plan 82Water System Rehabilitation Lupang Pangako Project

Summary

This project would rehabilitate an unused water system infrastructure, add an electric pump and strengthen the CBO to become self-reliant through technical and business training.

Background

Lupang Pangako is a resettlement area of the Aeta tribe (approx 170 households) displaced by the eruption of Mt Pinatubo in 1991. In 1997 World Vision bought the land and donated it to Aeta’s. In 2004 an elevated storage tank was built with distribution pipe work for a level II system, next to a hand pump. This system has never been used as there is no method for pumping water from the well to the elevated tank.

The History of Pinatubo Aeta

The Pinatubo Aeta refers to the small-statured, semi-nomadic Negrito tribes who occupied the forest areas of Mt. Pinatubo. Social scientists consider the Pinatubo Aeta an important ethnic group, as they have maintained their cultural identity through centuries, and are the largest group of indigenous people in the Philippines.

Of 100,000 people evacuated, 56,721 were Aeta. The Aeta came from the village of Belbel, which was situated closest to the volcano. The Belbel Aeta were the last group to be evacuated from the mountain.

The tribes were under the protection of the government’s relocation program, but had endured transfer from one rehabilitation center to another across five years. Many Aeta died during their stays in the relocation sites, especially women and children. Death was caused by poor health conditions, poor sanitation and insufficient food.

After five years of living in rehabilitation centers, without the ability to farm, no sponsoring group had taken responsibility to help the Belbel Aeta relocate. The 185 Belbel Aeta families were found by World Vision at the Paitan Elementary School, an evacuation center in Botolan, Zambales. World Vision adopted the whole community on the recommendation of the Department of Social Welfare Development.

The Rehabilitation Phase

World Vision rented 13 hectares of agricultural land for the Belbel Aeta. Of that land, only 4.5 hectares was purchased. After enduring the Loobbunga Resettlement area, where the Aeta stayed while they started to build a village, the Aeta told World Vision that the land area was too small to accommodate 185 families and allow them to live normal lives.

Because the community was well organized, it committed to a development plan, and proposed to World Vision that it broaden the settlement area. Through the initiative of its leaders the community became intensely involved in fund-raising efforts. A plan, Plan Famine, was conceived by World Vision to secure more land for the Belbel Aeta.

In 1997, 235 hectares of agricultural land was donated on which to continue to build a new community. The village was named Lupang Pangako, Promised Land. Each family was provided a hectare of land to cultivate and 900 square meters to build a residence. To the Aeta, owning their own land fulfilled a dream: they would never be evacuated again.

Project Plan

A Single Drop for Safe Water was introduced to this community by Hiyas Foundation. After a site inspection both ASD and Hiyas realized that the water situation could be easily remedied using the existing assets within the community, most importantly the local residents.

A preliminary project plan was agreed upon and presented to the Aeta community by Hiyas. This community meeting is documented in the attached letter where representatives acknowledged that they had many of the assets required and the project should rehabilitate these assets and increase the capability of those involved.

Location

Zambales, Luzon, Philippines

Attachments

  • Doc ASD_LP_P...
  • Pdf ASD_LP_B...
  • Pdf ASD_LP_S...
  • Pdf ASD_LP_S...
  • Doc ASD_LP_C...

Focus

Primary Focus: Water - Community
Secondary Focus: Capacity Building

People Getting Safe Drinking Water: 749

Lupang Pangako is a resettlement area of the Aeta tribe (approx 170 households) displaced by the eruption of Mt Pinatubo in 1991. This is the number of people who will have access to water.
173 Households
178 males
171 females
children
215 males
185 female

School Children Getting Water:

People Getting Sanitation: 0

This is not a sanitation program. This program focuses on water access and capacity building.

People Getting Other Benefits:

50 members of Co-op will help implement water project and manage the fees
749 people receive WASH education
3 people employed to maintain system
20-25 people with business training
50 people learning to take care of water system, build it
749 people improved quality of life

Application Type: Project Funding

Start Date: 2007-03-03

Completion Date: 2007-10-30

Technology Used:

Main objective in this project is to improve the water supply in a sustainable manner so that current residents and future generations can enjoy an improved quality of life with respect to water access.

This will be done by:

• Complete construction of Level II water system, piped water to
community tap stands to an existing tank for 173 households
• Pipe installation for distribution system
• Refurbishment and cleaning of existing tank
• Installation of an electric pump
.

Phases:

Phase I: Technical Training, Organizational Development and Implementation (5 weeks)
Phase II: Monitoring and Evaluation (6 months)

Community Organization:

There are 749 residents who's only access to water is thru a hand pump and the river which has been recently dammed significantly reducing the available flow during dry season. This is a community of subsistence farmers and hunters living on household incomes less than 3000P per month. This project would be working with the local multipurpose cooperative to increase local capacity so that they can maintain, operate and administer a level II (piped water to tap stands) water system.

Multipurpose Cooperative agrees to:
o Maintain and operate pump and water distribution system.
o Receive and manage fees from community so that they can pay electricity bills and maintain water system in sustainable manner.

To ensure community ownership, community members have agreed to:
o pay small water access fees to cover maintenance and electricity for the pump.
o counterpart or provide in-kind services, food for training participants, accommodation for trainers and materials totaling approx $2700US
o install their own water system with the training and guidance from ASDSW

Please see attached letter from the community for full description of their commitment with signatures from community members.

Government Interaction:

Ancillary activities:

This is combination infrastructure development and good governance project, consisting of rehabilitation and enhancement of existing infrastructure, water system, while providing capacity building thru technical trainings and strengthening an existing peoples organization to maintain and operate their own water system. Hygeine education will enhance water and the connection to community health. Business planning workshops will support financial sustainability. Resource mapping and visioning helps to envision the improvement of their community and plan for future projects after this one is complete. Guiding organization and community members to build their own water system not only ensures project ownership, but empowers the community with the confidence to claim responsibility for their own growth and expansion.

Other Issues:

The project uses an asset based approach where the community looks at the resources it has and then uses those as a basis for this project. The largest asset is not the unused tank and hand pump, but the people within the community. The organization and local community members will install the water system while being supervised and trained so that they can maintain and operate the system in the future. Also the organization will receive capacity building training so that they are
strong enough and have the skills and community support to keep the system operating. Also with this enhanced capacity the community can work on other projects with only technical help from outside.

This capacity building within the organization and the community is the key to long term sustainability. Long term sustainability requires input from the whole community and consists of ongoing administration, operation and maintenance of the system. This means that the users of the system contribute fees to the organization who then use these fees to pay for electricity, preventative maintenance and break down maintenance. Design of the project concentrates on this capacity building with a very significant training and workshop component allowing the community to develop the features required for sustainability. This utilizes an existing cooperative and the more efficient elements of a cooperative structure to provide an efficient community service.

Maintenance Revenue:

The project will bring enough revenue to pay staff to maintain the system and cover costs of any repairs and cleaning.

USER FEES:
$1144/year
Each family in the community agrees to pay 5peso service fee month (865peso/week = approx $22/wk)

ANNUAL MAINTENANCE:
$800 annual maintenance fees
$250 cleaning, replacement parts, repairs/year

Maintenance Cost: $1,050

Metrics:

Prior art before metrics

Cost: $16,625

Please see attached budget.

Co Funding Amount: $9,500

$2500 - Provincial Governer contribution
$7000 - Peace Corp Partners

Community Contribution Amount: $2,690

$1468 - In-kind labor
$185 - frieght delivery
$450 - accommodation for trainers
$187 - meals for workers 5 weeks
$400 - household water use levy (cash)

Fund Requested: $3,000

Implementing Organization: Kevin Lee

Trainer and Project Manager for LPWSRP

Work Experience:

Executive Director of A Single Drop for SafeWater, Philippines office. September 2006-Present
- In partnership with Gemma Bulos, formed ASDSW in the Philippines.
- Manages all projects and staff
- Designs programs and project implementation
- Lead trainer for staff and projects

Feb 2004 to April 2006: United States Peace Corps
Ambaguio, Nueva Vizcaya,
Philippines, Water and sanitation volunteer

Assigned to local government unit in a remote rural community.
- Primary job assignment was the design and installation of a potable water system for approximately 120 households from a spring 5500m from center of distribution area. Included in this development was the training of engineers, maintenance staff
and setting up of an administration system with the local government unit.
- Other projects;
- Development of tourism livelihood, including organizing peoples organizations, training and marketing
- Gender and Development programs focussing on reproductive health and environmental awareness.

Sep 2001 to Jan 2003: Amerex Industries
Kennesaw Ga. USA
Project Manager

Amerex designed, fabricates and installs baghouses (industrial emission control equipment) for large industries, (steel, power generation, pulp & paper, and cement are some examples). Job responsibilites include:
- Customer Liason
- Directing in-house and consulting engineering
- Budgets and Scheduling
- Bidding fabrication and other services
- Fabrication supervision.
- Projects ranged from $US200,000 to $US1,400,000

Jan 1999 to Sep 2001:
Birmingham Steel Southeast, Cartersville Ga. USA
Operations Management and Engineering

Birmingham Steel was a medium section rolling mill (100 tons/hr), construction was finished in March 1999. My job responsibilities included:
- Construction Supervisor for completion of hot end rolling section
- Roller. Shift foreman in charge of operation crew for entire mill during startup and commissioning phase. Supervise 15 operators, responsible for all adjustments and
operation/maintenance requirements during shift operation.
- Foreman Setup Crew. Supervise 12 operators to setup mill for operations, include
scheduling people and equipment.
- Mill Engineer. Design and review of pass design for making products. Capital project, design, management and construction supervision.

Dec 1995 to Dec 1998:
Atlantic Steel, Atlanta Ga. USA
Operations Management and Engineering

Atlantic Steel was a small section rolling mill (35 tons/hr) built in 1954. Heavily involved in modifying equipment and working methods to increase production by 20%.
- Finishing Mill Engineer with Operational Responsibility. Supervise 3 crews of 18.
- Responsible for day to day operation, scheduling and input into strategic planning.
- Interfacing with material suppiers as well as sales staff etc. - Also included design and implementation of equipment changes.
- Project Engineer. Design, project manager for capital projects. Assitance to maintenance department.

Dec 1990 to Oct 1995:
Dobbie Engineers, Rotorua, New Zealand
Mechanical Project Engineer

Dobbie Engineers is a mechanical engineering consulting company that deals mostly with industrial companies, Pulp & Paper, steel.
- 2 yrs subconded to engineering department of large Pulp and Paper company.
- Project design and management in multilple projects in different areas. Piping design was a major part of the work.
- Research project for steel mill, making iron from ironsand.
- Building services.

Attachments

  • Doc ASD_LP_P...
  • Pdf ASD_LP_B...
  • Pdf ASD_LP_S...
  • Pdf ASD_LP_S...
  • Doc ASD_LP_C...
  • 2 participants | show more

    Water Quality

    Susan Davis of CARE

    Nicely detailed program. The letter of commitment is a nice touch. Has the quality of the water source been tested? Are there plans for ongoing water quality tests?

    Nicely detailed program. The letter of commitment is a nice touch. Has the quality of the water source been tested? Are there plans for ongoing water quality tests?

    • Gemma Bulos of A Single Drop

      Thanks Susan for your comments. The commitment letter was their idea and we hope to integrate that idea into our future projects. After our 5 week organizational trainings, we have the newly formed or existing organization that we work with sign an MOU to be submitted to us and their community. I don't believe that we have records of a...

      Thanks Susan for your comments. The commitment letter was their idea and we hope to integrate that idea into our future projects. After our 5 week organizational trainings, we have the newly formed or existing organization that we work with sign an MOU to be submitted to us and their community.

      I don't believe that we have records of any water testing just yet. We do intend to test the water ideally through the Municipal Health office who can conduct the testing. During our 5 week training, we wil cover the importance of water quality and offer affordable and appropriate options for them to consider. We will also have a workshop on WASH Advocacy where local heath workers will be invited to be part of the Core Team that will launch a local WASH campaign.

  • 2 participants | show more

    Comprehensive Information

    Martin Strele of Kairos

    Dear all, sorry, I just managed to download all the information. I'll be travelling back from Sierra Leone tomorrow, so time will be too short to post questions. I'll be doing my rating just before the 24th. For now after rough screening: nice and comprehensive application! I'm sure I would have some questions a bit later and I already inf...

    Dear all, sorry, I just managed to download all the information. I'll be travelling back from Sierra Leone tomorrow, so time will be too short to post questions. I'll be doing my rating just before the 24th. For now after rough screening: nice and comprehensive application! I'm sure I would have some questions a bit later and I already informed Rajesh that the time for reviewing is too short for people with bad internet access or travelling a lot. I'll get back to you soon. Best regards, Martin

    • Gemma Bulos of A Single Drop

      Thank you Martin. I look forward to your feedback. Safe journeys

      Thank you Martin. I look forward to your feedback. Safe journeys

  • 2 participants | show more

    Luang Pangako Proposal

    Rick McGowan of East Meets West Foundation

    Questions: • In 2004 an elevated storage tank was built with distribution pipe work for a level-II system, next to a hand pump. This system has never been used as there is no method for pumping water from the well to the elevated tank. Since someone went to all the trouble to build an overhead storage tank, so why didn’t somebody just b...

    Questions:
    • In 2004 an elevated storage tank was built with distribution pipe work for a level-II system, next to a hand pump. This system has never been used as there is no method for pumping water from the well to the elevated tank. Since someone went to all the trouble to build an overhead storage tank, so why didn’t somebody just buy and install an electric pump at that time? Was there nobody willing to pay for it?
    • What is a “Level-II” water system? Does that just mean “piped water to community tap stands to an existing tank”?
    • Is the elevated storage tank of sufficient volume and height to provide the amount of water at the required pressure to the boundaries of the proposed service area? Typically, the design criteria for a rural water supply system specify that the tank should have sufficient capacity to store one day of water demand. Is the volume of the existing tank proposed to be used for the rehabilitated system 50 m³ or more?
    • It sounds like the Aeta are relatively poor folks, so will they be able to pay for the operation and maintenance repair costs of the system? If not, who will pay? (see below)
    • Where it says: “Complete construction of Level II water system, piped water to community tap stands to an existing tank for 173 households”, I assume that you mean “piped water to an existing tank, then distribute it to community tap stands for 173 households”, right?
    • Currently there are 173 HHs and 749 residents, so about 4.3 people per HH. The system design should be based on a ten year planning horizon (useful lifetime), which means that after ten years the population would be 749*1.30 = about 977 people. The typical design standard for RWS is 60 liters per capita per day times 977 (58,620 liters per day), or about 58 m3. Has anyone checked the sustainable capacity of the proposed water source to confirm that it has at least that production capacity?
    • There is no mention of water quality or testing thereof. Has anyone tested the raw water quality of the proposed source, and is it able to be treated to meet GOP WQ standards? If so, has the treatment process (if any) been determined, and has the cost of the water treatment facilities been estimated?
    • You mentioned that this is a community of subsistence farmers and hunters living on household incomes less than 3000 P (US$ 71) per month. Are they also going to want to use the water for agricultural purposes? If so, that could well mean a substantial increase in water consumption that must be accounted for in the system design.
    • Why are you proposing tap stands, instead of proper metered house connections? This could be very problematic, especially if people start using substantial amounts of water for their own agricultural purposes, as this may tax the proposed system to the point where there might not be adequate drinking water for some families. How will this potential problem be addressed?
    • Who will supervise the procurement of goods and materials, and oversee construction? The proposal states that: “The organization and local community members will install the water system while being supervised and trained so that they can maintain and operate the system in the future. Also the organization will receive capacity building training (from whom?) so that they are strong enough and have the skills and community support to keep the system operating. Does ASD have any experience in doing these tasks? How do you propose to finance operation and maintenance? I see later on that there is a very experienced water engineer (Kevin Lee) who is going to supervise this, which is quite promising.
    • The proposal says that “Multipurpose Cooperative agrees to: a) Maintain and operate pump and water distribution system; and b) Receive and manage fees from community so that they can pay electricity bills and maintain water system in sustainable manner.
    • They are going to use a flat fee of per week per family (5 Pesos, or about US$0.12, or US$0.51 per month) for unlimited access to water from a tap stand. Trying to collect fees from tap stand users can sometimes be difficult, as some people may complain that other people collect more water than they do, so why should they have to pay the same amount of money? In comparison, for piped water house connections in rural Vietnam, one family of five consumes about 5 m3 per month, with a tariff of about US$ 0.12 (twelve and half cents) per m3, for a monthly water bill of about US$ 0.62 (sixty two cents). So the water tariffs are about the same, even though the level of service (public tap stands versus house connections) are not.
    • Does ASD have any experience in designing, implementing, operating and maintaining a piped community water system? If not, then, who will be responsible for the design, construction, operation and maintenance and repair of the system? The proposal mentions that there is a local multipurpose cooperative to do this. Are they capable and willing to do this? Who will pay them to carry out these tasks? If they aren’t paid, will they still perform the required tasks? (again, I saw later that there is a very experienced person available to help with this.)
    • The proposal repeatedly refers to “the Organization”. Is that tribal/community leadership? Do they have the organizational and management skills to carry out this project?
    • Where it says that: “representatives acknowledged that they had many of the assets required and the project should rehabilitate these assets and increase the capability of those involved.” What are these “assets”? Money, construction, financial and management skills, or what?
    • What person or group of persons will be responsible for financial management of the system?

    The reason that I am asking these questions is that I have seen so many failed “community-based” water systems, mainly because the beneficiaries don’t regularly pay their water bill, and local leaders often have little power to force them to do so, and the system fails due to lack of adequate financing. Are you sure that this won’t happen here?

    Good luck. Rick McGowan, East Meets West in Hanoi / Da Nang

    • Gemma Bulos of A Single Drop

      QUESTION Since someone went to all the trouble to build an overhead storage tank, so why didn’t somebody just buy and install an electric pump at that time? Was there nobody willing to pay for it? ANSWER: Original project was politically motivate, 2004 election year. Electric Pump was purchased but never arrived on site and installe...

      QUESTION Since someone went to all the trouble to build an overhead storage tank, so why didn’t somebody just buy and install an electric pump at that time? Was there nobody willing to pay for it?
      ANSWER: Original project was politically motivate, 2004 election year. Electric Pump was purchased but never arrived on site and installed!!! Once election over nobody ws willing to follow up on the pump and the local expertise did not extend to electric pumps so a hand pump was installed. To ensure that this does not re-occur the pump will be installed by the residents, in doing so they will be able to maintain the pump and will have ownership of that pump.

      QUESTION What is a “Level-II” water system? Does that just mean “piped water to community tap stands to an existing tank”?
      ANSWER Water is pumped to an elevated tank. This then is distributed to communal tapstands where the residents can then fill storage containers of water.

      QUESTION Is the elevated storage tank of sufficient volume and height to provide the amount of water at the required pressure to the boundaries of the proposed service area? Typically, the design criteria for a rural water supply system specify that the tank should have sufficient capacity to store one day of water demand. Is the volume of the existing tank proposed to be used for the rehabilitated system 50 m³ or more?
      ANSWER Elevation of tank is sufficient to supply water to all tap stands. Tank capacity is much less than 50 cubic meters. Tank Capacity is dependent on both the volume of water available and demand. The tank is existing and operational so the pump was sized so that most of the peak flow demands can be met by the small storage tank. Actual well capacity will not be determined until installation of the pump

      QUESTION It sounds like the Aeta are relatively poor folks, so will they be able to pay for the operation and maintenance repair costs of the system? If not, who will pay? (see below)
      ANSWER Preliminary estimates have been made of operation and maintenance costs on an annual basis. Fees are being collected from the households by the Tribal Co-op for these purposes. They have started raising the money in advance of project installation so that they have initial capital.

      QUESTION Where it says: “Complete construction of Level II water system, piped water to community tap stands to an existing tank for 173 households”, I assume that you mean “piped water to an existing tank, then distribute it to community tap stands for 173 households”, right?
      ANSWER Correct

      QUESTION Currently there are 173 HHs and 749 residents, so about 4.3 people per HH. The system design should be based on a ten year planning horizon (useful lifetime), which means that after ten years the population would be 749*1.30 = about 977 people. The typical design standard for RWS is 60 liters per capita per day times 977 (58,620 liters per day), or about 58 m3. Has anyone checked the sustainable capacity of the proposed water source to confirm that it has at least that production capacity?
      ANSWER Your calculations look pretty close to what we would do in a normal situation. However we are rehabilitating an existing non working system and are constrained by those limits. Water supply is sufficient for current conditions. This population will probably not grow as predicted by typical population models due to carrying capacity of the farming community and social changes as the younger population is moving to the citys looking for employment opportunities. By developing the working knowledge of the local community on water systems they will be able to expand the system if required.

      QUESTION There is no mention of water quality or testing thereof. Has anyone tested the raw water quality of the proposed source, and is it able to be treated to meet GOP WQ standards? If so, has the treatment process (if any) been determined, and has the cost of the water treatment facilities been estimated?
      ANSWER Current problem is water quantity. Water is currently being used by the residents from the source that is being developed. It has not been officially tested but will be tested as part of the project. If deemed necessary Houshold Water treatment systems can be used such as a Bio-Sand Filter. This would be a next stage project done locally and would also be an income generation project.

      QUESTION You mentioned that this is a community of subsistence farmers and hunters living on household incomes less than 3000 P (US$ 71) per month. Are they also going to want to use the water for agricultural purposes? If so, that could well mean a substantial increase in water consumption that must be accounted for in the system design.
      ANSWER This has been discussed within the community. Alternative systems are being examined such as rainwater runoff harvesting during the rainy season. All of the community are aware that this is for houshold use only.

      QUESTIONS Why are you proposing tap stands, instead of proper metered house connections? This could be very problematic, especially if people start using substantial amounts of water for their own agricultural purposes, as this may tax the proposed system to the point where there might not be adequate drinking water for some families. How will this potential problem be addressed?
      ANSWER Tapstands are already installed and the costs for level III installation (houshold connections) with meters would significantly increase installation costs. This is a community project being built and installed by the community. Part of the process is advocacy on the use of water. There is intense training of the operation organization on technical and administration. Much of the training concentrates on the use of the water in a sustainable way. The agricultural issue was addressed above. Note also that this project has been developed with the participation of the local communitys where many of these issues were addressed, and will be reinforced during the implementaton.

      QUESTION Who will supervise the procurement of goods and materials, and oversee construction? The proposal states that: “The organization and local community members will install the water system while being supervised and trained so that they can maintain and operate the system in the future. Also the organization will receive capacity building training (from whom?) so that they are strong enough and have the skills and community support to keep the system operating. Does ASD have any experience in doing these tasks? How do you propose to finance operation and maintenance? I see later on that there is a very experienced water engineer (Kevin Lee) who is going to supervise this, which is quite promising.
      ANSWER ASD are the project and fund managers. They will train and supervisor local residents as per the training program outlined in the proposal. Part of the training includes determination on fees etc for the operation and maintenance of the system and how to collect and administer those fees. Project includes several months of mentoring of the organization by ASD to assist in continuing the sustainability issues. Linkages are also being set up with local NGO to continue providing mentoring and monitoring assistance to the organization. Also since the proposal was submitted the provincial governor has funded part of the project and linkages are being set up with their line agencies that can assist.

      ASD has experience in all aspects of this project with linkages to many other local experts such as pump suppliers, community organizers etc.

      QUESTION
      • The proposal says that “Multipurpose Cooperative agrees to: a) Maintain and operate pump and water distribution system; and b) Receive and manage fees from community so that they can pay electricity bills and maintain water system in sustainable manner.
      • They are going to use a flat fee of per week per family (5 Pesos, or about US$0.12, or US$0.51 per month) for unlimited access to water from a tap stand. Trying to collect fees from tap stand users can sometimes be difficult, as some people may complain that other people collect more water than they do, so why should they have to pay the same amount of money? In comparison, for piped water house connections in rural Vietnam, one family of five consumes about 5 m3 per month, with a tariff of about US$ 0.12 (twelve and half cents) per m3, for a monthly water bill of about US$ 0.62 (sixty two cents). So the water tariffs are about the same, even though the level of service (public tap stands versus house connections) are not.
      ANSWER
      Preliminary agreements have been made on the payment of Fees. As the trainings and organization strengthening proceed the parameter to esure affordability and coverage of costs will be determined by the organization with the community. Remember that this is a tribal community with very strong community spirit which has held them together through the last several years. They have stated that this is the first time that they have been challenged and included in a major project that will benefit their community. Previously projects have been implemented and abandoned with no community input.

      QUESTION
      Does ASD have any experience in designing, implementing, operating and maintaining a piped community water system? If not, then, who will be responsible for the design, construction, operation and maintenance and repair of the system? The proposal mentions that there is a local multipurpose cooperative to do this. Are they capable and willing to do this? Who will pay them to carry out these tasks? If they aren’t paid, will they still perform the required tasks? (again, I saw later that there is a very experienced person available to help with this.)

      ANSWER
      ASD has experience in all facets of project implementation. The local co-op/organization will have their capacity built so that they can then operate, maintain and administer the system. Most of the effort of the project is put into the organizational development to ensure the sustainability of the project once the infra structure is completed. The community counterpart is labor for the installation and attending the training etc. Once the training is completed they will have a plan on how to keep the project sustainable using their local resources.

      QUESTION The proposal repeatedly refers to “the Organization”. Is that tribal/community leadership? Do they have the organizational and management skills to carry out this project?
      ANSWER
      The PODS training will strengthen the organizations capability to make system sustainable. The organization is lead by tribal leaders

      QUESTIONS
      • Where it says that: “representatives acknowledged that they had many of the assets required and the project should rehabilitate these assets and increase the capability of those involved.” What are these “assets”? Money, construction, financial and management skills, or what?

      ANSWER
      Labor, money, contacts, sand, gravel, tools, leadership skills etc.

      QUESTION
      What person or group of persons will be responsible for financial management of the system?

      ANSWER
      Once system is installed the organization will be financially responsible for the system and too the community for provision of service.

      The reason that I am asking these questions is that I have seen so many failed “community-based” water systems, mainly because the beneficiaries don’t regularly pay their water bill, and local leaders often have little power to force them to do so, and the system fails due to lack of adequate financing. Are you sure that this won’t happen here?
      COMMENT
      We completely understand your concerns. If you review the project in its entirety you will see that most of the money is being spent on the capacity of the organization to ensure sustainability. Infrastructure projects are easy to install but not easy to sustain. By using already available assets and concentrating on organization development the project will not only supply water in a sustainable way but create an organization that can look for other development opportunities that they can do from within their own community, reducing reliance on outside agencies.

  • 2 participants | show more

    Community building

    Rajesh Shah of Blue Planet Network

    This looks like a good project, well presented with lots of detail, esp. in the background. The org looks great at planning and the drawing is clear. To replicate and scale up the project, the community organization piece needs to be also replicated. Can we capture some of the learning so that future community projects can be developed s...

    This looks like a good project, well presented with lots of detail, esp. in the background.

    The org looks great at planning and the drawing is clear.

    To replicate and scale up the project, the community organization piece needs to be also replicated. Can we capture some of the learning so that future community projects can be developed similar, with the community coming together?

    This also could be used to mobilize the community for a sanitation project.

    btw: not releavant but the male-female ratio is intriguing.

    • Gemma Bulos of A Single Drop

      We will definitely capture how the community organization develops. In all of our projects, we are working with various different scenarios. Some involve one barangay (village), others up to 5 or as large as an entire municipality. We have definitely found some similarities in all the scenarios, both in challenges and in methodologies. ...

      We will definitely capture how the community organization develops. In all of our projects, we are working with various different scenarios. Some involve one barangay (village), others up to 5 or as large as an entire municipality. We have definitely found some similarities in all the scenarios, both in challenges and in methodologies.

      Absolutely, there is great scale-up potential here. Another focus of our training is create a Resource map of the comunity so they can visualize what already exists in their communities, where they can improve, and how to strategize the scale-up after this project. The ideal outcome of the project is to build the community's capacity to conduct needs assesments, develop asset based management infrastructure, and create the experience and confidence in implementing a community project. Whether they decide it is a water processing technology or sanitation technology will be a discussion that will arise from the training.

      • Gemma Bulos of A Single Drop

        btw: male female ratio is intriguing. It's usually the other way around yes? They are believed to be the oldest indigenous people still practicing their ways.... I'd be interested to find out if that ratio is consistent .

        btw: male female ratio is intriguing. It's usually the other way around yes? They are believed to be the oldest indigenous people still practicing their ways.... I'd be interested to find out if that ratio is consistent .

    • Gemma Bulos of A Single Drop

      btw: male female ratio is intriguing. It's usually the other way around yes? They are believed to be the oldest indigenous people still practicing their ways.... I'd be interested to find out if that ratio is consistent .

      btw: male female ratio is intriguing. It's usually the other way around yes? They are believed to be the oldest indigenous people still practicing their ways.... I'd be interested to find out if that ratio is consistent .

  • Rating: 6

    review by (only shown to members)

    The project seems well designed but I would really like to see sanitation addressed as well, either by bringing in outside help, or by asking for additional resources.

  • Rating: 6

    review by (only shown to members)

    See my detailed responses to this question in the Q&A section.

  • Rating: 9

    review by (only shown to members)

    I like the idea of repairing/fixing broken or non-functioning systems even more than building the fanciest new water systems. I therefore like the idea and would be very happy to see it funded. All the best for implementation.

  • Rating: 4

    review by (only shown to members)

    Explanation of project is very long, but for me not that clear and somewhat confusing.
    Is implementation in 5 weeks feasable and realistic?
    Do not find any information on the project on the website. I asked already for more transparant financial information on the website on dec 13 th, which was promised to be available by year end.

  • Rating: 7

    review by (only shown to members)

    This promises to be a good project. Just the newness and lack of familiarity with the org is a small concern - one which time and projects will alleviate.

Name Status Completion Date Amount Assigned
Water System Rehabilitation Lupang Pangako Project Complete - Successful Apr 2008 $3,000