| 4. In which ways is the initiative creative and innovative?
|
|
The project initiative is a shift from the traditional way of construction of bridges by Local Governments in Uganda. It is unique in the following ways;
It is a new bridge product previously not known in the Ugandan road sector.
The innovation uses local resources: stones, sand, cement and local manpower as replacement for steel, aggregates and concrete which are expensive.
Low cost technology, saving 70-84% of the bridge construction cost, hence enabling the District to build more bridges with the same or even smaller budgets. This has enabled the district to connect more rural communities to economic and social opportunities and hence fighting poverty
Too much labour intensive and hence not mechanized thus utilizes local abundant labour
The bridges are strong, long lasting and are associated with low maintenance costs. They with stand strong floods from the Rwenzori mountains and enhance road safety
This technology avoids the lengthy procurement processes since most of the materials are collected by communities. The few procured resource use Force on Account which uses direct procurement. It shortens bridge construction period
|
|
| 5. Who implemented the initiative and what is the size of the population affected by this initiative?
|
|
The initiative is implemented by Kasese District Local Government under Works Department headed by Eng. Baluku Richard, a Senior Civil Engineer. The first 11 stone arch bridges were funded by Belgium Technical Cooperation through Kasese District Poverty Reduction Programme (KDPRP) in 2011 and 2012. From 2013, the district Works department took over and now manages the initiative. The department receives requests from sub counties to go and support them and build the bridges. Since then, more masonry stone arch bridges have been built by other Districts and Ministry of Works & Transport for study purposes
The technology is serving a great number of rural poor and vulnerable population. It is estimated that over 500,000 people have benefited directly and indirectly from stone arch bridges. The project was implemented in 11 sub counties with a population of 380,000 people. More bridges have been brought on board benefitting an additional 70,000 people. It is estimated that an additional 50,000 from other sub counties, Municipal Council and other parts of the country are served by the bridges. In all, school going children, farmers, traders, teachers, medical workers, patients, administrators, tourists, transporters, and other people have benefited from the bridges.
The project has benefitted rural poor and hard to reach areas with increased accessibility. Of particular importance, farmers now deal directly with produce buyers which has minimized the role of intermediaries thereby increasing farmers’ economic margins and hence more production.
Other crucial developments originating from masonry stone arch bridges include low cost stone masonry mini irrigation schemes eg Muhokya mini irrigation scheme in Kasese.
|
| 6. How was the strategy implemented and what resources were mobilized?
|
|
For local masons first exposed to arches, the concept remains abstract and shaky. The structure is
completely unstable until the two spans meet in the middle and the arch is closed. From a layman’s perspective, it is hard to see how a bridge merely built with stones will support heavy traffic. The construction principle is clearly illustrated as below;
A preliminary survey is done to give a quick insight into the cost of the construction and the willingness of the community to contribute. Based on this data, the number of potential bridges in terms of the cost and the priority sites are identified. The relevant sub county (lower county local government) then makes a selection of the bridge to be constructed.
Works department of the district prepares the designs for the stone arch bridge as well as cost estimates for the bridge project. The cost for community contribution in terms of providing stones or sand is also computed.
Payment for the work was done by the Chief Administrative Officer, Kasese on basis of payment certificate prepared by works department.
The mode of implementation was contract method as well as Force on Account method. Contract method requires obtaining a Contractor to execute works while Force on account method requires the staff of the Works Engineering department of the district to execute the work themselves. Of the 11 bridges, only one bridge (Kalibo bridge in Kilembe sub-county was on contract basis and cost Shs. 30 million while the rest where on Force Account. After comparing the cost, Contract method was dropped and all the 10 bridges as well as those constructed after were by the district staff.
Four Masons where provided and guided by a fulltime site engineer from works department of Kasese District local Government. The community helped in collecting stones and sand and these were mainly women and youth.
Technical Supervision was done by Kasese District Department of Works Engineers (Senior Civil Engineer/Road Engineer and Assistant Engineer) alongside BTC staff (Project Engineer and Technical Advisor- BTC).
The financial costs went into purchasing mostly cement. In some cases, sand and stones were bought but only in those places where they did not exist locally. In most cases, sand and stones were collected and provided by the communities. The technical costs in terms of conceptualization and preparation of designs were not known. The district engineers who earn a salary produced these itmes
The following examples show a comparison of costs between stone arch bridges and the traditional reinforced bridges:
SN Name and type of bridge Span Cost in Uganda shillings Cost saving
1 Kaghema bridge Reinforced 8 m span 298,000,000
84%
Kalibo Stone Arch bridge 8 m span 39,000,000
2 Kanyamunyu bridge Reinforced 4 m span 116,000,000
83%
Kakone stone Arch bridge 5 m span 20,000,000
Generally, masonry stone arch bridges/culvert are cheaper compared to conventional reinforced concrete bridges/culverts with a huge cost saving as shown above
The project was funded by Belgium Technical Cooperation through Kasese District Poverty Reduction who provided 90% (Shs. 100 million) of the total cost. The balance was funded by Kasese District Local Government and the local communities provided the balance of 10% (Shs. 10 million). The local community contribution was in form of stones, sand and water which was usually close to 10%.
When BTC project ended in 2012, sub-counties started funding the stone arch bridges. So far 5 stone arch bridges have been constructed and 2 are ongoing in the sub-counties of Bwera and Maliba
|
|
| 7. Who were the stakeholders involved in the design of the initiative and in its implementation?
|
|
The Works department of Kasese District headed by Eng. Baluku Richard was the key players in the project. Senior Civil Engineer, Baluku Richard, prepared the design of the initiative and advised the Chief Administrative Officer that stone arch technology was a real and correct substitute for reinforced concrete bridges since it was cheap in terms of cost and that all construction materials were locally available given the mountainous nature of Rwenzori region in Uganda. The Chief Administrative Officer accepted the idea.
The Engineer and Chief Administrative Officer then brought the idea to the Political wing of the district headed by the District Chairperson (Lt.Col. Mawa Muhindo)and four Executive Secretaries (including Secretary for Works). The Chairperson and Executive embraced the idea.
It is important to note that the former political wing headed Rev. Julius Kithaghenda refused the proposal on condition that it was an old mode of doing things since we were in modern times.
The Kasese Poverty Reduction Programme (KDPRP) with support from Belgium Technical Cooperation funded the proposal since their first attempt to introduce the technology was refused by the then political wing under Rev. Julius Kitaghenda.
The local communities also played a major role in the project. The communities formed Infrastructure Management Committees which were instrumental in guiding the project. The communities also provided stones and sand to the project.
In conclusion Eng. Baluku Richard conceptualized, sold the idea to technical and political leadership, designed and implemented the project. He has made presentations on the project in Uganda Government and to delegation from the region. The initiative won the 2nd Public sector innovations Awards in 2013
|
|
| 8. What were the most successful outputs and why was the initiative effective?
|
|
When the initiative started in FY 2011/2012, 11 stone masonry arch bridges were constructed at a cost of Shs.110 million compared to 4 reinforced concrete bridges constructed at a cost of shs 1.2 billion. This laterally meant that a stone arch bridge cost averagely shs 10 million compared to an average cost of shs.300million of Reinforced Concrete Bridge in the Rwenzori Region. This data reflects over 95 % cost saving with the same strength of accommodating 40 tons since the bridges are built in low traffic areas of less than 20 Vehicles per day and on small streams of less than 2000Km2 and span not exceeding 20 m with width of 5m.
Improved local economic development has been realized in the rural poor sub-counties eg the Construction of Kanyampara masonry triple arch culvert has lead to accessibility of farmlands in the rural munkunyu sub-county and therefore development of a mini stone masonry irrigation scheme has started in the sub-county to serve about 5600 households. The project is expected to turn the sub-county into a food basket capable of supplying food to Kasese District, Uganda, Neighboring DR Congo, Rwanda and Burundi, and avert any food shortages they may occur due to high influx entry of refugees.
Women and youth have been involved in the search for local materials especially stones. This has offered employment to women during the construction. Not highly skilled masons have been trained to construct stone arches hence employment to the local population.
Eng. Baluku Richard has successfully disseminated information to Ugandan Local Governments and beyond, including the academia world which has proved that the technology is transferable to other rural poor parts of the world with keen involvement of women and vulnerable youth for local labour employment purposes
|
|
| 9. What were the main obstacles encountered and how were they overcome?
|
|
The main obstacle was resistance. The political head of the district initially rejected the idea calling it obsolete. There were many who did not like the idea for instance the procurement unit of the district. It took time to convince many that it works. We overcame this problem through engagement. I convinced members of my department and all agreed it will work. We engaged the Chief Administrative Officer and the Political Head and the Executive. Eventually all those who matter spoke for us
Another challenge was shortage of skills. It was a new concept and very difficult to understand how stones connected together with sand and cement can support a 40 ton vehicle. The Works department has one Engineer and very few support staff. The technicians found difficulty in implementation of stone arch technology especially load assessment capacity for the stone arch bridge. To solve this problem, we adopted simple methods for assessment. We used MEXE method since it does not involve calculation of moments. Furthermore, we trained Masons in construction of the stone arch bridges. In every new area, we would take one experienced mason who would train three others as the construct the bridge. This enabled us to create a critical mass of masons.
Shortage of funds to finance the project. The district didn’t have enough money to fund the project. The Works department decided to allocate 2 stone arch bridges each financial year after closure of BTC project due to lack of funds. We resolved this problem by seeking funding from BTC which provided 110 million. The local communities also co funded the project by providing sand and stones in kind.
|