wash sustainability index tool assessment of …...usaid - glows global water for sustainability...

USAID - GLOWS

Global Water for Sustainability

WASH Sustainability Index Tool

Assessment of activities under

the TWB-MRB and iWASH

Projects

Final Report

28th March 2014

RYAN SCHWEITZER

RICHARD WARD

CHRIS MCGAHEY

HAROLD LOCKWOOD

USAID-GLOWS GLOBAL WATER FOR SUSTAINABILITY

Aguaconsult

page 2

28 March 2014

Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. 4 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6 1.1 Trans-boundary Water for Biodiversity and Human Health in the Mara River Basin ................ 6 1.2 Tanzania Integrated Water Sanitation and Hygiene ................................................................ 8 1.3 Assessment Framework ......................................................................................................... 9 2. Kenya WASH Sector Overview ................................................................................................. 10 2.1 Access Status ....................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Sector Reform ...................................................................................................................... 11

2.2.1 Water Act 2002 and Vision 2030 ................................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Devolution under the 2010 Constitution........................................................................ 12

2.3 Sector Financing................................................................................................................... 13 3. Tanzania WASH Sector Overview ............................................................................................. 13 3.1 Access Status ....................................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Reforms ............................................................................................................................... 14 3.3 Sector Finance ..................................................................................................................... 15 4. WASH Sustainability Index Tool................................................................................................ 16 4.1 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 16 4.2 Local Survey Contracting Partners ........................................................................................ 18 4.2.1 Kenyan Survey Team ........................................................................................................ 18 4.2.2 Tanzanian Survey Team .................................................................................................... 18 4.3 Contextualization, Pretesting, and Pilot Testing.................................................................... 18 4.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ................................................................................. 20 4.5 Sample Size and Selection of Villages or Sub-villages and Households for Surveying ............. 20 4.6 Scoring and Aggregation ...................................................................................................... 22 4.7 Interpretation of the Results ................................................................................................ 22 5. TWB-MRB Results .................................................................................................................... 24 5.1 Intervention Category: Water .............................................................................................. 24

5.1.1 Intervention: Community Managed Reticulated Water Supply Systems (CRS) ................ 24 5.1.2 Intervention: Water Pan Systems (WPS) Kenya ............................................................. 33 5.1.3 Intervention: Water Source Protection (WSP) Serengeti District Tanzania ..................... 38 5.1.4 Intervention: institutional rainwater harvesting (RWH) ................................................. 43 5.1.5 Intervention: Community Hand Pumps (CHP) ................................................................ 50

5.2 Intervention Category: Sanitation ........................................................................................ 51 5.2.1 Intervention: Institutional Sanitation (INS) .................................................................... 51 5.2.2 Intervention: Household Sanitation Facilities (HHS) ....................................................... 60

5.3 Intervention Category: Hygiene............................................................................................ 64 5.3.1 Intervention: Hand washing and Hygiene Promotion (HWP) ......................................... 64

6. iWASH Results ......................................................................................................................... 71 6.1 Intervention Category: Water .............................................................................................. 72

6.1.1 Intervention: Community Managed Reticulated Water Supply (CRS) ............................. 72 6.1.2 Intervention: Community Hand pumps (CHP) ................................................................ 76 6.1.3 Intervention: institutional rainwater harvesting (RWH) ................................................. 80

6.2 Intervention Category: Sanitation (and associated hygiene) ................................................. 80 6.2.1 Intervention: Institutional sanitation facilities (INS) ...................................................... 80

7. Key Findings and Priorities for Future Action and Investment .................................................. 86 7.1 Kenya (TWB-MRB) ............................................................................................................... 86

7.1.1 Intervention Category: Water (WPS, CRS, and RWH) ..................................................... 86


Aguaconsult

page 3

28 March 2014

National Level .............................................................................................................................. 86 District Level ................................................................................................................................ 86 Service Level ................................................................................................................................ 87 7.1.2 Intervention Category: Sanitation (INS) ......................................................................... 88 National Level .............................................................................................................................. 88 District Level ................................................................................................................................ 89 Service Level ................................................................................................................................ 89 7.1.3 Intervention Category: Hygiene and Hand Washing Promotion (HWP) .......................... 90 National Level .............................................................................................................................. 90 District Level ................................................................................................................................ 91 Service Level ................................................................................................................................ 91

7.2 Tanzania (TWB-MRB and iWASH) ......................................................................................... 92 7.2.1 Intervention Category: Water ....................................................................................... 92 National Level .............................................................................................................................. 92 District Level ................................................................................................................................ 93 Service Level ................................................................................................................................ 95 7.2.2 Intervention Category: Sanitation (and associated hygiene) .......................................... 96 National Level .............................................................................................................................. 96 Decentralized Level ...................................................................................................................... 97 Service Level ................................................................................................................................ 99

References .................................................................................................................................... 101 Annexes ........................................................................................................................................ 103 Annex 1. WASH Sector Institutional Stakeholders and Institutional Arrangements ......................... 103 Annex 2. Stakeholder interview list ................................................................................................ 103 Annex 3. Representative Overview of Key Documents .................................................................. 103 Annex 4. Representative Overview of Legal Framework ................................................................. 103 Annex 5. Excel Frameworks ........................................................................................................... 103 Annex 6. Protocol for Establishing Sampling Frame and Selecting Households ............................... 103 Annex 7. Data Collection Tools ...................................................................................................... 103 Annex 8. Maps of Sample Communities ......................................................................................... 103 Annex 9. Results of Add-On Surveys (iWASH project) .................................................................... 103 Annex 10. SIT Summary Tables ...................................................................................................... 103


Aguaconsult

page 4

28 March 2014

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AFD French Agency for Development

CAAC Catchment Area Advisory Committee

CBO Community-Based Organization

COWSO Community-Owned Waster Supply Organization

CRS Community Reticulated System

D District

DBO Drainage Basin Office

E Environmental

F Financial

FIU Florida International University

GLOWS Global Water for Sustainability

GoK Government of Kenya

GoT Government of the United Republic of Tanzania

I Institutional

ICC Interagency Coordination Committee

INS Institutional Sanitation

iWASH Integrated Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Project

KBS Kenyan Bureau of Standards

KfW German Development Bank

M Management

MoE Ministry of Education - Kenya

MoEVT Ministry of Education and Vocational Training - Tanzania

MoEWNR Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources - Kenya

MoH Ministry of Health - Kenya

MoHSW Ministry of Health and Social Welfare - Tanzania

MORUWASA Morogoro Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority

MoW Ministry of Water – Tanzania

MRWUA Mara River Water User’s Association

N National

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NWCPC National Water Conservation & Pipeline Corporation

O&M Operations and Maintenance

RWH Rainwater Harvesting

S Service

SIT Sustainability Index Tool

T Technical

TWB-MRB Trans-boundary Water for Biodiversity and Human Health in the Mara River Basin

Project

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

USAID United States Agency for International Development


Aguaconsult

page 5

28 March 2014

WAB Water Appeal Board

WADA Water and Development Alliance

WARIS Water Regulation Information System

WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene

WASREB Water Service Regulatory Board

WHO World Health Organization

WPS Water Pan System

WRM Water Resource Management

WRMA Water Resource Management Authority

WRUA Water Resource User Association

WSB Water Service Board

WSDP Water Sector Development Program

WSP Water Source Protection

WSTF Water Service Trust Fund

WWF World Wildlife Fund


Aguaconsult

page 6

28 March 2014

1. Introduction

This report presents the findings of an assessment of the sustainability of the Trans-boundary Water

for Biodiversity and Human Health in the Mara River Basin (TWB-MRB) and the Tanzania Integrated

Water Sanitation and Hygiene (iWASH) Projects using the methodology of the Water, Sanitation,

and Hygiene (WASH) Sustainability Index Tool (SIT)1. This report is a draft of the final deliverable and

is submitted in accordance with the agreed schedule of deliverables as detailed in Subcontract No.

800000685-02 CFDA# 98.001 between Aguaconsult Ltd and The Florida University Board of Trustees,

dated 21st August 2013.

Both the TWB-MRB and the iWASH projects are funded, at least in part, by money from the United

States Agency for International Development (USAID) and are implemented by the Global Water for

Sustainability (GLOWS) consortium under the leadership of Florida International University (FIU).

This report analyses each project independently and presents a set of summary recommendations

for future WASH projects in Kenya and Tanzania based on the analyses.

For the purposes of this assessment, interventions considered were separated into seven groups (i.e.

intervention “types”). Water supply interventions included the construction of community

reticulated water supply systems (CRS), community handpumps (CHP), school rainwater harvesting

systems (RWH), water pan systems (WPS), and water source protection systems (WSP) (i.e. spring

catchments). Sanitation interventions included household latrines (HHS) and institutional sanitation

(INS) (i.e. school latrine blocks). Hygiene and hand washing promotion (HWP) was carried out

alongside the majority of hardware interventions so HWP was not considered as a stand-alone

intervention. However, it was agree with Florida International University that information would be

collected on HWP where possible.

The remainder of Section 1 provides a brief overview of each project as well as an introduction to

the framework used for the assessment. Sections 2 and 3 present an overview of the WASH sectors

in Kenya and Tanzania respectively. Section 4 describes the step-by-step application of the WASH

Sustainability Index Tool. Sections 5 and 6 present the results of the assessment, and Section 7 is the

interpretation of these results and the presentation of key findings. From these key findings a

number of priority areas for action and investment are recommended. These recommendations are

separated by country and intervention category (i.e. water, sanitation, and hygiene) and are

disaggregated by administrative level. Additional information including the WASH SIT framework,

survey data, and the data collection tools is provided in the Annexes.

1.1 Trans-boundary Water for Biodiversity and Human Health in the Mara

River Basin

1 For more information on the WASH Sustainability Index Tool visit http://www.washplus.org/rotary-usaid

http://www.washplus.org/rotary-usaid


Aguaconsult

page 7

28 March 2014

The objective of this section is to provide an overview of the interventions of the Trans-boundary

Water for Biodiversity and Human Health in the Mara River Basin (TWB-MRB) Project. The TWB-

MRB project (2005-2012) was collaboration between Florida International University, World Wildlife

Fund, World Vision International, CARE Tanzania, and the Mara River Water User’s Association

(MRWUA). The overall goal of the project was to support sustainable water supply, sanitation, and

hygiene services to improve health and increase economic resiliency of the rural poor while

conserving biodiversity through the development of an integrated water resource management

framework for the Mara River Basin.

Included in the project were thirty-seven villages in Narok County, Kenya (Transmara East and

Transmara West Districts) and fifteen villages in the Serengeti District, Mara Region, in Tanzania. A

summary of the interventions completed under TWB-MRB is shown in Tables 1 (Kenya) and 2

(Tanzania). Maps of communities included in the samples are included in Annex. The information

with regard to the total communities in Tables 1-2 is derived from information provided by FIU and

the implementing partners.

Table 1: Communities with WASH interventions under the TWB-MRB project in Kenya and those included

in the WASH Sustainability Index Tool assessment sample. See the list of acronyms for details on the

intervention types.

Intervention Type

Total CRS WPS INS RWH

Total communities¹ 7 5 21 9 37

Sample communities¹ 6 3 8 7 15

¹In this context “community” corresponds to the Kenyan administrative division of village (kijiji in Swahili).

Table 2: Communities with WASH interventions under the TWB-MRB project in Tanzania and those

included in the WASH Sustainability Index Tool assessment sample. See the list of acronyms for details on

the intervention types.

Intervention Type

Total CRS CHP WSP HHS INS RWH

Total communities¹ 2 1 9 6 9 7 15

Sample communities¹ 2 1 3 6 9 5 11

¹In this context “community” corresponds to the Tanzanian administrative division of village (kijiji in Swahili) or sub-village

(vitongoji in Swahili).


Aguaconsult

page 8

28 March 2014

1.2 Tanzania Integrated Water Sanitation and Hygiene

The objective of this section is to provide an overview of the interventions of the Tanzania

Integrated Water Sanitation and Hygiene (iWASH) Project. The implementing partners of iWASH

include Florida International University (FIU), Winrock International, CARE International, WaterAID

and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). However the involvement of WaterAID and WWF has been

under a different funding stream (Water and Development Alliance - WADA), and is therefore

excluded from the scope of this assessment.

The overall goal of iWASH is to support sustainable, market-driven water supply, sanitation and

hygiene services to improve health and increase economic resiliency of the poor in targeted rural

areas and small towns. Similar to TWB-MRB, there is a strong emphasis on designing and conducting

activities in the context of an integrated water resource management framework. iWASH began in

January 2010 with $US12.6 million in initial funding allocated through December 2012. An extension

through 2013 was put in place and during the current assessment USAID approved an additional two

years so that iWASH funding will conclude in December 2015.

The WASH Sustainability Index Tool (SIT) is used to measure post-implementation sustainability.

Therefore the scope of this assessment is limited to the 44 villages in the Wami-Ruvu Basin with

interventions that had been completed prior to the start of field data collection (October 22nd,

2013). This was approved by the Director of iWASH, Vivienne Abbott.

The intervention types included in iWASH are the same as those for TWB-MRB. However the

specific technologies or methodologies used in implementation often varied. For example, iWASH

exclusively promoted the rope pump in the assessed villages, while the handpump technologies

found2 in Tanzanian villages under TWB-MRB included Afridev, India Mark II and others.

Table 3: Communities with WASH interventions under the iWASH project in Tanzania and those included in

the WASH Sustainability Index Tool assessment sample. See the list of acronyms for details on the

intervention types.

Intervention Type

Total CRS CHP INS RWH

Total communities¹ 8 15 32 7 44

Sample communities¹ 5 8 12 1 21

¹In this context “community” corresponds to the Tanzanian administrative division of village

(kijiji in Swahili) or sub-village (vitongoji in Swahili).

2 In all the sample villages or sub-villages the hand pumps existed prior to the project intervention and were

renovated or rehabilitated.


Aguaconsult

page 9

28 March 2014

1.3 Assessment Framework

The SIT was used to assess the TWB-MRB and iWASH projects. This tool is used for assessing the

likely long-term sustainability of the services provided by the interventions completed under the two

projects in question. The SIT is made up of a number of sustainability frameworks (one per

intervention type) and a methodology for how to apply them. A detailed presentation of the

methodology and frameworks can be found at http://www.washplus.org/rotary-usaid.

Each framework focuses on five factors of sustainability that have been identified from an extensive

review of the literature. These include: institutional, management, financial, technical, and

environmental factors. Each framework is made up of sustainability indicators, with between 2 and

4 indicators per sustainability factor. Each indicator has a number of sub-indicators that take the

form of a question or questions. Sub-indicators are averaged for an indicator score and then the

various indicators are averaged for a factor score.

Each indicator targets a specific administrative level. In the context of the SIT these administrative

levels are generically categorized as follows: national (N), district (D), or service level (S). The actual

administrative structure will be unique to each country and perhaps vary within a country as it is a

reflection of the political and regulatory organization of that country. The administrative

organizations in Kenya and Tanzania are shown in Table 4. Also shown in the table is the SIT code as

it corresponds to Kenyan and Tanzanian administrative divisions.

Table 4: List of administrative divisions for Tanzania and Kenya and the corresponding code used by the

WASH Sustainability Index Tool (SIT).

WASH SIT Administrative

Level Code Tanzania Kenya

N Republic Republic

Region Region

D

District County

Division Sub-county/Division

Local Ward Location

S Village Sub-location

Sub-village Village

Unlike traditional project evaluations or impact assessments, the methodology of the SIT considers

the context in which interventions are implemented by collecting data from a range of

administrative levels in addition to the community in which the intervention is implemented. For

example, in Kenya data were collected from national level stakeholders as well as stakeholders at

the county, division, location, and village levels. In Tanzania, data were collected at the national



Aguaconsult

page 10

28 March 2014

level as well as with stakeholders at multiple levels. Sector experience has demonstrated the

importance of accounting for the enabling environment in assessment processes. The following

sections provide an overview of the WASH sectors in Kenya and Tanzania.

2. Kenya WASH Sector Overview

To have a holistic understanding of the sustainability of WASH services, it is necessary to understand

the context in which these services are provided. This section provides a basic overview of the

WASH sector in Kenya including a description of the water and sanitation coverage levels, sector

reform, and financing.

2.1 Access Status

According to the most recent report by the Joint Monitoring Program of UNICEF and the WHO,

although currently 61% of the population has access to an improved water source, based on

progress since 1990, Kenya should reach the Millennium Development Goal target of 72% coverage.

. In Kenya, TWB-MRB targeted rural communities. In general, progress in rural areas has lagged

significantly behind that in urban areas (See Table 5). This has been attributed to institutional

arrangements that are fragmented in the rural areas, performance of service providers that is mixed

and inconsistent, and a lack of reliable information for decision makers (Eberhard, 2011).

Table 5: Use of drinking water sources in Kenya expressed as a percent of the overall population (WHO,

2013). The 2015 target is to have 72% of the population using an improved source of drinking water (i.e. the

“Total Improved (%)” column, row for “Overall”)

Area Population (%)

Improved Sources Unimproved Sources

Total

Improved

(%)

Piped on

Premises (%)

Other

Improved (%)

Total

Unimproved

(%)

Surface

Water (%)

Rural 76 54 12 42 16 30

Urban 24 84 45 38 12 5

Overall 100 61 20 41 15 24

Currently, rural areas lag significantly behind urban areas with regard to access to improved

sanitation facilities (see Table 6). In addition, the 2015 MDG target for access to a private improved

sanitation facility is 63%. Currently only 29% of the population has this level of access and the

progress towards this objective has been very slow, with only a 4% increase in overall coverage since

1990. As a result, Kenya will not reach their 2015 target of 63%. In 2011 the government of Kenya

started an Open Defecation Free (ODF) Campaign with the ambitious goal of making all of Kenya

ODF by the end of 2014. This campaign targets rural areas, particularly pastoralist areas such as

Narok County, where open defecation is very common.


Aguaconsult

page 11

28 March 2014

Table 6: Use of sanitation facilities in Kenya, expressed as a percentage of the total population (WHO, 2013).

The 2015 target is to have 63% of the population using a private improved sanitation facility.

Area Population

(%)

Accessing Improved Facilities

Accessing Unimproved

Facilities (%)

Practicing Open

Defecation (%) Private

Improved (%)

Shared

Improved

(%)

Rural 76 29 19 35 17

Urban 24 31 47 19 3

Overall 100 29 26 31 14

2.2 Sector Reform

In order to determine the sustainability of the water, sanitation, and hygiene services provided by

the interventions implemented under TWB-MRB, it is critical to understand the institutional

landscape of the WASH sector in Kenya. Section 2.2 describes the role of government and the

challenges facing the water, sanitation, and hygiene sub-sectors. The remainder of this section is

divided into the major reform periods.

2.2.1 Water Act 2002 and Vision 2030

The important reform occurred in 2002 with the passage of the Water Act that separated the

functions of water resource management and water supply and sewerage service between the

Water Resource Management Authority (WRMA) and the Ministry of Water respectively. The

Ministry of Water, now called the Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources

(MoEWNR), was designated as the key institution in charge of policy and strategy formation,

resource mobilization, monitoring and assessment, and overall coordination of water and sanitation

activities. Other ministries, as described below, held lead responsibility for hygiene promotion.

Responsibility for planning and investment in water supply and sanitation was delegated to eight

regional water services boards (WSBs) that were mandated with ensuring economic and efficient

provision of water and sanitation services in their jurisdiction. In most cases the WSBs were (and still

are) the legal owners of the water and sanitation assets that were previously held by the central

government. The Water Service Regulatory Board (WASREB) was created to manage technical

standards, issue operating licenses and approve tariffs from any entity that provides water to more

than 20 households (Water Act 2002). Under this institutional arrangement there were significant

overlaps in function between WASREB, WSB, and water service providers and the governance by

many WSBs was considered weak (Eberhard, 2011).

The WRMA is the lead institution in the management of water resources and regulates the

extraction of water through its regional offices located in each of 8 water catchment areas through


Aguaconsult

page 12

28 March 2014

catchment area committees. The Mara River, and therefore TWB-MRB, falls under the management

of the Lake Victoria South Catchment Area (LVSCA) office located in Kisumu which issues abstraction

permits and enforces watershed management plans. At the local level, Water Resource User

Associations (WRUAs) are responsible for cooperative administration of water resources and conflict

resolution by bringing all water users together in their respective areas (WRMA 2007).

In 2007, the Government of Kenya launched a long-term development plan: Vision 2030. This

provided the impetus for the reorganization of the health and hygiene sector and the creation of the

Ministry of Physical Health and Sanitation that was mandated with sanitation and hygiene sub-

sector leadership and regulation for general sanitation and hygiene promotion. The Ministry of

Education (MoE) was mandated with the regulation and oversight of sanitation and hygiene

promotion in schools. Together the Ministry of Physical Health and Sanitation and MoE drafted a

National School Health Policy (2009), School Health Guidelines (2009) and a National School Health

Strategy Implementation Plan (2010), which included targets for constructing new water and

sanitation facilities in schools, building the capacity of school staff for operation and maintenance

(O&M) of infrastructure and hygiene training, advocacy, social mobilization, and communication.

2.2.2 Devolution under the 2010 Constitution

In 2010, a new constitution was created which recognized that access to safe and sufficient water is

a basic human right and assigned responsibility for ensuring these rights to the 47 newly formed

county governments. The MoEWNR held responsibility for supporting county governments in their

devolved service authority functions.

In 2010, the Ministry of Physical Health and Sanitation was recombined with the Ministry of Medical

Services into a single Ministry of Health (MoH) and all functions, except for tertiary services, were

devolved to the county government. The same year decentralization took effect; the ministry

captured a line item in its national budget specifically for sanitation. However, according to a

knowledgeable source, the linkage between the Ministry of Finance and MoH remains weak and a

lot of sanitation work is “off budget” (Sara, 2013). Despite the challenges posed by decentralization,

the Chief Public Health Officer (Director of the Department of Public Health and Sanitation) has been

providing strong sector leadership and has placed sanitation high on the agenda; even including an

ambitious community led total sanitation (CLTS) campaign targeting rural areas. However the

reorganization under the Constitution has seen the MoH go from supporting 8 provincial public

health officers to 47 county health officers, which has resulted in significant logistical challenges.

Unlike the MoH, under the new constitution the function of the MoE remains centralized with the

exception of early childhood education that is managed at the decentralized level. The MoE within

the Kenya Education Sector Support Program is working to build the capacity of school managers,

teachers, and students in WASH promotion and hygiene behaviors.


Aguaconsult

page 13

28 March 2014

2.3 Sector Financing

Financial factors are important in the sustainability of WASH services. It is important to understand

the sector financing and the implications for how direct and indirect support to the organizations

providing the WASH services is given. Investment in the water sector has increased dramatically

over the past 10 years, with donor funds accounting for US$205 million out of US$325 million or 63%

in 2010/2011 (Eberhert, 2011). In 2013/2014 the estimated budget for water alone will be over

US$279 million, 57% of which will be from appropriations in aid (Heymans et al, 2013). The majority

of this financing is in the form of grants and concession loans. Despite some interesting and newly

evolving micro and mesocredit activities (e.g. K-Rep Bank) commercial financing in the water sector

is very limited compared to other sources (Eberhard, 2011).

Most of the money that the WASH ministries (i.e. MoWENR, MoH, and MoE) receive is through

transfers from the Ministry of Finance; however the ministries do generate their own limited

discretionary funds. For example, the MoH controls the Facilities Improvement Fund (FIF) that is a

service improvement fund containing revenue generated from vaccinations and hotel licenses.

Under the new constitution, responsibility for investment in “public works” is allocated to both

county and national governments. In addition, the central government is required to allocate a

minimum of 15% of the share of nationally raised revenues to the counties. However, it is not clear

if the governments’ investment in water will be considered part of or separate from this 15%.

Within the water sector, although funding increased 300% from 2004 to 2012, there is an absence of

a clear positive correlation between the growing development budget and impact on the ground,

which has been attributed to inadequate investment planning and monitoring (WASREB, 2012).

World Bank estimates a deficit in spending of US$78 million per year in the rural water sector (WSP,

2010). Although the spending deficit for rural sanitation is much lower, US$26 million per year

(WSP, 2010), the GoK expects households to invest significantly in their own sanitation infrastructure

- with government subsidies of capital expenditures only 18% in rural areas and 52% in urban areas

(WSP, 2010).

3. Tanzania WASH Sector Overview

This section provides a basic overview of the WASH sector in Tanzania including a description of

water and sanitation coverage levels, sector reform, and sector financing. This information is

important for understanding the context within which the SIT was applied and for the interpretation

of the results.


Aguaconsult

page 14

28 March 2014

3.1 Access Status

Like Kenya, the rural areas in Tanzania are lagging behind urban areas with regard to water and

sanitation access. Tables 7 and 8 show the drinking water and sanitation coverage in rural and

urban areas in Tanzania. Both the iWASH and TWB-MRB projects targeted rural communities where

water coverage is at 44% and sanitation coverage (private facilities only) is at 7%. Based upon

current trends, Tanzania will not meet their targets for water (78%) or sanitation (62%) by 2015

(WHO, 2013). In addition to very low sanitation coverage, a 2009 study by UNICEF found that

hygiene behaviors are generally very poor. Only 40% of their survey respondents washed their

hands after using the toilet and only 15% did so prior to preparing meals (UNICEF, 2009). Therefore,

hygiene education and handwashing promotion need to be high priorities if any future increases in

water and sanitation coverage are to result in health benefits.

Table 7: Use of drinking water sources in Tanzania, expressed as a percent of the total population (WHO,

2013). The 2015 target is to have 78% of the population using an improved source of drinking water (i.e. the

“Total Improved (%)” column, row for “Overall”)

Area Population

(%)

Improved Sources Unimproved Sources

Total

Improved

(%)

Piped on

Premises

(%)

Other

Improved

(%)

Total

Unimproved

(%)

Surface

Water

(%)

Rural 73 44 4 40 33 23

Urban 27 79 23 56 18 3

Overall 100 53 9 44 30 17

Table 8: Use of sanitation facilities in Tanzania, expressed as a percentage of the total population (WHO,

2013). The 2015 target is to have 62% of the population using a private improved sanitation facility, while

currently only 12% of people have access to a private improved sanitation facility.

Area Population

(%)

Accessing Improved Facilities Accessing

Unimproved Facilities

(%)

Practicing Open

Defecation (%) Private

Improved (%)

Shared

Improved (%)

Rural 73 7 4 73 16

Urban 27 24 23 51 2

Overall 100 12 9 67 12

3.2 Reforms

Reforms in the Tanzania WASH Sector have occurred in an atypical way, beginning with the

development of WASH policies (1991 and 2002) followed by a strategy (2006), but the legal

framework was not created until 2009 with the passage of two pieces of legislation: the Water


Aguaconsult

page 15

28 March 2014

Supply and Sanitation Act and the Water Resource Management Act3. An organizational chart

presenting the institutional arrangements of both the water supply and water resource

management sectors can be found in Annex 1.

The Water Supply and Sanitation Act of 2009 established the right of Tanzanians to “have access to

efficient, effective, and sustainable water supply and sanitation” (Part II, 4.1.a). It also outlined the

responsibilities of all government authorities involved in the provision of water. Most notable is the

Ministry of Water (MoW) that is responsible for regulation and overall co-ordination in the WASH

sector. The act also delegated responsibility for service delivery to commercial entities, called Water

Supply and Sanitation Authorities (WSSA), in urban areas. In rural areas at the village level,

Community Owned Water Supply Organizations (COWSOs) are created and given the responsibility

for service provision.

COWSOs can be water consumer associations, trusts, cooperatives, non-governmental organizations

(NGOs), or a private company. The District government is supposed to regulate and support the

COWSOs, provide guidelines, approve tariffs and technical assistance from the District Water and

Sanitation Team (DWST). COWSOs may directly provide water services or they may contract private

companies, NGOs, or community based organizations (CBOs).

An important step in WASH sector reform was the transfer of responsibility for rural sanitation from

the MoW to the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MoHSW). The MoW is largely water focused

and has a stronger capacity on infrastructure development and asset management, while the

MoHSW is more behavior change and hygiene oriented (WSP, 2013).

3.3 Sector Finance

According to the Public Expenditure Review produced by the World Bank, expenditure on water in

Tanzania increased significantly in the 2000s. In 2006 the Government of the United Republic of

Tanzania (GoT) initiated a program of fiscal decentralization. However, the GoT relies heavily on

foreign development assistance with 85% of the water sector budget coming from aid in 2009 (van

de Berg et al, 2010). This has left them vulnerable to macroeconomic factors that affect donor

contributions.

The primary funding sources in the WASH sector are central government ministries and offices,

including MoHSW, the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training (MoEVT), the MoW and the

Prime Minister’s Office – Regional Administration and Local Government (PMO-RALG). The largest

development partner contributors are UNICEF, WaterAID, GTZ, and USAID, who do not contribute

3In 2009 the Water Resource Management Act was also passed. Most important aspect of this law is that it gives the MoWI the right to the use of water from any water resource and requires that an Environmental Impact Assessment is conducted before any development in water resource areas or watershed can take place


Aguaconsult

page 16

28 March 2014

through the basket fund that was created under the Sector Wide Approach (SWAp). The

organizations working through the SWAp include the World Bank, African Development Bank, The

Netherlands Government, KfW, Belgium, and the AfD.

The GoT’s WASH program is the Water Sector Development Program (WSDP) 2006 – 2025 that has

an overall target budget of over US$2.85 billion. Although this represents a quadrupling of finance

for the sector, there are many challenges to managing these funds effectively, efficiently, and

equitably (WSP, 2010). For example, in 2011 the World Bank estimated that the annual spending

deficit (to reach the MDGs) for water was US$98 million and US$21 million for sanitation (WSP,

2010). This is based on the WSDP budgeting practice of expecting households to contribute capital

costs in the amount of 5% for water and 93% for sanitation.

District and municipal governments can apply to basket funds for sanitation and hygiene grants

through the Health Sector Program III. These funds which are controlled by the Ministry of Health

which are controlled by the MoH, however these funds are limited (up to US$35,000 per year). In

addition a 2010 Education Sector Review expenditure report showed that in the education sector

only limited attention and priority is goes into school WASH due to the many competing needs in

schools (WSSCC, 2009).

4. WASH Sustainability Index Tool The details of the Sustainability Index Tool (SIT) methodology are available online

(http://www.washplus.org/rotary-usaid). A step-by-step explanation of the methodology is

available, along with example frameworks, and explanatory videos. Section 4.1 provides a brief

summary of the methodology, and Section 4.2 introduces the organizations that were responsible

for carrying out the methodology.

4.1 Methodology

Data were collected from various levels, which are categorized as “national”, “district”, and “service”

in the WASH SIT code. These levels correspond to different administrative levels depending on the

country. Refer back to Table 4 for a description of these levels. Secondary data were used along

with primary data that were collected through key informant interviews, focus groups, and

observation.

At national level (N), documents related to the intervention areas were collected and reviewed.

These included policy and strategy documents, operational guidelines, and model by-laws.

Furthermore, data were collected through interactions with key informants, including

representatives from ministries and key WASH stakeholders (e.g. World Bank Water Supply

Program, international NGOs). A complete list of these stakeholders is available in Annex 2.



Aguaconsult

page 17

28 March 2014

At district level (D), data for the scoring of the indicators were collected through interviews with key

stakeholders from local and regional governments (e.g. District Planning Officer, District Water

Engineer, Education Officer, and Health Officer). This also included members of Catchment

Committees and Water Service Boards. In Tanzania, interviews were also conducted with

stakeholders of the Ward government and Village committees. A complete list of these stakeholders

is available in Annex 2.

At the service level (S), data were collected from community-based water service providers through

group interviews with water committees (COWSOs) for reticulated systems, water pans and water

source protection. In the case of boreholes, surveys were done with water point technicians or with

water point management groups (WPMGs). Data were also collected from community health

promoters, where available, and from households, through the administration of surveys. Data to

score the indicators related to school and institutional latrines were collected through group

interviews with School Health Clubs (where available) and the head teacher or administrator of the

selected schools. Furthermore, for institutional sanitation and rainwater harvesting data were also

collected at a number of clinics/dispensaries with the managers of these facilities.

Table 9 contains a summary of the stakeholders and institutions consulted for each investigation

level of the SIT. For a list of the names of the stakeholders interviewed as well as the specific data

collection tools for each level see the Annex.

Table 9: Stakeholders and Institutions consulted at each Investigation level. For a sample list of the policies

and regulations reviewed, see Annex 2.

Type of

Intervention

Service Level (S) District Level (D)

(Support Authority)

National Level

(N) Household Service Provider

Water Pan

Systems Household

Water Committee

COWSO

District Water

Officer/Engineer

Ministry of

Water

Ministry of the

Environment

Community

Reticulated

System

Household Water Committee

COWSO

District Water

Officer/Engineer

Community

Handpump Household

WPMG

COWSO

District Water

Officer/Engineer

Water Source

Protection Household

Water Committee

COWSO

District Water

Officer/Engineer

Household

Latrines Household N/A

District Health

Officer

Ministry of

Health

Institutional

Rainwater

Harvesting

N/A Teacher

School Authority

Ward Education

Officer

District Education

Officer

Ministry of

Health

Ministry of

Education Institutional

Latrines N/A

Teacher

School Authority

Ward Education

Officer

District Education


Aguaconsult

page 18

28 March 2014

Officer

Hand washing

Promotion Household

School Hygiene

Club

Teacher

School Authority

District Health

Officer

4.2 Local Survey Contracting Partners

For logistics reasons, two separate contractors were hired for the field data collection of the SIT.

One contractor was selected for each of the two countries, Kenya and Tanzania, where the TWB-

MRB and iWASH projects were implemented. The following sections introduce the contractors.

4.2.1 Kenyan Survey Team

After completion of a competitive bidding process, ERMIS Africa (www.ermisafrica.org) was sub-

contracted to carry out household surveys and interviews at the district level (Transmara East and

Transmara West in Narok County). ERMIS Africa is a Kenya-based organization specializing in

community mapping and improving access to improved WASH services and facilities and presents

significant experience in conducting community-level baseline and impact surveys and analyzing

resultant data sets. ERMIS Africa coordinated logistics for all field activities in Kenya, including all

data collection for the Kenyan portion of the TWB-MRB.

4.2.2 Tanzanian Survey Team After completion of a competitive bidding process, EcomResearch Group Ltd.

(www.ecomresearch.org) was sub-contracted to carry out household surveys and interviews at the

village, ward, and district level. EcomResearch Group is a Tanzania-based organization providing

research, consultancy, and training services specializing in socio-economic surveys and

strengthening service delivery of public and private sector institutions through science-based

investigation of research challenges. EcomResearch Group coordinated logistics for all field activities

in Tanzania, including all data collection for the Tanzanian portion of the TWB-MRB project as well as

the iWASH project.

4.3 Contextualization, Pretesting, and Pilot Testing

A unique sustainability framework exists for each intervention type considered in this assessment

(See Annex 5 for a link to the excel frameworks for both projects). Each framework is composed of

indicators and sub-indicators. It is from the sub-indicators that the data collection tools were

derived. The process of creating the final data collection tools involved separating the sub-

indicators, for each intervention type, into “survey packs.” This separation was done on the basis of

the unit of analysis for each sub-indicator, and resulted in survey packs for each stakeholder (e.g.

http://www.ermisafrica.org/

http://www.ecomresearch.org/


Aguaconsult

page 19

28 March 2014

household, service provider, district stakeholder, national stakeholder). The sub-indicators in these

survey packs were then contextualized following a three-step process.

During the first step of contextualization, the sub-indicators were separated into discrete questions

which elicit a yes/no answer or can easily be coded as such. This is necessary as some of the sub-

indicators have multiple parts that need to be disaggregated. The second step of contextualization

involves identifying the appropriate benchmark and threshold values that will be used when coding

the questions. For example, the framework sub-indicator question CHP-T-S3d asks if repairs are

made within the national norm for repair times. In order to code this question, it is necessary to

identify the national norm for repair time (e.g. number of days). The final step is modifying the

order of the questions to ensure appropriate flow.

Once contextualization is complete, it is necessary to pre-test the questionnaires. The field data

collection team of each sub-contractor pre-tested each survey that was used in their assessments

(i.e. ERMIS Africa - Kenya, EcomResearch Group – Tanzania) with the enumerator teams in each

country separately. After modifications were made, the surveys were translated into Swahili by

qualified translators. In Kenya, the surveys were entered into android tablets. All other data were

collected in paper format.

All household4 and service provider surveys were pilot tested in selected communities. This process

ensured that each respondent had the same interpretation of the questions.

Both ERMIS Africa and EcomResearch Group have extensive experience in these processes. ERMIS

Africa conducted a pilot test on October 20th. Similarly, a pilot test was conducted in Tanzania by

EcomResearch Group on October 25th and 26th. Details on the locations of the pilot tests in each

country are shown in Table 10.

Table 10: Communities where the service provider and household surveys were pilot tested.

Country Intervention District Community

Kenya RWH Emurua-Dikrr Soget

Kenya CRS Emurua-Dikrr Kelonget/Gelegele

Kenya WPS Emurua-Dikrr Koisagat

Kenya INS Emurua-Dikrr Mogor

Tanzania RWH Kilosa Mkundi

Tanzania CHP Kilosa Mkundi

Tanzania INS Kilosa Magubike

Tanzania CRS Kilosa Magubike

4 With the exception of the WSP surveys, which were not pilot tested due to the very small number of

communities with WSP interventions and the similarity between the CRS and WSP surveys.


Aguaconsult

page 20

28 March 2014

After completing the pilot test of the data collection tools, appropriate modifications were made

and data collection began in the communities. In Kenya, field data collection began on Oct 22nd,

2013in the Kiridon Division and proceeded through November 7th, 2013. In Tanzania, field data

collection began on October 29th, 2013and continued through January 20th, 2014.

4.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Steps to assure the quality of the collected data began during the contextualization process. Each

data collection instrument was pre-tested, pilot tested, and modified at each step to ensure the

maximum objectivity of the data collected. Qualitative information was collected along with the

binary (yes/no) data to assure the accuracy of the data.

To control the quality of the data once collected, each contractor developed a data management

plan following their internal guidelines and informed by their extensive field data collection

experience. These management plans included a protocol for the digitization5 of data collected on

paper, verification, and cleaning. The majority of the data was collected in binary (yes/no) form, and

therefore the process of cleaning the data was significantly easier. ERMIS Africa collected all the

household level data in Kenya using android tablets and uploaded into Excel. All additional surveys

in both Kenya and Tanzania were collected on paper and subsequently manually digitized. Due to

EcomResearch Group’s familiarity with SPSS, they choose to input all data into SPSS, creating a single

SPSS file per survey instrument. SPSS is a very powerful data analysis program that simplifies data

cleaning and analysis. All responses that were not coded in the field (i.e. assigned a “yes” or “no”

response by the interviewer in the field) were subsequently coded in Excel or SPSS afterward.

In addition to the quality control procedures implemented by each contractor, Aguaconsult audited

each data file checking that the data were cleaned and requested verification between electronic

entries and paper copies. This cross checking occurred for randomly selected entries for at least one

respondent per survey instrument. All discrepancies between the entries were checked and

corrected if possible. If correction was not possible, then the response was omitted.

4.5 Sample Size and Selection of Villages or Sub-villages and Households for

Surveying

The sampling protocol used in the SIT is based upon accepted guidelines and incorporates best

practice methods from relevant monitoring and assessment literature in the WASH sector. This

protocol, summarized in Annex 6, is composed of multistate sampling that utilizes stratified sampling

5 All household survey data in Kenya was collected using tablets and subsequently uploaded into excel. ERMIS

Africa has extensive experience in collecting data in this format.


Aguaconsult

page 21

28 March 2014

to identify the sample frame (e.g. village or sub-village) and random sampling to identify households

for the interventions where dictated by the SIT framework.

Each uniquely coded question had a specific primary unit of analysis and in some cases a secondary

unit of analysis. The secondary unit of analysis was a source for verifying data provided by the

primary unit of analysis (i.e. triangulation). “Household” can be both a primary or secondary unit of

analysis. Only in cases where the household was the primary unit of analysis was the sample size

determined through a statistical calculation. The only intervention included in the TWB-MRB and

iWASH projects where the household is considered the primary unit of analysis is household

sanitation (HHS). Therefore the final sample size was calculated using the formula describe in Annex

6.

In all other cases the data collected from households were used to triangulate the information

provided by the primary unit of analysis. For these interventions (i.e. WSP, CHP, CRS, and WPS) the

household sample size per community (i.e. sample frame) was set at 30 households. Annex 6 has

more information on the sampling protocol. Tables 11 and 12 present a summary of the data

collection activities for the TWB-MRB and iWASH projects respectively.

Table 11: Summary of field data collection activities for the assessment of TWB-MRB in Kenya and

Tanzania using the WASH Sustainability Index Tool

Survey Type TWB-MRB

Kenya Tanzania

District/Support

Authority

District: 23

County: 1

District: 8

Ward: 26

Village: 8

Service Provider 24 37

Household 453 276

Table 12: Summary of field data collection activities for the assessment of iWASH using the WASH

Sustainability Index Tool

Survey Type iWASH

District/Support Authority

District: 8

Ward: 19

Village: 17

Service Provider 55

Household 360


Aguaconsult

page 22

28 March 2014

4.6 Scoring and Aggregation

The SIT is made up of sub-indicators that have a binary scoring (yes/no). In cases where multiple

individuals are asked the same question, an average number of “yes” scores were utilized. For

example, if 10 households were asked a question and 5 responses were coded as “yes” then the

response for that sub-indicator at the household level in that community was 50%.

If the sub-indicator had a secondary unit of analysis or second source of data (i.e. service provider),

then for each community the household scores are averaged and this value is then averaged with

the score from the secondary source. In the example provided, if the service provider sub-indicator

score was “yes” (i.e. 100%) then the 50% household score was averaged for a final score of 75%.

For a limited number of sub-indicators, quantitative data were collected. For example, households

were asked to estimate the quantity of water collected from a specific water point, or the amount of

time dedicated to water collection each day. In some cases this information was subsequently

coded into binary (yes/no) responses after digitization and in other cases it was used for

complimentary analyses (e.g. service level characterization, cost calculations).

Scores are presented to two levels, by community and general. For the community scores, sub-

indicators were averaged to obtain an indicator scores for each community (by intervention). These

indicator scores were subsequently averaged to the factor level (by intervention for each

community). These factor scores for each community were plotted, using radar diagrams when five

or more communities were presented, and bar charts if less than five communities were presented.

The average and median indicator scores across all communities were also presented in results

description in Section 5 and 6.

The general scores include the factor scores for each intervention type and the overall score which is

the composite of the factor scores for a given intervention. So for example there is an overall score

for CRS, WPS, and CHP but within each intervention there are 5 factor scores. The general factor

scores are calculated by aggregating (i.e. taking the average) of the average indicator scores across

communities. The intervention factor scores were presented using bar charts. The following

section, 4.7, provides insight into how the results should be interpreted.

4.7 Interpretation of the Results

In the context of this assessment, a higher Sustainability Index Score for any given factor signifies a

larger contribution to the sustainability of the intervention than a lower score for the same factor.

Similarly a lower indicator score means a lower contribution to the sustainability for that indicator.

However, all factors and indicators may not have equal influence on sustainability for any given

intervention. In addition, these indicators and factors do not exist in isolation, so scores for one

factor are related to and may influence scores for another factor or indicator. It is important to


Aguaconsult

page 23

28 March 2014

understand the context in which each intervention type is implemented in order to derive the

maximum understanding from the Sustainability Index Scores as they are presented. The

subsequent sections present the results and discuss implications for the sustainability of the services

provided by each intervention type.


Aguaconsult

page 24

28 March 2014

5. TWB-MRB Results

The following sections present the results of the assessment using the framework and methodology

of the SIT on the interventions completed in the TWB-MRB project in Kenya and Tanzania. The

results are organized by Intervention category (i.e. water, sanitation, and hygiene). Where

interventions were completed in both Kenyan and Tanzania, the results are presented in parallel. A

comparative presentation of the results and overall summary can be found in Annex 10.

Each sub-section (e.g. 5.1.1, 5.1.2) presents the results by sustainability factor (i.e. institutional,

management, financial, technical, and environment). Bar charts are used to present the overall

factor score by intervention type (i.e. average scores across all communities), and bar charts and

radar diagrams are used to show the factor scores disaggregated by community. A table is used to

show the indicator scores averaged across all communities in the sample. To see the sub-indicator

scores or indicator scores for each community, see the Excel files linked in Annex 5.

5.1 Intervention Category: Water

In the TWB-MRB project the water interventions included gravity-fed and pump water systems with

storage and distribution network to both public and in some cases private taps. These types of

systems are called community reticulated systems (CRS) and were implemented in both Kenya and

Tanzania. Section 5.1.1 presents the CRS results. In Kenya, where the depth to groundwater made

drilling boreholes cost prohibitive and high fluoride levels have associated health risks, a traditional

technology called a water pan system (WPS) was used. This uses involves the construction of a

storage pond to capture and hold rainwater. Section 5.1.2 presents the results of WPS. In Tanzania,

water sources were improved through various water source protection (WSP) technologies. These

results are presented in Section 5.1.3. The final intervention was rainwater harvesting systems

(RWH) which were installed in school, clinics, and dispensaries in both Kenya and Tanzania. The

results of RWH are presented in Section 5.1.4.

5.1.1 Intervention: Community Managed Reticulated Water Supply Systems (CRS)

Six communities were selected for CRS surveys in Kenya and two in Tanzania. Overall results are

present separately, with the Kenya results presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2 and the Tanzanian

results in Figure 3. With regard to the communities in Kenya; Murkan’s system was not yet

operational and therefore was excluded from the final analysis. The five remaining communities in

Kenya fall in two districts, Transmara East and West, and there was significant variation both within

and across districts. For the Kenyan communities the average factor scores are as follows: 77%

institutional; 54% management; 58% financial; 72% technical; and 37% for environment. The overall

sustainability index score for CRS across all locations is 59% (see Figure 1).


Aguaconsult

page 25

28 March 2014

Figure 1: Overall factor scores CRS TWB-MRB Kenya

Figure 2: Factor scores by community for the TWB-MRB Project in Kenya.


Aguaconsult

page 26

28 March 2014

Figure 3: Overall factor scores CRS TWB-MRB Tanzania


Aguaconsult

page 27

28 March 2014

Indicator Results: Community Reticulated Water Supply System (CRS) TWB-MRB Kenya

Table 13: TWB-MRB CRS Indicator scores (Kenya)

Weighting Water: Community Reticulated System Indicators (CRS) Kenya

20% Institutional 77%

20% Management 54%

20% Financial 54%

20% Technical 70%

20% Environmental 37%

100% Overall Sustainability Index Score 58%

REFERENCE Water: Community Reticulated System Indicators Kenya

WT-CRS-I-N1 National policy, norms and guidelines for community-managed water supply and

enabling legislation is in place 100%

WT-CRS-I-D1 Roles and responsibilities of district (service authority) and ownership

arrangements are clearly defined 88%

WT-CRS-I-S1 There is a water committee which has been constituted in line with national

norms and standards 42%

WT-CRS-M-N1 There is an updated national monitoring system or database available 72%

WT-CRS-M-N2 National support to district/service authority is provided, including refresher

training 50%

WT-CRS-M-D1 There is regular monitoring of water services and community management

service provider and follow-up support 33%

WT-CRS-M-S1 Representative water committee actively manages water point with clearly

defined roles and responsibilities 70%

WT-CRS-M-S2 Water committee members actively participate in committee meetings and

decision-making processes and reporting is transparent 47%

WT-CRS-F-N1 There are national/local mechanisms beyond community contributions and

tariffs, to meet life-cycle costs, while ensuring affordability, equity, and non-

discrimination 100%

WT-CRS-F-D1 Resources available for district/service authority to fulfill functions 25%

WT-CRS-F-S1 Tariff setting complies with national/local regulations, including social tariff 58%

WT-CRS-F-S2 Tariff collection is regular and sufficient 40%

WT-CRS-F-S3 The water committee demonstrates effective financial management and

accounting 46%

WT-CRS-T-N1 National/local norms exist that define acceptable service levels with explicit

indicators and thresholds (e.g. water quality, quantity, accessibility, and

affordability) 75%

WT-CRS-T-N2 There are national/local norms that define equipment standardization and

arrangements for providing spare parts 63%

WT-CRS-T-D1 The district water staff are able to provide support for maintenance and repairs

on request 70%

WT-CRS-T-S1 Standpipes/household connections (depending on system) are functional and

providing basic level of service according to national policy 60%

WT-CRS-T-S2 Water system complies with standards and norms in terms of infrastructure,

siting, and public health risk 90%

WT-CRS-T-S3 The knowledge and spare parts are available to conduct maintenance and

repairs in a timely manner 60%

WT-CRS-E-N1 National environmental protection standards are established and applied to

community reticulated systems 35%

WT-CRS-E-N2 National integrated water resources management plan is in place, updated

regularly, and applied to water supply service planning 25%

WT-CRS-E-D1 Local watershed management plan is in place, updated regularly, and applied to

water supply service planning 40%

WT-CRS-E-D2 Natural resources are managed to support sustainable water supply service

delivery 48%


Aguaconsult

page 28

28 March 2014

Results Commentary: Community Reticulated Water Supply System (CRS) TWB-MRB Kenya

Institutional indicator scores range from 0-100% with a median 83% (average indicator scores are: I-

N1: 100%, I-D1: 88% I-S1: 42%). National legislation supporting community management is in place

(I-N1: 100%), but under the new constitutional reform the roles and responsibilities of the

district/county support authorities is not generally understood by the service providers (I-D1d: 50%).

Only two of the four6 WUCs in operation (two of the five sample communities did not have WUCs)

are balanced with regard to gender (I-S1c) and none of the committees are legally recognized (I-

S1b).

Management indicator range from 0-87% with a median of 63% (average indicator scores are: M-

N1: 7%, M-N2: 50%, M-D1: 33%, M-S1:70%, M-S2: 47%). There is a national water system database

that is used to influence planning, but it is unclear how comprehensive it is and how often it is

updated and how many districts/counties feed information into the system (M-N1). In general,

monitoring systems are nascent country wide and stronger at the national level than at the district

level. Training of and follow-up to the district support authority could be improved in Transmara

West (M-N2 averages 42% in Transmara West and 63% in Transmara East). The district water offices

(DWOs) are only providing support in two communities (Dikirr (East) and Muyan (West)) and this

support is mainly for technical issues (M-D1:33%). At the service level, the management roles and

responsibilities are clear (M-S1a: 100%). Administrative, technical, and financial duties are carried

out, with some expected variation across communities.

Financial indicator scores range from 0-100%, with a median of 63% (average indicator scores are: F-

N1: 100%, F-D1: 25%, F-S1: 58%, F-S2: 40%, F-S3: 46%). At the national level, sector financing has

risen dramatically and is viewed as sufficient to meet the life-cycle costs (F-N1: 100%); however the

resources available at the decentralized level are quite different. The skills and qualifications of the

DWO officials are satisfactory (F-D1b: 83%), however the DWO cited inadequate staffing (F-D1a: 0%)

and an insufficient budget to support communities and service provision (F-D1c: 0%). This is

reinforced by the general perception in the communities that they are not supported after the

installation of hardware. In most communities, tariffs have been set (F-S1a: 83%), and take into

consideration the poorest in most cases (F-S1d: 67%) and are regularly collected (F-S2a: 83%).

However, the tariffs are not necessarily based on actual or projected costs and, with the exception

of Dikirr, are not sufficient to fully cover operations and maintenance (F-S1b: 67%).

Technical indicator scores range from 0-100%, with a median score of 75% (average indicator scores

are: FT-N1: 75%, T-N2: 63%, T-D1: 70%, T-S1: 60%, T-S2: 90%, T-S3: 60%). Except for a few aspects,

notably affordability, Kenya has clear standards and norms for service levels, equipment, and

6 In Mukondo there is both a WPS and CRS but they were managed by different entities. The WPS has a WUC while the CRS is part of the Upper Mogor Water Project which is managed by the WRUA based at Dikirr Centre. With regard to the CRS, Mukondo doesn’t have a local WUC or a community representative at the Dikirr WRUA. The CRS service provider survey responses were provided by the kiosk attendant who is an employee of the WRUA at Dikirr and is responsible for keeping financial records of the site and reporting to the WRUA if there are any issues with the system that need to be attended to. The WPS WUC is not involved in the running of the CRS in any way.


Aguaconsult

page 29

28 March 2014

infrastructure (T-N1 and N2a and b). However, these guidelines are not widely distributed or known

by district and local government officials (T-N2c: 50%). In the wake of the constitutional reform, the

roles and responsibilities with regard to monitoring and enforcement are not clear (T-N2d: 0%). All

district stakeholders feel able to provide technical support when requested, however only the

service providers in Dikirr and Muyan are in agreement that their District can support them (T-D1:

67%). Water service in the communities is below optimal in terms of accessibility with almost half of

the households travelling more than 1 kilometer or waiting more than an hour (T-S1c: 38%).

Reliability (T-S1d: 62%) scores are lower compared to those for water quantity and quality which are

the more consistent (T-S1a: 73% and S1b: 72%). Most systems comply with the technical standards

and norms (T-S2: 92%) although spare parts supply is highly variable in both Districts (T-S3: 67%).

Environmental indicators range from 0-83%, with a median of 36% (average indicator scores are: E-

N1: 35%, E-N2: 25%, E-D1: 40%, E-D2: 48%). Environmental scores are, in general, the lowest scores

for any factor. National environmental standards are as a whole not being applied (E-N1: 35%) and

water resource management planning does not appear to formally impact service delivery decision

making (E-N2: 25%). Although the water resource management plans, both national and local, may

be available (E-N2d: 75%, D1d: 25%), the water supply service authorities and service providers are

not integrated into the water resource management process. Monitoring is ad hoc at best (E-N2b:

8%) and is generally not used to update plans (E-N2c: 8%). However, service providers report

identifying some ecosystem related risks to drinking water (E-D2a: 21%) and taking steps to mitigate

these risks (E-D2b: 52%), including controlling water demand (E-D2c: 67%).


Aguaconsult

page 30

28 March 2014

Indicator Results: Community Reticulated Water Supply System (CRS) Serengeti District Tanzania

Table 14: TWB-MRB CRS Indicator scores (Tanzania)

Weighting Water: Community Reticulated System Indicators (CRS) Tanzania


20% Management 38%

20% Financial 31%

20% Technical 55%












training 25%









discrimination 25%





accounting 22%



affordability) 75%




on request 58%














delivery 63%


Aguaconsult

page 31

28 March 2014

Results Commentary: Community Reticulated Water Supply System (CRS) Serengeti District

Tanzania

Two communities targeted under TWB-MRB were selected in the Serengeti District of the Mara

region in Tanzania. These communities were Majimoto and Nyamakobiti. The overall SIT average

for this intervention in Tanzania was 50%.


N1: 63%, I-D1: 42% I-S1: 47%). A major gap appears to be that norms and standards for the

constitution and governance of community-based service providers are not set at national level (I-

N1b: 0%) and that roles and responsibilities for the service authority are not consistently written

down or accessible (I-D1b:0%). This suggests that the national policy framework is weaker in

Tanzania than in Kenya.

Management indicators range from 2-85% with a median of 40% (average indicator scores are: M-

N1: 50%, M-N2: 25%, M-D1: 40%, M-S1: 52%, M-S2: 44%). Little or no monitoring data is being

collected at a local level and passed up to national level (M-N1c: 0%), and any databases which exist

are incomprehensive and based on limited data (M-N1a: 50%). At district level, the service authority

is trained to support community water systems, but there is no follow up training or monitoring of

the effectiveness of the training. Regular monitoring of the CRS interventions does take place (M-

D1c: 75%) but this does not include periodic financial audit (M-D1d: 0%). Administrative duties at

community level are carried out but not systematically and the average score for this sub-indicator is

37% (M-S1c). While basic management roles and responsibilities are poorly defined in both

instances, there does appear to be more success in carrying them out in Majimoto as opposed to

Nyamakobiti. (M-S1b averages 87% in Majimoto and only 43% in Nyamakobiti). Both communities

score badly in relation to financial management (M-S1d: 9%), however Majimoto SP respondents

were able to show written technical and administrative records (M-S2: 85%).


N1: 25%, F-D1: 25%, F-S1: 50%, F-S2: 35%, F-S3: 22%). These scores illustrate a clear funding

constraint, especially at district level and in neither community are tariffs collected on a regular basis

(F-S2a: 0%). WUCs do not have bank accounts (F-S3b: 0%) and there is no collection efficiency data

(F-S2c: 4%), although income does appear to exceed expenditure on an annual basis in both

communities (F-S2b: 100%).


are: FT-N1: 75%, T-N2: 38%, T-D1: 58%, T-S1: 63%, T-S2: 63%, T-S3: 34%). National technical

guidelines are present, however these are not being translated into results on the ground in all cases

(T-N2: 38%). Nyamakobiti scored less well in terms of technical sub-indicator relating to both

component standardization (T-S2a: 0%), water quality (T-S1a: 47%) and reliability (WT-CRS-T-S1d:

55%). In terms of the availability of spare parts and maintenance, the community appears to be

under supplied and isolated in that respect, scoring 0% for indicator T-S3.


Aguaconsult

page 32

28 March 2014


N1: 88%, E-N2: 63%, E-D1: 66%, E-D2: 63%). Environmental indicators score well and are the highest

scoring factor across all indicators. National standards appear to be applied to CRS systems (E-N1:

88%) although the implementation of these standards is contested when responses from both

national and district informants are compared (E-N2a Do District water supply plans comply with the

national water resources management plans? scores only 25% in both communities). Data regarding

water use and hydrological data scores 50% which suggests that national and district responses on

whether the water resource management plan is regularly updated with up to date information

differ (E-N2c: 50%). Water supply plans do conform to local watershed management plans however,

and steps are taken to inform service providers and users (E-D1d: 81%). Ecosystem related risks to

quality appear to have been taken into account, although management via this risk identification

appears weak (WT-CRS-E-D2b: 0%). The steps being taken to control water demand is less clear (E-

D2c: 50%), although climate change related adaptive measures have been adopted in the

development of water supply services.


Aguaconsult

page 33

28 March 2014

5.1.2 Intervention: Water Pan Systems (WPS) Kenya

The average factor scores across all communities for WPS are 73% institutional; 28% management;

22% financial; 57% technical; and 34% environmental. (Sampling three communities - Kurito and

Tumpelian in Transmara West and Mogondo in Transmara East). The overall sustainability index

score for WPS is 43%. These results should be assessed with consideration of the smaller sample

size for this intervention type in Kenya, especially in relation to CRS, which shares many of the same

indicator and sub-indicator questions, although clear differences emerge across all indicator levels.

Figure 4: Overall factor scores WPS TWB-MRB Kenya


Aguaconsult

page 34

28 March 2014

Figure 5: Factor scores by community WPS Kenya


Aguaconsult

page 35

28 March 2014

Indicators Results: Water Pan System (WPS) Kenya

Table 15: Indicator Results (TWB MRB WPS Kenya)

Weighting Water: Water Pan System Indicators (WPS) Kenya


20% Management 28%

20% Financial 22%

20% Technical 57%



REFERENCE Water: Water Pan Systems Indicators Kenya

WT-WPS-I-N1 National policy, norms and guidelines for community-managed water pan

systems and enabling legislation is in place 100%

WT-WPS-I-D1 Roles and responsibilities of district (service authority) and ownership


WT-WPS-I-S1 There is a water user committee which has been constituted in line with national


WT-WPS-M-N1 There is an updated national monitoring system or database available 50%

WT-WPS-M-N2 National support to district/service authority is provided, including refresher

training 42%

WT-WPS-M-D1 There is regular monitoring and follow-up support provided to community-

managed water pan systems? 13%

WT-WPS-M-S1 Representative water user committee actively manages water pan system with

clearly defined roles and responsibilities 32%

WT-WPS-M-S2 Water user committee members actively participate in committee meetings and


WT-WPS-F-N1 There are national/local mechanisms beyond community contributions and


discrimination 25%

WT-WPS-F-D1 Resources available for district/service authority to fulfill functions 17%

WT-WPS-F-S1 Tariff setting complies with national/local regulations, including social tariff 42%

WT-WPS-F-S2 Tariff collection is regular and sufficient 17%

WT-WPS-F-S3 The water user committee demonstrates effective financial management and

accounting 8%

WT-WPS-T-N1 There are national/local norms that define acceptable service levels with explicit

indicators and thresholds (e.g. water quality, quantity, accessibility, affordablity,

etc.) 58%

WT-WPS-T-N2 There are national/local norms that define equipment standardization and


WT-WPS-T-D1 The district water staff are able to provide support for maintenance and repairs

on request 50%

WT-WPS-T-S1 Water pan system is functional and provides basic level of service according to

national policy 62%

WT-WPS-T-S2 Water pan system (including distribution system and acccess points) complies

with standards and norms in terms of design and conditions 78%

WT-WPS-T-S3 The knowledge and spare parts are available to conduct maintenance and


WT-WPS-E-N1 National environmental protection standards are established and applied to


WT-WPS-E-N2 National integrated water resources management plan is in place, updated


WT-WPS-E-D1 Local watershed management plan is in place, updated regularly, and applied to


WT-WPS-E-D2 Natural resources are managed to support sustainable water supply service

delivery 8%


Aguaconsult

page 36

28 March 2014

Results Commentary: Water Pan Systems (WPS) Kenya

Institutional indicator scores range from 32-100% with a median 81% (average I-N1: 100%, I-D1:

83% I-S1: 36%). National indicator scores were higher than at the district levels. WUCs are not

registered with the Ministry of Social Services (i.e. licensed) (I-S1b:0%) and are not constituted in line

with standards with regard to gender balance (I-S1c: 0%). In Transmara West (Kurito and Tumpelian)

the majority of households did not know that a WUC existed in the village, which suggests that

general participation, interest, or access to WUC activities is very limited. Awareness of the DWO’s

role and function is also very limited (I-D1d: 33%).

Management indicators range from 0-63% with a median of 31% (average M-N1: 50%, M-N2: 42%,

M-D1: 13%, M-S1: 32%, M-S2: 2%). WPSs are not supported by national monitoring systems and the

national government’s training to DWOs is infrequent (M-N2c: 17%) and is not evaluated for

effectiveness (M-N2d: 0%). District water officers (DWOs) in turn do not visit communities or

monitor the management of WPS with any regularity (M-D1: 13%). Clarity of management roles and

responsibilities was low (M-S1: 32%), with communities more likely to perform their technical

functions. In Transmara West, the financial management, auditing, DWO monitoring and

transparency sub-indicators all scored zero, with the overall indicator (M-D1) scoring an average of

13% across all three communities. Community participation levels are further confirmed to be poor,

with a score of only 2% in indicator (M-S2).


N1: 25%, F-D1: 17%, F-S1: 42%, F-S2: 17%, F-S3: 8%). There is no national budget supporting WPS (F-

N1a: 0%) and there are not sufficient resources available for Districts to support WPS (F-D1: 17%).

With exception of Kurito, tariffs have not been set following national guidelines or considering life-

cycle costs (F-S1: 42%). Tariffs are not collected on a regular basis and are insufficient to cover

operating expenses in the other communities (F-S2: 17%). In general, the WUCs are not effectively

managing their systems in financial terms (F-S3: 8%).


are: FT-N1: 58%, T-N2: 63%, T-D1: 50%, T-S1: 62%, T-S2: 78%, T-S3: 35%). Technical indicators for

WPS were relatively higher than for the other factors. Standards and norms exist at national level

(T-N1: 58%), however they are not disseminated (T-N2c: 50%) and the roles and responsibilities with

regard to monitoring and enforcement are not clear (T-N2d: 0%). In all cases the DWO said they are

able to provide support to service providers upon request, but for the same question the service

providers said that DWO does not provide support, hence T-D1a scores 50%. The perceptions of

service levels were lowest for water quality (T-S1a: 33%) and highest for water quantity (T-S1b:

96%). Accessibility was an issue in Mogondo where the water pan is located very far away from the

households. In Kurito, the community members are satisfied with the system, which has a pump

and provides water at a kiosk from 6am to 6pm. The service of this system is due to two dedicated

members of the WUC who troubleshoot problems, although in none of the communities were there

statutes or by-laws stipulating acceptable repair times and in all communities repairs were thought

to take an unacceptably long time (T-S3d: 39%).


Aguaconsult

page 37

28 March 2014


N1: 71%, E-N2: 25%, E-D1: 33%, E-D2: 8%). There is a significant difference in scores between

Transmara East and West, similar to CRS. National environmental protection standards exist

however the coordination and participation decreases as you move from the national level to the

decentralized level and into the village. Indicator scores at the national level are higher than those

for the service provider (SP) level (indicator E-N1: 71% whereas E-D1 scores 33% and E-D2 scores 8%.

There appears to be little SP level involvement in formal environmental issues, and a water

management plan was not felt to have been developed or shared (E-D1b: 17% and E-D1d: 17%) with

the community, though it is publicly available according to national and district level responses.

There is limited evidence of some water demand control activities (E-D2c: 17%) and that an amount

of water resource data is being passed up to the national level (E-N2b: 17%) by Transmara West

though these activities are restricted by resources. The district responses indicated that they had

little option but to concentrate on immediate matters of coverage and functionality, and that overall

planning which could take into account environmental issues lay largely outside their remit. There

was anecdotal evidence of awareness of the impact of climate change and increasing water scarcity

during the summer months.


Aguaconsult

page 38

28 March 2014

5.1.3 Intervention: Water Source Protection (WSP) Serengeti District Tanzania

The WSP communities sampled were located exclusively in the Serengeti District in the Mara Region

of Tanzania (Nyamatare, Itununu and Ngalawani), and the overall Sustainability Index Score for WSP

interventions is 56%, with a range of individual indicator scores from 13% to 100%. Institutional and

management indicators average 60% and 49% respectively, financial scores lower at 33%, with

improving technical averages of 66% and environmental, the highest overall indicator score in this

instance, averaging 70%.

Figure 6: Overall factor scores TWB-MRB WSP Tanzania


Aguaconsult

page 39

28 March 2014

Figure 7: Factor scores by community (TWB-MRB WSP)


Aguaconsult

page 40

28 March 2014

Indicators Results: Water Source Protection (WSP) Tanzania

Table 16: Indicator Results TWB-MRB WPS (TZ)

Weighting Water: Water Source Protection Indicators Tanzania


20% Management 49%

20% Financial 33%

20% Technical 66%



REFERENCE Sanitation: Institutional Saniation Indicators Kenya

WT-WSP-I-N1 National policy, norms and guidelines for community-managed water supply and

enabling legislation is in place

50%

WT-WSP-I-D1 Roles and responsibilities of district (service authority) and ownership

arrangements are clearly defined

76%

WT-WSP-I-S1 There is a water committee which has been constituted in line with national

norms and standards

54%

WT-WSP-M-N1 There is an updated national monitoring system or database available 50%

WT-WSP-M-N2 National support to district/service authority is provided, including refresher

training

25%

WT-WSP-M-D1 There is regular monitoring of water services and community management

service provider and follow-up support

61%

WT-WSP-M-S1 Representative water committee actively manages water source with clearly

defined roles and responsibilities

72%

WT-WSP-M-S2 Water committee members actively participate in committee meetings and

decision-making processes and reporting is transparent

38%

WT-WSP-F-N1 There are national/local mechanisms beyond community contributions and


discrimination

25%

WT-WSP-F-D1 Resources available for district/service authority to fulfill functions 25%

WT-WSP-F-S1 Tariff setting complies with national/local regulations, including social tariff 48%

WT-WSP-F-S2 Tariff collection is regular and sufficient 42%

WT-WSP-F-S3 The water committee demonstrates effective financial management and

accounting

23%

WT-WSP-T-N1 National/local norms exist that define acceptable service levels with explicit


affordability)

75%

WT-WSP-T-N2 There are national/local norms for the design and construction of water source

protection/water system intake infrastructure.

13%

WT-WSP-T-D1 The district water staff are able to provide support for maintenance and repairs

on request

94%

WT-WSP-T-S2 Water intake structure complies with standards and norms in terms of design

and conditions

100%

WT-WSP-T-S3 Service provide has the capacity and is performing necessary maintenance and

repairs of water intake structure and surrouding area

46%

WT-WSP-E-N1 National environmental protection standards are established and applied to

water source protection/water system intake infrastructure

88%

WT-WSP-E-N2 National integrated water resources management plan is in place, updated

regularly, and applied to water supply service planning

63%

WT-WSP-E-D1 Local watershed management plan is in place, updated regularly, and applied to

water supply service planning

75%

WT-WSP-E-D2 Natural resources are managed to support sustainable water supply service

delivery

56%


Aguaconsult

page 41

28 March 2014

Results Commentary: Water Source Protection (WSP) Tanzania

Institutional indicator scores range from 49-79% with a median 52% (average I-N1: 50%, I-D1: 76% I-

S1: 54%). Policies are in place nationally (I-N1a: 100%) though these are not being translated into

local norms and standards for Service Providers, and although legislation to give them legal standing

does exist, there is no national registry, and indicator I-N1 scores only 50% overall. Roles and

responsibilities for service authorities are formalized; however, they are not well documented or

well understood by the service providers (I-D1d: 56%). The composition of WUCs varies and is not in

line with national norms and standards in most cases, as does the perception whether they were

elected democratically or not. Gender representation on water management committees (sub-

indicator I-S1c) scores zero across all communities.7

Management indicators range from 3-80% with a median of 50% (average M-N1: 50%, M-N2: 25%,

M-D1: 61%, M-S1: 72%, M-S2: 38%). National monitoring and database indicator responses at

national level (M-N1) score 50% and there are no district level data being regularly sent back to the

national level. Training provided to the service authority by national providers scores a low 25% (M-

N2), and this appears to be a significant weakness. Service Provider monitoring by the District

authorities scores better however, averaging 61%. District monitoring of service providers is not

only more frequent than national monitoring of the district authorities, but more frequently this

monitoring (District over Service Providers) leads to support (e.g. technical assistance) (M-D1b).

Financial auditing is not uniform however (M-D1d: 17%). Roles and responsibilities are well defined

at WUC level and technical responsibilities score 100% (M-S1b). Administrative duties are weaker,

M-S1c averaging 61%, but this includes financial management responsibilities. Frequency of

meetings varies between communities, though there is record keeping and sharing in two out of

three communities sampled.


N1: 25%, F-D1: 25%, F-S1: 48%, F-S2: 42%, F-S3: 23%). District level funding and capacities are all

deemed inadequate by respondents (F-N1 and F-D1 both averages 25%) with few mechanisms

available to fill financing gaps. Tariffs are set but collection is irregular between communities and

targets are not set. Financial management scores (F-S3) vary from between 0% and 44%, indicating

that there is little best practice in this area.

Technical indicator scores range from 13-100% with a median score of 75% (average indicator scores

are: FT-N1: 75%, T-N2: 13%, T-D1: 94%, T-S2: 100%, T-S3: 46%). Service levels are well defined at the

national level (T-N1: 75%) though there is no norm for affordability (T-N1d: 0%). Design norms fare

badly at the national level (T-N2: 13%) but ability of District level staff to provide support appears to

be resilient even in the face of funding constraints (T-D1: 94%) and actual design of systems scores

well (T-S2: 100%). Service Provider skills and capacities are weaker on the ground (T-S3: 46%) and

7 Scoring for this sub-indicator was as follows: 100% if there was a gender balance on the committee, 50% if

there was representation by women such that 2 individuals less than a 50/50 split, and 0% if there was less than representation than that.


Aguaconsult

page 42

28 March 2014

time taken to carry out repair does not fall within local or national expectations of householders (T-

S3d: 50%).


N1: 88%, E-N2: 63%, E-D1: 75%, E-D2: 56%). Indicator E-N1 - National environmental protection

standards are established and applied to water source protection/water system intake infrastructure

– averages 88%, although sub-indicator E-N1d scores only 50%, again suggesting that dissemination

and availability of these standards is a potential problem. E-N2 averages 63% and according to

respondents, District Water supply plans do not comply with national resource management plans.

Monitoring data are collected at least annually and there are processes to disseminate these plans

to the District level (E-N2d: 75%). E-D1 - Local watershed management plan is in place, updated

regularly, and applied to water supply service planning – averages 75% although a weak point

appears to be revision and updating of data including river flows, ground water levels and other

relevant water resource information (E-D1c: 0%). Potential climate changed related risks to the

water resources in Tanzania have not been adequately analyzed or addressed (E-D2b: 0%)


Aguaconsult

page 43

28 March 2014

5.1.4 Intervention: institutional rainwater harvesting (RWH)

Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) Kenya

RWH interventions were situated in the following schools: Ilkerin, Kabolecho, Kapsasian, Murkan

(Transmara East) and Olmeoshi (West) and the overall SIT score was 59%. The average institutional

factor score was 83%, management scored 63%, finance 17%, and technical scored 73%. No stand

alone environmental indicators were assessed, save for those issues captured by the technical

indicator questions.

Figure 8: Overall factor scores TWB-MRB RWH Kenya


Aguaconsult

page 44

28 March 2014

Figure 9: Factor scores by community (TWB-MRB RWH Kenya)


Aguaconsult

page 45

28 March 2014

Indicator Results Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) Kenya

Table 17: RWH Indicator scores (KE)

Indicator Results Commentary Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) Kenya

Institutional indicator scores range from 67-100% with a median 83% (average indicator scores are:

I-D1: 100% I-S1: 67%). Roles and responsibilities are clear at National and District levels, with DWO

officials taking RWH issues into their remit. Although district stakeholders (water and education

offices) both said that schools were responsible for upkeep and operation of the RWH infrastructure,

this is poorly understood by the school administrators and teachers who view it as the government

or donors responsibility (I-S1: 67%).

Management indicators range from 0-100% with a median of 63% (average M-N1: 80%, M-D1: 58%,

M-S1: 50%). Local government agents are trained by national actors to support RWH technology (M-

N1: 80%), however support provided by local governments to schools was less prevalent (M-D1a:

40%). Evidence of active management of the systems was low (M-S1: 50%) which could be because

Weighting Water: Rain Water Harvesting Indicators (RWH) Kenya


25% Management 63%

25% Financial 17%

25% Technical 73%


REFERENCE Water: Rainwater Harvesting Indicators Kenya (RWH)

WT-RWH-I-D1 Roles and responsibilities of district (service authority) and ownership


100%

WT-RWH-I-S1 Roles and responsibilities of the service provider are clearly defined. 67%

WT-RWH-M-N1 National support to local government / other support institutions is provided and

appropriate

80%

WT-RWH-M-D1 Support to schools/institutions in upkeep of rainwater harvesting system is

available as needed

58%

WT-RWH-M-S1 Service provider actively manages rainwater harvesting system 50%

WT-RWH-F-N1 There are national/district mechanisms to meet full life-cycle costs, beyond the

school/institution's budget

0%

WT-RWH-F-S1

School/Institution has the ability to meet long-term operational, minor

maintenance and capital maintenance expenditures

34%

WT-RWH-T-N1 There are national/local norms that define acceptable service levels with explicit

indicators and thresholds (e.g. water quality, quantity, crowding, accessibility)

100%

WT-RWH-T-N2 There are national/local norms that define equipment standardization and design

criteria specific to rainwater harvesting?

63%

WT-RWH-T-S1 Rainwater havesting system is functional and provides basic level of service

according to national policy

40%

WT-RWH-T-S2 Rainwater catchment surface complies with standards with regard to public

health risk

93%

WT-RWH-T-S3 Rainwater storage container and collection area comply with standards with

regard to public health risk

70%


Aguaconsult

page 46

28 March 2014

the survey took place at the end of an exceptionally long dry season and none of the tanks were in

active use.


N1: 0%, F-S1: 34%). Financial indicators were the lowest of all factors. No funds are specifically

designated for RWH infrastructure (capital or recurrent). Funding for repairs is taken from school

budgets on an ad hoc basis, and the process for soliciting and distributing these funds was not clear

(F-N1 scored zero in all cases). Schools rely on their infrastructure budgets and money collected

from students resulting in mixed scores across the communities (F-S1: 34%).

Technical indicator scores range from 25-100%, with a median score of 75% (average indicator

scores are: FT-N1: 100%, T-N2: 63%, T-S1: 40%, T-S2: 93%, T-S3: 70%). National guidelines and

norms with regard to service levels in schools are clear (T-N1: 100%) and guidance on design and

equipment standardization is present but poorly disseminated (T-N2: 63%). The latter score is

further brought down by poor dissemination and definition of roles and responsibilities.

Functionality against these guidelines and norms was weak in the communities visited (T-S1: 40%).

Quality and quantity of service were felt to be insufficient, and there was greater demand than the

systems could supply. The condition and location of the systems and catchment areas themselves

were largely good however (T-S2: 93%). Public health risks with regard to the catchment surface and

storage container were minimal (T-S3: 80%) though drainage at the distribution point (i.e. tapstand)

was poor (T-S3c: 10%).


Aguaconsult

page 47

28 March 2014

Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) Tanzania

Institutional RWHs were assessed in the following community schools in the Serengeti - Itununu,

Kitunguruma, Mbalibali, Nyamakendo and Ringwani. Indicator scores ranged from zero to 76% and

the overall indicator score of Tanzanian RWH in the TWB-MRB project was 37% (significantly lower

than in Kenya at 59%). Institutional scored 51%, management 42%, financial 2%, and technical 55%.

Here, as in Kenya, no standalone environmental indicators were assessed, save those elements

covered by the technical indicators.

Figure 10: Overall factor scores TWB-MRB RWH Tanzania


Aguaconsult

page 48

28 March 2014

Figure 11: Factor scores by community (TWB-MRB RWH TZ)


Aguaconsult

page 49

28 March 2014

Indicator Results Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) Tanzania

Table 18: RWH Indicator scores (Tanzania)

Results Commentary: Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) Tanzania


D1: 76% I-S1: 26%). Roles and responsibilities at the district level were fairly well defined (I-D1).

Few communities averaged 100% in sub-indicator responses however, except for Ringwani, which

scored 100% for all. Roles and responsibilities at SP level were poorly defined (I-S1: 26%) and in only

one school (Itununu) was a dedicated person identified who was responsible for the system.

Management indicator range from 0-67% with a median of 50% (average indicator scores are: M-

N1: 40%, M-D1: 35%, M-S1: 50%). Some schools had received government training in how to

maintain their systems, but this support appears to be in inconsistent (M-N1a: 60%) and the finances

and resources available to carry out this responsibility are thought to be insufficient across the board

(M-N1b: 20%). Respondents were aware of who to contact at district level in the case of a request

for support, but support response time fell outside of a week in all cases and actual solicitation was

Weighting Water: Rain Water Harvesting Indicators (RWH) Tanzania


25% Management 42%

25% Financial 2%

25% Technical 55%


REFERENCE Water: Rainwater Harvesting Indicators Kenya (RWH)

WT-RWH-I-D1 Roles and responsibilities of district (service authority) and ownership


76%

WT-RWH-I-S1 Roles and responsibilities of the service provider are clearly defined. 26%

WT-RWH-M-N1 National support to local government / other support institutions is provided and

appropriate

40%

WT-RWH-M-D1 Support to schools/institutions in upkeep of rainwater harvesting system is

available as needed

35%

WT-RWH-M-S1 Service provider actively manages rainwater harvesting system 50%

WT-RWH-F-N1 There are national/district mechanisms to meet full life-cycle costs, beyond the


0%

WT-RWH-F-S1

School/Institution has the ability to meet long-term operational, minor


4%

WT-RWH-T-N1 There are national/local norms that define acceptable service levels with explicit

indicators and thresholds (e.g. water quality, quantity, crowding, accessibility)

64%

WT-RWH-T-N2 There are national/local norms that define equipment standardization and design

criteria specific to rainwater harvesting?

38%

WT-RWH-T-S1 Rainwater havesting system is functional and provides basic level of service

according to national policy

46%

WT-RWH-T-S2 Rainwater catchment surface complies with standards with regard to public

health risk

71%

WT-RWH-T-S3 Rainwater storage container and collection area comply with standards with

regard to public health risk

55%


Aguaconsult

page 50

28 March 2014

correspondingly low (M-D1d: 19%). Service Provider responsibilities were better defined (M-S1b:

70%) although administrative responsibilities were not carried out.

Financial indicator scores range from 0-8%, with a median of 0% (average indicator scores are: F-N1:

0%, F-S1: 4%). Financial Indicators score very low. This includes a lack of planning and sufficient

financing for the maintenance and repair of the system.


are: T-N1: 64%, T-N2: 38%, T-S1: 46%, T-S2: 71%, T-S3: 55%). Technical indicators ranged from 68%

in Mbalibali to 34% Ringwani. Knowledge of national norms for water quality, quantity, crowding,

and accessibility are inconsistent across district level respondents, with T-N1 averaging only 64%.

Norms that define equipment standardization and design criteria specific to rainwater harvesting are

weaker, averaging 38% (indicator T-N2) with roles and responsibilities regarding monitoring

particularly weak (sub-indicator T-N2d: 0%). Water quality appears mixed across systems (T-S1a

ranging from 100% Ringwani to 0% in Itununu). In all, quantity is deemed insufficient however and

issues of overcrowding are pronounced (T-S1c averages 0%). Encouragingly, T-S2 - Rainwater

catchment surface complies with standards with regard to public health risk sores a high 71%;

though the system in Ringwani is weak (T-S2 averages 33% there) and scores 0% for T-S3. Other

systems score better, and T-S3 averages 55%, although individual system performance varies.

5.1.5 Intervention: Community Hand Pumps (CHP)

Only one community in the TWB-MRB sample had a community hand pump intervention. The

community, Mbalibali, is located in the Serengeti District in Tanzania. In this community there was

one borehole (Kemchina) which was selected to be rehabilitated. The damaged pump was replaced

and a concrete apron was constructed along with perimeter fencing. Because this was a one-off

activity and is not representative of the scale of the overall activities under TWB-MRB, full discussion

of the results is not warranted. The indicator scores can be found in Annex 5 along with the CHP

results from the iWASH program.


Aguaconsult

page 51

28 March 2014

5.2 Intervention Category: Sanitation

In TWB-MRB, sanitation interventions included ventilated improved pit latrines and pit latrines

constructed at school, clinics, and dispensaries (i.e. institutional sanitation facilities (INS) and

household sanitation facilities (HHS)). HHS and INS interventions were found in Tanzania, while in

Kenya only INS was done. Section 5.2.1 presents the results for INS in both Kenya and Tanzania and

Section 5.2.2 presents the results for HHS in Tanzania.

5.2.1 Intervention: Institutional Sanitation (INS)

Institutional Sanitation Facilities (INS) Kenya

INS scored an average of 68% across institutional factors and 48% across management, dropping

slightly to 41% average in financial indicators, with a score of 53% in technical and a low of 38% in

environmental responses. The overall sustainability index score was 48%.

Figure 12: Overall factor scores TWB MRB INS (Kenya)


Aguaconsult

page 52

28 March 2014

Figure 13: Factor scores by Community TWB MRB INS (Kenya)


Aguaconsult

page 53

28 March 2014

Institutional Sanitation Facilities (INS) Kenya

Table 19: INS Indicator scores (Kenya)

Results Commentary: Institutional Sanitation Facilities (INS) Kenya

Institutional indicator scores range from 17-100% with a median 88% (average indicator scores are:

I-N1: 88%, I-D1: 98%, I-D2: 23%). Responses from national and district level informants (both the

DOE and DPHO) illustrate clear roles and responsibilities for schools. All indicators regarding

responsibilities and mandate scored 100%. Clear weaknesses emerge in relation to de-sludging,

however, monitoring and compliance (I-D2c) and illegal dumping (I-D2d) scored zero across both

districts and there was also no clear picture on requirements for licensing and training at national or

Weighting Sanitation: Institutional Sanitation Indicators (INS) Kenya


20% Management 47%

20% Financial 41%

20% Technical 52%




SN-INS-I-N1 There is an institution that is dedicated to sanitation policy and has presence at

the national level, with clear institutional mandates at all levels and coordination

between related ministries

88%

SN-INS-I-D1 District/support institutions have clear roles and responsibilities for supporting

service providers of school and institutional sanitation

98%

SN-INS-I-D2 There are licensed and regulated septage haulers/desludgers 23%

SN-INS-M-N1 National support to local government / other support institutions is provided and

appropriate

36%

SN-INS-M-D1 Monitoring of sanitation facility use and maintenance and follow-up support

provided by district/other support institution

55%

SN-INS-M-D2 Support to schools/institutions in upkeep of sanitation facilities is available as

needed

37%

SN-INS-M-S1 School/institution understands responsibilities for operation and maintenance

including pit-emptying/desludging and has capacity to manage this

61%

SN-INS-F-N1 There are national/district mechanisms to meet full life-cycle costs, beyond the


50%

SN-INS-F-S1 School/Institution has the ability to meet long-term operational, minor


32%

SN-INS-T-D1 Goods and services for maintenance, repair and the emptying of pits for

school/institutional sanitation facilities are available and accessible at the

district level

49%

SN-INS-T-S1 Sanitation facilities are constructed in-line with design criteria needed for long-

term and safe use.

57%

SN-INS-T-S2 Environmental health risk guidelines exist and are followed 76%

SN-INS-T-S3 Sanitation facilities are readily usable by students/users in terms of distance

form institution and number of people sharing them

43%

SN-INS-T-S4 Sanitation facilities are well-maintained and are being used 36%

SN-INS-E-N1 National environmental protection standards are established and applied to

institutional sanitaiton services

69%

SN-INS-E-N2 National integrated water resources management plan is in place, updated

regularly, and applied to sanitation services planning

16%

SN-INS-E-D1 Natural resources are managed to support sustainable sanitation service delivery 0%


Aguaconsult

page 54

28 March 2014

district level (I-D2a: 45% and I-D2b: 45%). Un-licensed ‘honey suckers’ (in the words of one

respondent) appear to operate freely in both districts. Respondents also felt that effective

coordination between related ministries was capable of improvement (I-N1d: 50%).


N1: 36%, M-D1: 55%, M-D2: 37%, M-S1: 61%). Training to local government occurs (M-N1a: 90%)

though is not routine (M-N1c: 0%) and does not sufficiently target behavior change communication

principles (M-N1b: 55%). Overall, the training regime appeared stronger in Transmara East. The

resources provided to local governments to support school sanitation was low, which was

triangulated by stakeholders at the district and national level (M-N1d: 0%). The district offices are

understaffed—in Kirindon division (located in Transmara West district) there are just 3 PHOs while in

the entire Transmara East district there are a total of 9 PHOs. This limits their capacity to effectively

monitor sanitation at institutions and hygiene promotion activities in the communities. All district

level respondents replied that regular monitoring took place (M-D1a: 100%), although school

administrators (i.e. the service providers) cast doubt on the regularity of this practice and there is no

reliable pattern between districts (M-D1b: 33%). Both D and SP respondents state that district level

support is genuinely limited with regards to school sanitation, especially in relation to maintenance

assistance (M-D2a) which scored zero across all communities. Consumables must be provided by

students (M-S1c: 0%), and there are no secure funding sources. In addition, there are no funds

specifically designated for the maintenance, repair, or rehabilitation of sanitation facilities and

therefore the money must come out of the general facilities budget. Schools can also turn to

development partners or the association of parents (though in the latter case, the ability of parents

to contribute is highly variable and seasonal dependent). Most school administrators said that full

latrines would be decommissioned and a new facility constructed, as desludging services were either

prohibitively expensive at 30,000 KSh (US$350 in one case) or informal and a public health risk.


N1: 50%, F-S1: 32%). Clarity regarding the processes for soliciting and allocating funding for school

sanitation is differentiated between national and SP level. As described above, the funding

environment for schools beyond basic running costs is not uniform. There is also variation in

response to whether funds for sanitation are available, comparing positive responses (F-N1a: 100%)

at the national level to negative responses (F-S1a: 14%) at SP level (which imply almost universally

that schools do not have sufficient consumable supplies). School teachers are aware of the need

and cost of operation and maintenance for latrine facilities (F-S1b: 86%), but in almost all cases are

unable to allocate sufficient funds (F-S1c: 14%). Any such funds are not being ring-fenced from

general operating costs (F-S1d: 14%) in all but one instance, Ilkerin (which was the highest scoring

school overall and especially with regard to financing indicators).


are: T-D1: 49%, T-S1: 57%, T-S2: 76%, T-S3: 43%, T-S4: 36%). Technical indicator scores confirm the

lack of funding and its subsequent impact on the functional sustainability of the services. Facilities

are on the whole properly sited and designed with the exception of those facilities in Kapsasian,

Kabolecho, and Murkan which do not account for special needs users. Consumables and equipment


Aguaconsult

page 55

28 March 2014

are uniformly regarded as being available (T-D1a: 77%) but not affordable (T-D1b: 5%). The majority

of the latrines observed were in poor condition and unclean (T-S4: 36%) and there were few

verifiable cleaning schedules or regular replenishment of cleansing material. Usage was reportedly

high (T-S4a: 86%) but overcrowding and sufficient facilities for girls was a universal concern (T-S3c:

14%). Local norms (though in existence) were not being achieved in relation to crowding criteria (T-

S3b: 14%).

Environmental indicator scores range from 0-71%, with a median score of 19% (average indicator

scores are: E-N1: 69%, E-N2: 16%, E-D1: 0%). National standards with regard to design, sizing, and

siting of sanitation facilities exist but are not widely disseminated (E-N1: 69%). Aside from the

indicator responses relating to these issues at national level only, the remaining environmental

scores are very low with respect to INS. There is evidence that some monitoring data are being fed

back into national monitoring systems, both via school inspections carried out by the DOE and by

public health officials working for the PHO, though this communication is patchy at best (E-N2b

averaged 36%). There is little formal integration of the national water resources management plan

with stand alone INS interventions situated in schools. School latrines are, as currently conceived

and operated, seen as part of the general school administration, and beyond basic siting (which

appears to conform to general best practices) there is little subsequent activity or decision making

relating to natural resource management policy (E-D1:0%). Accordingly, de-sludging and cleaning

are carried out on an ad hoc basis in a financially constrained rather than environmentally focused

marketplace.


Aguaconsult

page 56

28 March 2014

Institutional Sanitation Facilities (INS) Tanzania

Nine schools were selected as sample points in Serengeti district – Itununu, Manyata, Nyamakendo,

Nyamakobiti, Kitunguruma, Mbalibali, Nyamatare, Nyamoko, and Ngarawani. The overall INS

indicator score was 37%. Institutional scores 41%, management 59%, financial 15%, technical 42%,

and environmental 29%.

Figure 14: Overall factor scores TWB MRB INS (Tanzania)


Aguaconsult

page 57

28 March 2014

Figure 15: Overall factor scores TWB MRB INS by community (Tanzania)


Aguaconsult

page 58

28 March 2014

Indicator Results: Institutional Sanitation Facilities (INS) Tanzania

Table 20: INS Indicator scores (Tanzania)

Weighting Sanitation: Institutional Sanitation Indicators (INS) Tanzania


20% Management 59%

20% Financial 15%

20% Technical 42%







50%



62%



appropriate

52%



64%


needed

56%



65%



17%



13%



district level

31%


term and safe use.

38%




42%




63%



15%



Aguaconsult

page 59

28 March 2014

Results Commentary: Institutional Sanitation Facilities (INS) Tanzania


N1: 50%, I-D1: 62%, I-D2: 13%). National policy is weaker regarding INS systems and less well

defined in Tanzania than in Kenya, and clear institutional mandates score poorly (I-N1c: 25%) as does

effective coordination between ministries (I-N1d: 25%) and I-N1 averages only 50% overall. At

district level, the institutional indicators average 62% although there is no dedicated sanitation

support staff (I-D1a: 31%). Licensing for sludge handling and haulers is again a weak spot

institutionally (I-D2: 13%).


N1: 52%, M-D1: 64%, M-D2: 56%, M-S1: 65%). Local staff is trained to support schools in most

instances, although this is not uniform and financial and human resources to bolster this element of

sustainable practice are missing (M-N1d: 20%). Monitoring of the facilities is more successful, and

M-D1 - Monitoring of sanitation facility use and maintenance and follow-up support provided by

district/other support institution scores 64%, although support to Service Providers after monitoring

is a weak spot (M-D1c: 40%) although monitoring does go on to inform future planning at the district

level. (M-D1d: 83%). The availability of support on request varies between institutions, ranging from

88% to 50% for M-D2d - Has support been solicited and received? Clarity regarding pit emptying and

supply of consumables is mixed across institutions, with sub-indicator responses ranging from 0% to

100% (M-S1b). In only one school was a dedicated committee or administrative body responsible for

the upkeep of the facilities (Majimoto) although the average sub indicator response was 70%, which

suggests roles are being designated informally.


N1: 17%, F-S1: 13%). These demonstrate that funding is clearly a major problem. The SIT reveals (F-

N1: 17%) that there are no ‘national/district mechanisms to meet full life-cycle costs, beyond the

school/institution's budget’ and the lack of funding from national level is further confirmed. In only

two instances (Nyamoko and Geitasamo) did the schools score above zero for indicator question F-

S1a - Does the school/institution have sufficient consumable supplies (anal cleansing material,

cleaning supplies, etc.)?


are: T-D1: 31%, T-S1: 38%, T-S2: 49%, T-S3: 42%, T-S4: 50%). Cleaning supplies as well as personal

hygiene consumable supplies are available but are felt to be unaffordable for the school to provide

(T-D1b and T-D1c). Private sector services are on offer, but are also felt to be unaffordable (T-D1d:

17%). Construction related indicators are low scoring, with T-S1 averaging only 38%. There are

apparently very few specific measures which consider special needs such as menstrual hygiene or

access for the disabled (T-S1d: 8%). In general the facilities vary widely in respect to whether they

meet national/local standards, such as hygienic condition (e.g. presence of fecal matter on floor and

walls, flies, used anal cleansing material present and uncontained) and T-S2 scores 49%. Siting of

facilities was appropriate, however, beyond that basic criteria, the condition of facilities was found


Aguaconsult

page 60

28 March 2014

to be poor (T-S3: 42%) and overcrowding is a significant concern (T-S3b: 17%). The frequency of

cleaning between communities varied significantly (T-S4 - Sanitation facilities are well-maintained

and are being used- averages 50%).


scores are: E-N1: 63%, E-N2: 15%, E-D1: 8%). National policies are in place, but are poorly

disseminated (E-N1: 63%) and district sanitation and water treatment plans do not comply with

national management plans (E-N2a: 0%). There is some monitoring of sanitation and wastewater

data that is integrated into national databases (E-N2c: 4%). Indicator E-D1 - Natural resources are

managed to support sustainable sanitation service delivery – scores 8%.

5.2.2 Intervention: Household Sanitation Facilities (HHS)

Household Sanitation Facilities (INS) Tanzania

HHS interventions only occurred8 in the Tanzanian element of the TWB-MRB project, in the Mara

Region – Nyamatare, Nyamatare Sang'anga, Machochwe, Machochwe Kichongo, Nyamoko, and

Nyamoko Madukani. The data presented in the SIT came from 6 sample communities across this

region. The overall SIT score was 44%. Institutional indicators averaged 58%, management

averaged 46%, financial 36%, technical 38%, and environmental 42%.

8 In the iWASH program latrine masons were trained and demonstration latrines were built in strategic

locations in the communities to increase the demand for sanitation services. However, beyond these demonstration latrines, no other household latrines were directly built through the iWASH project.


Aguaconsult

page 61

28 March 2014

Figure 16: Overall factor scores (HHS) Tanzania

Figure 17: Factor scores by community (HHS) Tanzania


Aguaconsult

page 62

28 March 2014

Household Sanitation Facilities (HHS) Tanzania

Table 21: HHS Indicator scores (Tanzania)

Results Commentary: Household Sanitation Facilities (HHS) Tanzania


N1: 50%, I-D1: 100%, I-D2: 25%). The picture in policy terms at national level is mixed, with I-N1

(national level policy mandates and institutional coordination) being poorly defined and averaging

50% across all sub-indicators. The district level institutional set up scores well however with all SN-

HHS-I-D1 related sub-indicators scoring 100%. Support from the district to households and their

coordination with the national ministry officials is well established according to the responses. De-

Weighting Sanitation: Household Sanitation Indicators (HHS) Tanzania


20% Management 46%

20% Financial 36%

20% Technical 38%




SN-HHS-I-N1 There is an institution that is dedicated to sanitation policy and has presence at



50%

SN-HHS-I-D1 Support for maintenance and proper use of sanitation facilities is provided in

coordination with health ministry

100%

SN-HHS-I-D2 There are licensed and regulated septage haulers/desludgers 25%

SN-HHS-M-N1 Capacity support is provided to district local government WASH staff, including

refresher training

38%

SN-HHS-M-D1 District/local sanitation support staff carry out regular monitoring of the use of

sanitation facilities and reactive planning/interventions

51%

SN-HHS-M-D2 District sanitation plans including principals of social marketing are carried out

and updated regularly

50%

SN-HHS-M-S1 Pit-emptying services are accessible to households and households clearly

understand their responsibility for pit-emptying

45%

SN-HHS-F-N1 Resources are allocated at the national level to support district functions 0%

SN-HHS-F-D1 Resources are available for district/service authority to fulfill functions 50%

SN-HHS-F-S1 Households have the ability to meet long-term operational and capital

maintenance expenditures

57%

SN-HHS-T-D1 Goods and services for maintenance, repair and the emptying of pits for

household sanitation facilities are available and accessible at the district level

23%

SN-HHS-T-S1 Sanitation facilities are constructed following standards and norms 58%

SN-HHS-T-S2 Environmental health risk guidelines exist and are followed 27%

SN-HHS-T-S3 Sanitation facilities are used and valued by all 44%

SN-HHS-E-N1 National environmental protection standards are established and applied to

household sanitation services

75%

SN-HHS-E-N2 National integrated water resources management plan is in place, updated


50%

SN-HHS-E-D1 Natural resources are managed to support sustainable sanitation service delivery 0%


Aguaconsult

page 63

28 March 2014

sludging and waste disposal licensing (I-D2: 25%) is revealed as a weak point, with little regulation,

training, or monitoring occurring.


N1: 38%, M-D1: 51%, M-D2: 50%, M-S1: 45%). Capacity support from the national level for district

staff is provided (M-N1a: 100%) though this is hampered by a lack of regular refresher training (M-

N1b: 50%). Content does not include either social marketing or hygiene behavior change (M-N1c:

0%) and according to responses triangulated at the district level additional human resources to

support use and maintenance of household sanitation facilities are not available (M-N1d: 0%).

Indicator M-D2 (support and monitoring) averages 50%. A sanitation monitoring plan is operational,

though there appears to not be regular follow up monitoring (characterized as occurring at least

once every 6 months) and little continued promotion of the use of facilities after installation (M-D1b

and M-D1c are 0% and 2% respectively). The District Sanitation Plan does include social marketing

however (M-D2a: 100%), but the sampled interventions do not appear to correspond with it (M-D2b:

0%). The plan is updated, though not with the benefit of monitoring data. Accessibility of pit

emptying services and responsibilities for that task, sampled at the household level, appear patchy

overall (Indicator M-S1 – ‘Pit-emptying services are accessible to households and households clearly

understand their responsibility for pit-emptying’ scores 45%). Affordability of these services is not a

problem according to the responses however (sub indicator S1d averages 83% across all

communities) although other consumables and equipment are generally not affordable (T-D1a:

18%).


N1: 0%, F-D1: 50%, F-S1: 57%). There appears to be adequate staffing at the district level according

to the responses, though a shortage of both funds and adequate training is acutely felt (F-D1b and F-

D1c score 0%), even though the process of allocation of what funds there are is deemed to be clear.

At the household level, there is generally a good understanding of the costs of long term operation

and capital maintenance (F-S1a: 77%) but in only 57% of households is this deemed to be less than

50% of annual income (F-S1b). Support programs appear poorly coordinated and patchy in

coverage, with F-S1d averaging 43%.


are: T-D1: 23%, T-S1: 58%, T-S2: 27%, T-S3: 44%). Availability of goods and services for repair and

emptying at District level appears to be a significant risk factor however (T-D1: 23%) as is the

genuine affordability of private sector services and consumables, which appears low with no or little

support to those that cannot afford them (T-D1d: 0%). Technical scores in relation to hardware and

norms relating to construction score better, averaging 58%, though there are gaps in terms of

proper components, which suggest underlying flaws and inconsistency in delivery of the actual

goods themselves (T-S1b: 30%) and serious concerns in relation to the sanitary upkeep of facilities.

The location and condition of the facilities sampled was universally poor (T-S2: 27%). In almost all

cases, the sanitary condition scored a zero in response to the sub-indicator question T-S2b - “Is the

sanitation facility in a sanitary condition (wall, floor and toilet seat are free of urine and feces, facility

is generally free of odors)”. Reported use of the facilities was relatively high 68%, but respondents


Aguaconsult

page 64

28 March 2014

were not able to clearly articulate the benefits of sanitation facilities (T-S3b: 43%). Based upon the

hygiene conditions of the facilities and the score to T-S3b it is clear that more hygiene education is

necessary.


scores are: E-N1: 75%, E-N2: 50%, E-D1: 0%). Similarly to the situation in Kenya, a seemingly well-

defined set of national policies do not appear to translate into coordinated actions at the district

level and below. National level responses to indicator E-N1- “National environmental protection

standards are established and applied to household sanitation services” does score 75%, though

dissemination and enforcement is weak (E-N1d: 25%). Water management plans are generally not

coordinated, updated, or accessible at the district level (E-N2: 50%) though monitoring data are

collected (E-N2b: 100%). Long-term sustainability and climate change adaptation are not addressed

and this indicator scores zero across all indicator (E-D1: 0%).

5.3 Intervention Category: Hygiene

5.3.1 Intervention: Hand washing and Hygiene Promotion (HWP)

Hand washing and Hygiene Promotion (HWP) Kenya

HWP data were collected at the household and service provider levels in all sample communities

visited by the enumerator teams and scored 81% across institutional indicators, 47% across

management, 51% across financial indicators, with a score of 59% in technical and a low of 38% in

environmental responses. The overall sustainability index score was 55%. HWP is presented here as

an additional element to the SIT.


Aguaconsult

page 65

28 March 2014

Figure 18: Overall factor scores TWB-MRB HWP (Kenya)

Figure 19: TWB-MRB Kenya HWP factor scores by community


Aguaconsult

page 66

28 March 2014

Hand washing and Hygiene Promotion (HWP) Kenya

Table 22: Indicator scores HWP (Kenya)

Results Commentary: Hand washing and Hygiene Promotion (HWP) Kenya


N1: 88%, I-N2-75%, I-D1: 82%). Institutional indicator scores are generally high compared to the

other interventions. Recognition as a government policy with specific ministry oversight and the

inclusion of handwashing as a core practice, including the use of behavior change all score 100%

(indicators I-N1a through to I-N1c with respect to national policy and I-N2a to I-N2c regarding

behavior change). Data analysis, review, and interpretation in order to inform future action is a weak

point (I-N1d: 50%), as is, more significantly, training of staff at district level (I-N2d: 0%). Human

resources are available at district level for HWP (I-D1c: 100%), though liaison with national ministries

and collaboration with district staff from other agencies is weaker (I-D1d: 77%) especially in

Transmara East, where communities only score 50% as opposed to Transmara West.

Weighting Hygiene: Handwashing and Hygiene Promotion (HWP) Kenya


20% Management 47%

20% Financial 51%

20% Technical 59%



REFERENCE Hygiene: Handwashing and Hygiene Promotion Indicators Kenya

HY-HWP-I-N1 Hygiene promotion, including handwashing, is a recognized government policy 88%

HY-HWP-I-N2There is a hygiene promotion/behavior change program with clear designation of

responsibilities in national ministry (-ies)

75%

HY-HWP-I-D1Coordination and support for hygiene promotion is provided by district authority

and other agencies (Ministry of Health)

82%

HY-HWP-M-D1Monitoring and follow-up support is provided to community hygiene

promoter/facilitator, including refresher training

51%

HY-HWP-M-S1Community facilitator or promoter has capacity to monitor and provide follow-up

support to households, including refresher training

43%

HY-HWP-F-N1National/local mechanisms are in place to meet full cost of hygiene and hand

washing promotion

0%

HY-HWP-F-D1Soap and other hygiene products are available in the local market and affordable 65%

HY-HWP-F-S1 Households are willing and able to pay for hygiene products 89%

HY-HWP-T-S1 Households have knowledge of handwashing and the correct use of facilities 71%

HY-HWP-T-S2 Environmental health risk guidelines exist and are followed 46%

HY-HWP-E-N1National environmental protection standards are established and applied to

WASH services

75%

HY-HWP-E-D1 Natural resources are managed to support sustainable WASH service delivery 0%


Aguaconsult

page 67

28 March 2014


D1: 51%, M-S1: 43%). Monitoring and follow up for trainers is irregular across both districts (M-D1:

51%) with slightly higher scores in Transmara West where there were also higher scores to the

question of a designated support entity for community health promoters (M-D1a: 73%). Support is

not always available when requested (M-D1b: 55%). Availability of refresher training is very limited

and appears to vary independently between communities averaging 20% across both districts. The

presence of Community Hygiene Promoters varies between communities. These unremunerated

positions rely heavily on the goodwill drive and enthusiasm of the individual promoter, as well as

their skill. Monitoring, support and gender specific messaging are shown to be present to a

significant degree in many communities.


N1: 0%, F-D1: 65%, F-S1: 89%). There appears to be no local district or national level supplementary

budget for HWP which reaches the local level (all sub-indicators scores for F-N1 were ‘zero’). At

village level, soap and other hygiene products are considered to be available and relatively

affordable (F-D1: 65%). It should be noted that among these products, those relating to menstrual

hygiene are less commonly available (F-D1c: 16%). There may be a cultural disinclination to openly

discuss these items, though the score should not be overlooked. More positively, a high average of

87% of respondents at household level said that they were willing and able to pay for hygiene

products, and on average 90% had products in the household, which was independently verified by

the enumerator.


are: T-S1: 71%, T-S2: 46%). An average of 92% of respondents demonstrated satisfactory knowledge

of how they should wash their hands. Among all respondents 80% could also answer when the most

important times to wash hands were. Safe water storage practices were a significant weak point

however, with an average of only 23% of households being able to demonstrate and verify this

indicator (T-S1c). The female head of the household responded that they did actively promote hand

washing and good hygiene practices (T-S1d: 89%). Technical environmental health guidelines were

less well observed however, with varying success in terms of the siting, sanitary condition and

drainage of hand washing facilities, averaging 46% (T-S2).

Environmental indicator scores range from 0-75%, with a median score of 38%. Average indicator

scores varied significantly between the national level (E-N1: 75%) and district level (E-D1: 0%)

reflecting a likelihood that regulation policies and standards exist but are not widely disseminated or

enforced.


Aguaconsult

page 68

28 March 2014

Hand washing and Hygiene Promotion (HWP) Serengeti District, Tanzania

HWP data came from 11 sample communities in Tanzania, and the average SIT score for this

intervention type is 57%. Institutional averages 50%, management 70%, financial 60%, technical

62%, and environmental 44%, which presents significant differences to the Kenyan sample scores.

Figure 20: Overall factor scores TWB-MRB HWP (Tanzania)


Aguaconsult

page 69

28 March 2014

Figure 21: TWB-MRB HWP Factor scores by community (Tanzania)


Aguaconsult

page 70

28 March 2014

Hand washing and Hygiene Promotion (HWP) Tanzania

Table 23: Indicator scores: TWM BRM HWP

Results Commentary: Hand washing and Hygiene Promotion (HWP) Tanzania


N1: 50%, I-N2-13%, I-D1: 88%). Institutional indicator scores reveal a weaker policy environment for

hygiene promotion. I-N1 scores 50%, and although hygiene does have ministry level oversight, there

is less formal recognition than in the case of sanitation, or in terms of hygiene, than that seen in

Kenya. I-N2 - There is a hygiene promotion/behavior change program with clear designation of

responsibilities in national ministry (-ies) - scores only 13% and is therefore a major gap in national

level policy and practice. However, district authorities take a larger role and I-D1 Coordination and

support for hygiene promotion is provided by district authority and other agencies (Ministry of

Health) averages 88%.


D1: 66%, M-S1: 74%). There is significant variation between communities regarding the existence of

designated support entities (M-D1a: 61%), monitoring (M-D1c: 80%), and refresher training, which is

Weighting Hygiene: Handwashing and Hygiene Promotion (HWP) Serengeti District


20% Management 70%

20% Financial 60%

20% Technical 62%



REFERENCE Hygiene: Handwashing and Hygiene Promotion Indicators Kenya

HY-HWP-I-N1 Hygiene promotion, including handwashing, is a recognized government policy 50%

HY-HWP-I-N2There is a hygiene promotion/behavior change program with clear designation of

responsibilities in national ministry (-ies)

13%

HY-HWP-I-D1Coordination and support for hygiene promotion is provided by district authority

and other agencies (Ministry of Health)

88%

HY-HWP-M-D1Monitoring and follow-up support is provided to community hygiene

promoter/facilitator, including refresher training

66%

HY-HWP-M-S1Community facilitator or promoter has capacity to monitor and provide follow-up

support to households, including refresher training

74%

HY-HWP-F-N1National/local mechanisms are in place to meet full cost of hygiene and hand

washing promotion

0%

HY-HWP-F-D1Soap and other hygiene products are available in the local market and affordable 81%

HY-HWP-F-S1 Households are willing and able to pay for hygiene products 98%

HY-HWP-T-S1 Households have knowledge of handwashing and the correct use of facilities 72%

HY-HWP-T-S2 Environmental health risk guidelines exist and are followed 63%

HY-HWP-T-S3 Handwashing facilities are maintained with soap and water or ash 52%

HY-HWP-E-N1National environmental protection standards are established and applied to

WASH services

63%

HY-HWP-E-D1 Natural resources are managed to support sustainable WASH service delivery 25%


Aguaconsult

page 71

28 March 2014

less frequent in 8 out of 11 communities (M-D1d: 39%). With regards to community facilitators

themselves (M-S1) their ability to monitor and follow up varies between communities, and across

those sampled there are instances of both high and low scores – Nyamatare averages 90% for M-S1

and Nyamakobiti averages 45%.


N1: 0%, F-D1: 81%, F-S1: 98%). Financial indicator scores confirm the impact of the institutional

indicator scores at the national level. Product availability is good (F-D1:81%) and affordability and

willingness to pay are high (F-S1: 98%).


are: T-S1: 72%, T-S2: 63%, T-S3: 52%). Knowledge of correct handwashing technique averaged 93%

across communities (T-S1a) although knowledge of when to wash hands was lower than in Kenya

(S1b: 29% compared to 80%). Interestingly, safe water storage practices captured by sub-indicator

T-S1c are the reverse (73% in Tanzania compared to 23% in Kenya). The hygienic condition of

sanitation facilities varies between communities (T-S2b: ranges from between 0% to 100% and

averages 36%), and drainage is poor also in some communities (in Nyamoko, Majimoto and

Mbalibali). The condition of handwashing facilities (T-S3) varies in the communities assed


scores are: E-N1: 63%, E-D1: 25%). As with other interventions seen here, policies regarding

environmental protection standards exist at national level but are not being disseminated and roles

and responsibilities regarding the mitigation of the impact of household grey water and wastewater

are unclear (E-N1c: 50%). Vulnerability to climate change related impacts and subsequent

adaptation measures are not being incorporated into design (E-D1: 25%).

6. iWASH Results

The following sections present the results of the assessment of the interventions of the iWASH

project using the framework and methodology of the SIT. The results are separated by Intervention

category.9. All interventions in this section represent data collected in Tanzania only. Each section

presents the results by sustainability factor (i.e. institutional, management, financial, technical, and

environment). Bar charts are used to present the overall factor score by intervention type (i.e.

average scores across all communities), and bar charts and radar diagrams are used to show the

factor scores disaggregated by community. A table is used to show the indicator scores averaged

across all communities in the sample. To see the sub-indicator scores or indicator scores for each

community, see the Excel files linked in Annex 5, and to see a summary of the iWASH results, see the

excel file, tab 2 in Annex 10.

9 Hygiene was not considered as a standalone intervention for the iWASH project.


Aguaconsult

page 72

28 March 2014

6.1 Intervention Category: Water

In the iWASH project, the water interventions included the following: community reticulated water

systems (CRS) which are managed by Community Owned Water and Sanitation Organizations

(COWSOs), community hand pumps (CHPs) which are managed by Water Point Management Groups

(WPMGs), and rainwater harvesting systems (RWH) which were installed in schools and clinics and

are managed by administrators of those institutions. Each of the following section presents the

results for these interventions in more detail.

6.1.1 Intervention: Community Managed Reticulated Water Supply (CRS)

Five communities were selected for the CRS sample frame in iWASH project. Four communities

were in Mvomero District and one community was in Kilosa District. The average factor scores for all

communities with CRS interventions were as follows: institutional (74%), management (58%),

financial (45%), technical (60%), and environment (44%). Overall sustainability score is 56%. The

following sections provide a more detailed look at the indicator scores for each sustainability factor.

Figure 22: Overall CRS factor scores iWASH


Aguaconsult

page 73

28 March 2014

Figure 23: Factor scores by community CRS iWASH


Aguaconsult

page 74

28 March 2014

Community Reticulated Water System (CRS) iWASH

Table 24: iWASH CRS Indicator scores

Weighting Water: Community Reticulated System Indicators (CRS) iWASH


20% Management 58%

20% Financial 45%

20% Technical 60%












training 25%









discrimination 25%





accounting 54%



affordability) 75%




on request 60%














delivery 54%


Aguaconsult

page 75

28 March 2014

Results Commentary: Community Reticulated Water System (CRS) iWASH

Institutional indicator scores ranged from 38-100%, with a median 75% (average indicator scores

were I-N1: 63%, I-D1: 67%, I-S1: 93%). National legislation recognizing community management is in

place (I-N1a: 100%) and provides a mechanism for community management entities to gain legal

standing (I-N1c: 100%). However there are not detailed standards or norms for the constitution and

governance of community based service providers (I-N1b: 0%) and a national registry of water

systems is not consolidated or comprehensive (I-N1d: 50%). At the district level, the support roles

and responsibilities are clear, however not every village committee that was interviewed was clear

as to their support roles and responsibilities (D-1a and D-1b). This confusion was noted in the

iWASH mid-term evaluation (Owen et al, 2011). All communities had a COWSO or water committee

formed (I-S1a: 100%), which was democratically elected (I-S1d: 100%) but not all were constituted in

line with the national norms, particularly those regarding gender balance (I-S1c: 70%).

Management indicator scores ranged from 25-91%, with a median 56% (average indicator scores

were M-N1: 50%, M-N2: 25%, M-D1: 65%, M-S1: 73%, M-S2: 77%). At the national level there is a

national water point database, however it is not comprehensive or updated frequently (M-N1a: 50%

and M-N1b: 50%). The district water offices are trained to support community water systems (M-

N2a: 100%), however this training is not recurrent and there is no system to monitor the

effectiveness of the one-time training or the capacity of the district water offices (M-N2b,c,d: 0%).

The district stakeholders said they monitored the COWSOs and provided support when required (M-

D1 and M-D1b), and in all but Msolokelo the village and COWSOs agreed. COWSOs are more likely

to carry out their technical responsibilities (M-S1b: 84%) than their administrative (M-S1c: 63%) or

financial accounting duties (M-S1d: 46%). However, the COWSOs and households said that the

administrative records were more frequently shared (M-S2c: 80%) than the technical records (M-

S2b: 60%).

Financial indicator scores ranged from 0-100%, with a median score of 38% (average indicator scores

were F-N1: 25%, F-D1: 5%, F-S1: 93%, F-S2: 50%, F-S3: 54%). The lowest indicator scores were at the

district level, where the staffing and budget are in inadequate (F-D1a and F-D1c both 0%); and the

existing staff was found to not have the appropriate qualifications (F-D1b: 0%). In the communities

water tariffs have been established (F-S1a: 100%), and are said to consider life-cycle costs (F-S1b: 90

%), as well as making provisions for the poorest through a social tariff (F-S1d: 100%). All COWSOs

but one (Digoma) are keeping financial records (F-S3a: 80%), and in only two of the five communities

is the annual revenue generated by the tariffs more than the operating expenditures (F-S2b: 50%).

Technical indicator scores ranged from 25-100%, with a median score of 60% (average indicator

scores were T-N1: 75%, T-N2: 38%, T-D1: 60%, T-S1: 77%, T-S2: 5%, T-S3: 59%). National standards

and norms exist with regard to water quality (T-N1a: 100%), quantity (T-N1b: 100%), and

accessibility (T-N1c: 100%), but a norm for affordability could not be identified (T-N1d: 0%). National

guidelines on equipment standardization and the provision of spare parts were not clear or easily


Aguaconsult

page 76

28 March 2014

identified (T-N2a: 0%). In general, households, COWSOs, and village stakeholders believed that the

water provided was of sufficient quality (T-S1a: 99%), however the scores for water quantity (T-S1b:

38-91%), accessibility (T-S1c: 47-89%), and reliability were lower (T-S1d: 52-71%).

Environment indicator scores ranged from 13-66%, with a median score of 53% (average indicator

scores were E-N1: 56%, E-N2: 13%, E-D1: 53%, E-D2: 54%). Environmental standards exist at the

national level (E-N1a and E-N1b: 100%); however the roles and responsibilities with regard to

monitoring and enforcement are not clear between the district and national levels (E-N1c: 25%). In

general, the Water Basin Boards are underfunded and have not been able to create Catchment Area

Committees and Sub-Catchment Area Committees. As a result, water supply plans at the local level

have only been created in limited areas (E-N2a: 25%) and monitoring data collection is limited and

rarely aggregated at the national level (E-N2b: 0%). Water User Associations, which should be

managing water use in the sub-catchments have not been formed in all areas and have not realized

their management role in nearly all cases. The District Water Officers and the Water Basin Board

executive said that risk assessments have been carried out (E-D2a: 50%) and but that in general

water demand has not been monitored or effectively controlled (E-D2c: 25%).

6.1.2 Intervention: Community Hand pumps (CHP)

Eight communities were included in the sample for CHP in the iWASH project. All these communities

were located in the Mvomero District10. The average factor scores for all communities with CHP in

the iWASH project were as follows: institutional (76%), management (53%), financial (48%),

technical (76%), and environmental (47%). The overall sustainability score for CHP was 60%. The

following sections provide a more detailed look at the indicator scores for each sustainability factor.

10

One community that was visited in the Serengeti also had handpumps that were rehabilitated as part of the TWB-MRB project. However, because this intervention was not an integral part of the TWB-MRB project it was excluded from the discussion. The results are provided in excel sheets in Annex 5.


Aguaconsult

page 77

28 March 2014

Figure 24: Overall factor scores CHP iWASH

Figure 25: Factor scores by community CHP iWASH


Aguaconsult

page 78

28 March 2014

Indicator Scores: Community Hand Pumps (CHP) iWASH

Table 25: Indicator scores CHP iWASH

Weighting Water: Community Hand Pumps (CHP) iWASH


20% Management 53%

20% Financial 48%

20% Technical 76%












training 25%









discrimination 25%





accounting 61%



affordability) 75%




on request 94%














delivery 63%


Aguaconsult

page 79

28 March 2014

Results Commentary: Indicator Scores: Community Hand Pumps (CHP) iWASH

Institutional indicator scores ranged from 61-100%, with a median 75% (average indicator scores

were I-N1: 63%, I-D1: 84%, I-S1: 81%). National legislation recognizing community management is in

place (I-N1a: 100%) however there are not detailed standards and norms for the constitution and

governance of community based service providers (I-N1b: 0%) and there is no consolidated or

comprehensive registry of water systems at the national level (I-N1d: 50%). At the district and

village levels the roles and responsibilities are clear and available (D-1a: 100% and D-1b: 93%),

however there is a disconnect between what the District Water Officer and the COWSOs and Water

Point Management groups understand as their respective roles and responsibilities (D-1d: 43%).

Management indicator scores ranged from 9-94%, with a median 55% (average indicator scores

were M-N1: 50%, M-N2: 25%, M-D1: 63%, M-S1: 71%, M-S2: 57%). At the national level there is a

national water point database, however it is not comprehensive or updated frequently (M-N1a and

M-N1b: 50%). The district water officers are trained to support community water systems (M-N2a:

100%), however this training is not repeated and there is no system to monitor the effectiveness of

the one-time training or the capacity of the district water offices (M-N2b, c, d: 0%). Not all districts

monitor the performance of the water point management groups in their jurisdiction (M-D1a: 72%),

however those that do, provided support when required (M-D1b: 100%). Water point management

groups are more likely to ensure system function (M-S1b: 87%) than to attend to their

administrative duties (M-S1c: 62%) or their financial management responsibilities (M-S1d: 34%).

Financial indicator scores ranged from 0-100%, with a median score of 44% (average indicator scores

were F-N1: 25%, F-D1: 0%, F-S1: 89%, F-S2: 63%, F-S3: 61%). At the national level there is little

evidence that the budget for supporting community managed systems considers total life-cycle costs

(F-N1b: 0%) and there are not clear mechanisms to fill in any financing gaps between revenues

collected through tariffs and the life-cycle costs (F-N1d: 0%). At the district level, the scores are the

lowest, in general, for any indicator. The staff and resources available to districts are inadequate (F-

D1). In most cases the tariffs have been established (F-S1a: 100%) and are in-line with prescribed

guidelines (F-S1c: 88%) and consider the poorest with in the communities (F-S1d: 88%). Only half of

the communities have a bank account (F-S3b: 50%). In only three out of the eight communities does

the revenue collected through the tariff exceed the operating expenditures (F-S2b: 38%), suggesting

that the financial sustainability of the systems is in jeopardy without external assistance.

Technical indicator scores ranged from 50-100%, with a median score of 75% (average indicator

scores were T-N1: 75%, T-N2: 50%, T-D1: 94%, T-S1: 72%, T-S2: 94%, T-S3: 74%). National standards

and norms exist (100% scores) with regard to water quality (T-N1a), quantity (T-N1b), and

accessibility (T-N1c). The Tanzanian Bureau of Standards manages the standards with regard to the

design, manufacture, and installation of hand pumps, however these guidelines do not include the

arrangements for providing spare parts (T-N2a: 50%). In general, the technical standards and norms

are not widely disseminated (T-N2c: 0%) and the roles and responsibilities with regard to monitoring


Aguaconsult

page 80

28 March 2014

and enforcement are not clear between the national and district stakeholders (T-N2d: 50%). The

district water offices responded that they are able to provide technical support when requested (T-

D1a and T-D1b). The households responded in general that the quality provided by the handpumps

was acceptable (T-S1a: 88%) and that the handpumps were accessible (T-S1c: 83%). However fewer

households were in agreement regarding the quantity of water provided (T-S1b: 66%) and ease of

use of the pumps by potentially marginalized populations within the communities (T-S1d: 50%).

Due to the simplicity of the rope pump, which was exclusively promoted in the iWASH project, all

service providers felt capable of finding any spare parts necessary (T-S3b: 100%) and repairing the

pump (T-S3a: 100%).

Environment indicator scores ranged from 13-63%, with a median score of 56% (average indicator

scores were E-N1: 56%, E-N2: 13%, E-D1: 58%, E-D2: 63%). The environmental scores were similar to

those for CRS interventions. Environmental standards exist at the national level (E-N1a and E-N1b:

100%); however the roles and responsibilities with regard to monitoring and enforcement are not

clear between the district and national levels (E-N1c: 25%). In general, the water basin boards are

underfunded and have not been able to create Catchment Area Committees and Sub-Catchment

Area Committees. As a result, water resource management plans at the local level have only been

created in limited areas (E-N2a: 25%) and monitoring data collection is sporadic and rarely

aggregated at the national level (E-N2b: 0%). The mid-term evaluation of iWASH found that in 8

villages surveyed, there was a reported drop in the water table suggesting that this issue could be a

significant concern to the longer-term environmental sustainability of the handpumps that are fitted

to shallow wells.

6.1.3 Intervention: institutional rainwater harvesting (RWH)

Initially four communities were selected for the sample frame for RWH for iWASH, however after

EcomResearch Group met with the CARE representative in Morogoro it was determined that all but

one of the selected communities’ RWH systems had not been completed. The results for this

community, Mazasa can be found in Annex 5 along the results for RWH from the Serengeti.

6.2 Intervention Category: Sanitation (and associated hygiene)

In the iWASH project the sanitation interventions included institutional sanitation (INS) facilities that

were built in schools, dispensaries, and clinics in the Morogoro Region of Tanzania. These facilities

are maintained by the school teachers or administrators and the employees of the clinics and

dispensaries. The following section presents the results for these interventions in more detail.

6.2.1 Intervention: Institutional sanitation facilities (INS)

Twelve communities were included in the sample for INS in the iWASH project. These communities

were spread across all three districts considered in the assessment: Kilosa (1), Morogoro (4), and


Aguaconsult

page 81

28 March 2014

Mvomero (7). The average factor scores for all communities with INS in the iWASH project were as

follows: institutional (54%), management (56%), financial (27%), technical (60%), and environmental

(40%). Overall sustainability scores for INS were 47%. Figure 26 shows the factor scores by district

for the three districts of the iWASH project. The following sections provide a more detailed look at

the indicator scores for each sustainability factor.

Figure 26: Factor scores averaged by district for Kilosa, Morogoro, and Mvomero Districts. (INS iWASH)


Aguaconsult

page 82

28 March 2014

Figure 27: Factor scores by community for the Kilosa and Morogoro Districts (INS iWASH)

Figure 28: Factor scores by community for the Mvomero District (INS iWASH)


Aguaconsult

page 83

28 March 2014

Indicator Results: Institutional Sanitation iWASH

Table 25: Indicator scores INS iWASH

Results Commentary: Institutional Sanitation iWASH

Institutional indicator scores ranged from 6-100% with the median 50% (average indicator scores I-

N1: 50%, I-D1: 94%, I-D2: 14%). There is a national policy on sanitation that defines institutional

mandates and coordination mechanisms, however it is currently in draft form and needs to be

finalized and operationalized, therefore I-N1 scored 50%. In nearly all districts there is sanitation

support staff available and the roles and responsibilities are clear between the national and district

Weighting Sanitation: Institutional Sanitation Indicators (INS) iWASH


20% Management 56%

20% Financial 27%

20% Technical 60%







50%



94%



appropriate

73%



60%


needed

61%



58%



24%



37%



district level

31%


term and safe use.

70%




66%




63%



10%



Aguaconsult

page 84

28 March 2014

level support authorities (I-D1). However, there is significant confusion at the district and ward level

with regard to the need for a license to collect or transport fecal sludge (I-D2a: 42%) with

respondents within the same District Office disagreeing. It is clear that there is no process for

training individuals that would provide the services of hauling or de-sludging (I-D2b: 4%), and no

institution (either district or ward government) is monitoring these activities (I-D2c: 0%) or ensuring

that illegal dumping of collected waste is not occurring (I-D2d: 24%).

Management indicator scores ranged from 13-100% with a median indicator score of 56% (average

indicator scores were M-N1: 73%, M-D1: 60%, M-D2: 61%, M-S1: 58%). District and ward

stakeholders in general felt that they were adequately trained to support school and institutional

sanitation (M-N1a: 96%), however it was clear that social marketing and behavior change principles

were not uniformly included in this training, as scores varied across the wards in all three districts

(M-N1b: 54%). Monitoring of sanitation facility use and maintenance in schools and clinics was

performed in most areas (M-D1a: 83%); however this monitoring occurred once a year or less (M-

D1b: 29%). The school and clinic stakeholders, in general, were unaware as to what the outcome of

this monitoring was (M-D1c: 41%). Those interviewed at the schools and clinics said that support

was not provided (when requested) following the monitoring, however the district and ward

representatives contradicted these responses and said that support was provided if the school or

clinic requested it. In only two communities, was it clear that support was solicited by the school

and received (M-S1d: 54%). In all villages but one the institutional sanitation service providers

understood their responsibility for emptying the latrine pits (M-S1b: 89%); however in 9 out of 13

villages the services providers were unaware of pit emptying or de-sludging services in their village

(M-S1a: 50%). In all cases there was sufficient space to decommission the existing facilities and

construct new ones; however none of the schools or clinics said they could cover the cost of

reconstruction.

Financial indicator scores ranged from 0-75% with a median indicator score of 17% (average

indicator scores were F-N1: 24%, F-S1: 37%). In general, financial scores were lower than the other

indicators. Funds are not available to support schools and institutional sanitation costs beyond what

they are able to raise from students and parents or patients (F-N1a: 23%). Schools and clinics in only

two of the thirteen villages had sufficient consumable supplies (e.g. cleaning supplies, soap, anal

cleansing material or buckets for water/washing) - (F-S1a: 31%). In seven villages, the schools/clinics

were budgeting for long-term capital maintenance costs (F-S1c: 35%) and were keeping funds

separate to dedicate for these costs (F-S1d: 33%).

Technical indicator scores ranged from 0-100% with a median indicator score of 63% (average

indicator scores were T-D1: 31%, T-S1: 70%, T-S2: 74%, T-S3: 66%, T-S4: 54%). Most district, ward,

and school/clinic administrators disagree with regard to whether consumables and equipment are

affordable and accessible, with the service authorities saying they are, and the service providers

saying they are not (T-D1b: 34%). In general, the private sector is not involved in institutional

sanitation (T-D1c: 21%). Sanitation facilities have been constructed with the appropriate

components (T-S1a: 85%) and considered the needs of children (T-S1c: 90%) and users with special


Aguaconsult

page 85

28 March 2014

needs (T-S1d: 92%), however only half of the facilities had handwashing stations with a dedicated

cleansing agent available (T-S1b: 47%). The facilities in at least six villages did not meet the crowding

criteria (T-S3b: 26%), which stipulate a maximum of 25 boys per drop hole, and 20 girls per drop hole

for schools. 11In seven of the villages, the sanitation facilities were not considered in sanitary

condition, with feces or considerable urine present on the floor, walls or seat (T-S4b: 55%). In

addition a number of latrine doors were missing.

Environmental indicator scores ranged from 4-75% with a median indicator score of 50% (average

indicator scores were E-N1: 63%, E-N2: 10%, E-D1: 53%). National standards exist to protect the

environment with regard to the design, sizing, and siting of sanitation infrastructure (E-N1a: 100%)

as well as in relation to the proper disposal and management of fecal waste and wastewater from

schools or institutions (E-N1b: 100%). However, the roles and responsibilities with regard to

monitoring and enforcement are not clear between the national, district, and ward governments (E-

N1: 41%). At the district level there are no sanitation and wastewater management or treatment

plans (E-N2a: 0%) and monitoring is not taking place (E-N2b: 6%).

11

After the assessment was performed it was explained that the iWASH program used crowding criteria provided through the interim guidelines established by the Ministry of Education which stipulate a maximum of 40 girls per drop hole and a maximum of 50 boys per urinal.


Aguaconsult

page 86

28 March 2014

7. Key Findings and Priorities for Future Action and Investment

Indicators with low scores tend to be risk factors to sustainability, while those indicators that have

high scores can be considered drivers of sustainability. The following sections present the themes or

key findings that have emerged from an analysis of these risk factors and drivers of sustainability.

Due to the design of the SIT framework with sustainability indicators organized by administrative

levels: national, district, and service, the key findings have been organized in a similar fashion and

are presented by country as opposed to by project. So that section 7.1 represents the key findings

from TWB-MRB in Kenya and the priority areas for action and investment in future projects or

programs in Kenya. Section 7.2 presents the key findings from Tanzania from both the TWB-MRB in

the Mara Region and the iWASH program in Morogoro Region, and priorities for future investment

in Tanzania WASH projects or programs.

7.1 Kenya (TWB-MRB)

This section presents the key findings from the assessment of the TWB-MRB project in Kenya. Key

findings and priority areas for action and investment are organized by intervention category (i.e.

water, sanitation, and hygiene) and level (i.e. national, district, service).

7.1.1 Intervention Category: Water (WPS, CRS, and RWH)

National Level

At the national level, norms and standards have been established to govern the expected

performance of Service Providers. Although legislation to minimize the environment impact of

water systems has been created, there was little evidence that these policies and guidelines were

being enforced. The following priorities for action and investment are recommended:

Strengthen support for traditional sources and technologies:

Policies that ensure affordable access to services is in place for both CRS and WPS systems,

however there is little funding to operationalize them in the case of WPS. TWB-MRB

implemented WPS systems and built capacity to build, operate, and maintain them at the

local level; however this technology should be more strongly emphasized and promoted at

the national level. This implies working with the Ministry and other stakeholders to analyze

and strengthen supporting guidelines, norms, standards, and implementation approaches.

District Level

Institutional and management indicator scores are high and the roles and responsibilities are well

understood. This allows for further improvements to be made with greater confidence and is a good

sign considering the transition period that is occurring in the WASH sector following the

constitutional reform placing more authority and autonomy at the decentralized level.


Aguaconsult

page 87

28 March 2014

Priorities for action and investment to support drivers toward sustainability include:

Establish operational capacity at the district level

Strengths observed at the national level are not necessarily reflected at the local level within

decentralized authorities in such a way that can be provided to reach communities. Nascent

capacity was identified at the district level, but only minimal support is provided to

communities and this support is reactive. Despite the will and ability, operations are often

hampered by not having money for basic needs such as transport or vehicles that would

allow reliable access to the most remote communities. Follow-up is required to open the

dialogue at national and local levels about the scale, reliability and frequency of budget

disbursements to decentralized authorities.

Develop realistic monitoring systems to meet needs of District Government:

Districts are not collecting regular or detailed information on the performance of either WPS

or CRS systems, and therefore lack the means to use their limited funds effectively, for

example through more informed planning or prioritization When monitoring does occur,

due to financial and capacity constraints it rarely leads to action and resolution. Resources

and skills should be expected to be limited in districts, so any solutions in this area should be

designed around existing resource constraints with the efficient use of resources as a key

principle. Wide success has been shown in Kenya using mobile technologies to facilitate

reporting, and consideration should be given to using these as cost-effective means to

develop monitoring systems that enable prioritization of action.

Service Level

Technical norms and standards are being followed and the infrastructure constructed, including

RWH systems, was of acceptable quality and appropriately sited. It is important to note that only

two CRS systems were evaluated. Despite the high scores for the hardware, there are software

issues for many systems, including the knowledge of financial and administrative management best

practices by the service providers.

The following are the priorities for action and investment that will help address the weaknesses at

the service level:

Promote gender balance and active participation of women on WUCs:

The gender balance of CRS system management was low, while for WPS systems no women

were participating in the WUC. There is considerable evidence demonstrating the benefits

of gender diversity and the positive impact on management of water infrastructure.

Implementers should be required to work with the communities to demonstrate these

benefits, promote meaningful participation of women, and document their achievements.

Strengthen the administration of WUCs:

The vast majority of WUCs are not carrying out their administrative duties. Encouraging

transparency and promoting active participation in community meetings is important to

ensure sustainable management of water systems. It is important for implementing


Aguaconsult

page 88

28 March 2014

organizations to leave behind efficient administrative committees with the demonstrated

ability to function equally strongly as in areas such as technical resources, financial

management, and community-responsive administrators of assets.

Ensure service levels align with needs

The use of the CRS and WPS systems increases significantly during the dry season, when

traditional sources dry up, which leads to crowding. Distance from the household and

crowding at the water point were the most commonly cited issues with regard to service

levels, before issues of quantity or quality. Meeting these dynamic needs requires sufficient

planning and foresight during early stages of community engagement and decision-making

regarding applicability, placement, and management of services.

7.1.2 Intervention Category: Sanitation (INS)

National Level

Like water, there are national policies for sanitation and environmental health. In addition to these

general policies, there is a school-specific sanitation policy: National School Health Strategy

Implementation Plan 2011-2015. At this time, institutional sanitation efforts are focused on schools

only. These include governance and regulation procedures. However, financing is a significant

barrier to the effective implementation of this strategy.

Priorities for action and investment to reduce barriers to sustainability include:

Advocate for sanitation under decentralization:

Project implementers are the primary providers of funding and training to support district

level interventions in schools. Currently the Ministry of Health is undergoing a structural

reform changing how support is provided to the County Public Health Officers. GLOWS

implementing partners should remain proactive in the Interagency Coordinating Committee

(ICC), especially the thematic group on School Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (SWASH) to

influence the provision of increased support for school sanitation as part of the MoH

transition. In addition, the GLOWS implementing partners should support the MoH to

realize its priority areas for action, which include: developing a sanitation and hygiene

investment plan, creating and operationalizing a monitoring and evaluation framework,

planning and undertaking a sanitation marketing campaign.

Support the MOH to form County ICCs

Under devolution the county is the local service authority and will have to support SWASH

activities in their jurisdiction. The MoH has announced plans to form county ICCs that will

provide a contextual learning and sharing forum and facilitate scaling up of best practices

(MoH, 2013). Therefore it is important to take an early and active role as the county ICCs

are operationalized. The MoH has clearly communicated that these will be the mechanisms

for the county to coordinate WASH development partners, and support service delivery in

their counties.


Aguaconsult

page 89

28 March 2014

District Level

Assessment responses demonstrate that there is clarity with regard to roles and responsibilities at

this level. However, full decentralization has yet to be realized and there is still uncertainty about

the role the districts will play. This is further complicated by the physical restructuring of several

Kenyan administrative divisions. Despite the outcomes of decentralization, a critical obstacle with

regard to sanitation services in the county is fecal de-sludging and disposal.

Recommended priorities for action and investment to strengthen sustainability include:

Incentivize hygienic de-sludging services

Illegal sludge haulers or “honey suckers” and illegal dumping of waste material are

widespread, which will make the enforcement of environmental standards more difficult.

Such activities are significant threats to water resources which affect the sustainability of

water infrastructure and can negatively impact human health. The governmental is the only

body with the authority to can begin regularization of these services by designating official

disposal sites and sanctioning providers. With these in place, a framework of incentives and

disincentives can be put in place. Options include regulation and oversight, licensing, market

development, and the creation of significant disincentives for environmentally harmful

practices.

Service Level

Reported usage of sanitation facilities in the communities visited was very high, which is

encouraging, although this does not imply effective practice of hygienic behaviors. Outside of the

institutional setting, cultural taboos regarding defecation become more pronounced, where it is

often regarded as inappropriate for children to see adults using, or going towards a latrine, and it

should be noted that usage is lower in households. Priorities for action and investment include:

Facilitate hygienic behaviors by promoting the use and affordability of consumables:

General cleaning supplies (i.e. beyond personal hygiene supplies) are not readily available,

and often the conditions of school facilities were poor. When resources are limited,

maintaining the hygienic condition of existing facilities is paramount. Hygiene behavior

change approaches should be introduced to increase the demand for and optimize the use

of hygiene products. Education campaigns incorporating social marketing principals can

increase the demand for consumable hygiene supplies. As part of these campaigns, local

merchants should be engaged to improve the availability of these materials.

Educate teachers/school staff on the importance of school sanitation and roles and

responsibilities:

Promoting school sanitation and working with school staff to clarify their roles and

responsibilities as service providers of school sanitation in the context of school facilities

maintenance is important. There is a general lack of awareness with the regard to the

importance of having adequate sanitation facilities and the benefits of establishing good

hygiene practices at school and at an early age. By educating teachers there is the added


Aguaconsult

page 90

28 March 2014

benefit that they will transfer the messages to children and can even influence parents to

help prioritize funds for operation and maintenance of facilities.

Remove obstacles to private sanitation service providers:

The supply of sanitation services was noted as limited and hence expensive. Schools cannot

afford regular pit emptying services offered either by the district or the private sector and

also often view this as the responsibility of the donor or government. Development partners

can work through local government to sensitize schools regarding their responsibilities.

They can also work with local government to provide sanitation business development

services. An important first step is assessing barriers to their provision of sanitation services

(e.g., lack of economies of scale, availability of finance and/or materials). Subsequent work

should include engaging entrepreneurial private sector entities to pilot business models to

make private sector service provision more economically attractive.

Ensure sufficient and appropriate facilities:

Only one institution covered in the assessment recorded a positive score for both low

crowding and having adequate female facilities (all other schools scored zero). Entrenching

sanitation and hygiene practices in children is crucial, and having appropriate types and

number of facilities for girls is important to ensuring continued attendance, especially after

the age of menarche.

7.1.3 Intervention Category: Hygiene and Hand Washing Promotion (HWP)

National Level

Hand washing and hygiene behavior change are addressed through national sanitation policies and

put into action through the national campaign on Community Led Total Sanitation. The government

also has a behavior change promotion platform. To effectively leverage these achievements in the

enabling environment the following priorities for action and investment were identified:

Support coordination of hygiene activities at the district/county level:

Here is another example of where strengths in planning at the national level have not yet

reached the decentralized authorities. There is little liaison with district level authorities in

order to support and coordinate programs and interventions from the national level. These

activities can be supported through the thematic working group on hygiene and the county

level ICCs that are currently being developed.

Facilitate financing of hygiene activities:

The MoH is currently involved in a high profile Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS)

campaign. However, funding will need to continue to ensure that the gains made under this

campaign are sustainable. Hygiene services and behavioral change messages have to more

strongly target at marginalized sections of the population. Further lobbying work at national

level, including presenting the cost-benefit case, will be necessary to support the MoH in its

budgetary representations to the Ministry of Finance.


Aguaconsult

page 91

28 March 2014

District Level

Strong coordination at the district level is driving sustainability. Currently, the PHO officers meet

quarterly in order to coordinate with each other and active agencies in the field. When and where

possible, support is provided to community health promoters, but this is subject to financial

constraints.

The following priorities for action and investment were identified:

Support assistance by government to health workers:

Government staff is hindered from working actively in villages by a host of resource

constraints. In most villages, little or no support is given by government to community

health workers who operate in the field. The success of programs thus becomes dependent

on the skill and goodwill of unremunerated community members. Government is in a

position to provide some materials and training to elevate the status of community health

workers. Priority should be given to production and mass distribution of materials, often

referred to as “job aids”, by government to support community health workers achieve

targeted hygiene objectives in their villages and to build their status. Training should be

provided to strengthen the ability of both government staff and community health workers

to put in place hygiene behavior change programs that not only educate and sensitize but

also achieve change. The duration of this training and support is critical, as the longer

individuals are supported/accompanied, the higher the chances of that capacity building

goals will be reached.

Service Level

Responses indicated both good understanding of the basics of household sanitation by female heads

of households as well as willingness and ability to pay for hygiene products. However, there are a

few priorities areas for action and investment that would promote the sustainability of improved

hygiene behaviors:

Promote water treatment and safe water handling and storage:

In most communities, water storage and handling practices were found to be sub-optimal.

The links between human health and water treatment and safe storage are well

documented. Program implementers should take advantage of the “small, doable actions”

approach of USAID’s WASHplus project to develop methodologies to increase the availability

of water treatment products, promote their acquisition and use, and adopt household

practices around safe storage. The core of “small, doable actions” is identifying those

actions that should be and can be adopted in households and communities and then

supporting the mainstreaming of those actions.

Incentivize the use of locally appropriate handwashing stations and latrine cleanliness:

Basic hygiene was found to be remarkably poor whether it was very low rates of handwashing before meal preparation or the unhygienic conditions of institutional latrines. The government has established its credibility in these areas with its well-regarded national


Aguaconsult

page 92

28 March 2014

campaign to eliminate open defecation. Similar efforts should be supported toward the promotion of these two key hygiene behaviors: handwashing and latrine cleanliness.

7.2 Tanzania (TWB-MRB and iWASH)

This section presents the key findings from the assessment of the TWB-MRB project and the iWASH

project in Tanzania. Key findings and priority areas for action and investment are organized by

intervention category (i.e. water, sanitation, and hygiene) and level (i.e. national, district, service).

7.2.1 Intervention Category: Water

Looking at all the indicators for the water interventions, the indicators with the lowest scores (0-

33%) tended to be those that target conditions at the national level. Conversely the indicators that

had the highest sustainability scores were service level indicators. The following sections describe

the key findings which were informed by the framework of the SIT, qualitative information from

stakeholder interviews, and review of project documents and relevant literature.

National Level

At the national level, the first steps toward expanded support to sustainability have been taken:

legislation is in place especially with regard to formalizing community management and mitigating

environmental impact. A selected number of norms, standards, and information management

systems exist, but very few are either disseminated or applied. And all of this is challenged by the

misalignment between relevant budgets and realistic life-cycle costing of rural infrastructure.

Priorities for action and investment include:

Complete and support a national database of assets:

National level decision-makers must have a detailed information management system

describing each asset, its location, its status, and its management organization if they are

to be able to make budgetary allocations and prioritize the enforcement of norms and

standards. Technical and/or financial support is required to improve the existing situation.

Clarify institutional roles and responsibilities:

Neither the intent nor the letter of legislation can be applied if there is not a shared

understanding of responsibilities and accountability among the key administrative units. In

Tanzania, both inter and intra institutional confusion exists with regard to roles and

responsibilities within the water sector. Working with key national stakeholders,

communication materials should be developed.

Aligning roles, responsibilities, and capacity building:

In general, support from the national to local government was found to be limited and

one-off. Sustainability is most likely to improve when those closest to asset management

understand their responsibilities, are provided with the skills necessary to fulfill them, and


Aguaconsult

page 93

28 March 2014

are held accountable for applying their skills. A focused and prioritized training program

from national to local levels that includes effectiveness monitoring should be established.

Continue advocacy

The government has implemented a policy to subsidize service providers so that tariffs can

be maintained at 20 TzSh per bucket in rural areas. With understanding the life cycle costs

services and knowing the budgetary limitation s, it is highly unlikely that this subsidy will be

widely available. It is important that stakeholders advocate for a balance policy which

recognizes the need to ensure the affordability of water for the vulnerable segments of the

population, but that understands the need to design subsidies considering the actual costs

and incorporate an understanding of the cost implications of technology choice. Therefore

advocacy includes the promotion of the service ladder and the promotion of self-supply

alternatives for areas where more advanced technologies are not financially viable. This is

understandably difficult as there is currently a strong political movement to extend

coverage using advanced and expensive technologies (e.g. Big Results Now campaign).

This is a considerable challenge because, as pointed out earlier, there is still cultural

resistance in Tanzania to realistic tariffs. Therefore advocacy efforts targeting government

will have to be complimented by sensitization campaigns targeting the public.

District Level

Positive drivers toward sustainable service delivery were noted at the decentralized, district level in

Tanzania. As noted above, legislation supports the legal status of community management

organizations; responsibilities of district staff in supporting community managers are also clear.

There is general consensus that District Water Officers are active in working to fill their

responsibilities within the significant resource limitations at this level.

Broad agreement was found that staffing, the skill sets of staff, and the budget available to support

their work are woefully inadequate. As a result, the ability of district official’s to monitor and report

on community managers’ actions and local conditions is severely constrained. Little agreement was

found on the conduct of district staff in fulfilling their roles and responsibilities. Their support

functions are formally described, and district staff largely believes that they are providing

appropriate support. Community managers disagreed with the adequacy of support, but because

role definitions were not widely disseminated, resolution of this discrepancy and descriptions of

accountability are largely absent. In general there is a lack of clarity between the Basin Water Office

and the District Water Office with regard to the roles and responsibilities of each. This confirms the

findings of the mid-term evaluation of iWASH (Owen et al, 2011) which concluded that “The lack of

clarity over interpretation of the Water Supply and Sanitation Act, and the Water Resources

Management Act, merits more than the guide for the public that iWASH is commissioning through

WaterAID. Widespread misunderstanding around the exact meaning of these two pieces of

legislation appears to cut across all levels from central government to village councils.”



Aguaconsult

page 94

28 March 2014

Clarify roles, responsibility, and accountability:

There is considerable confusion at the district level about institutional roles and

responsibilities. Without a shared understanding of these, no one can be made

accountable for not fulfilling their role in supporting sustainability of investments. This

gap needs to be closed for both direct water supply support and for issues related to an

overarching framework of water resource management. It is important that

development partners continue to work with Water Basin Boards, District Water

Offices, and Village government to clarify the specific roles and responsibilities and

identify weakness in the capacity of the different organizations to fulfill these roles and

responsibilities. An important accountability mechanism is upwards accountability,

which requires that the institutions as well as the general population are aware of the

roles and responsibilities of all institutions involved: from regulation through service

provision. The guide developed in coordination with WaterAID is the first step,

however greater efforts at educating stakeholders at all levels needs to take place. This

could be in the form of public service announcements, radio broadcasts to reach the

general public and promotional materials and information sessions at village council

meetings within the project Districts. Education efforts should be undertaken in

coordination with other development partners through the Thematic Working groups.

Maximize governmental capacity and resources:

The low human resource capacity at the district level is a significant risk factor to the

sustainability of water interventions. Much of this is beyond the capacity of external

entities to remedy. External partners can, however, play a significant role in maximizing

the use of available resources by providing capacity building of existing staff to

strengthen their technical and managerial skills, collect and report relevant data for

improved decision-making, and improve their ability to clearly represent the role of

their office to community mangers of assets.

Align roles, responsibilities, and capacity building:

In general, support from the national to local government was found to be limited and

one-off. Sustainability is most likely to improve when those closest to asset

management understand their responsibilities, are provided with the skills necessary to

fulfill them, and are held accountable for applying their skills. A focused and prioritized

training program from national to local levels that includes effectiveness monitoring

should be established and rolled out.

Optimize limited budgets:

Budgets for water at the district level are very limited and should be applied to

rehabilitation, expansion, transportation, and fuel in support of community

management. Financial management and planning skills need strengthening so that

each district has a plan for the on-going support of community managers and the

sustainability of investments that can realistically be implemented within existing or

anticipated budgets.

Harmonize project and district planning:


Aguaconsult

page 95

28 March 2014

Responsibility for sustainability of water supply investments ultimately lies with the

host country government. Therefore, all project activities of external development

partners must be better coordinated with local authorities to ensure consistency with

their priorities and norms and alignment with their capacity and resources. The

assessment found that this was not always the case for iWASH interventions. This could

be achieved through the coordination of regular meetings to convene the District Water

and Sanitation Committees for all of the Districts included in the projects. This would

encourage the sharing of best practices. It will be important that these activities are

funded by the project and there are clear and demonstrable benefits for the local

governments for participating, so that such meetings increase capacity of local

government and do not drain resources.

Service Level

Community management systems were identified as being quite robust featuring representative

membership with appropriate technical capacity. They provide equity of service across the

community and typically have a tariff in place. Work in Tanzania benefited particularly from the

application of a single, simple technology, the rope pump, which facilitated the availability of spare

parts and local ability to do maintenance and repair. Within these structures, however, gender

equity was not regularly prioritized or ensured. The importance of equitable input from women and

men to the sustainable operation of any WASH service cannot be overstated.

While the community management systems covered technical functions well, their administrative

and financial management require more structure and strengthening. A particular emphasis should

be placed on the reconsideration of tariffs to ensure that they align with a reasonable calculation of

life-cycle costs of the supply. This is generally not the case as collected tariffs were found to be

insufficient to cover even immediate operations costs.

In addition, water supply systems were rarely developed with an appreciation of the local

environmental context. To support community resilience against water supply fluctuations and

ensure the lasting quality of the resource, supplies should be placed into a broader water resource

management context accounting for contamination sources, historical fluctuations, and source

protection.


Clarify legislated authority for asset ownership:

Confusion exists with regard to the roles of the village government and Community

Owned Water and Sanitation Organizations (COWSOs). According to 2009 legislation,

COWSOs are in charge of operations and maintenance and ownership and holders of

water supply assets and water use permits. However, The District Operations Manual

(2000), which many District Water Offices were found to still reference, stipulates that

the village is the legal authority in charge of water provisions. With the limited capacity


Aguaconsult

page 96

28 March 2014

of local government referenced above, support should be directed toward building the

capacity of COWSOs to master their responsibilities under the 2009 legislation.

Align tariffs with anticipated costs:

The ability of a local service provider to generate revenue through tariffs is central to

the sustainability of the service. COWSOs should be trained to review their financial

registries and calculate figures for annual revenue and expenditure. The two

communities that completed these financial projections had the highest overall

sustainability scores of any of the five communities in the iWASH project. These efforts

need to be coordinated with advocacy efforts at all levels, to clarify the benefits of life-

cycle cost analysis.

Elevate demand generation and behavior change:

The study found clear evidence that in Tanzania there is a social norm that water is a

common good rather than a service that requires local maintenance and upkeep. An

effort beyond awareness and sensitization that focuses on changing attitudes and

practices is needed to establish value in water resource management, mainstream

community contributions to construction, and put in place structures of local ownership

and stewardship. The second phase of iWASH has adopted a more rigorous demand-

response approach for identifying villages and sub-villages which should be expanded to

include behavior change objectives.

Continue to experiment with Multiple Use Service

iWASH has been integrating an approach which provides water to consumers for productive in

addition to domestic uses. This has the added benefit of stimulating economic activities in the

target communities. These efforts should be applauded and continued. The lessons learned should

be integrated into future project planning. There is a strong possibility to engage women through

MUS. The objective should be to promote meaningful participation by women in the management

of water systems which has had demonstrated links with sustainability.

7.2.2 Intervention Category: Sanitation (and associated hygiene)

National Level

A clear division of responsibilities for sanitation are defined, but otherwise national authority and

focus are missing in the Tanzanian sanitation sector. Technical standards for facilities and waste

disposal are formalized, but roles and responsibilities for monitoring and enforcement and unclear

and rapidly fractionate at the national, decentralized, and local levels. A draft sanitation policy has

been created but it has not been developed as a guide for resource commitment, prioritization, or

national focus. Limited resources are committed to the sector, and the assessment found that no

funding moves from the national level to support the construction or maintenance of sanitation

facilities in schools, health centers, or other state institutions.



Aguaconsult

page 97

28 March 2014

Promote the National Sanitation and Hygiene Policy:

Two draft documents are under consideration by the national government: (1) the

National Sanitation and Hygiene Policy and (2) a memorandum of understanding (MOU)

between the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Water, Ministry of Education and

Vocational Training, and the Prime Minister’s Office for Regional Administration and

Local Government. The promotion of both should be supported. Promulgation is

beyond the manageable interest of GLOWS or even USAID, but it should be encouraged

by each organization to elevate the prominence of sanitation and hygiene promotion.

Without this elevation, commitment of the resources necessary to support expansion

and sustainability will be a significant challenge.

Continue advocacy for increased sanitation funding in national budgets:

Sanitation is currently under the remit of the Ministry of Health, and efforts need to be

made to encourage them to identify a specific budget line item for sanitation at the

national and local government levels. Without resource commitments concretely in

budgets, sanitation service provision will be at risk and sustainability will be

unattainable. The iWASH partners to date have been active in advocating for

sanitation. They should continue to be active in the national WASH coalition,

particularly CARE which has a larger in-country presence. Through the coalition it is

possible to advocate for increase funding from the participating ministries (MoHSW,

MoW, MoEVT, and PMO-RALG) and also to raise awareness for the district councilors to

influence the allocation of existing resources for sanitation.

Decentralized Level

At the district-level, the assessment found clear roles and responsibilities identified and understood.

Training was provided to district sanitation staff, and it was considered adequate to cover core tasks

but lacking in both skills and materials for hygiene promotion (including social marketing and

hygiene behavior change). Credit should be given to the observed sanitation technologies which

were both immediately appropriate and adjusted to meet the unique needs of children and that

addressed the challenges of those with special needs. In addition, a cadre of skilled masons is

available to construct hygienic facilities. Beyond this, examples of achievements in sanitation were

largely driven by individual institutions.

Funds are not available from government for institutional sanitation. Certain schools and health

centers budgeted for capital and maintenance costs of sanitation facilities, but this was not

uniformly addressed. And in most cases, a low prioritization was noted of the provision of

appropriate consumable at facilities, and the assessment observed a limited presence of equipped

hand washing facilities. Intermittent governmental monitoring of institutional facilities was noted,

but there was limited communication between government and the institution to exchange findings

or identify support to remediate problems.


Aguaconsult

page 98

28 March 2014

A critical need was identified to resolve the dysfunction in licensing, operation, and enforcement of

fecal sludge disposal. Training on this topic is provided to district sanitation staff, and although the

District Environmental Health Officer carries the mandate the mandate for regulation and

monitoring in principal, the practice is significantly different and in many districts the position of the

Health Officer isn’t occupied. As a result, pit emptying is ungoverned, only available when local

resources can be raised, and without environmental control. In general, the assessment found that

environmental concerns were not addressed below the national level.


Build focused capacity at the district level:

Personnel and capacity at the district level with regard to sanitation and hygiene are of

lower quality than for water. Making the situation worse is the reduction in the Ministry

of Health’s budget for training these staff. Given this, a narrow set of priorities focused

on building capacity for hygiene promotion with a special emphasis on handwashing is

recommended as this is within the mandate of sanitation staff, is an effective add-on to

the facilities in use, and has been demonstrated to be highly cost-effective and

therefore a wise commitment of very scarce resources.

Provide business development services for masons:

The iWASH Project has demonstrated notable success at training a cadre of sanitation

service providers. As a result, a supply of skilled masons exists, but demand for their

services lags. UNICEF concluded that a latent demand for latrines exists in rural

Tanzania, but cost was the primary reason for inaction. A separate market research

assessment concluded that more effective and widespread demand generation remains

the main constraint to generate high volume of sanplat sales and sanitation

improvements (WSP, 2009). Those with the largest vested interest in expanding access

to sanitation facilities are those who can make a living doing so. These masons should

be supported to develop businesses that market and provide a range of services in line

with national standards leaping over the limited capacity of district government. A key

element in this will be support in smoothing their access to credit to supporting

expanded business operations and reducing costs through economies of scale. An

important point was raised by iWASH director regarding the limitations of the concrete

sanplat latrine. The weight of these slabs means that manufacturing must be

established to serve the immediately surrounding areas (because of the prohibitive

transportation costs). Therefore attempts should be made to develop business plans

that utilize other materials and technologies (e.g. low cost plastic san plats such as

those promoted in Malawi) which would allow entrepreneurs to access markets outside

of their immediate vicinity.

Incentivize fecal sludge management:

No respondent in any community had heard of permits being issued for pit emptying or

sludge disposal, although indications were that individuals would remove sludge from

pit latrines and septic tanks for a fee. The only formalized sludge removal services are


Aguaconsult

page 99

28 March 2014

provided by the Morogoro Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority (MORUWASA)

who owns two cesspit pump trucks each with an emptying capacity of 6,500 cubic liters.

Usually only one truck is operating with a maximum emptying capacity of eight trips per

day to the one designated disposal site maintained by MORUWASA. The empting

charges are approximately Tshs. 12,000 per trip for residential premises and Tshs.

15,000 for commercial, institutional and industrial premises (SMEC, 2010).

Development partners should work with the local government and MORUWASA to

increase their capacity to collect and safely dispose of fecal sludge. This includes

subsidizing hardware, providing training on safe handling, and helping to identify and

develop additional disposal sites. It will also be crucial to incentivize proper

management of fecal sludge through regulation and oversight, licensing, or penalties for

use of uncertified sludge haulers.

Service Level

Demand for sanitation facilities was noted by the assessment as were localized initiatives to provide

facilities using local funds in isolated villages and institutions. Yet, even where facilities were

available, low-cost consumables were rarely present, handwashing facilities were either not present

or ill equipped, and facilities were kept in unhygienic states. Each project included an element of

school-focused hygiene education, but the assessment clearly found that education was not

translating into action. Demand could be addressed through business development services as

described above, but the assessment illustrated that existence of facilities was insufficient to ensure

hygienic use and operation. Prioritized hygiene behavior change is an obvious need.


Promote life-cycle costing of sanitation improvements:

Government funding for sanitation improvements cannot be expected in the

foreseeable future for reasons stated above. Local institutions should be expected to

continue to be reliant on local resources for construction, maintenance, and emptying.

The assessment found that most institutions were not aware of the costs of emptying

pits or the time frame in which they could expect to incur this expense. Direct support

(e.g. accounting and financial planning training, and financial auditing) should be

provided to institutions to understand these life-cycle costs and put in place either

internal budgets or local resource acquisition plans to ensure that these costs are

understood and planned for. In addition, the implementing partners could explore

different options to make it easier to budget for latrine pit emptying. This could be

through a technical redesign of latrines to reduce their capacity and thus require

emptying on an annual basis. This would align the costs of emptying with the annual

budgetary cycle.

Prioritize “small, doable actions”:


Aguaconsult

page 100

28 March 2014

USAID, through its WASHPlus Project, has developed the concept of “small, doable

actions” as they related to hygiene improvements. If sanitation facilities remain beyond

the resources of households and institutions, then a focus should be placed on cleaning

existing sanitation facilities, installing affordable handwashing facilities, promoting their

regular use by all, and equipping them with an affordable minimum amount of

consumables emphasizing soap and water for rinsing.


Aguaconsult

page 101

28 March 2014

References

Adams, A. (2012) Financial Sustainability of Rural Water Supplies in Western Kenya Comparing technology types and management models. A report for Stichting Nederlandse Vrijwilligers: Delft, Netherlands.

Chaggu, E (2009) Sanitation Sector Status and Gap Analysis: Tanzania. A report of the Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative Council. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Eberhard, R. (2011) “Strategic Financing Framework in the WASH Sector in African Countries.” 6th World Water Forum – Africa Target 5 Report. Draft report June 2011.

GoK (2004). National Health Sector Strategic Plan II (2005-2010). Republic of Kenya: Nairobi, Kenya.

GTZ (2008) “Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Reforms inKenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.” GTZ-Tanzania: Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Heymans, C., Mwangi, P., & Eberhard, R. (2013). “Devolution-in-Kenya-Opportunities-and-Challenges-for-the-Water-Sector.” Water and Sanitation Program Policy Note. The World Bank: Washington D.C.

Kayser, G., Griffiths, J., Moomaw, W., Schaffner, J., & Rogers, B., (2010). “Assessing the Impact of Post-Construction Support—The Circuit Rider Model—on System Performance & Sustainability in Community Managed Water Supply: Evidence from El Salvador.” Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rural Water Services Providing Sustainable Water Services at Scale.

Lockwood, H. & Smets, S. (2011). Supporting Rural Water Supply Lockwood, H. and Smits, S. (2011). Supporting rural water supply : moving towards a service delivery approach. London, UK, Practical Action and The Hague, The Netherlands,

MoH-Kenya (2013) SSHIT-Shared Sanitation, Hygiene Information & Tales. Issue No 6. September 2013. Ministry of Health, Nairobi, Kenya.

MoH-Kenya (2013). “Environmental Sanitation and hygiene Inter-agency Coordinating Committee (ICC).” Unpublished document provided by the Ministry.

MoW-K (2005). “Practice Manuel for Water Supply Services in Kenya.” Ministry of Water, Republic of Kenya: Nairobi, Kenya.

MoW-T (2009) Water Sector Report 2009. Ministry of Water. Government of the Republic of Tanzania: Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Onyando, J., Agol, D., & Onyango, L (2013). “World Wildlife Fund Mara River Basin Management Initiative, Kenya and Tanzania.” WWF-Kenya and WWF-Norway: Nairobi, Kenya.

Owen, M., Kashililah, H., & Mutayobaet, W. (2011). “Tanzania Integrated Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (iWASH) Program Mid-term Evaluation for the Global Water for Sustainability Program and Florida International University.” Unpublished report, August 2011.

Paul, F and Msambazi, M (2012) Fact sheet on sanitation financing: Tanzania. WaterAID. Available at http://www.wateraid.org/~/media/Publications/Factsheet-on-financing-sanitation-Tanzania.ashx Accessed on [December, 12, 2013].

Sara, Lewnida (2013). WSP personal communication

http://www.wateraid.org/~/media/Publications/Factsheet-on-financing-sanitation-Tanzania.ashx

http://www.wateraid.org/~/media/Publications/Factsheet-on-financing-sanitation-Tanzania.ashx


Aguaconsult

page 102

28 March 2014

SMEC (2010) “Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of the Proposed Improvements to Morogoro Water Supply System, Tanzania” Report submitted to the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs.

SNV-Tanzania (2011) School water, sanitation and hygiene mapping report - Tanzania. Stichting Nederlandse Vrijwilligers, Water Aid and United National Children's Fund. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

TBS (2012) National Environmental Standards compendium. Tanzania Bureau of Standards. Government of the Republic of Tanzania: Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Thomas, J., Holbro, N., Young, D. (2013) A Review of Sanitation and Hygiene in Tanzania. Msabi, April 2013.

UNICEF (2009) Baseline study of hygiene practices for over 5,000 households.

UNICEF, FAO & Oxfam GB (2012). A Trainer's Manual for Community Based Water Supply Management in Kenya. UNICEF-Kenya Country Office, FAO & Oxfam GB, Nairobi, Kenya.

Uwazi (2010). “It’s our water too! Bringing greater equity in access to water in Kenya” Uwazi: Nairobi, Kenya.

WASREB (2012) Impact- A performance review of Kenya’s Water Services Sector 2010/2011. Water Services Regulatory Board Issue No 5.

WSP (2010) “Water Supply and Sanitation in Kenya: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond.” Country Status Overview-Kenya. Water Sanitation Program: Nairobi, Kenya.

WSP (2010) “Water Supply and Sanitation in Tanzania: Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond” Country Status Overview-Tanzania. Water Sanitation Program: Nairobi, Kenya.


Aguaconsult

page 103

28 March 2014

Annexes Annex provided separately.

Annex 1. WASH Sector Institutional Stakeholders and Institutional

Arrangements

Annex 2. Stakeholder interview list

Annex 3. Representative Overview of Key Documents

Annex 4. Representative Overview of Legal Framework

Annex 5. Excel Frameworks

Annex 6. Protocol for Establishing Sampling Frame and Selecting Households

Annex 7. Data Collection Tools

Annex 8. Maps of Sample Communities

Annex 9. Results of Add-On Surveys (iWASH project)

Annex 10. SIT Summary Tables