4.6 Accountability
4.6.2 Knowledge of the accountability process
than this responsibility and power…DU and donors do not want us to have any authority over construction work. Due to lack of authority we cannot speak on errors of construction work.”67 However, in this site 39 Shushilan’s community mobilizer did work with a few villagers and the MAR management committee to inform the contractor about the poor construction. This did not follow the chain of accountability as described by the project team, but it did demonstrate an effort by the NGO to address the construction problems. According to the Shushilan CM, the contractor told the villagers that they didn’t know as much as he did about construction and dismissed their concerns.68 Coincidentally, this contractor was also an engineer at DPHE, and the DPHE official who was responsible for overseeing the construction quality. This presents a clear conflict of interest and impacts the integrity of the chain of accountability, since the person responsible for holding the contractor accountable was the contractor himself in this case.
In site 75, the contractor who was building the MAR died and construction stopped for three months. The contractor’s younger brother took responsibility for building the MAR, but he didn’t know anything about construction work. The AOSED TS stepped in and assisted in the construction. There are a few cracks in this MAR’s tanks, which the villagers believe happened due to not mixing sand and cement correctly. It seems here that the NGO did not know that DPHE was responsible for ensuring proper construction because the NGO did not involve DPHE when the contractor died. Moreover, if the NGO is responsible for building the faulty tanks, then again this is a conflict of interest. The NGO would not notify DU of their own faulty
construction. Conflicts of interest cause a breakdown in the accountability process.
67 Shushilan Deputy Director Mostafa Aktheruzzaman interviewed by Md. Newazul Maula 1 Mar 2015. Site 39 Report.
68 Shushilan CM Aminur Rohman interviewed by Md. Newazul Maula 26 Feb 2015. Site 39 Report.
In site 56, the community mobilizer recognized that the contractor was using low quality materials to construct the MAR and tried to work with the MAR management committee to raise concerns with the contractor, but the contractor dismissed their concerns.69 Again, the NGO notified the contractor, but not DU or DPHE according to the accountability process outlined by UNICEF and DU. In this community, the community members reported that they believed the NGO was responsible for construction failures. JJS believed that responsibility belonged to the contractor and DPHE. Therefore, it seems that neither the community members nor the NGO were aware that they had a role to play in ensuring proper construction.
In site 58, the TS of JJS Md. Moshiur Rahman said “DPHE has been given all the responsibility of MAR construction. To monitor how the construction work is being carried out is also their responsibility, but they do not properly supervise it. It is not possible for our NGO to do so because we were not given this responsibility. If it had been, I think the construction problems would not have happened.” This NGO did not seem to be aware that they were supposed to alert DU of any construction problems.
In site 34, the TS said that no one from Shushilan got the design of the MAR or details about the construction materials so that they could properly monitor construction. He lamented this, because he felt that if there were errors, then the responsibility of failure would be on Shushilan. He said, “the villagers always point the finger at Shushilan for low quality work.”70 This suggests that the communities did not know DPHE was the agency responsible for overseeing construction, and were not aware of the chain of accountability more broadly.
UNICEF claimed that communities did not understand the value of the MAR water.
“There is a lack of people’s knowledge and understanding and why we should use MAR, why
69 Interview with JJS CM Belal Hossain by Rakib Uddin Juwel. 14 Mar 2015. Site 56 Report.
70 Interview with Shariful Islam by Md. Newazul Maula. 12 Feb 2015. Site 34 Report.
MAR water is good. And how to…actually make operate this MAR properly, what is needed. So all these information is not clear with the community people.”71
However, we observed that the communities did not lack understanding about the importance of the MAR, as UNICEF described. In fact, many communities were distressed by the construction failures and deeply invested in the MAR’s success. Dr. Matin said: “The communities were very enthusiastic…They were expecting to get some good option for water supply. So they were very vigilant about what kind of materials the contractors were going to use. This was also something the contractors did not anticipate much that they would feel so much resistance from the community about using poor quality materials to increase their profit margin.”72 UNICEF’s narrative that the communities were not invested or did not value the MAR enough was not born out by our observations.
Community members did not report being aware of an accountability process and mostly expressed frustration with the project’s lack of accountability. UNICEF and DU did not seem to have trained the community mobilizers on the accountability process. None of the NGO staff seemed to be aware of it. When questioned about CM training, UNICEF identified the CM training gap as how to make the community understand they are responsible for the MAR and that it is important they maintain it, rather than the training gap being an accountability process for faulty construction. It does not seem that the project leads UNICEF and DPHE had put in place processes or practices that were clear to those bearing the responsibility to act that would address accountability as part of this project’s design.