10:20 Sep 30, 2014 |
English language (monolingual) [PRO] Tech/Engineering - International Org/Dev/Coop | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: FX Fraipont (X) Belgium Local time: 01:46 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 +2 | mise en oeuvre par construction de latrines Blair VIP évolutives |
| ||
4 | assurer l'installation de |
| ||
3 +1 | implemented |
| ||
4 | carried out |
|
assurer l'installation de Explanation: The English should be "delivering on". When you "deliver on" something it's like following through, it gets done. I think "installer" or "achever" would work for the French and select the first of these in forming the proposed answer. |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
implemented Explanation: ...strategy that would be implemented through the use of uBVIP.... |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
mise en oeuvre par construction de latrines Blair VIP évolutives Explanation: is premised on a zero latrine subsidy strategy hinged on delivering through the uBVIP latrine units." est fondée sur une stratégie de zéro subsides pour les latrines, axées sur une mise en oeuvre par construction de latrines Blair VIP évolutives. en d'autres termes, le gouvernement subsidie les latrines Blair VIP évolutives en offrant les briques et le ciment. La stratégie est trop coûteuse, mais on a réalisé que ce ne sont pas les subsides insuffisants qui empêchent le développement, mais le manque de ciment disponible par exemple. "• The standard brick VIP latrine, as adopted by the MoH and the IRWSSP, is beyond the price range of much of the population. A typical brick VIP latrine uses up to six bags of cement and more than fifteen hundred bricks, amounting to as much as US$80 in total (at 1998 prices). For households lucky enough to receive a subsidy, and prepared to provide the labour themselves, their cash contribution may be reduced to just less than US$50. However, in a country where more than 40% of the population has to survive on less than US$1 per day6 this represents a barely affordable expense. • The government’s latrine subsidy system has proved to be neither sustainable, nor capable of achieving universal sanitation coverage. Both the size of the individual subsidies, and the overall cost of the subsidy programme, have been too high. The number of VIP latrines constructed in Zimbabwe over the last two decades may have been limited by the selection of the expensive brick design, and by the size of the subsidy required to make this design affordable. There are, however, counter-arguments: • Despite the high cost, there has always been a demand for VIP latrines in Zimbabwe. Evaluations of the IRWSSP state that demand often outstripped supply, with households mobilised to dig latrine pits, only to discover that there were insufficient funds for their subsidy, or that there was a cement shortage. This suggests that the main constraint to expanding sanitation coverage was not the cost of the chosen technology but the subsidy system and the culture of dependency that it fostered." VIP Latrines in Zimbabwe: From Local Innovation to ... - WSP http://www.wsp.org/UserFiles/file/af_bg_zim.pdf |
| |
Grading comment
| ||