Our grant was submitted to a Rotary WASH cadre for review.
Below is the text of the review, followed by our responses. These responses were also integrated into the grant application.
From: Stanley Madu <stallondrilling@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2026 3:16 AM
To: Chris Walquist <walquis@gmail.com>
Cc: Chuck Newman <Chuck@newmanArchitecture.com>
Subject: Re: Water and Sanitation Global Grant for
Greetings once again Chris and Chuck for your mails which requested for my inputs on your Global Grant application draft.
Thanks for the honour and privilege. I have gone through your application draft and below are my few comments:
1. Kindly capture in your ‘Project Description’ the advantages of equipping the boreholes with Afridev lever-operated
deep-well hand pumps (if any), as against installing electricity or solar energy powered submersible pumps that support
fast water pumping with little or no stress to those fetching water.
2. Also capture the project proposed training components as part of your project objectives e,g WASH training, Book and
Records keeping, operation & maintenance training, etc
3. Can the Water Point Committee be encouraged to open an account with a local Microfinance Bank for keeping the funds
raised through selling of water instead of giving it to an individual to keep?
4. During the previous implementation of the 5Nos Water Borehole executed by the sponsoring Rotary Clubs as referenced
in your application, was the project funds managed by the host or international partners?
5. Quoted below is a statement on the application draft, kindly explain further on this:
> On a trial basis, VIP will be installing fences around some or all of these boreholes,
> but that cost will not be covered by this grant.
How will the cost for the fencing be settled since it was not captured in the project budget? It’s advisable to keep
the Rotary Foundation informed about all funds coming in favour of a particular project either in cash or in-kind.
6. Can you expand the sustainability plans of this grant project by getting the local or state/county government
authorities to buy into it as co-owners? This will serve as leverage in the sustainability and maintenance of the
project after handover instead of depending only on funds raised through water fees.
Thanks,
Stanley Madu
(WASH Cadres Technical Coordinator)
1. Afridev versus Solar
Kindly capture in your ‘Project Description’ the advantages of equipping the boreholes with Afridev lever-operated deep-well hand pumps (if any), as against installing electricity or solar energy powered submersible pumps that support fast water pumping with little or no stress to those fetching water.
To date, no one has raised difficulty pumping water from an Afridev as an issue to be solved.
VIP has considered solar options, and has deployed solar with larger projects. For a single pump, Afridev is a far better option than solar from a sustainability and cost perspective:
- Cost - Compared to an Afridev pump, a solar installation is very expensive.
- Reliability - Solar requires more frequent replacement. Afridevs are from Germany; they are durable pieces of equipment.
- Training - Area mechanics are already trained on Afridev.
- Security - Nobody is looking to steal a big metal hand pump, but a solar panel with a battery is a juicy target.
- Availability - A short string of cloudy days puts a solar pump out of commission.
2. Training Components
Also capture the project proposed training components as part of your project objectives e,g WASH training, Book and Records keeping, operation & maintenance training, etc
GG2688284-Malawi-WASH-VIP-training_plan.docx has been added to the grant's supporting documents.
3. Microfinance?
Can the Water Point Committee be encouraged to open an account with a local Microfinance Bank for keeping the funds raised through selling of water instead of giving it to an individual to keep?
A microfinance bank is not practical. The nearest bank is far away in Zomba. A village's water committee tends to convert their cash to spare parts when opportunity arises, and therefore have relatively little cash on hand at any one time. The annual budget is small, around $400 per year for a single well supporting 50 households.
4. Project Fund Management
During the previous implementation of the 5Nos Water Borehole executed by the sponsoring Rotary Clubs as referenced in your application, was the project funds managed by the host or international partners?
On the previous grant GG2122731, project funds were managed by the host club. For this project, funds will be managed by the international partner club (Downers Grove), interacting through VIP’s HQ in Allentown Pennsylvania. In order to minimize wire transfer fees, Allentown will periodically batch-transfer reimbursed funds to Malawi.
5. Fence references
Quoted below is a statement on the application draft, kindly explain further on this:
"On a trial basis, VIP will be installing fences around some or all of these boreholes, but that cost will not be covered by this grant."
How will the cost for the fencing be settled since it was not captured in the project budget? It’s advisable to keep the Rotary Foundation informed about all funds coming in favour of a particular project either in cash or in-kind.
All references to fences have been removed from this grant. VIP will not be installing experimental fences around boreholes funded by this grant.
6. Sustainability thru government ownership
Can you expand the sustainability plans of this grant project by getting the local or state/county government authorities to buy into it as co-owners? This will serve as leverage in the sustainability and maintenance of the project after handover instead of depending only on funds raised through water fees.
The VIP Malawi staff has extensive experience with drilled wells and have worked in conjunction with the government, specifically the Zomba District Water Development Office. The Malawian government does not have the resources to fund these types of projects at scale. The experience of the staff influences all aspects of the projects from assessing the need through the sustainability of the well. There is a high degree of local incentive for the community to make sure the wells are sustainable:
- It is the difference between fetching water from a potentially contaminated water source or clean safe water to avoid waterborne disease.
- It is the difference between a mother walking to fetch water or working to earn money for the family.
- It is the difference between girls walking to fetch water or walking to school.