HYDROPHILANTHROPY GONE WRONG – HOW WELL-MEANING SCIENTISTS CAN MAKE THE SITUATION WORSE

Hydrology is a field that naturally and directly lends itself to making the world better, by improving water supply and water quality both to people and ecosystems, and by diminishing global sanitation problems. Many hydrologists therefore have the opportunity, if not the inclination, for philanthropic acts and activities. However, the implementation of positive water and sanitation (WASH) projects in the Economically Developing World on a local level is fraught with obstacles, often brought on by the wide-ranging situational contexts of each project. For example, a survey of 21 African nations (Rural Water Supply Network Work Plan, January 2009-December 2011) reported that 36% of installed well pumps were non-functional. Specific plans for water and sanitary development can make scientific sense, but violate the local village political and social order, not be sustainable, use inappropriate technology, and even negatively impact the original project goals. Conversely, local expectations may not make scientific sense, and blind implementation of WASH schemes can lead to long lasting ill-effects. Even if scientific considerations and local social context are in agreement, the way a project is implemented can evoke community unrest. Many well-intentioned scientists (let’s not call them “do-gooders”) are limited in the time they can spend assisting an overseas community, therefore alternate future scenarios for the future and sustainability of WASH activities, in their absence, must be considered. Other factors, such as the source and transportation of materials, documentation and data archiving, observing cultural norms in dress and religious rituals, and obtaining stakeholder “buy-in”, can all directly affect the ultimate success of a WASH project.