The overall purpose of the proposed project (providing clean water services to 12,000 people and sanitation facilities to 7,500 people), thereby eliminating considerable a amount of potential pollutants (human feces, wastewater, and grey water) directly into the lake, certainly seems to be a reasonable and potentially worthy goal for BPR ...
The overall purpose of the proposed project (providing clean water services to 12,000 people and sanitation facilities to 7,500 people), thereby eliminating considerable a amount of potential pollutants (human feces, wastewater, and grey water) directly into the lake, certainly seems to be a reasonable and potentially worthy goal for BPR funding. Also of note is the fact that the implementing agency’s own co-financing, which is more than more than half a million USD, with the proposer is only applying for the relatively modest BPR amount of $26,000. This amount of proposed self-financing is unusually high and should be strongly encouraged amongst other people requesting BP are financing.
Financing/Cost Issues:
1) Overall Financing: The proposed total cost estimate of $538,573 means that the combined per capita costs for water and sanitation services is about $45 US. There is quite a mix of water supply technologies being proposed for this project, including improved shallow wells, spring catchments and rainwater catchment tanks, assuming that about 80% of the cost is for water ($36 per capita) and the remaining 20% is for sanitation ($9 per capita), and assuming that the construction is for good quality pour flush sanitary toilets with septic tanks, the costs appear somewhat low. To what extent are the proposed beneficiaries going to be required to co-finance the new infrastructure?
2) Latrine costs -Seem a bit on the low side. Typically a good quality pour-flush latrine with septic tanks with some privacy infrastructure will run about $100 in most Asian countries, but I am not familiar with African prices. $10 per head for shallow wells is not unreasonable. Similarly, $2,000 for 250 people ($8 per capita) for spring catchments (depending upon the length of pipe from the spring catchment to the distribution system with the service area) with a storage tank is also a reasonable price, depending upon whether or not any water treatment would be required. An appropriate cost for rainwater catchment tanks is difficult to say, largely because the size and therefore the cost is very dependent upon the actual amount of rainwater that can be reliably plan for, a figure with which I am not familiar.
3) Operation and Maintenance and Repair: The spreadsheet describing the estimated program costs does not appear to include any reference to operation and maintenance and repair costs for water supply facilities, unless that is the item labeled “General Functioning”. Who will be responsible for the operation, maintenance and repair, who will be responsible for training those persons, and where will the money come to finance those activities?
4) Water Operational Costs - Following from the previous paragraph, is there any intention to require water users to make any contributions whatsoever towards the long term operation and maintenance there replacement and potentially extension costs of the piped water systems, or the rainwater catchment systems?
Technical Issues:
1) Water Quality - There is no apparent mentioned of water quality issues in the proposal. This can be especially problematic given the fact that they the water sources are low capacity dugwells, the quality of which may not yet have been determined. This is certainly something that should be done before any final decision is made to implement this project. Is it not possible to provide greater percentage of the project beneficiaries with piped groundwater or spring water that would be treated before delivery to the beneficiaries?
2) Environmental Impact: The benefits of this project go well beyond the basic provision of water supply and sanitation services, to also include the potentially significant environmental benefits that would accrue by avoiding direct wastewater discharge into the lake itself.
3) School Water and Sanitation: There appears to be no mention of any school children getting water. I would assume that if there are any schools in the area, they would certainly be able to obtain water from one or more of the water systems that are being financed under the project. At minimum, there should be some protected dug wells available at all schools within the proposed project area. It should be required that all schools within the proposed project area have proper latrines (separated into girls and boys sections) that are easily accessible by both students and teachers.
Post Construction Management – Is it quite clear who will be responsible for managing and maintaining all these facilities for the next ten years or more?
Other than those issues, the project seems to be a reasonable use of BPR funds, but it would be helpful to more specifically address the long term financial sustainability issues mentioned above.
Program_...
Lake_geo...
