Who collects data on water in the community when an expert can't make it there?

A comprehensive assessment of a single community’s water system requires specialists from various fields and several months of work. In frontline areas, the issue of safe access adds to this challenge, and the queue of communities has remained stagnant for years. The model the foundation is implementing in the “LIVING WATER” project divides the work into two parts: a trained local operator collects primary data in the field, and a researcher verifies it remotely.

Why can’t a water assessment simply be commissioned from field experts?

Four years of working with water systems have revealed one recurring pattern. The community has an idea of specific damaged areas: a well isn’t working here, there’s flooding there, and the water level has changed in this body of water. There is no comprehensive picture, and as a result, decisions on restoration are made blindly.

The second part of the problem is time. Field visits are expensive and require safe access, while analysis requires expertise. When both parts of the work rely on a single field team, each new community has to wait in line for the same people.

The conclusion from the foundation’s previous phase of work on water systems is this: an environmental assessment must be conducted before an investment decision is made, not after. But to complete it before the decision, the assessment must be faster than the decision itself. This is precisely where the on-site model breaks down.

Who collects the raw data if the expert doesn’t come?

The operator is not a simplified version of an expert. It is a distinct role with its own boundaries, and it is precisely this separation of roles that makes the model work.

This limitation is what makes the model cost-effective. The skills required of an operator are measured by training, not by years of education, and the responsibility for interpretation remains with those who possess the expertise.

According to the project’s concept, 12–18 local operators will undergo training, with at least 40% of them being women. This is a target figure for the application submitted on August 7, 2026, not the actual work completed: the exact number depends on the amount of funding and the security situation in the areas.

This model eliminates the most costly assumption of the previous scheme—that a qualified specialist must be physically present at every facility. Instead, the person who lives nearby should be the one on site.

What exactly does the operator record, and why should there be a single methodology for all communities?

Recording follows a standard protocol—a single assessment methodology for all territories. Features included in the data layer:

• water bodies and their condition;
• coastal protection zones;
• hydraulic structures;
• water intake points;
• discharge points.

All of this is incorporated into GIS mapping: not as a text description or in a table separate from the map, but in a single spatial layer where it is clear what is adjacent to what. Water supply, wastewater, groundwater, and ecosystems cease to be four separate topics in such a layer.

A joint report is needed not merely for the sake of compliance with a standard. The six regions covered by the project have different types of vulnerabilities: The Siverskyi Donets River is affected by hostilities; the Ingulets River by iron ore mining; the Ingul River by its uranium legacy; and the Vorskla and Psel Rivers by oil, gas, and agricultural pressures. These are the Kharkiv, Kyiv, Luhansk, Dnipropetrovsk, Kirovohrad, and Poltava regions. If each territory is described in its own format, it becomes impossible to compare them with one another, and the network of communities breaks down into separate, incompatible cases.

For more details on how this looked in a specific area, see the analysis of the water system in the Tsyrkunivska community.

How does a researcher verify data without visiting the site?

Remote verification is the other side of that same division of roles. The researcher does not travel to document what has already been documented; instead, they work with the data that has been submitted.

This part of the work is handled by the partners: V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University provides laboratory facilities and expert time, while NHE Tech Ltd provides a rapid assessment platform and engineering time. The partners’ contributions are in kind, and it is these contributions that make the remote assessment possible.

It’s important to draw a clear line here: remote verification does not replace laboratory testing. Water samples are collected in the field and analyzed in a laboratory, not on a screen. Remote verification checks the completeness and consistency of the data collected, its spatial logic, and compliance with the protocol.

What should be done when there is no access to the territory at all?

Field research is not conducted in occupied or dangerous territories. This restriction was built into the model from the outset, rather than identified during the process.

What remains accessible:

• archival documents on the condition of water bodies prior to 2022;
• materials held by the displaced community;
• satellite data on changes in surface water and vegetation cover;
• comparisons with similar communities where fieldwork is possible.

For de-occupied communities where access has already been restored, this baseline serves as a starting point: archival data provide a reference for comparing the results of the first field survey. The outline itself does not provide a complete picture, but rather a baseline—a starting point from which to proceed once access is restored. For the Luhansk region, the project follows precisely this plan: the Lysychansk community and Siverskyi Donets, working with documents and satellite imagery, followed by a field verification.

How the two-phase strategy works at the community planning level is discussed separately— the strategy for communities under occupation.

What does the community get in the end?

The model’s final product is not a survey report destined to gather dust on a shelf. It is precisely these packages that community plans lack in order to secure funding. This is the package the community uses when approaching a donor or applying for a government program.

All figures in the table are targets from the concept submitted to the GEF Small Grants Program on August 7, 2026. The ranges are kept as they were in the application: exact values depend on the amount of funding and the security situation.

Why a package rather than a report? The donor asks the local community not “do you have a problem,” but “do you have a solution that we can fund?” The difference between these two formats lies in the technical, environmental, and spatial information, which is compiled into a single document and verified by experts.

What doesn’t this model do?

It’s important to state the limitations clearly, because that’s where misunderstandings with communities most often arise.

• Not construction. The project does not fund large-scale restoration of water infrastructure. Practical environmental protection measures are possible, but they are small-scale and limited to safe areas: restoration of riparian vegetation, buffer zones, and cleaning of springs.
• Not project documentation. The pre-project package precedes the design phase; it does not replace it. The project is developed by a specialized organization, and its requirements are defined by law. For information on the principles guiding the decisions regarding reconstruction, see the analysis titled “Better Than It Was.”
• Not a replacement for the laboratory. The operator records the condition and collects samples according to protocol; water quality indicators are determined by the laboratory.
• Not a decision for the community. The community itself determines the priority of the work. The data show the status and consequences of the options; the choice remains with the council.

The model solves one problem: making a water management assessment accessible to communities that cannot afford an on-site expert team or cannot wait for one to arrive. Everything that comes next involves separate work with other contractors and different budgets.

The project figures in this article represent the targets outlined in the concept submitted for the competition on August 7, 2026, and do not reflect work already completed. We keep the current status updated on the project page.