Mapping from Project Data of Dadaab

These camps experienced over-crowding and this meant that resources and facilities were stretched beyond their capacity and health issues increased. It was necessary to create new camps and provide basic needs to residents of these camps.

5.2.1 Background to Dadaab

The Dadaab lead agency (DLA) was created during World War II and provided support to European survivors of the conflict. Today this agency is internationally recognised and has regional support groups that operate with the goal of providing assistance to disadvantaged and impoverished people groups.

5.2.2 Project Data for Dadaab

The project included the development of a camp in the Dadaab region for approximately 40,000 residents. The project was funded by multiple international agencies and a private donor. The budget for this project was approximately USD$8.9M. The goal was to provide latrines, showers and hand washing facilities, waste management and drainage to low lying areas and to provide hygiene training to residents of the camp.

Data sources included third party documentation that included quarterly and yearly updates. These updates included financial and project progress reports. Other sources of data included secondary data from UN reports, government reports and various website and media releases. There were several semi-conducted interviews with staff from the country specific lead agency and from the United Nations (See Appendix 8).

5.2.3 Mapping from Project Data of Dadaab

The research methodology discussed in Section 4.2 was used to analyse the records for the work conducted for Dadaab. As part of the ethics process it was approved that the names of the organisations involved in the project work were to be kept confidential . ⁹ Abbreviations have been created to define their position in the supply chain system map

The names and details of location for this case study was kept confidential at the request of the third

9

party providers. This request was submitted and approved by the University of Wollongong Ethics committee, approval number HE14/359

from the data. Initial investigations of the records for the Dadaab project indicated that DLA1 was indeed the focal node of the supply chain system. The mapping process conducted by using the documents from the work conducted at the Dadaab site and tracing the funding from the original source (Principal) to the recipient demonstrates a linear supply chain system that actually places a third party donor number one (DLA2) as the focal node (not the DLA1). Since the DLA2 received funding from the Australian Government for the project and distributed it further to the DLA1.

The documents did however indicate that further funding was delivered directly into the DLA1, although no evidence of where the funding originated from was found.

Interestingly, and in common with Amos Aid, there was no evidence from within the Dadaab project documents, concerning additional players in either the supplier side or customer side of the supply chain system. Also, there was no record of direct communication back from the recipient to DLA1. Figure 5.5 is a formalised illustration of the DLA1’s first iteration supply chain system map developed from available documentation.

Figure 5.5 - Dadaab Lead Agency First Interview Model

Deeper investigation with the DLA1 documentation revealed some mention of two further players on both supply side and customer side within the supply chain system.

Discovery of the players was significant because it opened up the model of supply considerably. The two players were:

1. Third party donor number two (DTP1) - This donor was an additional NGO who (records suggest) received funding from third party sources and the Australian Government. Although no evidence was found in the records to direct transfer of funds (i.e. value and bank transfer), documentary evidence was present stating sources. As such, it would suggest that the Australian Government paid twice for the same project (once directly into DLA2 and once via DTP1 into DLA2). This raised some questions concerning so called “double bubble” funding and, if,

simply this could have shown as coming from DLP1, when in fact the origin was solely the Australian Government

2. Dadaab Lead Agency - Kenya - DLA3 was documented (but no evidence found) as receiving funding for the work. DLA3 was part of the same “group” as Dadaab Lead Agency - Australia (DLA1) whose role locally was to mobilise local value added suppliers to deliver to the recipient. On face value, this would appear to be a logical and necessary function. However, there is a grey area insofar as no evidence was found concerning management, communication or funding arrangements between either party, again, suggesting a “trust or faith” approval was adopted in favour of more formal supply chain management principles.

Because there is no evidence of formal transfer such as bills, invoices, receipts, meeting records etc., there is also no evidence of the level of complexity of the remaining supply chain system. Whereas it was possible to distinguish three

‘local’ suppliers, who they were and if they in turn supplied to others, before the end recipient, was not evident within the documents.

Figure 5.6 provides an illustration of the developed supply chain system map of DLA1.

In common with Amos Aid this map is once again a linear process where customers and suppliers mix together adding confusion and in some cases existence of a player is not evidenced from the research materials. Importantly, the tangible evidence of DTP1 does demonstrate multiple funding sources although one, the Australian Government, could have funded the same project twice. It should also be noted that DLA1 also received funds from an unidentified source. Also, the identification of DLA2 demonstrates a duality of players taking up roles in the supply chain system, where formal records are not evident between these “entities under one roof”.


Figure 5.6 - The Reconfigured Supply Chain System of Dadaab

The developed supply chain system map of DLA1 illustrated in Figure 5.6 was then reconfigured to place customers and recipients on the customer side of the map and suppliers on the supply side of the map. By creating the ‘U’ shaped map, further clarity emerges concerning the dynamics of the system. The reconfigured supply chain systems map of DLA1 is illustrated in Figure 5.7.

THE FLOW OF MONEY THE FLOW OF VALUE /

Figure 5.7 Dadaab the Resolved Model

The reconfigured supply chain system map of DLA1 illustrates a duality of focal nodes (DLA1 and DLA2). Initially it may be argued that DLA1 is a first tier supplier, however, new funding was recorded from an unidentified source into DLA1 and so places them as a focal player before distributing the funds further. DLA2 also receives new funding form the Australian Government and DTP1 before distributing to DLA1.

It was not possible to establish if DLA3 was chosen by DLA2 because of its access to market i.e. Kenya via DLA3 or because DLA1 also had funding that could be matched to that of DLA2. However, DLA1 then further distributes funds (value unidentified) to itself, DLA3, for further distribution. Once the funds leave DLA1 (value unidentified)

THE FLOW OF MONEY THE FLOW OF VALUE /

* TIER 2 SUPPLIER AND HOMOLIGATION CONSIDERED TO BE ONE ENTITY LOCATED IN ONE UNIT

NO EVIDENCE OF

the funding in the local area and indeed possible wastage within the supply chain system.

The funding does not reappear evidentially, nor is there any feedback for the recipients into the focal nodes. Interestingly both local distribution of funds and homologation are conducted by the same organisation (DLA3). Which raises concerns around efficacy, possible leakage and overall governance. As such, the measure of success of the program in Australia is down to the input value (i.e. “we raised $ x”) and not on output value to the recipient that was in any way accurately measured and documented across the supply chain system as a whole.