Revision history [back]

You could try approaching donors based Malawi to determine if they are operating national health programmes (I should think UNICEF, USAID, UNDP and DFID are likely candidates as each have priorities around MCH and reducing child mortality). However I think you may be fighting an up hill struggle as most donors will be concerned about sustainability issues. The fact that there are other boreholes in the area that are not working would significantly count against the proposed project, as would the fact that the villagers have been unable or unwilling to pay the bills associated with the Water Authority’s supply. Frustratingly for your scheme donors are going to examine your proposal at the macro rather than the micro scale. In essence you are proposing to set up a parallel supply scheme using technologies that have failed in the area in the past, rather than directing funds towards the maintenance and improvement of the existing system. In addition to the capital investment and direct running costs, there will be a need to factor in the overhead costs of maintaining two O&M systems in the area, one at the water authority level and one at the village level. For anything other than a handpump system this will be an extremely difficult sell. However, nothing ventured, nothing gained, and there is the possibility that your project objectives will intersect with local policies or priorities.

In light of the other discussions in the thread, it may be useful for you to calculate the hydraulic workload (HW) of the proposed system. This is the product of the volume of the required demand per day (D) [m³] and the Total Dynamic Head (TDH) [m]. If HW=DxTDH<1,500 m⁴, then PV is likely to be feasibile. If HW>2,000 m⁴, then internal combustion engines or wind is power are likely to be more economically feasible energy sources.

Best of luck with your project.