Performance Report for FY 2009/10 - UWASNET

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