An Independent Evaluation Report on Rusafiya Project
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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.