Source water protection_liberia

STAFFORDSHIRE UNIVERSITY
MSc Water and Environmental Management
Investigating Non-regulatory Approach for Source Water Protection on the St. Paul’s
Watershed, Liberia
Othello Nyenkan October 2014
ID#. 09038781

i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I must first express sincere gratitude to Dr. Dave Moreman for his patience in guiding me
through this program and for his willingness to oversee my development of writing skills.
I am also grateful to all those who granted me access for interviews, amongst whom special
thanks go to Mr. Emmanuel Boe, Chemist at the Monrovia Breweries, Mr. Guah Kennedy,
Water Resources Department, Ministry of Water of Liberia, only to name a few.
My thanks also go to my wife, Neresa for her support through these tough research moments,
and my kids; Riches, my Daughter , Divine, my Son and Dearest, my Daughter for patiently
waiting as I carried out my studies.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………………………………...I
CONTENT TABLE………………………………………………………………………………………II
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………………………IV
FIGURESTABLE………………………………………………………………………………………..V
ACRONYMS……………………………………………………………………………………………VI
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………………….VII
1.0 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………1
1.1 Aims and Objectives of the Study..................................................................................... 4
1.2. Significance of the Study................................................................................................. 4
1.3. Research Questions........................................................................................................ 5
1.4 Structure of the Project..................................................................................................... 6
2.0 WATER POLLUTION AND CONTROL: LITERATURE REVIEW........................................ 7
2.1. Water Pollution Overview. ............................................................................................... 7
2. 2 Water Pollution Control and Approaches ........................................................................ 8
2.2.1. Command and Control .............................................................................................. 8
2.2.2 Economic Instruments................................................................................................ 9
2.2.3 Voluntary Regulations................................................................................................ 9
2.3 Pollution Control and Developing Countries................................................................... 10
2.4. Water Pollution and Source Water Protection ............................................................. 10
2.4.1 Urgent Need in Developing Countries...................................................................... 12
2.5 Voluntary Approach to SWP for Developing Countries .................................................. 12
3.0 POLLUTION CONTROL AND SOURCE WATER PROTECTION IN LIBERIA ................. 13
3.1 Liberia’s Environmental Legislative Framework ............................................................. 13
3.2 State of Environmental Regulatory Issues on Waters in Liberia..................................... 14
3.3. Source Water Protection on St. Paul’s Watershed ........................................................ 14
3.4. Private Sector’s Participation in Pollution Controls........................................................ 17
3.5 Implications for Voluntary Tools on the Watershed ........................................................ 18
4.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 21
4.1. Methods of Data Collection and Analysis ...................................................................... 21

iii
4.1.1. Selection of Sample ................................................................................................ 23
4.1.2. Sampling Method .................................................................................................... 24
4.2 Methods of Data Collection ............................................................................................ 24
4.2.1 Primary data............................................................................................................. 25
4.2.2 Secondary Data Sources ......................................................................................... 25
4.3 Methods of Data Analysis and Presentation................................................................... 26
4.4. The Case Study Research ............................................................................................ 26
5.0 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ 27
6.0. Analysis and Discussion................................................................................................... 28
6.1. Participants and Analysis.................................................................................................. 28
6.2 Data Collection and Analysis.......................................................................................... 30
6.2.1 Stakeholders’ knowledge and attitude on SWP………………………………………...32
6.2.2 Current conditions under which water sources were being managed ...................... 32
6.2.3 Available resources and needs for SWP.................................................................. 33
6.2.4 Business involvement in pollution control................................................................. 35
6.3 Implications for Voluntary Approach............................................................................... 38
6.4 Business involvement in Water Pollution Control ........................................................... 47
6.4.1 Voluntary Involvement of business.............................................................................. 49
6.4.2 Effectiveness in Liberia................................................................................................ 50
6.4.3 Sustainability in Liberia............................................................................................... 52
7.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 54
8.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 58
9.0 APPENDIX

iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Water Pollutants and Sources ................................................................................... 7
Table 2.4 Multiple Barrier Approach ........................................................................................ 11
Table 4.1 Ivey et al 2006, Resources Indicator Tool................................................................ 22
Table 6.1 List of Interviewees.................................................................................................. 29
Table 6.4 Allocation of budget and financial constraint level for WASH Institutions ................ 41
Table 6.4b Wellhead Protection Practice................................................................................. 51

v
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig.1.1. Waste water from Monrovia.......................................................................................... 1
Fig.1.2 Map of Liberia showing Rivers....................................................................................... 2
Fig.3.3 a Aerial Map of the St. Paul’s Watershed .................................................................... 15
Fig.3.3 b. Residences along River Bank, St. Paul’s River ....................................................... 17
Fig. 3.5 a Water shortage hit communities as water wells run dry........................................... 19
Fig. 3.5 b Penetration of drill boreholes of companies to shallow community wells................. 19
Fig. 6.1 a Pie Chart of Participants.......................................................................................... 28
Fig. 6.2 Farmers learn Agricultural Practices........................................................................... 34
Fig 6.3 Record of working with the community……………………………………………………..36
Fig. 6.3b Monrovia Breweries constructed Facilities operating on Fees for Use ..................... 37
Fig. 6.4 Existing Water Governance in Liberia....................................................................... 40

vi
ACRONYMS
DEFRA UK Department of Forestry and Rural Affairs
GoL Government of Liberia
GWP Global Water Partnership
ILO International Labor Organization
LA&C Latin America and the Caribbean
LEPA Liberia Environmental Protection Agency
LWSC Liberia Water and Sewer Corporation
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
POP
SWP Source Water Protection
USAID/DAI United States Aid for International Development/Development Alternatives
Incorporated
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNGC UN Global Compact
UNMIL United Nations Mission in Liberia
UNWWAP United Nations World Water Assessment Program
VIP Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine
WASH Water and Sanitation for Health
WATSAN Water and Sanitation

vii
ABSTRACT
Protecting water resources in developing countries is a major problem. In Liberia, a developing
country, rivers and streams used for domestic drinking purpose are being polluted by industrial
and domestic waste (GoL, 2007). Wastes from rubber plantations, raw sewerage and other
economic activities continue to undermine the quality of ground and surface water used for
drinking in Monrovia and environs. The problem is further complicated by the low sustainability
of communal facilities for water and sanitation. Like in many developing countries, achieving
environmental protection is greatly hampered by ineffective regulations.
Additionally, a strong debate in the environmental arena is about the workability of voluntary
approaches in developing countries. This paper contributes to this debate and provides
support and evidence that voluntary tools can work in developing countries. While not
universal, it argues that under set conditions, they have addressed issue otherwise in the
absence of command and control regulatory regimes and are useful for Source Water
Protection in Liberia.
This study using a two way structured questionnaire- an opened ended questionnaire
introduced to allow for respondents in-depth response and a closed ended questionnaire
introduced as a consensus building approach, examined conditions on the St Paul Watershed
considering stakeholders’ knowledge and attitude on Source Water Protection (SWP),
understanding the conditions under which water sources were being managed, available
resources and those needed in determining a way forward for SWP, and businesses’
perception and willingness on involvement in pollution control. The attempt was to assess the

viii
potential for integrating voluntary approaches in strengthening the formation of policy which
makes up for weak regulatory regime while also accounting for the involvement of businesses.
I found that insufficient knowledge and awareness as seen from decision makers as well as
policy makers exist, and that the current regulatory framework on water resources does not
provide for SWP, while low capacity of technical staff, and a lack of information availability to
potential stakeholders (businesses in particular) on their involvement as well as impacts, and
that of community leaderships in their capacity lack to advocate, have in themselves inhibited
the purpose of SWP.
We conclude that SWP can become a catalyst for governance in Liberian when the Liberia
Water Producers Association a voluntary partnership is fully capacitated through education
and awareness, and that farmers and communities are engaged through payment for
environmental services. That this development of voluntary partnership agreement is essential
for enhancing water governance in Liberia, through coordination with water businesses and
with information disclosure reporting. Finally that policy supporting CSR on businesses
investment take deeper turn in integrating mandatory approach on information disclosure with
businesses(Liberia Water Producers Association) leading the way.
As an implication for further research, the legitimacy of voluntary framework still lacks legality,
however where commitment from parties can be disclosed, an attempt to mislead in itself can
be regarded as illegal. Thus the legality of voluntary approaches in itself is deserving of further
research in legalizing voluntary approaches.

1
1.0 INTRODUCTION.
Safe and reliable drinking water sources remain a challenge for developing countries (Ivey
et al., 2006). With traditional command and control approach to environmental protection
continuously coming under scrutiny especially due to institutional weaknesses; developing
countries often marked with weak regulatory controls have been faced with the challenge of
protecting water sources. (Folifac, et al, 2009).
Liberia is situated on the West Coast of Africa. Liberia, like most developing countries, it is
faced with the challenge of safe and reliable drinking water (Uhl, et al., 2012). It is that
environmental protection using traditional command and control approach continuously
lacks efficacy (SIDA, 2008). This current weak regulatory control holds a challenge for
effective drinking water sources protection.
Fig.1.1. Waste water from Monrovia /Photo from Pulitzer Crises Reporting, Accessed 2, October 2014

2
The situation is that uncontrolled disposal of domestic waste, renewed agricultural activities,
mining, logging, aquaculture and activities in other economic sectors continue to increase
water pollution in the Liberia (GoL, 2007) Liberia has vast water resources, and water
quantity is not as pressing as the quality for drinking that is so much limited.
Fig.1.2 Map of Liberia showing Rivers / Courtesy of Nations Online Project/Accessed May 9, 2014
Towards environmental management, in 2005, the United Nations Mission in Liberia
(UNMIL) initiated an environmental study on water pollution in Liberia. The study was in
response to pollution cases about rubber companies’ activities located across the entire
Liberia. Their findings revealed weak environmental pollution control and regulatory
weakness ((UNMIL), 2006). Thus the need to address the issue of an effective legal
framework under which water resources governance in Liberia could proceed. In 2007 there
was the introduction of an Integrated Water Resources Management Policy in Liberia (GoL,
2007).This however has not addressed the issue of fragmentation in powers.

3
Subsequently 2011, a Water and Sanitation for Health (WASH) Compact from the
Sanitation and Water for All) describe, was brought in to address the fragmented approach
to the WASH sector. However, transition to this new sector approach structure has required
political will, legal work, and capacity building, as well as financing, and organizational
support. Consistently, it is that “institutional fragmentation, manpower shortages, lack of
funding, discrepancies in baseline data” continues to contribute and that there is still
regulatory weaknesses (GoL-SAWA, 2011).
The purpose of this study was to investigate voluntary pollution control approaches that
could have the potential to provide the needed and cost-effective support to regulatory
mechanisms for developing countries when weak regulatory control exists. This study
investigated water pollution control through voluntary approaches as a case study in
Liberia, a developing country. It aimed to assess stakeholders’ capacity to implement SWP
using voluntary approach with the St. Paul’s River, Montserrado County in Liberia as a
case.
This study built on Source Water Protection study findings from a case study by Folifac et al
in Cameroun a West African state in its Beau Municipality (Folifac, et al., 2009,). Having
reviewed the challenges and constraints of SWP in the municipality, the study looks at
stakeholders’ capacity using voluntary approach in Liberia. By drawing on the findings of
the Camerounian Case study and literature review of water pollution in Liberia, this study
considered cost effective approaches that could facilitate source water pollution control.
For a cost effective approach the study reviewed the involvement of businesses in SWP the
framework of the UN Global Compact (UNGC, 2000).

4
1.1 Aims and Objectives of the Study
The following objectives are to be achieved.
• That implementing Source Water Protection serves as a catalyst for strengthening
water governance in Liberia.
• Non-regulatory environmental tools to be introduced at the watershed sustainably.
• Voluntary approaches need to compliment the needed regulatory support as a policy
tool.
• Businesses must be willing and able to participate in pollution control in this setting in
Liberia in SWP.
1.2. Significance of the Study
The study is significant for the following reasons,
Drinking water availability in developing countries in sufficient and reliable quantity
remains a daunting task with water borne diseases a major killer (UNWWAP, 2009).
Developing countries have shown a lack in regulating natural resources with water
resources being of no exception. It is that weak regulatory control undermines water
resources management in developing countries. “without adequate capacity, any
policy and legislation can fail to deliver on set objectives”. (Marjanović, et al., 2011)
Liberia’s regulatory system of natural resources remains still complex and which
therefore undermines its regulatory strengths. Consequently strengthening the
capacity of this system should not only identify causes of failure but what policy
actions are needed for strengthening this system (GoL, 2007).

5
The St. Paul’s River as a sampled area is the principal source of surface water and
ground water sustenance for the St. Paul’s Water shed which provides water to over
1 million people within and around Monrovia. The river does have an economic value
but with promising health implications.
The adoption of voluntary tools, a new wave of regulatory controls promises
significant relief to regulatory structures giving the associated reduction in
administrative cost.
Understanding the implementation voluntary of tools and approaches in
environmental management requires a country contextual approach with Liberia a no
exception.
Consequently, in identifying opportunities that facilitate capacity for financial, institutional,
social, and technical issues in SWP; the effort is to contribute towards knowledge for
strengthening regulatory control for environmental protection in developing countries.
1.3. Research Questions
This research undertook to answer the following questions in an attempt to contribute
knowledge as a way forward for developing countries towards sustainable Source water
Protection.
1. Can source water protection implementation serve as a catalyst for strengthening
water governance in Liberia?
2. How could non-regulatory tools be best employed in the St. Paul’s Watershed?
3. To what extent can voluntary tools impact the issues of technical, human and
economic capacities for implementing SWP in the St. Paul’s Watershed?

6
4. To what extent are businesses willing and able to participate in pollution control in
this setting in Liberia?
1.4 Structure of the Project
The study is spread over a total of 7 chapters, an introduction in Chapter 1 in which the
purpose of the research is presented outlining the aims and objectives of the study as well
as the structure of the project.
In Chapter 2 is Literature review on water pollution and control. We discuss water pollution
and the major sources, water pollution’s impact and an overview of regulatory approaches;
as well as strengths and weaknesses in developing countries.
In Chapter 3 is pollution control and source water protection in Liberia, and overview of the
Liberia’s environmental legislative framework and pursuit of water resources management,
the state of environmental regulatory issues on waters in Liberia, and issues of Source
Water Protection on St. Paul’s Watershed.
Chapter 4 presents the research methodology, methods of data collection and analysis as
well as method of data analysis.
In chapter 5 results from the study are presented and with analysis of the these findings
In Chapter 6 we present discussion in response to implications from findings derived from
the study.

7
2.0 WATER POLLUTION AND CONTROL: LITERATURE REVIEW.
2.1. Water Pollution Overview.
Water pollution refers to the contamination of water resources with chemicals or other
substances in an amount that that normally exceeds what would occur under natural
conditions. These pollutants are normally occurring due to human interaction with the
environment (UNWater, 2011).
Table 2.1 Water Pollutants and Sources
(Kraemer, et al., 2001)
UNEP Water report on Global water situation of 2010 reveals that,
“Clean water supplies and sanitation remain major problems in many parts of the world,
with 20% of the global population lacking access to safe drinking water. Around 1.1 billion
people globally do not have access to improved water supply sources, while 2.4 billion
people do not have access to any type of improved sanitation facility”.
(UNEP, 2010),
Providing and sustaining freshwater to the global community continues to be a challenge.
The provision of fresh water is often challenged by activities of man. In the developing world
it is that 90% of waste water is discharge into streams and rivers without any form of
treatment (UNWater, 2011). Generally water contamination has been mostly as result of
agriculture, mining, waste from sewer (UNWater, 2011). It is therefore becoming clear that

8
the world’s decreasing fresh water quality and quantity are in need of measures for pollution
control as well as the quantity. However defining such measures will be critical owing to the
nature and sources of pollution from activities of man.
2. 2 Water Pollution Control and Approaches
Pollution control by regulators uses three main approaches; command and control,
economic incentives and voluntary approaches. In this section I present an overview of
control systems which are been coexisted with water pollution controls.
2.2.1. Command and Control
The command and control approached to environmental issues has been regarded as the
traditional approach to environmental management. Dating much longer decades back, the
approach has been regarded as an over costly and very rigid method of protecting the
environment. (Khanna, 2001). The use of command and control sought to introduce
environmental legislations, procedures, and other tools that would ensure environmental
performance. However, the inability of the command and control approaches to effect a
change in behavior created a need for attempting alternative tools (Collier, et al., 2010).
In the use of the command and control approach, financial and administrative cost
associated with implementation often served as barriers to performance and therefore a
major consideration for developing countries (Helmer & Hespanhol, 1997).

9
2.2.2 Economic Instruments
The need to increase environmental economics in environmental management is in relation
to the idea that the command and control regimes are often too stringent, costly and mostly
irrespective of size and type of businesses for pollution control (Bernstein, 1997)&
(Panayotou, 1994).
However, the use of economic instrument now often requires a needed data and scientific
assessment criteria as well as an overall needed institutional capacity which is still yet
lacking in most developing countries (Helmer &Hespanhol, 1997).
2.2.3 Voluntary Regulations
Voluntary approaches or regulations are norms, or standards which firms used to either
comply or over comply with existing regulations or future regulations (Börkey, et al., 1999).
Voluntary approaches are represented under three major categories; negotiated
agreements, public program and unilateral agreement. (Blackman, 2007), described four (4)
main voluntary approaches; the four main types of voluntary regulation, “environmental
agreements negotiated between regulators and industry; public programs (administered by
regulators or third parties) that individual firms are invited to join; public disclosure initiatives
that collect and disseminate information on participants’ environmental performance”.
In water pollution control specific tools to environmental management have taken such
forms as educational programs, watershed management programs, market based
mechanism, incentives programs, awareness raising and education (Saunders & de Loe.R,
2010). Thus in this study voluntary approaches refers to control mechanism by regulators
while voluntary tools for SWP refer to instrument used to compliment regulator’s control
mechanism in a business approach.

10
2.3 Pollution Control and Developing Countries
The use of economic instruments, command and control or voluntary tools are methods that
are being experimented for environmental protection; and for developing countries, the use
of these approaches to handling environmental protection is still being decided (Panayotou,
1994).
Developing Countries have shown little in the way of using command and control approach
in curbing environmental problems (Folifac, et al., 2009). The over reliance on water quality
monitoring, a laboratory base approach, and a part of command and control is widely used
in developing countries. However, in drawing from lessons from (Folifac et al., 2009), it can
be seen that less well established is drinking water pollution control in developing countries.
In the same, the use of economic instrument in developing countries is still doubtful despite
its effectiveness and flexibility over command and control regulatory approach. (Bernstein,
1997) stressed that in the midst of institutional deficiencies, “opportunities for the effective
application of economic instruments in developing countries can be very limited’. In this
connection, institutional capacity to implement economic instruments has been greatly
linked to the lacking of scientific data and knowledge. Specifically, the need for data and
analysis on emissions and monitoring is often not available for execution purpose in most
developing countries. Thus the use of economic instruments as evident by the polluter’s
pay principle, have usually fallen short of full efficacy.
2.4. Water Pollution and Source Water Protection
Source Water Protection (SWP) entails protecting the quality as well as quantity of water
used for drinking (UNEP, 2010). It is regarded as “the first barrier to the contamination of
drinking water and involves protecting the sources of drinking water” (Brethour, et al.,

11
2009). It is being referred to as a cost effective means of water treatment as source water
contamination increase the cost of water treatment, (Simpson, et al., 2011).
Traditionally, measures at water treatment took on to the use of multi-barrier approaches
geared towards preventing contaminants from water supply through a system of water
treatments and supply, distribution networks and water quality monitoring.(Saunders & de
Loe.R, 2010). Most of this effort has been reliant on end of the tap result for water quality.
However, most recent discovery of chlorine resistant pathogens means that developing
countries are at far risk on reliance on a water quality monitoring with such an approach
often too costly and less well implemented.
Additionally, with the over reliance on water quality monitoring, a laboratory base widely in
use in developing countries, according to (Godfrey & Howard, 2004) it is often “that the
results are too little and too late for preventive action”.
Table 2.4 Multiple Barrier Approach
Threat Barrier Control Measure
Contaminants, Microbes, etc. Source Water Protection Watershed Management Plan
Source Water Protection Plan
Chemical Contaminants,
Microbes
Treatment Operation Chemicals, Filtration, and water
quality standards and monitoring.
Leaks, system break downs, Distributions Reducing abrasion or corrosion
to system, removal reactive
residual from network
Contaminants in high concentration
after treatment
Monitoring Set up laboratory, log of water
treatment
Response Emergency Planning Develop an Emergency
Response Protocol

12
Source: Adopted from Walkerton Inquiry Report, O’Connor 2002.
2.4.1 Urgent Need in Developing Countries
UN Water 2013 reports that globally;
Over 780 million people are still without access to improved sources of drinking water and
2.5 billion lack improved sanitation. If current trends continue, these numbers will remain
unacceptably high in 2015: 605 million people will be without an improved drinking water
source and 2.4 billion people will lack access to improved sanitation facilities.
(UNEP, 2010) (WHO/UNICEF, 2013)
Water needs in developing countries persist, safe and reliable drinking water sources
remain a challenge for developing countries (Ivey et al., 2006). However, providing water
therefore in sufficient and safe quantity could be enhanced by preventive measures to
existing water sources (Godfrey & Howard, 2004).
2.5 Voluntary Approach to SWP for Developing Countries
An overview of voluntary tools in SWP as outlined by Saunders et al, provide that these
voluntary approaches are intended to solicit participation from citizens. “Voluntary
approaches typically consist of strategies to encourage adoption of practices to improve
raw water quality, without the use of regulation”, (Saunders & de Loe.R, 2010). The
overarching objective of this study is to underline that these approaches functioning as
information base, incentive, or in the form of technical assistance would assist in
addressing water source protection as result of land use practices, poor hygiene practices,
and cost reduction to regulators.

13
Therefore, the use of voluntary tools in developing countries needs a further research.
Indeed educational programs, watershed management programs, market based
mechanism, incentives programs, awareness raising and education offer promises.
3.0 POLLUTION CONTROL AND SOURCE WATER PROTECTION IN LIBERIA
This case study research presents initial pollution issues arising from Liberia’s regulatory
control and initial pollution control on drinking water quality at the St. Paul’s River whilst
seeking sustainable approach for SWP, while addressing issues of “institutional
fragmentation, manpower shortages, and lack of funding, discrepancies in baseline data”.
The population of St. Paul’s River District as at 2008 census survey stood at 71,831 people
(LISGIS, 2011); with a potential for growth due to the current overpopulation crises now in
the city of Monrovia.
3.1 Liberia’s Environmental Legislative Framework
In November 2002, Liberia adapted three main environmental tools; an Act creating the
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Environmental Policy, and the
Environmental Protection and Management Laws of Liberia. Accordingly, the National
Environmental Policy is to provide for individuals and communities participation in improving
the environment; whereas the laws provide legal frameworks for management and
protection of the environment. These, the policy and laws, have become the legal basis for
the operation of the Liberia Environmental Protection Agency (LEPA, 2007).
The principal agency for the management of the environment in Liberia is the Liberia
Environmental Protection Agency (LEPA) through an act of 2002 by the Liberian
Legislature. It is made up of a Policy Council, a Board of Directors, and an Executive

14
Director. However regulatory issues of the policy are fragmented over line Ministries;
meaning that while the Liberian EPA remains the administrative body of environmental
protection, the regulatory issues concern are distributed over line Ministries (UNEP,
Assessment of Solid Waste in Liberia, 2007).
Policies of water resources have however being supported under the 1956 Public Health
Law which provides protection of water resources (USAID/DAI, 2008). In the case of
pollution, the regulatory framework seeks to implement a polluter’s pay principle which
requires a license for pollution and that penalty for violators is enforced. In addition the
framework recognizes and should use the precautionary principle in its environmental
management. (GoL-Environment Protection Agency, 2002).
3.2 State of Environmental Regulatory Issues on Waters in Liberia
Although regulatory control of water resources protection is not specific, it is referenced in
the Public Health Act of 1956. A section of the Act declares a safe and clean environment
for all (GoL-Environment Protection Agency, 2002).
Environmental pollution of Liberian water is now one of these issues highlighted in the
UNMIL 2006 report ((UNMIL), 2006). Consequently as Liberia recovers from a civil war of
December 1989 to 2003, with the current limited capacity, it is becoming increasing
important that a precautionary approach should be adopted in support of protecting this
principal water source of over 1 million people in Monrovia as well as the suburbs.
3.3. Source Water Protection on St. Paul’s Watershed
The St. Paul’s Watershed is one of seven primary watersheds in Liberia, (See map on page
15). It drains into the St. Paul’s River one of Liberia six major rivers. The river begins in
Southeastern Guinea, crosses into northern Liberia about 30 miles (50 km) due north of
Gbarnga, in Bong County. It then flows through Montserrado County, and eventually

15
becomes the dividing line between Monrovia, the capital of Liberia and Brewerville a suburb
township where it flows into the Atlantic Ocean (Hadden, 2006).
Fig.3.3a Aerial Map of the St. Paul’s Watershed.

16
St. Paul’s River in Map View in the Watershed/ Courtesy of USAID/Liberia GIS Project May 2014
Hosting over 100 communities within the capital’s suburb, it has become a fast growing
populated area, with increasing agricultural activities as well as an area with emerging
industrial activities. As the St. Paul’s River flows, through to the Atlantic Ocean, the river is
known for its saline content, a situation which was sometimes considered, for a remedial
solution. However as the nation current sewage system remains out of service, the massive
ejection of the wastewater into lagoons remains yet another environmental problem.
Untreated sewage is discharged directly into lagoons and rivers (UNDP and EPA 2006; DAI
2008).
Besides, the current situation of the St. Paul’s River as a principle source water for the state
own water treatment in Liberia, it is revealing that quality is under attack in the wake of new
settlements, new farming activities, and the settlement conditions along the banks of this
river.
Furthermore, the lack of implementation of protected area legislation means that current
property right issues indicate more future unplanned layout of construction and therefore
poor latrine and septic layout.
Additionally as with existing water points and community management efforts, a WASH
Consortium report revealed that over 7000 water collection point (water wells) created in
response to the acute shortage of water as result of the civil war had about 60% fully
functional. Notwithstanding, water quality issues stand at a proportionally high rate (Uhl, et
al., 2012)

17
Fig.3.3 b. Residences along River Bank, St. Paul’s River
Residences along River Bank, St. Paul’s River/Photo Othello Nyenkan/December 13, 2013.
(Uhl, et al., 2012), wrote
“100% of the unprotected hand-dug wells sampled showed the presence of E. coli; 75% of
the kiosks sampled showed the presence of E. coli, 67% of the LWSC city water taps
sampled showed the presence of E. coli. 52% of the protected hand-dug open wells fitted
with hand pumps showed the presence of E. coli. 44% of the drilled wells fitted with hand
pumps showed the presence of E. coli.
The Liberia Water and Sewer Corporation actually run these kiosks with water lifted by
trucks hailing from the White Plains water treatment plant of the St. Paul’s Water Shed.
3.4. Private Sector’s Participation in Pollution Controls
The involvement of business in environmental management has been gaining headway to
prominence in the development dialogues in recent years (IGD), 2012). Moreover, the

18
involvement of businesses in development has been emphasized in the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) and the United Nations (UN) Global Compact.
In Liberia, the involvement of the private sector into environmental management has been
seen in the light of corporate responsibility and more towards philanthropic initiatives. It is
also that the Environmental Management Law in Liberia requires that all activities being
public or private having a significant bearing on the environment undergo an environmental
impact assessment and obtain permit (GoL-Environment Protection Agency, 2002).
3.5 Implications for Voluntary Tools on the Watershed
With water users companies, regulatory enforcement is undermined due to technical
capacity lack. However, communities deserve to know as a matter of its human rights
(Scanlon, et al., 2004), the implication of seasonal shortage of water which is a
consequence of shallow depth wells and high abstraction rates of water companies (UKEA,
2003).
Moreover, scarcity of water creates an economic value and for which poor people are
constraint to revert to poor hygiene habits (Brown, 2001). Conversely, when community
farming groups involved in agricultural activities introduce fertilizers and unsustainable
farming practices, water pollution from fertilizers and erosion increases cost of water
treatment for water businesses. In this case where such conditions as these unfold, a win –
win solution is required. Such a voluntary participation is incentivized by the benefit each
party stands to reap

19
Fig. 3.5 a Water shortage hit communities as water wells run dry. Photo by Wade C. L. Williams, Published:
14 April 2014
Fig.
3.5 b Penetration of drill boreholes of companies to shallow community wells,
The St. Paul’s Watershed is a scene of water abstraction, open defecation and farming
activities. Using educational programs, watershed management programs, market based
mechanism, incentives programs; awareness raising and education stand to be tested in

20
reducing treatment cost for water companies, and farming groups, and facilitating voluntary
frameworks.
Two case studies in Voluntary approaches in Indonesia were considered to inform this
research’s analysis: Unilever Case study in Indonesia and Indonesia’s Program for
Pollution Control, Evaluation, and Rating (PROPER) (Torres & Pareemeta, 2003). The
former as a voluntary initiative solely on commercial interest, as well as in its social interest
as a local corporate citizen undertook the cleaning of the Brantas River, a local river.
Unilever position on the matter was to work with communities and not just donating money,
as “complete solution required a change in people's mindsets and a different attitude
towards the river”. Introducing waste management programs, rehabilitating lavatories to
prevent toileting into river, and tree crops with economic value were introduced to villagers
for planting along the river side (CSREurope, 2010).
On the other hand the former, “Indonesia’s Program for Pollution Control, Evaluation, and
Rating (PROPER) a national level public environmental reporting initiative, the program is
built on the premise that the mechanism of public disclosure and accountability,
transparency in operations and community participation will empower local communities to
achieve effective and sustained pollution control practices. A disclosure of information has
thus shifted significantly the number of companies towards compliance (Khanna, 2001).
The two case studies suggest that voluntary tools do have a place in developing countries
and such approach makes up for regulatory make up when designs are carefully
negotiated. We learn that public disclosure and business interest can motivate voluntary
participation.
In looking at Unilever (2007), it notes “complete solution requires a change in people's
mindsets and a different attitude towards the river whereas commercial interest, as well as
social interest is needed from businesses”. Thus in the confines of the aforementioned, this

21
study “investigating voluntary approach on the St. Paul’s Watershed’’, I attempted to assess
capacities on the St. Paul’s Watershed and thereby proposed a sustainable SWP
framework.
This study aimed to understand and establish the willingness of businesses participation in
waters sources protection at the watershed level; to assess existing resources available to
stakeholders towards water sources protection; to assess stakeholders’ attitudes towards
Source Water Protection; to recommend appropriate model for Source Water Protection
towards water governance in Liberia.
4.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1. Methods of Data Collection and Analysis
To carry out the research, field observations, semi-structured and closed ended
questionnaire were used. Although, a structured questionnaire was prepared, the
questionnaire was allowable to follow-up questions. That way more details otherwise
already not captured could be obtained.
A content analysis was used in assessing informants’ position on the study while using the
water resource management capacity criteria from Ivey et al, 2006. Since the follow-up
interviews were audio recorded, a verbatim copy of the interviewee’s response could be
easily documented.
Using Ivey et al (2006) resources indicator, local capacity for SWP was compared to local
situations on the watershed. This provided status on technical, financial, social, and
institutional capacities of the current regulatory system which were tested through
observation on the field along with key informants’ interview.

22
Table 4.1 Ivey et al 2006, Resources Indicator Tool
Resource Indicator
Financial resources Funding is available for source water protection projects
Funding can be obtained from other sources for protecting source water
quality.
Financial mechanisms are used as incentives for source water protection
Human resources There is/are dedicated institutions and/or employees responsible for
protecting source water supplies.
There is availability of and accessibility to individuals with the necessary
skills and expertise needed for protecting source water supplies.
Education and training opportunities for source water protection are available
to interested individuals and Institutions
Institutional Legislation and policies provides for drinking water protection at the local
level.
There are plans, strategies and actions to protect current drinking water
sources and recharge areas through the control of land use activities
Land has been purchased for the protection of water supplies.
Social Clear leadership for water quality protection at the watershed level exists
There is a functional collaboration and networking among the municipality,
public institutions, civil society organisations and communities
Community awareness and support for source water protection has been
developed to avoid conflicts with other activities such as agriculture and
construction
Technical Drinking water standards exist and the drinking water quality is monitored
Data needed to manage water supplies, delineate source water protection

23
area and develop source protection plans are available
Source water areas are delineated in official plans
Water recharge areas have been identified and potential water supply
contaminant sources (point and nonpoint) have been identified
Adapted from Ivey et al, 2006
4.1.1. Selection of Sample
The sample selected was the St. Paul’s Watershed in Liberia. The research area for the
proposal is within the St. Paul’s Watershed Area of Liberia spreading over approximately
21, 000 sq.km. (GoL-LWSC, 1980). Over 100 communities are in this watershed.
For the sampled watershed, major activities include farming, construction works, domestic
sewage, community latrines, generator fueling houses, and chemical storage. The area is
purposefully considered in that it is the principal watershed within which the St. Paul’s
River, a principal river in Liberia provides water to the treatment plant for the over 1,000,000
people of Monrovia.

24
4.1.2. Sampling Method
Fig. 4.1 b. St Paul’s River
The St. Paul’s River/Othello Nyenkan/13 Dec. 2013
Purposefully sampled, The St. Paul’s River is the principal source of surface water and
ground water sustenance for the St. Paul’s Watershed which provides water to over 1
million people within and around Monrovia. The River does have an economic value and
promising health implications.
4.2 Methods of Data Collection
This was achieved using a two way structured questionnaire. An opened ended
questionnaire was introduce to allow for respondents in-depth questionnaire while a closed
ended questionnaire was introduced as a consensus building approach. Participants
received questionnaire earlier for study and later a follow up with face to face for follow-up
question from respondents was carried out. A total of 45 carefully selected respondents

25
were contacted over the 7 months period. Those selected were essentially decision makers
in water related agencies, leads in water producing industries, NGOs and government
agencies in farming, regulatory and agricultural activities and WASH, and as well as
community leaders in their capacity as decision makers.
The questionnaire was structured as such to provide in-depth into
1. Stakeholders’ knowledge and attitude on SWP,
2. Understand the conditions under which Water Sources were being managed,
3. Available resources and those needed in determining a way forward for SWP,
4. Businesses’ perception and willingness on involvement in pollution control.
4.2.1 Primary data
The primary data for this research is data collected by the author through community
discussions or interviews and survey with government, water companies and regulators, as
well as observation to communities, within the sampled Watershed. Data collected was
analyzed for the purpose of answering the research questions.
4.2.2 Secondary Data Sources
The below listed websites are secondary data sources for this research. These sites,
serving as authoritative information sources for the respective Agencies, the DEFRA of the
UK, UNEP and UN Water of the United Nations, as well the US EPA website, Liberia
Environmental Protection Agency and Journals on Environment Management have
provided information of credibility and reliability.

26
4.3 Methods of Data Analysis and Presentation
The data was analyzed proceeding with the following
1. Stakeholders’ knowledge and attitude on SWP.
2. Understanding the conditions under which Water Sources were being managed.
3. Available resources and those needed in determining a way forward for SWP
4. Businesses and stakeholders’ perception on business involvement in pollution
control.
In analyzing the data, validity and reliability was sought in every aspect of the research.
Validity refers to operational methods design for interpreting concepts; for these initial
research questions were provided in dealing with this study and consideration of the
analysis thereto. Also, as for reliability; an assurance that the research could be repeated
as many times for the same result, semi-structured interviews, were tailored to the persons
to be interviewed in relations to water management. This suggests that the questionnaire
could be used to repeat the study by another researcher. The interviews used voice
recorder for subsequent ease in transcription. Observations were carried out with adequate
photographing to improve data reliability.
4.4. The Case Study Research
A case study research is one in which the study “investigates a contemporary phenomenon
within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and
context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 1994). It tries to answer the question,’’ how and why”
a situation. The need for case study becomes necessary where a complex social issue is
to be solved or understood. As in the case of investigating voluntary tools on the St. Paul’s

27
Watershed in Liberia, behavior change is essentially a social research issues which was
being dealt with in this study.
The study became an exploratory case study (research design in which the major emphasis
is on gaining ideas and insights) as in the real- life context as this study sought to discover
and solve issue as the study moved along. The study as an exploratory however does not
provide final answers but intends to provide a relation on what could be done.
5.0 RESULTS
Results from the questionnaire follow up with discussion is presented below
A. Knowledge of Source Water Protection
An important part of the questionnaire to was gather stakeholders knowledge of SWP in the
capacities as decision makers or influencers.
No Category Yes No
1, Businesses 5 5
2 Government 4 8
3. Local Communities 3 15
4. NGOs 1 4
Total 13(30%) 32(70%)
B. Willingness to Participate
Next there was a considerable need to assess whether people felt the need to partake in
SWP with the underlining factor that it was voluntary.
No Category Yes No
1, Businesses 3 7
2 Government 8 4
3. Local Communities 5 13
4. NGOs 2 3
Total 18(40%) 27(60%)

28
6.0. Analysis and Discussion.
6.1. Participants Analysis
A total of 50 respondents were targeted of which 45 replied during the survey and follow-up
questionnaire interview. 10 individuals as executives from leading water businesses on the
watershed being 22% of the respondents, 12 individuals as key personnel from government
(as decision makers) making up institutions on water governance in Liberia making up 27%,
18 community leaders from 18 sampled communities along the banks of the St. Paul’s
River making up 40%, and 5 National NGO serving in the WASH Sector making the
remaining 11% were covered during the interview.
Fig. 6.1 a. Pie Chart of Participants
Institution Number %
Businesses 10 22%
Government 12 27%
Community 18 40%
NGOs 5 11%
Total 45
Of the 5 respondents who could not partake, 2 were from businesses on the watershed who
simply avoided the survey and the remaining 3 were community leaders who did not have
time to partake in the survey invitation.

29
Table 6.1 List of Interviewees
Institutions Number of Participants
Business
Liberia Water and Sewer Corporation 3
Monrovia Breweries 3
Aqualife Bottling Company 1
Liberia Petroleum Refining Corporation 1
Forestry Development Agency 1
Vist Bottling Plant 1
Government
Ministry of Lands, Mine and Energy, Division
Hydrology
3
Ministry of Public Works 2
Ministry of Health 2
Ministry of Agriculture, Division of Quarantine 2
Environmental Protection Agency Liberia 3
NGOs
USAID Food and Enterprise Development 1
United Liberia Care for Victimized Children 1
Liberia NGOs Network (Link) 3
Community Groups
(White Plains Community, Brewerville Community, Barnersville
Community, Stockton Creek Community amongst others)
18

30
6.2 Data Analysis
Using Ivey et al resource Indicator data collection and analysis as below of Table 4.1:
Resource Indicator
Financial resources Funding is available for source water protection projects
Funding for protecting source water quality can be accessed.
Financial mechanisms are used as incentives.
Human resources Dedicated institutions and/or employees responsible for protecting source
water supplies.
Accessibility to individuals and expertise needed for protecting source water
supplies exist.
Education and training opportunities for source water protection available.
Institutional Legislation and policies provides for drinking water protection at the local
level
There are efforts to protect current drinking water sources.
Land has been purchased for the protection of water supplies.
Social Clear leadership for water quality protection at the watershed level exists
a functional collaboration of organisations and communities
Community awareness and support for source water protection developed.
Technical Drinking water standards exist, water quality is monitored
Data needed to manage water supplies available.

31
Source water areas are delineated in official plans.
Water recharge areas have been identified. water supply contaminant
sources have been identified
the following findings are provided:
6.2.1 Stakeholders’ knowledge and attitude on SWP.
a. Knowledge
The total number of respondent of 45(100%) did agree that there was a need for Drinking
Water Source Waters Protection. However, only 29 %( 13) had knowledge of Drinking
Water Source Protection Plan or Strategy which was dominated by government and
business respondents. It was clear that 100% of the respondents were mostly aware of
water well head protection not watershed issues.
b. Attitude
Attitude towards the SWP was defined as agreement and awareness of the problem. This
was found out that participants believed that SWP program was possible at a Watershed
level.
Community leadership, comprising 40% (18) of the respondents as decisions makers
supported SWP plan. A social gap was therefore seen in need of development meaning
“that community awareness and support for source water protection had to be developed”.
40% (18) of the respondents did not see involvement of businesses as a workable solution
whilst the rest 60% (27) saw it as worth experimenting. It became apparent that relevant
knowledge on water abstraction and its legality were not evident. Yet social responsibility of

32
business was seen a need for businesses in the water sector by government respondents
and businesses as well.
6.2.2 Current conditions under which water sources were being managed
a. Institutional
At the national level SWP was not seen as part of the plan of any of the respondents. At the
community level 50 %( 9) of the respondents confirm a water management team. The
remaining 50 %( 9) could not declare if the management teams were functional. However
33 %( 6) of the community leader (respondents) said water point protection was not at all a
priority by community leadership. These were seen as gap in the institutional setting for
SWP. In Liberia, such institutional arrangements have been often fragmented. Thus at the
community level, the formation of community water committees to provide governance at
community level also remained fragmented due to lack of coordination.
Generally, community management teams existed at community level but were often
confused over functioning due to competing NGO interest. A government official said,
“we aware that out functions are spread across so many entities, but coming from war, we
just have to improve on coordination”.
One participant at a local water company said,
“It’s the role of the Ministry of Lands and Mines (Division of Hydrological Services) to
protect water resources in Liberia. ‘’ I think a problem of coordination is hampering
environmental issues in Liberia”.
These were seen as gaps in the institutional setting for SWP.

33
b. Policy Issues
18% of the respondents from government said that there were no water laws which have
been undermining the effort. Respondents who partook in the study were aware that no
legislation existed on the book for water sources protection. Participants would always
claim, ‘I don’t think environmental laws are working in this country’ in one instance as said
by a Chemist at the Department of Water at the Ministry of Lands and Mines in Liberia. In
many instances participants were able to identify government as the problem with
regulating pollution.
This gap in regulatory enforcement made it difficult to understand how water source were
being guided. This lack clearly explained that a governance structure at the local level was
indeed weak, and that even though water sources are managed at the community, such
structures have little enabling support and little from central government.
6.2.3 Available resources and needs for SWP
a. Institutional Issues
At the local level respondents 50 % (community leadership) confirm having water
management committee at the local level. Another institution also in place is a Water
Producer Association.
b. Financing Issues
38% of the respondents pointed to financing as challenge for SWP which was essentially
due to the limited knowledge and therefore priority of SWP. However, an issue of priority
was greatly felt as hindrances to the process. This clearly suggested that financial
mechanisms used as incentives, its availability for source water protection projects,
including access were non-existent. Using Ivey et al water resources indicator, an important

34
resources lack pointed out by respondents from the government setting was not necessarily
that they lack institutional arrangement. However limited knowledge by these policy makers
hinders an important resource not being investigated which was the role of businesses in
the overall process.
c. Human Resources
NGOs, 11% of the respondents could point out training in proper land use. However this
was not essentially for SWP as this was for food production. There was therefore
opportunity for education and training for source water protection available, an important
human resource capacity.
Fig. 6.2 Farmers learn Agricultural Practice to stop Nutrient run-off/practice which indirectly reduces
pollution to waters, Clay Ashland city, St. Paul Watershed. Photo USAID Food and Enterprise Development
Liberia. March 2013.

35
d. Social and Technical Capacities
On the issue of social and technical capacities, Ivey et al indicators, of Fig 5.1 suggest the
followings:
“clear leadership for water quality protection at the watershed level, a functional
collaboration amongst organisations and communities, Community awareness and support
for source water protection, as well as data needed to manage water supplies, source water
areas delineated in official plans, were yet to be fully developed”
One example was that technical issues on water resources at the community level were to
be designed to act in compliance with rules of the “Guidelines on Water and Sanitation in
Liberia”. An important issue arising according to one government official is that,
“donor timing of the projects often posed a problem, many times water wells were
constructed during the wet season but often leaving no sufficient water during dry season”.
A functional collaboration amongst organisations and communities still posed a challenge.
Even so at the local level the promotion of WHO Water Standards for drinking water exist
and the drinking water quality should have to be monitored. However, an official at the
Ministry of Health admitted,
“due to low logistics in our Ministry, water companies have sometimes offered to come and
take us for water quality sample”.
This however demonstrated a willingness of business towards compliance and opportunity
for enhancing other SWP requirement at a Watershed level
6.2.4 Business involvement in pollution control
Of the total number of respondent interviewed-business and industry group; a total of 5
major businesses on the watershed were invited to the survey being the only major water

36
ones on the watershed. To involve business into an environmental behavior, we mean
“behavior that consciously seeks to minimize the negative impact of one’s actions on the
natural and built world (e.g. minimize resource and energy consumption, use of non-toxic
substances, and reduce waste production” (Kollmussm & Agyeman, 2002). For the propose
of change, the following characteristics were being looked for : knowledge of the current
situation, strategies developed already at local level, leadership in support of new ideas,
record of working with communities, appreciated by the communities, encourage
partnership and is open for information.
a. Knowledge of the current situation.
3 of the businesses 18% of the respondents showed awareness of the impact of their
activity in the community. The bottling companies could admit having generated waste
water but however had limited knowledge on abstraction issues.
However, businesses recognized their social responsibility from an individual sense of
responsibility; even respondents from a water user group could recount the responsibility of
companies to the community how it could be compelling,
“One morning we woke to find a community member had thrown excretes in our fence, and
when management saw how embarrassing this was, a meeting was immediately decided to
construct toilet for the community”.
b. Record of working with communities(Fig. 6.3)
COMMUNITY INITIATIVES
WASH
CASH DONATION
SPORTS
TRAININGS
EDUCATION
AWARENESS RAISING

37
The figure above is a representative of latest effort of community and business relations
with sports and WASH topping the list. In the list we documented that two businesses had
shown interest in community involvement with efforts in WASH and Sports.
Fig. 6.3b Monrovia Breweries constructed Facilities operating on Fees for Use./Othello
Nyenkan/12 May 2014
Two (2) of the businesses had already developed strategies with communities. There was a
construction of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) facility with a regular maintenance.
Communities were receptive to payment for services as a way for caring for the facilities.
c. Encouragement of partnership and openness for information
Respondent however, admitted that encouragement of partnership with other institution was
non- existent.

38
6.3 Implications for Voluntary Approach
From the analysis carried out in section 6.3a, the current situation on the watershed
required from the study a need to understand what voluntary tools are and their anticipated
impact in the current situation. An overview of voluntary tools in SWP as outlined by
Saunders et al, provide that these voluntary approaches are intended to solicit participation
from citizens. “voluntary approaches typically consist of strategies to encourage adoption of
practices to improve raw water quality, without the use of regulation”, (Saunders & de
Loe.R, 2010). The overarching objective of this study is to underline that these approaches
while functioning as information base, incentive based, or in the form of technical
assistance would assist in addressing water source protection as result of pollution from
land use practices, poor hygiene practices, while also introducing cost reduction to
regulators providing that stakeholders are aware of their respective roles.
In view of the above statement, the research questions discussed the conditions for SWP in
Liberia in the case of the current analysis provided in section 6.2. calling for a consensus
building and strategic approach:
1. Can source water protection implementation serve as a catalyst for strengthening
water governance in Liberia?
“Partnership approaches are successful in strengthening existing interventions and creating
the right conditions for improvement (both increasing speed of uptake and fostering norms
of best practice,” (DEFRA, 2013)
From the study partnership existing between the identified categories of the study had not
taken any formal grounds and therefore this approach towards sustaining water governance
was to be awakened. However the potential exist to promote such partnerships. This was

39
due to the presence of businesses at community level. This tie, existing at community level,
was already being promoted through the exchange of support in the form of sporting
equipment, provision of toilets as the ones constructed by the Monrovia Breweries, and
educational support by these companies to individual organizations on requests.
However, what was missing was the involvement of government as part of the stakeholder
ship and the need for an accountability framework. Such an opportunity for information
dissemination was not been fully translated into these activities thus an establish mode of
action was not being formalized.
In support of water governance, which when defined refers to “the range of political, social,
economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water
resources, and the delivery of water services, at different levels of society” (Global Water
Partnership, 2003); significant systemic but cost effective changes were seen as needed in
pursuit of water governance.
As a matter of change needed, the failure of the Ministry of Lands and Mines, in its capacity
as water resources manager in Liberia, it is such that it could not allocate water to sectors
accordingly. The evidence as seen on the watershed allowing a private bottling company to
engage in groundwater extraction not only undermined community base water supplies, see
diagram Fig 3.5b, but also denied the LWSC as a statutory water supplier the much needed
revenues when such institutions should be allowed only to connect to the tap water lines of
LWSC hailing that the control watershed actually seats the supply of all population in
Monrovia and from the Liberia Water and Sewerage Corporation.

40
Fig. 6.4 Existing Water Governance in Liberia.
(GoL-SAWA, 2011)

41
Yet governance remains fragmented in the midst of conflicting roles and responsibility
(GoL, 2012,).
Figure above show current effort of the Government of Liberia in addressing fragmentation
and coordination in Water governance in Liberia. A National Water Resources and
Sanitation Board was formed to reduce conflicting roles in the Sector.
Table 6.4 Allocation of budget and financial constraint level for WASH Institutions
(GoL, 2012)
From the study developing a catalyst for supporting a water governance approach must
initiate a bottom top approach. Thus in serving as a catalyst, the capacity of community
level has first to be established. Such capacity development does has not quite well fallen
under the support of government, thus leaving room for more weakness.

42
Nonetheless, it is possible towards achieving a catalyst for governance although this study
reveals that SWP is not well known but given it has the characteristic of pulling together
actors with common objective and delivering on data and information needed to reduce
transaction cost it is worth exploring.
In summary, strengthening of water governance could be realized through a
• Fully functional water management committees
• Data for companies on abstraction as a means of informing decision makers on
policy issues; as an example, “abstractions over 20 cubic metres per day require an
abstraction license (with some exceptions).” (DEFRA, 2013). As far definition would
entail in this case “Abstraction is the removal of water, permanently or temporarily,
from water bodies such as rivers, lakes, canals, reservoirs or from underground
strata.” (DEFRA, 2013). As far as data is concern no available data has been in
Liberia. However effects are felt from drying wells seem from observation as well as
climate change impact resulting to the acute shortage of drinking water at some part
of the year.
• Reporting to communities and the EPA and partnering with other businesses.
2. How could non-regulatory tools be best employed in the St. Paul’s Watershed?
“Industry-led partnership; an example could be catchment management schemes that work
in partnership with water companies to address the issues which can influence water quality
and quantity across entire catchments”, (DEFRA, 2013).
The study did not fully identify industries wanting to engage in Source Water Protection
since the subject seem new given the size and scope of the subject under research.
However, what it did find was that industries declared to responsibility for their activities on

43
the watershed. We also found that the LEPA was using the ESIA as a regulatory tool but
this was insufficient as they had not been following up on the environmental reporting of
these institutions. As much government institution could state according to the
questionnaire response that they were willing to make open any disclose information, none
of the businesses had presented any report from the study to government from the study
conducted passed the ESIA stage.
In the same, the study identified that current environmental regulations of Liberia are not
specific to legal issues on water which therefore clearly provided where reports were to be
available, such reports should not have had much regulatory requirements on the water.
This has therefore hampered direct regulations on water resources management. On the
one end, the Liberia Water Sewerage Corporations reveal that the EPA as regulatory arm
of Liberia had designated Ministry of Lands, Mines, and Energy to oversee all water
resources related matters. Although, the LWSC secures water for one million people from
this water shed, it lacks the oversight over protecting this water source (New Republic
Liberia, 2014).
Additional, the abuse of communal facilities and as a result of poor financial sustainability
as well as improper coordination at communal entry and limited awareness of SWP
exacerbated the worsening issues. Yet this situation again resulted primarily from a limited
streamlining process of communal intervention and the ownership of facilities.
Essentially the approach for the situation could is been studied addressed from a Source
Water Protection plan using watershed management programs, or an incentive based
program, a market based instruments, or those of education and awareness (Saunders &
de Loe.R, 2010). Such initiatives have shown a promising indication of their successes in
addressing these problems. However as a clear knowledge on source water protection

44
plans and the need to include businesses are missing, engaging aspects of education and
awareness are to be first on the priority for policy makers and all stakeholders.
Additionally the department of water resources of the Ministry of Lands and Mines could
review Water rights according to its mandate noting that LWSC has statutory rights over
urban water supply to Monrovia according to act of 1973 of the Republic of Liberia creating
the LWSC and whereas such streamlining would bring all players on board in preparing for
the water quality and cost that should be borne.
Consequently, the introduction of a payment for environmental services to farmer and
communal facilities should pave the way for ushering a sustainable SWP. Therefore, the
introduction and operation of the Liberia Water Producers Association is critical to the
formation of a voluntary agreement.
3. To what extent can voluntary tools impact the issues of technical, human and
economic capacities for implementing SWP in the St. Paul’s Watershed?
“Payment for Environmental Services, (PES), generally involves a voluntary transaction
where an environmental service (or a land use change to secure that service) is ‘bought’ by
a service buyer (e.g. Water Company) from a service provider (e.g. farmer) to deliver
specific environmental outcomes” (DEFRA, 2013).
A major issue coming out of the study was the lack of financing for implementing water and
sanitation projects. Respondent acknowledged limited priority for protecting water but
essentially due to the fact that financing such was not a top most by government. Similar
concept existed at the community level over limited priority, and that those financing
mechanisms are limited on this.
An important concept which was not fully filtered in to the watershed was the concept of
payment for environmental services. Farmers on the watershed are mostly involved in

45
farming practices, most of which have being unsustainable. By drawing on the Liberia
Water and Sewer Corporation inability to design a source Water Protection water plan on
the watershed, it was evident that fund for sustaining such services were not or that
institutional arrangement were not viable. Our findings however revealed that a streamlining
process was missing in the process. That Liberia Water and Sewerage Corporation’s
inability to initiate SWP was also due to the oversight power given to the Ministry of Lands
and Mines’ Department of Water Resources acting as the oversight for water resources
whose major focus could mostly felt in the mining sector.
However the use of livelihood opportunities provides bedrock on which motivation for
environmental responsibility is seen. In reference to Jiménez et al, “environmental
management in developing countries must seek to reduce poverty whilst achieving
environmental performance (Eskeland & Jimenez, 2011).Thus by training farming groups in
Best Management Practices and a subsidy for use of communal WATSAN facility through
employment creation are livelihood possibilities. Therefore, from the study the involvement
of business at the community level was an important opportunity to capture on in initiating a
payment for environmental services framework.
4. To what extent are businesses willing and able to participate in pollution
control in this setting in Liberia?
“Economic theory suggests that (profit-maximizing) businesses will only participate if there
are private benefits they can realize from it and where these benefits outweigh any costs
they might incur by participating”, (DEFRA, 2013).
The research could not fully capture the extent of businesses’ willingness to participate. In
most cases it was evident these businesses simply did not care in the onset of protecting

46
water sources at the research’s study level. For most it became an interesting subject of
discussion and therefore one which was simply creating the awareness firstly.
Nonetheless the Monrovia Breweries showed a little of involvement in protecting community
infrastructure although not directly with Source Water Protection. This institution whose
waste products have raised concern in the community along the river has however shown a
degree of willingness in engaging communities in discussing common solution. Much so
other businesses have so far entertained request from communities in areas that
communities have highlighted which have included providing sporting equipment,
contribution base on request from community organization. There is therefore an
opportunity that community leaders being brought to the awareness of the role of SWP
should engaged businesses in deciding approaches for SWP.
Nonetheless the willingness of businesses is established in their economics standpoint
while their ability relates to the administrative capacity of the institution. This ability lies with
the governance structure of the firm (Sibson & Stuart, 2003). It was important therefore to
understand what priorities business would consider in generally working with communities.
However setting priorities by businesses could have been guided as cost effective from a
policy standpoint. Such a policy stand point will be discussed further in the next section of
the study. The LEPA could promote mutual understanding in achieving voluntary
participation as there is the full potential of these businesses through their capacity as
essentially subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations (MNCs).
Additionally negotiations with businesses is further enhance given that most of these
Corporation hardly have finance before investment and it is in their relation with LEPA that
financing institution seeking environmental compliance as prerequisites have provided
funding. Thus designing a voluntary program can be initiated. Therefore it is an agreement

47
that works on the principle that it is more cost effective to reduce pollutants (frequently
agricultural) and improve water quality at the source compared to cost of water treatment
which defines the extent- a potential which actually exist and reduces cost on the part of
the regulators.
However the idea of Source Water Protection remains a new subject from the study results
and that getting businesses involve remains a fundamental discussion and needing more
research. Thus sustaining a Source Water Protection plan is also discussed. Given the
limited involvement of businesses in pollution controls, enhancing and sustaining such an
idea requires a body of education in support of such a policy mechanism. The remainder of
the discussions that follow support needs of such policy tools as well its effectiveness and
sustainability of the St. Paul Watershed.
6.4 Business involvement in Water Pollution Control
In Liberia, the involvement of businesses in pollution control promises to still leave more
room for investigation. However, there are significant breakthroughs towards the
sustainability of a framework involving businesses. Essentially, from section 6.2.1b of this
study, it was found out that 40% (18) of the respondents did not see involvement of
businesses as a workable solution whilst the rest 60% (27) saw it as worth experimenting.
Our finding reveals that participants clearly did not see what tie businesses to performing
any voluntary participation.
Thus to bring businesses to a willingness on the watershed essentially first entails their
awareness of their involvement in collective management of the watershed , knowledge of
their impacts on the watershed, available strategies at their level with the issues, and an
agreement about involvement, and information provision of businesses.

48
6.4.1 Voluntary Involvement of business
At a policy level, the role of businesses in sustainable development is becoming a new
development approach. The UN Global Compact “seeks to align business operations and
strategies everywhere with ten universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights,
labor, environment and anti-corruption” (Norén, 2004). Towards this, the compact proposes
the following voluntary initiatives for businesses, two of the ten principles are reproduced
here for business case; principle 7; businesses should support a precautionary approach to
environmental challenges and principle 8; undertake initiatives to promote greater
environmental responsibility. Our findings on the watershed provided that businesses in
respect to their sizes and scale had limitations in adopting what was being studied.
Again by reflecting on the concept of voluntary involvement of business, UNEP defines the
term voluntary as, “industry behavior that goes beyond existing environmental laws and
regulations”. (Bruijn & Norberg-Bohm, 2001) notes, “ the use of voluntary, collaborative,
and information strategies can create capacity, transparency, and flexibility; can facilitate
the development of long-term agendas; and provide avenues for greater community and
NGO participation”.
(Borkey et al., 1999), defines it as “the relationship between voluntary collaborative
approaches and regulation as being reciprocal”; which implies that “that voluntary
approaches provide flexibility and cost effectiveness”. (Khanna, 2001), writes “voluntary
approaches have the potential to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of environmental
regulations. Isobel Heathcoat (2007), “voluntary programs give governments the flexibility
to educate potential polluters and encourage movement toward more protective practices,
without the economic burden of more formalized programs (Heathcoat, 2007). Likewise,

49
(Saunders, et al., 2007), in the case for water pollution, “voluntary approaches have
become increasingly common as a tool for water quality protection”.
(Bruijn & Norberg-Bohm, 2001) note “voluntary approaches could be used to compensate
for gaps in capacity to enforce mandatory regulations, to build that capacity, to reduce the
transaction costs of mandatory regulation, and to avoid fostering a “culture of resistance” to
environmental regulation”.
Likewise with Lyon, “in some cases they have served to delay the implementation of
mandatory regulations. Nevertheless, they may be useful steps when scientific information
is imprecise, political will is lacking, or regulatory capabilities are weak. (Lyon, 2013).
The benefit that such policy tools advances can be seen as essential to support the current
regulatory framework. In Liberia, “institutional fragmentations, manpower shortages, lack of
funding, discrepancies in baseline data, are the issues under a failed regulatory regime.
Thus, voluntary participation in this case is, “a concept whereby companies decide
voluntarily to contribute to a better society and a cleaner environment’. (Ikejiaku, 2012).
Therefore awareness raising in Liberia remains critical and as businesses move towards
sustainable development, education and information are crucial; and for standing as major
opportunity was the formation of cluster of water related supplier of water, the Liberia Water
Users Association a group which unites all size of water related companies under a national
umbrella.
6.4.2 Effectiveness in Liberia
The context within which this study is conducted is that firms choose to work with
communities whereby companies decide voluntarily to contribute to a better society and a
cleaner environment. Indeed those companies have chosen to be corporate citizens- the

50
role of Multinational Corporations (MNCs) in taking socially responsible action aimed
towards ensuring the sustainable development of the communities in which they operate.
That they do so with corporate accountability; this is the obligation of MNCs to account for,
accept responsibility for, and disclose the results of their Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) activities.
Therefore in deciding an effective voluntary regime it is one that undertakes a specific
design. Thus, by initiating a specific objective with water companies in Liberia, managing
water sources takes the form of non-mandatory but specific objective towards capacity
building.
Also, the need for a watershed management approach is evident in siting of community
managed facilities and existing water management situation based on findings from the
study. The term ‘watershed’ is normally associated with surface water resources and
describes an area of land that drains downwards towards lower elevations. Watersheds are
generally considered to be the most practical unit for managing water.
This is because impacts are felt at the watershed level, rather than at the level of
boundaries, such as townships, communities or municipalities. Moreover, at the communal
level, community management team control water facilities, however, these management
teams do not have control over the quality of its source water because the source is
impacted by activities that reach far out into the watershed beyond the community
boundaries. At the technical level Source Water Protection area at times have interlocked.
There is clear indication that wellhead protection zones would coincide with other well siting
in which case a watershed management approach becomes justified (see well head
protection table below).

51
Table 6.4b Wellhead Protection Practice
(WHO, 2006)
6.4.3 Sustainability in Liberia
Sustainability as defined is “the capacity of intervention to proceed in abstention of any
extended funding after the intervention period”. Water and Sanitation projects in Liberia
have continued to fail however due to a lack of meeting with recurrent costs. This implies
that sustainability as proposed has often failed at the community level due to financing.
However, Source Water Protection at the Watershed requires consistent funding.
(Chittock & Hughey, 2010), identified some features of a voluntary program: Adequate and
consistent funding. Insufficient funding for environmental issues is due to lack of integration
of environment into economic activity. Thus the inclusion or selection of stakeholders must
gear towards achieving sustainable development with the need to consider full integration
of environmental issues into economic activities.

52
Nonetheless, (Chittock & Hughey, 2010) list also a single sector program, “best way to
maximize program results is to include an industry issue so appropriate to initiatives focus”.
In the case of Liberia, such initiative essentially reduces fragmentation since interest
groups; those directly affected can become decision makers and implementers. Similarly it
must ensure transparency and maintain accountability; meaning that companies in Liberia
Water Sector are able to assume information disclosure for what they do as part of their
CSR.
Refusal by water companies to participate in the survey was indeed of great set back to the
study. Companies felt some discomfort with the idea of providing such information.
Moreover in the absence of a water law, water producers seem little obliged to meet any
standards as in the case of information flow. The implication is that voluntary regulation can
indeed not work along but must coexist with other policy instruments. Noting Blackman’s
report on voluntary regulations and developing countries with voluntary approach;
nonetheless there is still prospect for the working of voluntary agreement on the water
shed.
Opportunities are however in existent that need to be fully mobilized to achieve impacts
from voluntary approaches. One member at the Ministry recounts,
“due to low logistics in our Ministry, water companies have sometimes offered to come and
take us for water quality sample”.
The development of baseline data and the development of a precautionary approach at the
watershed level sets the stage for the experimenting of the SWP at the watershed.
Therefore as much as water laws have not been enforced, the negotiating ability of the
Government as evident by its Environmental and Social Impact Assessment provides the
opportunity through which a sector specific negotiation could proceed.

53
Therefore in consideration of the sustainability of any voluntary agreement in the water
sector in Liberia recent development in the sector has provided a policy window for the
integration of voluntary agreement in the sector. From an institutional standpoint the
development of water partnership could be enhanced through the ongoing effort of the
Liberia Water Producers Association LWP. The association was formed out of a need for a
governance structure amongst water producer and sought equity as its prime reason for
formation:
“We started this fight against Foreigners in the water industry in Liberia and our sole
purpose was to protect Liberian businesses and Liberian water producers. We also
establish the Liberia Water Producers Association”
The group undertook its own initiative and due diligence and discovered that there are at
least over 85 water companies existing or working in Liberia.
“Out of the 85 companies we have over 30 of them which are foreign-owned businesses,”
(Sieh, 2010, D.K.Sengbeh, 2010).
Again the adoption of watershed management approached is further sustained by an
ongoing intervention in the Climate Change Project as farmers would also benefit from
incentive base training. The watershed is currently being explored by farming groups and
further environmental implication from pesticides and fertilizers threating the watershed. An
action by the LWPA once equipped with the knowledge of potential threat to the waters
provided can meaningfully contribute to the knowledge base required for further advocacy.
At present the Liberia’s Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) runs a Climate Change Adaptation in
Agriculture Project (CCAAP) which was started in 2011. “The objective of the project is to

54
increase resilience of poor, agriculturally-dependent communities and decrease
vulnerability of agricultural sector to climate change in Liberia (GoL-MoA, 2011).
Therefore that which has been a critical finding is that insufficient knowledge and
awareness as seen from decision makers as well as policy makers exist, and that current
regulatory framework on water resources does not provide for SWP, whereas low capacity
of technical staff, and a lack of information availability by stakeholders (businesses in
particular) on their involvement as well as impacts, and that of community leaderships in
their capacity lack to advocate, have in themselves inhibited the purpose of SWP.
However the inclusion of a voluntary agreement between water producers association and
government must aspire to provide specific aims: setting of specific aims clear that would
be to develop strategies on governance. Furthermore, achieving sustainability in the
absence of a credible threat of legal enforcement can be overcome noting that education
and information disclosure in itself is regulatory.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
Alternative or complimentary environmental management tools in developing countries
must seek to address those issues which are the reflecting realities that they are trying to
influence. It is in this process of mainstreaming environmental management that entails
rationalizing what aspect of regulatory designs are realizable and understanding why some
regulatory instrument cannot gain success in developing countries.
That in this case implementing Source Water Protection (SWP) in serving as a catalyst for
strengthening water governance in Liberia will require that institutional development in
water sector could mainstream voluntary agreements with government to facilitate an
agreed standard upon which to operate. This development of voluntary partnership

55
agreement is essential for enhancing water governance in Liberia. That is, while it is that
laws are meant to achieve compliance the existing pollution of non-point source requires
significant involvement of voluntary tools. This mean that voluntary approaches will work
but if a further capacity is developed - coordination with water businesses - this should be
encouraged.
Additionally in the context of watershed management, efforts at creating awareness in
forest management as well as agricultural inputs and use are critical for the safe protection
of water sources for drinking. The current effort of the Ministry of Agriculture with donor
agriculture group needs to greatly focus on the adoption of data.
Also, where regulatory regimes are not as strong, information and awareness can be as
regulatory in itself. Thus wherein the case of water companies in Liberia present the
special case of limited awareness not only on the part of regulators but also business, in
their attempt to be companies of good reputation with communities, information disclosure
should form a key part of their commitment to good business.
Non-regulatory approach can be introduced at the St. Paul Watershed sustainably and
successfully at the watershed but not however, in the absence of regulation or water
legislation. This means that voluntary approaches will work with regulations but if a further
capacity is developed in the line; such capacity-coordination with water businesses and
information disclosure- should be encouraged.
Additionally, there is a need to introduce economic instruments into Liberia’s environmental
management. The payment of environmental taxes, in fulfillment of the polluters pay
principle should be strongly encouraged and applied fully to institutions or industries that
are high on their use on energy and natural resources. Secondly a motivation to be

56
responsible cannot be fully realized unless incentives are introduced. Moreover, emphasis
on water as natural resources should be considered.
Additionally, there is a need to have the government create an environment that allows for
the development of an enabling institutional environment for coordination among water
companies and related. This would offer opportunities for communities, water producers
and regulators to negotiate their concerns and build credibility for a long lasting institutional
solution towards integrating resource management.
In order to have Voluntary approaches compliment the needed regulatory support as a
policy tool is that complimentary environmental management tools in developing countries
seek to address those issues which are the reflecting realities that they are trying to
influence. It is in this process of mainstreaming environmental management that entails
rationalizing what aspects of regulatory designs are realizable and understanding why
some regulatory instrument cannot gain success in developing countries. Therefore the
willingness to uptake good farming practice may not necessarily imply deliberate
environmentally responsible farmers but an economic benefit derived from proper use of
inputs.
Businesses willingness and ability to participate in pollution control in this setting in Liberia
in SWP is realizable if policy supporting CSR on investment take deeper turn in integrating
mandatory approach on information disclosure as a cost effective regulatory tool with
businesses leading the way. Also, where regulatory regimes are not as strong information
and awareness can be as regulatory in itself.

58
8. REFERENCES
(IGD), 2012. THE BUSINESS CASE FOR DEVELOPMENT, s.l.: The Initiative for Global
Development.
(UNMIL), U. N. M. i. L., 2006. Rubber Plantations – Special Report on the Environment,
Monrovia: UNMIL.
Anon., 2011. Pulitzer Center on Crises Reporting. [Online]
Available at: http://pulitzercenter.org/projects/liberia-monrovia-water-population-
urbanization
[Accessed 2 October 2014].
Anon., n.d. Political Map of Liberia. [Online]
Available at: http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/liberia-map.htm
Akhmouch, A., 2012. “Water Governance in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Multi-Level
Approach”, OECD, s.l.: Regional Development Working Papers, 2012/04, OECD.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9crzqk3ttj-en.
Bernstein, J., 1997. Water Pollution Control - A Guide to the Use of Water Quality
Management Principles, s.l.: United Nations Environment Programme.
Björklund, G., 2001. Water Management in Developing Countries Policy and Priorities for
EU Development Cooperation, Stockholm: Stockholm International Water Insitute (SIWI.
Blackman, A., 2007. Can Voluntary Enviornmental Regulation Work in Developing
Countries: Lessons From Case Studies, Washington: Resources of the Future.
Börkey, P., Glachant, M. & Lévêque, F., 1999. Voluntary Approaches for Environmental
Policy in OEDC Countries: An Assessment, Paris: CERNA, Centre d’économie industrielle.
Brethour, B. et al., 2009. Cost Benefit Analysis of Source Water Protection Beneficial
Management Practices, Ontario: George Morris Centre.
Brown, L. R., 2001. Chp. 2 Signs of Stress:Climate and Water. In: Eco-Economy: Building
an Economy for the Earth. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., , pp. 28-48.
Chittock, D. & Hughey, K., 2011. A review of international practice in the design of voluntary
Pollution Prevention Programs, New Zealand: Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011)
542e551.
Collier, A. et al., 2010. Understanding and influencing behaviours: a review of social
research, economics and policy making in Defra, s.l.: DEFRA.

59
CSREurope, C.-., 2010. Cleaning up the Brantas River, Indonesia, s.l.: CSR
Europe,http://www.csreurope.org/solutions.php?action=sho.
D.K.Sengbeh, 2010. All Africa. [Online]
Available at: http://allafrica.com/stories/201011120866.html
[Accessed 22 May 2014].
Dalal-Clayton, B. & Bass, S., 2009. The challenges of environmental
mainstreaming:Experience of integrating environment into development institutions and
decisions, Environmental Governance No. 3, London: International Institute for Environment
and Development.
de Loe, R., 2001. Moving down the food chain: the increasing importance of local-level
water management, University of Guelph, Gttelph, Ontario NIG 2W1, Canada: Integrated
Water Resources Management (Proceedings of a symposium held ai Davis.
California.,April 2000). IAHS Publ. no. 272. 2001..
DEFRA, 2013. Review of Partnership Approaches for Farming and the Environment Policy
Delivery, London: DEFRA.
Dietz, T. & Stern, P., 2014. New Tools for Environmental Management:Education,
Information, and Voluntary Measures. In: Exploring New Tools for Environmentala
Protection. Washinton,D.C: The National Academies
,http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10401&page=3,Acessed 12 April 2014, pp.
1-16.
Eskeland, G. & Jimenez, E., 2011. Policy Instruments for Pollution Control in Developing
Countries, s.l.: Oxford University Press.
Faure, M., Goodwin, M. & Weber, F., 2010. Bucking the Kuznets Curve: Designing Effective
Environmental Regulation in Developing Countries, Virgina: VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Feather, P. M. & Cooper, J., 1995. Voluntary Incentives for Reducing Agricultural Nonpoint
Source Water Pollution, s.l.: United States Department of Agriculture.
Folifac, F., Lifongo, L., Nkeng, G. & Gaskin, S., 2009,. Municipal drinking water source
protection in low income countries: Case of Buea municipality Cameroon, Ontario: Journal
of Ecology and Natural Environment Vol. 1(4), pp. 073-084, July, 2009.
Godfrey, S. & Howard, G., 2004. Water Safety Plans (WSP) for Urban Piped Water
Supplies in Developing Countries, s.l.: WEDC, Loughborough University, UK.
Godfrey, S. & Howard, G., 2004. Water Safety Plans (WSP) for Urban Piped Water
Supplies in Developing Countries, : WEDC, Loughborough University, 2004,
http:www.lboro.ac.uk/wedc/projects/iram/index.htm.

60
GoL, 2007. NATIONAL INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT POLICY,
Monrovia: LIBERIA MINISTRY OF LANDS, MINES AND ENERGY.
GoL, 2012, p.10. Liberia Civil Society National Budget and Human Rights Forum Briefing
Paper to Honorable Members of the National Legislature and Government of Liberia,
Monrovia: GoL.
GoL-Environment Protection Agency, L., 2002. Environmental Protection and Management
Law, Monrovia: Environmental Protection Agency of Liberia.
GoL-LWSC, 1980. Examination of Existing Transmission and Distribution System,
Monrovia: Government of Liberia,Liberia Water ans Sewerage Corporation LWSC.
GoL-MoA, 2011. Ministry of Agriculture,Republic of Liberia. [Online]
Available at: http://www.moaliberia.org/?page_id=308
GoL-SAWA, 2011,p.10. Statement of Work Joint Mission: Government of Liberia and its
Development Partners Improved National Planning for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
(WASH), Monrovia: Government of Liberia(GoL).
GWP, 2012. IWRM Principles, s.l.: Global Water Partnership,http://www.gwp.org/en/The-
Challenge/What-is-IWRM/IWRM-Principles/Participatory-approach/.
Hadden, R. L., 2006,p8. The Geology of Liberia: a Selected Bibliography of Liberian
Geology, Geography and Earth Science, Alexandria, Virginia 22315: Topographic
Engineering Center,US Army Corps of Engineers.
Helmer, R. & Hespanhol, I., 1997, p173. Water Pollution Control - A Guide to the Use of
Water Quality Management Principles, Great Britain: UNEP.
Howard, G. & Schmoll, O., 2006. Water SafeTy Plan, s.l.: WHO.
Hutton, G. & Haller, L., 2004. Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Water and Sanitation
Improvements at the Global Level, Geneva: WHO.
Hutton, G. & Haller, L., 2004. Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Water and Sanitation
Improvements at the Global Level, Geneva: World Health Organization.
Ivey, J., de Loe, R., Kreutzwiser, R. & Ferreyra, C., 2006,p944. An institutional perspective
on local capacity for source water protection, Guelph: GEOFORUM.
Khanna, M., 2001. Non-mandatory approaches to environmental protection, s.l.: University
of Illinois-Urbana Chamnpaign.
Kollmussm, A. & Agyeman, J., 2002. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and
what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?,, s.l.: Environmental Education
Research, 8:3, 239-260,http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401.

61
Kraemer, R., Choudhury, K. & Kampa, E., 2001. PROTECTIINGWATER
RESOURCES:POLLUTIION PREVENTIION. Bonn: Secretariat of the International
Conference on Freshwater.
Liberia, N. R. o., 2014. Liberia: Poor Sanitation Overwhelms Monrovia. [Online]
Available at: http://allafrica.com/stories/201404221828.html?viewall=1
LISGIS, 2011. LISGIS, 2008 National Population and Housing Census, Monrovia:
Government of Liberia.
Marjanović, P., Musiyarira, H. & Reynders, C., 2011,p.9. Managing Water Resources in
Developing Countries: South Africa As An Example for Policy And Regulation. Water
Research and Management, Vol. 1, No. 3 (2011) 9-24: s.n.
Mclnnnes, R. et al., 2010. Managing Catchments as a Business Assets:An Economic
Framework for evalaunting Control Measure for Sourcr Water Protection, Adelaide: Water
Quality Research Australlia Limited.
O’Connor, J. D., 2002. Report of the Walkerton Commission of Inquiry, Ontario: Ministry of
the Attorney General.
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/walkerton/part1/.
Norén, G., 2004. The Role of Businesses in Society, Stockholm: Confederation of Swedish
Enterprise.
Panayotou, T., 1994. ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, s.l.: International Environment
Program Harvard Institute for International Development Harvard University.
Saunders, K. & de Loe.R, 2010. Non-regulatory Means to Protect Water Quality:A Review,
Alberta: University of Lethbridge.
Scanlon, J., Nemes, N. & Cassar, A., 2004. Water as a Human Right?, s.l.:
IUCN,Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge.
Sibson & Stuart, 2003. Corporate Governance: A Human Capital Perspective, s.l.: The
Segal Group, Inc.
SIDA, 2008. Draft Liberia Environment and Climate Analysis, GÖTEBORG, Sweden:
GÖTEBORG UNIVERSITY.
Sieh, R., 2010. Inside Liberia. [Online]
Available at: http://bernardgoah.blogspot.com/2010/12/unfair-business-practice-
liberians.html

62
Simpson, H., Reid, D. & Rudolph, D., 2011. Farming and Source Water Protection: The
Role of Agricultural Soils, Ontarion: GeoHydro.
Tientenberg, ,. T., 1998. Disclosure Strategies for Pollution Control, Printed in the
Netherlands: Environmental and Resource Economics 11(3–4): 587–602, 1998,1998
Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Torres, M. M; Parameeta, K, 2003. Indonesia's program for pollution control, evaluation,
and rating (PROPER). Empowerment case studies. Washington, DC: World Bank.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2003/01/11311285/indonesias-program-
pollution-control-evaluation-rating-proper Accessed 2 October 2014
Uhl, V., Daw, A. & Baron, J., 2012. How a City Gets its Drinking Water: A Case Study –
Capital City of Monrovia, Liberia, s.l.: s.n.
UKEA, 2003. Abstraction and Flow Problem:Significant Water Management Issues, s.l.: UK
Environment Agency.
UNEP, 2000. VOLUNTARY INITIATIVES:CURRENT STATUS, LESSONS LEARNT AND
NEXT STEPS, s.l.: UNEP.
UNEP, 2010. Clearing the Waters:A focus on water quality solutions, Nairobi: United
Nations Environment Programme.
UNEP, 2010. Water: In the Transition to a Green Economy,A UNEP Brief.
s.l.:www.unep.ch/etb/ebulletin/pdf/GE%20and%20Water%20Brief.pdf.
UNGC, 2000. Overview of the UN Global Compact, s.l.:
www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC.
United Nations Mission in Liberia, (., 2006. Rubber Plantations – Special Report on the
Environment, Monrovia: United Nations Mission in Liberia.
UN-Water, 2008. Status Report on Integrated Water Resources Management and Water
Efficiency Plans for CSD. s.l.:UN Water.
UNWater, 2011, p.2. Policy Brief: Water Quality, s.l.: UN-Water 2011.
UNWater, 2011, p.3. Policy Brief-Water Quality, s.l.: UN Water.
UNWWAP, 2009. s.l.:s.n.
USAID/DAI, 2008. LIBERIA ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS AND OPPORTUNITIES
ASSESSMENT (ETOA), Monrovia,online at:
http://www.encapafrica.org/documents/biofor/Liberia2008.pdf: USAID/Liberia.
WHO/UNICEF, 2013. Progress on sanitation and drinking-water - 2013 update, Geneva 27,
Switzerland: World Health Organization and UNICEF;WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Programme for Water.

63
WHO, 2006. Protecting Groundwater for Health: Managing the Quality of Drinking-water
Sources. London: Published by IWA Publishing, London, UK.
Williams, W., 2014. Drought:Liberia's Virgina Community Drink from Swamp. [Online]
Available at: http://frontpageafricaonline.com/index.php/news/1314-drought-liberia-s-
virginia-community-drink-from-swamp
[Accessed 2 October 2014]
Yin, R., 1994, . Case Study Research Designs Methods, s.l.: Second edition. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.

64
APPENDIX.1. CLOSED ENDED QUESTIONS USED FOR THE STUDY
.
SECTION 1. GENERAL RESPONSES
Knowledge of SWP
1. Do you know about water pollution?
Yes No
2. Do you know how water pollution occurs?
Yes No
3. Have you any insight about how water pollution is taking place in Liberia
Yes No
4. Do you know about Drinking Water Source Protection (SWP)?
Yes No
5. Has it affected you as a person?
Yes No
6. Is drinking source water protection supported in any way that you are aware about?
Yes No
7. Do you see the protection of water as important to our environment?
Yes No
SECTION 3 STAKEHOLDERS RESPONSES
GROUP 1 COMMUNITY RESIDENTS
1. Have you been a participant in deciding a way for environmental protection issues?
Yes No
2. Is there a community leadership in your community?
Yes No
3. Is your community leadership prioritizing water protection?

65
Yes No
4. has there being community water management teams in this area?
Yes No
5. Was there or is there a problem with protecting water points?
Yes No
5. Have you participated in protecting water access points?
Yes No
6. Do you think that protecting water is a responsibility for certain group of people?
Yes No
7. The St. Paul River is a drinking water source; do you think it can be protected?
Yes No
8. Would your community be able to work with other institutions in pollution issues?
Yes No
9. Are there barriers you think could restrain your participation?
Yes No
10. How would you participate in Source Water Protection in your power?
Payment for Services
Provide Land Space
Provide Training
Help create awareness
Proper land use
11 Are you a decision maker in your community?
Yes No
12. Has your community been able to decide with other institutions on working to protect
water points?
Yes No
13. Was there a monitoring structure and public involvement on this?
Yes No

66
GROUP 2 BUSINESSES AND INDUSTRIES INSTITUTIONS
1. Is your business having any relationship with environmental issues on water?
Yes No
2. Do you see a variation in water quality and treatment cost in your business?
Yes No
3. Was there a variation as per season and noticeable added cost to treatment?
Yes No
4. Do you see a social responsibility in protecting water sources?
Yes No
5. Do you see a major boost in the image of your business if you identified with SWP?
Yes No
6. What activity could you support sincerely in curbing water pollution?
Awareness Placard
Construction of WASH Facility
Recycling of Waste
_____________________
_______________________
7. Do you see a relationship existing between you and the community in curbing water
pollution?
Yes No
7. The St. Paul River is a drinking water source; do you think it can be protected?
Yes No
8. What would you do OR could be doing in curbing pollution to waters in your
surrounding if you had to?
a. Education
b. Incentives
c. Awareness
d. Payment for Environmental Services
e. Other___________________________

67
9. Would you be prepared to invite communities to discuss about your effort in
protecting waters around you?
Yes No
10. Have you ever presented a document publicly for review showing your effort in
protecting the environment?
Yes No
11. Would you be prepared to display one at any time?
Yes No
12. Has your business been able to decide with other institutions on working to protect
water sources?
Yes No
13. What barriers could there be in preventing you from working with communities or
other institutions?
a. Financial
b. Institutional
c. Technical
d. Coordination Problem
e. Other_____________________________
14. Are you a decision maker in your company?
Yes No
GROUP 3 NGOS
1. Does your local authority stress the need for SWP in your community?
Yes No
2. Are you willing to partake in water source protection?
Yes No
3. Are there perceived barriers to implementing Source water protection in your
involvement?
Yes No
other institutions
Financial
Institutional
Technical
Coordination Problem
None

68
Other_____________________________
5. What would you do OR could do in curbing pollution to waters in your surrounding if
you had?
a. Awareness raising
b. Print Placard
c. Train Farmers
d. Train WASH Group
e.____________________
f.____________________
Yes No
7. Was there a problem with protecting water points?
Yes No
Yes No
9. The St. Paul’s River is a drinking water source; do you think it can be protected?
Yes No
10. Are you are a decision maker in your institution?
Yes No
GROUP 4 GOVERNMENT
1 Is there any knowledge of applicable legislations for protecting water sources in
Liberia?
Yes No
2 Is your institution having any relationship on environmental issues with water and
water businesses?
Yes No
3. Are businesses involving environmental integration (environmental taxes) into their
economic activities in Liberia?
Yes No
4. Do you see barriers to the integration of environmental management into economic
activities?
Yes No
5. Do you see businesses as major stakeholders in environmental management, in fact
for water they use?
Yes No
Yes No
7. Is there a capacity to negotiate with businesses for sustaining water sources at local
and national level?
Yes No
8 Do you see a major boost in the image of businesses if they identified with SWP?
Yes No

69
9 Do you see a relationship existing between you and the community in curbing water
pollution?
Yes No
10 Have you ever presented or reviewed a document publicly showing your effort in
protecting the environment?
Yes No
other institutions?
a. Financial
b. Institutional
c. Technical
d. Coordination Problem
e. Other_____________________________
12. What challenges do you see with businesses, government, regulators in
implementing SWP?
a. No Mandate
b. Taxation policy
c. Institutional issues
d. Technical Issue
e. Coordination
f____________________
13. Are you a decision maker in your agency?
Yes No

70
APPENDIX.2. OPENED ENDED QUESTIONS USED FOR THE STUDY
General Questions
1. Do you know about water pollution?
2. Do you know how water pollution occurs?
3. Do you know about water Source Water Protection (SWP)?
4. Has it affected you as a person?
5. Is source water protection supported in any way that you are aware about?
6. Has there been problem with protecting water in your region?
7. Do you see the protection of water as important to our environment?
Community Residents
1. Have you been a participant in deciding a way for environmental protection issues?
2. Is there a community leadership in your community?
3. Do you think that protecting water is a responsibility for certain group of people
4. Has there being community management teams in this area?
5. Is your community leadership prioritizing water protection?
6. Would your community be able to work with other institutions in pollution issues?
7. Are there barriers you think could restrain your participation?
8. How would you participate in Source Water Protection in your power?
9. Are there resources you could contribute to help in protecting water points or the St.
Paul River?
10. Have your community/organization/business been able to decide with other
institutions on working to protect water points
11. Was there a monitoring structure and public involvement on this?
12. What do you do here for livelihood?
Business and Industries Institutions
1. Is your business having any relationship with environmental issues on water?
3. Do you see a major boost in the image of your business if you identified with SWP?
4. Do you see a relationship existing between you and the community in curbing water
pollution?

71
surrounding if you had to?
6. Would you be prepared to invite communities to discuss about your effort in
protecting waters around you?
7. Have you ever presented a document publicly for review showing your effort in
protecting the environment? Would you be prepared to display one at any time?
8. Have your community/organization/business been able to decide with other
institutions on working to protect water points
other institutions?
NGOs
1. Have your local authority stressed the need for SWP in your community?
2. Are you willing or able to carry out water source protection on your own?
3. Are there perceived barriers to implementing Source water protection on your own?
surrounding if you had?
Government
1 Is there any knowledge of applicable legislations for protecting resources Liberia?
2 Is your institution having any relationship with environmental issues on water?
3 Do you see a social responsibility in protecting water sources?
4 Do you see a major boost in the image of businesses if they identified with SWP?
5 Do you see a relationship existing between you and the community in curbing water
pollution?
6 Have you ever presented or reviewed a document publicly showing your effort in
protecting the environment? Would you be prepared to display one at any time

Source water protection_liberia

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to Source water protection_liberia

Recently uploaded

Source water protection_liberia