AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION
REPORT cI!) 1-ti ~1) ;tn~:: On
A UNDP/WB Water and Sanitation Programme
1999 824NG 16488 An Independent Evaluation Report
on
RUSAFIYA PROJECT (N1R187/O1 1)
‘UNICEF NIGERIA 1999
LIBRARY IRC P0 Box 93190,2509 AD THE HAGUF TeL: +31 7030 68980 Fax: ÷3170 3~589964 BARCODE: LO: TABLEOF CONTENTS
Page
Acronym
Summary ofEvaluation Report 11
Photographs showing Infrastructures in Bauchi, Borno Nasarawa, Benue States and the F.C.T Abuja V
Purpose of Evaluation 1
Main Report 4
Project Document 7
Project Objectives 7
Benefits and Beneficiaries 8
Strategies 9
Time Frame 11
Achievement of Project Objectives 11
Involvement of States/L.G.As and Communities 18
BenefitsDerivedfrom theRUSAFLYA project 19
Lessons Learnt 21
Findings and Recommendations 24
List of Staff whichServed on the RUSAFIYA Project Views ofthe Bauchi, Bomo, Nasarawa and BenueStates 29
and theF.C.T. Abujaincluding theL.G.As. andCommunities 34
T.O.R 39
Itinerary 43
Oju Pipe Water Supply Scheme 47
unicef Nigeria ACRONYMS
BASIRDA Bauchi State Integrated Rural Development Authority
CHICS Community HealthInvolving Children in Schools
DFRRI Directorate of Food, Roads, and Rural Infrastructure
FCTA FederalCapital Territory Abuja
FMOH Federal Ministry of Health
FMOWR Federal Ministry of Water Resources
WA Local Government Authority
NCWR National COuncil on Water Resources
NTCWR National Technical Committee on WaterResources
PPER Project Progress Evaluation Report
RRA Rapid Reconnaissance Assessment
RUSAFIYA RuralWaterand Sanitation Project
RUWATSAN Rural Water Supply and Sanitation
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
BSADP Bauchi State Agricultural Development Programme
BNARDA Benue State Agricultural and Rural Development Authority
BOSAP Borno State AgriculturalDevelopment Programme
unicef Nigeria 1 SUMMARY OFEVALUATION REPORT
Country: NIGERIA
Project Title: RuralWater Supply and Sanitation
(RUSAFIYA)Project
TotalGovernment Contribution: N 7,756,754.00
TotalUNDP Contribution: $3,130, 727.00
TotalNetherlands Government Contribution: $797,244.00
Executing Agency: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank)
Title ofReport andNumber ofVolumes: An Independent Evaluation of the DefunctRUSAFIYA Project
Report PreparedBy: UNICEF
BRIEFSTATEMENT:
1.0 INTRODUCTION The RUSAFIYA Project (an acronym in Hausa for water, sanitation and health)was conceived during 1987. It was originally designedas athreeyear projectto beginin January, 1988 with acompletion dateinDecember, 1990. But, due to the late signing of the project document, it actually took offduring mid 1988. The programme covers five local Government areas viz:- Nasarawa L.G.A. in Nasarawa State, Ningi, L.G.A. in Bauchi State, Gwoza L.G.A. in Borno State, Oju/Obi L.G.As in BenueState and Gwagwalada/Kwali L.G.As. In the FederalCapital Territory, Abuja.
Funding was providedby the UNDP, Netherlands Government and theFederal Government ofNigeria. Unfortunately, theimplementation of theprogramme did not go well. Hence, after reviewing the progress it was agreed in thetripartitereview meetingheld in January, 1992 to extendthe project to June, 1992 in all the states except in Benue to end in March, 1993. Regrettably however, in spite of the extension, the project could not achieve the project targets as is evident from the table below:- RUSAHYA PROJECT (NIR/87/O11 END OFPROJECT SUMMARY SHEET. MARCH 1993.
Targets as per Achieved at Hand Pumps LGA Revised Project End ofProject Installed Document BHs HDWs VIPs BHs HDWs VIPs H/Pumps
NAS. 31 25 235 32 21) 120 42 MN. 80 250 80 14 123 41
GWA. 40 15 195 44 10 110 54 GWO. 53 12 144 59 8 46 42
OJIJ - - - 5 5 38 4 .~NB:- Lack ofGCCCpreventedfurther construction ofHDWs and VIPs. unicef Nigeria 11
) 2.0 STRATEGY The RUSAFIYA project aims at using theparticipatoryapproach to develop a replicable model and a sustainable organisational/institutional arrangement for planning and implementing integrated projects for water supply, sanitation and hygiene education. The process to be used will involve startingwith the best available approach and institutional arrangement and using the method of learning by doing to test and continually modify the methods in the light of experience to end up with an approach which is socio-culturally appropriate, technically feasible and financially affordable.
3.0 To expand and improvethe delivery of water supply and sanitation services to rural communitiesin Nigeria.
Immediateobjectives: i) Developing an LGA and community-based institutional model for theplanning and implementation of rural water supply and sanitation with particular emphasis on the role of women. This objective was partially achieved.
ii) Assisting theFederal Capital Territory, Bauchi, Benue, Borno andPlateau/NasarawaStatestoimprovetheirplanning, managementandlogistical support for rural water supply and sanitation and, in the process, achieve project targetsof540 waterpoints and 1600 demonstration VIP latrines in fivelocal governmentareas (LGAs). This objective was partially achieved. (Refer project output achieved by end ofMarch, 1993)
iii) Providing training for a total of 875 people, including 625 at community level, 200at LGA-leveland 50 at state- level. This objective wasfully achieved.
iv) Promoting and establishing an improved policy on ownership and cost recovery for community water supplies and sanitation. This objective was fully achieved.
v) Improving personal and environmental hygiene in the project communities. This objective was partially achieved.
4.0 HNDINGSANDRECOMMFNDATIONS The RUSAFIYA projecthasserved as amodel toprovideexcellent learningopportunities at statelevel, LocalGovernmentlevel andcommunitylevel. It hasalso beenable to develop areplicable model throughtheinvolvement ofcommunities in all aspects ofwatersupply andsanitation services development programme. Onthebasis ofmany major lessons learned from the defunct RUSAFIVA project, followmg recommendationsaremade:-
i) The designedofthe defunct RUSAFIYA project wastoo ambiiious and unrealistic. The prqjectwastoo large and widely spread to be adequatelymanaged andthe capacities of the Local Government Councils to carry out their functions was grossly over estimated. Hence, the targets set out in the original project document even after revisionin January, 1992 forboth theinstitutional progress andphysical fucility completionwere not met In future, projectdesign andtargetsmust be discussed and filly agreed upon by all the partiesconcerned.
ii) The programme of drilling bore-holes and construction of hand dug wells was partially successful. It is strongly recommendedthat it should be replicated in other L.G.As. asit hastremendously reduced the guineawormand other water borne diseaseandresulted in theimprovementofhealthandliving standardsofthepeople. However, the people must be provided more training aboutthe benefits ofpotable water supply facilitiesand the need to maintain those facilitiesfrom contributions bythe benefittingcommunities.
i~) TheconceptofV.I.P. latrines is verynewto theruraldwellers. Hence, thereis astrong needtoeducate thecommunities on thebenefits ofV.I.P. latrines. Since, it has been observed thatthe V.I.P. latrines constructed during thelifetime of RUSAFIYA projectareeither verypoorly maintained ortotally abandoned in certain places, it is strongly recommended that only those communities who arereally senous to maintain these facilities should be selected to benefitfrom the programme. An undertaking should be obtained from the communities tocontrthute towards thecost of construction and for the full payment of maintenance cost. unicef Nigeria ‘U iv) LilcetheV.I.P. latrines, CHICSprogramme isalso verynewbut veryencouraging. Although, ithasceasedtoexistinmany schools due to one reason or the other, it can still be revived and vigorously pursued as it would serveasagrassroot awarenessprogramme forhealthy livingin thecommunitieswhere only limited medical facilitiesareavailable.
v) The involvement of asingle person from State Government level as astate coordinator is grossly inadequate. In the event of his death, absence or dismissal from service, there is no trained personavailable to take over the responsibilities of the project. Hence, it is strongly recommendedthat more than one person at least threepersons should be trained atstate level to take overtheresponsibilities ofthe project during execution and after completion for sustainability.
vi) Provision must invariably be made for thepayment of allowance andother incentives to theseconded staff so as to motivate them to be more responsible andinterested in thejob. Lazy and un-interested staff should be immediately replaced by thewilling workers.
vii) Since, women are the primary and main users of the water, their involvement at all levels of the programme viz:- planning, implementation, operation and maintenance etc should be made mandatory. In Ningi, Nasarawa and Gwoza L.G.As, somewomen had been trained for themaintenance and repairs of hand pumps but in Gwagwaladaand Oju/Obi L.G.As in Benuestate, no female trained artisans were available.
viii) It has been observed that someof the majorcauses for the failure of the RUSAFIYA project to achieve full targets were:-
a) Delays in the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.Us). b) Latepayment ofGCCC by theState Governments.
Hence, it is strongly recommended that in future firm commitments may be obtained from the State Governments in respect of timely signing of the Memorandum of Understanding and regular release of GCCC so as to complete the project in time. In order to avoid embarrassment during execution of the programme, it is advisable that deductions at source may be madeby the Federal Ministry of Finance for which the State Governments would issue necessary authority to the FederalMinistry ofFinance to do so.
unicef Nigeria ‘V BAUCHISTATE-NINGILOCALCOVERNMENTAREA.
Figure 1: A successfulBorehole drilled in Gazagi Viliage, Ningi LGA. Community is very happy with the facility.
Figure 2: A well maintained Bore hole in Gardo Village, Ningi LGA. Showing good drainage unicef Nigeria V Figure 3: A trainedfemale village handpurnp mechanic repairing thehand pump in Gazagi village, Ningi LGA
t.1
..~ S’~-~. /
Figure 4: A V.I.P. Latrine built in Gazagi village in Ningi LGi\
unicef Nigeria vi
Figure 5:
BORNO STATE - GWOZA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
yield
unicef Nigeria vu Figure 7: A happy community in aremote area in Hudugum Village, Gwoza LGA where guinea worm diseasehasbeentotally eliminated duetothe availability ofpotable water supply facility producing good discharge
J
/i
.~ ~
Figure 8: . A community in JajeVillage, Gwoza LGA whichcontributes generously towards the cost of repair and maintenance of the hand pump. A demonstration of Community ownership of theprogramme
unicef Nigeria Viii NASARAWA STATE - NASARAWA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
Figure 9: A successful borehole in Kemu Village, Nasarawa LGA whereboth the WASCOM and school teachers are veryprompt in the repair and maintenance oftheir hand pump, Headmaster of the School is second from left.
1t~J , Figure 10: Exampleofan Un-willing Gurnkt Village Community, Nasarawa LGAwho did not contribute towards the cost of repair of thep ump. Hence, there is no water. A sad situation. unicef Nigeria x Figure 11: A poorly maintained well in Sabo GariVillage, Nasarawa LGA. Thestructure is supported by apiece ofwood. No contribution towardsmaintenance. Waiting for the LGA to repairthe pump.
Figure 12: A well organised Community in Kemu village, Nasarawa LGA keeping th’e hand pump locked during off hours to protect it from being damaged by the children (~) unicef Nigeria x FCT ABUJA - GWAGWALADA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
Figure 13: A bore hole in Ija Dabuta Village,GwagwaladaLGA in theFCT with low yield, People wait long hoursto fill their containers. Maintenanceculture is verypoor.
Figure 14: A V.I.P. Latrinebuilt in Gonugo Village, GwagwaladaLGA ofFCT. The structure is fairly well maintained.
unicef Nigeria ‘U BENUE STATE - OBILOCAL GOVERNMENTAREA
S
i
Figure 15: An abandoned well in Uwobi village, Obi LGA ofBenue State. People are waiting for the LGA to repairthe handpump. The community is reluctant to contribute towards the maintenance and repair costs.
Figure 16: In Oju LGA of Benue State, people are happy with the borehole which is giving good discharge. unicef Nigeria xli Figure 17: LGEA pilot PrimarySchool,Adum East, Obi LGA where a V.I.P. Latrine was provided.
Figure 18: The abandoned V.I.P. Latrine in Adum East pilot primaryschool inObi LGA, in Benue State. The people lack maintenance spirit.
unicef Nigeria ,a~ .~
.p r 4 C
unicef Nigeria xiv 1.0 PURPOSE OFEVALUATION
The RUSAFIYA project terminated exactlyfour years ago, on the 31st March, 1993. The UNICEF hasdecided to conduct An Independent Evaluation of the defunct RUSAFIYA project in orderto know:-
a) To what extentdid this project achieve the set objectives. b) How were the states/L.G.Asand the communities involved in the project. c) What benefits the participating communities got and/or are getting from this project. d) What lessons, positive or negative can be learnt from the experience of this project.
Answers to these and facts from observations of communities situation can facilitate in the improvement of our development efforts for sustainable rural water supply and environmental sanitation programme in the country.
The consultant is expected to undertake the evaluation so as to generate data on thedefunct RUSAFIYA project that will give information as what workedor did not work. What lessons can be learnt andcan be adopted to improve WES programme especiallycommunity management efforts.
1.1 EVALUATIONTEAM
TheIndependent EvaluationTeam comprised of one ExpatriateConsultant Engineer having extensive experience in planning, management and implementation ofcomprehensive Rural WaterSupply and Sanitation Programmes which wasgained from fourcountriesviz:- Nigeria(24years), Sierra Leone (6 months), Canada(1 year) andPakistan (5 years). During the last 10 years, theexpatriate consultant was involved on the supervision of a World Bank funded water related project in Nigeria.
1.2 METhODOLOGY
Afterthe award of the Consultancy Services contract, the consultant met with:- a) The Snr. Project Officerand ChiefWaterand Environmental Sanitation Section. b) ChiefWaterSupply Section.
c) Project Officer - Sanitation, Waterand Environmental Sanitation Section for briefing.
Lateron, courtesy call was paid on the UNICEF Resident Representative, Lagos.
Work Plan and Research Instrumentto carry out the Independent Evaluation ofthe Defunct RUSAFIYA project was prepared and finalized.
Then the consultant proceeded to Jos to commence field work in the 5 states viz. Bauchi, Borno, Plateau/Nasarawa, F.C.T. Abuja and Benue State. Interactions were made with the representatives at state level and L.G.A. levels. Site visits in participating villages and meetings with community leaders, waterandsanitation committee(WASCOM) members, extension workers and, observations of infrastructuresput in place during the lifetime of RUSAFIYA projectwere carried out.
At theendoffield visitsto Bauchi, Bomo,PlateaufNasarawa statesandtheF.C.T. Abuja, aMidTerm Review (M.T.R)meetingwasheld at Lagos with theSnr. Project officerandChiefWaterandEnvironmental Sanitation Section andtheChiefWaterSupply Section to discuss the progress achieved in the aforesaidstates and find solutions to the problems encountered. At the end ofthe meeting, the consultant proceeded to Abujato complete his field studies in the remaining partof the F.C.T and Benuestate. Final report was prepared and submittedonthe3lstiuly,1998.
1.3 COMMENThONTHEREVJEWPROCKSS
The thie frame allowed for the completion oftheEvaluationprocess wastoo short It did not takecognisance ofthe far furling distancesbetweentheL.G.As. andcommunities inthe5/6 statesandcreationoftwoadditional L.GAs vizObi L.G.A. in BenueState andKwaliL.G.AintheF.C.TAbuja
unicef Nigeria 1 Theun-precedented fuelscarcityinthecounliy had veryseriously affectedthe smoothconduct oftheexercise. Exhorbitantlyhigh transportationcost hadtobe paid to reach the remotestplaces in the Northern part ofNigeria whereRUSAFWA projectis citecL
The estimated budget for thepa~m~ientof consultancy fee, transportationand researchassistancewas also grossly inadequate as it wasnot at par with thecun’entsituation in thecouniiy.
Un-anticipated andmost unfortunatelogistical constraints viz:-thesudden deathsoftheformerHeadofState ofNigeria andChief MJ(O. Abiolafintherslowed downthe evaluation process.
Death of thestate coordinator in Nasawara state and non appointment ofhis successor made it verydifficult to collectrelevant information atstate level.
Dissolution ofWASUs at someL.G.As. andnon availability ofWASU Heads also made the evaluationjob verydifficult
Non availability ofproject documents andotherrelevantreports atLagosandJos offices was anotherserious set back However, someassistancewasreceived from anN.G.O.,ICOWASS atiosandthecurrentUNDPboss atJos whoprovidedsomedocunients/ datasince both ofthemhad atonetime servedthe defunctRUSAFIYA prqject Thus theconsultanthadto make extrahardefforts to get in touch with therelevant reportsanddocuments andalso to locatethe concernedpersons since most ofthem hadleft their former places ofwork andnewplaceswere notknown. 1. BACKGROUND
InNigeriaoutofanestimatedtotal populationofmorethan 88million (1991)provisional censusreturn) abouthaiflivein smallrural communitiesoflessthan 5,000. Itis estimatedthat lessthan 20 percent ofthisrural populationofmorethan 40 millionhaveaccess to areliable andsafe watersupply. An even smaller percentagehaveaccessto safe sanitation. The collection ofwaterfrom almost allthe traditional supplies ofwater involvesconsiderable time andeffort; in addition many sourcesarenot perennial andareoften polluted. Wherewaterserviceshavebeen provided forrural communities, inappropriatetechnologies have often beenintroduced with little or no community involvement The high cost of maintenance of these systems, coupled with lack of a feeling of ownership for thewaterpoints by thecommunities served, theabsence ofcost sharing andaworsening economic situation, has made it difficultto sustain manyofthese facilities.
In November, 1985 the Federal Ministry of Health (FMOH) requested general assistancefrom UNDP in the ruralwater and sanitation sector. At asubsequent meeting, FMOH specified that assistance should be providedtothe FederalCapital Temtoiy (FCT) and the States ofBauchi, Benue, Borno and Plateau. Itwas agreed that aproject would be prepared by the Sanitation Adviser toFMOH ~ho was assigned to UNDP NIR/85/070. The newprojectwasdesigned to addtess twokey issues that were judged to haveconstrained theefficient development ofthe sector:
- institutional responsibility for ruralwatersupply, and
- the processes of effective planning, management andimplementation of sustainable rural water supply andsanitation services, including the need to strengthen the involvement ofbeneficiaries in the sector.
TheFC1’andthefour States ofBauchi, Benue, Bomo and Plateau/Nasarawawere visitedforarapidassessmentoftheir needs and resourcesfor implementing RUWATSANprojects. This rapid assessmentwasfollowedup withmissions by localconsultants to FCF, Benue and Plateau/Nasarawa and by a projectformulation mission by expatnate consultants. These missions found the following constraintsaffectingthe success oftheWATSAN programme:
- lack ofsufficient datafor planning;
- insufficientnumbersof well trainedtechnical personnelto undertake planning andimplementation,
- inadequatedemarcation ofresponsibilities for prqjectactivitieswith concentrationon theprovision of water supplies and little attentionpaid to community mobilisation andsanitation;
- problems in securing foreign exchange to procure materials, equipment andspareparts. The project was designed to address these constraints. Preparatory work also includedapre-implementation planning surveycarriedout in each participating state andfundedby the Netherlands Consultant TrustFund administered by the World Bank.
One of the outputs of the surveys were draft formats of the Memorandum of Understanding which was eventually agreed between each State Government and UINDP. These documents confirm the obligations of both parties. In particular, each memorandum confirmed on one side theschedule of payments and contributions in kind to be made by the state to the project, and on the other the equipment and services to be provided by UNDP. unicef Nigeria 2 2. ST.RATEGY It was planned that the Project would use a participatory approach to develop a replicable model and a sustainable organisational/ institutional arrangement for planning and implementing integrated projects for water supply, sanitation andhygiene education. The processit was intendedto followwasto start with thebest available approachandinstitutional arrangement andon thebasis of“learning by doing” test and continually modify the methods in the light of experience. The objectivebeing to endup with an approachwhich is socio-culturally appropriate, technically feasible andfinancially affordable. The key elements oftheinitial strategy were as follows:
1) WA-based institutional stnictin~es(LGA RUSAFIYA Units)with linkagestocommunityandstate levelsforimplementation ofrural waterresupplyand sanitation; 2’) Community-based participatory approachfor planning, installation, operation and maintenance; 3) Development ofcommunity capacity for self-help latrineconstruction; 4) Integrated approachto theplanning anddelivery ofwater, sanitation andhygiene education; 5) Cost recovery andcommunity/household ownership ofwater supply and sanitation facilities; 4) Intensified involvementofwomen; 7) Affordability, reliability, andsustainability oftechnologies;and 8) Human resourcesdevelopment throughtraining at State, WA and communitylevels.
3. JNVOLVFMF?ffOFWOMEN Special emphasiswasplaced on theinvolvementofwomen. A ‘~wornlinin integrateddevelopment” (WID)adviserwasappointed totheprojectteam. The adviserwaschosenin consultationwith PROWWESS-AfricaandtheDivision ofwomen in Development attheWorld Bank. Preferencewas giventotheappointment ofawoman to thekeypostofTrainingAdviser. Together,these staff
have accounted foratotal of54 staffmonths. In addition, thecollaboration whichhasbeenestablished with PROWWESS - Africa wascontinued throughout the life ofthe project
4. COSTOF RECOVERY/COSTSHARING Initially, theproject thought to promotepartial cost recovery as the cornerstoneof community andindividual ownership. At an earlyworkshop involving LGA, State andprojectpersonnelthepurchaseofthehand pump at asubsidised pricewas identified as an ideal method forthepromotion ofthis strategy. Duringthefirst Tripartitereview, however,both UNDP andFMOH objected to the purchaseofthe hand pumps andthe cost recovery conceptwasreplaced by one of “cost sharing”
The minimum goal in costsharing has henceforthbeencommunity contnl,utions tothecost ofoperationandmaintenance. In this, as in the other elements of the project; a participatory methodology has been used in an attempt to identify sustainable and replicable approaches. 5. The~Project Document;signed in September, 1988, andrevisedin May, 1990 following theTripartite Review Meeting, formsthe legal basis for implementation ofthe RUSAF1YA Project, together with signed Memorandum ofUnderstanding between the UNDP andtheparticipating States andtheFCTA.
The Project Document sets out thepurpose and objectives ofthe project, and puts it into thecontextofthe overalldevelopment ofthesector. It describes arationale andstrategy upon whichtheprojectis expectedto build. It also identifies inputs andagency responsibilities, outputs, and activitiesrequired toachieve them. Itprovides an implementation schedule andbudgets, and defines, reporting requirements.
6. PROJEC~OBJECFIVES These include:-
- Assistancetothe FCFAandparticipating statesto improveplanning, management, andlogistical support forruralwatersupply and sanitation. - Material andrelated support forconstruction ofa limited number ofwaterpoints andVIPlatrines in participating communities.
- Provisionoflimited trainingat community, LGA, and state levelsin support oftheprimary objective. Other immediate objectives identified in the projectdocument relate tothe strategyformeetingtheprimaryobjectives and to its purpose. These include: - Eithancement oftheroleofwomen in planning andmanagementofvillage level sectoral development initiatives.
- Promotion and establishment of an improved policy on ownership and cost recovery for communitywater supplies and sanitation.
- Improvement of personal and environmental hygiene in participating communities.
iiiikof Nigeria 3 7. BENEFITSAND BENEFICIARIES
The RUSAFIYA Project differs fromthe usual development project in that its primary purpose relates not to the provision of services to clearly identified target beneficiaries, but rather to developmentof an institutional and implementational model to achievemoreeffectivesector developmentin thefuture. Intheprocess, itwill, in fact, have immediatebeneficiaries. These include:
At community level:
- Approximately 350 ruralcommunities, orabout 150,000 peoplewhowill receive:
- affordablesafe water supplies
- improved environmental sanitation
- health education and assistancein improving community and family health
- assistance in organising and developing the capacity to plan, manage, sustain, and maintain community development initiatives.
- Communities, families, andschool children also benefit from health educationthroughtheCHICS programme in schools.
- Approximately 1,500 households which will have accessto household latrines.
AtLGAlevel: - Participating LGAs will establish WASUs to support rural watersupply and sanitation development initiatives.
- Participating LGAs will benefit from experiencein planning, managing, and assisting community based development projects.
- Approximately 200 staffwillreceivetraining.
- Relief fromburden ofassistanceto communities for themaintenanceof watersupply facilities.
At State Level: - Approximately50 technical staffwill receivetraining.
- State coordinators will gain experience which can provide a base for future support to LGAs and replication of community based water supply and sanitation projects.
- Reduction in the demand for assistance to communities for assistance in maintaining watersupply facilities.
At Federal Level: - Policymakersreceive theRUSAFIYA model as a basefor establishing policy in the sector.
- Trainedand experiencedstaffwhocan provide abasefor futuresupport to states andreplication ofcommunity basedwater supply and sanitation projects.
- Reduction in demands on therecurrent budget by mobilising community resources.
- Experience incommunitymobilisationwhichcan bereplicated to develop communitylevel self-sufficiency andmobilisation of community level self-sufficiencyandmobilisation ofcommunity resources for developmentin other sectors.
PrivateSector:
- Small local contractorswho will be trainedandbetter able to serve local needs. - Borehole drillers will receive advice on how to strengthen their sector.
- Togetherwith theBauchi Handpump Project,theRUSAFIYA Project will benefitshop ownerswho can retail Handpunip spares.
- Togetherwith theBauchi Handpump Project, theRUSAFIYA Project will benefitmanuf~cturersofhandpumps.
But its greatest potential benefits are anticipated in the future through thespread ofthe RUSAFIYA approach and its replication in morestatesand new LGAs and communities which it is hoped will be enabled to develop as self-sufficient units able to plan, manage, maintain, and sustain water supply, sanitation, and other environmental healthinitiatives.
8. SflWIEGWS
The strategy employed is fist of all to provide aknowledge baseand organisational assistanceto communities, together with technical assistanceto carry out construction and training. It helps to build confidence, skills, and a sense ofownership and self-sufficiency at community level. Indoing so, it givesspecial emphasis, where appropriate,on theroleand direct involvementofwomen in all aspects of planning andimplementation. The strategyemployed is secondly to help build up the institutional capacity at LGA, State, andFederal levelsto sustain andreplicate support to communities. More specifically, thestrategies include:
unicef Nigeria 4 Participatory approach to develop a replicablemodel through intimate involvement of communities in all aspects of the watersupply and sanitation servicesdevelopment as well as training at State, LGA and community levels. Participatory approach to develop a sustainable organisational, structural, and institutional arrangement for integrated rural development in the water supply and sanitation sector. Special emphasis on therole anddirect involvement ofwomen. Promotion and emphasis on community ownership of relevant infrastructure, such as waterpoints and VIP latrines. Useof low-cost technology that is affordable, reliable, and sustainable (VLOM facilities). Mobilisation of local resources andcost sharing. Self-reliance. Adoption of ‘trial and error’ approach to the various activities through tests, demonstrations, guidelines, and development of an institutional basefor sustainability andreplicability.
- Decentralised solution torural developmentproblems where thedevelopmentcomponentsaregearedto longterm, inward looking, selfrenewing cycles based on organisation ofrural human resources, andmanagementofexisting surrounding available materials.
- Initial use of existing institutions such as LGAs (throughRUWATSAN units) as a base, restructuring them by creating permanent waterand sanitation units, and supportingtheir initial effortsthrough inputs in cashandkind to enable themto replicate thefacilities in other LGAs.
- Development of human resources through training.
9. ‘IlMEFRAME
The project was originally designedas athreeyear project to begin in January, 1988 with a completion date in December, 1990. Signing ofthe Projectdocument wasdelayed until September, 1988. However, theUNDPsigned an advance authorisation in June, 1988,allowing start-upin Julyofthatyear.
Thetime framewasextended to September, 1991 in Revision“D”oftheProjectDocument Lateron, acriticalreviewoftheprogress achievedwas done andit wasdiscovered that theproject had failed to achieve full targets. Hence, it wasagreed in the Tripartite Reviewmeeting held in January, 1992to extendthe projectto June, 1992 in all statesexceptin Benue to end in March, 1993.
10. ACHIEVEMENTOFPROJECFOBJECI1VF.S
a) Development Objective: The developmentobjective ofthe RUSAFIYA Projectis to expand andimprove the deliveryof water supply and sanitation servicesto rural communitiesin Nigeria:
This objective has beenpartially achievedsince the RUSAFIYA Project has failed to achieve the planned or revised targets. (Refer table showingprogress achievedat the end of 31sf March, 1993 when Project came to an end).
b) Immediate Objectives i) To develop an LGA andcommunity-based institutional model for the planning andimplementation ofruralwater supply andsanitation with particular emphasis on therole ofwomen:
This objective waspartially achieved. The objective was basedon the governmentpolicy ofdecentralisation which assumed that the LGAs would be responsiveenough in the roles assigned to them in the sector. At the LGA level water and sanitation units/divisions (WASUs/WASDs) were established in alifive project LGAs whichprovided support to communities in their area in the planning and implementation ofprojectactivities. Much ofthis support has been directed through Water and Sanitation Committees (WASCOMs) which wereformed in the communities. These committees formed the main basis for training aiid organisation. Furthermore, through them the communities were encouraged both to take the initiative in the solution of their water and sanitation problems and to emphasise the participation of women in both committee work and handpump maintenance.
unicef Nigeria 5 ii) To assist the Federal Capital Territory, Bauchi, Benue, Borno and Plateau States to improve their planning, management and logistical for rural water supply and sanitation and, in the process, achieve project targets of 540 water points and 1600 demonstration VIP latrinesin five local governmentareas
(LGAs). -
The single individual who worked as a coordinator was in some states based within and implementing agency that had several other interests and where changes in leadership often occurred. Thus their effectiveness was much dependent on individual ability, personality and motivation. Once emphasis was placed on the construction ofphysicalfacilities the inability ofthe states to fulfil their planned management and supervisory role became apparent and in practice they effectively abrogated their supervisory role to executing agency personnel. Those state staffwho remained in close support and contact with field activities did, however gain valuable experience and would be betterplaced to take independent management responsibility in the future. The lessons learnedfrom these experiences will, in the future, help in more clearly definini~.’ the institutional and manpower requirements at this level. During the execution of the programme, it was noted that the independent initiatives ofBorno State Coordinator in the use of a small rigfrom BOSADP which produced ten (10) shallow bore-holes was commendable. This has not only increased the number of water points in the State, but had also shown that personal commitment, initiative and drive can bring about the ability of state personnel to handle similar projects on their own with little external support. iii) To provide training for atotal of 875 people, including 625 at community-level, 200 at LGA-leveland 50 at state level: This objective wasfully achieved. Infact, more peoplewere trained at all levels than indicated in this objective. A total of ,502 people were trained including 3,226 at community level, 215 at LGA -level and 61 at state level. iv) To promote and establish an improved policy on ownership and cost recovery for community water supplies and sanitation: Cost recovery was not clearly defined and quant~fledin the project document. In the course of the project, the concept of cost recovery was revised to cost-sharing. In the light of this change, the objective has been fully achieved. It is perhaps unfortunate that an initial proposalfor communities to buy their handpumps was rejected. The executing agency believes that this would not only have enhanced ownership but would have clearly promoted investment cost sharing. In thefuture, however, the communities will have to bear thefull cost of maintenance and replacement of their facilities. The establishment of the principle of cost sharing which has the enthusiastic support of most communities is a cornerstone in the achievement of the development objective. v) To improve personal and environmental hygiene in the project communities. The communities which had interacted with the project have a heightened awareness ofhealth issues and some improvement in general environmental cleanliness has been noted.
PROPOSED TARGETS AS PER ORIGiNALPROJECT DOCUMENT PHYSICAL FACILITIES **TJ~j1~4H’4G STATE/LGA VIPL HDW *BHS Comms LGAs States
Bauchi (Ningi) 400 60 60 125 40 10
Benue (Oju) 300 25 75 125 40 10
Borno (Gwoza) 300 30 70 125 40 10
FCT(Gwagwalada) 300 25 75 125 40 10
Plateau (Nasarawa) 300 25 75 125 40 10
Totaltodate 1600 165 375 625 200 50 For Benue, Plateau and FCT thesefigures include respectively 30, 30 and 45 hand drilled boreholes. * * No state by state breakdown was given in the original plan.
unlet Nigeria 6 PROPOSED TARGETS AS PER 1992 REVISED PROJECT DOCUMENT
PHYSICAL FACILITIES ‘P’PTPfiJ~JG
STATFJLGA VIPL HDW *BHS Comms LGAs States Bauchi (Ningi) 250 22 80 125 40 10
Benue(Oju) - - 125 40 10 10 Borno(Gwoza) 144 12 53 125 40 10 FCT(Gwagwalada) 195 15 40 125 40 10 Plateau (Nasarawa) 235 25 31 125 40 10 Total to date 824 74 208 625 200 50
‘P * No breakdown by states was given in the revision.
PROJECT OUTPUT ACHIEVED BY MARCH 1993
STATE/LGC PHYSICAL FACILITIES TRAINING
VIPL HDW BHs H/PUMPS COMMS LGAs States
‘P1 N/I F M F M Bauchi(Ningi) 123 14 80 45 49 197 101 5 35 17 Benue(Oju) 38 5 5 4 1 226 6 4 41 8 Borno (Gwoza) 46 8 59 42 25 481 630 7 26 8
FCT(Gwagwalada) 110 10 44 54 - 187 661 5 43 10 Plateau 120 20 32 41 11 150 482 4 43 18 (Nasarawa) 276
Total 437 57 220 86 86 1241 3065 25 188 61
PROJECT FUNDING UP TO THE END OFMARCH, 1993 Agency Expected Contributions Realized Contributions
US$ NGN USs NGN
UNDPUSS 3,130,727 3,130,727 Netherlands 797,244 797,244 FMOHHS 1,000,000 890,000 Bauchi Government 2,102,573 2,007,224 Benue Government 2,371,570 647,730 Borno Government 1,709,700 1,434,560 FCT Government 2,236,885 1,838,950 Plateau Government 1,007,867 938,290 Total 3,~27,971 10,428,595 3,927,971 7,756,754 (~: unicef Nigeria 7 11. INVOLVEMENTOF STATES/LGAS ANDCOMMUNITIES
The RUSAFIYA projectwasbuilt on thepremise that communitiescould take effectiveaction and mobilise their own resources to meet their own priority needs and improve the quality of their own lives on a sustainable basis. The strategy is first of all to provide a knowledge base and organisational assistance to communities, together with technical assistance to carry out construction and training. It helps to build confidence, skills and a sense of ownership and self-sufficiency at community level. It gives special emphasis on the role and direct involvement of women in all aspect of planning and implementation. The strategy employed helps to build up the institutional capacity at LGA, State and Federal levels to sustain and replicate support to communities. More specifically the strategy includes:-
- Participatory approach to develop a replicable model through intimate involvement of communities in all aspects of the water supply and sanitation services development as well as training at state, L.G.A. and community levels.
- Participatory approach to development as well as training at state, L.G.A. and community levels.
- Participatory approach to develop a sustainable organisational, structural and institutional arrangement for integrated rural development in the water supply and sanitation sector.
- Special emphasis on the role and direct involvement of women.
- Promotion and emphasis on community ownership ofrelevant infrastrucLures, such as waterpoints and V.I.P. latrines.
- Self-reliance.
- Development of human resources through training.
In line with the aforesaid strategy, representatives from Federal Government, State Governments and L.G.As were involved at all stagesoftheRUSAFIYA project. However, it hasbeen notedthat some ofthe staffarrived lateandthus could not participatefully in the developmentprogramme. Serious efforts were madeto involve women at all stages of the programme including decision making process, in the organisation of villages, and in preparation for future responsibilities in thewaterand sanitation sector. Even, some women were trained for therepairs and maintenance of the hand pumps so that they could be able to carry out the necessary repairs as and when the need arises. In two L.G.As viz: Ningi andGwoza, the current WASU Heads are women, whose performance is commendable.
12. BENEFIThDERIVED FROM TUERUSAFIYAPROJECT
Major benefitsderived fromthe RUSAFIYA project include:- a) Increased awareness of water, sanitation and healthrelationships and ofguinea worm control and eradication. b) Improved behaviours in water use and environmental hygiene. c) Management of and active participation in construction, operationand maintenance of sustainable water and sanitation facilities. d) Local and State Government staffwere trained to make improved institutional arrangement for addressing Water and sanitation needs. e) Communityrepresentative groups includingwomen were organised at community level, motivated and trained to manage their water and sanitation services. ~ Seminars, workshops and on-the-jobtraining programmes were held for State, LGA and Communitypersonnel. g) Capacity built up was achieved at community ,LGA and State levelsto undertake sustainable projectsin water and sanitation. h) Idea of community ownership of the water and sanitation facilities was introduced i) Communities were enlightened for operation and maintenance oftheir water and sanitation facilities. j) Guidelines were produced for LGA and community based institutional systems for rural water and sanitation. k) Participatory and skills training materials were produced and disseminated. 1) Schools children benefited fromhealth education through theCHICS programme. m) Small local contractors were trained to be able to serve local needs. n) Bore-hole drillers were trained to strengthen their sector. o) RUSAFIYA approach will help in the replication ofprogramme in other L.G.As and communities. p) Participatory approach to develop a replicable model through intimate involvement of communities in all aspects of the water supply and sanitation services development was introduced.
unIcef Nigeria 8 LESSONS LEARNT
The RUSAFIYA project has served as a model to provide excellent learning opportunities at State level, Local Government level and Community level. It has also been able to develop a replicable model throughthe involvement of communities in all aspects of water supply and sanitation servicesdevelopment programme. Many major lessons have been learnt fromthedefunct RUSAFIYA project which would serveas a useful guide for the futureplanning and implementation ofsimilar projects. These are:
1) The design ofthedefunct RUSAFIYA project was too ambitious and unrealistic. The project was too large and widely spread to be adequately managed and the capacities ofthe Local GovernmentCouncils to carryout their functions was grossly over estimated. Hence, the targets set out in the original project document even after revision in January, 1992 for boththe institutional progress and physical facility completion were notmet. The over-all achieved outputs have remained less than 50%. In future, project design and targets mustbe discussed and fully agreed upon by all the parties concerned.
2) Financial commitments of the Government should be clearly understood and documented. An up-front contribution mustbe madeby theparticipating states followed by regular and timelypayment oftheir subventions. Since, some State Governments cannot adhere strictly to the payment schedules for their contributions, it would be better if arrangements are made for deduction at source by the Federal Ministry of Finance so as to ensure timelycompletion ofthe programme.
3) The involvement of a single persori from State Government level as a State coordinator is grossly inadequate. In the event of his death, absence or dismissal from service, there is no trained person available to take overthe
responsibilities ofthe project. Also, it becomes verydifficult - rather impossible to collect relevant information about the project at State level. Hence it is strongly recommended that more than one person at least three persons should be trained atstate level to take overthe responsibilities of theproject during execution and after completion for sustainability purposes.
4) Selection of the benefitting communities should be on demand basis with firm commitments frc~mthose communitiesto carry out necessarymaintenanceand repairs of theinfrastructures fromtheir own contributions and assume full ownership of the facilities provided to them. In certain cases, it has been discovered that the facilities have been abandoned as the communities are expecting the Government to come and carry out necessary repairs for them since it was a Government project.
5) Since, women are the primaryand main usersofthe water, their involvement at all levelsoftheprogramme viz:- planning, implementation, operation and maintenance should be made mandatory. In Ningi, Nasarawa and Gwoza L.G.As, somewomen had been trained for the maintenanceand repairs ofhand pumps but in Gwagwalada and Oju/Obi L.G.As, no female trainedartisans were available.
~) In order to achieve good yield from the wells, geophysical surveys mustbe conducted at various sites before a final decision is made for thelocation ofawell. Local contractorsshould also be trainedto conduct geophysical surveys. All the data collected by geophysical surveys and drilling mustbe stored in a data base for use by any other Government agency. The selection of sites for the drilling of bore holes in Oju and Obi L.G.As was not correctly done as the yield fromthese bore holes is too low.
7) Drilling of bore holes through contractors is fasterbut it mustbe properly supervised so as to ensure that the drilling has been done upto the required depths and expected yield is achieved. Private sector involvement should be encouraged where ever possible for betterperformance.
8) Traders should be encouraged to keep a stockofthe hand pump sparepartsreadily available for the interested communities.
9) Provision mustinvariably be madefor the paymentof allowances and other incentivesto the seconded staffso as to motivate them to be moreresponsible and interested in thejob. Lazy and un-interested staffshould be immediately replacedbythewilling worker
unicef Nigeria 9 10) Regular reporting of progress, needs, constraints and proposed activities between the project and the UNDP should be strengthened so as to keep the funding agency fully abreast with the programme andalso to enable them to find timely solutions to the problems. Field visits to assess the progress achieved must be made regularly and systematically.
11) The roles of funding agency, implementing agency and executing agency must be clearlydefined so that all involved are fully aware of their responsibilities.
12) The training programme was successful but after completion of the project, most of the trained personal have migratedto other places. Hence, in future for sustainability purposes, more emphasis should be placed on the training offemale workers particularly in the areas of hand pump repairs andhealth education. Women should also be involved in decision making which would ensure greater degree of their commitment towards the success of the programme.
13) The take offof theV.I.P. latrines programme is verynew. It can succeed only ifthehealth benefits are fully understood by the communities. No new construction ofthe V.I.P. latrines or waterpoints has been done by thecommunities sinceMarch, 1993 when RUSAFIYA programme cameto an end.
14) The concepts of cost sharing, community ownership and management should be fully discussed and its benefits explained to the communities. Their acceptance to these concepts should be documented.
15) Communities should be educated, convinced and encouraged to buy their own hand pumps.
16) The low output ofthe programme can be attributed partlyto the delay in the signing of the memorandum of understanding (M.O.U.) By theState Governmentsanddelays in thepayment ofG.C.C.C. and theproblems of using untrained contractors. Most of the local contractors performed lower than expected. Their capacities in the areas of good practice for construction and contract management needs to bestrengthened.
FINDINGSAND RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of discussions held with therepresentatives from 5 participating states, Chairmen, Vice Chairmen, Secretaries and Heads of Works Departments from 7 Local Government Areas, WASCOM members from 20 selected communities, interviews conducted with the teachers and students from schools where CHICS programme was established followed by field visits performed for verification of the infrastructures put in place by the defunct RUSAFIYA project, following recommendations are made:-
1.0 CONSTRUCTION OFWATER POINTS: The programme of drilling bore holes and digging ofhand dug wellsin Gwoza L.G.A of Borno State, Ningi L.G.A. of Bauchi state, Nasarawa L.G.A. of Nasarawa State, Gwagwalada and Kwali L.G.As in the F.C.T. has been partially successful since full targets have not ben achieved in these areas. However, maintenance culture in Borno, Bauchi and Nasarawa States is fairly good. The programme is being sustained very well with funding from the Local Governments and contributions by thebenefitting communities. But the Gwagwalada and Kwali Local Government Areasin theF.C.T. are not very serious about thesustainability ofthe programme. Asa resultWASU and WASCOM in these L.G.As have totally disappeared. The bore holes where thehand pumps are faulty have not been repairedfor a very long period of time and are left abandoned. The communities are nor forth coming to contribute andbuy the spare partsto repairthe hand pumps. Probably, they are expecting theGovernment to comeand carry out necessary repairs for them.
Therefore, it is strongly recommended that for future development programmes, an undertaking should be obtained fromthe L.G.As for the timely repairs and maintenanceof the facilities. The concept of facilitiesbelonging to the government should be totally forgotten instead, idea of community ownership of the facilities should be inculcated, fully understood and strongly practiced.
In Oju and Obi L.G.As of Benue state only 5 bore holes were drilled out ofthe planned target of 125 bore holes. Out of the five bore holes drilled only one bore hole was fitted with hand pump. Remaining four bore holes remained without hand pumps until 1998 when thePetroleum Trust Fund (P.T.F.) Came to their aid and installedhand pumps on these bore holes. In future, effortsshould b madeto complete theinfrastructures fully and properly handedover to the
unicef Nigeria 10 benefitting communities. People should be educated on how to use and maintain those facilities. Theproject design had someflaws right from thevery beginning by planning the installation of 125 bore holes with hand pumps in Benue State without properly ascertaining the aquifer characteristicsin the Oju and Obi L.G.As of the State. Due to incorrect planning only five bore holes could be drilled against the planned targetof 125 bore holes and their yieldwas also very low. Lateron, proposal wasmadeto replacetheboreholes drillingprogramme with Oju pipe line water supply scheme. This proposal was accepted but unfortunately, nothing was done to implement it despite thefact that thecompletion datewas extended for 2 years i.e. upto theendof March, 1993. Some where fault lies with either thenon-payment or very late paymentof G.C.C.C. by the Benue State Government which resulted.
into non release of fundsby the fundingagencies as well. So, thebenefittingcommunities are still seriously suffering andthe incidence of guinea worm and other waterborn disease arevery rampant. These communities may be taken careof in some future development programmes.
It is therefore, strongly recommended that the programme of drilling bore holes and construction ofhand dug wells should be replicated in other L.G.As as it has tremendouslyreduced the guinea worm and other water born diseases and resulted in the improvement of health and living standard of the people. However, thepeople must be given more training aboutthe benefits of potable watersupply facilitiesandthe need to maintain those facilities from contributions by thebenefitting communities.
2.0 CONSTRUCTION OFV.I.P. LATRINES:
The concept of V.I.P. latrines is very new to the communities. The over all progress achieved during the project life timefor theconstruction of V.I.P. latrines remained verylow i.e less than 50%. Neitherthecommunities nor theschools wherethe V.I.P. latrines were constructed areserious to maintain those facilities. At some places these have beenmis-used while at other places these are totally abandoned. Hence, before the V.I.P. latrines are constructed in acommunity, people should be educated about their benefits and how to use them so as to motivate the rural dwellers to change their traditional habits and adoptthe improved hygienic standardsand assume full responsibilities for their maintenance.
Replication of V.I.P. latrines to other communities though it is very essentialmust be undertakenwith caution. Only those communities who are interested in the programme and are really serious to maintain the facilities should be selected. They should also be made to contribute towards the cost of construction of the V.I.P. latrines.
3.0 INTRODUCTION OFCOMMUNITY HEALTHINVOLVING CHILDREN INSCHOOLS (CHICS)PROGRAMME:
Like theV.I.P. latrines, (CHICS)programme is also verynew but veryencouraging as well. Although, it hasceased to exist in many schools due to one reason or the other, it can be revived and vigorously pursued as it would serve as a grassroot awarenessprogramme for healthy living in thecommunitieswhere only limited medical facilitiesareavailable.
4.0 FUTUREDESIGN OFTHEPROJECTS: Future design for projects in water and sanitation sub-sector should take into consideration the lessons learned to ensure greaterparticipation of State and Local Governments and that the State andLocal Governments participation in the projects be demanded driven.
5.0 FUNDJNG:
It has been observed that some of the major causes for the failure of the RUSAFIYA project to achieve full targets were:- a) Delays in the signing of thememorandum of understanding (M.O.U.) And b) Latepayment of G.C.C.Cby theState Governments. It is therefore, verystrongly recommended that in future firm commitmentsmaybe obtained from theState Governments in respect of timely signing of the Memorandum of Understanding and regular release of G.C.C.C. so as to complete theproject in time.
unicef Nigeria 11 In orderto avoid embarrassment duringimplementation ofthe programme, itis advisablethat deduction ofsource may be made by the Federal Ministry of Finance for which the State Government would issue necessary authority to the Federal Ministry of Finance to do so.
ACTUAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING AVFER 36 MONTHSFOLLOW-UP FROMEXECUTING, IMPLEMENTING AND FUNDING AGENCY
Agency Amount to be Paid to date Balance due contributed (Naira) (Naira)
(Naira) .
FMOH 1,000,000.00 890,000.00 110,000.00 Bauchi 2,102,573.00 2,007,224.00 95,349.00 Benue 2,371,570.00 647,730.00 1,723,840.00 Borno 1,709,700.00 1,434,560.00 275,140.00 Plateau 1,007,867.00 938,290.00 69,577.00 FCT 2,236,885.00 1,838,950.00 397,935.00 TOTAL 10,428,595.00 7,756,754.00 2,370,841.00
(B) TRAINING Number in each category trained
LGA Artisans VHEs WASCOM Pump State LGA Total Members Mech. Pers. Pers. NAS. 15 43 531 10 18 47 664 NINGI 18 163 1050 12 17 40 1179 GWA. 8 102 567 10 10 48 701 GWO. 10 76 1066 17 8 33 1144 OJU 14 103 45 8 8 45 138 Total 65 487 3259 57 61 213 3826 NB: The total includes seven trained FMOH &S personnel.
A) LISTOFSTAFF EMPLOYEDThROUGHOUTTHE PERIODOFTHE PROJECT
S/NO NAMEOF STAFF DEPARTMENT
1. Mr. Peter Lochery Project Coordinator 2. Mr. David Ede Water Supply Adviser 3. Mr. Hassan Kida Sanitation Adviser 4. Mrs. PazLutz Training Adviser 5. Mrs. Comfort Olayiwole WID/Project Coordinator 6. Mr. Bitrus Pam Community Development Adviser 7. MrHabilaOthniel Hydro-geologist 8. Mr. Yakubu Mohammed Hygiene Education/Training Adviser 9. Mr. Adolphus Omodu Mechanical Engineer 10. Mr. Billy Oboigbe Accounts Clerk II. Mr. Ali Dawood Accounts Clerk 12. Mr. Ben Akpera Accounts Clerk/Admin. Assistant tj~~ unicef Nigeria 12 13. Mr. Olujimi Adeyi Accounts Clerk/Admin. Assistant 14. Mr. Raphael Himikaiye Driver 15. Miss Ruth Bankole Junior Telephonist 16. Mr. OkizieBartholomew Driver 17. Mr. Emeka Okwuike Driver 18. Mr. DungChung Driver 19. Mr. GarbaUsman Accounts Clerk 20. Mr. Chika Chime Administrative Assistant 21. Mr. Raphael 0. Amazu Secretary 22. Ms. Abimbola Idowu Accounts Clerk 23. Mr. Sunday Micah Accounts Clerk
(B) LISTOFRUSAFIYA STAFFIN EACH LG.A.
L Ningi L.G.A. S/NO NAME OF STAFF DEPARTMENT DESIGNATION Alhassan Jumba State Coordinator 2. Ibrahim Aliyu Head of Unit 3. KallamuGarba Technical Officer 4. Salamatu Mohammed Med. & Health Extension Agent 5. Sule Mamuda Med. & Health Extension Agent 6. Adamu Hussaini Med. & Health Extension Agent 7. Rufas Bako Med. & Health Extension Agent 8. Adamu Usman Med. & Health Extension Agent 9. Mikah Sani Comm. Dev. Extension Agent 10. Inuwa Really Comm. Dev. Extension Agent 11. Mohammed Bello Comm. Dev. Extension Agent 12. Briskilla Musa Comm. Dev. Extension Agent 13. Binta Sabo Comm. Dev. Extension Agent 14. Ibrahim Aggery aerk 15. Mohammed Sale Driver 16. Audu Gero Driver 17. Talle Mohammed Driver
IL OJIJL.G.A.
S/NO NAME OF STAFF DEPARTMENT DESIGNATION
S. I. Mande Mm. of Health State Coordinator 2. JeremiahDa’agu DFRRI Hydro-geologist 3. Job 0. Ominiyi Health Dept. Head ofUnit 4. Godwin Odike Works Dept. Technical Officer 5. Andrew Onah Health Dept. Extension Agent 6. Andrew Ajigah Health Dept. Extension Agent 7. Jairus Idah Health Dept. Extension Agent 8. Cletus Akira Health Dept. Extension Agent
unicef Nigeria 13 9. Victoria Okwe Health Dept. Extension Agent 10. OmanEhile Health Dept. Extension Agent 11. Peter Ogbogo Health Dept. Extension Agent 12. Comfort Eriba Health Dept. Extension Agent 13. Abigail Ochong Health Dept. Extension Agent 14. Mathias Isegbe Health Dept. Extension Agent 15. Bonny Obiebe Health Dept. Typist 16. Paul Onah Driver 17. Linus Edoh Driver 18. Paul Egbe Driver
LG.A.
S/NO NAME OF STAFF DEPARTMENT DESIGNATION
1. Emmanuel Gadzama DFRRI State Coordinator 2. Adam Baba Works Dept. Head of Division 3. Mohammed Bakari WorksDept. Technical Officer 4. Amina Mohammed Med. & Health Health Facilitator 5. Ali Goni Education Dept Extension Agent 6. Isa Nuhu Education Dept. Extension Agent 7. Fadimatu Kala Education Dept. Extension Agent 8. Fatsuma Yahaya Education Dept. Extension Agent 9. Fadimatu Yakubu Med. & Health Extension Agent 10. Kaltume Dauda Med. & Health Extension Agent 11.: Abdulhamid Moh’d Med. & Health Extension Agent 12. Audu Timta Admin. Dept. Extension Agent 13. Aishatu Adamu Admin. Dept. Extension Agent 14. SafiyaWuliya Admin. Dept. Extension Agent 15. Idrisa Jawa Works Dept. Extension Agent 16. Shettima Musa Comm. Dept Extension Agent 17. Yunusa Babale Works Dept. Driver 18. Usman Buba Admin. Dept. Driver 19. Ishaya Kachala M.O. W. Resources Driver
unicef Nigeria 14 VIEWS OF:- BAUCHI STATECOVERNMENT - NINGI LGA,AND
- FOURCOMMUNITIES
unicef Nigeria 15 QUESTIONN~A]REFORTHE EVALUATION OFRUSAFIYAPROJECI’
PART I STATELEVEL OFFICIALS
1. NameofState: Bauchi 2. Name ofRespondent: Aihassan Jumba (State Coordinator, nowDeputyPirector Rural Water Supply, Basard, Bauchi State)
S/N Question Response I. What wasthemain goal ofRUSAFIYA To introduce participatory approachin thestate? towardsownership of facility. 2. Wastheprojectgoal andobjectives achieved? Fairly achieved. 3. IfYES, how? A lot of benefittingcommunities arestill maintaining thefacilities. 4. IfNO, why? Project targets up till now have not been fully accomplished. 5. Did RUSAFIYA introduceanyconcept Yes. that is different from other projects? 6. Pleaselist ifyou know any. Participatory approach CHICS programme Posters, flexi etc 7. Are therequantifiablereduction in cases Yes, thereis tremendousreduction in ofGuinea wormand/ordiarrhoea diseases casesofwaterborne diseases. in the areas where theproject took place? 8. Does the LGA Water and Sanitation Unit Yes (WASU) still cxist’ 9. Do they havethe resourcesto continue Tofully coverLGAs, thereis need to have 1 work in the LGAs? additional 4wheeldrive vehicleand4 motorcycles. 10. Has the state established similar WASU No. structures in othe LGAs? II. Is the state aware ofthe number ofwater Yes, 45 WPs were installed. points that were installed during the project phase ofRUSAFIYA? 12. How manyhousehold latrines and school 123 latrines were built during theproject? 13. How many people were trained at the State Level 6 for implementation and management ofthe project? 14. One of~hemain objectives of the project was to Yes, through contact with LGA establishcommunity ownership ofWaterand WASU Sanitation facilities, did this happen?How is the state monitoring its progress/operation? 15. Arethese peoplerendering anyuseful assistancetoother Yes similarStateprogrammes? 16. Werethereanyconstraintswhich affected the timely Yes implementation andcompletion oftheproject? 17. Whatare the general lessons your state L.essons learntinclude: learntfrom theRUSAFIYA project? Improvementoflivingstandanlsofrural dwellers. Increased productivity. State, LG, Communitytraininggiven ExtensionseMcesrendered. 18. Whatdoyou thinkcould havebeen Betterfundingandlogistics, moregovernmentinvolvement for done to improve theproject? sustainability. Thereisneed toprocuredrill rigsand geophysical survey equipments forthestategovernment to easilyreplicate theprogramme. 19. Wouldyou reccomend asimilar project Yes inotherLocal Governments? 20. What advicewouldyou give towards Bettermanagement and drawinga good Memorandumof implementing similarprojects? Understanding
~ unicef Nigeria 16 PART I LOCALGOVERNMENTLEVEL(LGA)
1. Nameofiocalgovernment area: Nhsgl, Bauchi State 2. Name ofRespondent:
S/N Question . Response
1. What was the main goal andobjectives Tomobilisecomnitmitiestowards oftheRUSAFIYA projectinyourWA? self-reliance and sanitation. 2. Werethese achieved? Yes. 3. IfYES,hOW? Commtmities have pot the ideas into practice. 4~. IfNO,why? Nil 5~ Doesthe WAWaterandSanitation Yes . Uni(WASU)stille,dst? 6. Does the tmit have resources to continue Yes, but inadequate thewait? 7. Howmanycommunitieswereinvolved in theRUSAFlYAproject? 8. How manywaterpointswere installed 45
, duiingtheRUSAFWA project? , 9. How manyhousehold latrines andschool 108 latrines were constructed during the RUSAFIYApn~ject? 1(1 Arethewaterfacilities functioning? Yes 11. Werecomnumities trainedtocarry out Yes repairs ofhand pumps? . Ii Isthecommtmitymaintenancefiinds Yes properlymaintained? 13 Werewomen involved in all areas of Some arewell involved but somerefused.
planning andimplementation ofthe . . ~‘RUSAFIYAprojectatthelocal level? 14 How manypeeple weretrainedat the Local 15 atLocal governmentlevel 936atCommunity level
. government(LG)level andatCommunitylevel? 15. How manycommunity water andsanitation 78 (EachWASCOM campusesof12members)
committees (WASCOM) were established during .
. thepsoject? l6~ Dothese committees exists andarethey rendering Yes any useful services in the operation andmaintenance ofthe facilities? 17. WastheCommunityHealth Involving Children No inSchool(CH1CS~iccessfiuiin your LGA? 1& Howmany schoolswere involved in the CHICS project? 6 19. Is CHICS still existing in some schools? Yes 20. HasCHICS beenintroducedin other schools? No
21. • How is the projectbeing sustained? Local government assistance fl. Werethe training materials andmanuals produced and Yes, but not sufficient circulated forhand dug wells, VIPlatrines andother aspects of installation,operation and maintenance of water supply and sanitation services to WA? , uefce( Nigeria 17 S/N Question Response
23. Are these materials andmanuals still available and Yes
- are they serving anyuseful purpose now? 24. WereAudio-Visualmaterialsincluding Yes, butnot sufficient pocket cards, posters, song messages, flip cardsandflexi flan figuresetc. ~ provided for personal andenvironmental hygiene education? 25. Are these materiaIs still readily available No
- and do they sewe any usefulpuipose? - 26. What constraints if any affected the Lackofdelivery ofmaterialsin time timely completion oftheproject? e.g.hand pumps, logistic problems (vehicles etc.), managementissues and staffmoiivalion(Goveniment) 27. What are thelessons learnt so far from Community mobilisation achieved Extension services theRUSAFIYA project? improvedGeneralimprovementofbenefifting communities Eradication ofwaterborne diseases. 28. What do you think could be done to unprove Moresupport from UNDP andGovernment the implementationofthe programme? 29. What advice would you give in improving More involvementofpeoplefrom alllevels in the theimplementation ofthe projects? planning andimplementation. 30 Do you reccomend the replication ofthe Yes RUSAFlYAprqjectinotherLGAs?
PART ifi COMMUNITY LEVEL OFFICIALS
I. Name ofCommunity: Gazagi,Ningi LGA, Bauchi State
2. Name ofRespondent: Isyaku Jarmal (SecretaryofWASCOM)
S/N Question Response
I. WhenwasRUSAFIYA established in your commwuit,’? 1990 2. Whatwasthegoal ofthe RUSAFWA To haveasense ofownership project inyour community? 3. Wastheprx~jectsuccessfulininvolvingcommimty Yer membersindecidingwaterfacilitysites? 4. Convenienceofwaterpoints: %~atistheestimated Somefivemetres away,some200m, someI kllon~re. ~ distance betweenwaterpoints andhousehold? 5. Areotherwatersoumesavailable? Yes,butonlyusedbyanimals 6. What is theterrain like to waterpomis? Tilting towaids thewest 7. Quantity ofwater available: Whattime does ittake 20litresperminute to fill acontainerof25litres -50litres? 8. What is theapproximate population sewedby 500people theborehole? 9. Waterquality: Borehole surroundings? Neat Modes oftransportationandstorage? They fetchin buckets andstore in pots. Bacteriological analysisofwatersample(tfpossible) Freefernmicroorganisms
~ uu*el Nigeria 18 SIN Question Response 10. Reliability:Maintenancesystem Trainedartisans -Howmanywere trained? 4 WillingnesstQ payforWaterandhow much? Weeklycontribution fromeachuser Whatisthefrequencyofbreakdowns? Onceinfiveyears Howlongdoes ittakebeforerepairs areeffected? Onehour 11. lsCHCSstillexistinginall/someschools? No 12. IfYES to question ll,how many? Nil 13. HasCHICSbeen introduced inotherschoolssince then? Wedon’thaveschools 14. Howistheprojectbeing sustained? Contributions at monthlymeetings 15. Were trainingmatenalsand manualsproduced andciitulated Yes
- forhanddug wells, VIP latrines andotheraspectsofinstallation, operationandmaintenance ofwater supply andsanitation
services to LGA? - - -. 16. Arethesematerialsandmanualsstill availableandarethey Yes servingany usefulpurpose? 17. Were Audio-Visualmatenalsincludingpocketcards,posters, Yes songmessages, flipcardsandflexi flan figuresetc. provided forpersonal andenvironmental hygiene education? 18. Arethesematerialsstillreadilyavailable anddothey serve No anyuseful purpose? 19. What constraints ifanyaffected thetimely completionofthe None project? 20. What arethelessons learnt so farfrom theRUSAFWAproject? To beselfreliant 21. What do you thinkcould be done toimprove the SupplyofAudio-Visualmaterials implementation oftheprogramme? 22. Do you reccomend thereplication oftheR(JSAFWA Yes projectin other LGAs?
PART ifi COMMUNITY LEVEL OFFICIALS
1. Name of Community: Gardo, Ningi LGA, Bauchi State
2. Name of Respondent: Ya’u (Secretary)School Teacher
SIN Question Response 1. When wasRUSAFIYA established inyourcommunity? 1990 2. What wasthegoal oftheRUSAFWA projectin Tohaveasense ofownership your community? 3. Wastheprojectsuccessful ininvolving community Yes membersin decidingwaterfacility sites? 4. Convenience ofwater points: Whatis the Some are lOOm andothers 150m awayfrom waterpoints. estimated distance betweenwater points and household? 5. Areotherwatersources available? Yes 6. What istheterrain liketo waterpoints? Tilting towards the south- west 7. Quantity ofwateravailable: What time does it 20 litres perminute taketo fill acontainerof25litres -50litres? 8. What is theapproximatepopulation served by theborehole? 700 people 9. Water quality: Boreholesuneundings? Fair Modes oftransportation and storage? They fetchinbuckets andstore in pots andclosewith covers. Bacteriological analysis ofwatersample(Ifpossible) Freefrom microorganisms ~: unicef Nigeria 19 S/N Question Response 10. Reliability: Maintenance system
Trainedarlisans - How manywere trained? 4 Willingness to payfor waterandhow much? Wilingto payasper estimate What isthefrequencyofbreakdowns? Onceinfiveyears Howlong doesit takebeforerepairs areeffected? Two days II. IsCHICS still existing inall/someschools? No 12. IfYEStoquestionll,howmany? Nil 13. HasCHICS been intrOduced inother schoolssince then? Wedon’thaveschools 14. Howistheprojectbeingsustained? Wehoidmeetings - 15. Weretrainingmaterialsandmanuals producedand Yes circulated forhand dugwells,VIP latrines andother aspectsofinstallation, operationandmaintenance of watersupply andsanitation services to LGA? 16. Are thesematerialsandmanualsstill available andarethey Yet serving anyusefulpurpose? 17. WereAudio-Visualmaterialsincludingpocketcards, posters, No songmessages, flip cardsandflexi flanfiguresetc.provided for personal andenvironmental hygienc cducation? 18. Are these matenals stillreadilyavailable anddothey serve No anyuseful purpose? 19. Whatconstraints ifanyaffectedthetimely completion of None theproject? 20. Whatarethelessons learntsofarfrom theRUSAFIYA project? Tobe selfreliant 21. Whatdo you think could be done to improvethe Increase ofmanpowerandfacilities/spare parts facilities implementation ofthe programme? 22. Doyou reccomendthereplication oftheRUSAFWAproject Yes in other LGAs?
PART III COMMUNITYLEVELOFFICIALS
I. Name of Community: Rumbu, Ningi LGA, Bauchi State
2. Name of Respondent: Saleh Ladan (Chairman of WASCOM)
S/N Question Response 1. WhenwasRUSAFlYAestablishedinyourcommunity? 1991 2. What wasthe goal of the RUSAFIYA project in To have a sense of ownership your community? 3. Was the project successful in involving community Yes members in decidingwater facility sites? 4. Convenience of water points: What is the estimated Inside the community distance_between_water_points_and_household? 5. Are other water sources available? None 6. What is the terrain like to water points? Flat 7. Quantity of wateravailable: What time does it take 20 litresper minute to_fill_a_container of 25litres_-50_litres? 8. What is the approximate population served by 2500 people the borehole?
“-~ unicef Nigeria 20 S/N Question Response 9. Water quality: Borehole surroundings? Needs improvement Modes of transportation and storage? They fetch in buckets. Bacteriological analysis ofwater sample (Ifpossible) Free frommicroorganisms 10. Reliability: Maintenance system
Trained artisans - How many were trained? 4 Willingness to pay for water and how much? Through community farm crops. What is the frequency of breakdowns? Once in fiveyears How long does ittake before repairs are effected? One hour 11. Is CHICS still existingin all/some schools? No 12. IfYEStoquestion l1,howmany? Nil 13. Has CHICS been introduced in other schools since then? CHICS not introduced 14. How is the project being sustained? Meetings held fortnightly 15. Were training materials and manuals produced and Yes circulated for hand dug wells, VIP latrines and other aspects of installation, operation and maintenance of water supply and sanitation services to LGA? 16. Are these materialsand manuals still available andare Yes they_serving_any_useful_purpose? 17. WereAudio-Visual materials including pocket cards, No posters, song messages, flip cards and flexi flan figures etc. provided for personal and environmental hygiene education? 18. Are these materials still readily available and do they No serve_any useful purpose? 19. What constraints if any affectedthe timely completion None of the project? . 20. What are the lessons learnt so far from the To be selfreliant RUSAFIYA project? 21. What do you think could be done to improve the Theres is need for additional pump/ implementation oftheprogramme? increase of manpower and facilities (spare parts), and there should be monitoring and evaluation from UNDP, at least annually 22. Do you reccomend the replication of the Yes RUSAFIYA projectin other LGAs?
PART ifi COMMUNITYLEVELOFFICIALS
1. Name ofCommunity: Ginduba,Ningl LGA, Bauchi State
2. Name ofRespondent: Shuaibu Dandlya (Chairman WASCOM)
S/N Question Response 1. When was RUSAFIYA establishedin your community? 1991 2. Whatwasthe goal ofthe RUSAFWA prqject in your community? To have a senseof ownership 3. Wasthe prqject successful ininvolving communitymembersin Yes deciding water facility sites? 4. Convenience of water points: What is the estimated distance Insidethe community between water points and household? 5. Are other water sourtes available? Yes, but onlyused byanimals
.~ unicef Nigeria 21 S/N Question Response
6. —- What is the terrain like to waterpoints?’ Flat 7. Ouantitv ofwater available:What time does ittaketofill 30litresperniinute a container of 2Slitres-50 litres? 8. What is the approximate populationserved by the 2000people borehole? 9. Waterquality: Boreholesurroundings? Clean Modes of transportation and storage? They fetch in buckets and store in plots anduse covers to coverit. Bacteriological analysisof water sample (Ifpossible) Freeflum microorganisms 10. Reliability: Maintenance system ~
Trained artisans - How many were trained? 4 Willingness topay forwater andhow much? Yes What is the frequency ofbreakdowns? Once inflv~years How.long does it takebefore repairs are effected? Onehour 11. Is CHICS still existing in all/someschools? No 12. IfYEStoquestionll,howmany? Nil 13. Has CHICS beeniniroduced inother schools since then’ Wedon’t haveschools, but arewoñdngtowards one 14. How is the prqject being sustained? Monthly meetings 15. Were training materials and manuals produced and No
cri~culatedfor hand dug wells, VIP latrines andother . aspectsor installation, operation and maintenance of water supply and sanitation services to WA? . 16. Arethese materialsand manuals still available and are No they serving any useful purpose? 17. Were Audio-Visual materialsincludingpocket cards, No posters, songmessages,flip cards and flexi finn figures etc.provided for personal and environmental hygiene education? 18. Are these materials still readily available and do they No serve any usefiul purpose? 19. What constraints ifany affectedthe timely completion None ofthe project? 20. What arethelessonslearnt so far fromthe RUSAFIYA To be seifreliant project? 21. What do you think could be done to improvethe Increase ofmanpower andfacilities (spare parts) and implementation ofthe programme? addition ofmorepinnps, monitoring and evaluation flomUNDP,atleastannually. 22. Do you reccomendthe replication ofthe Yes RUSAFIYAprr~jectinotherLGAs? ,
ut*sf Nigeria 22 VIEWS OF:- BORNO STATEGOVERNMENT GWOZALG.A,, AND FOURCOMMUNITIFS
unicef Nigeria 23 PART I STATELEVELOFFICIALS
I. Name ofState: Borno
2. Name ofRespondent: Mr.E. M.Gadzama
S/N Question Response
1. What wasthemain goal ofRUSAFIYA in thestate? Itwas apilot project - for sustainabilityby therural community 2. Wasthe projectgoal and objectives achieved? Partially
3. IfYES,how? - - - 4. IfNO, why? Not all the communitieshave been trained to sustain and maintain theinfrastructures andthe time wasalso afactor that hindered 100%successas 59 out of 75 waterpoints and59 VIP latrinesout of300 were coristnicted. 5. Did RUSAFIYA introduceany conceptthat is different Yes from other projects? 6. Please list ifyou knowany. Down to earthtechnology Sustainability Trainingof actual users of infrastructures, ownership of Infrastructures. 7. Are therequantifiablereductionin cases ofGuineaworm Yes, in some communities guineawormhasbeen and/or diarrhoeadiseases in the areas wherethe prq)ect eradicated. took place? 8. Does theLGA Water andSanitation Unit (WASU) still Yes exist? 9. Do they have the resources to continue work in the Yes, fromtheLocal Government LGAs? 10. Has the state established similar WASU structuresin No. other LGAs? 11. Is thestate aware of thenimiberofwaterpoints that were Yes installed during theprojectphase ofRUSAFIYA? 12. How manyhousehold latrines and school latrines were 5) built during the project? 13. How manypeople were trainedatthe State Level for 8 implementation andmanagement ofthe project?
14. - One ofthemain objectives ofthepn~Jectwasto establish Yes, from time totime, the state goesround to monitorthe community ownership ofWaterand Sanitationfacilities, effectiveness ofthe communities trainedand the did this happen? How is thestate monitoring its functionality of the infrasin.ictures. Also, they come to progress/operation? purchasespares from their WASU account for repairs 15. Are these people rendering any usefulassistance to No othersimilarState programmes? 16. Were thereany constraints whichaffected thetimely Yes, the signing oftheMemorandumofUnderstanding implementation andcompletion ofthe prQject? wasvery lateand also therelease ofGCCC waslate. 17. What are the general lessons your statelearnt from the Governmentcan provide potable watertothe niral RUSAFIYA project? populace ifit so wishes.
unicef Nigeria 24 S/N Question Response
18 What do you think could have been done to improve the TimelypaymentoftheGCCC andalso timely project? signing oftheMemorandum of Understanding. 19. Wouldyou reccomend asimilar projectin other Local Seriously, it’sworthreplicating. Governments? 20. Whatadvice would you give towards implementing similar? All the parties involved have to be serious and projects committedto their obligations and hasto be timely.
PART II LOCALGOVERNMENT LEVEL(LGA)
I. Name oflocal government area: Gwoza,Borno State
2. Name ofRespondent: Mrs. Anna Muhammed
S/N Question Response
I. Whatwas themain goal andobjectives oftheRUSAFIYA Toeradicate guineaworm projectin yourLGA? 2. Were these achieved? Yes 3. IfYES,how? By provision of safe potable water aupply 4. IfNO,why? Nil 5. Doesthe LGA WaterandSanitation Unit(WASU)still exist? Yes 6. Does the unit have resources to continue the work? Not enough 7. How manycommunitieswereinvolved intheRUSAFIYA (~ project? 8. How many waterpoints were installed during theRUSAFWA 2 project? 9. How many household latrines and school latrineswere 35 constructedduring theRUSAFIYA project? 10. Are thewater facilities functioning? Yes 11. Were communities trainedto cany out repairs ofhand pumps? Yes 12. Is thecommunity maintenance funds properly maintained? Yes 13. Werewomen involved in all areas ofplanning and Yes implementation oftheRUSAFIYA project atthelocal level? 14. How many people were trainedattheLocal government(LG) 10 atLocal governmentlevel level and atCommunitylevel? 20 atCommunity level. 15. How many community water andsanitation committees All communities (WASCOM) were established during theproject? 16. Do these committees exists and are they rendering any useful Yes services in the operation and maintenanceofthe facilities? 17. Wasthe CommunityHealth Involving Children in School No (CHICS) successfulinyourLGA? 18 How many schools were involved in theCHICS project? 3 19. Is CHICS still existing in some schools? No
unicef Nigeria 25 S/N Question Response
20. Has CHICS beenintroducedin other schools? No 21. How is theproject beingsustained? Unit receivescontributionsfrom LGA andcommunities.
~. Were the trainingmaterials andmanualsproduced and No circulated forhand dug wells, VIP latrines andother aspects of installation, operation and maintenanceof water supply and sanitation servicesto LGA? 23. Are these materialsand manualsstill available and are No they serving any useful purpose now? 24. WereAudio-Visualmaterialsincludingpocketcards, Yes posters song messages, flip cardsand flexi flan figures etc.provided for personal and environmental hygiene education? 25. Are these materialsstill readilyavailable anddo they No serve any useful purpose? 26. What constraintsifany affected thetimelycompletion Lackoffunds of theproject? 27. What are thelessons learntso far from theRUSAFIYA Operation/maintenanceoffacilitiesCommunity project? development Hygiene education Eradication of water borne diseases. 28. What do you think could be done to improve the Completion ofuncompleted projects, and community implementation oftheprogramme? involvement ~). What advice would you give in improving the Womeninvolvement should be 80% inthe programme implementation oftheprojects? 3) Do youreccomend thereplication oftheRUSAFIYA Yes project in other LGAs?
PART ifi COMMUNITY LEVELOFHCIALS
1. NameofCommunity: Uvaha
2. NameofRespondent: Umaru Buba
S/N Question Response
1. Whenwas RUSAFIYA establishedin your conanunity? 9-10-1990 2. What wasthegoal ofthe RUSAFIYA project in your To eradicate water borne diseases community? . 3. Was the projectsuccessful in involving community Yes membersin deciding water facility sites? 4. Convenienceofwater points: What is theestimated Withincommi.mityreach distance between water points and household? 5. Are other watersources available? No
6. Whatistheteiminlilcetowaterpoints? --- 7. Quantity ofwateravailable: Whattime does it taketo 2-5 minutes fillacontainerof 25liires-50litres? 8. Whatis the approximate population servedby the 5(X) borehole? (~ unicef Nigeria 26 S/N Question Response
9. Water quality: Borehole surroundings? Hygienic Modes of transportation and storage? Transported in a hygienic manner
Bacteriological analysis ofwater sample (If possible) - - - 10. Reliability: Maintenance system Trained artisans - How many were trained? 4 Willingness to pay for water and how much? Willingly payN30 permonth What is the frequency of breakdowns? Once ayear How long does it take before repairs are effected? One to two days 11. Is CHICS still existing in all/some schools? No 12. IfYES to question 11, how many? Nil 13. Has CHICS been introduced in other schools since then? No 14. How is the project being sustained? WASCOM and local government contribution 15. Were trainingmaterials and manuals produced and circulated When the project was on; materials were for hand dug wells, VIP latrines and other aspects of available. installation, operation and maintenance of water supply and sanitation services to LGA? 16. Are these materials and manuals still available and are they Not available now serving any useful purpose? 17: Were Audio-Visual materials including pocket cards, posters, When the projectwas on, thematerials were song messages, flip cards and flexi flanfigures etc. available. provided for personal and environmental hygiene education? 18. Are these materials still readily available and do they serve Not available now any useful purpose? 19. What constraints if any affected the timely completion of the Lack of funds project? 20. What are the lessons learnt so far fromthe RUSAFIYA We learnt much aboutpersonal hygieneand project? environmental sanitation. 21. What do you think could be done to improve the We should increase the involvement of the implementation oftheprogramme? community,especiallywomen in theprogramme. 22. Do you reccomend thereplication oftheRUSAFIYA Yes,reccomended. project in other LGAs?
PART III COMMUNITY LEVEL OFFICIALS I. NameofCommunity: Hudugum 2. NameofRespondent: Ahmadu Mimi
S/N Question Response
1. When was RUSAFIYA established in your community? 9-10-199- 2. What was the goal of theRUSAFIYA project in your To eradicate water borne diseases, especially community? guinea worm. 3. Was the project successful in involving community members Yes in deciding water facility sites? 4. Convenience of water points: What is the estimated distance Withinthe community between water points and household? ~) unicef Nigeria 27 S/N Question Response
5. Are other water sources available? Yes, (not sufficient) hand dug wells.
6. What is the terrain like to water points? - - - 7. Qi~antitvof wateravaiiabk: What time does it take to fill a 2 to 3 minutes
container of25litres - 50 litres? 8. What is the approximatepopulation served by the borehole? 350-400 people 9. Waterquality~ Borehole surroundings? The surrounding is clean Modes of transportation and storage? Transported and stored hygienically Bacteriological analysis of water sample (Ifpossible) 10. Reliability: Maintenance system Community and Local government Trained artisans - How many were trained? 3 Willingness to pay for water and how much? Wilingly contribute N20.00 permonth What is the frequency of breakdowns? Twice a year How long does it take before repairs are effected? One week 11. Is CHICS still existing in all/some schools? No
12. IfYES to question ii, how many? - - - 13. Has CHICS been introduced in other schools since then? No 14. How is the project being sustained? WASCOM/Local government 15. Were training materials and manualsproduced and circulated When theproject was on, it was available for hand dug wells, VIP latrines and other aspects of installation, operation and maintenance of water supply and sanitation services to LGA? 16. Are these materials and manuals still available and are they Not available serving any useful purpose? 17. Were Audio-Visual materials including pocket cards, posters, When the project was on, they were available. song messages, flip cardsand flexi flan figuresetc. provided for personal and environmental hygiene education? 18. Are these materials still readily available and do they serve Not available any useful purpose? 19. What constraints if any affected the timely completion of the Lack of funds project? 20. What are thelessons learnt so far fromthe RUSAFIYA project? We learnt much about personal hygiene and environmental sanitation. 21. What do you think could be done to improve the Increase the involvement of the community, implementation ofthe programme? especiallywomen. - 22. Doyou reccomend thereplication of the Yes. Reccomended RUSAFIYA project in other LGAs?
PART ifi COMMUNITYLEVELOFFICIALS
1. NameofCommunity: Kurana Bassa
2. NameofRespondent: Mohammed Sihauri
~-, unicef Nigeria 28 S/N Question — Response
2. What was the goal ofthe RUSAFIYA project in your To eradicate water borne diseases, especially community? guinea worm. 3. Was the project successful in involving community members Yes in deciding water facility sites? 4. Convenience of water points: What is the estimated distance Within thecommunity between water points and household? 5. Are other water sources available? No
6. What is the terrain like to water points? - - - 7. Quantity of water available: Whattime does it take to fill a 2 to 3 minutes container of25litres - 50 litres? 8. What is the approximate population served by the borehole? 500-600 people 9. Water guality~ Borehole surroundings? The surrounding is clean Modes of transportation and storage? Storage facilitiesare covered and clean Bacteriological analysis of water sample (If possible) Free frommicroorganisms 10. Reliability: Maintenance system Communityand Local government Trained artisans - How many were trained? 4 Willingnessto pay for water and howmuch? They arewilling to pay N50.00 What is the frequency of breakdowns? Twice a year How long does it take before repairs are effected? Oneweek 11. Is CHICS still existing in alllsome schools? No
12. IfYES to question 11, how many? - - - 13. Has CHICS been introduced in other schools since then? No 14. How is the project being sustained? WASCOM/Local government 15. Were training materials and manuals produced and circulated When the project was on; the for hand dug wells, VIP latrines andother aspects ofinstallation, materials/manuals were available in operation and maintenance of water supply and sanitation the LGA servicesto LGA? . 16. Are these materials and manuals still available and are they Not available now serving any useful purpose? 17. WereAudio-Visual materials including pocket cards, posters, They were available when theproject was song messages, flip cardsand flexi flan figures etc. on for hygiene education and environmenta provided for personal and environmental hygiene education? sanitation. 18. Are these materials still readily available and do they serve Not readily availablenow any useful purpose? 19. What constraints if any affected the timely completion of the Lack offunds project? 20. What are the lessons learnt so far from Knowledge about hygiene Community theRUSAFIYA project? development workand operation. 21. What do you think could be done to improve the implementation At least 80% women participation should be of theprogramme? given. 22. Do you reccomend the replication of the RUSAFIYA project Yes, reccomended in other LGAs?
unicef Nigeria 29 PART III COMMUNITYLEVELOFFICIALS Name ofCommunity: Jaje 2. Name ofRespondent: Mrs. Hauwa Au
S/N Question Response 1. When wasRUSAFIYA established in your community? Since 1990 2. What was the goal of the RUSAFIYA project in your To eradicate water borne diseases, especialli community? guineaworm. 3. Was the project successful in involving community members Yes in deciding water facility sites? 4. Convenience of water points: What is the estimated distance Within community reach between water points and household? 5. Are other water sources available? Yes, hand dug wells
6. What is the terrain like to water points? - - - 7. Quantity of water available: What time does it taketo fill a 1 to 2 minutes
container of 25litres - 50 litres? 8. What is the approximate population served by the borehole? 1000 people 9. Water quality: Borehole surroundings? The surrounding is clean Modes of transportation and storage? Transported and storedin a covered waterpot. Bacteriological analysis of watersample (If possible) 10. Reliability: Maintenance system Trained artisans - How many were trained? 4 Willingness to pay for water and how much? Willing to payN50.00 each month What is the frequency of breakdowns? Once a year How long does it take before repairs are effected? Oneweek II. Is CHICS still existing in all/some schools? No
12. If YES to question 11, how many? - - - 13. Has CHICS been introduced in other schools since then? No 14. How is the project being sustained? WASCOMILocaI governments 15. Were training materials and manuals produced and circulated It was available when the project was on. for hand dug wells, VIP latrines and other aspects ofinstallation, operation and maintenance of water supply and sanitation services to LGA? 16. Are these materials and manuals still available and are they serving any useful purpose? Not available now 17. Were Audio-Visual materials including pocket cards, posters, It was available when the project was on. song messages, flip cards and flexi flan figures etc. provided for personal and environmental hygiene education? 18. Are these materials still readily available and do they serve any Not available now useful purpose? 19. What constraints if any affected the timely completion of the Lackof funds project? 20. What are the lessons learnt so farfrom the RUSAFIYA project? Operation/maintenance of facilitiesPersonal hygiene and community development work. 21. What do you think could be done to improve the implementatiot Promote women participation in of the hygiene sessions. 22. Do you reccomend the replication of the RUSAFIYA project in Yes other LGAs?.
~ unicef Nigeria 30 VIEWS OF:- NASAR4WASTATEGOVERNMENT
- NASARAWALG.A, AND - FOURCOMMUN1TIES
unicef Nigeria 31 OFRUSAFIYAPROJECF -
Nasarawa AndrewA. Egah
Response RUSAFIYA in the state? Eradication of guineaworm anddiarhoéa and provision of good drinking water.
objectives achieved? Yes - By thetotal eradication of guinea worm and diarrhoea in the catchment areas.
- - - any concept that is different from Yes.
Community participation towardsmaintenance ofthe borehales, VIP latrines. Introduction of envirnmental hygiene education in cases of Guineaworm Yes, about 80% success achieved. the areas where the project
Sanitation Unit (WASU) still exist? Yes to continue work in the LGAs? Yes, human resources and community contributions and maintenance culture adopted by the LGA. similar WASU structures in othe No.
number of water points that were Yes. phase of RUSAFIYA? and school latrines were built 115
trainedat the State Level for Two officers were trained during former Plateau of theproject? State Government i.e. before thecreation of Nasarawa State. of the project was to establish Yes, prior to the state creation, the officers from Water and Sanitation facilities, the state monitored progress of its operations state monitoring its progress/ through supervision through Haruna Nun who was the state coordinator, but as of now, the supervision of the project and its maintenance is being carried out by the LGA cordinator (WASU) unit. However, it would be worthwhile if the state establishes its monitoring unit to coordinate the activities at the state level) any useful assistance to other Yes
which affected the timely No of theproject? your state learnt from the Lessons learnt include: Quick eradication ofguinea worm and diarrhoea disease after introduction of the programme in theLGA.
unicef Nigeria 32 S/N Question Response 18. What do you think could have been done to improve the Our major problem is thelack of spare parts at project? the WAS unit. 19. Would you reccomend a similar project in other Local Yes Governments? 20. Whatadvicewould you give towards implementing similar Iam of theview that similar projects be projects? implementedin other LGAswherethere is acute scarcity of potable drinking water e.g. Nasarawa Eggon LGA, AweLGA, WambaLGA
PART II LOCALGOVERNMENTLEVEL (LGA)
1. Name oflocal government area: Nasarawa 2. NameofRespondent: Isa 0. Kogo
S/N Question Response I. What was the main goal and objectives of theRUSAFIYA Guinea worm eradication and diarrhoeacontrol project in your LGA?
2. Were these achieved? - - - 3. If YES, how? No more cases of guinea worm and diarrhoea and improved health and sanitation behaviour of ruralpopulace.
4. IfNO, why? - - - 5. Does theLGA Water and Sanitation Unit(WASU) still exist? Yes, the WASU is still existing piloted by LGC coordinator. 6. Does the unit have resources to continue the work? Yes, human resouces andself-help by communit
- contribution. 7. How manycommunities were involved in theRUSAFIYA Thirty fourcommunities benefited in the project? RUSAFIYA project. 8. How many water points were installed during theRUSAFIYA 46 project? 9. How many household latrines and school latrines were 115 constructed during the RUSAFIYA project? 10. Are thewater facilities functioning? About 80% are good, the majorobstacle is spare parts and spoilt motor cycles. 11. Werecommunitiestrained to carry out repairs of hand Yes, four pump mechanicswere trained. pumps? 12. Is the community maintenance funds properly maintained? Yes, the SASCOM usually managed the funds properly to further themaintenanceofthefacilities 13. Were women involved in all areas of planning and Yes, women are WASCOM members and are the implementation of theRUSAFIYA project at thelocal level? custodians of the borehole facilities. 14. How many people weretrained at the Local government(LG) All the WASU staffwere trained and operation level and at Community level? andmaintenance mechanics (WASCOM) were trained. 15. How many community waterand sanitation committees 247 (WASCOM) were established during the project? 16. Do these committees exists and are they rendering any useful Yes services in the operation aj~rdmaintenance of the facilities? , unicef Nigeria 33 S/N Question Response 17. Wasthe Community Health Involving Children in School No (CHICS)successful in your LGA? 18. How many schools were involved in the CHICS project? Veryfew(S) schools. 19. Is CHICS still existing in some schools? Yes, some schools. 20. Has CHICS been introducedin other schools? No 21. How is the project being sustained? Community contribution towards communal effort 22. Were thetrainingmaterials and manuals Yes,but the trainingmaterials areno moreavailable produced and circulated for hand dug for furthercirculation. wells, VIP latrines and other aspects of installation, operation and maintenance of water supply and sanitation services to LGA? 23. Are these materials and manuals still The materials are not available, but the materials available and are they serving any are very useful since they are very educating. useful purpose now? 24. Were Audio-Visual materials including pocket cards, posters, Yes song messages, flip cards and flexi flan figures etc. provided for personal and environmental hygiene education? 25. Are these materials still readily available No, thematerials are no more and do they serve any useful purpose? available at our disposal. 26. What constraints if any affected thetimelycompletion of the None, all the beneficiary communities participated project? actively in the projects. 27. What are the lessons learnt so farfrom theRUSAFIYA Good drinking water and total eradicationof project? guinea worm/diarrhoea illness. 2,8-. What do you think could be done to improve the Educate the LGC on needs to fund WASU promptly implementation of theprogramme? e.g. mobility to enable the staffvisit communities. 29. What advice would you give in improving theimplementation Government assistance to the WASU and of the projects? provision of spare parts. - 30 Do you reccomend the replication of the Nasarawa LGA needs more RUSAFIYA projects. RUSAFIYA projectin other LGAs? Not all villages withcases of guineaworm benefited and acute shortage of water scarcity recommend the assistanceof thereplication. Other LGAslike Nasarawa Eggon, Aweand Wamba would be a placeof demonstration.
PART ifi COMMUNITYLEVELOFFICIALS
1. NameofCommunity: Kemu/N.S.LG
2. Name ofRespondent: BulusDanbaki --
S/N Question Response
1. When was RUSAFIYA established in your community? 1989
2. What was the goal of the RUSAFIY’A project in your Guinea worm eradication, diarrhoeacontrol, community? reducedscarcity of water. 3. Was theproject-successful in involving community members Yes in deciding water facility sites? t~ unicef Nigeria 34 S/N Question Response 4. Convenience of water points: What is the estimated distance 15m between water points and household? 5. Are other water sources available? Yes, rainwater 6. What is the terrain like to water points? Well accepted 7. Quantity ofwater available: Whattime does it taketo fill a 5 minutes
container of 25litres - 50 litres? 8. What is the approximate population served by theborehole? 400 people 9. Water quality: Borehole surroundings? Veryclean Modes of transportation and storage? Stored in pots. Bacteriological analysis of water sample (Ifpossible) No
10. Reliability: Maintenance system Trained artisans - How man’ were trained? 4 Willingness to pay for water and how much? Promptly, N50.00 What is the frequency of breakdowns? Once in every year How long does it take before repairs are effected? Just two weeks. 11. Is CHICS still existing in all/some schools? No
12. IfYES to question 11, how many? - - - 13. Has CHICS been introduced in other schools sincethen? I don’t know 14. How is the project being sustained? Through community contributions. 15. Were training materials and manuals produced and circulated No for hand dug wells, VIP latrines and other aspects of installation, operation and maintenance of water supply and sanitation services to LGA? 16. Are these materialsand manuals still available and are they No serving any useful purpose? 17. WereAudio-Visual materials including pocket cards, posters, Songs messages, pocket cards, visual materials
., song messages, flip cards and flexi flan figures etc. provided on environmental hygiene was introduced for personal and environmental hygiene education? but not available. 18. Are these materials still readily available and do they serve They serve purpose, but not available any useful purpose? 19. What constraints if any affected the timely completion of the Financial and spareparts only. project? 20. What are the lessons learnt so far fromthe RUSAFIYA Good water and total eradication of guinea project? worm and diarrhoea. 21. What do you think could be done to improve the More water points and provision of spare implementation ofthe programme? parts and government aid. 22. Do you reccomendthe replication ofthe RUSAFIYA Yes, moreRUSAFIYA project needed in Kemu.
project in other LGAs? -
PART Ill COMMUNITYLEVELOFFICIALS
I. Nameof Community: Shamege/N.S.LG 2. NameofRespondent:Abubakar Suleiman
S/N Question Response I. When was RUSAFIYA established in your community? 1989
~ unicef Nigeria 35 S/N Question Response 2. What was the goal ofthe RUSAFIYA project in your Shortage of good water and eradication of community? guineaworm epidemic. 3. Was the project successful in involving community members Very successful, because no moreguinea in deciding water facility sites? worm cases. 4. Convenience of water points: What is the estimated distance 1/2 km between water paints and household? 5. Are other water sources available? No 6. What is the terrain like to water points? Generally acceepted by the wholecommunity on the site ofproject. 7. Quantity ofwater available: What time does ittake to fill 5 minutes a container of 25litres - 50 litres? 8. What is the approximate population served by the borehole? 2000people 9. Water quality: Borehole surroundings? Neat Modes of transportation and storage? Verypotable,nice Bacteriological analysis ofwater sample (If possible) - - - 10. Reliability: Maintenance system Good Trained artisans- How many were trained? 2 Willingness to pay for waterandhow much? Promptly,N250.00 each. What is the frequency of breakdowns? Yearly How long does it take before repairs are effected? Immediately
11. Is CHICS still existing in all/some schools? No -
12. IfYES to question 11, how many? - - - 13. Has CHICS been introduced in other schools since then? No 14. How is the project being sustained? Community contributions 15. Were training materials and manuals produced and circulated No for hand dug wells, VIP latrines and other aspects of installation, operation and maintenanceof water supply and sanitation services to LGA? 16. Are these materials and manuals still available and are they Not provided serving any useful purpose? 17. Were Audio-Visual materials including pocket cards, posters, Yes song messages, flip cards and flexi flan figuresetc. provided for personal and environmental hygiene education? 18. Are these materials still readily available and do they serve Notavailable, but very useful purpose even any useful purpose? now. 19. What constraints if any affectedthe timelycompletion Financially we are not capable. of the project? - 20. What are the lessons learnt so far from the RUSAFIYA Good water and sanitation. project? 21. What do you think could be done to improve the Provision of spare parts and government implementation oftheprogramme? assistance. 22. Do you reccomend thereplication ofthe RUSAFIYA Yes, andwe need morein Shamege project in other LGAs?
unicef Nigeria 36 PART III COMMUNiTYLEVELOFFICIALS
1. NameofCommunity: Sabo Gail/N.S~LG
2. NameofRespondent: Musa Birni
S/N Question Response
1. When was RUSAFIYA established in your community? 1991 2. What was thegoal of the RUSAFIYA project in your Scarcity of water, guinea worm eradication community? and diarrhoea. 3. Was the project successful in involving community members Yes, very successful in deciding waterfacility sites? 4. Convenience of water ooints: What is the estimated distance 1/3km between water points and household? 5. Are other water sources available? Rain water and LGC hand dugwell 6. What is the terrain like to water points? Verysuitable 7. Quantity of water available: What timedoes it take to fill 5 minutes a container of 25litres - 50 litres? 8. What is the approximate population served by the borehole? 200 people 9. Water auality~ Borehole surroundings? Veryclean Modes of transportation and storage? Pots and base very clean Bacteriological analysis of water sample (Ifpossible) No 10. Reliability: Maintenance system Good
Trained artisans - How many weretrained? - 4 Willingness to pay forwater and how much? N100.00each What is the frequency of breakdowns? Two times How long does it take before repairs are effected? Not long to effect repairs (1 month) 11. Is CHICS still existing in all/some schools? No 12. IfYES to question 11, how many? No, we have no school in Sabo Gari 13. Has CHICS been introduced in other schools since then? I don’tknow. 14. How is the project being sustained? Contributions of monies to sustain the RUSAFIYAproject through the WASCOM(Sabo GariCommunity) 15. Were training materials and manualsproduced and Yes, but only those trained on mechanic circulated for hand dug wells, VIP latrines and other aspects has theknowledge of materials. of installation, operation and maintenance of water supply and sanitation services to LGA? 16. Are these materialsand manuals still available and are they Materials are not available, but we need them serving any useful purpose? for repair purpose. 17. Were Audio-Visual materials including pocket cards, posters, No, we only participate in National song messages,flip cards and flexi flan figures etc provided Environmental Sanitation once in every month. for personal and environmental hygiene education? 18. Are these materials still readily available and do they serve No, materials could be useful ifonly made any useful purpose? available inthecommunity. 19. What constraints if any affected the timely completion of the Scarcity of spare parts and financial project? incapability sometimes. 20. What are the lessons learnt so far from the RUSAFIYA Complete eradication of diarrhoeaand project? guinea wormillnes. ‘,~ unicef Nigeria 37 S/N Question - Response
21. What do you think could be done to improve the More boreholes is needed and spare parts implementation ofthe programme? is needed in the LGC WASU office. 22. Do you reccomendthereplication ofthe RUSAFIYA Government assistance towards financial project in other LGAs? — constraints.
PART IIICOMMUNITYLEVEL OFFICIALS 1. NameofCommunity: Gunki/N.S.LG 2. NameofRespondent:AwalAbdullahi S/N Question Response 1. When was RUSAFIYA established in your community? 1990 2. What was thegoal ofthe RUSAFIYA project in your Eradication ofguineaworm and scarcity of community? water. 3. Was the project successful in involving community members Very successful and cooperating in deciding water facility sites? 4. Convenience ofwater points: What is the estimated distance 1/3 km between water points and household? 5. Are other water sources available? Handdug well by the LGC 6. What is the terrain like to water points? Nice
- 7. Quanñtyof wateravailable: What tune doesit take to fill 10 minutes a container of25litres -50 litres? 8. What is~the approximate population served by the borehole? 300 people 9. Water qi~a1itv: Borehole sorroundings? Clean Modes of transportation and storage? Pots and base on head. Bacteriological analysis of watersample (If possible) No 10. Reliability: Maintenance system Veryprompt Trained artisans - How manywere trained? No Willingness to pay for waterand how much? Promptly, N50.00 What is the frequency of breakdowns? Two years How long does it take before repairs are effected? Less than two months 11. Is CHICS still existing in all/some schools? Yes 12. IfYES to question 11, how many? One school 13. Has CHICS been introduced in other schools since then? Idon’tknow 14. How is the project being sustained? Through communal efforts 15. Were training materials and manuals produced and circulated- No for hand dug wells, VIP latrines and other aspects of installation, operation and maintenance of water supply and sanitation services to LGA? 6. Arethese materials and manuals still available and are they saving I don’t know don’t know any useful purpose? 17. Were Audio-VisUal materialsincluding pocket cards, posters, song No, only theNational Environmental messages, Sanitationevery flip cards and flexi fins figures etc. month end. provided for personal and environmental hygiene education? 18. Are these materialsstill readilyavailable anddo they serve any No useful purpose? 19. What con any affectedthe timelycompletion oftheptt~ject? Financial constraints and spare parts. 20. What are the lessons learnt sofarfrom the RUSAFIYA project? Good drinl~ablewateravailable andless illness e.g. diarrhoea. 21. What do you think could be done to impmve the implemenlation Provision of more spare-parts and government of the programme? assistance towards its purchase.
I i~ the 1offrRUSAFIYAl~a~m~LGM? Yes, we still need moreinGunki.
, - unicef Nigeria 38 VIEWS OF:- F. C. T. , ABUJA GWAGWALADA/KWALILG.As, AND FOURCOMMUN111FS
unicef Nigeria 39 QUES’IIONNAIREFORTIlE EVALUATIONOF RUSAFIYAPROJECF
PART I STATELEVEL OFFICIALS
1. NameofState: FederalCapital Territory,Abuja
2. NameofRespondent:Mr. Ibanga 0.Essien, F.C.T. Coordinator.
S/N Question Response
1. Whatwas themain goal ofRUSAFIYAin the state? Provision of 100 hand punipwater points and improvementof sanitation facilities. 2. Wasthe projectgoal and objectives achieved? No
3. IfYES,how? --- 4. IfNO, why? Because ofproblems associated with faulty planning and execution oftheproject 5. Did RUSAFIYA introduceanyconceptthat is different from other Yes projects? 6. Pleaselist ifyou know any. Participatory approach Communitymanagement and maintenance offacilities 7. Are there quantifiablereduction in cases ofGuinea woim and/or Yes dianhoea diseases in the areas wherethe prqjecttook place? 8. Doesthe LGA WaterandSanitation Unit (WASU) still exist? Partiallyexisting 9. Dothey havetheresources to continue workin the LGAs? Apparently negligible resources. 10. Hasthe state established similarWASU structuresra othe LGAs? No. 11. Is thestate aware ofthenumber ofwaterpoints that were installed Yes,54WPs were installed. during theprqjectphase ofRUSAFIYA? 12. How manyhousehold latrines andschooJ latrines were built during 74 the project? 13. How manypeopleweretrained at theState Level for miplementation 5 andmanagementof theproject? 14. Oneofthemain objectives ofthe projectwasto establish Community ownership ofwaterandsanitation f community ownership of WaterandSanitation facilities, did this facilities was established successfiully in some happen? How is the state monitoring its progress/operation? communities. Monitoring by the state is done by occasionalvisits to communities. 15. Are these peoplerendering anyuseful assistanceto other similar Yes State programmes? 16. Were thereany constraintswhichaffected the timely Yes, but thetime frameadopted wasover-ambitious. implementation andcompletion oftheproject? Inadequatetraining and incentives for state 17. What arethe general lessons your state learnt from the RUSAFIYA N~edfor direct inputs from the state at theplanning project? stage of projects. 18. What do you think couldhave beendone to improvethe project? State could havedone more on decision making at implementation! execution stage. 19. Would you reccomend asmularproject inother Local Govemments? Yes 20. Whatadvice would you give towards implementing similar projects? State level personnel on such projects should be exposedto the highest level training available to any participant on such project.
~) unicef Nigeria 40 PART II LOCALGOVERNMENT LEVEL (LGA)
1. Name of localgovernment area: Gwagwalada/ F.C.T.
2. NameofRespondent: Gambo A. Yewuti
S/N Question Response
1. What wasthemain goal and objectives oftheRUSAFIYA project Themain goals and ojectivesofthe RUSAFIYA in your LGA? projectin myAreaCouncil isthe provision ofrural watersupply and sanitation facilities and hygiene education in 51 selected communities through community participation. These waterpoints and 300 various typesof demonstration latrine.
2. Were these achieved? - - -
IfYES,how? -- -
4 IfNO,why? -- - 5. DoestheLGA WaterandSanitation Unit(WASU) still exist? No
Does the unit have resources to continue thework? No - 7. HowmanycommurntieswereinvolvedintheRUSAFlYAproject? 51 & Howmanywaterpointswereinstalled duriñgtheRUSAFIYA 54 project? 9. How many household latrines andschool latrines were constructed luring the 118 RUSAF1YAprq~ect?
10. - Are thewaterfacilities functioning? Manyarefunctioning properly. 11. Were communitiestrained to carryout repairs ofhand pumps? Yes 12. Is thecommunity maintenancefunds properly maintained? Yes 13. Were women involved in all areasof planning andinip1~mentation Yes, insomecommunities. oftheRUSAFIYA projectatthelocal level? 14. How manypeopleweretrained attheLocal government(LQ)level 15 atA/C level andall WASCOMmembersin 51 and at Communitylevel? cpnununitiea 15. How many communitywaterand sanitation committees 51 (WASCOM) were established duringthe project? 16. Dothese committees exists and arethey rendering any useful Yes services in the operation and maintenanceofthe facilities? 17. WastheCommunityHealthlnvolvingChildreninSchool(CHICS) Verysuccessful successful in your WA? 18. How manyschools were involved intheCHICS prqject? 8 19. Is CIIICS still existing in someschools? All existing 20. Has CHICS beenmtroducedin other schools? No 21. How is the projectbeing sustained? Project is not sustained at thearea council level. 22. Were thetrainingmaterialsand manualsproduced andcirculated Yes forhand dug wells, VIP latrines andother aspectsofinstallation, operation and maintenance ofwater supply andsanitation ~rvicesto LGA? 23. Are these materialsandmanualsstill available and arethey serving No, not available. any useful purpose now?
unicef Nigeria 41 S/N Question Response
24. Were Audio-Visualmaterials including pocket cards, posters, song Yes messages, flip cardsandflexi flan figuresetc. provided forpersonal and environmental hygiene education? 25. Are these materialsstill readily available anddo they serve any No, not available useflul purpose? 26. What constraints if any affected thetimely completion ofthe Lack of fund andlatepayment ofcounteipart project? contribution by the state government and the Federal_Ministry ofHealth.
27. What are thelessons learnt so farfrom theRUSAFIYA project? -- -
28. What do you think could be done to improvetheimplementation - - - ofthe programme?
~. Whatadvice would you give in improvingtheimplementation of Iwould advice that more fund should be provided the project? and adequate logistic suppoit especially to. the extensionwo±ers. 3) Doyou reccomend thereplication oftheRUSAFIYAprojectin Ireccomendthereplication ofthe RUSAFIYA otherLGAs? projecttoother LGAs, ifthe local governmentwill takeit serious.
PART III COMMUNITY LEVELOFFICIALS
1. Nameof Community: Gonugo /Gwagwalada LG
2. NameofRespondent: Emmanuel
S/N Question Response 1. When was RUSAFIYA established in your community? 1~0
2. Whatwasthegoal oftheRUSAFIYA project in your community? Provision ofgood waterandtoilet 3. Wastheproject successfulin involving community membersin Yes decidingwater facility sites? -______4 ~py~nience ofwater points: What is the estimated distance 1kilometre. between waterpoints and household? 5. Are other watersources available? Yes,river. 6. What is theterrain like to waterpoints? Sloping 7. Q~n~jtvofwater available: What time does ittaketo fill a 4-5 minutes container of 25litres -50 litres? S What is the approximate population served by theborehole? 1,500people 9. ater quaijty~ Boreholesini~oimdings? Clean Modes of transportation and storage? Safe Bacteriological analysisofwater sample(Ifpossible) -- - 10. Reliability Maintenance ystem Trained artisans - How manywere trained? Willingness to pay for waterandhow much? Freeofchargebut willing What is the frequency ofbreakdowns? Oncein ayear. How long does it takebeforerepairs areeffected? As soon as possible. 11. IsCHICS still existing in all/some schools? Some schools 12. IfYES to question 11,how many? 8 13. Has CHICS been introduced in other schools since then? No 14. How is the projectbeing sustained? Communitycontnl,ution of flinci
unicef Nigeria 42 S/N Question Response 15. Were trainingmaterialsand manualsproduced and circulated for Yes hand dug wells, VIP latrines and other aspectsof installation, operationandmantemnce ofwatersupply andsanitation navicestoLGA? 16. Are these materialsand manualsstill available andarethey serving No
any useful purpose? . 17. Were Audio-Visualmaterials including pocketcards, posters, song Yes messages, flip cardsandflexi flan figuresetc. providedfor personal and environmental hygiene education? 18. Are these materialsstillreadilyavailable anddo they serveany No useful purpose? 19. What constraints ifanyaffected thetimely completion ofthe I don’tknow. project? 20. What arethe lessons learnt so far from theRUSAFIYA project? Communityparticipation. 21. What do you think could be done to improvetheimplementation The AJC should help us. oftheprogramme? 22. Doyou reccomend thereplication oftheRUSAFIYA projectin More help from government other LGAs?
PART ifi COMMUNITY LEVELO}FICIALS
1. NameofCommunity: Yangoji/Gwagwalada L.G.
2. Name ofRespondent: Barnabas -
S/N Question Response
1. Whenwas RUSAFIYA established in your community? 1990 2. What wasthegoal oftheRUSAFIYA prqjectin your community? Provision ofwater andlatrine 3. Wasthe projectsuccessfulin involving community membersin Yes - deciding water facility sites? 4. Convenience ofwaterpoints: What is the estimated distance 1km between water points andhousehold? 5. Are other water sourcesavailable? Yes 6. What is theterrain like to waterpoints? Flat 7. QuantItyofwateravailable:What time does it taketo fill a 3-6 minutes container of 25litres -50 litres? 8. What is the approximate population served by theborehole? 2000 people 9. Water quaiity~Boreholesurroundings? Clean Modes of transportation and storage? Safe
Bacteriologicalanalysisofwater sample (Ifpossible) -- - 10. Reliability: Maintenance system Good Trainedartisans - How manywere trained? I Willingness to payfor water andhow much? Alwayswilling but it’sfree. What is the frequency ofbreakdowns? Once in years How long does it takebeforerepairs areeffected? As soon as reported 11. Is CHICS still existing in all/some schools? Some shcools 12. IfYES to question 11, how many? 8 13. Has CFHCS beenintroduced in other schools since then? No 14. How is the projectbeing sustained? By community contribution t~ unicef Nigeria 43 S/N Question Response 15. Were Iraining materialsand manuals produced andcirculated for Yes hand dugwells, VIP latrines and other aspectsofinstallation, operationand mañitaiance ofwaier~ly and ~nitaficn~vicesto WA? 16. Are these materials andmanuals still available andare they serving No any useful puipose? 17. Were Audio-Visualmaterialsincluding pocket cards, posters, Yes, exceptAudio-Visual, others were provided song messages, flip cardsandflexi flan figures etc. provided for during training session. personal and environmental hygiene education? 18. Are these materials still readily available anddo they serveany No useful purpose? 19. What constraintsifany affected the timely completion ofthe Funds project? 20. What arethelessons learnt so farfrom theRUSAFIYA project? Communityparlicipation and ownership. 21. What do you think couldbe done to improve theimplementation Provision ofmore funds and assistancefrom oftheprogramme? areacouncil. 22. Do)w1~nendtheirplicatknof~RUSAF1YApt~ertrac1herLGM?Yes
PART Ill COMMUNITY LEVEL OFFICIALS
1. NameofCommunity: Kutunku Tsoho /Gwagwalada L.G.
2. NameofRespondent: Philibus
S/N Question Response 1. When was RUSAFIYA established in your community? 1991 2. What wasthe goal oftheRUSAFIYA projectin your community? Provision ofwater and sanitation facilities. 3. Was the project successful in involving community members Yes in decidingwater facility sites? 4. ~venience ofwater points: What is the estimated distance 1km between water points and household? 5. Are other water sources available? Yes, stream 6. What is theterrain like to water points? Flat 7. Q~ntitvof water available: What time does it take to fill a 4 minutes container of 25 litres - 50 litres? 8. What is the approximate population served by the borehole? 3000 people 9. Water quality: Borehole surroundings? Clean Modes of transportation and storage? Safe Bacteriological analysisof watersample (If possible) 10. Reliability: Maintenance system Trained artisans - How manywere trained? 1 Willingness to pay for water andhow much? Free service What is the frequency of breakdowns? Twice a year How long does ittake before repairs are effected? As soon as possible 11. IsCHICS still existing in all/someschools? Some 12. IfYES to question 11, how many? 8 13. Has CHICS been introduced in other schools since then? No 14. How is the project being sustained? Communityfund contribution 15. Were trainingmaterials and manuals produced andcirculated Yes for hand dug wells, VIP latrines and other aspects of installation, operation and maintenance of water supply and sanitation services to LGA? ‘~J unkef Nigeria 44 S/N Question Response 16. Are these materials and manuals still available andarethey serving No any useful purpose? 17. Were Audio-Visualmaterialsincluding pocket cards, posters, Yes song messages, flip cardsand flexi flan figuresetc. providedfor personal and environmental hygiene education? 18. Are these materialsstill readilyavailableanddo they serveany Not available useful purpose? 19. What constraints ifanyaffected the timely completion oftheproject? I don’tknow 20. Whatarethe lessons learnt so far from theRUSAFIYA project? Communityparticipation 21. Whatdo you think couldbe done to improve theimplementation Government should help us. oftheprogramme? 22. DoyouioinerdtheilieationoftheRUSAFlYAprj~icsherLGAs? Yes
PART III COMMUNITY LEVELOFFICIALS
I. NameofCommunity: Ijah Dabuta /Gwagwalada L.G.
2. NameofRespondent: Jonah S/N Question Response 1. When was RUSAFTYA establishedin your community? 1990 2. What was thegoal oftheRUSAFIYA projectin your community? Provision ofwater and toilets 3. Was theprqjectsuccessfulin involving community membersin Yes deciding water facility sites? 4. Convenience ofwater points: What is the estimated distanq~ Less than 1 km betweenwater points and household? 5. Are other watersources available? Yes,there isariver 6. What is the terrainlike to waterpoints? Sloping 7. Ouantitv ofwateravailable: Whattime does it taketo fill a 7 minutes container of 25litres -50litres? 8. What is theapproximate population served by theborehole? 900people 9. Waterquality: Borehole surroundings? Clean Modes of transportation and storage? Safe Bacteriological analysis ofwatersample (Ifpossible) 10. Reliability: Maintenance system Trained artisans - How many were trained? I - Willingness to pay for waterandhow much? 100°/a What is the frequencyof breakdowns? How long does it takebeforerepairs are effected? 11. Is CHICS still existing in all/some schools? Some 12. IfYEStoquestion ll,howmany? 8 13. Has CHICS been introduced in other schools sincethen? No 14. How is the project being sustained? Contribution offund by community. 15. Were trainingmaterials andmanuals produced and circulated for Yes hand dug wells, VIPlatrines andother aspects ofinstallation,
operation and maintenance ofwater supply and sanitation services -
toLGA? - 16. Are these materialsandmanuals still available and are they serving No any useful puipose?
unicef Nigeria 45 S/N Question Response 17. Were Audio-Visualmatenals including pocket cards, posters, Yes,except Audio-Visualprovidedduringtraining song messages, lip cardsand flexi flan figuresetc. provided for session. personal fand environmentalhygiene education? 18. Are these materials still readilyavailable and do they serve any useful purpose? No 19. What constraints ifany affected the timely completion oftheproject? Fund 20. What arethelessons learnt so farfromtheRUSAFIYA prq~ect? Community pailicipationand ownership offacilities 21. What do you thinic could be done to improve theimplementation Contribution offund and A/C should help oftheprogramme? 22 Doyou reccomend thereplication oftheRUSAFIYA projectin other Yes LGAs?
unicef Nigeria 46 VIEWSOF:- BENUESTATEGOVERNMENT - OJU/OBI L.G.As, AND - FOURCOMMUN1TLFS
unicef Nigeria 47 44AIREFORTHE EVALUATIONOFRUSAFIYAPROJECF OUESTIONT PART I STATELEVEL OFFICIALS
1. Nameof State: Benue
2. Name of Respondent: Job Ominiyi(Formerly HeadofUnit)
S/N Question Response
1. What was themain goal ofRUSAFWA in the state? To reduceguinea womi andother related disease throughprovision ofimproved waterand sanitation facilities. 2. Was the project goal and objectives achieved? No
IfYES, how? -- - 4 IfNO, why? Not muchwasdonebefore thepn~jecthad been fully accomplished. 5. Did RUSAFIYA introduceany conceptthat is different from other Yes projects? 6 Please list ifyouknow any. Communityparticipalion. 7. Are there quantifiablereduction in cases ofGuineaworm and/or No dianiioea diseases in the areas wheretheprqject took place? & Does theLGAWater and Sanitation Unit(WASU)still exist? Yes 9. Do they havetheresourcesto continuework in the LGAs? Yes 10. Has the state establishedsimilar WASU stnlctures in othe LGAs? Yes 11. Is thestate awareofthenwnberofwaterpoints that were installed Yes duringtheprojectphase ofRUSAFWA? 12. How manyhousehold latrines andschool latrines were built during 7 and4 respectively the project? 13. How manypeoplewere trainedat theState Level forimplementation 3 and management oftheproject? 14. Oneofthemain ol~jectivesoftheprojectwastoestablish community Yes. Noactual monitoring is beingdone. Waterand Sanitation facilities, did this happen?How is thestate monitoring its progress/operation? 15. Are these people rendering anyuseful assistance to other similar Yes State programmes? 16. Were there anyconstraintswhich affected thetimely implementation a Yes completion oftheproject? 17. What are thegeneral lessons your state learnt from theRUSAFIYA -- - project? 18. What do you think could have been done to improve theproject? - - - 19 Would you reccomendasimiIarprt~jectin other LocalGovemments? 20. What advicewould you givetowards miplernaiting similarprojects?
unicef Nigeria 48 PART H LOCALGOVEENMENTLEVEL(LGA)
1. Name oflocal governmentarea: Oju
2. Name ofRespondent: Job Ominiyi
S/N Question Response
1. What was the main goal andobjectives The main goalswas to reduce guineawomi and oftheRUSAFlYAprqjectinyourLGA? other water related dseasesin the LGA through the provision of improved water andsanitation facilities. The objectives were; To develop local govt and community based institutions to plan and implement ruralwatersupply andsanitation facilities with theactive involvement ofwomen. Topromotecommunity ownershipof facilitiesprovided duringtheproject Toprovide improved watersupply and sanitation facilities. To promote andbringaboutimproved perspnal and envirunmental hygiene 2. Were these achieved? Yes,toa level.
3. IfYES,how? WASU + WASCOM establishedand functional. 4. IfNO, why? Facilities could not be providedforlack of funds. 5. Does the LGAWaterand Sanitation Unit(WASU) still exist? No&Yes 6. Does the unit have resources to continue the work? Yes, recently with funding from DFIDthrough wateraicL 7. Howmanycommunitieswere involvedinthe RUSAFIYA pr~ect? 8. Howmanywaterpoints wereinstalled during theRUSAF1YA project? 11 started, but only 4 completed. 9. How manyhousehold latrines and school latrines were constnicted 7 and4 respectively. duringtheRUSAFIYA project? 10. Are the water facilities fiinciioning? Yes 11. Were communities trainedto carry out repairs ofhand pumps? Yes 12. Is thecommunity maintenance funds properly maintained? Yes 13. Were women involved in all areas ofplanningand implementation Yes oftheRUSAFTYA projectatthelocal level? 14. How manypeoplewere trainedat theLocal govemment(LG) level 59 at Localgovernmentlevel 23 atCommunitylevel. Communitylevel? 15. How many community waterandsanitation committees(WASCOM) were established during the project? 16. Do these committees exists andarethey rendering any useful Someare,butveiy few. services in the operation and maintenance ofthefacilities? 17. Was theCommunity HealthInvolving Children in SchOol (CHICS) Don’tknowforlackofmonitoring. successful in yourLGA? 18. How many schoolswere involved in theCHICS project? 8 (Theteachers were trained) 19. Is CHICS still existing in someschools? Don’tknow
20. Has CHICS beenintroducedin other Noschools? - 21. How is the projectbeing. sustained? Not sustained due to unceremonious termination o: the RUSAFIYA phase,until wateraidcamein
unicef Nigeria 49 S/N Question Response.
Were the trainingmaterialsandmanuals produced and circulated Yes, somewere supplied for hand dug wells, VII’ latrines andother aspectsof installation, operation and maintenance ofwater supply and sanitation servicesto LGA? 23. Are these materialsand manualsstill available and arethey serving Yes, they areavailable and serving a usefulpuipose anyuseful purpose now? 24. Were Audio-Visualmaterials including pocketcards, posters, song Yes messages, flip cardsandflexi flan figuresetc. providedfor personal and environmental hygiene education? 25. Are these materials still readilyavailable and do theyserve any Yes usefW purpose? 26 What constraintsifanyaffectedthetimely completion ofthe project? Lackoffinds as pn~jectfunds were withdrawn for lack of governmentcounterpart funding. 27. What are thelessons learnt so farfrom theRUSAFIYA project? Lessonslearnt from RUSAFJYA: The peopleofthe LGA are willing to contribute to theplanning and implementation ofdevelopmentprojects. Thecapacityoflocal government officials isgenerally undermined by state and federalofficials as evidenced by powers for certain decisions beingusurped and such decisionsjust made and handed down. 28. What do you think could be done to improvethe implementation Federaland state officials should be informedtobe! ofthe programme? lesshaughtywith LGA officials. The LGA officials should be givenachance to prove themselves. Communitymemberstrainedon thejobinwell construction so that theskill is left behind in the community forpossible replication asthepopulation grows. 29. What advicewould you give in improvingthe implementation of Emphasis should continueto be placed on the theprojects? participation of women in ruralwater supply and sanitation work right from the planning to the implementation stage. 30 Doyoureccomend thereplication oftheRUSAFIYA Yes projectin other LGAs?
PART III COMMUNITY LEVELOFFICIALS
1. NameofCommunity: Uwobe/ObiLGA
2. Nameof Respondent: Rhoda Okpire
S/N Question Response 1. When wasRUSAFIYA established in your community? 1992 2. What was the goal of the RUSAFIYA project in your community? In providing waterto reducewater scarcity. 3. Wasthe project successful in involving community members Yes in deciding water facility sites? 4. g~jiyenienceof water points: What is the estimated distance About 1km. between water points and household? 5. ~~ther water sources available? Pond .~6. What is the terrain like to waterpoints? Flat unkef Nigeria 50 S/N Question Response 7. Quantity of water available: What time does it take to fill a 5 minutes container of 25litres - 50 litres? 8. What is the approximatepopulation served by the borehole? 2000 people 9. Water quality: Weedy Borehole surroundings? In basins and stored in pots. Modes of transportation and storage? Bacteriological_analysis_ofwatersample_(Ifpossible)
10. Reliability: Maintenance system Trained artisans - How many were trained? 2 Willingness to pay for water and how much? Yes(A basin costs N2) What is the frequency of breakdowns? Three months interval How long does it take before repairs are effected? Less than a week. 11. Is CHICS still existing in all/some schools? No 12. IfYES to question 11, how many? 13. Has CHICS been introduced in other schools since then? Nomeansof sustenance, somepeople only come to inspect it from timeto time. 14. How is the project being sustained? Yes 15. Weretraining materials and manuals produced and circulated No for hand dug wells, VIP latrines and other aspects of installation, operation and maintenance of water supply and sanitation services to LGA? 16. Are these materials and manuals still available and are they No serving any useful purpose? 17. Were Audio-Visual materialsincluding pocket cards, posters, No song messages, flip cards and flexi flan figures etc.provided for personal and environmental hygiene education? 18. Are these materials still readily available and do they serve No any useful purpose? 19. What constraints if any affected thetimely completion of Finance the_project?
- 20. What are thelessons learntso far fromthe RUSAFIYA There is reductionof guinea worm project? 21. What do you think could be done to improve the Let theprogramme come into being because implementation ofthe programme? one pont of wateris not sufficient. 22. Do youreccomend thereplication of the RUSAFIYA project Yes in other LGAs?
Part III communitylevel officials
1. NameofCommunity: Udeji /Obi LGA 2. NameofRespondent: Emma Ode S/N Question Response
1. When was RUSAFIYA establishedin your community? 1991 2. What was the goal of the RUSAFIYA project in your Providing water to eradicate guinea worm. community? 3. Was the project successful in involving community members Yes in deciding water facility sites? 4. Convenience ofwater points: What is the estimated distance 1 km for thosewho live far away from thepoin between water points and household? 5. Are other water sources available? Locally hand dug wells 6. What is theterrain like to water points? Flat 7. Qpantitv ofwater available: What time does it taketo fill a 5 minutes container of25litres - 50 litres? ~ 8. What is the approximatepopulation servedby the borehole? 450 people
unicef Nigeria 51 S/N Question Response
9. W~ quality: Borehole surroundings? Clean Modes of transportation and storage? With basins and jerrycans. Bacteriological analysis of watersample (If possible) 10. Reliability: Maintenance system Trained artisans - How many were trained? 2 Willingness to pay for water and how much? We do not pay. What is the frequency of breakdowns? Two years intervals. How long does it take before repairs are effected? Since the pump spoilt, the people not paid for repairs. 11. Is CHICS still existing in all/some schools? No
12. IfYES to question 11, how many? --- 13. Has CHICS been introduced in other schools since then? No 14. How is the project being sustained? The project has not been sustained in any way. 15. Were training materials and manuals produced and circulated Yes for hand dug wells, VIP latrines and other aspects of installation, operation and maintenance of water supply and sanitation services ~ 16. Are these materials and manuals still available and are they Some of the materials are spoiled so it does not serving any useful purpose serve any useful purpose again. 17. Were Audio-Visual materials including pocket cards, posters, Yes song messages flip cards and flexi flan figures etc. provided for personal and environmental hygiene education? 18. Are these materials still readily available and do they serve any They are no longer available. useful purpose? 19. What constraints if any affected the timely completion of The constrain is that the water point is not the project? sufficient. 20. What are the lessons learnt so far from the RUSAFIYA We weretaught how to filterwater and to keep project? our surroundings clean. 21. What do you think could be done to improve the implementation oftheprogramme? The Federal Government of Nigeria should assist the UNDP should assist theUNDPto provide us water. 22. Doyou reccomend thereplication of theRUSAFIYA RUSAFIYA project should workin other project in other LGAs? communities only when they are readyto spend more years and to pump more money so that the work should progress.
Part lii community level officials
1. Name ofCommunity: Abode /Obi LGA
2. Name ofRespondent: Margaret Ogiri
S/N Question Response 1. When was RUSAFIYA established in your community? 1992 2. What was the goal of theRUSAFIYA project in your To provide water to eradicate guineaworm and community? to reduce watersacrcity. 3. Was the project successful in involving community members Yes in deciding water facility sites? 4. Convenience of water points: What is the estimated distance 1 km for those living far fromthepoint. between water points and household? 5. Are other water sources available? Ponds 6. What is the terrain like to waterpoints? Flat
~,, unkef Nigeria 52 S/N Question Response 7. Ouantitv of water available: Whattime does it take to fill a 5 minutes
container of 25litres - 50 litres? 8. What is the approximate population served by the borehole? 600people 9. Water quality Borehole surroundings? Weedy ~ Modes of transportation and storage? Basins and stored in pots. Bacteriological analysis ofwater sample (If possible) 10. Reliability: Maintenance system
Trained artisans - How many were trained? 2 Willingness to pay for water and how much? Yes, one naira perbasin. What is the frequency of breakdowns? After a yearor two. How long does it take before repairs are effected? Less than a month.
11. Is CHICS still existing in all/some schools? - - -
12. IfYES to question 11, how many? - - - 13. Has CHICS been introduced in othe~schools since then? No 14. How is the project being sustained? The project is not sustained. 15. Weretraining materials and manuals produced and circulated Yes for hand dug wells, VIP latrinesand other aspects of installation, operation and maintenance of water supply and sanitation services to LGA? 16. Are these materials and manuals still available and are they No serving any useful purpose? 17. WereAudio-Visual materials including pocket cards, posters, Yes song messages, flip cards and flexi flan figures etc. provided for personal and environmental hygiene education? 18. Are these materials still readily available and do they serve any useful purpose? 19. What constraints if any affected the timelycompletion of The supply of waterfromthewell is not and th the project? project did not dig another. 1hat are the lessons learnt so far from the RUSAFIYA Filtering waterbefore drinking. 20. Vs’ project? 21. What do you think could be done to improve the Not to request that the state government shouk implementation oftheprogramme? pay any mountagain. 22. Do you reccomend thereplication of the RUSAFIYA project lfthe UNDP will not take full responsibility in other LGAs? of funding I advice that let the project not be taken to any other community that will cause mistrust on the extent agents
unicef Nigeria 53 1I~RMSOFREFERENCEFOREVALUATIONOFRUSAFIYAPROJECF
BACKGROUNDANDRATIONALE
In the past, therehave been many efforts by Goverpments and external donors to improverural water supplies in developing countries. Such donors have usually come into the country, deliver the so-called aid and with the exit ofthe donor agency, usually comes an end to the water supply scheme. It has now been realised that for such aide to be sustained, community involvement at every stage is very crucial.
Rusafiya, an acronym in the Hausa language for water, sanitation and health was conceived in 1987 and implementation started in mid 1998 when theproject documentwas signed. It was funded by theUNDPand the Netherlands Government, the largest in-country demonstration project in rural water supply and sanitation ever executed by the UNDP - World Bank Programme. The Federal Ministry of Health in Nigeria was the supervising ministry and both WHO and UNICEF were on the board of Federal ProjectAdvisory Committee.
PROJECTOBJECTIVES
Development Objective To expand and improve the deliveryof watersupply and sanitation servicesto rural communities in Nigeria.
Immediate Objectives were: 1. To create a Local Government Area(LGA)-Based Institutional Model by: - establishing a Water Supply and Sanitation Unit at LGA level for technical and logistical support; - organizing project communities organised for installation, operation and maintenance of water supply and sanitation services;
- creating storage and distribution systems for hand pump spare parts.
2. To improve Planning, Management and Logistical Support by:
- procurement of vital equipment;
- conducting community based, integrated water supply and sanitation, and village hygiene education promotion;
- targetingcommunities with emphasis on women’s role.
3. Totrain State-Level, LGA-Level and Community Personnelby: - developing training materials for community participation, construction of hand-dug wellsand VIP latrines, maintenance ofwatersupply and sanitation services, geophysical survey and tasks ofextension agents.
- training at least 625 personnel at State, LGA and community level trained in theimplementation processes of the project; - Training of village water and sanitation committee(WASCOM) in management of water supply, artisans in construction of sanitation facilities and hygiene education promotion.
4. To promote ownership of Water supply facilities andVillage LevelOperation andMaintenance(VLOM) by: - organizing cost recovery mechanisms for operation and maintenanceof facilities; Installing 540 hand pumps in communities; - training local artisans in various aspects of construction, repair and maintenance of hand pumps.
5. To promote Personal and Environmental Hygiene by: - conducting hygiene education promotion on improved knowledge andpractices in sanitation; - providing audio-visual materials for personal and environmental hygiene education; implementing programme in Community Health Involving Children in Schools (CHICS);
- Assisting in constructing 1,500 compartmentofVIP latrines.
unicef Nigeria. 54 Purpose ofthe Evaluation:
The RUSAFIYA Projectterminated exactlyFouryears ago - on 31st, March 1993. To whatextent did this project achieved the set objectives? How were the State/LGAs and the communities involved in the project? What benefits did the participating communities gotand or are getting from theproject?What lessons, positive or negativethatcan be learn fromthe experience of this project? Answers to these and facts from observations of communities’ situation can facilitate in the improvement of our development efforts for sustainable rural water supply and environmental sanitation programme in the country. The Consultant is expected to undertake the evaluation so as to generate data on the defunct RUSAFIYA Project that will give information as what worked or did not work. What lessons can be learnt and can be adopted to improve WES Programme especially community management efforts.
The consultant will carry out the following tasks: i. Desk study for information on the project institutional arrangement, planning implementation, involvement of the communities and especially women in the operation and maintenance ofthe systems ii. Visit the 5/6 participating States, 5 LGAs and at least 3 or 4 Communities in each LGA: Bauchi State, Ningi LGA; Borno State, GwozaLGA; Benue, Oju LGA;
Plateau/Nasarawa States, NasarawaLGA FederalCapital Territory, GwagwaladaArea Council
- Talk to state and LGA officials on theset-up ofthedefunct project, get any records/document they have on theproject
- Visit sample communities, talkto community leaders/members on theproject and their involvement in the planning, implementation and operation ofthe facilities. Talk to WASCOM members on maintenance system put in place during the prqjectphase and what is in practice now. iii. Visit water and sanitation facilitiesestablished during theprojectimplementation phase fordirect observation ofthefunctionality ofthe facilities. iv. Sample opinion and attitude of users ofthefacilities as to their perceived involvement in the operation and maintenanceof the facilities and the usefulness or otherwise of the facilities. v. Visit schoolswhichhad CHICS programme,interviewteachers and sample childrenon theirperception and importance ofthis programme. Observe the functionality of latrinesbuilt in the schools during theproject. vi. Analyse the information/data obtained and give details of findings and recommendations on usefulness or otherwise of the findings to improving other on-going/future rural water supply and sanitation programmes. vii Final report of theresults of thestudy and recommendations in 3 hard copies and a diskette.
‘4’ unicef Nigeria 55 ENGR. NASIM’S ITINERARY FOR EVALUATION OF RUSAFIYA
MAY20TH TO JULY 31ST, 1998:
DAY DAW PLANOFWORK
Wednesday to Sunday 20th May to 3 l~May Award ofcontract to theconsultant by UNCEF H/Q Lagos to cartyout an Independent Evaluation ofthe DefunctRUSAFIYA Project Signing ofthecontractagreement between UNICEF and the consultant Collection ofrelevant documents by the consultant andto conduct desk studies of the available documents.
Monday to Friday June to5th June Travel to Lagos Briefing by Mr MansoorAli, Chief WESSectionDr (Mrs)ComfortOlayiwole Sanitatio: Officerand Mr. Olushola Ismail ,Water Supply Officer Courtesy call on theResident Representative, UNICEF Lagos Courtesycall on theUNDP Resident Representation, Lagos FinalizationofWork Plan for the Evaluation of RUSAFIYA project. Travel to Jos Finalization of Research instrument
Saturday to Sunday 6th June to 7th June Review of documents
Tuesday 9th June Journey to Bauchi TeamPlanning and documents review VisitUNiCEFOfficeBauchi MeetMr MohammedKamfut, WESP0 ZoneD and Mr Zakari Danbam, Bauchi State WATSAN PMto information aboutthedefunctRUSAFIYA Projects, Finalise travel plansfor Ningi and Environs Interact with Bauchi State Government coordinator and the defunctBASIRDA (now BSADP) andBauchi WATSAN Officials Desk studies
Wednesday to Saturday I0th June to 13th June Field visitsto Ningi and environs. MeetLocal Government Officials,WASCOM members, Womengroup, Extension Agents and Community Representatives. Inspect infrastructures build duringtheprojectlifetime Sunday l4tl~June Documents Review and preparation ofdraftreport outline. Monday l5thiune Travel to Maiduguri/Evaluation team review and planning. Desk Studies Tuesday l6th June Meet Bomo State Government Co-ordinatorCollect relevant documentsand information Interact with BOSADP Officials DocumentsReview
Wednesday to Saturday I 7th June to 20th June Field visits to Gwoza and environ Meet Local Government OfficialsWASU Head, WASCOM members,Women group, Extension Agents and Community Representatives. Inspect frastructures build during theproject life time. Sunday 2lstJune Travel to Jos
unicef Nigeria 56 DAY DAlE PLAN OFWORK
Monday to Sunday 22nd June to 28th June Review the Bauchi andBorno States documents, cany on desk studies Prepare draftreport
Monday to Tuesday 29thJune to3ØthJune Journey to Lafla, Nasarawa State Evaluationteam review andplanning Meet State Government Co-ordinator Collectrelevant documents and information. Interactwith Officials and Canyon . desk studies.
Tuesday 30th June TraveltoNassrawaLGA. Wednesday to Sunday 1S~July to 3”July Evaluation team review and planning Meet Officialsand collectrelevant documents and informationPay field visits to Nassrawa and e environ. Inspectthe infrastructure built during the project lifetime. Meet WASCOM Members, Womengroup, Extension Agents andCommunity representatives.
Saturday to Wednesday 4th July to 8th July Travelto Abuja Meet F.C.T officials, Collect relevant documents and information Meet Gwagwalada Local Government Officials, collect relevant documents and information Pay field visits to Gwagwalada, Kwali andenviron, inspect the infrastructurebuild during theproject lifetime Meet WASCOMMembers, Women group, Extension Agents andCommunity Representatives. Friday lOthJuly Travel from AbujatoJos
Monday 13th July Travel from Jos to Makurdi Meet Benue State Officials, Collectrelevantdocumentsandinformation Interactwith BERWASSA/DFIA Officials and obtain their viewstheir facilitation for field visitto Oju/Obi
Tuesday to Thursday 14thJuly to16th July Makurdito Qju/Obi and environ Meet LGA Officials, Extension Agents WASCOM Members WomenGroups
Friday 17thJuly Travel to Makurdi, Jos Saturdayto Thursday l8thJulyto 23” July Preparation, printing and binding ofdraft final report Friday to Thursday 24thJulyto3othJuly Journey to Lagos Preparation and discussions on thedraft finalreport. Presentationresults, Completion and submission of final report. Friday 31”July Journey to Jos
unicef Nigeria ~57 OJUWATERSUPPLYSCHEME
INTRODUCTION Oju LGA in Benue State was selected by the State Government for the implementation of the Rusafiya Project. In line with the procedure adopted for project execution, a rapid reconnaissance survey (RRS) was carried out in the LGA and communities to benefit from the project were selected. Survey results and previous reports indicates that Oju has severe health problems stemming frominadequate water supplies, in guinea worm diseases, as yellow fever, guinea worm, typhoid fever and childhood infections. The presence as endemic is guinea worm, has attracted the State Government and international agencies attention in an attempt to find a solution. Most of the communities in the LGA are scattered with inadequate safe water supplies. During the wet season communitiesrely on water collected from ponds while in thedry season people travel long distances to fetchwater. Few boreholes fitted with hand pump and hand dug wells exists. Results of geophysical surveys carried out by the Rusafiya/State hydrogeology team indicate that ground water devulopment using hand pumps cannot be implemented as a general solution owing to the non-availability of aquifers at depths appropriate for hand pump operation. 2. PREVIOUS WORKCARRIEDOUT DURINGTHE IMPLEMENTATION OFRUSAFIYAPROJECT A) Rapid Reconnaissance Survey A Rapid reconnaissance survey was carried out during the last part of 1990. The objectives of the survey were to: 1. Updateexisting date on the sizeof communities in theLGA. 2. Determine existing sources of water supply, assess the possibilities of reactivation of water points constructed prior to the Rusafiya project and the potential for hand dug-wells and machine-drilled boreholes. 3. Obtain first hand information on thecommunities’ felt needs and possible community participation in water and sanitation projectsthat may be undertaken by agencies operating in Oju LGA. 4. Determine and record thecommunities with guinea worm.
A total of 465 communitieswere surveyed. Out of this number, 57 communities were selected to benefitfrom the limited number of water points and sanitation facilitiesto be provided.
This survey enabled the Project Execution teamto makethe following conclusions. I. The main sOurces ofwater supply in thewhole LGA are ponds, hand-dug wells, rainwater and a limited number of boreholes fitted with hand pumps.
2. There was no feeling of ownership amongst the communities for the few waterpoints established by DFRRI and theLocal Government. 3. The spirit of collective responsibility for the provision of portable water supplies was lacking among thecommunities. 4. The primary felt need of the communities is potable watersupply. 5. As noted above, the LGA is underlain by mainly marine sediments and some igneous intrusive and extrusive. The formations are often capped by laterite of varying thickness.
B) Determination ofGroundwater Potentials Building on the result of the rapid reconnaissance survey, the Project hydrogeological team carried out hydrogeological and geophysical surveys using mainly resistivity depth soundings in’more than 20 communities. Electromagneticprofiling using a Geonics EM-34for moredetailed workwasundertaken in selectedcommunities.
The results of these surveys indicate that groundwater developmentwill be difficult if not impossible in several; ofthe project communities. Four hand dug wellhave been sunk and fitted with handpumps just to give minimal supply and to test the ground waterconditions. These dug wellsare in operation in the wet season, while in the dry season the communities organise themselves to share what is available after long hours ofrecharge. This presents a gloomy picture in view ofthe factthat alternative sources will be both expensive andtime consuming to develop.
t4L~ unicef Nigeria 58 C) Water Supply Development In view of the difficulty of establishing individual water points based on handpump equipped boreholes or dug wells, it was decided that the most cost effective option for establishing a sustainable water supply to the communities in this area would be a small piped waterscheme. This could possibly be a groundwater source available to serve a number of communities depending on budgetary provision. Initially tw~clusters of communities have been identified for this scheme. Hydrogeological and geophysical surveys for the development of well fields for each of the two clusters has been carried out by the project drogeological team.
3. BOREHOLE DRiLLING AND PREPARATORY WORK FORTHE SMALL PIPE SCHEMEPROJECT
Borehole contractfor sinking of 6 boreholeswith 3 in each was awarded to rn/s LavalinNig. Ltd. The firstholes tried in Adum East proved unsuccessful as the yield obtained cannot provide adequate water to sustain even a hand pump. Four boreholes have been sunk in the area and they proved successfulwith yields above 18 litres per second each. These boreholes will be used for thepipe scheme project, which will cover about 14 communities.
A feasibility and preliminary design report has been carried and evidence are very much available for the implementation ofthe pipe schemeproject. Communitymobilisation, health education, enlightenment oftheproposed scheme is already in progress.
4. THE PROPOSED PIPE WATERSUPPLYSCHEME The proposed project scheme will involve the abstraction of groundwater from a well field to a service reservoir, subsequent piping to communities and limited distribution within individual communities through standpipes.
This scheme will draw on current Rusafiya experience, and will also specifically investigate the most appropriate methods of operation, maintenanceand possible revenue collectionfor small piped system. Particular attention will be paid to determining the extent to which small community supplies can be undertaken autonomously. It is anticipated that the communitieswill contribute 10 to 15 percent ofthe capital cost (mainly thecostofpiping within the community) and all of the operation and maintenance and replacement costs.
‘4’ unicef Nigeria 59 ANALYSISOFPIPED SYSTEMALTERNATIVES OJULOCALGOVERNMENT, BENUESTATE BACKGROUND
The Rusafiya Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project (NIRJ87/OOl) was designed to make use ofboreholes and hand dug wells to provide water to communitiesin Oju Local Government. This proved unfeasible due to the low yield of groundwater aquifers that underlay most of the area. To resolve this problema shift wasmadetopipe water supply systems, and supplement financing from NORADwas acquired to pay the added cost.
2. The proposed project is based on three principles essential to sustainability: community ownership, planning and management. Experience has showil that if communities take direct responsibility for managing the operation and
maintenance of - and revenue collection for their watersupply facilitie~s,they will maintain them provided they plan and own them. While thefollowing management arrangements are likelyto be modified during the planning process, they will serve as a guide for project design. It is envisioned that i Water User Groups, formed around standpipes, will be responsible for managing individual water points and collecting user fees based on the amount of metered water delivered at the standpipe; ü. Representatives ofeach Water User Group in a community will forma community Water and Sanitation Committee (WASCOM), iii. Representatives of each WASCOM will be represented on a Water User Association that will manage the system; iv. The Water UserAssociation will contract individuals or a firmto operate the system and to collect revenues from individual Water UserGroups. 3. In keeping with community ownership and to better ensure that the system will be maintained beneficiaries will be expected to pay part oftheconstructioncostandall ofthe recurrentcosts (i.e operation, maintenance and replacement of all mechanical equipment when it is worn out) for their facilities. Communities would pay for thepiped network
and standpipes within their community - in this way they are paying for something tangible, hold their money until themain systemis complete, and set a precedentfor laterexpansion ofthe distribution system within the community at their own initiative. The community’s contribution to constructionwould be about 40 Nairaperperson (cashand kind) ifa standpipe is provided for every250 people, butwould vary depending on the length ofpiping and number ofoutlets. Recurrent costs will be up to 10 Nairaper person permonth. This is high, but communitiesreallyhave no option, unless long term national/state RWSS programmes provide a mechanism to help pay for major equipment replacements. Such aprogramme could drop thecost of 5 to 6 Naira per person permonth.
4. Surveys When thedecision was made to proceed with thepiped scheme, furthergeophysical surveys and exploratorydrilling were undertaken in both the Adum East and The areas. No aquifer was able to sustain a piped system was able to be located in Adum East area, but a good aquifer was found about one kilometer east ofThe that potentially could serve both areas. Demographic surveys were also undertakento locate and estimate the population of individual communities that could be served by piped schemes, and transits were run to determine pipeline elevation profiles. Maps of The and Adum East areas are provided in Figures 1 and 2. The population of The area is about 10,000 and that of theAdum East areais about 22,000. 5. Designforthe Adum EastArea A principle consideration in the design of a system for theAdum East areais topography of the area - specifically the fact that the well field is located near The where the ground elevation is 60 meters, while the elevation at Adum Eastis 135 meters. This meansthat watermustbe pumped uphill about 165 meters (20m pumping lift, 75m elevation differential, and lOm storage elevation), requiring well pumps to first liftwater to a pumping station near the well field, followed by booster pumps to lift thewater up to a storage tank in Adum East. The requisite pumps, generators and pressurepipe are particularly expensive(Table 1). Four gravity mains would then provide service to the communities shown in Figure 1. 6. Design forThe Area The topography in The area lends itself to a simpler - less expensive system. First, well pumps can pump water directly to storage tanks in The and near Okwutungbe; second, thepumping elevation is only 60 meters(20m pumping lift, 30 elevation differential, and lOm storage elevation); andthird, thepopulation is divided between the two areas requiring only half thetotal flow to go throughthepressuremains heading east and pressure mains can be used (Table 2). The four gravity mains serving The and its surrounding communities and a fifthgravity main serving Okwutungbe and communities to its north areshown in Figure 2.
unicef Nigeria 60 7. Cost Summary The estimated costs of the systems for The and Adum East areas areshown below. In terms ofthe cost perperson served, theUS$610,000 needed to servethe 22,000 people in The area correspondsto US$28 per person, while the US$860,000 needed to serve the 15,000 people livingin theAdum East areacorresponds toUS$57 perperson. This means that twice as many people can be served for a given investment in The area as in the Adum East area.
Cost Summary (USDollars)
Item Uto Area Adum East Area
Construction 440,000 640,000 Design (6%) 25,000 40,000 Construction supervision (8%) 25,000 40,000 TA, training and reporting 75,000 75,000 Contingencies (10%) 45,000 65,000 Total 610,000 860,00
8. Recommendations It is recommended that priority be given to The area for the following reasons: (i) Guinea Wormdiseaseis mor prevalent there(ii) morepeople can be served for a giveninvestment there, and(iii) thewater source is located there. It is also recommended that GCCC funds be used to construct about 40 hand dug wells in the Adum East area. While water will probably need to be rationed during the dry season and some wells may even go dry at that time of year, service would be betterthan it is now. If governmentand UNDP choose to finance a piped system in theAdum East area, it is recommended that a staged approach be taken so that management arrangements can be demonstrated and the safe yield of the well field can be confirmed before preceding with the largerinvestment.
9. Financing The following financing is available for planning and construction in Oju LGA after March 31,1992. The total US$720,000 is adequate to cover thepiped system in The area(US$6 10,00) and thehand dugwells inthe Adum East Area(US$110,000). Thebalance would be held in reserveto coverpossible minor extensions service and unexpected costs.
PIPED SYSTEM
NIR/87/01 I funds for Oju US$150,000 NORAD funds US$425,000 Community contribution US$35,000
Total US$610,000
Hand DugWells 2 US$90,000 State GCCC funds NORAD funds3 US$20,000
Sub-total US$110,000
Total US$720,000
1) About 8.5% of construction cost (3/4 cash and 1/4 in kind) The cost will vary depending on desired number of standpipes. 2) Naira 1.77 million at 20 Naira/USD. 3) Local manufacture of prototype direct action handpumps (about 20), half of which would be installed in the project area and the other half elsewhere in the country as part of the FMA WRRD ‘s handpump monitoring programme. .
ur~cefNigeria 61 10. In addition to the funds listed below, Oju LGA is being requested to financeoperationof the LGA RWSS Unit at a level of Naira5,000 permonth startingNovember, 1992 and continue through March 31, 1994 (Naira85,000 total), with funds for the first six months to be deposited in theproject accountin Jos priorto further activitiesin the LGA. The existing WASU imprest accountwill be maintained forthis purpose and quarterly reportssubmitted to the LGA.
Schedule
Communities to complete planning of their distribution systems. Mar. 1993 Construction drawings, specifications and tender documents completed. May 1993 Short list of qualified contractors finalized May 1993 Contractor selected based on lowest bid and contract awarded. June 1993 Construction started July 1993 Construction completed Dec. 1993
‘4, unicef Nigeria 62