it can be inferred that local expertise was available but not supported. One specified that NGOs preferred to use expatriates rather than their local geologists, despite their higher costs, which discourages local geological capacity building.

Four interviewees highlighted the lack of trust between small NGOs and local geologists, particularly raising concerns about the quality of work provided by hydrogeologists to small NGOs. They claimed that most hydrogeological experts were focused more on money than the quality of work. Interviewee 3 reported that geological consultancies offered only junior experts to small NGOs, influencing the quality of work produced. Interviewee 2 also highlighted that the lack of trust was fuelled by tensions between hydrogeologists and drillers:

Conflicts of interest can of course be held by any party – hydrogeologist, driller, or supervising NGO – and if not identified, declared, and managed correctly can be detrimental to effective water resource management.

The results set out in the previous section must be set into the context of the completeness and reliability of the data collected. While the extent of data collected does not allow a broad generalisation of the issues hindering small NGOs' access to and use of geological data and expertise for water projects in eastern Africa, it does provide a useful scoping study to identify initial themes for further interrogation. This additional data exploration would need to include a greater diversity of research participants, in terms of gender, country they are operating in, and experience using geological data.

In this study, participants suggested that there are cases of unreliable, incomplete, and out-of-date geological data provided by governments, making it difficult to comprehend and use. Since small NGOs may prefer to use government data as it is typically free, it places them at a disadvantage in accessing the good quality data required to successfully site boreholes exploiting groundwater resources.

Several participants raised concerns about the collection, management, monitoring, storage, and professionalism in handling geological data by governments in eastern Africa. Concerns could be attributed to a lack of knowledgeable personnel handling these data or to inadequate data systems. Adelana et al. (2009) reported similar findings, with staff failing to record or archive critical data sets (for example, drilling logs and pumping tests). Training and capacity building is needed for people working on government geoscience databases. This requires investment, which could come from the government or charges applied to NGOs who use the database. For NGOs to be willing to pay for access to data, they would need to have confidence that it is useful and useable. They would also need fees to be set at affordable and realistic levels. Participants mentioned that small NGOs sometimes lack the financial resources required to establish their own databases or access high-quality data. Those NGOs with greater financial resources (often larger NGOs) may have a greater capacity to collect and establish their own databases. Participants highlighted that such organisations opt to keep their geological data private, contributing to the lack of information available to other NGOs. Facilitating cooperation and promoting the benefits of data sharing and transparency may help to overcome this issue and improve the planning, implementation, and monitoring of water programmes.

Nonetheless, there is a push to digitise geological databases, for example, the Africa Groundwater Atlas now contains digital African country hydrogeology maps (BGS 2020). This is improving data quality, accessibility, and record management. It also addresses storage issues explored earlier and identified in previous work (e.g., see Gill et al. 2019). However, digitisation necessitates capacity building and training to ensure its long-term viability. Domini et al. (2017) have reservations about digitising data because it cannot be used in remote areas of eastern Africa where electricity supplies are lacking or unreliable.

The findings suggest that there were few local hydrogeologists in eastern Africa. As a result, small NGOs had difficulties in finding local geologists to support their work. If they did find local geologists, they were either expensive or preferred larger projects. Relying on drillers to site and supervise borehole construction resulted in a high number of water point failures in Uganda. Many geological courses exist in eastern Africa (Pozzi & Hurman 2022), suggesting the existence of a substantial geological community. NGOs may not have access to or may not choose to use this local expertise.

Although only one interviewee mentioned the lack of women working with geological data in the water sector, it is noteworthy that all interviewees were men. This could be attributed to patriarchal societies in Africa where technical jobs are gendered, leaving women as home caregivers rather than field workers (Prozesky & Mouton 2019). Furthermore, sociological, political, and logistical challenges faced by women geologists worldwide from the late 18th to the mid-20th centuries, such as inappropriate clothing or sexual harassment in field sites, remain an issue (Burek & Kölbl-Ebert 2007). However, with increased advocacy for gender equality and the protection of women's rights, women should venture beyond their roles on Water User Committees (WUCs) and into science-based work, thereby increasing local geological expertise. However, it should be noted that the lack of representation of women was only noticed late in the study so was not explored very extensively.

Finally, most of the geological data mentioned were physical hydrogeology and water quantity data, with interviewees' major ambition in using this being that they did not drill dry boreholes. Water quality data or the links between groundwater and sanitation were not discussed by many participants and yet eastern Africa is currently being affected by geogenic and water quality challenges (Ligate et al. 2021) GIS was only mentioned by one respondent, which may simply reflect that people do not consider GIS as part of geoscience.

This study highlights that small NGOs want to use geological data but several factors influenced the access to and use of geological data and expertise by small NGOs delivering water projects in eastern Africa:

• Bureaucratic hurdles make it difficult for small NGOs to access free government geological data sources, and datasets are not always stored appropriately.

• Cost constraints hinder the ability of small NGOs to access quality geological data from other sources and to hire appropriate expertise to support the delivery of water services. Economies of scale favour organisations delivering larger scale programmes.

• Donors' lack of understanding of geological data affects the ability of small NGOs to budget for and include the time needed to collect or access geological data.

Addressing these challenges, there is a need to strengthen awareness of those working in or with small NGOs on the relevance of geological data and expertise to the delivery of water programmes. There is also a need to make geological data usable, accessible, and affordable to small NGOs, in the context of underfunded government services and lack of investment in data management. The professional geological community should consider what steps they can take to ensure their expertise is readily available to small NGOs, given their mutual role in the implementation of SDG 6, supporting an effective science-practice interface in eastern Africa. It is hoped that further exploration of the themes identified in this study will help to understand the extent to which they are relevant, the scales of their impacts, and the most appropriate way to implement the recommendations in this paragraph to improve the delivery of SDG 6.

Funding for this project was received from Geology for Global Development, supported financially by the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS). The authors would like to thank May Sule and Ian Holman for their constructive comments on earlier versions of this work and to Adrian Mallory for his contribution to scope this project in its earlier stages. Finally, thanks are given to all those who responded to surveys and agreed to be interviewed for generously sharing their knowledge.

Data cannot be made publicly available; readers should contact the corresponding author for details.

The authors declare there is no conflict.