Dear readers,
it is the time of the year to raise money to support our work to act on root cause of poverty and influence the current system.
If you are reading this blog, you obviously care about my work here in Malawi and believe either in me or EWB. For our work to keep on going we need support from bigger donors of course, but also donation from our network. This is where it begins. Have a look at the link to my webpage and if you support my words, my thoughts, my work, if you have been inspired over the last year while reading me, please donate. Even small donation can get us go very far, but bigger ones are what we need to motivate other to donate more! ahaha, so they are very welcome.
Thanks, there is no way I'd be where I am now if it wasn't from all the support I got last year. This year I am asking you to support more than a friend, I am asking you to support my cause and EWB's work to pursue their amazing work in Africa.
Here is the link to My perspective
Ge
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
Is time the solution? –An update on my work
I moved to Machinga District about a month ago to work on a different project, which I find extremely interesting. This post describes the background to the project and my goals.
I’m placed with a consultant (3 weeks/month) and the District Water Office (1 week/month - although, this seems to be hard to make happen as the DWofficer is either sick or telling me he will meet me and he doesn’t, so I haven’t yet work with the DWO officially). The consultant’s office is in Liwonde, where I live, and the DWO is in Machinga BOMA, about 25 km from Liwonde. I have to take a minibus or get a ride to go work there and I haven’t been formally introduced to other people than the DW officer.
BACKGROUND
Machinga District got selected to receive assistance (funds) from the African Development Bank (AfDB) to improve water coverage of communities. This project, which forms part of the Capacity Building sub-component of the National Water Development Program of Malawi (NWDP) strategy, is one of four projects operating in four Districts: Lilongwe, Machinga, Mulanje and Zomba. The Project in Machinga District, is targeting the drilling of 193of new borehole with Afridev pump installation, the rehabilitation of approximately 250 existing BH/pumps and the rehabilitation and extension of 10 existing piped gravity schemes within Machinga.
The client (NWDP), hired a different consulting company for each of the four Districts for the project management of the work to be done: design of GFS, manage budget and staff, write tender/contract documents to contractors/drillers (needs to be approved by NWDP), field supervision, report writing, etc. The consultant firm selected in Machinga is from Germany where as the others are Malawians. The consultant is also expected to do capacity building at the District level, which means train and use the staff, make sure they learn and participate throughout the Project at every step. But the DWO staff (most especially the Water Monitoring Assistants (WMAs) and the Community Development Assistant (CDAs) are in most cases responding and working not to gain knowledge but to get allowance money from the consultant. The simple fact that they would get better at what they do, gain credibility and respect, and would help the communities is clearly not enough and they are aware that the consultant has to involve them to do some of the work like the training of the communities before and after the installation/rehabilitation of their waterpoint, the field supervision of the contractors and the follow ups in a year from now. They take advantage of the system and in some cases, they went on strike to get more. The WMAs got, to work on this Project, a motorbike (to be returned at the end), they also get allowances on top of their monthy salary to do field work (training, follow up…), stationary for the trainings, and fuel for the motor bike. The District of Machinga normally has two WMAs, but for this project to be realized within two years, the Ministry hired or transferred ten new ones, most of them with no experience.
The Project must be finished within six years from the signature of the contract between AfDB and NWDP. The signature was four and a half years ago or so. The consulting company was mobilized to Machinga and allowed to start in October 2010. They understood that a baseline map of the District and location of the new BH and rehabilitation would be provided to them as well as the location of the existing GFS. No baseline map or survey had been done by the District or anyone, no location were selected either for the new BH to drill and the ones to rehabilitate. The DWO was expected to provide all this to the consultant, but this was not done and far from being started. The project was already running late when the consultants were mobilized and no one really knows what happened in the first four years following the signature. It is a fix cost and fix timeline project. This means that it needs to be done in time and if the project goes over budget, the consulting company has to pay as the client (using the AfDB funds) won’t allow more.
WHAT’S HAPPENING AT THE MOMENT
The pre-construction trainings of the communities’ waterpoint committee (WPC) are being conducted at the moment in the communities who will receive a waterpoint. A lot of problems are happening, most of them associated with the absence of fuel in filling stations and the expensive price to get it on the black market (with no receipt). The WMAs and CDAs are required to fill out forms of what they covered during the trainings with the dates and it needs to be signed by communities. These forms are normally not being filled, which makes it difficult to prove that the training was done. They cut one day of the training to save on gas. The WPC’s members also receive an allowance to assist to the training, and a significant one. Communities are expected to raise a total of 15000 Malawian Kwatcha (100 CAD) and put in a bank account to repair and maintain the BH later on. They have to raise it in three steps: MK5000 before the pre-construction training, MK5000 before the pump installation and MK5000 before the post-construction training. The training is not suppose to be done before the community raised the first 5000 and opened a bank account, but most WMAs will proceed with the training regardless, confusing the communities, because they need to be done all their trainings by January. Most of the problems I observed so far are due to a lack of time flexibility, everything is rushed and everyone is trying to take advantage of this to give less and ask for more.
The drillers’ contract were finally signed last week by the NWDP and they are expected to start this week, but it is the beginning of the rainy soon, which will make it harder to move with the drill rig on the mud roads of Malawi and also, may result in dry borehole during the dry season. Also Malawi is experiencing a big crisis at the moment and the country has a hard time to get fuel. The drillers will need a lot of diesel to move around, drill and use the compressor. It may be a big problem and may result in taking more time to finish the work or extra money to buy it on the black market at a ridiculous price. I went for an inspection of the rig (of one of the two contractors) the other day to make sure it was in good shape and that their equipment/material was adequate and were respecting the contract signed with the consultant.
So this is a quick overview of the situation, the challenges, the problems and the relationship between the different stakeholders in this Project. It’s more complex than that but I can’t yet explain how yet.
MY OBJECTIVES
Clearly there is a redundant problem with big projects like this one. Projects for which donors expect to get a lot of infrastructures in with a side of capacity building of the local people (Districts government, communities), without knowing how and all this within a short time line. It is easier to report to the donors this way: the right amount of infrastructures were installed/repair, respecting the schedule and budget, so the main goal is achieved! I want to see what are the actual goals of those donors? Create a better, more sustainable and equitable access to potable water for communities or spend a lot of money to install those waterpoints without follow ups and without making sure that the communities know what to do when they need to service or repair their waterpoint so it can last for many years and not just one. How do they evaluate and what do they qualify as “success”?
I would like to understand what causes and leads to those problems in the implementation phase of the work. I want to evaluate the relationships between the stakeholders, their roles and responsibilities. I want to be able to retrace the tender document, the proposal and the contracts that were signed between the different players (AfDB, NWDP and the consulting company) to see at which level the fix cost/fix time project was discussed and agreed on (this is ambitious and I might not be able to access to all this info). I want to be able to get information/evidences/stories and build relationships with the different stakeholders so that EWB, with the help of other NGOs and player in the system can report, advocate and influence the National Government to set projects like this one differently (or define success differently) and/or influence the big Donors/Development Partners like AfDB.
I don’t think that I can do all this within the next few months, but I hope to get the wheel rolling, so that someone else can continue after I leave. I’ll be extremely sad to go and leave this awesome research behind though, but I guess I have to.
On a less ambitious, more realistic note, I want to help this project go smoother and better for what is left of it, so that communities can get the best of it: good knowledge and tool on how and why to raise money to maintain and fix their waterpoint and I want them to get a well constructed BH, functional during the dry season with good water quality.
I’ll keep you updated on my findings, challenges and successes.
Ge
I’m placed with a consultant (3 weeks/month) and the District Water Office (1 week/month - although, this seems to be hard to make happen as the DWofficer is either sick or telling me he will meet me and he doesn’t, so I haven’t yet work with the DWO officially). The consultant’s office is in Liwonde, where I live, and the DWO is in Machinga BOMA, about 25 km from Liwonde. I have to take a minibus or get a ride to go work there and I haven’t been formally introduced to other people than the DW officer.
BACKGROUND
Machinga District got selected to receive assistance (funds) from the African Development Bank (AfDB) to improve water coverage of communities. This project, which forms part of the Capacity Building sub-component of the National Water Development Program of Malawi (NWDP) strategy, is one of four projects operating in four Districts: Lilongwe, Machinga, Mulanje and Zomba. The Project in Machinga District, is targeting the drilling of 193of new borehole with Afridev pump installation, the rehabilitation of approximately 250 existing BH/pumps and the rehabilitation and extension of 10 existing piped gravity schemes within Machinga.
The client (NWDP), hired a different consulting company for each of the four Districts for the project management of the work to be done: design of GFS, manage budget and staff, write tender/contract documents to contractors/drillers (needs to be approved by NWDP), field supervision, report writing, etc. The consultant firm selected in Machinga is from Germany where as the others are Malawians. The consultant is also expected to do capacity building at the District level, which means train and use the staff, make sure they learn and participate throughout the Project at every step. But the DWO staff (most especially the Water Monitoring Assistants (WMAs) and the Community Development Assistant (CDAs) are in most cases responding and working not to gain knowledge but to get allowance money from the consultant. The simple fact that they would get better at what they do, gain credibility and respect, and would help the communities is clearly not enough and they are aware that the consultant has to involve them to do some of the work like the training of the communities before and after the installation/rehabilitation of their waterpoint, the field supervision of the contractors and the follow ups in a year from now. They take advantage of the system and in some cases, they went on strike to get more. The WMAs got, to work on this Project, a motorbike (to be returned at the end), they also get allowances on top of their monthy salary to do field work (training, follow up…), stationary for the trainings, and fuel for the motor bike. The District of Machinga normally has two WMAs, but for this project to be realized within two years, the Ministry hired or transferred ten new ones, most of them with no experience.
The Project must be finished within six years from the signature of the contract between AfDB and NWDP. The signature was four and a half years ago or so. The consulting company was mobilized to Machinga and allowed to start in October 2010. They understood that a baseline map of the District and location of the new BH and rehabilitation would be provided to them as well as the location of the existing GFS. No baseline map or survey had been done by the District or anyone, no location were selected either for the new BH to drill and the ones to rehabilitate. The DWO was expected to provide all this to the consultant, but this was not done and far from being started. The project was already running late when the consultants were mobilized and no one really knows what happened in the first four years following the signature. It is a fix cost and fix timeline project. This means that it needs to be done in time and if the project goes over budget, the consulting company has to pay as the client (using the AfDB funds) won’t allow more.
WHAT’S HAPPENING AT THE MOMENT
The pre-construction trainings of the communities’ waterpoint committee (WPC) are being conducted at the moment in the communities who will receive a waterpoint. A lot of problems are happening, most of them associated with the absence of fuel in filling stations and the expensive price to get it on the black market (with no receipt). The WMAs and CDAs are required to fill out forms of what they covered during the trainings with the dates and it needs to be signed by communities. These forms are normally not being filled, which makes it difficult to prove that the training was done. They cut one day of the training to save on gas. The WPC’s members also receive an allowance to assist to the training, and a significant one. Communities are expected to raise a total of 15000 Malawian Kwatcha (100 CAD) and put in a bank account to repair and maintain the BH later on. They have to raise it in three steps: MK5000 before the pre-construction training, MK5000 before the pump installation and MK5000 before the post-construction training. The training is not suppose to be done before the community raised the first 5000 and opened a bank account, but most WMAs will proceed with the training regardless, confusing the communities, because they need to be done all their trainings by January. Most of the problems I observed so far are due to a lack of time flexibility, everything is rushed and everyone is trying to take advantage of this to give less and ask for more.
The drillers’ contract were finally signed last week by the NWDP and they are expected to start this week, but it is the beginning of the rainy soon, which will make it harder to move with the drill rig on the mud roads of Malawi and also, may result in dry borehole during the dry season. Also Malawi is experiencing a big crisis at the moment and the country has a hard time to get fuel. The drillers will need a lot of diesel to move around, drill and use the compressor. It may be a big problem and may result in taking more time to finish the work or extra money to buy it on the black market at a ridiculous price. I went for an inspection of the rig (of one of the two contractors) the other day to make sure it was in good shape and that their equipment/material was adequate and were respecting the contract signed with the consultant.
- The air rotary rig was in good shape. It was smaller, less powerful and less heavy than expected. They may have problems to drill in the bedrock and down to 70-80 meters.
- They didn’t have a mud pump to drill in the sand or loose soil, they only had an air compressor, apparently they have one, but in Lilongwe, at least five hours from Machinga District.
- They had a terrible gravel pack (not sorted, angular, a lot of silt and big gravel, and of course nothing to sieve it).
- They didn’t have and didn’t know what centralizers are, they PCV pipes and screens were either under the cement bags, use as poles to hold tents or at angle on the ground.
- They had a water level but no conductivity meter, apparently they have one in Lilongwe.
- They only have one drilling bit and no spares.
- They don’t have anything to make a seal plug (clay) between the gravel pack and the cuttings, they normally are not specified to make a seal, and when they are, they use a really liquid grout.
- When I asked about the development, pumping test and water quality test, they explained to me their normal procedures: They fill the annular space with the gravel pack and stop filling the hole. They then do a combination of blowing and development of the borehole until the water is clear. Then they fill the rest of the annular space with the cuttings and grout the last 6 meters to the surface. Right after they do a pumping test for six hours and a short recovery test. A few days after they build the cement pad and cement sinks around the BH and a month later they go back to install the pump.
So this is a quick overview of the situation, the challenges, the problems and the relationship between the different stakeholders in this Project. It’s more complex than that but I can’t yet explain how yet.
MY OBJECTIVES
Clearly there is a redundant problem with big projects like this one. Projects for which donors expect to get a lot of infrastructures in with a side of capacity building of the local people (Districts government, communities), without knowing how and all this within a short time line. It is easier to report to the donors this way: the right amount of infrastructures were installed/repair, respecting the schedule and budget, so the main goal is achieved! I want to see what are the actual goals of those donors? Create a better, more sustainable and equitable access to potable water for communities or spend a lot of money to install those waterpoints without follow ups and without making sure that the communities know what to do when they need to service or repair their waterpoint so it can last for many years and not just one. How do they evaluate and what do they qualify as “success”?
I would like to understand what causes and leads to those problems in the implementation phase of the work. I want to evaluate the relationships between the stakeholders, their roles and responsibilities. I want to be able to retrace the tender document, the proposal and the contracts that were signed between the different players (AfDB, NWDP and the consulting company) to see at which level the fix cost/fix time project was discussed and agreed on (this is ambitious and I might not be able to access to all this info). I want to be able to get information/evidences/stories and build relationships with the different stakeholders so that EWB, with the help of other NGOs and player in the system can report, advocate and influence the National Government to set projects like this one differently (or define success differently) and/or influence the big Donors/Development Partners like AfDB.
I don’t think that I can do all this within the next few months, but I hope to get the wheel rolling, so that someone else can continue after I leave. I’ll be extremely sad to go and leave this awesome research behind though, but I guess I have to.
On a less ambitious, more realistic note, I want to help this project go smoother and better for what is left of it, so that communities can get the best of it: good knowledge and tool on how and why to raise money to maintain and fix their waterpoint and I want them to get a well constructed BH, functional during the dry season with good water quality.
I’ll keep you updated on my findings, challenges and successes.
Ge
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)