Concept note for a country-based pooled fund: analysis, intervention logic and summary

Indicative scoring; other scores are acceptable if justified.

Relevance and analysis (8/25): problem described in general terms, without any of the available data (GAM of 13.8%, 9 L/person/day, 1.4 km, 31% diarrhoea); paragraph devoted to the organisation rather than to needs; no analysis of causes or of the most affected groups. Intervention logic (6/25): vague result, activity indicator, no link between water, hygiene and malnutrition; A2 duplicates existing funding, contrary to the "areas with no other funding" priority. Cost-effectiveness (6/20): 59% staff and operating costs without justification, above the 50% limit; beneficiaries counted several times (36,600 instead of distinct people), which distorts the cost per beneficiary. Protection, gender, accountability (2/15): nothing on the safety of women and girls who fetch water before dawn, nor on participation and complaints. Capacity and localisation (5/15): experience asserted without evidence; partner "to be confirmed"; no mention of the women's association already active nor of coordination with the camp water actor and the health centre.

Indicative total: about 27/100. The draft is not competitive as it stands.

Water deficit (Sphere minimum of 15 L/person/day): host villages (15 − 9) × 9,600 = 57,600 L/day; blocks A and B (15 − 13) × 14,400 = 28,800 L/day; total 86,400 L/day. The 1.4 km distance in the villages also exceeds the Sphere benchmark (no more than 500 m between a dwelling and the water point).

Distinct beneficiaries: A3 and A4 reach people already counted in A1 and A2: the distinct total is 9,600 + 14,400 = 24,000 people, not 36,600.

Cost per beneficiary: announced 498,000 / 36,600 = USD 13.61; actual 498,000 / 24,000 = USD 20.75.

Staff and operating costs: (204,000 + 90,000) / 498,000 = 59.0%, above the 50% limit.

Conclusion: the most serious deficit, both in volume per person and in distance, is in the host villages, which have no water actor and where GAM is highest; blocks A and B are already covered until the end of next year with a target of 17 L. A2 must be removed and the project concentrated on the 6 host villages: repair of the 2 broken boreholes, new water points to bring the distance below 500 m, hygiene, community malnutrition screening and referral, with the local women's association as partner. The cost per person will increase (about 9,600 people), which is justified by the integration of services and the absence of any other actor; the budget will need to be rebalanced towards activities to return below 50% for staff and operating costs.

Example: "In the six host villages of the Bassikounou area (9,600 people), global acute malnutrition reaches 13.8% among children aged 6 to 59 months (95% CI: 10.9 to 17.3), a high level. Households have only 9 litres of water per person per day, against 15 under the Sphere standards, and walk an average of 1.4 km to the water point; 2 of the 5 boreholes are out of order. 31% of children under 5 had diarrhoea in the last two weeks. No water actor works in these villages, and there is no community malnutrition screening. Women and girls, who are responsible for collecting water before dawn, are exposed to safety risks.

Theory of change: if households have access to sufficient water within 500 m, adopt the key hygiene practices, and if malnourished children are screened early and referred, then the incidence of diarrhoea will fall and cases of acute malnutrition will be treated earlier, which will contribute to reducing acute malnutrition, provided that the health centre remains supplied with nutrition products.

Indicators: (1) average quantity of water used per person per day: from 9 to at least 15 litres; (2) % of children under 5 who had diarrhoea in the last two weeks: from 31% to 20%; (3) % of children aged 6 to 59 months screened at least once per quarter: from 0% to 90%, with 100% of severe acute malnutrition cases referred. Data will be disaggregated by sex, age and disability."

Example: "The project responds to a high nutrition situation (GAM of 13.8%) and a severe water deficit (9 L/person/day, 1.4 km distance) in six host villages in the Bassikounou area, which receive no other water intervention. Over 12 months, it will enable 9,600 people, including about 1,900 children under 5, to access at least 15 litres of water per person per day within 500 m, through the repair of 2 boreholes and new water points; it will reduce childhood diarrhoea through hygiene promotion and set up community malnutrition screening linked to the health centre. The project is implemented with a local women's association already active with mothers' groups, which manages a significant share of the budget (to be agreed with it) and receives capacity support. Water points are sited with women to reduce the risks linked to water collection. Amount requested: USD [amount]."

The figure for children under 5 is an estimate (about 20% of the population) that must be flagged as such or replaced by census data.

I refuse both. The call explicitly requires distinct people: double counting would be spotted by the review committee, would lose marks on cost-effectiveness and would damage the organisation's credibility with the fund for future allocations. Announcing a partner that has not been consulted is a false declaration; it is also disrespectful towards a local organisation, which localisation precisely aims to position as an actor rather than as a token. I propose: presenting 9,600 distinct people, detailing by activity the number of people reached (which shows integration), and contacting the association today for a meeting before submission; if it agrees, the note mentions an "agreed partnership, agreement being signed", with a budget and role defined together with it; otherwise, the note honestly describes the planned partnership approach. I inform the country director of these choices in writing.