803 ARC Review Summary Rev

Transcription

1 Dear Applicant, Thank you for submitting an application with EWB-USA. Please look on the next page to see if your project has been approved or declined by our Application Review Committee (ARC). The Committee s comments have been included throughout this document for your benefit. Depending on the ARC s decision, please take the following steps: If approved without a chapter: Your application has been approved but has not yet been adopted by a chapter. The project will be posted on the EWB-USA website for adoption, and you will be notified immediately if and when a chapter adopts your project. If your project is not adopted within 9 months, we will remove the project from the website and the project will be cancelled. If you are able to find another organization to complete this project before it is adopted, please inform us so that we can remove it from the website. If approved with a chapter: Your application has been approved, and the submitting chapter has been awarded the project. Please note that this does not mean that your chapter is approved for travel. You must submit a Pre-Assessment Report roughly two months before you intend to travel (see the Members Site for submittal deadlines). We also suggest that you read the Project Process pages on our website, as well as other resources posted on our website. If you have questions regarding your next step, please do not hesitate to contact your Chapter Relations Manager. If declined because of scope of work: Your application was declined because it is outside the scope of EWB-USA s work. Please review the included comments. If declined because of inadequacy: Your application was declined due to a lack of information. Please review the included comments for more information. You are welcome to re-evaluate your project and re-submit the 501 application once you feel it meets the cited criteria. If you have any questions regarding the decision please the ARC Lead listed on the next page. Sincerely, EWB-USA Project Staff 2009 Engineers Without Borders - USA. All Rights Reserved. Page 1 of 6

2 Date Reviewed: 4/23/2010 Uganda, Nkokonjeru PROGRAM ID NUMBER: Project Description: Improvements in the realms of agriculture, energy resources and water access and sanitation can have a great impact on the residents of Nkokonjeru. The mission of our program is to examine these areas to develop a solution that will increase the quality of life and/or enhance productivity. Our priority in this project is to collaborate with the local community to discover the greatest need areas. We will only introduce a project that is desired and fully supported by the community. This is the only method of ensuring a sense of ownership by the community. The objectives of our mission involve the Ghandian economic principle of self reliance. We intend to maximize the use of indigenous resources, whether it be raw materials or community involvement and knowledge. The technology itself will have to satisfy the following conditions a) it must not create hierarchy or privilige b) it must be fully owned by the community c) it cannot replace workers, only enhance productivity d) it must be needed by the community. Chapter Name (if applicable): Duke University Contact Information: Name(s) (s) Submitter(s) Andrew Mang andrew.mang@duke.edu ARC Review Team Rosemary Powers Gretchen Gall Rosemary.powers@ewbusa.org Gretchen.gall@ewb-usa.org CRM for Chapter Scott Hammond Scott.hammond@ewbusa.org ARC Review Outcome (ARC lead should check one box below based on own opinion and input from other reviewers.) Approved (Good scope of work and NGO) Declined: Scope of Work (The reviewers felt that the application was not appropriate for EWB-USA) Declined: Inadequacy (A revised application addressing the concerns below can be resubmitted) Reasons for decline (If applicable): 2009 Engineers Without Borders - USA. All Rights Reserved. Page 2 of 6

3 Summary of Comments: 1) Project Definition: a. Is the project in-line with the EWB-USA s mission and vision? This project should benefit the community as opposed to an individual or organization. If this project only benefits an individual or organization, it should be declined. b. Is the specific project feasible in scope for volunteers, or is the project too large? (For example, roadways, large bridges, and wastewater treatment for large populations should be closely reviewed for feasibility.) Although the previous work done by this chapter in collaboration with the NGO solely benefited the NGO, it has been mentioned several times on the application that the community will be the beneficiary. The program is feasible for the chapter since it plans execute the project in several phases The program is generally defined as focusing on a few areas: public health, water and sanitation, alternative energy, and agriculture. These would all be in line with the EWB- USA mission and vision. The first project is not defined at this time, beyond being waterrelated. The chapter plans to define the first project within the program after the first assessment trip. The chapter states that the proposed projects will benefit the entire community and not just individuals (or the NGO). 2) Technical: a. Comment on the appropriateness of the technology for the community. The technical aspects of a project are likely not yet defined at this stage. However, red flags with respect to technology include a) unproven technologies, b) projects that likely require significant mechanical equipment, c) projects where the exact design has already been determined, d) any technology that is not focused primarily on the needs of the community. For this project to be successful, no currently functional operating system must be put at risk. The chapter is open to exploring the best technology that suits the community to solve the community identified needs. There are no red flags with the proposed projects. The chapter appears to understand that they will need community in-put and buy-in for whatever technologies are chosen and implemented, and that these technologies need to be appropriate for the community. This includes using local materials, as stated by the chapter. 3) Partnering Organization: a. Is this project proposed by the community itself or an in-country NGO? If the project is requested by an NGO, the NGO should have permanent presence in-country Engineers Without Borders - USA. All Rights Reserved. Page 3 of 6

4 If the project is requested by the community, the project application must demonstrate wide support within the community. b. If this project is requested by an NGO, what does the website of the NGO reflect on the intentions of the NGO? Are the mission and vision of the NGO in conflict with the mission and vision of EWB-USA? (For example, can we anticipate that the NGO will have a long-term commitment to the community?) On the NGO website, they have acknowledged the two EWB-USA Chapters that have worked with them but not much information on how the community has benefited from their projects. The mission and vision of the NGO is in line with EWB-USA mission. The project is still being proposed by the NGO and the chapter and not yet by the community. However, the chapter appears to understand that while the NGO can be a partner and contact in the community, the NGO cannot be the main beneficiary of the projects implemented by a EWB-USA chapter. The NGO can help make contacts in the community, assist with logistics, translation, etc., and be a liaison for all of the community-driven projects. It will be essential that the chapter, NGO and community representatives create an MOU so that expectations are clear and roles/responsibilities are defined. 4) Community Ownership, Access and Involvement: a. Is the beneficiary defined in the application? The beneficiary must be a well-defined community. If this is not the case, the project must be declined b. Who has access to the project? Access cannot be limited based on gender, religion, tribal affiliation, etc. c. Will project ownership lie within the community? d. How will the community be contributing to the project? There should be significant community involvement and contribution. The community is mentioned/defined to be the beneficiary of the project. The project will be accessible to all community members. The community will contribute their labor and as needed and determined by the community itself may have a fee structure for project maintenance. The beneficiary is now stated as the community of Nkokonjeru. It will be important to create a committee or a few committees with community members to be the go-to group for the fee structure, maintenance and operation, etc., so that they are not relying entirely on the NGO for this support. With a community that size, it will be difficult to determine if everyone actually has assess to whatever is being implemented, so this will need to be thought through more thoroughly during the assessment. The community contributions and support should be a part of the MOU. 5) Funding considerations: a. Does the community just want financial support? If it appears that the community just wants financial support, the project should be declined Engineers Without Borders - USA. All Rights Reserved. Page 4 of 6

5 The community is looking for support to identify solutions and execute those solutions to solve their existing needs. It appears that the community needs both technical support and financial support. It is still not clear to me if the chapter will be financing these projects entirely on their own. The application does state that the NGO will not be contributing financially to the projects. Again, this issue should be addressed in the MOU so everyone is clear about finances. 6) Chapter: a. Does the chapter have the appropriate skills, abilities, and available time to execute this project successfully? Review chapter qualifications b. Does the mentor have the appropriate skills, ability, and available time to execute this project successfully? Review mentor s resume 1. A mentor should have five years of directly-applicable industry or consulting experience (academic work does not count towards this) 2. For bridges and buildings, the mentor must be a registered Professional Engineer specializing in structures The project scope is big but has been phased and therefore can be implemented successfully by a student chapter This is difficult to determine, since the first project has not yet been determined. The mentor for the first project has also not yet been determined. The mentor qualifications will be reviewed by the PM during the assessment review to determine if the mentor is qualified. 7) Safety of the country/project location: a. Prohibited countries (Decline Programs in these countries): Afghanistan, Algeria, Bosnia, Burundi, Burma (Myanmar), Central African Republic, Colombia, Cuba, Haiti, Iraq, Iran, Ivory Coast, Israel, Gabon, Lebanon, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Palestine, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe. b. Determine if the country is listed on the United States State Department Travel Warning List. EWB-USA will not approve projects from countries that have a State Department Warning and at least one of the following: 1. Security clearance from International SOS can not be established 2. US Peace Corps has pulled out of the country for safety reasons 3. UN Peace Keepers are in the country due to violence in the country c. Are there are any other safety concerns that the chapter should be aware of? The project is in a safe part of the country with no security concerns There is no Dept of State Travel Warning or Alert at this time, but the team should check the DOS website before traveling Engineers Without Borders - USA. All Rights Reserved. Page 5 of 6

6 ISOS Country Risk is medium, areas of the country are high risk and the chapter should not stay in these areas. The chapter should check the ISOS website before traveling. From ISOS Website: Petty crime poses the main risk to travellers in the capital Kampala. The government s ability to maintain security in remote areas away from Kampala remains limited. Despite the fact that a peace process is under way and the Lord s Resistance Army (LRA) leadership has withdrawn into central Africa, the group still presents a security risk, including in several national parks. The areas worst affected by LRA-related insecurity are Gulu, Kitgum and Pader. Border areas with Congo (DRC), including the Arua, Nebbi, Bundibugyo, Kasese, Kanungu and Kisoro districts, suffer from instability. Cattle-rustling raids mounted by armed members of the Karamojong tribal group pose a regular security threat in the north-eastern districts of Kotido, Moroto and Nakapiripirit. Travel to border areas with Congo (DRC) should be for essential purposes only due to risks posed by residual insurgent activity. 7) Additional Recommendations and Comments: The chapter should make sure that the needs they will be addressing are genuinely identified by the community members themselves. What may be a need in the eyes of an EWB-USA member may not be an immediate need to a community. This application has a very different tone and focus than the original application. It appears that the chapter understands that any project that is implemented needs to be community-driven. However, this needs to be clearly communicated to the NGO and the partnering NGO needs to be in line with EWB-USA s mission of working on communitydriven projects. If the chapter is trying to implement community-drive projects and the NGO has their own agenda, this chapter may run into some difficulties. I think this can be clarified in conversations with the NGO and with an MOU. 8) Each Reviewer s Recommendation: Approved/Declined/On Hold a. If the reviewer has questions or requires clarification in order to make an informed recommendation, please note your questions here. The ARC lead should contact the submitter directly and notify Rachel Long that the application is still in review. After receiving a response from the submitter, the ARC lead will determine the outcome of the review and send the 803 to Rachel. Approved Approved Engineers Without Borders - USA. All Rights Reserved. Page 6 of 6