Uiibrdry - ircwash.org IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre Tel,; +31 70 30 869 80 P«K! +91 ? Government of Ghana UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME World Bank GHANA LOW

824 GHKU92

UiibrdryIRC International Waterand Sanitation CentreTel,; +31 70 30 869 80P«K! +91 ?

Government of Ghana

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

World Bank

GHANA

LOW COST HUMAN WASTES MANAGEMENT

- KUMASI PILOT PROJECT- TRAINING NETWORK CENTRE, KUMASI

Project GHA/87/016/F/01/42

Report of the Evaluation Mission

Svein StovelandJohn PickfordE V Quansah February 1992

The two components of the project - the Kumasi Sanitation Project and the Training Network Centra • werelargely separate. Our report has therefore also been compiled in two separate parts, other than the ExecutiveSummary and the Annexes.

The report has been drafted in accordance with Giiidelines for Evaluators prepared by UNDP.

Low Cost Urban Waste Management Project

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

General:

The 3 year duration Low Cost Human Waste Management Project, which started in 1989. had twomain components:

- Kumasi Sanitation Project (KSP)

- Establishing a Training Network Centre at UST, Kumasi (TNC)

The report found that the project was appropriate, justifiable and in line with Government policies.The project document had been planned in close liaison with relevant agencies prior to approval.The project document did not allow for adequate time to develop and test new solutions. Thisshould be considered essential for any pilot project

The project was found to be well coordinated with good support from all agencies. The back-stoppmgprovidedbymeUNDP/WorldBankRegionaIWaterandSanitaUonGroup(RWSG)wasgood and necessary for addressing many difficult and important development issues.

The newly-engaged members of staff at both KSP and TNC are well-motivated and enthusiastic.They have benefited from training provided. Useful experience has been obtained by working withKSP.

Justifiable and appropriate changes were made in the KSP and the TNC. The changes improvedthe project significantly compared to the original project design.

Kumasi Sanitation Project (KSP)

As well described in the project document, the urban areas in Ghana require improvement in urbansanitation. Development of affordable and sustainable solutions, which may reach all people in theurban areas, is a high priority for the Government of Ghana and its metropolitan areas. The KumasiSanitation Project was and still is an important, appropriate and justifiable project in search forunproved and sustainable solutions.

The KSP had been suitably integrated into local infrastructure. The KSP was integrated into thenewly-formed Waste Management Department of the Kumasi Metropolitan Authority.

Significant changes were made to the required output for the KSP after the an extensive baselinestudy which indicated that non-waterbome sanitation was more appropriate than waterbomesanitation for most areas of Kumasi City. The same study also found that 40% of the populationrelied on public toilets a§ the only form of sanitation. The changes included improvement of publiclatrines and construction of about 200 household latrines.

Outputs have included the construction of more than a hundred household latrines, rehabilitation/rebuilding of three large public latrine in the Central Business District and design of a simplifiedsewerage system.

Systems for repayment of loans (from a revolving fund) for KVIP latrines by householders, andfranchising of public latrines to contractors, were developed. High default rates were discovered,but both systems have the potential of replication in other towns if cost recovery can be improved.

The mentioned changes in the KSP increased the scope of the project. Tendering of the simplifiedsewerage system was delayed by 6-8 months. The increase in project scope and the delay in thetendering of the simplified sewerage system has resulted in the project being behind schedule bymore than one year. Construction of the simplified sewerage system is unlikely to be completedbefore mid summer 1993. Therefore, projectassessment and evaluation of management, operationand maintenance, financial arrangements and franchising methods cannot be assessed at this timesince many of the key issues related to sustainability have not yet been established. Thusconclusion on key project issues are not likely to be available before 1994.

The project has shown under-expenditure as aresultof delays. Current budgets should be adequatefor the completion of remaining physical activities including 100 KVIPs, public toilets and thesimplified sewerage system. However, additional funds would be required for backstopping andtechnical assistance if the project is to be extended.

LIBRARY IRCPO Box 93190,-2509 AD THE HAGUE

Tel.: +31 70 30 689 80 Evaluation Report March 1992Fax: +31 70 35 899 64

BARCODE: i ,, p / 9LO: > ^ o & o


Improved management to ensure that payments are made on time is necessary for the sustainabilityof the sanitation project.

Recommendations were made for an extension of the project for a further two years Without theextension the project its input and achievement to date is at risk of being lost. KSP has yet todemonstrate sustainability and to prove viable, but if successful, which is possible, its impact couldbe tremendous and far-reaching.

Training Network Centre

The output of the Training Network Centre (TNC) was considerably reduced because it provedimpossible to recruit suitable qualified and experienced staff.

TNC had been suitably integrated into local infrastructure. The position of the TNC within theDepartment of Civil Engineering at UST is confirmed.

The TNC staff require much more exposure to low-cost rural water and sanitation programmes.

The TNC has prepared some train ing material, run fifteen courses/workshops and made a s tart withthe development of an information and communication unit

Management at the TNC has been weak. Insufficient effort has been devoted to programming stafftime, to networking with other agencies in the sector, and to forward planning.

The TNC is effectively between 12 to 24 months behind original time schedule because it wasimpossible to recruit experienced staff. Inexperienced staff had to be recruited and trained. In theshort term, this was a setback for the project, but in the long term, this may actually turn out to bethe best possible foundation for establishing a homogeneous and sustainable training centre.

The TNC is likely to collapse it project is not extended. With an extension, the centre has a goodchance of fulfilling its role in the training of trainers in the development of low cost water suppliesand sanitation in urban and rural areas in Ghana. However, additional funds would be required forbackstopping, some equipment and for technical assistance if the project is to be extended.

Recommendations for extension.

The mission recommends that the project is extended for two more years. The project is important,appropriate and a valuable contribution towards developing needed ideas and strategies for urbansanitation. It is essential that the unfinished activities are completed and lessons learned arecollected and analysed for the KSP project. The TNC require more time to establish itself beforeit can operate without outside support For the extension, an estimated additional US $ 410 000,-would be required mainly to cover essential backstopping support and a final evaluation of theproject

I V Evaluation Report March 1992


CONTENT PAGE

REPORT ON THEKUMASI SANITATION PROJECT 1

I.

II.

in.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

REPORT

PROJECT CONCEPT AND DESIGN

PROJECT DOCUMENT

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

PROJECT RESULTSA. OutputsB. Immediate objectivesC. Development objectivesD. Unforeseen effectsE. SustainabilityF. Follow-up ..

FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS

LESSONS LEARNED

ON THE TRAINING NETWORK CENTRE

2

3

5

10101215151515

16

18

20

21

I. PROJECT CONCEPT AND DESIGN 22

II. PROJECT DOCUMENT 22

in. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 22

IV. PROJECT RESULTS 25A. Outputs 25B. Immediate objectives 26C. Development objectives 26D. Unforeseen effects 26E. Sustainability 27F. Follow-up 27

V. FINDINGS 28

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 29

VII. LESSONS LEARNED 31

ANNEXES

Evaluation Report March 1992 Page V


LIST OF APPENDICES

1. Terms of Reference for evaluation

2. Itinerary

3. Documents received and reviewed

4. Repayments to revolving fund for household latrines

5. Revenue collected from franchised public toilets

6. Budgets and expenditures

7. Revenue collected for desludgtng activities by KM A

8. First newsletter from TNC.

CURRENCYCurrency Unit: Cedi

US $ 1.00 = 380 Cedis (January 1992)

ACROMYMS AND ABBRIVATIONSCBD Central Business District

CDR Committee of the Defence of the Revolution

CLS Cleansing Department of MOM

DCD Department of Community Development (MLG)

GWSC Ghana Water and Sewerage Corporation

HED Health Education Division

IBRD International Dank for Reconstruction and Development

KMA Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly

KSP Kumasi Sanitation Project

KVIP Kumasi-type Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine

MOH Medical Officer of Health, KMA

MED Metropolitan Engineers Department

ODA Overseas Development Agency of the British Government

PHIL Public Health Inspectorate Division

PWD Public Works Department

RWSG UNDP/World Bank Regional Water and Sanitation Group

SSP Strategic Sanitation Plan

TNC Training Network Centre, UST

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UST University of Science and Technology

WC Water Closet

WMD Waste Management Department, KMA

WTD Willingness to pay for Improved Sanitation Services

VI Evaluation Report March 1992


REPORT ON KUMASI SANITATIONPROJECT

Evaluation Report March 1992 Pa9° 1


I. PROJECT CONCEPT AND DESIGN

Institutional arrangements:The Project document was discussed with relevant parties before it was finalised. The institutionsinvolved in the discussion and preparation of the project document included:

UNDP

Regional Water Supply and Sanitation Group, World Bank

Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning

Ministry of Local Government

Ghana Water and Sewerage Corporation

Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly

The institutional arrangements for the KSP project were appropriate.. ;

Macro-economic relevance:Most of the urban areas had previously tried to implement sewerage schemes based on conven-tional systems but these have mostly been abandoned due to lack of finance. Asaresult, sanitationin the urban areas had deteriorated and the sanitary conditions were poor and inadequate. Manyurban areas were also served by the unhygienic pan-latrines. The Government has therefore beensearching for solutions to improve sanitation in the urban areas at affordable costs. The need forfinding solutions to this problem has high priority as clearly expressed by officials in governmentministries.

The KSP project aims at testing new strategies for resolving sanitation issues in urban areas. Theproject was, and is appropriate and justifiable.

Links to other sources of external assistanceODA is providing assistance to KMA covering Health Education and Solid Waste ManagementThe ODA supported activities were well coordinated with the KSP and strengthened the pilotproject benefiting both projects and KMA in particular.

II. PROJECT DOCUMENTProject Preparation:

We were informed that the project document was drafted with the assistance on the RWSG-WAand was extensively discussed with relevant agencies in the Water and Sanitation Sector in Ghana

Description of Problem to be Solved:The project document clearly described the sanitation problems in the City of Kumasi. Thedescription reflects the problems which Kumasi City has to resolve.

Project objectives:The project document divided the project objectives in two: a) Development objective and b)Immediate objectives.

paga 2 Evaluation Report March 1992


A: Development Objective:

The project will support one oft he Government's basic development objectivesof improving the health and standard of living of the people of Ghana byproviding affordable and cost-effective sanitation facilities through im-proved implementation strategies that strengthen the planning andmanage-ment capabilities of the concerned agencies.

It is surprising that the objective does not mention sustainable development This, in addition tothe high cost of conventional water-borne sanitation, has been one of the main causes of thedeterioration of the sector.

B: Immediate objectives:

1: Develop and implement a pilot human waste management project for as areain Kumasi City.

1: Ensure replication of the pilot project results, through the preparation of afollow-up sanitation program in Kumasi and identification of the resourcesrequired to implement it.

3: Strengthen local capacity to plan, design and implement urban sanitationprojects, making such projects more effective in attracting and utilizinginvestments.

The immediate objective 1, is hardly an objective, but rather an activity. The anticipated resultsfrom the pilot project should have been covered by the objective.

The second immediate objective assumes that the project results will be positive and replicable.This objective would not become relevant until the pilot project could demonstrate viable andsustainable solutions to replicate in future development It the second objective did not rest untilconclusive results were gained from the pilot project, what would then have been the purpose ofthe pilot project?

Since KSP is a pilot project and noj a demonstration project the lessons learned from the projectshould be of importance and both viable and non-viable results are important to record, disseminateand use in future programmes so as to lead the development on to a v iable and sustainable platform.

Project Risks:Project risks were recognised in the project documenL These included problems with providingadequate government inputs, delays in fielding UN project personnel and lack of funds for internalplumbing to connect beneficiaries to the proposed sewerage project

The project document did notaddress the fact that the project was a pilot project As such, solutionsto many problems should be found as a part of the project itself. This could mean that lessonslearned and findings gained, during the implementation, could result in changed strategies andapproaches. Possible changes and modifications in the project design should have been allowedfor as a potential risk for project delays.

Presentation of Alternative Solutions:The analysis of alternative solutions for sanitation in Kumasi was part of the project itself and thuswas not covered in detail in the project document. The proposed Feasibility Study for Kumasishould address alternative solutions.

Coordination and Institutional Arrangements:The existing institutional framework of the project was recognized. The project documentincluded description of the different roles that the different agencies were expected to play.

Evaluation Report March 1992 Paga 3


Beneficiaries:The project's beneficiaries were described to be the residents in the project areas where the pilotactivities were to be carries out, approximately 200 households. Other beneficiaries mentionedwere: Staff from KMA, officers of MOH, MLG, GWSC and other municipalities and localconsultants.

Role of Women:The role of women was not specifically highlighted in the project document. The project aimedat developing sustainable management structures within the municipality, and testing viabilitiesof alternative forms of improved, low cost sanitation services. As such, the role of women werenot expected to be singled out for special attention.

Verifiable Objectives and Outputs:The project document presented a clear list of project objectives and activities. Each of the statedobjectives were followed by expected outputs and a detailed list of activities needed to achieve theoutputs.

The project document did not include quantifiable verifiers or milestones which could be used tomeasure progress directly against the objectives. The listed activities and outputs could not be usedto measure degree of success in achieving the objectives.

Sustainability:The project document did not mention sustainability as part of the objectives. However, one of theobjectives of the project was to "Ensure replication of project results.. .." This objective could beread as assuming positive results from the pilot project which would justify replication but this wasnot stated in the document.

The issue of sustainability was mentioned in the position paper by UNDP GHA/87/016 preparedfor the tripartite review in September 1991 and in the Terms of Reference for this Evaluation, whereassessment of sustainability was emphasised.

Project Monitoring:The project document described reporting requirements for progress and completion reports.Work plans were to be revised annually prior to the tripartite review meetings.

Project duration or scheduleThe original project period of three years was reasonable for the original project content However,the initial baseline study indicated that the project should be changed to address the local needs.The time schedule for the revised and increased project content as agreed on in the tripartite reviewmeeting in 1990, was over optimistic.

The project schedule would better fit for a demonstration project where proven managementarrangements and tested technologies were to be demonstrated. Although the technologies to beused had been tried out previously, the proposed management structures and financial arrange-ments for cost recovery had not been tried out The project design did not allow for unexpectedfindings which could change project progress.

Project Relevance:The project is still as relevant today as it was three years ago. The approach adopted is in line withgovernment policies and objectives for the sector. If the KSP can find sustainable and viablesolutions for improved sanitation in urban areas, the impact could be large.

Many projects have previously tried to find solutions to urban and peri-urban sanitation, but withlittle success. The difficulties have largely been associated with inability to develop sustainablemanagement and to find affordable, and financial viable solutions

Evaluation Report March 1992


Appropriateness of Execution Arrangements:The execution arrangements for the Kumasi Sanitation Project was good. The UNDP/World Bankhas brought important expertise and experience from other countries into the project The RWSG/World Bank provided essential back-stopping and guidance for baseline surveys, willingness-to-pay study and design of management and physical structures which the project clearly hasbenefited from.

III. IMPLEMENTATION

General description of project event.

Original project scope;The original project document emphasized construction of a simplified sewerage systemestimated to cost about US $ 50 000 and the construction of 6-8 ventilated improved pit latrinesfor demonstration purposes. The mentioned activities were to be financed by local funds whileUNDP were to provide technical assistance, equipment, transport and back-stopping.

Study that changed project content of physical scale:After the start up of the project, the executing agency brought in an expert group from the WorldBank, Washington, to assist in financing and in implementing a baseline study for Kumasi, whichincluded willingness-to-pay analysis for Kumasi City. The results from this study indicated thathousehold andpublic toilets/latrines wereneeded. 40% of the population were found to use publiclatrines as the only formof sanitation. Theabove lead toare-orientationof theprojectcontentawayfrom waterborne sanitation towards non-waterborne sanitation. The project objectives weretherefore revised in 1990 to include:

household latrines construction (200 units in three pilot areas)

public toilets construction

simplified sewerage scheme (for 20000 people).

Since the original budget allocation for on-site sanitation only covered financing of about 8-10KVIPs for demonstration purposes, the original budget provision for construction of a waterbornesystem was decided to be used for household latrines and public toilets, since this type of sanitationappeared more appropriate. This left the project without finance for the simplified seweragesystem. UNDP agreed during the tripartite review in 1990 to provide an additional US$ 423,221so that waterborne sewerage also could be implemented and tested since this technology appearedmost appropriate form of sanitation in the business centre on Kumasi.

The above changes, changed the implementation schedule as well as increased project activities.Instead of constructing 6 to 8 KTVPs the number was increased to about 200. By the end of theproject period, about 100 KVIPs bad been constructed and the remaining 100 was assumed to becompleted before the end of 1992.

After the inclusion of the public toilet construction in 1990, a design was prepared for constructionof one large public toilet, near the market. However, it was later discovered that the complaints weremade about the location of the toilet Instead of finding one new site, three alternative sites werefound of which two had old public toilets which needed rehabilitation. The change in plans madeit necessary to redesign the public toilets which resulted in about four months delay. Theconstruction of the public toilets is in progress and they are expected to be completed at the endof March 1992.

As mentioned earlier, the simplified sewerage system was originally included in the project It wasplanned to be designed in 1989 with start of construction in January 1990. But after it wasdiscovered that the need for on-site sanitation (KVIPs) and public toilets were higher than forwaterbome sanitation, thesimplifiedseweragcsystem was, fora while, dropped. It wasreintroduccd

Evaluation Report March 1992 Page 5


in 1990 after UNDP found additional finance of more than US $ 400 000.-. The experimentalsewerage component was increased by a factor of about 8 compared to the original budget Thedesign was then started in 1990 with construction scheduled for mid 1991. However, the projectmanagement experienced problems in following the World Bank tendering procedures. Tendershad to be reissued and the construction was effectively delayed by 6 to 8 months. This delay wasunnecessary.

Currently, the start of the construction of the simplified sewerage system is scheduled for July/August 1992, with an expected 12 months construction period. This means that the simplifiedsewerage system will not be in place before August 1993. The operation and maintenance systemto be set up can not be assessed until some months after the scheme has been put into use.

Training:In addition to the activities mentioned above, a workshop was held to start the project. Shortly afterthe workshop the baseline study and the willingness-to-pay study was conducted. Staff fromKMA-KSP and from TNC were involved in the field work for this study.

Change in project plans:A feasibility study was originally planned implemented at the start of the project. This was nevercompleted. It was replaced with a Sanitation Strategic Plan for the whole City of Kumasi (SSP)The work on the plan started in 1990 and it was close to completion in February 1992.

Infrastructure development at KMA.During the course of the project, KSP proposed a reorganisation waste management within KMA,and a new Waste Management Department was established in late 1991.

Establishment of revolving fund:The project has also developed and established arevolving fund for house owners who want to havea KV IP. This fund was established using project (UNDP) funds and all KVIPs have been built withassistance from the fund.

New procedures for contracting construction of KVIPs:KSP have also developed contractual procedures for lumping together 5 to 10 KVIPs so that smalllocal contractors can tender for the work. This procedure is well tested.

Franchising of operation and maintenance of public toilets.The project has developed tenders and procedures for franchising operation and maintenance ofpublic toilets. The contractors will collect a charge from the users and the contractor who offersto repay KMA, the highest amount, receives the contract

Accounting procedures established:KSP has opened two separate accounts through an agreement with KMA; One account is for thepublic latrines in to which the contractors pay their fees under franchise agreement for the runningand maintenance of the public facilities. The other account covers repayment to revolving fundfor home latrine. The signatories to both accounts include the District Secretary.

This arrangement is considered satisfactory, but it requires strong administrative back-up andmonitoring.

Equipment:The two vehicles, two motorbikes and two PCs were procured for the project The equipmentprocured was appropriate and necessary for implementing the project The equipment can besustained locally.

Quality and Timeliness of Inputs:In general, the project inputs have been timely. The executing agency has provided equipment,transport and assistance in line with theprojectdocument Back-stopping provided by the RWSG/World Bank has been good.



The baseline study was very comprehensive and appropriate. The following re-orientation wasalso appropriate, necessary and justifiable. We appreciate that this caused re-scheduling anddelays of activities as compared to the original concepts. However, the change strengthened theproject approach tremendously.

It is commendable that the project management responded so well to the discovered needs in thepilot area and took appropriate and corrective actions.

KM A provided staff to the project as planned and provided physical facilities as expected. At thebeginning of the project, some problems and delays were experienced the first year with releaseof local funds by the Government. This was resolved and no other problems were mentioned afterthat.

Financial issues:

The figures on page 12 have been included to show how the changes in the project content andschedules also have affected the UNDP budgets and expenditures.

Figure 1 shows the budgets as included in the original project document (original), and in thesubsequent budgetrevisions "D" in 1990 (RevD .90), and revision "F"(Rev.F, 91) signed in 1991.

Figure 3 reflects the change in total project budget. The increase in the budget in Revision F in 1991,reflects increased allocations to reintroduce the simplified sewerage system.

In spite of these delays, the costs have not been significantly increased in UNDP financedcomponents for implementation of physical facilities. The latest revised budget (Figure 2) hastaken account of the need for the project to be extended.

As expected, Figure 1 shows that, compared to the original budget plan, there has been undcr-cxpenditure by the project.

For the KSP project the unutilized funds now stand at 430,000 US Dollars and the estimated costof the simplified sewerage project is US$ 423,221

The project management holds the opinion that the budget is adequate for completion ofconstruction of KVIPs, public toilets and the simplified sewerage system. This may be correct itthe implementation of simplified sewerage system runs smoothly. However, problems may occur,which couldrequireadditionalfinance particularly for unforeseen problems with bouse connectionsand with crossing railway line with the sewer.

Acceptance of project approach:

The different target beneficiaries have responded well to the project.

The people have accepted the KVIP technology as desirable on-site sanita-tion facilities

The people accept payment for the use of public toilet/latrines

KMA has believed in the project approach and demonstrated that throughreorganizing a Waste Management Department as recommended by theproject

KMA has already provided 40 million cedis in the current budget, forcontinuation of on-site latrine construction, using the revolving fund mecha-nism

KMA and the Government have seen and accepted the potential advantagesof franchising operation and maintenance of public toilets

We were informed that KMA has made about 190 conservancy labourers



Npte that figures b^low covers bu

pplfii^budgets|;:a,ri|i:p

lilfliii

Figure 1 Changes in project budget as project progressed

<

1 Original

1 Rev. D, 90

•Rev.F,91

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Figure 2 Latest budget and expenditure figures .(expenditures, 89-91, budget 92-94)

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Figure 3 Changes is total project budget as projectprogressed.

5.oT

an"8JO

E2

Original Rev. D, 90 Rev. F,91

PageS Evaluation Report March 1992


redundant. These are now working as private contractors and are paiddirectly by the users.

It is premature to state that user fees and loan repayments made, during the project will be utilizedas government or private inputs to maintain and expand the sanitation system established.

The Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Management as a whole andKSP Component:

The project management has generally adjusted the content of the project well, to suit the needsand requirements for sanitation in Kumasi.

The management has demonstrated innovative thinking and shown initiatives and presented ideaswhich have made this project much better than the original design. The delays in appointmentof a contractor for the sewerage scheme, should and could have been avoided by the implementingagency.

The present management should handle the project to the end of die current project period. Forthe completion of all components after March 1992, the trained KMA staff currently working onthe KSP should be able to supervise and monitor completions. However, since there still are manymanagerial, procedural and financial issues outstanding, further back-stopping is necessary.

Quality and Timeliness of Monitoring and Back-stopping by all Partiesto the Project:

Monitoring of the project has been carried out as follows:

1. Daily by Project Staff (KSP)

2. Monthly report to UNDP/World Bank

3. Regular site visits from UNDP, RWSG, Accra

4. Tripartite Review Meetings

5. Regular site visits by senior KMA staff.

The frequency of monitoring has been adequate. The reporting has been regular and follow-upactions have been taken.

However, the reports have, invariably, not given the true state of affairs with regard to projectprogress. On this issue, they have been over-optimistic. From their reports, the project has beenon schedule, which in our assessment is not the case.

The Inter-relationship in Project Delivery between Government(Local and Central), UNDP, and World Bank:

The parties to the project as constituted now are as follow:

1. UNDP - Funding Agency

2. World Bank - Executing Agency

3. Government of Ghana represented by Ministry of Finance and EconomicPlanning as the coordinating ministry and Ministry of Local Government asthe line ministry

4. Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly



5. The Kumasi Sanitation Project.

The mission found that all problems have been resolved to the extent possible by these agencieswithout necessarily resorting to formal meetings. This indicates the high degree of cooperation andeffective coordination supported by all parties.

Staffing the project:The project has in the main been implemented by local staff and this is commendable. There hasbeen no staff turnover during the project period.

Activities and issues not completed:

On-siteKVIPs:

Complete construction of approximately .100 KVIPs

Modify revolving fund methodology and cash collection system in particular

Assess viability of on-site KVIPs for scaling up system

Public toilets:

Complete construction of all three units

Franchise operation and maintenance of public toilets and follow up thatagreements are adhered to.

Assess viability of franchising of public toilets, concerning operation andmaintenance standards, financial arrangements and contractual procedures

Simplified sewerage system:

Construct sewerage system

Establish operation and maintenance system and resolve who should beresponsible for the operation and maintenance

Establish mechanism so that houses install WCs and connect to the sewer

Develop and implement a revenue collection system and tariff structure forconnection fees and monthly charges.

Assess viability and sustainability of simplified sewerage system

Strategic Sanitation Plan

Plan to be finalised when clear conclusions are available and viable systemshave been demonstrated.

IV. RESULTS

A. OUTPUTS

In the project revision " F \ signed in July 1991, the project objectives and outputs were revised.The changes made - are generally sound as changes should be expected in any pilot project. Itshows that lessons learned during the project have been recognized and incorporated into theproject document

Pa9« 10 Evaluation Roport March 1992


Output 1.1:

Detailed workplan, progress reports and completion report.

Work plans have been prepared. However, work plans have undergone revisions throughout theproject as one would have expected. The project has submitted monthly reports as required as wellas timely submission of annual project progress evaluation reports. Reporting on the project hasbeen good.

Output 1.2:

Strategic Sanitation Plan

In the original project docume/it, a Feasibility report for the pilot project should have beenproduced a strategic sanitation plan for providing sanitation for the whole city.of Kumasi has beendrafted. It is an extremely detailed document with a proposal for a full scale sanitationimplementation plan for Kumasi City.

Output 1.3:

Final design for each of the three pilot schemes within the pilot project.

The output mentioned above is included as an integral part of the Strategic Sanitation Plan.

Output 1.4:

Three completed pilot schemes in low income areas, implemented, operated, maintained andevaluated.

In the project document, the target was set to 300 home latrines extending coverage to 8000 people(16000 households). In the latest revision of the SSP, this figure has been revised downward to200 units. The number included conversion of bucket latrines to VIP latrines.

The mission was impressed with the physical work done and the quality of the workmanship.

The completion of the latrine construction programme in the three pilot areas is behind scheduleand can only be expected to be completed by the end of 1992, earliest.

The reduction in the number of latrines constructed from 300 to 200, is not of importance. Theimportant issue in this pilot project is to find viable appropriate solutions which can be used, whentested and demonstrated, for future replication.

The construction of the home latrines should not be speeded up for the sake of producing the statednumber of latrines. Emphasis should rather be given to finding appropriate technology thatcombined with the establishment of local infrastructure and management arrangements, can leadto a sustainable sanitation development programme for Kumasi. If the construction rate may haveto be reduced in order to secure cost recovery, then, one should accept the lower rate ofimplementation of home VIPs even if this would slow down implementation.

It is not possible during the present project period, which ends in March 92, to make a finalevaluation of the sanitation programme in the three pilot areas.

Evaluation Report March 1992 Page


Output: Public Latrine Construction:

The inclusion of this activity is a result of the finding in the baseline survey that nearly 40% of thepeople in Kumasi use public toilets as the only access to sanitation facilities.

Three public toilets will be rehabilitated/constructed as part of this output.

The design and construction of these public toilets was impressive.

The public toilets are expected to be completed by th&end of the project (March 92). The successor failure operation and maintenance and usage of the public toilet cannot be assessed or evaluateduntil after me completion of the project

The construction of the public toilets were delayed by about 4 months. The reason was publicobjection to the location of the site. New designs had to be prepared for rehabilitation/constructionof three public toilets instead of one larger unit as originally planned.

Output: Simplified sewer pilot project

The design of the simplified sewer project is 6 to 8 months behind schedule as mentioned earlier.

The design is completed, tender documents issued and a contractor can not be expected to be onsite before July 92. The current expected completion of the sewer is mid 1993 after a 12 monthsconstruction period.

Currently, it is not possible to assess this part of the project when it comes to operation andmaintenance issues, willingness to connect to the sewer, payment issues and sustainability. At thisstage, it can only be stated about (he sewer design is that project staff have estimated the simplifiedsewerage system would be about 60% of the cost of conventional designed sewers.

The work prepared by the project staff was generally of high quality, including both physicalstructures completed, and developing procedures for implementing the project. Given that theproject staff had limited experience with this type of project, the work was well executed.

The project benefited much from the back-stopping and guidance provided. Without this back-stopping, the pilot project could not have reached the high standard found in concepts, surveys,design of new management structures and development of new ideas for franchising, contractingand privatization in the field of sanitation.

Project Delays:The delays in the project implementation have resulted in the project not being able to demonstrateor test viability and hence sustainability of project components.

B. IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVES

The objectives for the project have also changed during the project period.

Objective No. 1:

Develop and implement a pilot human waste management project for an area in Kumasi City.

This objective has later been adjusted to cater for the development of three pilot project schemes

1 2 Evaluation Report March 1992


Household latrine construction

Public latrine construction

Simplified sewerage.

The objectives have partially been achieved.

The delays in the completion of the physical components of the project have made it impossibleto meet the project objectives. The on-site latrine programme will not be complete before the endof 1992, The public toilet construction programme is scheduled to be completed by the end ofMarch 1992 and the construction of the simplified sewer will start tentatively in August 1992.

Thus, given the above mentioned delays, it is not possible to make any conclusionon key issues such as sustainability of management structures, cost recovery system and operationand maintenance. It is premature to say that the project concept and design is viable for scalingup. Important issues remains to be resolved.

The project has so far developed a number of important activities. These include:

-:: V

Design of new organization for waste management in Kumasi City. Thisnew Waste Management Department is now in place.

Design and testing contracting procedures for using local contractors forconstruction of on-site latrines. (KVIPs).

The project has developed and tested local infrastructures for managementof on-site latrine programmes using local steering committees. A solutionto default in repayment of loans is yet to be found.

The project has developed and implemented a revolving fund system forKumasi. The mechanisms have been tested, using project funds. Already theKMA has allocated 40 million Cedis in the current budget to continue the on-site construction programme. The revolving fund system looks promising,but needs further adjustments. The reason is that the default rate for back-payments is too high. In one area, 15% of the monthly payments were notmet In the two other pilot areas, the default rate was about 50%. There areindications that the problem is associated with the repayment collectionprocedures rather than with the system itself. To illustrate this, in one of thepilot areas, Moshie Zongo, the default rate for the latrines constructed during1990, were around 42%, while for latrines constructed during 1991, thedefault rate increased to 68%. When the mission noticed the problem with

. the high,rate of default, the project management was completely surprised,indicating that the repayments had not been given due attention.

Design and testing of contracts for franchising to private contractors for theoperation and maintenance of public latrines. The contracts which would bebased on giving the tender to the contractor that offers the highest revenuereturn to KMA, is promising but it needs further refinement. The mainconcern is the payment of revenue from contractors. This is a managementproblem which needs to be resolved. While KSP was responsible forcollection of the revenue from the contractors for the first 12 months, morethan 80% of the due revenue was collected. After KMA was given theresponsibility, the collection rate dropped to approximately 40% of duerevenue.

Objective 2:

Ensure replication of the pilot project results through the preparation of a follow-up sanitationprogramme for Kumasi and identification of the resources required to implement it.

Evaluation Report March 1992 Pago 13


The Strategic Sanitation Plan (SSP) has been developed in such a manner that it will be one of themain documents for replication of KSP findings and results. The SSP combined with training,seminars and dissemination of information should form the basis for replication of the pilot project

The Strategic Sanitation Plan (SSP) is in its final draft form. The document has been developedbased on an extensive field survey for the whole of Kumasi City supported by a team from WorldBank, Washington, for the baseline willingness to pay study. The SSP contains situation analysis,technology review, sanitation coverage plan, institutional arrangements and a 10-year imple-mentation plan for providing full sanitation coverage in Kumasi.

The SSP is a most impressive document with respect to details, proposals and analysis of financialconsequences.

The SSP may be valuable in securing finance for further development in Kumasi, but it is uncertainthat the SSP will have the intended impact in other urban areas for the following reasons:

the document is so voluminous that senior decision-makers will havedifficulties in finding time to study the it and thus make effective commit-ment to its content.

SSP should be flexible and it should be easy to adjust and update if changesare made in budgets, government policies'etc. The local staff at Kumasi areunlikely beable to update the plan withoutcalling foroutsideassistance. Thismay make the SSP outdated as soon as new policies are introduced or ifsignificant changes occur in the rate of interest used for the financialanalysis. It stands the risk:of receiving the same fate assomanymasterplans,because it lacks flexibility and because it is too complicated to updatelocally.

The SSP can, however, be viewed as a very useful case study of the pilot project in Kumasi Citywith a detailed study for a possible investment scenario for sanitation development in Kumasi.

Objective 3:

Strengthen local capacity to plan, design and implement urban sanitation projects, making suchprojects, making such projects more effective in attracting and utilizing investments.

This objective has been met Staff have been given on-the-job training by being directly involvedin all project activities. In addition, staff outside KMA such as consultants have been involvedin the design of project components particularly in the simplified sewer system.

All project staff are employed by KMA with the exception of the project coordinator. The staffshowed clear understanding of the project, demonstrated ability to design project components,mobilize communities.

In addition, the person to take over responsibility for the project is currently in Laughboroughwhere he is undertaking a M.Sc. degree.

Micro-Level Effects:

The project has had high impact on the micro level, particularly in two fields. There has been ahigh level of impact in the three pilot areas, where recipients have become aware of the benefitsof the KVIP. It is clear that this form for sanitation is attractive and meeting the needs in thecommunity. It is also appropriate technology. The KVIPs were used by both women and men,but not by children below school age. The second field of impact was observed in KMA itself.KMA could now see a way towards improving sanitation in the city while at the same time reducethe cost for the services. By using contractors and franchising of operation and maintenance, KMAcould reduce staff and save on expenditures, while at the same time improving the sanitationsituation through low cost affordable solutions.

Page 14 Evaluation Report March 1992


In the future, assuming all project objectives are met, more communities could be covered by safesanitation facilities, and the poor conditions observed today could be drastically improved.

C. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE

On successful attainment of all the project objectives, the project could have a very large impactin all urban areas in Ghana. Over the past years, sanitation facilities have deteriorated in urbanareas. The successful completion of the KSP, methods and procedures, management structures,franchising and effective use of revolving funds to maximizcuser contributions, could be the basisimproving sanitation in the urban areas where conventional technology is unaffordable andinappropriate.

D. UNFORESEEN EFFECTSThe KSP has assisted KMA in improvement of the services of septic tank emptying. Bymonitoring and creating awareness of illegal "dumping" of night-soil, improving desludgingservices and monitoring, the revenue collected by KMA has increased^dramatically withassistance from KSP staff. The revenue collected has increased 4 to 5 fold over the last six months.(see annexes)

E. SUSTAINABILITYIt is important to search for solutions that would lead to sustainable development. This has beenwell integrated into the project approach, much more so than envisaged in the project documentIn particular, the project has addressed the issue of balancing the roles of public and private sectorin a constructive manner. This coupled with the revolving fund system to facilitate for larger usercontributions, could make this project approach very interesting and attractive for urban areas toembark upon.

However, due to delays in project implementation and increase in project activities, it is notpossible to assess sustainability of the project approach at this stage. We know that some of thefinancial arrangements need to be modified. Management procedures for monitoring of cash-collection has to established and made viable for on- site sanitation facilities and for public toilets.Since the simplified sewerage system has not yet been constructed, die viability of the wholesystem cannot be assessed.

F. FOLLOW-UP

The KSP concludes in March 1992. The following remains to be done:

Construction of the remaining 100 KVIP pilot units should be completed.This can be done by KMA.

The cash collection system has to be modified and put in place. A cashmonitoring system needs to be established within KMA to follow up so thatdefault in repayments on the revolving fund stops. Back-stopping would berequired to assist KMA staff to see that the above issues are resolved.

After the construction of the public toilets, clear routines and minimumstandards for the contractors have to be worked out. The payment system for

Evaluation Report March 1992 Pag8 15


the contractors has to be improved and a system must be put in place showingwhich will show how the KMA is to handle the issue of a contractorbreaching the contract conditions.

The simplified sewerage system needs to be constructed. This can besupervised by a local consultant and KMA-KSP staff. However, manyproblems may still arise with house-connections, for instance payment ofconnection fees.

Operation and maintenance of the simplified sewerage system remain to beworked out. How this should be done and what role KSP, GWSC andcontractors should play - remain unresolved.

Operation and maintenance also needs to be monitored to see if blockagesand other maintenance problems occur as a result of reduced pipe diametersand number of manholes.

V. FINDINGS:

The Kumasi Sanitation Project, as implemented has, changed significantly from the originalproject document design. The project document focused mainly on construction of waterborncsanitation with a small component of on-site sanitation.

The project now, includes on-site sanitation in three pilot areas, consiruction/reliabilitation of 3public toilets/latrines and construction of a simplified sewerage system. The project has alsointroduced privatization of sanitation activities and franchising of operation and maintenance ofpublic toilets. The changes are appropriate, commendable, and indicative of a dynamic pilotproject

The UNDP/RWSG, Accra support has been necessary and effective.

Government and KMA support on staffing, financial inputs and logistic support have beengood,.

The KSP is a pilot project and as such, unforeseen delays in project implementation should havebeen anticipated and allowed for in the project schedule.

The project is relevant and appropriate and in line with the aims of the government.

If the project achieves its objectives, its impact on sanitation development in urban areas can betremendous.

Outputs:The physical design and construction of public toilets/latrines and on-sitc KVIPs are appropriateand well extended.

The management structure designed and implemented in KMA for the Waste ManagementDepartment is satisfactory. It will however, take some time before the new structure is fully workedinto the KMA organization.

The reporting on project activities has been regular and in compliance with reporting requ ircments.

The reports have however been over optimistic; for instance all progress reports indicate thatproject is on schedule. This is contrary to our findings.

Other Achievements:



designed and implemented a reorganized Wastes Management Departmentat KM A.

designed and implemented tender and contracting procedures for privatecontractors for construction of on-site KVIPs.

designed and implemented contractual procedures for franchising operationand maintenance of public toilets.

demonstrated KVIPs to be an acceptable and affordable sanitation solutionfor people in medium density areas.

designed and tested a revolving fund for development of on-site sanitationfacilities.

the KSP lias shown that privatization and franchising appear to be potentiallyviable methods in improving sanitation services.

Financial Issues:Revenue payments from franchised public toilets have dropped from over 80% to just over 40%during the last 12 months.

The rate of default on the repayment of revolving fund loans for on-site latrines has increasedsharply with default rates of close to 50% in two of the pilot areas. In Moshie Zongo, the defaultrate for latrines constructed during 1991 exceeds 65%.

Sustainability:The above problems make the project appear unsustainable, which it currently is. The mission isof the opinion that the problem is not the inability to pay, but inadequate mechanism for cashcollection. This problem should be possible resolve.

Project Schedule:The project cannot be completed as planned. Although the project is scheduled to finish in March1992, the construction of the simplified sewerage system will not start until August 1992, withexpected completion 12 months later.

The implementation of the simplified sewerage scheme has been delayed for two reasons; the firstbeing changes in scheduling and financing arrangements and the second being problems withfollowing World Bank tendering procedures.

The construction of the pilot on-site latrines is expected to be completed by the end of 1992.

The construction and rehabilitation of the public toilets should be completed by the end of March1992.

The 3-year implementation period for the original project content was reasonable. However, theinitial baseline study indicated that the project should be changed. The time schedule for the revisedproject content as agreed to at the tripartite meeting in 1990, was over-optimistic.

Outstanding Issues:

Simplified Sewerage System:

construction

decide which organisation should be responsible for operation and mainte-nance of the sewerage system

designing and implementing operation and maintenance system



resolving house-connection issues, including developing financial mecha-nisms for house-owners to finance installations of WC's in the houses to becovered

design and implement a revenue collection mechanism.

Public Toilets:

monitor operation and maintenance

review and adopt revenue collection mechanism, so that contractors complywith agreements, essential to sustainability and replication.

On-Site Construction Programme:

monitor progress and operation and maintenance

develop viable repayment mechanism for revolving fund.

The Strategic Planning Program is an extremely comprehensive document,containing baseline data, technology review, 10 year implementation planfor Kumasi City, as well as an analysis of financial implications.

A lot of time and effort have gone into the preparation of the SSP.

Obviously this may have affected the direct in-put of KSP personnel on KSP programmes, andcaused some delays in other areas. It may well have affected the in-depth in-house monitoring ofactivities. Loan recovery default may be an example.

Finance and Budgets:

The approved budget has been adequate for the KSP and delays mentioned earlier have resultedin under expenditure. The outstanding balance should suffice to complete the constructionactivities including the simplified sewerage system. The budget is however, not adequate fortechnical support if the project is extended.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The Kumasi sanitation projectmust be continued until its objectives are metand sustainability can been assessed.

2. The project, and back-stopping arrangements from Accra should be ex-tended for two years until March 1994.

3. As already arranged, the UNDP staff should withdraw from KM A at the endof the current contract period. Equipment bought by project funds should betransferred toKMA.

4. During the extension of the project, KM A staff must undertake the follow-ing:

- manage the construction of ihe simplified sewerage scheme

- decide on operation and maintenance arrangements for the simplifiedsewerage scheme

Pag* 1 S Evaluation Report March 1992


- design and implement a revenue collection system for the simplifiedsewerage scheme

- supervise and manage the construction of household (100 units) andpublic latrines (3 units) to completion as originally planned.

- establish viable procedures for collection of repayments for revolvingfund (household latrines and possibly future household WC's and plumbingfor connection to the simplified sewerage scheme).

- collect monthly repayments from revolving fund beneficiaries.

- monitor collection of revenue collection from franchised public latrines.

- prepare monthly reports for submission to RWSG, Accra, coveringprogress, finance, problems and lessons learned.

5. Back-stopping services from RWSG, Accra should cover the following:

- Assist and support KMA in contract management of the construction ofthe simplified sewerage scheme.

- Provide assistance to KMA in developing and implementing viablerevenue and loan repayment systems.

- Assist in resolving problems relating to financing house connections andin-house plumbing system (revolving fund?).

- Assist KMA in negotiations on responsibilities for the operation andmaintenance of simplified sewerage scheme.

- Provide technical back-stopping fororganizing operation and maintenancefor the simplified sewerage scheme.

- Prepare regular reports on project progress in accordance with UNDPrequirements.

- Assist KMA in resolving unforeseen problems which may arise inmeeting the objectives of KSP.

- When KSP project is close to reaching its objectives, prepare guidelineson how to replicate KSP experiences and methodologies to other urban areas.

Strategic Sanitation Plan. (SSP)

It is recommended that an abridged version of the SSP is produced for"decision-makers".

It is also recommended that guideline on how a simplified strategicsanitation plan could be developed in other municipalities, is prepared. Thedocument should be made in close liaison with TNC for their use in trainingactivities.

6. It is recommended that KMA establishes an inspectorate unit to monitorcompliance with minimum standard of operation and maintenance of house-hold and public latrines.

7. There should be an Ex-Post Evaluation in January 1994 covering both KSPand TNC,

8. Until the project concept has been proven sustainable, the process ofreplication must be cautiously pursued.

Evaluation Report March 1992 Page 1 9


9. UNDP should continue to assist finance of KSP and RWSG, Accra, for anadditional two years. The following additional finance should be budgetedfor:

Support to RWSG, Accra, (KSP & TNC) 100,000.

Short term consultancies 40,000.

Ex-Post evaluation (KSP & TNC) 30,000.

Miscellaneous 10.00Q.

Total US $ 180,000.

The above budget is excluding funds required for TNC.

VH. LESSONS LEARNED

A pilot project document should include a time schedule that allows for experimentation.



TRAINING NETWORK CENTRE



REPORT ON THE TRAINING NETWORKCENTRE

I. PROJECT CONCEPT AND DESIGN

Based on the assumption that suitably qualified and experienced staff would be available from thestart, the UNDP project concept, design and institutional arrangements for the TNC wereappropriate at the time they were approved.

Relevant micro economic policy frameworks were considered and the TNC was specificallyincluded in national sectorplans. No other sources of external assistance were utilized for the TNC.

Other than declaring the intention of establishing the Training Centre, the project did not initiallyconcern itself with the sustainability of the TNC.

II. PROJECT DOCUMENT

We were informed that the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, the Ministry of Education,the Department of Community Development and the Ghana Water and Sewerage Corporationwere involved in drafting the project document. Nevertheless, the document did not describe anytraining objective that the TNC component of the project was intended to meet.

It was assumed that the Government of Ghana would provide specified inputs and it wasrecognized that there was arisk that the government would be unable to fulfil its obligations. It wasalso recognized that there was a risk of delay in fielding of UN project personnel.

There is no evidence of consideration being given to alternative strategies to the establishment ofthe TNC. Institutional capabilities of the University of Science and Technology were reviewed.

The intended users of project outputs were clearly identified, but women were not specificallymentioned in the project document

The Economic Recovery Programme II, the Government's Programme toMitigate the Social Costof Adjustment (PAMSCAD) and the implications for project design, were specifically outlined.

The logical framework, as set out in Section D of the project document, clearly stated in realisticand verifiable terms, the project objectives and outputs. However, no quantifiable parameters weresuggested.

The project document laid down annual tripartite reviews, a project terminal report, and evaluationsix months prior to termination.

A work plan was not included in the project document but a realistic and practical initial work planwas prepared in October 1989, during a visit by Dr Letitia Obeng of RWSG-WA. It wassubsequently up-dated regularly.

III. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Although some of the planned activities of the TNC have been undertaken, progress lias notproceeded as expected due to the impossibility of recruiting suitably qualified and experiencedstaff. This caused a delay of not less than twelve months.

All parties were in full agreement on main issues involved in implementing the project.

Specific activities that were implemented included the following.

P a9« 22 Evaluation Report March 1992


+++ The Training Centre was established and was provided with suitable ac-commodation and equipment.

+++ A senior member of the University staff was appointed as Director,

+++ After some delays, qualified butinexperiencedjuniorstaffwere engaged andundertook thorough and relevant training, gaining some appropriate prac-tical experience.

+++ Some linkages were established with relevant national traininginstitutions.

+++ A good start was made with the modification of ITN training material andpreparation of new material.

+++ Courses were run, some in collaboration with other organizations.

+++ The Centre provided some assistance to courses in the Department of CivilEngineering at UST.

+++ A Management Board was set up.

+++ Assistance was provided to KM A in the preparation of a sanitation plan forKumasi and staff were associated with the development and implement ofthe Kumasi Sanitation Project.

+++ A start was made in collection, preparation and dissemination of in-formation and training materials on low-cost technologies and their appli-cation.

Costs were within the budget and were not excessive. Effectiveness would have been increased ifexperienced staff had been available, but they were not.

Due to necessity, the professional staff had to be trained almost from scratch in lowcost water supply and sanitation, although all had a first degree. During the training period astrategy emerged of concentrating on the production of high quality training material, whichincluded the maximum of participatory methodology. While not particularly innovative, no otherITN Centre has had the good fortune of such a long period of gestation - most have had to engagein training quickly, initially using material that is only partially relevant

Another strategy emerged towards the end of the project period: that the Centre should become asfinancially independent as possible. While it is anticipated that the Government of Ghana willcontinue to provide generous support of staff salaries through UST, other costs (such as thoseincurred when running courses away from Kumasi) will have to be covered by income from users.This is discussed further below. The strategy of self-financing is very much in line with presentGovernment approaches and development approaches.

The Government of Ghana showed itself to be committed to the Training Network Centre by itscontinued financial support, particularly in the appointment of professional staff to the Universityfaculty. The University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, generously provided office ac-commodation and other facilities. Other institutions, such as the Ghana Water and SewerageCorporation and the Kumasi Metropolitan Authority, supported the Centre by membership of theManagement Board at the highest level and by other means.

Implementation of the Training Centre component of the project was entirely done by nationalstaff. They will be able to continue upon project termination, provided the project can be extendedfor sufficient time for their training to be completed and for self-funding mechanisms to be fullydeveloped.

The Centre lias been fortunate to have no loss of staff or adverse institutional changes duringimplementation. In July 1991TNC was transferred from budget line 17 to budget line 21 to reflecta change of recruitmentmodality, from directrecruitmentby the project, to subcontracting throughthe University.



While maintaining an independence necessary to concentrate on methods and low-cost technolo-gies which diverge from UST's status as a centre of advanced technology, the Centre has beenaccepted into the University's academic mainstream as a part of the Department of CivilEngineering within the School of Engineering.

The day-by-day management and forward planning of the Centre appear to lack positive andimaginative direction. Little or no attention is given to cost-effectiveness of inputs.

No information was given about problems regarding the financial management of the TNC.However, it was noted that there was some reticence in discussing the disbursement of fundsreceived for consultancy services to external agencies such as DANIDA. Apparently these,are (orshould be) paid into a UST 'production unit account'. This account should be readily available forchecking anddetailsofthecurrentposition of the accountshould be submitted regularly to the Deanand the RWSG-WA office in Accra.

Underlying the whole implementation of the project were the problems resulting from theimpossibility of engaging experienced staff. These were successfully overcome (although withconsiderable delay in producing outputs) by engaging raw staff and training them.

Supporting expertise was provided to the TNC by the UNDP/World Bank Regional Water andSanitation Group for West Africa (RWSG-WA) throughout theprojecL This comprised continuousadvice and guidance. Mr Joseph GadekoftheRWSG-WA office in Accra was particularly helpful.He maintained regular contact with the project and made himself readily available for immediateassistance to deal with any problems. RWSG-WA and also RWSG-EA assisted in the training ofstaff. The expertise was appropriate, was acceptable to Government and successfully transferredexpertise to national staff. It is likely that the Centre would have benefited by receiving advice froman external institution specializing in low-cost water and sanitation technology and software indeveloping countries. The model of using external institutions has proved to be valuable for thedevelopment of several other ITN Centres worldwide.

Formal training of TNC staff provided by the project was successful. The following courses wereheld at Kumasi:

+++ four-day workshop on preparing work plans conducted by Dr LetitiaObeng, RWSG-WA, October 1990;

+++ three-week field orientated workshop on participatory methods conductedby PROWWESS, October 1990;

+++ writers' workshop with Mrs Sue Laver, University of Harare, April 1991;

+++ one-week workshop on participatory techniques conducted by Ron Sawyer,RWSG-EA, October 1991.

The following overseas training was provided for individual members of staff:

+++ Oliver Frimpong attended short courses in Kenya and Gambia; he isemployed as communication lecturer;

Safuratul Muhammed-Tahiru is taking an MSc course at Imperial College,London; on her return she will be employed as lecturer in sanitation engi-neering.

P«9« 24 Evaluation Report March 1992


The Director and other members of staff have undertaken a number of study tours within andoutside Ghana. These have widened their experience, including establishing contact with otherITN Centres. There has been good but inadequate exposure to field work.

Equipment provided under the TNC project included two vehicles, one laptop computer and twoPCs, two printers, a camera, cassette recorder, film projector, overhead projector, slide projector,video camera, photocopier and a typewriter. All were appropriate and spare parts are nationallyavailable, or (for some computers) are held by the Accra office of RWSG-WA. All equipment isbeing used, or is available for use, for activities of the Centre.

Regular monitoring and evaluation was undertaken by (heTraining Network Centre ManagementBoard. By its constitution the Chairman of this Board is required to be 'a person of public standingnot associated with die University'. The person so appointed is an eminent banker who devotesconsiderable time and thought to the well-being of the Centre. Members of the Board includerepresentatives of the Department of Civil Engineering, the School of Engineering, GWSC, theMinistries of Works and Housing, Health, Education, and Finance and Economic Planning, theDepartment of Community Development, UNDP and the Accra office of RWSG-WA. The Boardis outstanding because of the seniority of members representing the Government, (he regularitywith which members attend and the concern that members obviously have in promoting the well-being of the Centre.

No in-depth external evaluations during project implementation were reported.

The tripartite reviews appear to have been both useful and effective, dealing with a large numberof issues and problems relevant to the Training Network Centre. Recommendations arising fromdiscussion have generally been implemented. An outstanding recommendation from the lastmeeting in July 1991 is that the UNDP project for the TNC should be extended for two years.

PROWWESS assisted in the training of staff and expressed readiness to contribute further. Therehas been limited collaboration with bilateral and non-governinent agencies. GWSC has activelyused the Centre for training staff of its UNDP-funded rural water supply project The Centreparticipated in the recent DANID A mission covering water issues. There appears to be readinessby other organizations to work with the TNC and there is undoubtedly scope for much greatercooperation.

IV. PROJECT RESULTS

A. Outputs

The Training Network Centre is in operation and staff have been trained. Support has been givento KSP and to the UNDP Volta Region project. Training material lias been prepared and has beenused in courses and workshops of which fifteen were held. There has been an input of low-costtechnology to undergraduate courses in (lie Department of Civil Engineering.

Considering their comparatively limited experience die quality of the staff is good; they are veryenthusiastic and work together as a team. All outputs, apart from the initial establishment of theCentre and theappointment of the Director, have been delayed. One lecturer now attending a coursein the UK has not yet commenced work.

The quality of the printed training material and reports is good. Manuals and training notes haveincluded excellent drawings and liave followed the advice to 'Keep it short and simple*. Non-conventional methodologies such as participatory techniques have been assimilated. However, itseems that staff may devote too much time to preparing printed notes — so-called 'publications',including quite elaborate reports of minor visits. An extreme example is the preparation of acomputer-aided selection matrix for sanitation alternatives, which would have negligible practical



value and which was expected to take three months staff time. Proper management of staff timeis called for.

A modest start has been made to forming a documentation and communications unit, with an over-emphasis on developing time-consuming computer retrieval techniques. Advice on this aspect ofthe Centre's activities should be obtained, possibly from IRC at the Hague, IRC-WD inSwitzerland, IDRC in Ottawa, ENSIC at ATT Bangkok, or from the External Institution. The TNCshould explore and develop lines of communication with agencies operating in the sector in Ghana,by such means as producing a regularly-published newsletter.

A long list of research topics has been drawn up. It was proposed that these should be offered tomembers of the University (not TNC staff) to undertake under contract The nature of the topicsdoes not appear to be particularly relevant to the Centre's proposed training, nor is attention to begiven to training of TNC staff or to development of TNC staff interests. It is not clear why thisexpenditure should be covered by the project

There is a need for more vigorous marketing of the TNC to promote use of the Centre for trainingthroughout the sector. It might be beneficial, by the introduction of new ideas and providing a freshimpetus, if the appointment of Director were of limited duration. This is a common practice inUniversity administration; for example the office of Dean at UST is held for three years.

So far little has been done to assist staff at other training institutions to incorporate low-cost waterand sanitation materials into their curricula.

B. Immediate Objectives

The objective of establishing the Training Network Centre has been achieved, but it is not yetsustainable and is some way from achieving its full potential. However, this potential is good, giventhe quality and enthusiasm of the new members of staff and the training they have received or willreceive. Provided the project is continued and the Centre has more aggressive and outward-lookingmanagement, avaluable, sustainableandeffecti veCentreshouldbeattained within the foreseeablefuture.

At the micro-level the University has gained a Centre which lias potential to enhance the reputationof UST for involvement in improving the health and well-being of low-income Ghanaians. Thestaff have developed skills and knowledge accompanied by the benefits of working in a team andconsiderable job-satisfaction. Provided the Centre continues its growth and increases its outreachthe potential benefits to the University will be realized and the staff will benefit in terms of careerdevelopment.

C. Development Objectives

When theTraining Centre reaches its full potential (i.e., with UNDP support for twofurther years and outward-looking direction) it is likely to create and strengthen an awareness oflow-cost technology and its application through community management with beneficial effectson the water and sanitation sector throughout the country.

D. Unforeseen Effects

The project document did not foresee the development of training material incorporating goodgraphics, a training methodology slanted towards participatory techniques and a training emphasison the role of women. All these have been positively included in the training of the staff and in other



outputs. The delay in building up an effective staff team lias been regarded as detrimental, but inthe long run is likely to be beneficial, providing the project can be extended for at least another twoyears.

E. Sustainability

The Training Centre and its professional staff have been integrated into the University structure,office accommodation and facilities have been provided and payment of recurrent costs have beenaccepted by the Government of Ghana.

Nevertheless, oilier costs need to be covered by income from non-government sources, sodevelopment of a clientele of user agencies has to be fostered. The need for outside 'consultancy'(which largely consists of payment for undertaking training for outside bodies) is accepted by dieCentre as a prerequisite for sustainability. Non-government income is necessary to retain goodquality staff because of the low level of University salaries. However, we were not told of any plansfor 'selling' the Centre to possible clients. We observed little interest in forward planning.

F. Follow-up

The project should be extended for at least another two years, during which time the Centre shouldincrease its abili ty to serve the sector by further training of staff, by production of more trainingmaterial and by providing a greater range of courses for other institutions. During this period theback-up of the Accra office of RWSG-WA could be crucial.

The designation of an External Institution with proven experience of training in low-costtechnology and management for developing countries would be beneficial. Activities of thisInstitution should include:

+++ by regular visits, correspondence and other means provide c o n t i n u o u sadvice to the Centre, particularly regarding setting and achieving targets, anddeveloping outgoing policies;

assisting in the planning and delivery of courses and workshops, particu-larly by providing expertise in topics with which TNC staff are unfamiliar;and

assist in the planning and implementation of staff training and careerdevelopment, and in setting up an effective documentation and communi-cation unit.

To enable the Centre to fulfil its potential the staff should be strengthened by the appointment tothe University of the graphic artist now attached on national service. This will maintain the highquality of training material. A female lecturer with an anthropology, community development orsocial science background should also be appointed to concentrate on socio-economic, cultural,community and gender issues. These issues are inadequately covered at present.

During the next two years all staff should be further trained, with emphasis on topics such as thefollowing.



+++ Just as the Kumasi Sanitation Project has provided a workshop for the studyof the technology and management of urban sanitation, rural projects shouldbe identified for familiarizing staff with all aspects of rural water supply andsanitation. If possible these projects should be near at hand so that they canbe regularly visited without overnight absence from Kumasi.

+++ Everything possible should be done to benefit from "grassroot workers",with a realization that appropriate technology can often be better learnedfrom comparatively uneducated people than from the most sophisticatedresearch techniques.

+++ Guidance is needed in assessing training needs and adapting trainingmaterial, programmes and methods to suit the requirements of trainees.

It is essential that the Centre should greatly extend its outreach to government and non-go vernment(including bilateral) agencies by more vigorous management initiative. A major effort should bemade immediately to establish collaborative liaison with all other institutions undertaking trainingin the sector and with all agencies who are involved, or are likely to be involved, in delivering low-cost water and sanitation services.

In most aspects of the Centre's implementation the management appears to lack drive andinitiative. Even though the staff are well motivated and working hard, staff time utilization isuncontrolled with vague targets and no apparent sense of urgency. This does not mean that the staffare not working hard Extension of the Centre's activities is neither planned nor pursuedvigorously.

Consideration should therefore be given to limiting the appointment of Director to a fixed term soas to instil fresh ideas and fresh approaches. The desirable qualities of the Director are motivationto provide training in low-cost technology and software, and vigorous managerial and marketingskills. Academic achievements need low priority. There might be advantage in considering amanager from outside the University system for the next appointment, using mis as a trainingperiod for younger members of staff to be groomed for future leadership.

V. FINDINGS — TRAINING NETWORK CENTRE

1. The establishment of the Training Centre is in line with government sectorpolicies.

2. Government, UST, UNDP and RWSG-WA have fully supported the Centre.

3. The Centre has benefited from the support and recommendations of aManagement Board and the Tripartite Reviews.

4. TheTraining'Centre has belatedly become firmly established with a good butas yet inexperienced staff team whose training is being pursued. An initialdelay (effectively nearly two years) was due to the impossibility of appoint-ing suitable qualified and experienced staff.

5. Training methods and good quality training material are being developed,and a start has been made with the formation of a documentation andcommunications unit. The staff effort devoted to these activities is excessive



in relation to the output, and there is a need for planning, targeting and controlof staff time.

6. The Centre would benefit from greater staff exposure to practical low-costwater supply and sanitation situations.

7. The inputs to the Training Centre by UNDP, the World Bank and Govern-ment have been justified.

8. It has been shown that a lengthy preparation period is necessary if a newventure of this kind is to be established on a sound basis.

9. A major weakness is in management, with an absence of targets forperformance, little forward planning and insufficient attention to collabora-tion with other agencies in the sector.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS — TRAINING NETWORK CENTRE

UNDP should extend the project in relation to the Training Centre for at leasttwo years. During this time the Centre should develop into an effective unitproviding and coordinating training and information exchange in low-costtechnology and appropriate software for all agencies in the sector in Ghana.By the end of the project it should earn sufficient income from course feesand similar means to continue without further direct financial backup fromUNDP.

2. The Government and UST should continue to support the Centre as hithertobut with such increased funding as is necessary to cover the salaries andexpenses (at normal government rates) of additional staff appointed with theapproval of the Management Board.

3. Back-up should continue to be provided to the Centre by RWSG-WA Accraby assisting in resolving managementproblems, by preparing regular reportson project progress in accordance with UNDP requirements, and by otherappropriate assistance.

4. An External Institution should be appointed and funded by UNDP and/orother donor to provide academic and managerial advice and assistance undera linking arrangement.

5. The management of the Centre should be invigorated by fixing the term ofoffice of the Director at three years (as for the Dean), by appointing a newDirector with managerial skills and by providing necessary administrativesupport to the Director.

6. Two new members of staff (the graphic artist and a female lecturer toconcentrate on socio-economic, cultural, community and gender issues)



should be appointed.

7. Local low-cost rural water supply and sanitation projects should be identi-fied to give staff exposure to field conditions.

8. The Centre should increase its production of high quality teaching material,but staff time input for this should be restricted by setting targets and byrigorous control.

9. Advice should be obtained regarding time-effective expansion of the docu-mentation and communication unit. Communication with and betweensector agencies should be fostered by such means as regularly publishedsector information.

10. Strenuous efforts should be made to extend the Centre's outreach bydeveloping collaborative links with other sector agencies.

11. The "production unit account" for funds received from non-governmentagencies should be available for review at each meeting of the ManagementBoard

12. Funds for applied research should be provided to TNC staff to investigateproblems relevant to their training functions and to assist in developing theirknowledge and skills.

13. High priority must be given to delivery of appropriate training for the sector,using visiting lecturers in such a way that TNC staff increase their experienceand exposure.

14. In addition to allocations for RWSG-WA, Accra (US$ 100000), and for theex-post evaluation (US$30 000), which have been proposed in connectionwith recommendations for the Kumasi Sanitation Project, the followingadditional finance should be provided by UNDP for the Centre during thetwo year extension of the project

Administrative support personnel 1 000

Official travel 4 000

Mission costs 5 000

UST contract for TNC 25 000

Local workshops 25 000

Equipment 30 000

Graphic artist 10 000

PROWWESS personnel (female lecturer) 10 000

Applied research 10 000

O&M of equipment and sundries 12 000



PROJECT TOTAL US$ 132 000

In addition the cost of support by an External Institution is likely to be upwards of US$ 50 000,depending on the input.

VH. LESSONS LEARNED

Government salaries are not attractive for experienced professionals in Ghana However, given thesupport of the government and the parent institution, a training centre associated with theInternational Training Network can be established with able but inexperienced staff. Guidance,particularly regarding the methodology of training in low-cost technology, should be provided assoon as staff are appointed.

Vigorous management is essential and the motivation should be to develop a training systemappropriate for training trainers of "grassroot workers", rather than concern with academic issues.Continuous external monitoring and back-up (preferably from those involved in similar trainingactivities) should be provided from the start.

Evaluation Report March 1992 Pa9° 3 1



LIST OF APPENDICES

1 Terms of Reference for Evaluat ion *

2 Itinerary

3 Documents Received and Reviewed

4 Repayments to Revolving Fund for Household Latrines

5 Revenue Collected from Franchised Public Toilets

6 Budgets and Expenditures

7 Revenue Collected for Desludging Acti-vi-ies by KMA

8 First Newsletter from TNC

APPENDIX 1

TERMS OF REFERENCE

GOVERNMENT OF GHANA

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

WORLD BANK

T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E

JOINT PROJECT EVALUATION MISSION

Country

Project Number

Project Title

REPUBLIC OF GHANA

GHA/87/O16/F/O1/42

Low Cost Human Wastes Management- Kumasi Pilot Project

Noveaber 1991

A. BACKGROUND -

A.I The project document for GHA/87/016: Low Cost Human Wastes Management -Pilot Project for Kumasi was signed in December 1988 with a total budget ofUSD 644,100. The project became operational in April 1989 with two primarycomponents: the Kumasi Sanitation Project and the Training Network Center forWater and Waste Management.

A. 2 The Kumasi Sanitation Project (KSP) has operated within theinstitutional framework of the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly. The KSP componentwas in the first place to introduce an integrated approach to urban sanitation(human wastes) and develop a replicable model for urban wastes managementsystems, using a part of the Kumasi City as a p^lot area. Variousimplementation approaches were perceived to be examined including the rolesof the public sector, private sector, and communities in the construction andmaintenance of these systems.

A.3 The second component of the Low Cost Human Wastes Management Project isbased within the University of Science and Technology's Department of CivilEngineering. The Training Network Center (for Water and Waste Management) inKumasi was established in March 1989 in collaboration with the global effortsof the International Training Network as an integral part of the 1980"sInternational Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade.

A. 4 The original project document contained four Immediate Objectives,namely:

1. Develop and implement a pilot human wastes management project for anarea in Kuraasi City

2. Ensure replication of the pilot results through the preparation of afollow-up sanitation program in Kumasi and identification of theresources required to implement it

3. Strengthen local capacity to plan, design and implement urbansanitation projects

4. Establish the Training Network Center at the University of Science andTechnology.

A.5 Early on in the project it was decided that on-site sanitation solutionswere required more urgently than the waterborne option originally envisagedin the project document, and funds for construction were reallocatedaccordingly. At the first TPR held in June 1990 it was however agreed toincrease UNDP funding to allow for the piloting of an appropriate waterbornetechnology. A major revision based on this decision was signed in June 1991,providing an additional USD 423,000. Objective one was recast as follows:

Develop and implement a pilot human wastes management project,consisting of three pilot schemes, in Kumasi City. The three pilotschemes are:

- household latrine construction scheme- public latrine construction scheme- simplified sewerage sch«mo

B. SCOPE OK THE EVALUATION

B.I The original project document scheduled an evaluation of the project tobe undertaken six months prior to the scheduled termination date. Given thatthe project was originally to end in April 1992, the Tripartite Project ReviewMeeting held on 12 September 1991 decided to hold this evaluation by end 1991.The findings and recommendations will be used by the government and UNDP indiscussing further assistance to the Training Network Center (TNC) and againby government, in determining how to replicate the Kumasi Sanitation Projectto cover other secondary centers.

B.2 This joint evaluation mission shall therefore:

1. Assess the soundness and appropriateness of the project design forrealising the project's development objective in a sustainable manner

2. Assess the effectiveness of the project in realising its immediateobjectives and the extent to which it has assisted the government inthe development, of improved implementation strategies that strengthenthe planning and management capabilities of agencies in the field oflow cost water and sanitation.

3. Detail the project successes and deficiencies, and identify the majorfactors that have facilitated or inhibited the achievement of theintended outputs.

4. Assess and recommend how the positive aspects of both the KumasiSanitation Project (KSP) and the Training Network Center (TNC)components be better institutionalised, expanded and replicated.

C. ISSUES TO BE COVERED -

C.I Of the four objectives originally proposed in the project document,three were detailed around the KSP project component, whereas the fourthobjective stated that the TNC should be established. The following list ofissues should be considered carefully recognizing that the project design doesindeed have two somewhat discrete components to it.

C.2 Project Concept and Design -

The evaluation mission should review, assess and report on:

Tlii1 continued relevance of the project's immediate andlong-term development objectives to government priorities

The project approach in resolving the identified problems.

Where could progress have been better achieved ifchanges in the project design had been foreseen?Was the issue of susl.ainabi]ity of TNC after projectcompletion a<loqu;i t.<> 1 y addressed in the projectdesi gn?

The number and coherence among the four project objectives.

Were the objectives and outputs clearly stated andare they verifiable?

The project's work plan process.

The appropriateness of the execution arrangements.

Was the arrangement of project execution by the WorldBank appropriate. Would government execution havebeen a more appropriate arrangement?

C.3 Implementation -

The evaluation mission should review, assess and report on:

Quality and timeliness of the inputs;

Can the KSP be completed within the current level ofUNDP inputs, as stipulated in revision 'F1.To what extent have the Government of Ghana and thetarget beneficiaries in the pilot areas in Kumasicontributed to and "believed in" this project.What are the guarantees that user fees and loanrepayments made under the project will be utilised asgovernment or private inputs to maintain and expandthe sanitation systems established.

Quality and timeliness of the activities;

Which activities have been substantially delayed andwhat are the reasons for these delays?Are project, activities likely to be completed beforethe end of 1992?

The efficiency and effectiveness of the management of theproject as a whole, and of the TNC and KSP components;

Has project management been able to adjust to changesin the environment of the project;Has project management timely and adequatelyaddressed the issue of delay in implementation;Are appropriate management arrangements in place forthe remaining period of the project.

Quality and timeliness of monitoring and backstopping byall parties to the project.

The inter-relationship in project delivery betweengovernment (local and central), UNDP, and World Bank.

The extent to which the government has truly committeditself to a reassessment of the institutional arrangementsin order to assist in improving sector performance.

What is the risk that the long term benefits of theTNC and KSP project components will not be realiseddue to institutional weaknesses.

C.I Results -

The evaluation mission will be required to carefully document theresults (positive and negative) achieved as a direct consequenceof the project inputs and identify the major factors that havefacilitated or inhibited the achievement of the results. Thefollowing aspects need to be addressed:

Have the Kumasi project components (TNC and' KSP) producedtheir intended outputs effectively and efficiently?

What is the assessment of the quality of the outputs andhow are these being utilised?

Have the project objectives been achieved and to whatextent? If the objectives have not been fully achievedwhen can they be expected to be achieved?

What has been the effect on the sanitation services usersin Kumasi? What has been the effect on water supply andwastes disposal sector agencies (TNC).

What have been the effects upon the institutionalarrangements in Kumasi to address environmental sanitationissues.

To what extent are the institutional arrangements adoptedby the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly as a result of theproject inputs viable in the long term and replicable tosecondary cities.

Has the issue of the long term sustainability of theTraining Network Centre been sufficiently addressed.

To what extent has the project made a consistent andsustained effort to promote the participation of women andthe target beneficiaries at large in the pilot project.

To what, extent is the Strategic Sanitation Plan (SSP) asdeveloped in Kumasi appropriate for tailoring into theMinistry of Finance and Economic Planning's (MFEP) projectplanning process for the revolving Public InvestmentProgramme (PIP).

Has l-.he project had any unintended effects, positively of?ly, especially in the areas of:negatively,

donor coordinationlevel of rents payable in various parts ofKumas i

D. LESSONS LEARNED -

D.I The Kumasi Sanitation Project is centered around the developmentof a Strategic Sanitation Plan (SSP) for Kumasi and the implementationof several pilot projects in order to test project design andimplementation modalities. This is quite a different approach then thestandard consulting engineering approach of conventional "seweragemaster planning". Review this SSP process and the pilot projectsapproach and document the lessons learned. Likewise, with the TrainingNetwork Center, document the lessons learned in setting up a traininginstitution geared towards addressing sector requirements in a non-conventional approach.

E. COMPOSITION OF THE MISSION -

E.I The evaluation mission will be comprised of one member from eachof the following agencies involved with the project.

Government of Ghana

United Nations Development Program

World Bank

E.2 The proposed members should be professionals who have not beeninvolved with the project to date in order to maintain an unbiasedapproach to the evaluation. The UNDP appointed consultant will be themission leader.

E.3 The members of the team are to combine the following backgrounds:sanitary engineering with experience in urban sanitation projects;community management of social sector projects; training and curriculumdevelopment; institution building; and financial analysis. Experiencein developing countries is a necessity. At least one person should befamiliar with the mechanisms of Government of Ghana, including the PIPprocess.

F. TIMETABLE AND ITINERARY OF EVALUATION -

F.I Prior to the mission, the UNDP as well as the IBRD representativeshould be briefed by respectively UNDP Headquarters and UNDP/IBRDRegional Water and Sanitation Group, Abidjan. This should not exceedtwo working days. The team leader will have a two days debriefing atUNDP Headquarters after the mission.

F.2 The evaluation mission will meet at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, February3, 1992 at the UNDP offices in Accra, after which they will meet withthe Government, UNDP, and World Bank representatives for an initialbriefing. At this point the responsible agencies will entertainsuggestions by the consultants for modifications to the TOR (not timeperiod).

F.3 The mission will have two calendar weeks to conduct all fieldwork/interviews/data collection followed by three days for draft reportfinalization. The evaluation mission will present their draft reportto the government, UNDP, and the World Bank responsible officials onThursday, February 20, 1992 at an agreed upon time at the UNDP officesin Accra.

F.4 The mission leader will be responsible for the drafting of themission's report, which should be completed as far as possible beforedeparture from Accra. The draft report should be made available toGovernment, IBRD and UNDP representatives in Accra. The final reportshould be completed and delivered to UNDP Accra by Monday, March 16,1992. Ten copies of the final report are to be delivered to Accra.

G. CONSULTATIONS IN THE FIELD -

G.I The evaluation mission will maintain close liaison with the UNDPResident Representative in Accra; the concerned agencies of theGovernment; the Regional Water and Sanitation Group based within theWorld Bank resident mission in Accra and Kumasi; and counterpart staffassigned to the project.

G.2 Although the mission should feel free to discuss with theauthorities concerned anything relevant to its assignment, it is notauthorized to make any commitments on behalf of the UNDP or WorldBank.

APPENDIX 2

ITINERARY

ITINERARY

THURSDAY, 30TH JANUARY

7.00 pm : Dr. S. Stoveland arrives in Abidjan

FRIDAY, 31TH JANUARY

9.00 am : Professor J. Pickford arrives in Abidjan

11.00 am : World Bank Regional Water & Sanitation Group,AbidjanMr. A. LocussolMr. R. RocheMs L. Obeng

SATURDAY, 1ST FEBRUARY

: Dr. Stoveland and Prof. Pickford travel to Accravia road

MONDAY, 3RD FEBRUARY

9:00 am : Mr. E. Quansah joins evaluation mission

10.00 am : Meeting UNDPDeputy Res. Rep. Mr. J. Byll-CatariaMs. Henriette Keijzers, Programme Officer, UNDP

11.00 am : Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MFEP)Mrs. M. Clarke-KwesieMr. Sofu Ali-Akpajiak

2.00 pm : UNDPMs. Henriette Keijzers, Programme Officer

TUESDAY, 4TH FEBRUARY

10.00 am : Ministry of Local GovernmentAg. Chief Director, Mr. S.Y.M. ZanuMr. M. Mensah, Senior Planning Officer

11.30 am : Ministry of HealthMr. H. Noye-Nortey, Environmental Health Division

2.00 pm : Registration with Ministry of Interior

3.00 pm : World Bank, Country Office, RWSGMr. J. Gadek, Country Coordinator

WEDNESDAY, 5TH FEBRUARY

9.3 0 am : WaterAidMr. Ron Bannerman

11.00 am : Water Resources Research InstituteDr. A.T. Amuzu

11.3 0 am : Parkla Seismos GeoMechanikMr. Robert Bannerman

1.30 pm : RWSGMr. J. Gadek

3.00 pm : Ghana Water and Sewerage CorporationMr. C. Kwei, Project Coordinator, UNDP/GWSCMr. J.K.A. Boakye, Sociologist, UNDP/GWSC

4.3 0 pm : Ministry of Local Government, Dept. of CommunityDevelopment, Mr. J.N. Arthur, Director

THURSDAY, 6TH FEBRUARY

9.00 am : DANIDAMr. Mogens Bregnbaek

: TRAVEL TO KUMASI

5.00 pm : Meeting with Mr. Ato Brown, KSP ProjectCoordinator

FRIDAY, 7TH FEBRUARY

9.00 am : Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly SecretaryCapt. A.Y. Mensah

10.00 am : UST, TNCDean of Engineering Dept. Prof. N.K. KumapleyManager, TNC, Dr. J. MonneyAll TNC staff.

2.00 pm : Dr. J. Monney

3.30 pm : Mr L. Agbemabiese, Community Development Lecturer,TNC.

4.15 pm : Mr. R. Simpson, TNC, Rural Water Supply

FRIDAY, 21ST FEBRUARY

7.00 am : Prof- J. Pickford leaves Accra for the U.K.

All day : Finalising draft report.

10.00 pm : Dr. S. Stoveland departs for New York debriefing,

THURSDAY/ 13TH FEBRUARY

10.00 am : Vice Chancellor, UST, Prof. F.O. Kwami

Pro Vice chancellor, UST, Prof. Ansah Asamoah

11.00 am : Project Engineer, KSP, Mr. T. Mensah

11.30 am : Mr. Ato Brown, continue

2.00 pm : ; Continuation with Mr. Ato Brown

FRIDAY, 14TH FEBRUARY

9.00 am : Capt. A.Y. Mensah, Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly

10.00 am : Mr. Ato Brown, Kumasi Sanitation Project

Afternoon : Training Network Centre

SATURDAY, 15TH FEBRUARY : Return to Accra

MONDAY, 17TH FEBRUARY : Report Writing


Morning : Report Writing

2.30 pm : Meeting First Secretary, Canadian High CommissionMr. G.R. Chauvet

3.30 pm : GWSC Acting Managing Director, Mr E.K.Y. Dovlo

4.30 pm : GWSC Head of Rural Water Supply, Mr P.O. Sackey

WEDNESDAY, 19TH FEBRUARY : Report Writing

THURSDAY, 2 0TH FEBRUARY

Morning : Report Writing

3.00 pm : Debriefing UNDP/Government/RWSG/TNC

SATURDAY, 8TH FEBRUARY

10.00 am : Site visits to Moshi Zongo, South Suntreso andAyigya pilot areas for on-site sanitation.

MONDAY, 10TH FEBRUARY

Morning : Meetings with TNC staff.Mr. 0. Frimpong, Communication Expert/JournalistMr. E. Larbi, M.Sc. Sanitary Engineer,(Sanitation)Dr. G. Akosa, Lecturer, Civ. Eng., Member TNC

BoardDr. A. Cudjoe, Lecturer, Mech. Eng., Member TNCBoard

Afternoon : Dr. J. Monney, TNC Manager


Morning : Kumasi Sanitation Project

9.00 am : Eva Asare-Bediako, PlannerPeter Eduful, Health EducatorKwadwo Boakye, Community Development OfficerVictor Donkor, AccountantAlex Boateng, Project Co-Manager, KMA QuantitySurveyorJoseph Charles Mensah, Extention Worker

3.00 pm : Glenn Laverick, ODA TC Officer, Health EducationODA sponsored project with KMA

WEDNESDAY, 12TH FEBRUARY

9.00 am : Michael J. Cowing, Mott-MacDonald/ODA/Solid WasteProject/Kumasi

10.30 am : Mr. M.O. Danso, Director, Waste Management Dept.KMA

11.30 am : Site visit to three sites : Public toilets underrehabilitation

2.00 pm : Project Coordinator, Mr. Ato Brown

3.30 pm : Regional Director, GWSC, Mr. P. Appiah-Kubi

5.00 pm : Chairman TNC Board, Mr. K. Owusu-Akyaw

APPENDIX 3

LIST OF DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FOR REVIEW/BACKGROUND

LIST OF DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FOR REVIEW/BACKGROUND

1 Project Document, December 1988.

2 Mandatory Budget Revision "D", July 1990.

3 Project Performance Evaluation Report (PPER), July 1991.

4 Invitation letter to Tripartite Review Meeting (TPR) (inclUNDP position paper and conditions and suggestions for projectextensions).

5 Minutes for Tripartite Review Meeting, 12th Sept. 1991.

6 Budget Revision "F".

(incl TOR for subcontracts).

7 Budget Revision "G", October 1991.

8 Budget Revision "H", October 1991.

9 Terms of Reference: Joint Project Evaluation Mission

10 Status Report for Project Evaluation Mission, January 1992.

11 Training Network Centre: Brief Status Report of Ghana Centre

12 KMA: Strategic Sanitation Plan for Kumasi, November 1991.

13 Project Performance Evaluation Report, May 1990.

14 Monthly Progress Report, Sept. - Dec. 1991.

15 Monthly Progress Report, May - June 1991.

16 Monthly Progress Report, April 1991.

17 Monthly Progress Report, Jan. - March 1991.

18 Monthly Progress Report, Oct. - Nov. 1990.

19 Monthly Progress Report, Aug. - Sept. 1990.

20 Monthly Progress Report, June - July 1990.

21 Monthly Progress Report, May 1990.

22 Monthly Progress Report, April 1990.

23 Monthly Progress Report, March 1990.

24 Monthly Progress Report, February 1990.

25 Monthly Progress Report, January 1990.

APPENDIX 4

REPAYMENTS TO REVOLVING FUND FOR HOUSEHOLD LATRINES

K J S T H : JAJtlASI

STAIOS: COKPLSTEDA T I B Y A P I L O T A

(Loin Reco iery Sheet )I I A : 1992

I1

J1

s51

a53i1

I551390I1

Sue ofBe&eficiary

LSjarko K«foCharlotte AbayieAgnes 8 IntoMercy Avah

Alhiji Xoro

Grace Adjei

Qvusn Eeips

Ana Son id a

Aha Birago X

T H Obeng

L.S, Amiaoo

Alnaji GadoSapi (eiisal

Stic BoiteBg

Adjoi Pohaai

L.S. Aiaisoo

B.T.Friinoaj

Mailed Biio

[nebeia Otoati

b i t a Kmlofi BoiiyeEkpvei DOBI

I/So,

1.9B 124 I11 '3 S30 I9 AT10 I33 19Y25 1

U16 JHI1 2 i25 1

A! m, 50 1

s r

n!10

Pop.

5530(023717

n30(053IEIt

n303525553015333523

Type offacility

1 - COBV,1- Com.

1- Coai .1- COB».1- COBV.1- Com.1- Com.1- COBV.

1 - I e iI - COM.

1- Con.

1-lH

Henl-C0Bt.1-Cos?.1-Coai.2-Con.I-CODT.1-Com.1-Com.1 - C O B T ,

1-Coni,

Start

Cite

02/01/91

21/01/91

21/01/91

22/02/91

01/04/91

U/0E/J114/06/91

H/06/91it/06/91H/06/9116/07/91IS/Ol/Jl16/OJ/9I

16/0T/91

16707/91

29/11/91

29/11/91

02/01/91

02/01/91

OW01/9202/01/9!01/01/91

FinishDate

17/01/91

11/03/91U/03/91U/03/S!11/01/9113/06/9123/06/9123/06/9129/06/9101/07/9125/07/91

31/01/9131/07/91

25/07/91

27/07/91

20/01/92

10/01/92

24/01/9124/01/91H/01/92H/01/3224/01/91

Total

Cost

206,550,00

1(5,300.00

123,900.00

141,800.00

131,4(0.00

133,440.00

139,(40.00

132,5(0.00

103,550.00210,310.00136,340.00117,3(0.00219,0(0.001(1,549.00170,190.00

143,360.00

113,500.00

1(5,500.00

138,500,00

133,300.00

137,900.00

131,900,001,711,790.00

CisiD/piyieit

20,000.0010,000,0010,000.0010,000.00

21,000.00

11,000.00

11,000.00

11,000.00

11,000.0021,000.00

11,000.00

5,000,0011,000,00(5,090.0011,000.00

20,000.00

23,000.00

6,000.00

11,000.00

6,000.00

6,000.00

6,000.00160,000.00

hliniD/pajient

28,500.00

, 10,000.0015,000.0049,000.00

0.00

10,000.00

10,000.00

T.MO.OO

10,000.0014,005.0014,009.0069,000.0010,000.0015,300.0010,000,00

14,000.00

10,000.00

14,000.00

10,000.0010,000.00

10,000,0010,000.00

285,500.00

Total

0/pijient

(3,500.0010,000.00

35,000.00

59,000.00

21,000.00

21,000.00

21,000.00

19,000,00

31,000.00

35,000.00

25,000.0074,000.0011,000.00

60,000.00

21,000.00

34,000.00

33,000,00

20,000,00

21,000.00

16,000.00

16,000.00

16,000.005(5,500.00

Pfoj. Ail.

Loaned

153,050.00

125,800.00, 138,900.001 S2,8O5.0O

110,(40.00

113,440.00

111,440.00

113,540.00

177,650,00

175,310.00

113,840.00

143,940.00

198,040.0082,549.00

149,190.00

109,360.00

130,500.00

125,500.00

117,500,00

122,300.00

121,900.00111,900.00

2,166,190.00

Interest on

Ait. Loaned

33,190,5026,413.9039,G69.00

17,388.00

23,192.40

14,872.40

14,872.40

23,9(3.40

37,306,50

35,815.10

13,9(16.40

30,117.40(1,583.(917,333.4031,319.90

22,965,60

31,905.00

26,355.0014,615.0915,633.00

15,599.9025,599,00

454,913.90

! In t .Hou; Aionit

j 191,1(0,591 151,111.001 128,569.09! 100,188.00! 133,631.40! 143,311.(9! 1(3,311,(0i 131,383.(9! 114,956.50

! 212 ,1X3 .10i 137,746.(0! 174,167.(9! 139,613.(9[ 99,873.(0| 189,519.90! 132.KU0! 118,(05.00! 151,355.00! 1(1,115,00; 141,933.00

! 141,(99.09

I 147,499.00! 1,611,193.30

loathlj IBSI

Piyieit

7,968,35

6,3(2.(19,513.71f . l I U O5,568.915,971.355,971.355,724.318,956.523,833.555,739.43

1,156.935,9!(.524,161.391,511.66

5,513,57

9,190,11

6,317.29

5,913.96

6,165.96

6,145.795,1(5,79

109,116.61

Piyient

to date

49,030.09

17,850.00

31,000.0011,909.0914,909.0913,900.09

16,909.00

13,175.0011,960.0036,990,9013,899,9059,009.09

0.J0

4,900.0911,590.(10

0.090.900.000.90

0.90

0.000.00

305,185,00

Loai ;

Balasce j<

151,140.50 !134,363,99 I

196,569.00 139,183,09 !

199,631.(9 ;

119,412,(0 !

111,311.40 |

124,108.40 |

• 201,996.50 1

176,115.19 •113,9(6,10 i

115,167.4!) |139,618.40 [

, 95,873.40 !S 169,019.99 !

131,3:5.60 ;

113,(95.99 !151,855.99 ;141,115.00 !1(1,983,00 j

1(7,493,00 !347,499,00 !

2,315,913,39 '

HOSTS: JUEMST

STATUS: COHPIKTED

1 I I I ( I 1 t f l L U l A S I A

Lou Keco?er? Sheet

mi: 1392

11!3(i57

39

0 '

1I ,3

1

5 :

S '

1 I

i

I Sue of1 Beaefichrj

J.J flijia

J.I Aipofo

George Bouene

Samel Bandah

A,A Altai

Juabeaa Eonnah

fiegici [onada

Bin to Into

J.B Hamas

Boil Ijei Keasa

Cleieat 3ossoa

J.A Obeaf

A,[ Karto

J m i Berko

Cat fart Appiik

Abi l i issih

U Keaua

Eyue Gyiial

1 1/ So.

J.43

C.HJ.18

H.32

?.U

E.27

J.20

E.Z3

1,25

1.1!

J.2I

J.S5

1.15

TBU I

1.19

3B92/3

F. 19

A.5

! Pop.

1 58

202530

30

30

SO

521

13

2!2025

12

10

25

11

40

type of

faci l i ty

2-Be*

1- Few

1- Corn.

1- C o m .

1- flev

I - Com.

2- fie*

I - Com.

1- He*

1- Set

1- Sen

1-COHT.

1-Iei

I-COST.

1-Hew

Men

1-Hev

2-Com.

SUrt

Date

10/10/SO

16/10/30

05/11/90

05/01/91

04/02/91

is/m/H13/06/91

19/05/31

H/06/3I

28/06/91

04/07/91

20/1J/9I

18/12/91

13/12/31IS/12/31

1!/12/91

fH/12/91

10/12/9!

Finielt

Date

31/10/30

23/11/90

30/11/30

oa/02/91

26/02/31

25/04/91

IS/OT/91

06/07/91

12/07/91

12/07/91

15/07/91

23/12/31

03/01/32

30/12/91

31/12/91

31/12/91

19/12/31

23/12/91

Total

Cost

300,000.00

190,000.00

120,000.00

120,000.00

187,310.00

135,500.00

323,010.00

130,119.00

203,790.00

203,730.00

203,730.00

143.SSO.00

227,000.00

133,120,00

225,420.00

202,780.00

220,460.00

217,800.00

3,<9<,5I0.0O

Ct8il

D/pijmt

(0,000.00

60,000,00

20,000.00

10,000,00

22,000,00

80,000.00

65,000.00

20,000,00

50,000.00

20,000.00

20,000.00

MOO.OO

5,(00.00

10,400,005.5QQ.QQ

10,(00.00

10,000.00

10,400,00

m , ooo, oo

htudD/pafieat

204,700.00

37,300,00

23,200.00

3?,S0O.OO

0.00

7,600.00

0.00

OJfl

9,500.00

9,600.00

0.00

9,500.90

9,500,00

9,600.00

52,320.00

9,500,00

9,600.00

H,600.00

459 ,720 .00

Total

f/piyient

241,700.00

37,300,00

(8,200,00

57,300,00

22,000.00

87,600,00

65,000.00

20,000.00

59,600.00

23,600.00

20,000.00

15,000.00

15,000.00

20,000.00

67,310,00

20,000,00

19,600,00

25,000.00

933,720.00

Proj. Ait.

Loaned

55,300.00

92,700.00

71,800.00

62,200.00

165,310,00 J

48,900.00

258,010.00

110,1(0.00

1(4,190,00

174,190.00

133,790.00

123,569.00

212,000.00

118,120.09159,100,00

182,780,00

200,960.00

, 192,800.00

2,560,850.00

literest oa

Ait. Loaned

11,613.00

19,457.00

15,283.00

15,062.00

34,715.10

10,259.00

st.m.io23,129.(0

30,279.90

36,573.90

38.59S.00

27,018.69

4(,520.00

24,305.20

J3.ill.00

38,333.80

42,180.60

40,433.00

5(9,337.60

h U L o u

AlOEIlt

£5,913,00

112,167,00

88,089.00

77.I62J0

200.02S.10

53,153.CO

312,132,10

133,269.40

1H,IM.9C

210,769.90

222,385,90

155,678.50

25S.52O.OO

1(2,925.20

191,511.00

221,153.80

243,0(0.60

233,288.00

3,101,333.50

KosUlj last

Payient

2,783.00

4,675.00

3,570.00

3,135.92

8,334,38

2,(66^00

13,008.00

S,552.89

?,269.S!

8,732,03

9,266,03

4,324,39

7,125,56

3,970.14

5,347.53

5,143,44

6,751.13

3,720,33

112,330,(5

Fijiest

to date

3S,flO0.O(!

55,000.00

4(,<00.00

37,000,00

65,000.00

17,290.00

55,000.09

15,000.00

3S,SOO,00

13,000.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0,00

0,00

0.00

389jl9Q.Q0

Loan

Bilince

30,913.00

57,167,00

(3,638.00

40,252.00

135,025.10

41,87940

241,192.10

118,269.(0

HMB.M192,769.90

222,385.90

! 155,673.60

! 256,529.00

1(2,925.20

j 192,511.00

221,153.80

2(3,040.69

233,288.00

[ 2,712,6(8.50

APPENDIX 5

REVENUE FROM FRANCHISED PUBLIC TOILETS

(SO

HI911Si!HIMS!!iSi!Hitil

Sittfi tujirjttsffi (fcfehfPiter IK ifoOmni toihic11id Fag relibmu liiugiJlltfi Isnfcl(fill

Si l!urn SailIthijt (indue

IS lit tH i l tII ITk13 Ilk2111k22 ilk11 Ilk

n Jit fSi a I k JIh i l l i!» a n j

« 12-lMit [i-it,

i l ;i-Ce«T.I! 12-tsiit. 'ISS I H i iIS | M H ;ot/12/ftSS U-Cinr. ;0*/l2/ilI! [Htti. 121/11/11

391,311,121,HI,111,

i l l ,12t,

Hi,

III,21S,

ISOIIIIN111!<t((!(11

m( i i911ill

.19 ,

. « ;

.99 ',

.11 '.

.19 ;

.19 !

.19 1

.99 1

.19 '.

.99 1

I M '

lo.ooi.io ;19,999.09 !71,900.09 ,

Ii,390.19 !

11,109.09 ;

21,199.19 ;21,191.90 !21,099.19 IIS,101.90 ;21,191.99 ;19,909.90 ;

11,991.09 ;11,099.00 !11,909.99 !11,909.19 Ii i ,001 .09 ;11,090,99 ;IS,001.90 ;11,900.00 ;i s ,031.o i ;

i s ,so i .oo;; {{g it '

is,m.oi;is,loo.lo ;}!,oo9.9o :is,111.oo:39,099.09 ;

31,(10.19 ;

31,099.09 ;

31,199.19 ;

io,ooo.M;11,101.99 ;11,199.00 ;

ill,HO.OO !i t i j n . g g :!11,1!T.OO :

in,m.m:;os,HI.oi;2I9,I(?.O1 ;211,(11.09 ;2f1,110.09 ;2SI,(K.IO ;2(1,011.19 ;I)S,9S!.9O |

si.ia.ii11.lll.il11 ,119 .11

SS.S3J.JS

(l,2(i.li12,0)1.1111,191.11i(,ili.!O5i,!l!.9tSI,if!.IS(1,1S3.2I

3ii,its.ii ;

13I .HI .H I

t.til.i!i.jit.ji ;

i.m.n1.111.!li.ill.H

i.ui.n),!!».)!j ,110 ,OS

1.S1I .3S

i,in.t!I.Sii.IO

•99 ;

.99 ;

.9i :

.M ;

.19 :

.99 :

.us ;

. 0 0 •

1.011.011.16

ilrSJJ,!U.(i l!3,l!i.!

321,111.11

111,211.11

IS!,1S1.II111,211.212(!,1!!.l!112,1(9.1111! l l f . l llti!iO2.!9US,lil. lt!!1,!S1.11111,111.11

i, (SS, 111.SI

200

ooo

0

0

ao

2.0 •00o

ooOO0

0

o

1 11 !i 1

m Jta or»8 /

/

22

i

*

SillUS:

D i l i

Uain Htc rr srteiltil!

(3.

I l l

312

101 '

10 (

005

001

111

31!

10)

110

011

t-1!

;uJ'S

111

111

] i !

£1)

li-j

IV

3i!

121

!!(

025

; • ! •

iV

121

12)

J1C

til

i l i

: ; ;

:u335

33S

«]•

13!

);!

0(1

1(1

ti !

l i ]

IK

0(5

9(1

1(1

141

31!

UK o!

I t in (lUiisin

Civic! [Drihli i i! i

[sue »j)!no ;

Silly Osiiflt

OlaHM (bscilir ;

Illlt-C-t 14T0 '

UlyJ! loslvi

Illllll ,lrl«f

Si ill DIM90

Utah ftth.un

Ifilllh l iak)iri

llidl Stltll

• timCg Siliii

Jliijl li*i iifi

lutiri T*ilor

ljl|1 $'ll!IH t".lll

Ullii l.llhmin

[cril'i iilso

Alhissia B v k a r '

Isliiu IssiH

K-JSi l in j i

Ullnr-I [i i l i l

111 11! Hipi'll

[iii'y il'ihii

3-11'- f ij <;hliMi;

Sililcni [n:»

!.(. *SULl

S]1.. i'litsl Isnai

[Hlfu Olif

P.iSuili SaSiPj)

Alht;, A53',l

[ i l l Hi'tr.Jj

I'jiuni Smiogi

Ijiuiii icidi

Silifu [ss4fl(S.H;

l:h!j' titssu <:>!'•

f i t I n linsli

inn: iihisin

IDUSdll SlllJ

lihiiiJu (s-jiri

. ,^ Iniana'

Jllill 111 SOU

Iihnu Smilojo

ifiran-1 E LAifha

[sufs Eisinj"

ikitTiii-tvit

tbisi-rdois

Stltfi itjssot

»,( He.

1 ili I

10 20

1 i n 5

ro 115

TO 2 1

TO 13

ro ii

31! I l l

)0 21

f io

(: lU

!• Jit

11 ill

'.'• i\\

10 [1

fi in

ro i-

ii 111

10 ! !

il ill

<i I:

13 I1,..

ro i l

ro io

1 in

;; 51!.

15 ! ! i

Si 111

(I III

1; ;n

t in J

11 l!k

II l i t

<i in

3;iin

s; inii ilk

li 3

3t in

1 m

ii Sit

10 III

is in

it :•

35 i ! l

11 inio inl i SU

11 I'*

f

I

I

I

F

t

F

;

j

1

11

F

j

J

f

I

F

f

1

F

I

S

F

F

H

Pot

1

li

IS

(I

I I

1!

11

10

!!

5$

11

SS

IS

IS

15

SO

i i

10

i l

15

(1

54

10

55!•.

j ]

t!

SI

H

53

i i

!S

Si

51

fl

(1

»

55

5!

S(

11

51

41^

!5

19

, is

. Si

! 11

l;«! s!

FKi i i t .

1- Com

i- Id

I- tor.

i- !•>

J- Co«i.

2' l ! l

!- t int .

1- turn.

1- Mf

2* COST

2- Colt.

!-<t»

I-C011,

1-Ca«r.

2-l!i

HIM.

1-tSti.

i-Sn

i-Cotr.

1-lti

!-«!!

Worn.

Hoot.

; - « • •

H i !!-(•!,.

2-toni.

J-tjm.

Hon.t-H.

' • •»e.

2-lfi; - ! , ,

K0»r.

]-««

*-Ut

2-Cjni,

2-lEt

1.1-

,.,(,

5-lti

. sun. Ditt

:il/3!H1

:!i/i!/ii

!Il/i!/H

121/12/11

li/ll/ll

121/01/10

,3(^02/10

;os/92/io

)!2/9i/)04!E/ti/1t

13/11/11

lli/13/11

;is/i3/ii

;is/os/!o

!3l/0(/!0

: it/m/io

;k'/01/)0

;!4/ii/)t

121/11/11

01/D1/SD

113/19/10

;i:/ii/i9

;ii/ii/)9

;i5/ii/ii

;oi/n/ii

I!!,1'!!/!!

;ii/oi,')i

i!l/0!/)l

!!t/l!/)1

liifll/il

^13/11/1i

;i 3/11/11

!H/ll/11

;ii/03/ii

;11/11/11

118/11/11

; ii/oi/ii

;it/9!/!1

; II/OI/II

'9i/llr11

:as/9i/;i

:n/oi/)i

'0(^11'11

:o»/oi/ii

'91/01/11

: ij/wii>0(/91/ll

:ti/oi/t'

; FISIM

; Oi'.i

;oi/;o/is

lOI/U/H

1 ID/01/^0

;!5/9t/!O

;oi/9i/)t

;!!/0!/H

;it/i!/)i

;11/03/10

'21/01/10

[11/04/10

[11/01/10

't(/Qi/10

't!/31/)31DT/tl/)^

;ii/l!/ii

[t(/l!J1!

[ll/K/i;

[11/0S/10

;n/n/ij

;31/it/io

;i(/3i/)s

[22/ll/H

'l!/!i/lt

;0i/0:/)l

;U/0''S;

;!5/0i/)l

W03/H

[!!/ll/i:

[21/Ii/il

\WW-;i?/0'fi;

;ii/oi/)i

[I2/H/5!

[!l/04/S'i

[ll/lt/11

;is/o(/ii

111/01/11

;if/K/n

[!(/H;r<:

'01/9^/11

;n/oi/si

lit/i!/is

'11/01/6 •

[91/9i'iH

'll/9i'f1

;a(/n/n'13/0lr11

'i!/t!i'r

irtil

Ctl'.

U,ii0.C0

l!l,150.00

133,110.00

il3.H0.01

111,301.01

ill,100.01

14,111.10

12,(10.10

I5!,I!O.OO

111,140.00

ill.300.01

101.(01.30

!01,)10.I0

!i(,111.10

li),110.00

25!,iOO.OO

111,100.0!

ill.111.0!

121,001.10

111,10!.10

251,150.10

211,110.00

IK !55.03

iH.lSi.03

ili.lOt.Ii

1S),1S1.OO

23i,HO.OO

220,100.03

ill,353.0!

311.1(3.0!

i l l , H i . 00

111,010.10

111,110.00

111,3(0.00

!15,!11.30

liO.ill.DO

112,110.00

122,110,00

!!(,51O.3J

291 1(0 00

1(1,1(0.01

1)1,1(1.01

'91 '11 tc

111.411.03

109,1(0.01

111,1(1.00

m.id.to

Cuh

1.00

0.13

19,010.13

11,209.11

It,090.11

(1,901.10

it,901.90

10,111.09

20,000.10

20,000.11

(1,000.11

11,001.CO

il,001.99

iO.111.03

30,111.00

20,110.31

20,110.11

13,003.01

31,003.10

10,111.03

It.lll.H

10,110.11

20,110.11

11,000.0;

11,001.0)

20, DIE.-33

0.03

21,000.11

11,001.11

11,333.H

il.Oil.B

10,110.13

10,100.10

11,001.10

11,000.00

20,010.00

!9,000.00

11,900.00

10,901.00

15,110.11

19,009.11

!D,901.00

10,110.99

I5.ltO.lt

19,009.11

; 10,900.00

', l t , 9 H . H

' 10 aoo 99

: ji.iit.it

0/pirnf.t

!l,lil.lt

Si.210.03

1.110.00

1),100.03

11,100.00

12,101.11

1,001.01

(1,000.10

15,100.00

11,100.00

11,100.00

11,100,01

13,003.01

11,030.10

11,111.11:L(C0.00

M.3C0.S0

11,501.31

15,000.01

11,130.10

1,301.00

11,(00.03

U.110,00

11,001,31

11,101.31

'1.150.10

il.HO.10

22,200.01

22,200.01

11,130.li

21,(00.00

20,(01.01

20,401.00

11,110.CO

it,110.DO

29,(90.03

20,(00.00

ii,iao."is

15,110.00

11,100.00

11,001.01

(5,lOO.SC

i.OOO.It

; is.oiii. 00

: is.tii.oo

1 iS,U0fl.Cfl

Istil

i.'DliHr

!l

51

3),

51

(1

t!

21

S3

35

11

51

i i

10

31

1)

3;

I;

it

1: :

230

tio.

003.

000.

100.

000.

9:0

010

010

000

(00.

101.

0-30.

130

HO

;(fO

sot

(1.00O

11

11

!(

j (

i l

; i

j i

| (

1;

ii; i

j (

!i

30

If

10

34

10

10

41

3!

(S

15

IS

35

t)

' ti

; H: 11

130

000

K3

103

000

l u y

103

!0O

iOO

(]£

130

C l

103

(00

(00

(DO

(DO

(00

(00

m010

100

000

010

900

iocsmo

.051

01

30

00

10

10

01

00

00

10

00

DO

01

01

00

10

10

00

00

00

00

30

03

03

00

01

00

10

00

00

30

01

00

00

01

10

00

00

00

00

ao00

09

00jrt

00

J)

09

IN

01

f'OJ. I I I .

lotted

3.00

in.nt.ot

21,101.01

203,!10.O0

11,150.00

3), (00.00

121,(21.01

lit,2(0.00

120,(50.00

111,100.00

15,(00.00

t(),!S0.00

!0i,151.00

!(1,311.01

1(5, i l l . I t

S1.iiu.tO

114,150.10

(1,100.03

140,501,03

221,111.11

113,001.11

m.iso.oo

Hf.j50.00

!*!,301.0s

Ut. l i l .Ol

111,211.10

lll.iOO.JO

!O!,S5O.O3

ill,310.00

111,011.11

21!,111.11

llf.110.09

!Il,f!9.91

igi.iii.n

111,111.11

21!,(10.00

11!,110.00

!tl,110.0t

111, Hi.01

ilf.lll.tO

1(3,1(0.00

I !!l,!13.0i

. lil,4S0.H

VA liO CD

; !<!,!».CO

: 111,2(0.00

[tHfts; at

M. I

l i

11

11

li

(i14

t

!S

11

15

31

15]S

(1

11

i l

1!

31

14

is

(i

31

31

11

SI

1111

31

1!

5)

Si

i i

EO

59

41

(5

5)

5)

. to

i!

(1

51

ii

. li

£1

: 11

: if

M.Md

1.31

t 3 3 . l l

It!.11

1(5.10

133.00

01.90

111.SI

in. 10

111.10

no 10

!!4.S0

111.00

111.03

(11.11

(11.11

011.10

111.00

511.01

TH.i l

211.10

ilf.lf

15).59

(30.10

312.il

213.10

053.10

111.50

ilt.10

522.00

111.11

St5.it

(11.(0

((1.19

il l .11

lll.it

251.10

111.10

301.10

iii.ia

113.to

111.10

514.(0

101.(0

. I I U O

.lli.10

,1(1.(9

(11 10*

: is.on.so

[ti. Hold

*19191

9.00

2Ot,21!.iO

113.ltl.91 ;

Jtl.31S.1l '

i3.sii.il ;

ns.m.oo11,111.11

I!,!11,(0

111,131.21

111,001.11

US,HI.SI111,111.1111,1100

205,(11.10

i l l , (01 . i t

111,(11.10

210,311.10

12,11!.00

i l l , 11),59

11,151,91

110,011.21

214,(01.50

211,(10.00

!O),(32.)O

Jis.3.13.01

213,541.50

231,414.10

!2r,i!2.OO

2Si,((i.ia

34!,ifi,ta

221,1)1.(0

114,Oil.tO

1(1,1(1.10

311,131.SO

!(3,ISI.tt

111,111.10

1(1,111.19

1(1,111.19

in, iii. 11391,141.(1

ni',(i!.ig

111,114.19

!9I,112.10

, iJi.in.io

, nt.m.ii125,I41.lt

«o«Ulj l ist

Pirttnt

9.01

1,311.11

4,141.!!

1,911.99

l.MI.Jl

11,111.It

1,(11.11

1,111.50

(,!!!.(!

1,(21.92

1,1!!.11

!,!(!.K

1,111.1!

1,5(1.1)

19,111.11

l , l t ( . l l

1.1(1.91

1,114.11

UZ0.it

!,(!!.!)

1,011.14

11,11!.It

1.J1S.1S

1,134.!!

1,111.31

12, !S ! .U

1,111.41

l.tli.li

1,(!!.(!

10,511.(4

),5!(.0l

!,UI.H

1,tl(.1S

!,((!.11

11,111.11

1,111.11

10,411.11

1,41!.11

I.IIMS

1,111.11

1,111.1!

I,SOI.Si

1,111.11

I 341.11

SIFII.II

1,Slt.it

1,9(0.11

!.1SI.51

t( l l t t

1.00

10,111.00

11,111,00

12,110.00

11,111.09

1(1,311.11

!l,S09.10

11,991.00

!1,1O1.I9

191,000.91

101,111.(0

51,509.00

31,000.10

191,111.09

11,111.90

13,311.01

11,111.93

11,101."!

11.999.It

1.00

(1,131.00

(1,500.11

(1,500.11

IS,190.10

1.901.10

((,311.93

11,til.to

i l .JM.H

IS.100.lt

' 31,1(3.00

15,113.00

0.01

!S,IOO.tl

!!,tll.lt

1.00

11,110.93

11,111.03

l i ,000.11

9.11

D.tO

11,1(1.00

t.00

1.99

1.09

t.510.00

, 1,111.00

11,1(1.00

1.00

I . S31.11

Loin

i l l

i l l

2!

Il l

11

its

11

29

I2(

11

11

It l

tl

l i

ti l

i l i

101

1!

.41

t i

12i

211

1!)

112

i<i

net

O.OO

211.10

112.00

131.10

131.00

1)1.19

411.59

1K.91

111.19

100.(9

ill.SO

111.00

214.01

131.51

ID.iO

011,11

311.00

tli.00

IIS.53

151.03

1)2,It

101.59

110.00

tii.il

311,31

1S3.541.50

201

ill

i l !

30!

2!1

l i l

JH.10

11!.01

ili.il

ifl.iO

III.10

Oil.10

111,211.10

3(1

!0l

114

lit

1(1

541

!t(

ill

111

111

,'ta

100

111

151

13!.(1

)4(.tO

(Ot.lO

llS. l t

,111.11

,!!i.Is

111.11

T14.H

id.ll

114.IS

! U . K

!4],!0

1(1.ID

101.10

22

S3

23.

2Z

VX.

22 ,to

Xo

ftt$'/9

/p-/ ?TS~

1 S"

t*f

tf} t12

to10

12.

to/ e

/ a

9I .

. ?•

7-7-•?-

7

7-•3

^ -

•y

2.

3i

2

3X,

2

?*"*

tSI 213MJ.,

*$£SO

?ff3&

f ^tf tJJftf

nsuit}U'7-2 1/

tVf-iSi1 >>Jt/tay-ipit yyjV-Z eC6

/£ J *fto

£/? $2£-

W.VZD

jo & fo&: ft *13

Vita 3

ti- tit• SS i i t

{.ISSi

*•? £*/

to J<9

>3 oSZ

fct. w*lfcfe-Hfe

0

85"

13

3-18 _3

/ & • "

IZ.otf.9

t-s-I3-O

/ / • *

f.lS.Z.V /0. 7-6. /

tV-o

ni. 0

{,-&•

f-<! 'i-2 '32--3.J •

T^o •

V. If •

Lf-.b •

?-.o •

H.O-* 4 - ( > •

7 0g.'o .0 "O

3 . o .

3.o •

3-o •

2 -a •

f. 0 •

3-D •

APPENDIX 6

BUDGETS AND EXPENDITURES

:;M: ; . B . D P L 3 L K LATRIJfES STATEMENT Of SURT.X PAYMENT

•'.% AS AT 31 ST DECEMBER 1991

: *

: 3

; 4

: =

>'a*e of contractor*

Albert Joseph 1 Co.

Citicoa Ent. Liaited

Cyanfi Bricks i Co.

Hvgenic qual. services

Destex

Bal. due

July 1991

271

132

256

29S

9S6

350.00

540.00

764.00

940.00

S90.C0

;SJ .oo

Bal. due

Aug. 1991

271,350.00

120,560.00

12S,3S5.00

104,490.00

99,£30,00

724 , 115.00

Bal. due

Sept. 1991

271,350.00

120,560.00

12S,3S5.00

104,490.00

99,630.00

724 , •115.00

Bal. due

Oct. 1991

271,350.00

120,560.00

123,355.00

104,490.00

99,630.00

724 ,415.00

Bal

Sov.

251 ,

120,

12S,

104 ,

SI ,

SS5 ,

. due

1991

100.00

56O.0O

3S5.00

490.00

405.00

3-i-U.OO

Bal

Dec.

251 ,

SO,

12S,

104 ,

SI ,

545 ,

. due

1991

100.00

560.00

3S5.00

490.00

4 05.00

910.00

Surtajt

Expected

31/12/91

1,557,600.00

655,640.00

S9S.6S9.00

549,390.00

760,590.00

4 .451 ,909.00

Surtax

Paid

31/12/91

517,450.00

29S.630.00

256,765.00

444,910.00

295,630.00

1,S1S,3S5.00

Balance

Due

1,070

357

641

104

461

2.635

150.00

010.00

924.00

•ISO.00

960.00

52-1.00

f

be

APPENDIX 7

REVENUE FROM DESLUDGING ACTIVITIES BY KMA

BUDGET AND EXPENDITURES

Original Budget (1988)

UNDP INPUT: US$644,100

Revision H: (1990)

Budget increased to US$1,112,000 (additional finance tosewerage scheme)

Expenditures as per end of 1991: (Estimate)

Annual Accumulated

1989 US$ 145,462 145,4621990 108,163 353,6251991 (estimate) 400,000 650,000

Balance: 1,112,000 - 650,000 460,000

Requirement for completion of KSP (estimate)

Completion of Sewerage Scheme - UNDP Contribution 340,000Completion of Public Toilets 40,000Completion of On-site Latrines 40,000

US$420,000

APPENDIX 8

FIRST NEWSLETTER FROM TNC

•I ! *

1 . <3

r

0.4 h

0.2 h

CM -

N.I .UCTMK i iVl

fram Drudging'Operation—1331

30.HOO

1,204,000!

320,^00

f

155,000

?MAR'. AFR .5EP v

MONTH' Or- OPERATION

TRAINING NETWORK CENTRE NEWSLETTER VOL.1 MAY, 1991

WHAT IS THE TRAINING NETWORK

Under ihc United Nations declared International DrinkingWater Supply and Sanitation Decade (IDWSSD) from 1981- 1990, a bold initiative was taken jointly by the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP) and the WorldBank to execute a global programme in the water supplyand sanitation sub-sector. The focus of this initiative was,and still is, to promote the provision of potable watersupply and improved sanitation for low-incomepopulations, particularly, those in developing countries atlower costs. One specific set of activities within this focushaf resulted in the establishment of the InternationalTraining Network for Water and Waste Management (ITN)of which the Training Network Centre (TNC) in Kumasi isa port.

At the inception of the decade programme it wasgenerally recognised that, in most developing countries, themajority of the population relied on unprotected watersupply sources and poor or no satisfactory sanitationfacilities. As a result of these conditions, the inhabitantsof these areas have a reduced health status and consequentlylower productivity and economic development potential.

Although most Governments have placed high priorityon the provision of required infrastructure usingconventional approaches and technologies, the associatedhigh costs combined with the rapid population growth onlyexacerbate the problem and limit any gains made in solvingit. On the other hand, cost reduction can be achieved byusing lower-cost technologies and project implementationmethods that harness the resources of the communitiesthemselves.

These icchnologies.which have been developed andproven at the full project scale, are significantly cheaperand easier to maintain than conventional technologies. Aspart of a global effort to disseminate information on newtechnologies, Training Network Centres have beenestablished within local sector institutions or institutionsof higher learning to provide a focal point for informationdocumentation and dissemination on water supply andsanitation technologies appropriate for low-incomecommunities. The development of human resourcesthrough the provision of sectoral training is thecornerstone of the Training Network Centres.

Qne such Centre is Lhc Tiaminj'; Network Cert ;;••:•(TNC) at the University of Sei;;:;<v and Ti.'dmokv,-, :;:Kuma?y, Ghana. Escir)li\heo in April 1989, wiUun tin-D e p a r t m e n t o ! f . ' ; l, • ;:;;•..••;•.: ,: '.'\<: ' ' N ' . ! • : . : . . > , . : . . :.•

• i r o m o t c !•'•''" > i s v '< <•" ' • ' ' * - . 5 ;. ,•••.- " c r - c : : y M w a t e r . ! ; . d

sanitation technologies by conducting workshops, holdingspecialised courses, strengthening university coreprogrammes in Environmental Quality Engineering as wellas supporting any other relevant training, informationdissemination and applied research activities.

To achieve such goals, the Centre is directing itsefforts towards instructors at sector institutions, anddecision makers involved in water supply and sanitationthroughout the country, practising professional bothgovernment and private sectors and students inEngineering, Public Health and the Social Sciences tobroaden their horizons in relation to the delivery of sectorservices to the people of Ghana. The UNDP/World Bankglobal programme has established four Centres in Africa sofar. The others arc located at (AMREF) in Nairobi,University of Zimbabwe in Harcrc and CREPA inOuagadougu. Plans arc far advanced to establish, at leastone Centre in Nigeria in the near future.

CENTRE STAFFThe Centre has a six member multi-disciplinary core

staff who possess the relevant experience to help achievethe objectives of the Centre. They arc:

Dr. J.G. Monney - Manager

Mr. Lawrence Agbcmabicsc

Mr. Eugene Larbi

Mr. Robert Simpson

Mr. Oliver FrirnpongMs. Safuratu M-Tahiru

CommunityDevelopment Lecturer

Sanitary Engineer (UrbanWaste Management)Civil Engineer (RuralWater Supply)Communications ExpertCivil Engineer (Rural& Urban Sanitation

TNC MANAGEMENT BOARDThe Centre is managed by a thirteen member

Management Board whose membership is client-orientedand made up of top officials from the toiloworganisations:Gliana Water and Sewerage CorporatorMinistries of Works and Housing, LOCJJ •Education, Finance fc Economic Plannir.,; "'v, •••.j i o i n the U in \ c . r i ! ; . s i'JSl, :iwa i n c l u d e ;.;..,, i,..̂ .,,..;.. .:••.,. . •

o ! e n g i n e e r i n g ; H e j . i . ;.)ej>;i.ri:iieiit o f C i v i l r.iii;:;;,:-,')'-. :

Head, Department of Community Health, School •.;:'Medical Sciences, The Manager (TNC) and U'IC O ;ordinator, Knina.si .Sanitation Project (KSP;.

The Funding Agency (UNDP) and the ExecutingAgency (World Bank) are represented by Miss HenriettaKeijzers and Mr. Joe Gadek, Programme Officersrespectively.

The Chairman of the Board is Mr. Owusu Akyaw, aretired Banker.

WORKSHOP ON PARTICIPATORYTECHNIQUES FOR WATER SUPPLYAND SANITATION PROJECTS

Mr. Ron Sawyer. Community Development Specialistwith the UNDP/World Bank Regional Water and SanitationGroup (RWSG) based in Nairobi, Kenya facilitated aworkshop on 'Participatory Techniques' at the TrainingNetwork Centre in November, 1990. Mr. Sawyer, whofirst visited the TNC in May 1990 for staff work planningsessions, has most notably been associated over the pastfive years or so with the UNDP interregional Promotion ofthe Role of Women in Water Supply and EnvironmentalSanitation Services (PROWWESS) Project.

The participatory techniques workshop was conductedover a very intensive ten day period from October 22 to 31,1990. Approximately thirty participants attended theworkshop and all rated the exercise very highly. Mr.Sawyer will return to the TNC sometime in 1991 tofurther assist in staff development if the need is defined.

WORKSHOP ON PROMOTIONAND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENTOF HOME LATRINES

The TNC, in conjunction with the Kumasi SanitationProject, held a one-day workshop on Promotion andCommunity Management of home latrines in August,1990. It was attended by twenty-six participants includingmembers of four Community Sanitation SteeringCommittees drawn from four suburbs in Kumasi -FantiNew Town, South Suntreso, Ayigya Zongo and MoshieZongo. The objective was to bring these SanitationSteering Committee members together and expose them tocommon techniques on promotion and management ofhome latrines.

At the end of the workshop, there was a consensus ihatthe workshop had given participants an insight into thenature and advantages of KVIP (Kumasi VentilatedImproved Pit) latrine. According to the participants,many of them prior to the workshop had littJe knowledgeabout the basic concepts and technologies of KVIP latrines.

A field trip to Moshie Zongo enabled participants toget first hand knowledge of the pilot latrine project.

STRATEGIC SANITATION PLANNINGFOR URBAN SANITATION f l

KUMASI SANITATION PROJECT- THE KSP STORY

One of the lessons of the International Drinking Waterand Sanitation Decade has been the futility of relyingexclusively on the master planning approach for urbansanitation services delivery. This approach is based on the

exclusive use of high-cost conventional sewerage formeeting the sanitation needs of all segments of urbancommunities, including the poor.

The result of this approach to urban sanitationdevelopment in Ghana, and which is also true for mostLeast Developed Countries (LDC), has been the productionand updates of master plans and sewerage blueprints whichrarely see even the first stage of implementation. Wheresewerage schemes get implemented, the observation is thatthe investment trend and the allocation of user chargesgenerally result in a situation in which only a limitednumber of people, who are most often the rich minority,end up benefitting from heavily subsidized high-costconventional sewerage. The vast majority of thepopulation tend to remain without access to adequatesanitation and often end up paying more than the rich formuch poorer services.

Kumasi, Ghana's second largest city and the capital ofthe Ashanti Region represents a clear case of the failure ofthe master planning approach meeting the sanitation needsof all segments of urban communities. During the pastforty years, four different master plans aimed at providingt

the metropolis with a comprehensive sewerage schemewere prepared, but not even one of these could beimplemented due to lack of funding.

Today, with a population of about 600,000 and agrowth rate that is expected to double the population overthe next twenty years, the sanitation problem hasdeteriorated to alarming proportions. More than 80 percent of the Metropolis' human waste is dumped intostreams, open drains and on refuse heaps. Only 20 per centof Kumasi residents enjoy private water flushed facilities.So bad is the sanitation situation that indeed 10 per cent ofall cases reported at the city's health institutions are excretarelated.

Though the Metropolitan Authorities have longacknowledged the need for a fresh approach to theproblems of sanitation in the metropolis, lack of funds hasalways been a serious constraint.

The desire to address the problem of urban sanitationservices delivery such as that of Kumasi has resulted in themodification of existing planning methods to yield a moreflexible approach u> the preparation and implementation ofurban sanitation projects. The resulting methodology iswhat is known today as Strategic Sanitation Planning(SSP)

Some of the more salient features of the SSP processarc:• It aims at the extension of sustained sanitation

coverage to all segments of the target community,especially, the low-income segments.

• It involves a consideration of a wide range oftechnologies, rather than conventional sewerage alone.This ensures that, for each household, a technologycan be provided which is affordable and also meet userpreferences.

• Emphasis is on short-term planning and a flexible.learning-by-doing approach is adopted to enablechanges in design parameters to tx; accommodated ;;

required. This is in recognition of the rapid urbangrowth trends which make Ions term planning difficultajid unreliable.

• User participation is encouraged at all stages in project *~planning and implementation. Technology selection •-

TRAINING NETWORK CENTRE NEWSLETTER VOL1 MAY, 1991

and provision of facilities arc based on effective userdemand, hence, an important component of theprocess is the promotion of user awareness about theneed for improved sanitation.

• It includes the establishment of supportinginstitutional (both private and public) and financialarrangements for sustained extension and efficientdelivery of sanitation services.

Today, thanks to a programme based on StrategicPlanning (SSP) concept for urban sanitation servicesdelivery, the residents of Kumasi could hope for improvedsanitation in the near future.

Under a new ambitious SSP-based programme calledthe Kumasi Sanitation Project (KSP), the MetropolitanAuthorities hope to provide every household with access toadequate sanitation by the year 2000.

The programme, which is jointly funded by theUNDP and the Ghana Government, has started with aninitial three-year pilot project

In many ways, the KSP marks an important turningpoint in the planning, and delivery of sanitation services inurban areas. If the project is successful, the experiencesgained could pave the way for more effective sanitationservices delivery for other urban areas which are battlingwith sanitation problems, both in Ghana and in otherdeveloping countries.

W A T E R S U P P L Y ANDSANITATION PROJECTSWITHIN GHANA - AN OVERVIEW

There are over thirty institutions and agencies inGhana currently engaged in Water Supply and Sanitationactivities.

These institutions and agencies arc bilateral,governmental, multilateral or non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) with programmes of activitiescovering the entire country. They all have one over-ridingobjective - contributing to ensure that there will beimproved health for all by the year 2000 through improvedwater supply and sanitation.

Since 1987, the Ghana Water and SewerageCorporation has been operating jointly with a number ofexternal agencies to improve urban and rural water supplycoverage. In collaboration with such external agencies asthe Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA),ihc German Agency for Technical Co-operation (GTZ) withKFW (German Development Bank) funding, UNDP,UNICEF, and a number of others, GWSC has been able toprovide drilled boreholes and/or hand-dug wells fitted withhandpumps in many communities where access to potablewater had always constituted a serious problem.

In the Upper West and Upper East regions of thecountry, GWSC and CIDA joined forces lo drill boreholesand instal 2,800 handpumps. Under the "3000 WellsMaintenance Programme" in southern Ghana GTZ andGWSC, have been concentrating their efforts to improvewater supply coverage in communities. Extensivehandpump testing was conducted under UNDP funding inBolgalanga. Presently in Bolgatanga, a joint GWSC andUNDP/World Bank Waier and Sanitation project is aimedat testing community-based management approaches for therural waicr si-pply and sanitation sector.

The Department of Community Development is, inconjunction with a number of external agencies, engaged in

several sector activities including the re-training of artisans,the provision of back-up community animation and theprovision of health education support for sector activities.

Also active in the field are the NGOs which are doingadmirable work in the sector. Water Aid, Global 2000, andWorld Vision International are only a few of the moreactive NGOs.

More recently, Caisse Centrale dc CooperationEconomique (French Financing Agency) is undertaking amajor rural water supply project involving the drilling of900 boreholes and installation of handpumps in the CentralRegion of Ghana.

In the Volta Region the GWSC/UNDP Water Supplyand Sanitation Management Project is- promotingcommunity-based management concept in two districts,Hohoe and Jasikan. Another GWSC/UNDP Water Supplyand Sanitation Project in the Eastern Region is scheduledto begin during 1991.

In the area of urban sanitation, the UNDP funded andWorld Bank executed (managed) Low-Cost Human WasteManagement Pilot Project in Kumasi is assisting theKumasi Metropolitan Assembly in developing aninvestment plan for alleviating the pressing environmentalsanitation problems in the metropolis of some 600.000persons. The Kumasi Sanitation Project will be used byGovernment as a model for replication in other largesettlements throughout the country.

One thing is certain. The above cited agencies shouldfind the Training Network Centre at the UST an invaluablefocal point for information on the full range of water andsanitation technologies and training techniques. It isworthy to note that the development objective of theCentre is to build local capacity to bring aboutimprovement in both the effectiveness of water supply andsanitation investments and execution of service coverageparticularly in low-income population groups in the urbanfringe and rural areas.

The above text gives a very brief overview of some ofthe present activities within the sector. It is not intendedto be comprehensive and if any agency/organization hasbeen overlooked please write to us via the address on, theback page of this newsletter describing your group's sectorinvolvement. We offer our apologies for any oversight andwe hope to be completely conversant with the sectoractivities in the near future.

THE BOLGATANGA COMMUNITYWATER SUPPLY AND SANITATIONMANAGEMENT PILOT PROJECT

There is growing worldwide consensus thaisustainable and rcplicablc programmes necessitate that

communities become more directly involved in the design,implementation, operation and maintenance, and financingof their water supply systems and sanitation facilities.This will require a fairly radical change from tiic heavilycentralised management currendy provided by the GhanaWater and Sewerage Corporation to a decentralised systemof community-based management.

The Bolgatanga Community Water Supply andManagement Pilot Project has been designed vo determinewhether communities arc willing and able lo take direct

TRAINING NETWORK CENTRE NEWSLETTER VOL1 MAY, 1991

responsibility for managing their water supply systems andimproved sanitation facilities.

In doing this, the project team, together with the usercommunities, is trying to develop an effectiveimplementation strategy and a corresponding trainingprogramme for extension agents, private handpumpnechanics and artisans for latrines and hand-dug wellconstruction.

The Pilot Project which provides water for about15,000 people in SO communities is located in theBolgatanga District of the Upper East Region. The healthjiatus of the people of the district is poor as indicated by aninfant mortality rate of about 100 per thousand live birthsand the high incidence of water borne diseases such asbilharzia, diarrhoea and guinea worm.

The strategy includes methods for involving women incommunity management in recognition of the strategicimportance they play in all sectors of the projectorganization, financial management, health and sanitation,water collection and pump repairs.

The project is managed by the GWSC BolgatangaRegional Office and funded by CIDA (channeled throughUNDP core funding in New York) with the World Bank asthe Executing Agency.

TNC AT "SAFEWATER 2000'

The Manager of TNC, Dr. James G. Monney attendeda four day global consultation meeting on Water andSanitation Decade, 1991-2000 held in New Delhi, from 10to 14 September, 1990 under the theme "Safewater 2000."

Briefing members of staff of the Centre on his return,the Manager reported that the meeting was attended bymore than 300 participants drawn from developingcountries, external support agencies and non-governmentalorganizations. He added that participants held seriousdiscussions aimed at improving water supply and sanitationservices in the 1990s.

According to Dr. Monney, the results of the meeting'sdeliberations are embodied in what he called the New Delhistatement, a copy of which he made available to theCentre.

The Manager also attended the first InternationalTraining Network Directors' meeting held in Calcutta,India from 16 to 18 September, 1990.

PROFESSOR ALBERT WRIGHTVISITS THE CENTRE

Professor Albert Wright, former Vice-Dean of theFaculty of Engineering and currently a staff member of theWater and Sanitation Division Policy Unit of the WorldBank, paid a one day visit to the Centre, while on a shortholiday in Ghana in August last year.

Professor Wright used the occasion to address a jointmeeting of staff members of the Centre and those of theEnvironmental Quality Engineering Division of theDepartment of Civil Engineering.

He called for closer co-operation between the twogroups emphasing that it was through such co-operationand collaboration that each group could achieve healthyresults in the search for sustainable and potable water andsanitation services for the people.

WHAT OUR VISITORS SAY

"Very productive visit. Impressed by your team spirit!thanks.

Dr. Akwasi Aidoo, I.D.R.C., BP 1007 DakarSenegal. 1st August, 1990

"Now that's a Training Center!"

Dr. Bob Roche. World Bank, Abidjan,Ivory Coast, 3rd August, 1990

"I hope we will be able to take full advantage of this

facility."

Kalherine Cook, Norripjamale3rd August. 1990

"Keep up the outputs, I've really enjoyed my visit"

Dr. UliciaA, Obeng, World Bank/UNDP Waterand Sanitation Program, 5th October, 1990,

GOOD WILL MESSAGE TO TNCFROM RWSG-WEST

AFRICA BY DR. BOB ROCHE"Now that the Training Network Center is fully staffed

and operational, we West Africa members of theUNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program wouldlike to extend our best wishes for Center's success. Linkedto other similar training centers specializing in water andsanitation in Africa the TNC is intended to assist inextending water and sanitation coverage to all segments ofGha^ ' n society.

In the next decade the Government of Ghana will makesubstantial investments in rural water supply and urbansanitation, and while most of this investment will gotowards the construction of new facilities, much effort willgo towards training the many people required to implementthe envisioned programmes.

In this training effort the Network Centre will becomethe focal point for information on the full range of waterand sanitation technologies and the latest trainingtechniques. Network centre staff will also play a leadingrole in developing the training materials that will be neededto implement large scale water and sanitation programs andwill assist personnel in other training institutions to updatetheir curricula.

The required work is a bit daunting but the rewards ofplaying such an important role in extending water andsanitation coverage to the nations poor will make the effortwell worthwhile. As the Network Centre has successfullyrecruited a group of talented, highly motivatedprofessionals, we have every expectation it will be a bigsuccess."

For further information on the Training Network Centre please write to theManager, TNC, Department, of Civil Engineering, UST, Kumasi, Ghana