table of contents preamble 1. summary - ACT - Advanced ...

to avoid abuse, but the management system does not permit to draw lessons from the
past yards to use on the new yards.
iii. Though two-thirds of the project duration has passed, only 50% of the personnel
budget have been used. The number of staff members namely has been reduced
considerably compared to the original planning (only 2 community health workers
instead of the projected 10). The salaries paid per collaborator on the other hand are
much higher than budgeted, this because SOCADIDO had to review its salary policy
to stay competitive with regard to other organisations in Uganda.
iv. Cebemo/Bilance had not accepted a number of budgeted costs related to the office
operation in 1995-96 ; the approved budget amounts to only 6 million of the requested
11 million. After two years of functioning almost 12 million has been spent in this
budget post.
v. During the first working year the project staff carried out a number of budget changes
without conferring first with Cebemo/Bilance. Since the middle of ’98 this seems to be
again under control (except for the post office operation).
vi. The communication between Cebemo/Bilance and the project staff concerning
financial data is indeed very weak. This may partly have to do with the long line of
communication : the programme officer cannot communicate directly with the donor
because all information goes through the Development Co-ordinator, who is at his turn
dependant on the central administration. Moreover the means of communication in
Soroti are not very functional.
vii. Because the yearly expenditures are slightly lower as planned and thanks to a
favourable rate of exchange in ’97 and ’98 there are probably still enough means to
continue the project till mid-2000.
5.1.2. Human resources
The CMWS programme comprises the following staff : Programme Officer (engineer with a
sound experience in irrigation), 2 Community Mobilisation Officers (graduate sociologist and
social scientist), 2 technicians (one with a specialisation on hand augured wells, the other one
on spring protection), 6 masons and 2 Community Health Workers. A technical advisor is
attached to the programme. The Programme Officer is accountable to the Diocesan
Development Co-ordinator. He has direct supervision on the Community Mobilisation
Officers and the technicians. Masons are accountable to the technicians; the CHW’S to the
CMO’s. The position of the technical advisor in the set-up is not clear.
Support staff includes a driver and the central administration and bookkeeping staff of
SOCADIDO. The CMWS-programme pays for these services but the Programme Officer or
his fellow-workers have very little guidance opportunities or control on these services.
The whole staff is young and has very little relevant experience in the sector (with the
exception of the technical advisor who in view of his age has difficulties to adapt to the
working rhythm and the spirit of the team). What are striking are the very strong commitment,
the self-critical attitude and the readiness to absorb new ideas.
On the technical level the staff has sufficient competence concerning the hand augured wells,
the hand pumps, hydrology in general, masonry and concrete constructions. Concerning the
26