PROVISION OF WATER TO THE POOR IN AFRICA larger proportion of standpipe users.<sup>6</sup> The wide inter-city variation in standpipe coverage implies that the policies governing standpipes need to be tailored. The approach to standpipes in Johannesburg, where this source provides almost the totality of coverage to the unconnected and disconnected, will clearly differ from that in Khartoum, where water vendors abound and there is only marginal standpipe coverage, or from that in another country where some portion of standpipe users may actually be eligible for house connections but unable to pay the high connection fees.

The “real” coverage of public standpipes falls when the results of independent sectoral surveys are compared to the official data from utilities and governments. Independent studies assessed the coverage provided by standpipes as well as by other alternative providers in detail and made it possible to compare results with official statistics. In Maseru, the capital of Lesotho, for example, MICS data revealed about 50 percent of the urban population did not have a piped connection but the utility assumed that this segment was reliant on its free public standposts. However, an earlier detailed sectoral survey undertaken in Maseru in 2002 showed that coverage by free public standpipes was as low as 16 percent of the population, with the coverage among the unconnected falling from 100 percent to 24 percent of that population group (Sechaba/Hall 2002).<sup>7</sup> In spite of the three year lag between surveys, it is unlikely that this accounts for the differences in these numbers. Similarly, in Ethiopia the formal standpipe coverage is overestimated, with the gap filled by resale from household connections.

Utility data deviate from sectoral household survey data in estimating standpipe coverage. The most common way utilities calculate standpost coverage is to multiply a “standard” number of people using a stand post (300–500ppl/standpipe) by the number of existing standpipes.<sup>8</sup> This estimation, however, can be highly inaccurate as it cannot take into account the variety of factors that affect the real usage of standposts (geographic distribution relative to population, distance, water pressure, operating hours, functioning or non functioning). In Ouagadougou, for example, the number of people that rely on standpipes was often calculated using a rate of 700 people per standpipe. However, detailed field studies showed that the real coverage was much lower; as a result, the utility reduced that “standard” number from 700 to 300 people per standpipe for water studies.<sup>9</sup>

> 6 Standpipe users have higher incomes than those with no access to standpipes at the national level. The poorer rural population relies on less-improved water sources than standpipes. However, within urban areas, and in particular within primary cities, standpipes represent an important water source for lower income residents.

> 7 These figures are likely to have changed. Since this study was completed, the WASA (the water utility) has undertaken a new standpost program focusing on token run standposts, with apparent success.

> 8 For all the cities for which we could only rely on utility’s information, coverage was calculated this way.

> 9 Personal communication with Seydou Traore, WSP, on September 25, 2007.

6