Performance Report for FY 2009/10 - UWASNET

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Performance Report for FY 2009/10 4.4.2 Per capita cost for Sanitation technologies Per capita costs for sanitation technologies has not been presented largely due to gaps in the data received, gaps include, among others, number of stances to a toilet facility and materials used ( permanent or temporary). Case Study 4.2 reflects how costs for construction of sanitation facilities (in this case the Ecosan toilet) can be reduced. Case Study 4.2: Ecosan cost reduction: Source PROTOS Background The first Ecosan toilet constructed was expensive compared to the financial status of our target beneficiaries. Using modern materials for construction, the Ecosan was valued at UGX 800,000. People could not replicate Ecosan toilets owing to the high costs. The field technicians had to design a low cost Ecosan out of available local materials at the cost of UGX230, 000. Intervention The main aim of cost reduction on Ecosan toilets was to balance between costs and sustainability in the construction of Ecosan facilities. PROTOS contributed 78% while the beneficiary 22% for the demonstration Ecosan. Still the beneficiaries could not afford that percentage. To replicate the model, beneficiaries had to construct an Ecosan with no support from PROTOS. More efforts are being put into designing a low cost Ecosan of below UGX100,000. The innovations used for the low cost Ecosan are: � Mud used instead of sand and cement (mortar) to join the bricks on the substructure. � Moulded squatting pans (urine and faeces holes) on site rather than already made ones from shops using cement and sand. � Timber panels used on the slab. � Ventilation pipe not included in the design. � Substituted iron sheets for Polythene and grass on the roof. � Used one sliding timber piece on the steps instead of bricks and mortar. Findings � Local materials like sand and timber pieces are not readily available; they are usually imported from neighbouring sub counties which increases the cost. � Compared to cement and mortar mud takes long to set as a result therefore, construction lasted a whole month because the mud had to be given at least 5 days to set and dry before the next work day. Successes � A low cost Ecosan toilet of UGX 230,000 was designed and constructed using cheap local materials. � People are taking interest in the low cost Ecosan. This has increased the replication rate in the communities. Lesson learnt � In cases where mud is used instead of mortar, cow dung is to be included in the mixture to make the substructure stronger. NGOs in the Ugandan Water and Sanitation Sector | 42
Performance Report for FY 2009/10 4.5 CSO Contribution towards Improved Sanitation and Hygiene 4.5.1 Contribution towards sanitation improvement Promotion of improved sanitation and hygiene, introduction of non-traditional sanitation facilities and construction of new toilet facilities for vulnerable groups continue to be a major activity of NGOS and CBO. Table 4.5 Reflects CSOs outputs towards improved sanitation and hygiene. Table 4.5 Sanitation and hygiene contribution Population served* Total population Activity Output (No.) Rural Urban IDP served Household traditional latrine construction 21,329 169,000 100 - 169,100 Household VIP latrines construction 130 500 4,000 - 4,500 Household Ecosan UDDT latrine construction 86 600 - - 600 Household Ecosan Arbo loo latrine constructed 11 100 - - 100 Household skyloo latrine construction 7 100 - - 100 Household F/alterna (ecosan) latrine constructed 20 100 - - 100 Public latrine traditional stances constructed 9 2,700 - - 2,700 Public VIP latrine stances constructed 49 30,500 4,000 - 34,500 Public latrine Ecosan stances constructed 40 3,300 - - 3,300 Public Water closet (stances) constructed 3 - 2,000 - 2,000 Household handwashing facilities installed 26,752 187,000 7,000 8,000 202,000 School handwashing facilities installed 506 59,000 6,000 - 65,000 School latrine stances for boys constructed 395 12,000 7,000 - 19,000 School latrine stances for girls constructed 352 10,000 15,000 - 25,000 School latrine stances for teachers constructed 52 100 200 - 300 Waste disposal facilities constructed 5,203 87,000 34,000 2,000 123,000 Drying racks constructed 25,297 107,000 18,000 125,000 Sanplats distributed 3,379 14,000 - - 14,000 Drainage channels (Kms) 7 7,000 3,000 - 10,000 No. of tools provided 9,716 76,000 30,000 - 106,000 Total 766,000 130,300 10,000 906,300 * Population served estimated to the nearest 100th In order to increase access to improved sanitation, 21,329 traditional latrines, 130 VIP latrines, 86 Ecosan toilets (UDDT), seven skyloos, 11 arboo loos, and 20 fossa alterna toilets were constructed. Arboo loos and fossa alterna are relatively new technologies in the country being introduced to schools and households (see Case Study 4.3). The construction of toilet facilities to households has been discussed under sub-section 3.3 (Investments in Sanitation and Hygiene promotion), explained by construction of demonstration of technologies and meeting demands of vulnerable and disadvantaged households. It is estimated that a population of 906,300 people were served through the CSOs’ intervention. A number of software activities have been carried out to create demand for sanitation. For instance, people have been encouraged to participate in competitions in hygiene and sanitation(see Case Study 4.3) . Sanitation marketing; Community Led Total Sanitation; extending credit for sanitation facility development; training of masons; training of Village Health Teams and Local Information Facilitators, are the other activities that have been undertaken, all aimed at increasing access to improved sanitation. 43 | 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 and 34: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 U
Page 35 and 36: 3.5 Unit costs Performance Report f
Page 37 and 38: SN Measurement Theme Golden Indicat
Page 39 and 40: Performance Report for FY 2009/10 T
Page 41: 4.4 Per Capita Costs 4.4.1 Per capi
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 93 and 94:
Population served Expenditure (UGX)
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?