EcoSan

By Safer Future Youth Development Project Posted on Sat 31 Jul 2010, almost 16 years ago

Hi. I like that you are including EcoSan as an option for people as it is something we are currently working to introduce in Sierra Leone. With regard to the EcoSan, what types of designs will you offer homeowners and what type of training will be provided where people don't have experience of EcoSan? Also, will the homeowners be involved in the construction of the latrines or will the latrines be built entirely for them?

In Sierra Leone we have found that people may need help with digging safe pits, but are willing to provide the superstructure themselves - which avoids previous problems where owners have had little ownership of new concrete latrines and subsequently don't use them.

Best Regards,

Idriss

EcoSan

By Protos Posted on Mon 02 Aug 2010, almost 16 years ago

Dear Idriss,
we are always considering EcoSan. See also what we wrote in the section "Used technology".

However, we have to find an equilibrium between number of people reached for individual and public sanitationn and the available budget. The problem is that EcoSan latrines do:
1. Need far more space to be constructed. The villages in where people live during the 5 months that the area in the Inner Delta is flooded, are so crowded, that there is hardly any space left over.
2. EcoSan is more expensive than pit latrine.

Training and formation is organised by subcontracting local NGO's, which in their turn are first formed by CREPA, a West-African applied research institute, and very active in the whole West-African region ( CREPA = Centre Régionale pour l'Eau Potable et l'Assainissement à faible coût.
Regional centre for drinking water and sanitation at low cost.)

Historical question

By Blue Planet Network Posted on Tue 17 Aug 2010, almost 16 years ago

Regarding the rehabilitation, do we have any data on when the water points were constructed and what led to them needing rehab? Are there any learnings from that degradation process?

Hopefully there were not a previous project and beneficiary impacts are being double-counted (as has happened with another project by a different agency).

Its important to learn from your 30 year experience which factors lead to the decline of the water points and other facilities.

How are you engaging with the local government? How is it going to results in different behavior by them to learn and take ownership (or share it with the community) to that the systems last long?

I wish we could see the results of your earlier work 2006-2010 on strengthening 14 municipalities. What is the status of the projects done in 2006?

Historical question

By Protos Posted on Tue 17 Aug 2010, almost 16 years ago

Rehabilitation: according to the database of the national water directorate (which is not famous for its accuracy) approximately 15-20% of existing drinkwater infrastructure is non functional, most concern infrastructures built through (government) programmes in the eighties and nineties. There are several reasons for degradation, the most important is that most (government) programmes during that period, and even some now, aimed at building as many infrastructures as possible whilst spending very little attention and money on community training and operation and maintenance strategy. Other reasons which have complicated durablilty of infrastructures are:
- a multitude of types of hand and footpumps installed and for which for some types spare parts are no longer available (now only two types of pumps are being promoted);
- a culture where one cannot refuse water and where paying for water was a new concept (this is now slowly becoming accepted)
- problems in design and building: not enough knowledge of the aquifers and soil layers and fluctuations in groundwater levels (and flooding levels) in time due to rainfall, climate change leading to drying up off wells or badly placed wells. An underdeveloped and not very performant private sector leading to faulty construction.
- added to al these factors comes the remotenes and difficult acces of most villages in de Delta and corresponding difficulties in communication and distribution of materials and spare parts

Since 2004 we have constructed more than 140 water points and spend lots of effort on accompanying the water user committees. Main conclusions are:
- all the boreholes equipped with the india hand pump are functionnal, we have had one or two which have become flooded during an exceptionnel season. Careful choice of implantation (geophysical study, flooding scenarios, soci-cultural considerations) is very important!
- it is very important that people know why they're paying O&M, what the costs are for what they're paying for (local technicien, spare parts), where they can get this, and that they know that the money they're paying is in good hands (as little as possible should be kept with the treasurer, making use of micro-financing institutions). Make all these procedures as simple as possible.This is a process which takes time to appropriate and should ideally be followed for some time after completion of works.
- we have built some wells which dry up at the end of the dry season or which have some construction flaws (ie incorrect dosage of cement). For the latter type of problems it is important that supervision/control of works during building by local contractors is well organised!

Local government involvement: this is in fact one of the key elements of our approach and in fact the local governments are our "contracting partners"; through "learning by doing" local government are responsable for the whole project cycle to plan, realise, and manage drinkwater and sanitation infrastructures and interventions.This entails that we provide support on developping the sectoral 5 year "Plans de Developpement Communal", preparing a yearly "Plan d'Action et d'Investissement" (what ressources do we have, priorisation of needs, where shall we build what). After the planning has been made and approved by the council we support local government in mobilising the service delivery: they recruit a local NGO for the extension work, a local consultancy firm for the technical studies, and a local contractor for the building. Most of this is done through open tendering procedures with supervision by PROTOS and relevant government departments. All contracts are signed by the mayor, the actual payments are delegated to PROTOS after authorisation by the mayor (this is for practical purposes since communication and banks are limited, in Benin for example, PROTOS also transfers the funds to local government). After completion of works the local government officially hands over ownership of the infrastructure to the water user committee and they sign a "convention" which stipulates de conditions (obligations for operation,maintenance, control). The local government has then a supervisory role and in case of mismanagement can choose for another form of management.

Beneficiary impacts double counted; this is not the case, the project we propose will start jan 2011 (and end dec 2011) and the beneficairies are those villages where we will built an infrastructure for, or rehabiltate an infrastructure which does not provide water anymore, during the first year of this three year program.

The current programme in 14 municipalities, financed by the EU Water Facility, will close at the end of this year. The first two and a half years were largely used to build the large number of infrastructures and accompanying the newly elected local governments. During 2010 we concentrate further on reinforcing the management structures put in place for the more complex infrastructures (waste water sewage systems and "adductions d'eau villageois" ), on the federation of water user committees, and on water ressource management conventions between user groups.

I'll try and upload some more pictures.

Thanks,
Peter

Who does what? by Gilles Corcos APLV

By Agua Para la Vida (APLV) Posted on Tue 17 Aug 2010, almost 16 years ago

I think this proposal illustrates two weaknesses in the guidelines for the application:

The first one is that there is no place where it is clearly indicated whether the NGO is the one who is directly responsible for design, execution and/or finance management or if it is contributing, encouraging, helping organize, etc other actors. PWE member are supposed to be either field executors or funders. A field executor of course can and should involve, train , mobilize local actors but it has definite responsibilities and corresponding financial burdens. I am seeing more proposals in which the actual responsiblities and what the French call are not defined..

The second is that the entry which I assume has a good deal of weight in the eyes of the fund providers, namely the number of people whose acces to drinking water or sanitation is going to be made possible is for a number of these proposals becoming meaningless. If NGO A in conjunction with government services and c, local NGOs d,and f and private contractors g and h are going to provide water for 700, 7000 or 70,000 persons I have a hard time deciding whether A's request for fund is reasonable at all.

Who does what? by Gilles Corcos APLV

By Protos Posted on Tue 17 Aug 2010, almost 16 years ago

I hope our reply to Rajesh above answers your first preocupation. PROTOS is final responsable in assuring that the funds we mobilise are used for building technically and financially sustainable infrastructures and for sound financial management. Anually we are audited at three levels, at project level, at country level, and at "NGO" level. It is our approach to facilitate and reinforce the local actors in their legitimate roles where present and not do things in their place and name. Of course this approach varies in funtion of the context; ie in Haiti en DR Congo where legitimate local government are not yet functionnel or wher the private sector is too weak we and partner NGOs still do some of the contruction works and manage the whole project cycle.

In answer to your second question: we dsitinguish two levels in the beneficairies. Those who directly benefit from an infrastructure (or activity): in this case the population of 10 villages with 500-1000 habitants which presently do not have access to a modern water point and 170 housholds which do not have acces to sanitation on their compound. Without this project they would not receive this as government, NGO, and private contractors do not have the financial means to provide this investment. The second level are the indirect beneficairies, who in the long run will benefit if they have a more effective and efficient local government, civil society, and private sector. I agree with you that these numbers have to be interpreted with a certain reserve and are based on cetain assumptions which are difficult to "prove".

Who does what? by Gilles Corcos APLV

By Protos Posted on Wed 18 Aug 2010, almost 16 years ago

Hi Gilles,
what I do not understand in your approach is that you ask 2 questions, and seem to give your rating at the same time , without waiting for our answers or explanations to your questions.
In my understanding, this is not what was intended by, nor the spirit of the Peerwater Exchange site.
Kind regards,
Marc

Who does what? by Gilles Corcos APLV

By Agua Para la Vida (APLV) Posted on Thu 19 Aug 2010, almost 16 years ago

The first line of my intervention was clearly a comment on the format used by Peer Waters for us all to present our project, not a specific comment on your proposal.
I think this format should be changed so as to leave much less ambiguity about the title of my comment, namely< Who does what?>
But having read your proposal as well as the answers you have provided to the various questions addressed to you, I am sorry to report to you that I find your participation in this multiple actors project pretty ill defined. The fact that you are audited for instance is pretty irrelevant to the question at hand. Nobody is accusing you of accounting sleights of hand. The question is precisely what do you do and what do the other actors do.

Who does what? by Gilles Corcos APLV

By Protos Posted on Fri 20 Aug 2010, almost 16 years ago

I guess a hadn't understood your questions, and i'm still not sure what you understand under the term field executor and the relation between being one and the objectives of PWE.

But i'll try and give a short background and explanation of who does what in our multiactor approach for Mali:
For 2010 we have funding from several sources (mainly EU and belgian government) which together make up a budget of around 400,000 EUR. Of this budget a bit more than half goes to financing water and sanitation infrastructure, a bit more than quarter to trainings/workshops/studies and local NGO personnel, and the rest to operational costs and salaries. We have a team based in the region which at present consists of an expat coordinator and 4 specialised national advisors (2 engineers, 1 socio-economist, 1 health&sanitation expert). We work in 14 municipalities. According to national decentralisation policy local government has become responsable for the water and sanitation sector, but they still lack the financial means and the capacities to assume this role. In rural Mali many elected officials cannot read, write, or speak french.
- At the beginning of each year (ie each cycle) the investment budget is divided up amongst the 14 municipalities and the staff organises and facilitates a series of programming and planning meetings. The first series are held in each municipality where the council and local civil society representatives decide on the basis of priorities and available budget which projects to realise that year. The second meeting regroups all and these plans are then validated, the different government departments participate in these to assure alignment with national policy and other development programs. Our project staff than accompanies each municipality in all the steps needed to realise these projects (ie they prepare the terms of reference for technical studies, prepare tender documents for the recruitment of contractors, they accompany the councils in the evaluation of offers, prepare contracts, evaluate and approve the technical studies and the works, etc). So the work goes into accompanying the local governments in the whole cycle, facilitating meetings, advising, assuring quality control, assuring transparancy in tender procedures, providing the tools and documents necessary in the process.
- Secondly our staff organise a series of trainings and workshops, either they give them themselves or they recruit specialists. We train the staff of local NGOs recruited for extension work, hygiene and sanitation sensitisation (PHAST) in schools and communities, and the setting up and coaching of water user committees community. Our staff also monitors the performance of these local NGOs. We train local macons and techniciens. We train local government on project cycle management, on IWRM.
- Thirdly our staff are responsable for setting op action-research projects which generate data and knowledge on water ressources (quality, quantity) which are used to contribute to decision making and promoting IWRM and for monitoring and evaluation.
- And finally our staff does the financial management and the reporting.

The whole idea is that:
- local government is reinforced for service delivery in the water and sanitation sector: they decide and own the process
- local NGOs work with the local communities
- private sector builds
- the deconcentrated government departments advise and ensure respect of national strategies and complementarity
- PROTOS facilitates, trains, assures efficient and transparent use of funds and quality control

I hope our approach and what we do has bcome a bit clearer. I do agree with you that presenting all the contours of an approach and the details of a corresponding programme is very difficult using this format and that individual concrete building projects are more suited for this kind of peer review. Maybe this is something we should further think about. But the final objective for us all is to provide as many people with sustainable water and sanition as possible disregarding the approach, which is always very context specific.

Regards,
Peter