Regarding Budget

By Watershed Organization Trust Posted on Tue 12 Dec 2006, over 19 years ago

We appreciate your good work engaged in providing safe drinking water and construction facilities in Bolivia.

What is the approximate budget for drinking water activities i.e. for bore well, electric pumps, overhead tanks and distribution pipes etc. Kindly give the details of the same.

What are the electric charges (per kilowatt or monthly average charges) at your place?

The per person cost of the drinking water project works out to US$ 103.44. What is the net per person cost of the drinking water project of the BPR assistance?

As per the budget submitted in the application, the share of municipality of Son Padro works out to 22. 38% whereas the people's contribution comes out to be 2.42%. Dont you think that the people's contribution is too low?

The administrative cost and the operational cost (US$ 12900 + 4873.70) is equal to US$17774, which works out to 33.15% which too seems to be very high.

Regarding Budget

By Water for People Posted on Tue 12 Dec 2006, over 19 years ago

Thomas:

Thanks for the really helpful questions which are much appreciated.

Let us try to answer them in order:

1. cost breakdown of the water system is: 1. drilling of well ($12,000, covered by Municipality); 2. pump ($1,400, asked for through BPR); 3. tank ($6,200, asked for through BPR); 4. pipes ($7,600, asked for through BPR); 5. other supplies like valves, re-bar, etc ($2,800, asked for through BPR).

2. Electric charges - vary from place to place but generally under US$20/month

3. I guess if we take out everything else and only look at BPR finance for water only (i.e. taking out sanitation), the cost of the project/person would be the $103 you are talking about. I guess we are struggling with teh question abit so bear with us. Our view is as follows:

It is our view that the $25/benbeficiary goal of BPR should be a global goal, not a project specific goal. Water For People is supporting communities that are pretty small and very isolated and have been neglected and forgotten because people say "the cost is too high because they are hard to reach". That is why we are there and that is why this community has asked the municipality for support and they in turn have asked us for support. I think BPR would be sending a pretty bad message to people in many parts of the world who just do not fit into this financial calculation.

The challenge is when the costs are buried in overhead and administration. I think it is here where we are not following your last question. The administrative cost of this project is only 10% as we have stated. The costs for the partners ($12,900) is for them to actually implement the project. This is not administration but rather vehicle costs to get them to the field, costs associated with training and capacity building at local level, and costs to hire the people needed to do these critical jobs (staff salaries). International NGOs can not expect local NGOs to work for nothing. Furthermore, we are hoping that, over time, through projects like these, Water For People can facilitate a direct relationship between Bibosi and BPR. This will take time (and language training among other things) but we look forward to the day when we are not playing this middle role although that role at this stage is critical.

Finally, on costs from the community - there is also US$7,000 in kind that Villa Rosario is contributing above the cash contribution. This is significant. The household contribution of cash (~$30/family) is more than enough to cover electricity and repair costs, as well as the sanitation idea we are testing, so that to us is a good indicator.

But the real cost of this project is $53,610 + $7,000 of in-kind labor = $60,610. This means that the community contribution in cash and kind is $8660 or 14% of the projects costs. It also means the real cost of helping this community is $190/person (minus sanitation costs). This is what it willtake to serve some of the poorest people in Bolivia. If we only kept it at $25 we would not be able to work in isolated parts of the country, but only along roads near major cities which would be unfortunate. If we wanted to keep it at $25 then the allocation would only be $7,250, not enough to cover the pipes alone.

This is where the debate on costs needs to be rethought, as again it would be a pretty bad message to say "no" to this because they are isolated and poor.

Please also note that to us, the really interesting work is trying to solve the sanitation problem with a water cross-subsidy. That would set a model for sustainable sanitation delivery long after the project is completed, a real challenge globally as you know.

Thanks and I hope this helps,

Ned

Also note