Cost details and the all important $25 number

By Rajesh Shah of Blue Planet Network Posted about 5 years ago

The total cost is listed as 37000, but the total in the spreadsheet and else is 30087. Which is the right amount?

If it is 30,087 then 7,000 co-funding should be subracted right? And we should recalculate on 2007 amount (as per above question).

The cost details include the salaries of the entire staff for the year, not just project duration. It appears that this funding request underwrites the entire org for the year - BPR being the only donor (or at least the major donor).
Are the people already hired and the rates given are 2006 rates and the project starts with a 10% increment?

-----
The $25 per person is Blue Planet Run's goal for the project, not just BPR contribution. We are seeking projects (for now) that come to $25 person total (regardless of cofunding). This is the message for the 2007 run; based on learnings and trends we change later.

Cost details and the all important $25 number

By Meera Hira-Smith of Project Well Posted about 5 years ago

The right amount proposed to BPR is $30000. $7000 is addition to this amount. Out of which 4000 has been proposed to UNICEF for capacity building for awareness programs including one TV monitor, one projector, VCD player and other accessories. 200 awareness programs (12 months) in small groups called ‘shastho shawbha’ or ‘health meetings’ are being held in the villages. Currently the equipments are being hired from the local stores. water analysis of 400 private tubewells for arsenic will is also in the proposal so that the tubewell owners know whether it is safe for them to drink water from their own tubewells or should they use the dugwell water. 6-10 villagers will also be given training on mobilization if funded. The remaining $3000 is carried over from last year to construct and carry out necessary water analysis of 4 dugwells in Habra II block (about 30 families or 120 people) and also distribute 100 domestic earthen filters to the pilot areas and evaluation of the response rate of the use of dugwells. In West Bengal water is available in plenty and Arsenic that cannot be seen nor tasted in the crystal clear tubewell water is making it more difficult to change people’s habit. Hence vigorous awareness programs on public health are crucial in this region.

The project implemented by Project Well have been working since 2001 and the support to run the projects is founded by advisors from different disciplines, some of whom are members of the NGO in Kolkata, are honorary. None of the members are paid. There is no administrative cost incurred in USA. Yes BPR is the major donor. The field workers, project manager and the account assistant cum coordinator are already hired. 10% increment was started from 2005. The norm of 10%-15% increment in the NGO sector is generally practiced and the minimum rate of field workers is much higher in case of full time workers.

Cost details and the all important $25 number

By Rajesh Shah of Peer Water Exchange Posted about 5 years ago

Thanks again for all the answers.

Am not clear on the domestic earther filters - what do they do?

Can some of the 4000 from Unicef (should you get it) be used for all the signs and printing and other educational and promotional materials?

Cost details and the all important $25 number

By Meera Hira-Smith of Project Well Posted about 5 years ago

This is Jane; I work with Meera at Project Well. Meera is not able to access the internet until after the 17th, and she may add more details to this answer when she is able to log on. Regarding the domestic earthen filters: occasionally the water from the dugwells, though arsenic-safe and potable, has an organic smell that puts off some people from drinking it. The filters are an inexpensive way to remove this smell from the water, and maximize utility of already-built dugwells.

As for the $4000 from UNICEF, these funds will be used as listed by Meera above--in the electronic equipment for awareness programs, and for the water analysis/removal of impurities. I don't believe this money is earmarked for printing and creating educational or promotional materials.

Purpose of the earthen filter

By Meera Hira-Smith of Project Well Posted about 5 years ago

Thanks Jane. Would like to add a little here: As of October's record 6 out of 40 dugwells have light to medium organic odor. The people in the villages are living in the pollution free environment in respect of sound, air and water, unlike in the cities, until arsenic has been discovered as one of the deadly polluters hence the smell of chlorine in the chlorinated dugwells is unbearable by the consumers. The taste (and smell) of water is same as the treated water in the city, negligible for those who have no other alternative than to drink what comes through the tap. The earthen filter costs US$2 (Rs.80-90) are fitted with ordinary charcoal candle that removes the impurities (if any) and the undesirable odor and make the water more palatable. The picture of such filter is in the Newsletter of 2005 that is available on the website.

?

By Ned Breslin of Water for People Posted about 5 years ago

Arsenic removal technologies are approaches are proliferating in Bangladesh and India, yet there is very little coordination which undermines the sector's ability to go to scale with arsenic work. It should be noted that Water For People has been working on the same issue and in the same area and the fact that we are not working together is somewhat disappointing. We should be coordinating better and this is as much our fault as anything.

My problem with the proposal is that it is not really a proposal. It is not clear where you will be working, what communities are affected, and how this will be measured. Its a lot of information on the technology and all but where are you working specifically.

location of the dugwell program

By Meera Hira-Smith of Project Well Posted about 5 years ago

The location where Project Well is implementing the dugwells is mentioned in the Project Background and the map is available on the web site.
The location of Gaighata is about 10-12 km north of Degnaga Block. The exact site location will be recorded using GPS and mapped if only funded. The Gaighata Block can be seen here .

The latest article on dugwell is available online on Pubmed. I can send the e version to those who want. Please send me your email address.

On 26th November, 2006 there was a meeting held in the village at the Kolsur High School (I was present) where a few NGOs and a few government bodies and few members of community groups were present to discuss the drinking water management by the villagers. (If you want the report on the meeting can be sent also). The representatives from Shibpur Engineering college who have been implementing the "amal" community arsenic removal filter were also present and shared their experience they are encountering in the villages. The amol filter was initially funded by Water for People as far I know. I am not sure who is funding now. I have been in touch with Rajashree M and Sudipta Burman of Water for People based in Kolkata. Thank you for this enquiry.

Arsenic Removal technologies and coordination

By Meera Hira-Smith of Project Well Posted about 5 years ago

Also, the arsenic removal technologies (ARPlants) have been partially failure in some districts of West Bengal. A report published in 2004 by School of Environmental Studies of Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India was submitted to the state and central government of India. The report states that "out of total 182 ARPs in 4 Blocks (Hasnabad, Gaighata, Basirhat-1 and Habra-1), 162 (89%) ARPs were not useful". This survey was of North 24 Parganas alone. Reports from Murshidabad indicate even worse results. During my recent visit, I have come to know that the District Headquarters are not allowing implementation of any ARPs.

Furthermore, when we recently found out that an arsenic patient had been drinking water from a nearby ARP, we tested, in duplicate, the arsenic levels at 7-day intervals for one month. The arsenic levels were more than 100 PPB; this was perhaps due to lack of maintenance. I have notified the implementer based in Kolkata, who said that the unit would be sent for 'regeneration'. The irony of this episode is that people were paying to drink arsenic laced water (I had not wanted to discuss this example here but the reviewer from Water for People may not be aware of these ARP issues). For historical reports please refer to the following article on the weblink of Project Well. "5. Field observations of alternate sources of drinking water in the arsenic affected village, Kamdebkathi, in West Bengal, India, and recommendations - Meera M Hira Smith, Ph.D. Project Well, March 27, 2004 - Posted on: March 31, 2004".

The ARP in picture 4 is no longer functioning and on November 16th I have personally interviewed some people of the area who are drinking and cooking with water obtained from the dugwell number PW48.

For better coordination Project Well has introduced mapping in 2003. The updated version is uploaded every year on the www.projectwellusa.org web site in the map link that can be viewed by all the organizations that have access to the Internet. Project Well is quite aware of who all are working in the arsenic affected areas of West Bengal. How come Water for People based in US does not know the activities of Project Well? As mentioned earlier, Dr. Rajashee Mukherjee and Dr. Sudipta Burman, representatives of Water for People, had attended the workshop organized by Project Well on 6th April 2005 to discuss the dugwell program.

The reviewer also commented that “so it looks quite cut and pasted but not really thought through on the ground”: of course parts of it is cut and pasted but from its original proposal. The area concerned is very well known by the implementers and the advisors including the geology of the area for they have been working on health effects of arsenic in the area for the last ten years.

location of the dugwell program

By Rajesh Shah of Peer Water Exchange Posted about 5 years ago

Do you see a way that the PWX mapping functionality can increase coordination between NGOs (and possibly gov't). I see a map on ProjectWell's website, but its hard to superimpose the work of other agencies.

Clearly we need one place for all work to come together.

location of the dugwell program

By Meera Hira-Smith of Project Well Posted about 5 years ago

Give me some time I will try to think some ways that may help in coordination of the NGOs but it would be effective only to those who are partners of BPR. Years back tried to develop a website on NGOs working on arsenic issues in West Bengal. It was a geociities website that was not updated and nobody offered to take the responsibility in Kolkata.

I will be unable to access internet from 13th to 18th December.