Performance Report for FY 2009/10 - UWASNET

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Performance Report for FY 2009/10 3.4 Investment in Community management Presented in Figure 3.6 are investments made under community management. Figure 3.6 Investments made under Community Management Facilitate spare parts acquisition 10.62 Improving service delivery Tools for Handpump Mechanics Best practices promotion Drama/radio talk shows Training of Handpump Mechanics Training of artisans for sanitation Training of Schience Teachers Training of artisans for WS*** Community Mgt. (unspecified) Follow-up support activities Training of CHCs** Training of SHCs* Learning events Community meetings Training of WUCs 12.02 19.11 20.81 21.22 25.09 30.95 56.70 67.86 103.44 118.21 122.62 High investments have been made towards functionality and sustainability of water supply facilities a fact reflected through training of WUCs (UGX 354.67 million). UGX 271.65 million was spent on Community meetings that discuss among others issues of community participation, ownership of facilities as well as improved sanitation and hygiene behaviour. The strategy of improving sanitation through school health clubs and community health clubs is increasingly being adapted constituting 18% (UGX 311.62 million) of the investment in Community Management. Other major expenditures under community management include follow-up support activities (UGX 118.21 million), training artisans for construction of water supply facilities (UGX 67.86million) and training artisans for construction of sanitation facilities (UGX 30.95 million). Training of Hand pump mechanics takes up(UGX 25.09 million). NGOs in the Ugandan Water and Sanitation Sector | 34 189.00 241.38 271.65 UGX Millions 345.67
3.5 Unit costs Performance Report for FY 2009/10 Table 3.1 presents the units costs for various water technologies for FY 2009/10 and compares with units cost as reported by CSO during for FY 2008/9. Table 3.1 Unit costs for water supply technologies CSO Average unit costs (UGX ' 000) GoU Technology FY 2008/9 FY 2009/10 FY 2008/9 FY 2009/10 Borehole Construction 12,544 14,620 15,728 16,124 Borehole rehabilitation/repair 2,530 1,009 - - Fan Pumps and solar pumps 12,400 - - Shallow well construction* 4,333 4,912 - - Shallow well rehabilitation 1,168 1,025 - - Spring protection** 2,429 1,775 - - Spring rehabilitation 2,421 2,294 - - Jars constructed Rainwater harvesting Tanks*** 180 1,079 276 1,148 - 1,842 - 1,299 Water filters constructed/provided**** 46,180 32,078 - - * No distinction made on methodology of construction (hand-dug, hand-augured, motorised) ** No distinction made on type of spring (small, medium, large) *** No distinction made on size of tank **** No distinction made on type of filter From the table, there has been an increase of unit cost for borehole construction by UGX 2.076 million largely as a result of rising costs of materials for borehole construction. For other technology options, other than the expected variations, there are no major differences in Unit Cost between FY 2008/9 and FY 2009/10. Comparing Unit cost for borehole construction between GoU and CSO, The GoU Unit cost is more by UGX 1.504. This is a slight difference considering amounts involved. Furthermore, under the GoU, there is involvement of the private sector who have to make profit margin as opposed to some CSO who own borehole construction equipment thus limited involved of the private sector (Joy Drilling for example operates its own borehole drilling rig and has own technical expertise). It’s easier to compare unit costs for the construction of rainwater tanks and boreholes that other technologies because of the differences in reporting between CSOs and GoU or district local government. Under GoU, springs are further classified as small, medium, and large thus reflecting the varied investment costs for spring protection based on the spring classification. Further classification is made for shallow wells based on technology applied during construction, whether hand-dug; hand-augured, or motorised. This calls for harmonised reporting between district Local Governments and CSOs. 35 | NGOs in the Ugandan Water and Sanitation Sector
Page 1 and 2: NGOs in the Ugandan Water and Sanit
Page 3 and 4: NGOs in the Ugandan Water and Sanit
Page 5 and 6: About UWASNET Performance Report fo
Page 7 and 8: Table of Contents Performance Repor
Page 9 and 10: List of Tables Performance Report f
Page 11 and 12: List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page 13 and 14: Glossary and definitions Performanc
Page 15 and 16: Water and Sanitation Development Fa
Page 17 and 18: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 p
Page 19 and 20: Supporting Community Based Manageme
Page 21 and 22: 1 Introduction 1.1 Context Performa
Page 23 and 24: Figure 1.2: Classification of repor
Page 25 and 26: 2.2.2 Institutional Framework Perfo
Page 27 and 28: Sub-Sector Strategies Water for Pro
Page 29 and 30: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 2
Page 31 and 32: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 D
Page 33: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 U
Page 37 and 38: SN Measurement Theme Golden Indicat
Page 39 and 40: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 T
Page 41 and 42: 4.4 Per Capita Costs 4.4.1 Per capi
Page 43 and 44: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 4
Page 45 and 46: 4.5.2 Improving the pupil-stance ra
Page 47 and 48: Case Study 4.6 Performance Report f
Page 49 and 50: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 o
Page 51 and 52: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 C
Page 53 and 54: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 b
Page 55 and 56: Case Study 4.12 Pre-paid water mete
Page 57 and 58: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 A
Page 59 and 60: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 L
Page 61 and 62: 4.14 Activities, outputs, and key r
Page 63 and 64: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 T
Page 65 and 66: Case Study 4.18 Ecosan: Farmer’s
Page 67 and 68: Community mobilisation/ Sensitisati
Page 69 and 70: Case Study 4.20 Performance Report
Page 71 and 72: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 i
Page 73 and 74: 6 Challenges and recommendations 6.
Page 75 and 76: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 B
Page 77 and 78: Case Study 6.1 Performance Report f
Page 79 and 80: Performance Report for FY 2009/10
Page 81 and 82: Performance Report for FY 2009/10
Page 83 and 84: Institution Key responsibility Dire
Page 85 and 86:
Annex 2 Water and Sanitation NGOs a
Page 87 and 88:
Population served Expenditure (UGX)
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
show all

Performance Report for FY 2009/10 - UWASNET

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?