School Construction Strategies

for Universal Primary Education in

Africa

I. Lessons Learned
2nd Africa Region Education Capacity Development Workshop
Country Leadership and Implementation
for Results in the EFA-FTI Partnership
Tunis, December 4, 2007
Serge Theunynck
Sr. Implementation Specialist, The World Bank

Construction Needs
for EFA in 2015
To build
2 million classrooms
Offices/storages
Sanitation in all schools
(today 55%)
Water in all schools
(today 45%)
Furniture for all students

To finance
Between
$ 23 billion
$ 30 billion
depending on strategy
School construction in
Africa will be the most
important single
construction business in
the world
2

Can Technology
save cost?
Five main technologies have been
implemented over the four last decades

Modern Technology
Local materials
Shelters
Industrialized Prefabrication
The classic school construction
3

Sophisticated Modern Construction

(all countries 1960-70)
Procurement Approach
Large Contractors
ICB
Expected Results
Large Capacity
Economies of Scale
Quality of Works
Simple Procedures

Actual Results
Few Schools Built
Very High Costs : US$
500 per m2
No Local Development
Cumbersome
Procedures
4

Local Materials
( all countries 1970-80)
Approach
Test by NGOs
Scale Up by Donors
Expected Results
Low Costs
Local Development
Economy of cement
Community
appropriation
Easy Scale Up

Actual Results
No Cost Savings
Large Technical
Assistance
No cement saving
No appropriation
Abandon

The Shelter
(Few countries 1980-2000)

Approach
Administration provides
roof (ICB / NCB)
Communities complete
building
Expected Results
Very low cost
Quick implementation
Community
appropriation
Massive production

Actual Results
Very low cost (60%)
Quick implementation
Second-class status
Abandon when pressure
decreases
6

Industrialized Prefabrication
(few countries 1970-80)
Approach
Off-site manufacturing
Large contracts
Expected Results
Low cost
Quick construction
Mass-production
Modernization of the
construction industry

Actual Results
Higher cost that classic
Long delays
Few schools built
No contribution to local
development
7
Abandon

Industrialized-Prefabrication
The example of USA
2001 (the most industrialized country)

2 million enterprises (stable number since 1970)

Majority of micro-contractors
Labor Intensive Industry

These Technologies
have failed
Four technologies have proven failed to lower cost
and / or scale up

Modern Technology : expensive

Local materials: not replicable, no cost saving
Industrialized Prefab: not implementable
Shelters: second-class, not sustained

And what ?
9

The Classic School Building

(all countries 1980-2000)
Approach
Modern non-sophisticated
technology
Small / medium contractors
from formal / informal sector
Procurement NCB / LCB /
NS)
Expected Results
Technology known by local
contractors
Quick implementation
Massive production
Local development
Appropriation by
communities

Actual Results
Quality construction (acceptable
to good )
Quick delivery
No limitation of production
capacity
Local development
The school plays a role model
for low cost housing
10
Becomes the universal model

Wide Range of Costs of the

Classic model

Example of unit costs achieved in

one country by several projects 11

Why are
School Construction Costs so
different
What do We Know ?
The Implementation Arrangements
WHO does WHAT, HOW and for HOW
MUCH ?
12

The Actors

13

The 3 management
approaches

1.
2.
3.

Management by Public Administrations

Delegation of Management
Decentralization

14

1. Management by MoE
3 options:
ICB
ICB

combined with Community

Participation or Micro-Enterprises
NCB
15

1.1. Centralized Management

with ICB

Justifications
Weak procurement
capacity
Limited construction
industry capacity
Weak monitoring
capacity

Results
Cumbersome procedures
High prices: US$15,000
to 30,000 per classroom
Small quantities
Long delays

16

1.2 ICB with Community

Participation

Expectations
Cost saving on
materials and labor
Community ownership

Results
Too complex
Cost savings :
Yes / ICB
No / NCB
Long delays: Difficult
synchronization

Who? BF, Gambia, Zambia,

Senegal, Bangladesh
Scale up ? No: Abandoned.

17

1.3 Centralized Management

With NCB
Expectations

Reduce cost
Use national contractors
(SME)
Achieve larger scale

Results
Competition
Cost-saving: US$/m2 180
(44% cost saving/ ICB)
Increased but still limited
capacity
Delivery delays

All countries and almost all

donors with few exceptions
Scale-up: Yes

18

Procurement of school
Construction by Administration
Shift from ICB to NCB

19

2. Delegation of Contract
Management

To CMAs (AGETIPs)
To NGOs
To Social Funds

20

2.1 Delegation to CMAs

(AGETIPs)

Expectations
Compensate lack of
Administration capacity
procurement capacity
business opportunities
for SMEs

Results
Initial cost-saving vs. ICB
No cost saving vs. NCB
by admin.
Capacity to deliver
Often limited to urban
areas

Who? Mostly Francophone

countries
Scale up: Yes

21

2.2 Delegation to NGOs

Expectations
community
participation/ownership
cost
Compensate lack of local
const. industry capacity

Results
Small cost-saving compared
to NCB
Community participation
irregular
Substitute to local industry =
no sustain.

Who ? BF, Chad, Gambia,

Guinea, Mali, Moz, Sen,
Scale up ? No

22

2.3 Delegation to Social Funds

(when SF acts as CMA)

Expectations
Demand-driven response
Community empowermt
cost
proc capacity

Results
No cost-saving compared
to centralized NCB
Limited com. empowermt
Large capacity (fragile
states)

Who ? Angola, Ethiopia,

Eritrea, Burundi, Madagas.
Scale up ? Yes

23

2.4 Delegation of Contract

Management

24

3. Decentralisation of
Contract Management
To lower levels of
Administration
To Local Governments
To Communities

25

3.1 Delegation to Local MoE Offices

Expectations
(acting by themselves)

Results

Smaller contracts
Increased competition
Procurement closer to
beneficiaries (reduce
corruption)

Cost: mixed results

Average cost similar NCB
Low efficiency: long
delays
Neglect of educational
mandates

Who ? BF, Mozambique,

Madag (+), Ethiopia, Guinea
(-)
Scale up ? No

26

3.2 Delegation to Local Governments

Expectations

Smaller contracts
Increased competition
Procurement closer to
beneficiaries (reduce
corruption)

Results

(acting by themselves)

Cost: mixed results

Average cost similar NCB
Low efficiency: long
delays
Neglect of educational
mandates

Who ? BF, Mozambique,

Madag (+), Ethiopia, Guinea
(-)
Scale up ? No

27

Delegation to MoE Local Offices

or Local Governments
(acting by themselves of through CMA)

28

These delegations have

expanded capacity
but not saved costs

2.1 : CMAs
2.2 : NGOs
2.3 : SFs
3.1 : LL of MoE
3.2 : LGs

NCB
themselves
NCB
NCB
NCB

And So What ?
29

4. Delegation to
Communities

1 : MoE
2.1 : CMAs
2.2 : NGOs
2.3 : SFs
3.1 : LL of MoE
3.2 : LGs

communities
communities
communities
communities
communities

30

4.1 Direct delegation by MoE to

Expectations
Demand-driven responses
Community Empowerment
procurement / fin. managt)
Local development

Results
High cost-saving (60%/ICB,
35% / NCB)
Large capacity
Community ownership on
school

Who ? Mauritania, India, Laos

(IDA) Uganda, Zambia, Ghana
(MPP)

Scale up ? Yes

Communities

31

4.1 Delegation to Communities

32

4.2 Delegation by NGOs

to Communities

33

4.2 Construction by NGOs

the 3 approaches

NGO as contractor : no
cost saving / NCB

NGO as CMA : no cost

saving / NCB

NGO delegate to
communities = cost
saving
Who?
Who?
Burkina Chad Mali
Gambia
Guinea
Guinea
Mozambique
Senegal

Who?
Burkin
a
Ghana

34

4.3 Delegation by Social Funds

to Communities
Direct procurement

Delegation to
Communities

35

4.3 Social Funds

Social Funds act as

CMAs

Who ? Angola, Ethiopia,

Eritrea, Burundi,
Madagascar

Scale up ? Yes

Social Funds delegate

to communities

Who ? Benin, Malawi,

Senegal, Zambia
Scale up ? yes

36

4.4 Delegation by Local Governments

to Communities (the CDD approach)
Direct procurement

Delegation to
Communities

37

4.4 Delegation to Local

Governments : the 3 approaches

LGs procure by
themselves: no cost
saving / NCB

LGs procure through

CMA : no cost saving /
NCB

LGs delegate to
communities = cost
saving

Who?
Ghana
Guinea
Madagasc
ar
Rwanda

Who?
Mauritan
ia
Senegal

Who?
Benin
Ghana
Uganda

38

4.5 Delegation to Communities

(Whoever Delegates) and Other Agencies

39

Thank You
For Your Attention

40