A RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KENYAA RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KENYAA RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KENYAA RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KENYA’’’’S S S S

WATER, SANITATION AND WATER, SANITATION AND WATER, SANITATION AND WATER, SANITATION AND

SEWERAGE SEWERAGE SEWERAGE SEWERAGE FRAMEWORKFRAMEWORKFRAMEWORKFRAMEWORK

INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRSINSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRSINSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRSINSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (IEA) (IEA) (IEA) (IEA)

June 2007

A RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KENYAA RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KENYAA RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KENYAA RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KENYA’’’’S S S S

WATER, SANITATION AND WATER, SANITATION AND WATER, SANITATION AND WATER, SANITATION AND

SEWERAGE SEWERAGE SEWERAGE SEWERAGE FRAMEWORKFRAMEWORKFRAMEWORKFRAMEWORK

INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRSINSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRSINSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRSINSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (IEA) (IEA) (IEA) (IEA)

June 2007

Published by: Institute of Economic Affairs

5th Flr. ACK Garden House, 1st Ngong Avenue P O BOX 53989 – 00200

Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254 020 2717402, 2721262

Fax: 254 020 2716231 E-mail: admin@ieakenya.or.ke Website: www.ieakenya.or.ke

© Institute of Economic Affairs 2007 First Published 2007

ISBN: 9966-7183-1-1

With funding from Heinrich Böll Foundation Regional Office East and Horn of Africa

P.O. Box 10799-00100 GPO Nairobi, Kenya

Tel: 020-3744227/3750329 Fax: 020-3749132

Website: www.hbfha.com

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Government - The Service Provider, Implementer, Policy Maker, Regulator and Financier

The first Water Act in Kenya was the Water Ordinance, 1929 which was then repealed by the Water Act Cap 372, published in May 1952, it was revised in 1962, and once again in 1972 with minor changes. Under this Water Act, Ministry of Water Resources Management and Development (MWRMD), National Water Pipeline Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) and Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries (MoLF) were all responsible for policy formulation, regulation and service provision. This made several Government organs the policy formulators, regulators and service providers, causing confusion and overlapping of roles (A diagram indicating the responsibility lines of these ministries is shown in Annex 1). In 1974, a National Water Master Plan Initiative was launched. The primary aim of the Initiative was to ensure availability of potable water within reasonable distance to all households by 2000. The initiative bore the slogan, “Water for all by the year 2000” which was to be achieved through the development of water supply schemes. Until 1974, water was managed by the Department of Water Development (DWD) which was housed in various ministries including Public Works, Natural Resources and Agriculture. In line with the 1974 Initiative, the Government upgraded the Ministry of Agriculture’s Department of Water Development into a Ministry of Water. This new Ministry embarked on an ambitious water supply development program. Unfortunately soon after in the 1980s, Government began experiencing budget constraints which curtailed its desire to provide safe water and expand water and sewerage systems. Priority was therefore given to the rehabilitation of existing schemes and construction of a number of huge water projects that included the Baricho and Kilimanjaro water schemes. Handing over to Communities

Despite these efforts and investments, the goal was far from being achieved. The Government soon realized that on its own, it could not deliver water to all Kenyans by 2000 as promised. Therefore, there was a need to revisit the slogan and develop a strategy on how best to increase water access and coverage in the rural and urban areas. Attention therefore turned to finding ways of involving players other than the Government in providing water and sewerage services, a process that came to be known as “handing over.” There was general agreement over the need to hand over Government water supply systems but not the aspects of what was to be handed over. In 1997, the Government published a national guideline on how to hand over rural water supply systems to communities (Ministry of Land Reclamation, Regional and Water Development, 1997). The Manual stated that “… at the moment the Ministry is only transferring the management (not the assets) of the water supply schemes. The communities will act as custodians of the water supply schemes,

including the assets, when they take over the responsibility for operating and maintaining them.” The community felt that to ensure good management and ownership, the handing over should have included all associated assets. The criteria for handing over included (i) a community’s capacity to take over (ii) ability to pay (iii) capacity to operate and maintain the system (iv) involvement of women in management and (v) ability and willingness of communities to constitute legal entities to manage the water schemes.

Creation of a National Water Policy

Building on the above experience, the Government developed a National Water Policy which was adopted by Parliament as Sessional Paper No 1 of 1999 in April, 1999. It was officially launched in August, 1999 for implementation. The 1999 policy justified a management hand over, arguing that ownership of a water facility encouraged proper operation and maintenance and that those facilities should, therefore, be handed over to those responsible for their operation and maintenance. The Policy stated that the Government would hand over urban water systems to autonomous departments within local authorities, and the rural water supplies, to communities. In a nutshell, the Policy moved Government away from direct service provision and restricted it to regulatory functions. Service provision was left to municipalities, private sector and communities. More about the policy is contained in Annex 2. The Policy also stated that the Water Act, Chapter 372, would be reviewed and updated to transfer water facilities to other service providers. Regulations would be introduced to give other institutions the legal mandate to provide water services and regulation mechanisms. Water Coverage as of Year 2000

By 2000, the Department of Water Development (DWD) had developed and was managing 73 piped urban water systems serving 1.4 million people, and 555 piped rural water supply systems serving 4.7 million people. The NWCPC was operating piped water supply systems in 21 urban centres for 2.3 million people and 14 large rural water supply systems for 1.5 million people. However this investment in water systems still fell short of the targets and water for all by year 2000. Therefore alongside the DWD and the NWCPC, large municipalities were licensed to supply water in their areas of jurisdiction, and by 2000, ten municipalities supplied 3.9 million urban dwellers with water. Some municipalities that established a water and sewage department were Nyeri, Nairobi, Kericho, Eldoret, Thika, Nyahururu, Kitale, Nanyuki, Meru and Nakuru. Additionally, about 2.3 million people were receiving some level of service from systems operated by self-help (community) groups who had built systems often with donor funding and technical support from district officers of the DWD. Those who were not served under any of the above arrangements i.e. DWD, NCWPC or a municipal, served themselves. Typically, this was done by collecting water directly from a water course or some other water source on a daily basis. In terms of access to safe water supply and sanitation, the figures were relatively low. Access to safe water supply stood at 57% in urban areas and 42% in rural in 2000. The urban sanitation coverage was 95%, and rural coverage, 82%, averaging 87%. (These data are shown in Annex 3). It should be noted that this refers mainly to the existence of facilities. These figures on water and sanitation coverage differ from source to source and depend on

the criteria and definition used. The current national coverage figures, as given elsewhere in this report, are 68% in urban and 49% in rural areas for water supply and less than 50% for sanitation. By 2002, only 10 of the 555 schemes serving about 85,000 people had been handed over to community based organisations. This was a very small number. Repealing Water Act Cap 372

While developing the National Water Policy, the Government also established a National Task Force to review the Water Act, Cap 372, and draft amendments. The Water Bill 2002 was published on 15 March, 2002, and passed by Parliament on 18 July, 2002. It was gazetted in October 2002 and came into effect in 2003. The Water Act 2002 was a key instrument and tool to implement the policy. The Act would operate concurrently with the Water Act Cap 372 until completely repealed. 1.2 Purpose of this Study

This research assesses the design and implementation of Water Act 2002. More specifically, it (i) highlights strengths and weaknesses of Kenya’s water, sanitation and sewerage framework as per Water Act 2002 and (ii) ways in which the identified strengths can be built and the weaknesses reduced. The objective of the study is to inform policy makers, implementing agencies, service providers and development partners of the status of the water reforms, and suggest some ways forward. The study can also be used to enlighten public sector reform design in Kenya.

1.3 Scope of the Study

The scope of the study is as follows:

• Overview of the current water, sanitation and sewerage framework;

• A comparison of the framework with those used in other nations; and

• Recommendations.

1.4 Principles of the Study

A framework is a support structure established to act as a means for meeting a given need. It consists of people, entities, rules and systems. It can be said that the elements of a good framework are (i) clear roles and relationships between actors (ii) rules of operation and adherence to the rules and (iii) accountability to a higher authority. This framework should then ultimately, act as a means to achieve intended policy outcomes. It is these principles that form the basis for this rapid assessment of the Kenya water, sanitation and sewerage framework.

1.5 Methodology

The study has applied the following methods and strategies to undertake the assignment:

• Desk research;

• Field work;

• Key informant interviews of staff in various institutions;

• Peer review; and

• Discussions with key policy makers and stakeholders.

The study commenced in February 2006 and was peer reviewed twice by water stakeholders from different parts of Kenya, in Nairobi, in May 2006. The comments made on the study were incorporated and shared with the Ministry of Water and Irrigation at Maji House, Nairobi, in November 2006. The comments made on the study were incorporated and then shared with Members of Parliament at the IEA Annual Legislative Conference in Mombasa, in December 2006. The study was revised over the period of January to May 2007, and was shared with relevant Ministries in May 2007. The final document will then be launched to stakeholders, donors and the general public in June 2007.

CHAPTER TWO

KENYA’S WATER, SANITATION AND SEWERAGE FRAMEWORK

2.1 General Overview of Water Act 2002

The Water Act 2002 provides for three main aspects; (i) the management, conservation, use and control of water resources (ii) the acquisition and regulation of rights to use water, and (iii) the regulation and management of water supply and sewerage services. It creates various institutions with separate functions/ mandates and starts by first, removing Government from service provision. The institutional framework as spelt out in the new Water Act 2002 is pyramidal. At the apex are the Water Appeals Board and the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MW&I). The functions of the Ministry of Water and Irrigation are reduced to policy making. More specifically, its functions are to develop and formulate Water Resources Management Policy, Water and Sanitation Services Policy, Water Quality and Pollution Control Policy, Flood Control and Land Reclamation Policy, Waste Water Treatment and Disposal Policy, National Irrigation Policy and a policy on Water Schemes and Community Water Projects. 1 The Water Services Regulatory Board (WSRB) and Water Appeals Board (WAB) are independent institutions to regulate and deal with disputes respectively. The Water Act 2002 provides for a Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA) to manage water in an integrated way. WRMA is charged with responsibility for managing, regulating, protecting, apportioning and conserving water resources naturally, including transboundary waters. In the case of water supply and sewerage, the Act gives responsibility for service delivery to seven Water Services Boards, who in turn, retain service provider(s) such as water companies, NGOs, institutions and community owned schemes, to provide day-to-day service within their areas of responsibilities. Seven service boards on a regional basis have been established and are operational. These Boards are to be regulated by the Water Services Regulatory Board. While the Regulatory Board has been gazetted, it is yet to be fully functional (this is discussed in Chapter Three). The Water Appeals Board (WAB) has also been established but is not fully operational (this is discussed in Chapter Three). The water reforms are in atransitional period and the work of WAB will become more pronounced once these reform institutions are fully operational and meeting their mandates. The Water and River Users Associations (WRUAs) are entities created to give the consumer a voice. However, not all WRUAs are in place as envisaged. This new set up is depicted in chart 1.

1 Official Website, Ministry of Water and Irrigation http://www.water.go.ke

Chart 1: New Water Act 2002 Institutional Framework

Source Water Sector Reform Secretariat

Each of these institutions is discussed in more detail throughout this paper.

2.2 National Strategies

Sections 49 and 50 of the Water Act 2002 define the National Water Services Strategy. The strategy objectives are to make arrangements to ensure that at all times there is in every area a person capable of providing water, and to design a program that progressively extends sewerage to every centre of population. The national strategy describes the process of ensuring that every area has adequate water and sewerage services and that there is a service provider. The Transfer Plan, which was subjected to public hearing in 2005, is under implementation. It is expected that Water Services Strategy will soon be subjected to public consultations as required under section 49 of the Act 2002. In the case of water services, resource management and supply, as well as sewerage, the National Water Resources Management Strategy and National Water Supply and Sewerage Strategy have been drafted. The strategies suggest guidelines on the hows and whys of water management and supply in the country. As per section 11 of the Act, the strategies cannot be gazetted by the Minister in charge of Water Affairs until public consultation has been held. Public consultations on the National Water Resources Strategy are still ongoing and are to be gazetted by end of the year.

MoWI

Policy Formul

ation

Regula

tion

Services

Provisi

on

National level

Regional

level

Local level

Consump- tion, Use

Water Appeals Board WAB

Water Services

Regulatory Board WSRB

Water Resources

Management Authority WRMA

Water Services Boards WSBs

Catchment Areas Advisory

Committees CAACs

Water Services Providers

WSPs

Water Resources User Associations

WRUAs

Water Sector Reform Steering

Committee WSRSC

Water Sector Reform

Secretariat

Water Services Trust Fund

WSTF

Regional Office

WRMA

Consumers, Users

2.3 Implementation of New Water Framework

The 2002 Act was gazetted in 2003 and implementation began in 2004. During 2004 to 2005, new institutions were established and given legal mandates according to the Act. These include the WSRB, WSBs, WSTF, WRMA and some WSPs. The transfer plan was approved in July, 2005. During 2006, the Ministry of Water and Irrigation would focus on consolidation of commercialization of WSPs, WRUAs etc and development of Business Plans for new institutions. In the same period, Ministry would also focus on its core business by embracing the SWAP and sector investment plan.

Table 1: Implementation Status of Framework Phase One (2004) Establishment and staffing of new institutions, situation analysis of all water supplies and water resources under respective WSBs, and public consultations of Transfer Plan.

Status Staffing of new institutions is still ongoing after gazettement of the transfer plan. About 600 staff mostly technical from Ministry of Water and NWCPC, have been transferred to WSBs. Situation analysis of all existing water supplies, sewerage and water resources has not been done. Public consultations of Transfer Plan have taken place.

Phase Two (2005) Gazettement of the Transfer Plan and the transfer of services to the Water Services Boards and water resources to the Water Resources Management Authority. Note that after the transfer of services previously undertaken by DWD and NWCPC to WSBs, the DWD would be appointed as interim WSP for one year.

Status The process for the transfer of these services is outlined in The Plan for Transfer of management and operation of water services to water services boards 2004. The plan has been gazetted and is being implemented. All water supplies previously managed by MW&I and NWCPC have been transferred to WSBs with a legally binding transfer agreement. In turn WSBs have appointed WSPs like Nairobi Water and Sewerage company.

Phase Three (2006) Ensuring effective implementation of new institutions and enhancing institutional capacities.

Status All new institutions have been established and 7 WSBs have been licensed by the WRSB and transfer of staff from MW&I and NWCPC and recruitment effected. Some of the Ministry and Corporation staff at districts not absorbed by WSBs has been attached to community projects. WSBs and other new institutions have developed strategic business plans and action plans to implement their mandates. Capacity building has been incorporated in plans and training is outsourced.

Source: WSRS - Table indicating planned stages in implementation of reforms The Ministry of Water and Irrigation has already handed over all water supply utilities to the new institutions. Management teams have been appointed and placed on performance contracts. Staffing of the institutions, which is the final milestone in the transfer process was effected from 1 July, 2005, with 7,200 civil servants working in the Ministry of Water and

Irrigation and 1,300 in the National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation (NWCPC) being systematically deployed to the new institutions according to their staffing needs. At the district level, all the ministry staff, including those currently undertaking Projects/Program and the NWCPC personnel in regional offices, have moved directly to their respective Boards. Likewise, the water supply infrastructure previously under the Ministry and the Water Corporation went to the Boards. Those serving at the provincial headquarters as water development staff were retained to provide support for coordination, supervision, monitoring and evaluation in consultation with the regional bodies (WSB and WRMA) head offices. However those serving in planning, design, operations, maintenance and water resource management moved to the relevant institutions. At the NWCPC head office, those performing functions that have been delegated were deployed appropriately and the rest retained. The Corporation now serves as the construction arm of the Ministry and, therefore, all Ministry staff engaged in water conservation and drilling report to the Managing Director of the NWCPC for deployment. 2.4 Gender Issues in New Framework

The issue of gender is critical and features in all sectors at both the management and development levels. However, in majority of cases, gender concerns are often given low attention and in many cases left out. The major hindrance has been the lack of a National Gender Policy and, in turn, a legal framework to implement the policy. A National Commission on Gender and Development has been established by an act of parliament in December, 2003, to coordinate implementation and facilitate gender mainstreaming in water and sanitation program and to give advice. The commission is recruiting staff to strengthen its capacity to address gender issues. Efforts have however, been made by the Government to develop a gender policy, though not enacted, and gender desk officers have been posted to ministries. The desk officers lack the guiding policy that could be used to push gender agenda through various programs undertaken by ministries and government departments. An attempt is being made to mainstream gender into the new framework by appointing women representatives to the boards/institutions and in management. It is a requirement to have female representation in water boards and water service providers. Although progress has been made in the community water and sanitation committees and women groups dealing with water and sanitation, the number of female representation is generally low.

2.5 Other Key Institutions

For the water sector to operate effectively there are institutions outside the Water Act 2002 which play a critical role in water resource management, sanitation and sewerage. They include National Environmental Management Authority, Ministry of Lands, Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Planning and National Development, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries. It is important to note that the Ministry of Gender, Culture, Sports and Social Services should play a major role in water supply and sanitation as majority of support agencies have insisted on incorporation of gender and other cross-cutting issues like poverty alleviation and HIV/Aids in water and sanitation development and management.

CHAPTER THREE

WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3.1 The Framework Kenya is classified as a water-scarce country with per capita water being below the global benchmark of 1,000 cubic metres. In 2005, the estimated per capita was about 612 cubic metres for all uses. This scarcity is expected to worsen by 2025 when per capita is projected to be about 235 cubic metres. This poses a serious threat to socio-economic development and the integrity of national ecosystems. Kenya has a new management approach called Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). This is a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems (as defined by Global Water Partnership, 2001). The IWRM planning process in Kenya started with a historic meeting in Mbagathi, Nairobi, in March, 2002. The main objective was to discuss priority water management issues and challenges in Kenya. The outcome was a National Water Resources Management Campaign based on the following action platforms; treating and managing water as a scarce resource with social and economic value, entrenching the right to water and protection of the resource in the Constitution to guarantee the people’s right and to safeguard this vital resource, setting appropriate levels of budgets to support ongoing water resource management reforms and investment needs and recognizing that there are many stakeholders with different interests, values and concerns about water utilization, protection and conservation, and that it is essential to work jointly to address the national needs. This management approach is essentially about building capacity and institutions at different levels for integrated and direct management of sectoral and aggregate water demand. The ‘IWRM package’ included a combination of the following instruments:

• A National Water Policy so that there is a cohesive, well-understood normative framework to guide all decision makers in the sector

• A water law and regulatory framework for coordinated action for sustainable water management

• Recognition of the river basin as the unit of water and land resource planning and management and creation of River Basin Organizations in place of territorial/functional departments to improve basin level water productivity

• Treating water as an economic good by pricing water resource as well as services, especially outside life-line uses, to reflect its scarcity value so that it is efficiently used and allocated to high value uses

• Creation of water rights by instituting a system of withdrawal permits

• Participatory resource management with involvement of women so that ‘water becomes everybody’s business’

The IWRM plan will develop and use suitable indicators that provide a means of measuring progress towards the national aspirations as contained in the National Water Resources Management Strategy, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) among other international commitments. This government

will, through this process, set up a reporting mechanism on the progress of implementing the plan. Specifically the JPOI calls for development of country IWRM plans by 2005. Towards this, Kenya has drafted a Water Resource Management strategy which will be presented to stakeholders this year. Kenya has also made progress on some aspects of the IWRM package, but little on others. An assessment of Kenya’s progress is discussed throughout the paper. As the custodian of the national water resources, the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI), seeks to ensure sound, sustainable and efficient water resource management for the country. In this regard the Government has established the Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA), among other water sector institutions, in line with the provisions in Water Act 2002. Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA)

The Authority is responsible for managing, protecting, apportioning and conserving water resources naturally, including trans-boundary water. For this to be achieved, the country is divided into the following six regions:

• Lake Victoria North Catchment;

• Lake Victoria South Catchment;

• Rift Valley Catchment;

• Athi Catchment;

• Tana Catchment; and

• Ewaso Nyiro North Catchment. Regional Managers have already been appointed and taken office. The Authority is charged with:

• Developing principles, guidelines and procedures for allocating water resources;

• Monitoring and reassessing a national water resources management strategy;

• Receiving and determining applications for permit for water use;

• Monitoring and enforcing conditions attached to permits;

• Regulating and protecting water resources quality from adverse impacts;

• Managing and protecting water catchments;

• Determining charges to be imposed for use of water from any water resource;

• Gathering and maintaining information on water resources and publishing forecasts, projections and information on water resources;

• Liaising with other bodies for better regulation and management of water resources; and

• Advising government on any matter in connection with water resources. Catchment Area Advisory Committees (CAACs)

CAACs have been established in the respective catchment areas and are currently being implemented. The CAACs work is to help the WRMA in water and environmental conservation activities through the regional managers. Under the regional offices, WRMA have established sub-regional offices to work in close liaison with the WRUAs and the CAACs. However, it is necessary to hasten the staff recruitment process for the WRMA to be fully operational up to the sub - regional level. All the staff previously working in the Department of Water Resources of the Ministry of Water

and Irrigation have been transferred to the WRMA under the transitional transfer plan arrangement. The expected responsibilities of CAACs are to:

• Provide detailed information and advice on water resources as relates to Water Resources Assessment within their areas;

• Develop guidelines and advisory services for permitting use;

• Advise implementing agencies on catchment protection and conservation;

• Advise on siting, catchment characteristics and utilization of facilities as relates to increasing storage capacity;

• Advise on trans-boundary water resource management;

• Provide advice and advocacy on resources use, conflict resolution, water quality and pollution control;

• Support the Water River Users Associations (WRUAs);

• Visit community hotspots (conflict prone flash areas) and motivate them to coalesce into WRUAs; and

• Identify sources of conflicts and solutions. Water River Users Associations (WRUAs)

The (WRUAs) are at the basin level and their main work is to harmonize water with agriculture and other competing uses and upstream and downstream users to avoid conflicts over water. This means that some base flows have to be maintained for sustenance of the ecological systems downstream. Since Water Act 2002 has taken the management of water resources down to the communities, it is expected that communities will act as policing agents within their areas and be active participants in water resource management.

3.2 The Current Situation

Catchments

Kenya’s major water towers include Mt. Kenya, the Aberdares, the Mau Complex, Mt. Elgon and Cherangani hills (Map 1). These towers support all major sectors of the Kenyan economy. The Mau Forest Complex is the source of the Rivers Mara and Sondu. The former river supports the Masai Mara Game Reserve and hence is key to the survival of wildlife in the Maasai Mara Game Reserve and the Serengeti National Park of Tanzania. The Sondu River has a hydropower complex (supported by the Japanese Government) expected to contribute about 60 MW to the national grid. The Njoro River, flowing from the Mau Forest Complex, drains into, and is the principal source of Lake Nakuru. The Mt. Kenya ecosystem is the source of the Tana River, which is the foundation of hydropower generation in Kenya with five (5) hydro power dams. It also supports agricultural development along the Tana Basin. The numerous streams and springs that support commercial and subsistence farming on the lower slopes of Mt. Kenya owe their flow to the Mt Kenya catchment area. Finally, the Nzoia River, which drains into Lake Victoria, originates from Mt. Elgon.

Map 1: The Five Catchment Basins in Kenya

Source: Ministry of Water and Irrigation. Activities that affect the quantity, timing and quality of water emerging from these water towers, such as the proposed excisions of forests, poor land-use practices and encroachment into recharge areas, have the potential to adversely affect the performance of major sectors of the economy. Water Sources

The water sources for 130 out of 141 urban centres, and 283 out of the 295 large-scale rural water supply schemes are summarized in the table below: Table 2: Water Supply Schemes and their sources

Surface Water Ground Water Water Supply Schemes

River Lake Off take from pipeline

Sub-total

Borehole /Shallow Well

Spring Rock Catchment

Sub-total

Total

Urban WSS

70 2 11 83 40 7 0 47 130

Rural WSS

133 17 0 150 91 40 2 133 283

Total 203 19 11 233 131 47 2 180 413

Source: JICA Field Survey Results in 1998 and MWR Operation and Maintenance report, 1997

Surface Water Abstraction

The main sources of piped water in Kenya are the surface waters of the rivers and groundwater. Surface water source facilities can be grouped as river intakes, large dams and reservoirs having storage capacity enough to regulate the river runoff throughout the year and pumping off take facilities on lakes, rivers and small dam/pans. As a legal requirement, an abstraction permit is a document providing permission to abstract water from a surface or ground water source for domestic, irrigation or industrial use. In Kenya, water supply schemes managed by the Department of Water, NWCPC, municipalities, self-help groups, a large number of farms, industrial firms, institutions and others, abstract surface water for domestic, industrial and irrigation use. One is not supposed to abstract river water in excess 60% of the water body. The permits previously issued by Water Apportionment Board and currently by WRMA, ensure equitable apportionment, regulation and allocation of available water for purposes intended. The Department of Water Resources as part of its mandate has maintained a database for water abstraction permits for many years including pre-independent period. Though the data may not be up to date due to problems associated with irregular gauging, illegal abstraction, infrastructure neglect and staffing, the present database is useful and is used to estimate the amount of water abstracted from surface water sources for domestic, industrial, livestock, irrigation and other uses. The database requires immediate updating as some of the rivers have been over-abstracted. Rivers

Kenya’s rivers are of two main types; perennial (mostly found in the Central, Western and Coastal areas of the country), and seasonal (commonly known as Lagas), mainly found in semi-arid and arid areas. Floods occur intermittently. An attempt has been made to draw up a chronology of flood events from reports, survey interviews and field reconnaissance as well as interpretations of water level records at gauging stations. According to this information, the 1961 floods were the most severe over the last 33 years. Other severe floods occurred in 1963/64, 1968, 1977/78, 1982, 1985, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1997. Most of these floods usually affect the Lake Victoria and coastal basins. The floods inundated the Kano plains, Yala swamps and other low-lying areas around Lake Victoria. They also hit the lower Tana reaches.

Ground Water Potential

Generally, depths of aquifers vary and in volcanic regions, several aquifers can exist on top of one another. In Kenya, ground water exists in deep aquifers up to over 300 metres. An example is Nairobi area which is a huge aquifer. Average depth of aquifers is about 150 metres for all regions. Kenya’s hydro-geological regions (or units) are the most important determinants of ground water. The aquifer depth of Kenya’s hydro-geological regions is as follows:

1. Ground water in the volcanic regions occurs at varying depths and several aquifers may exist on top of one another. The aquifers in these areas are confined and the depths to the aquifers and piezometric levels within them vary widely. The average yields are approximately 7.5 m3/hr. The average aquifers’ depth is 94 m.

2. The aquifers in the basement area are mainly semi-confined. The yield depth of aquifers and static water levels vary within the rocks. Sample statistics give an average yield of 4.5 m3/hr, and average depth of the main aquifer of 55 m.

3. The sedimentary rocks cover approximately 55% of the surface area of Kenya. The yields in these aquifers range from 8.0 m3/hr to 3 m3/hr. The depths of aquifers vary widely.

Deep ground water abstraction is expensive and therefore these depths of aquifers and expected yield returns are useful data for planning and investment. The costs of such development need to be compared with other alternative water sources.

Irrigation

Kenya’s irrigation potential was estimated at 200,000 ha in 1974, 250,000 ha in 1977 and 540,000 ha in 1979. The potential for land reclamation by drainage and flood protection is estimated at approximately 600,000 ha, located mainly in Western, Nyanza and Coast provinces. The total irrigated land is now estimated at over 36,000 ha (IDRP, 1987)2. Unlike Egypt and other countries, Kenya does not have a long history of irrigation development. However, traditional irrigation may have been practiced as far back as 400 years ago (IDRP, 1987). Flood irrigation, which is still being practised by the Pokomo along lower Tana, may have started centuries ago. Records of the early European settlers in the late 19th century gave the impression of indigenous irrigation in Elgeyo Marakwet, West Pokot and Baringo Districts. Traditional irrigation is still continuing in the same areas, for example, around Tot and Marigat. Several irrigation schemes were established at the height of the Mau Mau Emergency. These include Perkerra, Mwea, Yatta Furrow, Tana River and Ishiara. Post independence irrigation development saw the establishment of a National Irrigation Board (NIB) in 1966 to administer the national irrigation schemes. Private large-scale irrigation is now confined to coffee in the rainfall deficit agro-ecological zones, pineapples and other horticulture. There are also a lot of small-scale irrigation schemes which concentrate on horticultural crops. Since 1977, small-scale irrigation development in both the medium and low potential areas has been slow but steady. The Ministry of Water Development (MoWD), has the broad responsibility of developing the national water resources in this country. It has overall responsibility for the allocation of water for irrigation and any other use through the Water Apportionment Board, and is engaged in detailed investigation and planning for water development on a national scale. The MoWD maintains an 'Irrigation and Reclamation Section,' no doubt having its roots from times when the water section moved from one department/ministry (Public Works, Natural Resources, Agriculture) to another, until it settled as a Ministry of Water Development in 1974. In establishing the pre-independent national irrigation schemes, the Department of Public Works (Hydraulic Engineers) was responsible for engineering aspects, the Department of Agriculture for production, and the Provincial Administration for labour and settlement matters. All these functions were transferred to the NIB on establishment in 1966. The above-mentioned irrigation schemes, like Mwea, Yatta Furrow, Kano Plains and small-scale individual ones vary in size from 1 ha to more than 20,000 ha. About 60% of the total number of schemes have an area of less than 100 ha. Most of the irrigation methods used in the country are basin, furrow and sprinkler or drip. Most of the major irrigation systems like the Yatta canal and the Mwea Rice Irrigation scheme were established during the colonial

2 IDRP, 1987 – a study on Irrigation potential in Kenya

days. The major constraints encountered in irrigation schemes are; inadequacy of source of water, high cost of irrigation inputs, lack of proper technical knowledge, high relief intensity, sodic and saline soils, salt affected water and the absence of a market for irrigated produce. There is an urgent need to implement an irrigation policy to address these major constraints. In an effort to accelerate the revival of stalled irrigation projects, the Ministry of Water and Irrigation has rebranded the irrigation strategies, approach and objectives and a draft policy has been formulated. Drainage System

The national drainage system is determined by the Great Rift Valley which runs approximately north-south. From its flanks, water flows westwards to Lake Victoria and eastwards to the Indian Ocean. Kenya's drainage system is subdivided into five drainage areas (basins) consisting of 192 subdivisions. The five drainage areas are Lake Victoria, Rift Valley, Athi/Sabaki River, the Tana River and the Ewaso Nyiro River. More details of the basin size and drainage direction are listed under Annex 4. Toksoz (1981) estimated about 600,000 ha as the total agricultural land that requires drainage improvements or flood protection, while the Inter-Ministerial Task Force estimates the land to be 208,000 ha. The reclaimed land is only about 2,000 ha. Shared Water Resources/ International Waters

Kenya has a fair proportion of shared water resources with Tanzania, Uganda, Somalia and Ethiopia. There are 18 international drainage basins relevant to Kenya. So far no major conflicts have emerged between the riparian countries concerning the utilization of water in these rivers, however, as more projects are proposed and developed in future, conflicts may arise as a result of over-utilization of water from rivers with low flows. Simmering conflicts have been noted especially on the use of Lake Victoria waters due to old treaties.

3.3 Challenges

Kenya is chronically water, scarce: The combined surface and ground water potential is estimated at 20,619 million cubic metres a year. From this water resource potential and due to a rapid population growth over the last 30 years, our water per capita decreased from 1,853 cubic metres in 1969 to 704 cubic metres in 2000, to the current estimate of 647 cubic metres thus going below the global benchmark of 1,000 cubic metres per person a year. Globally, a country is categorized as ‘water stressed’ if its annual renewable freshwater supplies are between 1,000 and 1,700 cubic metres per capita, and ‘water scarce’ if its renewable freshwater supplies are less than 1,000 cubic metres per capita. About 8.3% of the countries are classified as ‘water scarce,’ while 9.8% are considered as ‘water stressed’. Kenya is in the category of water scarce countries. In comparison, Kenya’s neighbours, Uganda and Tanzania have respective annual per capita renewable fresh water supplies of 2,940 and 2,696 cubic metres per capita a year. The availability of water is often a key factor in determining the patterns of human settlement and socio-economic development. Within the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASAL) that form about 80% of Kenya, there is limited endowment of water resources. This imposes an added financial burden on the population compared with other countries. The burden is even greater because of the country’s vulnerability to rainfall variability. Under these circumstances, water

should be treated and managed as a scarce resource with real economic, social, ecological, and political values. The graph below shows that by 2025, Kenya’s per capita water availability will be in the danger zone of 235 cubic metres. Unless serious conservation and afforestation measures are taken at policy level to increase forest cover from the current 1.7% to 10%, Kenya could face more water scarcity and uncertainty in water resources. Graph 1: Per Capita Water Availability, Kenya, 1969-2010

Source: Ministry of Water and Irrigation Conflict: The most noticeable breakdown of water resources in Kenya can be seen from conflict in and between communities over water resources or where water resource availability has threatened basic livelihoods. According to a ‘Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, & Somalia) – Complex Emergency Situation Report #10 (FY 2006)’ by USAID, “inter-clan and cross-border resource-based conflict has risen in Kenya, Somalia, and Ethiopia, due to the depletion of water, food, and forage supplies during the long dry season.” Conflict prone areas include the upper Ewaso Ngiro North River Basin, West Mt. Kenya, Narumoru River, Molo River, Njoro River and parts of Machakos, Kitui and Makueni districts.

Limited CACCs: Whereas the Water Act, 2002 establishes a very elaborate and clear management structure (comprising of numerous institutions) for water supply, the oversight of the water catchment areas (or water resource in general) is left to the Catchment Areas Advisory Committees (CAACs) which have no direct authority over the WRMA regional managers who oversee the allocation and use of water. In other words, the WRMA regional managers are not obliged to take the advice and views of the CAACs.

Poor oversight of water rights: In the past each water right application was considered individually rather than based on an overall allocation plan. This has created a situation where there is very little information on abstraction on a catchment basis. Currently, three types of illegal abstraction behaviour are observed; (1) those that are authorized but have no

Per Capita W ater Availability

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1969 1979 1989 1999 2010

Year

Vo

lum

e (

m3 p

er

pe

rso

n)

permit and abstract in accordance with the quantities specified in the authorization (2) those that have authorization or a permit but abstract without regard to the limits allowed and (3) those with no application, authorization or permit. Confusing permits: The existing water permits were granted under the old Water Act Cap 372, and some still have several years of life remaining. Yet the terms and conditions under which some of them were granted are in conflict with the Water Act 2002. The new user fees, regulations and rules developed by WRMA under provisions of Water Act 2002 have not been gazetted and the Water Act Cap 372 is still being applied. Once the new rules and regulations are gazetted by the Minister, then the provisions of Water Act 372 will be repealed. This is an area of conflict which can delay progress of the reform agenda. Poor water pollution control: Recently, National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) established waste and effluent discharge charges to river bodies. However, the effluent discharge standards are not specified and the fees are different to those of the WRMA. Additionally, there is non-point source pollution from poor land-husbandry, sanitation, and liquid and solid waste-disposal practices. For example, studies carried out on pollution in Nairobi River found that sewage, nutrients, toxic metals, human waste, solid waste dumping, industrial and agricultural chemicals are main pollutants, and that due to poor enforcement, the river may not support aquatic life (UNEP Pollution Assessment Report 2000). Political, economic, social and environmental issues are all facets that need attention if the Nairobi River Basin is to be managed in a sustainable manner and Nairobi Dam revived. The above examples show that the regulatory framework over the use and management of water resources is seriously wanting and involvement and coordination of key stakeholders is crucial for sustainable management of water resources. 3.4 Recommendations

Establish Water Users Associations to mediate and minimize conflicts over water use and

compel WRMA to act: This will ensure that there is equitable allocation of water resources and reduce related conflicts.

Better water rights management: This can be done by enacting and implementing the River Basin Authorities to manage Kenya's water resources. These authorities can then lend support to the WRMA. Updating abstraction data to identify who is abstracting and the amount abstracted as well as enforcing conditions of permits including borehole master meters, storage, conservation measures in the catchment and riparian environments and functionality of the off-take structures will also assist rights management, by way of providing information to resource managers and minimizing abuse and over-abstractions. Lastly, finalizing and implementing criteria for water allocation for different uses and using these criteria to resolve conflicts of earlier permit terms under Water Act Cap 372 and conditions with the Water Act 2002 is critical.

Develop a financing system that supports WRM activities that are multi-sectoral by nature: Multi sectoral activities include hydro electric dams for electricity, irrigation and conservation in catchment area. This should include licensing for raw water use and charging appropriate levies at the economic value of water, conservation measures and reduction of pollution levels. New rules, regulations and fees developed by WRMA need to be gazetted and operationalized.

Upgrade infrastructure as a matter of urgency: One of the responsibilities of WRMA is to conserve and apportion water resources. To ensure accurate and updated data for use in issuance of abstraction permits and for purposes of development planning, the dilapidated gauging stations, weirs, storage dams need to be rehabilitated and new ones constructed. Enforce pollution control: The implementation of Environmental Management and Coordination Act needs to be harmonized with Water Act 2002 in areas of conflict. Additionally, appointment of a manager to oversee a water pollution control mechanism is critical, and pollution control measures should include culture change.

CHAPTER FOUR

WATER SERVICES

4.1 The Framework

The Water Act 2002 provides for regulation of water and sewerage service provision and has given the Water Services Regulatory Board (WSRB) this mandate. The regulatory role of the WSRB includes issuing licences, setting service standards and guidelines for tariffs as well as providing mechanisms for handling complaints. The responsibility for providing water and sewerage services is vested in the seven (7) Water Service Boards (WSB) spread regionally across the country. Water Services Boards (WSBs)

These Boards have been established at the regional level and delineated on the basis of catchments, administrative boundaries and economic viability. They are responsible for efficient and economical water and sewerage service provision in their areas of jurisdiction. To support their role, they are to maintain and acquire assets, plan, develop and manage the systems in their areas. The Boards are to effect their mandate by contracting the Water Service Providers (WSPs) as agents for this purpose. They are to monitor and enforce provision agreements (SPAs) with the WSPs in accordance with the licence requirements.

WATER SERVICES BOARDS’ – WSB RESPONSIBILITIES

• WSB are the sole licensees Water & Sanitation Services provision

Regulator

Manager and Operator Assets Holder Appoints WSP WSP of Last resort Source: Water Service Board Table 3: Water Services Boards Water Services Board No. of districts Area km2 1999 Population Athi 6 40,130 5,617,000

Coast 7 82,816 2,487,000

Tana 13 52,777 5,032,000

Rift Valley 8 113,771 2,999,000

Northern 9 244,864 1,703,000

Lake Victoria North 11 16,977 5,135,000

Lake Victoria South 16 20,340 5,730,000

70 571,675 28,703,000 Source: Water Sector Reform Secretariat Note that the number of districts has increased to over 100 in the recent past.

WSBsWSBsWSBsWSBs

As sole licensee of WSRB it shall ensure that service standards and guidelines set by WSRB are observed, maintained and adhered to by its agents the WSP

WSB has responsibility over the overall organization supervision and administration of the water services sub

sector within its area of jurisdiction

WSB is expressly required to be new owner (custodian) of Government WSS facilities/equipment, land and premises

WSB appoints/contracts WSPs to operate and manage facilities and provide services in a given area

WSB can only do so in certain circumstances with authority

of WSRB

Developer WSB is responsible to ensure that existing

facilities are properly maintained rehabilitated and expanded and new assets established

Table 4: A summary of WSBs officials and coverage area Water Services Board

Board Chair CEO Location of Head Office

Coverage area

Athi Mr. Patrick Kinyori

Eng. Lawrence Mwangi

Nairobi Nairobi, Kajiado, Thika, Machakos, Kiambu and Makueni districts

Coast Mr. Jonathan Mturi

Eng. Iddi Mwasina

Mombasa Districts of Tana River, Lamu, Malindi, Kilifi, Taita Taveta and Kwale

Tana Mr. Haron Wachira

Mr. Samuel Muchai

Nyeri Nyandarua, Nyeri, Meru Central, Meru North, Nithi, Kirinyaga, Embu, Mbeere, Mwingi and Kitui Districts

Rift Valley Prof Ezra Maritim

Eng. Robinson Gaita

Nakuru Nakuru, Turkana, West Pokot, Marakwet and Narok Districts

Northern Mr. Mohamed Sheikhow

Mr. Mohammend Shurie

Garissa Samburu, Laikipia, Garissa, Wajir, Isiolo, Marsabit and Mandera Districts

Lake Victoria North

Mr. Joseph Murunga

Eng. Diru Magomere

Kakamega Teso, Bungoma, Trans Nzoia, Keiyo, Uasin Gishu, Nandi, Kakamega, Mt Elgon and Vihiga Districts

Lake Victoria South

Mr. John Juma

Eng. Patrick Ombogo

Kisumu Kisumu, Siaya, Homa Bay, Kuria, Bomet, Bondo, Migori, Karachuonyo, Suba, Kericho, Nandi and Buret Districts

Source: Water Sector Reforms Secreatariat, 2004 Nairobi and the Central Water Services Boards have been renamed as Athi and Tana Water Services Boards to be in line with the River Basins. In 2005, new districts were created and carved out of existing districts for easier administration. It should be noted that none of the Chairs of the Boards or the CEOs are women and hence the gender inequality discussed elsewhere in this report. The WSB is prohibited by the Act from engaging in direct service provision but is required to identify another entity, a Water Service Provider (WSP), to provide water services as its agent. The WSB can only provide water services directly in situations where it has not been able to identify a WSP able and willing to provide the water services. Water Service Providers (WSPs)

WSPs are commercial organizations with the sole mandate of retailing water and sewerage services to consumers. They can be any entity providing 20,000 litres a day and must operate under a licence. Most WSPs are owned by local authorities, though set up as independent

entities under the Companies Act. The Water Act defines an WSP as “a company, non-governmental organization or other person providing water services under and in accordance with an agreement with a licensee (the water services board).” The key responsibilities of the WSP are:

• Bidding for service provision;

• Operating and maintaining facilities;

• Complying with quality standards and service levels; and

• Billing and revenue collection. The Water Services Trust Fund (WSTF

WSTF is mandated to help finance the provision of water in areas without adequate water supply. It is supposed to mobilize funds from the Exchequer or donors. The Fund will help finance provision in marginalized and poor areas and thus increase access.

Water Services Regulatory Board (WSRB)

The Regulatory Board provides general oversight of service provision. The Board additionally develops guidelines for fixing tariffs and other charges on water services in accordance with the national strategy. At the national level, the WSRB is responsible for implementing government policies and strategies on WSS. It is also responsible for issuing licenses to Water Services Boards, determining service standards, advising the Ministry on sector policies and providing a mechanism for handling complaints. Major complaints and disputes will be handled by WAB. Established in 2003, WSRB has so far issued interim licenses to the seven WSBs in the country with Nairobi and Rift Valley Water Services Boards having a five-year licence, while the Lake Victoria North, Lake Victoria South, Central, Northern and Coast Water Services Boards have one-year licenses which are due for renewal this year. Water Appeals Board (WAB)

This body is at the top of M&WI triangle and is independent. It is to solve disputes and conflicts that may not be solved by WRMA and WSRB defined above. The Water Appeals Board shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes. The Appeals Board provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts in the water sector. It will be manned by a judicial officer. The board has been gazetted, however it has yet to become fully operational.

National Water Conservation & Pipeline Corporation (NWCPC)

Under Water Act 2002, the functions of NWCPC include production and supply of bulk water and development of state schemes for water conservation. The NWCPC is to serve as a link between management and service provision through bulk water supply and development, enhancing storage capacity and conservation. The NWCPC has since been reorganized as a government contractor in borehole drilling and construction of water conservation structures. As with the DWD’s, the NWCPC managed schemes have been transferred to the respective WSBs who, in turn, appoint WSPs.

This framework is depicted below: National Water Services Strategy

The national strategy describes the process of ensuring that every area has adequate water and sewerage services and that there is a service provider. The strategy objectives are to make arrangements to ensure that at all times there is in every area in Kenya a person capable of providing water, and, to design a program that progressively extends sewerage services to every centre of population. The National Water Services Strategy contains details of existing water services, the number and location of persons who are not being provided with basic

water supply and sewerage, plans for the extension of water services to underserved areas, the timeframe for the plan, and the investment program. The overall principles underlying the strategy are the:

1. Separation of policy and regulatory functions from service provision; 2. Decentralization of responsibilities and decision making applying the principle of

subsidiary for water services in accordance with the Water Act 2002; 3. Conceptualization of water as a social and economic good; 4. Establishment of a cost-recovery principle, taking into account a pro-poor pricing

policy that meets equity, economic and financial and environmental concerns; 5. Acceptable standards of service delivery; 6. Private sector participation; 7. Linkage between water supply and sewerage management and development; 8. Linkage between water services and the economy; and 9. Environmentally friendly operations.

4.2 The Current Situation

Overall water coverage has been declining in terms of quality, quantity and reliability due to the aging of existing infrastructure. Most of Kenya’s population lives in rural areas (24 million), while 9 million live in urban areas out of which more than half live in informal settlements. Access to safe water is estimated at 68% in urban areas and only 49% in rural areas. According to a study carried out in 1998, urban per capita water consumption almost doubled that of rural areas. This is shown in the figures below; Table 5: Water Consumption Service Area Total Population (1995) Per Capita Consumption –

Litres per Capita per Day(lpcd)

Urban Centre 5,280,000 143

Rural Areas 22,240,000 78

Total/Average 27,520,000 100

Source: The JICA Aftercare Study Final Report and Water Master Plan, 1998. The data are useful for the design of water systems. As of 2005, the ratio of served to unserved population is 30:70. This translates to only 30% of the population being served which is far below acceptable standards. In addition, there are regional inequalities in water supplies. Rift Valley has the highest percentage of unserved at 80%, followed by Lake Victoria South, at 79 per cent. The most well served region is Athi (Nairobi) with 41% of the population mostly in urban being served.

Table 6: Summary of Urban and Rural Water Supplies Water Services Board

Board area Population

Urban Population Served

Rural Population Served

Total Population Served

Total Unserved

Athi 5,617,220

2,098,316

275,727

2,374,043

3,243,177

Lake Victoria South

5,730,956

422,723

716,591

1,139,314

4,591,642

Lake Victoria North

5,135,894

589,205

350,797

940,002

4,195,892

Tana 5,012,208

511,078

2,217,023

2,728,101

2,284,107

North 1,703,695

204,008

533,807

737,815

965,880

Rift Valley

2,999,370

344,500

206,453

550,953

2,448,417

Coast 2,487,264

314,593

109,951

424,544

2,062,720

Total 28,686,607

4,484,423

4,410,349

8,894,772

19,791,835

Source: Ministry of Water & Irrigation – SWAp (2005)

Water Supply Schemes

The main providers of water services in the past were the Director of Water Development under the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (M&WI), the National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation (NWCPC), some local authorities, NGOs, community based organisations and self-help schemes. Other actors include local communities, various institutions, churches and NGOs who operate and maintain their own water supply systems. Table 7: Number of Water Supply Facilities (1994) and Population Served Provider/Supplier No. Pop served (millions) Director of Water under MOWI 579 5.6

National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation

188 3.7

Community 339

Non-Government Organizations 266

Self-help Schemes 243

4.8

Local Authorities 164 3.9

Total 1,779 18

Source: JICA Aftercare Study, Final Report 1998

Water supply schemes can be classified as urban and rural water supplies. The most typical schemes in Kenya are:

1. Urban schemes that mainly cover urban centres and their peripheral areas; 2. Community based rural water supply schemes that mainly serve the rural

communities; 3. Regional water supply schemes that cover several urban and rural areas

simultaneously; and 4. Many other small schemes constructed in urban centres.

Urban Water Supply Schemes: Each urban centre is usually served by one scheme. In 1998 there were 73 government-run urban water schemes serving 69 districts with total population of 28.7 million people. Only 17% of the total population were served by the schemes. This indicates that the remaining 83% are served by informal sources of water, community water supplies, institutional supplies or other sources.3 Rural Water Supply Schemes: By 1998, there were 295 large-scale rural water supply schemes serving approximately 4.2 million people. The small scale rural water supply schemes were serving approximately 5.5 million people. In general, it was observed that these schemes served about 43% of the rural population. The rest of the population got water from other non registered sources like rivers, wells, springs and dam. Water Tariffs

The water tariffs were set centrally by the Ministry of Water under provisions of Water Act Cap 372 (the former Water Act). Water undertakers had to apply to the Ministry for authority to adjust tariffs, except local authorities, which had some flexibility. The regulation and tariff setting is the responsibility of the newly established WSRB. Due to public and political pressure, the tariffs have remained static over the last several years (for example, refer to case study of Zambia where the tariff was increased by 100% before 2002 general elections in Annex 6. This needs to change to reflect actual water costs including production costs. The table below shows the current tariff structure in selected urban water schemes.

3 Status of urban water and sewerage services provision in Kenya (1998).

A Rapid Assessment of Kenya’s Water, Sanitation and Sewerage Framework 27

Table 8: Water Tariff and Water Undertakers by District Category

Vol……

NUK…

NWCP.

MW& I

NRB….

KSM…

ELD….

NYR…..

KRO…

NKU……...

KTL….

Cubic Metres 1997/8 1997/9 1997/9 1997/8 1996/7 1996/7 1996/7 1996/7 1995/6 1994/5

0-10 9 12 12 12 18 9.7 14 22 11.5 10

11 20 10 18 18 18 20 19.3 19.6 22.5 12 9

Domestic 21-40 15 23 23 27.5 23 25.7 22.4 24 16.65 9

41-60 20 53 53 34 26 25.7 25.2 24 16.65 9

Over 60 25 45 45 34.5 33 38.6 28 26 26.7 10

0-10 15 12 12 12 20 9.7 21 22 44 10

11-20 20 18 15 18 22 19.3 26.6 22.5 43.5 9

Gov/ Inst 21-40 25 23 23 27.5 25 25.7 30.8 24 38 9

41-60 30 53 35 34.5 30 38.6 35 26 16.2 10

Over 60 40 45 45 34.5 37 48.3 42 28 16.2 15

0-10 15 12 12 12 20 23.2 21 88.85 44.1 14

11-20 20 18 15 18 24 34 26.6 30 38 16

Com/ Ind 21-40 25 23 23 27.5 28 34.8 30.8 30 38 18

41-60 30 53 35 34.5 32 48.3 35 32 16.2 22

Over 60 40 45 45 34.5 39 54.1 42 32 16.2 22

Source: Water Sector Reforms Secretariat

Inst= Institution, Com= commercial, Ind= Industrial

Various local authorities have formed companies to provide water services on behalf of the WSBs in their regions. These companies have applied for and obtained licenses to operate as WSPs under the Water Act 2002. During this period of transition, the companies have had to restructure their operations. Changes have been made in a number of areas including organizational structures, service delivery, billing and customer care. The effects of the changes are beginning to be felt by consumers in various regions. Some of these companies have undertaken technical audits and training needs assessment as a way of restructuring their operations and in recognition of the fact that they are now accountable to the consumers. However, these companies continue to face numerous challenges and these are discussed below.

4.3 Challenges

Slow community integration in service provision: While there is notable progress in the appointment of water service providers in urban areas, appointment of community water service providers in rural set-ups has not gone at same pace and few community-based companies have signed service provision agreements (SPAs).

Unaccounted for water: Most water supply schemes in Kenya source water directly from rivers; and intake structures are constructed as source points with mains leading to treatment works or storage tanks or direct to distribution systems. Other water schemes source water from ground water which requires minimal treatment. These systems are either gravity or pumping systems, the latter having higher operational costs. Unaccounted for water is a common challenge in the water supply systems. This has been estimated at an average of 60 per cent of water produced lost. Factors contributing to the high levels of unaccounted for water are illegal connections, technical losses, un-metered connections (flat-rate billing), poor maintenance of the infrastructure, poor management of the systems, especially inconsistent billing; and the extended life of intake and distribution infrastructure. Urgent rehabilitation is required in almost all supply systems. The Kitale, Webuye and Bungoma systems in particular are in dire need of rehabilitation.

Unmet water demand: Seventy per cent of the nation is un-served and these figures are higher in Rift Valley and Lake Victoria South. This is further complicated by changing demographics, such as unplanned urban movements and settlement patterns.

High pumping costs: Pumping costs are relatively high and these costs increase tariffs which are, in turn, transferred to the consumer. Lack of/non functioning meters: Most water connections are not metered, and for those that are, over half are non functional. This frustrates commercialization efforts.

Low public and government understanding of the framework: A communication strategy on the reforms has been developed but has not yet reached the district level effectively. On top of this, staff have been seconded to WSBs and the WRMA, but some staff continue to play the original role they played at the MW&I. Furthermore, some WSBs are seconding the staff to the WSPs where there are gaps. The staff now has to re-orient themselves to their new tasks. Additionally, the existence of many players on the scene means that the public is not sure of who their service provider is.

Transfer of assets: Communities are apprehensive about the transfer of assets to the respective boards and as a result, some groups were reluctant to give up their self developed assets. The communication on how the boards will handle the community projects remains unclear for many. The community based organizations who have developed their water supplies through self help or donor support feel that there is need to have a say in the use and management of assets.

Capacity constraints: WSBs have limited capacity to fulfil their roles. An attempt to address this challenge was made by entering arrangements with Support Organizations (SOs) and Quality Control Agents (QCAs). The SOs’ were to support the communities in preparing good project proposals while the QCAs would monitor the SOs’ activities. However, the process of engaging the SO and QCA services was difficult for the WSBs. The approach was not clear to all and as a result, varied responses were received which were extremely difficult to evaluate in terms of capability and scope of works. This process is still ongoing and is causing delay in implementing phase 3 of the reform program. While WSBs rely mostly on

funds promised by donors, in the long run, WSBs need to develop mechanisms for raising funds for operations and development of infrastructure. More competence and financial record keeping, especially in the case of local government and community providers, is also required.

Uncertainty amongst staff: Cadres of staff have been redeployed from the Ministry of Water and Irrigation and NWCPC and some are unsure of their future. They are uneasy about what will happen when their one year of service ends in July 2006. To say the least, there is a huge gap in service delivery as most staff are in a ‘wait and see’ state and others would have felt safer at the Ministry. There are cases where some staff are waiting for retirement. Donors and support agents on the other hand would like to see a realistic conclusion of the transfer plan.

Vulnerable and unreliable infrastructure: Unreliable power, roads and telephone infrastructure, old and obsolete water supply facilities and non-functional systems and prolonged droughts and heavy floods frustrate water supply efforts. The cost of rebuilding these devastated works is enormous. Inaccurate and Unreliable sector data: While some progress has been made in data, collection and management, through the effort of current reforms, the data on coverage, access, functionality of water and sewerage systems and water resources vary depending on source. Most of the data used in the reforms are from the1998 JICA after care study. The after care study objectives were:

• To review development plans of water supply and sewerage proposed in the National Water Master Plan (NWMP) of 1992 and establish new implementation program;.

• To make recommendations on strengthening of legislation, organization and institution of project implementation and improvement of management and operation and maintenance of projects/program; and

• To transfer the technology of planning of water supply and sewerage development through the study.

The challenge identified is that of periodic review of the national water master plan to provide accurate and up to date sector information. 4.4 Recommendations

Expand and/or rationalize existing systems: Small uneconomical systems can be merged with other systems to enhance economies of scale in operations. Clusters of small water supplies could be established and appropriate technology options installed for efficiency service delivery.

Shift from pumping to gravity-operated systems: This will reduce operational costs. Dams can also be constructed to boost water supply. Inappropriate technologies need to be expunged and install efficient and affordable water systems. Adjust tariffs: Zambia’s water tariff adjustments are linked to sustainability of the systems and performance of providers. Thus the Zambia National Water and Sanitation Council (NWASCO) ensures that consumers are cushioned from inefficiencies by service providers. In a country where more than half the population is poor, NWASCO has successfully

developed guidelines on mandatory WSS service provision to the peri-urban areas, which account for almost 30 per cent of the urban population. The guidelines are complete with service standards and tariff setting guidelines. A similar exercise on tariffs like that done in Zambia, needs to be undertaken by WRSB in Kenya. Update National Water Master Plans: The current sector information developed in the implementation of policy and water act 2002, should feed into the review of the 1998 JICA After care study and with the sector trends changing in demands, water use and availability, there is immediate need to update the water master plan. It is recommended that 1998 JICA After care study +10 (2008) study be undertaken to support the reforms.

CHAPTER FIVE

SANITATION

5.1 The Framework

The Government has made significant progress in developing an Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy that mandates the Ministry of Health to spearhead such activities. The Ministry of Health is expected to provide leadership to all concerned agencies such as the ministries of Local Government, Water and Irrigation and Environment as well as Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) among others in the sector. The policy recognizes the need for a people-centred and national participatory approach to sanitation. The policy has outlined the following instruments in promoting hygiene; the use of participatory approaches or methodologies, communication approaches that incorporate tested household health education messages, development of training tools and promotional materials, conducting campaigns and exhibitions, partnerships with media, a national sanitation week or day in line with the WASH Dakar Road map that proposes the celebration of a sanitation week as an action-oriented program to raise the political profile of sanitation, and information on a range of safe sanitation options, with clear implications for aiding household choices. School sanitation is a top priority within the Policy which has committed to ensuring that every school has separate boys and girls sanitary facilities by 2010. It affirms children’s right to basic facilities, such as toilets, safe drinking water, clean surroundings and information on hygiene. If these conditions are created, children go to school, enjoy learning, and take concepts and practices on sanitation and hygiene back to their families. Children can become agents of change at home and in the community. People learn about sanitation technologies mostly from their neighbours, public health workers, public meetings and community workers. Some implemented strategies include the creation of health awareness and training of community leaders, construction of demonstration facilities, provision of construction materials and equipment and enforcement of the Public Health Act and the Chief’s Act in the event of epidemics. These have been successful to some extent.

Wastewater Treatment, Recycling and Reuse

The Government through the National Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) promotes recycling and reuse as a policy response to waste water as well as reduction, recycling and reuse of solid wastes. Urban agriculture that aims to maximize use of wastewater for food production is at pilot stage. Recycling is limited by the availability of industry to receive and process recycled materials. Dumping

The Government would like to stop open dumping sites especially in urban areas. It is well known that leachates from dump-sites lead to contamination of both surface and underground water reserves. The MoLG has also continued to encourage the 3 Rs principle throughout its awareness campaign to reduce, recycle or reuse solid waste.

Financing

Water, sanitation and sewerage services receive money from government, donors and the private sector. To support rural pockets inhabited by poor communities who are under serviced by water service providers, the Water Act 2002 created the Water Services Trust Fund (WSTF). The WSTF is mandated to mobiliZ,e resources from donors, governments, the Exchequer, and private sector for marginalized poor and serves as a funding basket. Twenty (20%) per cent of funds provided for support to water projects are to go to sanitation. Since the start of operationalization of Water Act 2002 in March 2003, development partners have supported the new institutions and currently about Kshs. 20 billion has been committed by donors. Some of the donors include SIDA, ADB and DANIDA (supporting WSTF), KfW, GTZ, JICA, BADEA, World Bank, AFD and GoK among others. These donor funds are committed in areas that donors wish to support and in agreement with the government. 5.2 The Current Situation

The World Health Organization4 reports that the “economic costs of avoidable disease… are staggeringly high” and that “societies with a heavy disease burden tend to experience severe impediments to economic progress.” Approximately 60% of Kenya’s hospital attendance is due to preventable disease. About 50% of these illnesses are related to poor sanitation, hygiene and water. Sanitation and hygiene are indicators of the country’s poverty status. The 1999 population and housing census showed access to sanitation facilities to be 82%. However, the Ministry of Health puts the national coverage of adequate sanitation at below 50%, mainly because the ministry’s classification does not consider pit latrines in urban areas as coverage. Sanitation falls into two broad categories; (i) onsite, mainly pit latrines and (ii) offsite or waterborne. Onsite sanitation is the common mode of human waste disposal in rural, sub-urban and unplanned settlement areas. The waterborne sewerage systems, which are prevalent in cities and larger municipalities, are under the Ministry of Water and Irrigation, while promotion of onsite sanitation is in the Ministry of Health’s docket. The simple pit latrine was introduced in Kenya by the colonial administration and missionaries almost 100 years ago. The main purpose was to prevent outbreaks of diseases such as cholera. Construction of household pit latrines was done through the Public Health Act, which was enforced by the Chief. The pit latrine has been a very successful waste disposal facility in Kenya, with about 73% of the population having access to it. The ventilated improved pit (VIP), introduced in the late 80s, did not expand much beyond the pilot areas. Most VIPs were abandoned after filling as they were made of concrete elements that could not be moved or re-used. They were also more expensive than the traditional pit latrines built using the locally available materials. The communities especially in the rural areas were unable to replicate project VIPs simply because they were too expensive. Some individuals often use open spaces to defecate or dispose of human waste. Increased community awareness and sub-division and ownership of land in the densely populated areas have reduced this practice. Factors contributing to better sanitation in the past and present have been captured by a WSP-AF field note. This information is indicated in Table 9.

4 WHO - JMP Report

Table 9: Historical and Current Factors on Sanitation Historical Demand for Sanitation

Facilities Present Demand for

Sanitation facilities

Chief’s orders during disease outbreaks

Chief’s orders influenced 56% of demand by households to construct and own a sanitation facility

Health awareness and education

Hygiene education and awareness have contributed to 86% of demand

Enforcement of the Public Health Act

Enforcement by public health officers influenced 36% of demand to construct sanitation facilities

Land sub-division, desertification and need for privacy

Small land and lack of bushes have contributed 72% of demand

Influence of missionaries and early settlers

Missionaries and their influence and contribution to health matters led to 28% contribution of demand

Prevention of water borne diseases

Initiatives on preventive has led to 62% of demand

Project assistance- donor and government support

Support to projects addressing aspects on hygiene and sanitation have led to 52% of demand

Source: WSP Field Note, June 2004 5.3 Challenges

Un-enacted Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy: Government is yet to enact the Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy. Additionally, there are inadequate national sanitation promotion and development programs to make the policy operational. Furthermore, although efforts to develop sanitation are ongoing especially outside the public sector, information availability is low and progress monitoring and impact evaluation is weak.

Limited onsite sanitation: Onsite sanitation is limited due to lack of resources amidst other competing needs, lack of awareness of sanitation and hygiene, lack of knowledge on how to construct and maintain household pit latrines, adverse geo-hydrological conditions and cultural practices. Geo-hydrological conditions such as weak soil structures lead to the collapse of latrines especially during the rainy seasons or where water tables are high, or pits are shallow or impossible to dig. This can lead to surface and ground water pollution. In places with high basement rock, pits are shallow and when there is flooding which is often the case in low-lying areas, pits fill and overflow. When facilities collapse, re-building becomes expensive and some families prefer to use the bush. Cultural constraints can be exemplified by nomadic pastoralism. This way of life creates little demand for excreta disposal facilities because people are always moving with animals in search of new pastures and water. Other cultural practices that can limit latrine access include the prohibition of sharing sanitary facilities between adults and children, men and women and in-laws and outsiders. Fortunately, such cultural barriers are dying.

Although the Water Act 2002 states that WSBs and WSPs mandates cover water, sewerage and sanitation, many of them ignore the sewerage and sanitation aspects. Subsequently, the need to meet sanitation and sewerage needs has been left mainly to communities or individual households. It should also be pointed that under the Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy, Ministry of Health is charged with overall supervision whilst the entities charged with actual provision i.e., WSBs and WSPs fall under M&WI.

Un-covered informal settlements: The heavily and densely populated informal urban settlements require adequate coverage. This need is complicated by problems of non legal tenure, and the ad hoc expansion of such settlements. The Government has made some progress by establishing the Local Authority Service Delivery Action Plan (LASDAP) and the Local Authority Transfer Fund (LATF) to respond to planning and infrastructure demands for the urban poor. Although the model is ideal, measures to strengthen functioning, transparency and accountability are necessary. Underutilization of the role of women: Efforts to promote hygiene often overlook the power of women to influence hygiene practices in their homes and families. Women can play a key role in hygiene promotion as majority of them are the ones who fetch and use water for various purposes especially in rural areas.

Absence of a Public Private Partnership Framework: Certain private firms have contributed to providing alternative designs for human waste disposal technology. It is therefore critical that Kenya finds an appropriate role for private sector in the sanitation market. Small scale independent sanitation service providers (SSIP) require encouragement through legal recognition and supervision. Private sector builders and operators of sanitation facilities require training and support to improve viability of businesses. Outdated sewerage systems: Out of Kenya’s 215 urban centres, only 30 have modern sewerage systems. Achieving the MDGs will require a combination of on site as well as sewer systems and sewage treatment works, with the former being the most appropriate for rural communities. Policy solutions for reaching pastoralist communities with adequate sanitation need to be further explored. Cumbersome recycling procedures: Solid waste disposal and management is currently not a responsibility of a WSP and is currently addressed through EMCA and department of environment within municipalities. Solid waste management (SWM) problems are not unique to Kenya5 and therefore inadequate solid waste management practices may be severely affecting the quality of the environment and public health of residents in many urban centres in Kenya. For example, it was estimated that about 1,450 tons of solid waste was being generated daily in 1990s and this translated to 245 kgs/person per day (JICA Master Plan of Nairobi, 1997). Solid waste management and recycling waste paper is possible only when there is a paper mill or a waste factory within a reasonable distance. The difficulty in recycling is a constraint on improving solid waste management and policies on waste pickers, informal sector recycling, community based SWM service, and stakeholder participation in key decision making have been lacking although the situation is gradually changing.

5 Kenya Urban Solid Waste Management: A Rapid country environmental analysis concept note ( CEA), 2005

5.4 Recommendations

Enact a national environment sanitation and hygiene policy and develop a national

sanitation development strategy and action plan to serve as a blue-print for achieving the

MDGs: By 1980 Lesotho had a national water supply program. After it was realized that there were gaps in sanitation, initially in urban infrastructure and subsequently in the rural areas, a series of technical studies were carried out and in the early 1980s, the Lesotho government started a two-part national improvement program covering both rural and urban areas. More about the Lesotho program is contained in Annex 7. Make a deliberate attempt to provide girl friendly sanitation facilities: This is particularly necessary in schools as most girls drop out of school due to the lack of private facilities with privacy as they are often intimidated by the boys. Investigate why the provision of sanitation and sewerage service is being ignored and act on

the findings: Additionally, as regulation of sewerage is within the mandate of M&WI and sanitation is a docket within the Ministry of Health, there should be communication between the two Ministries. Where M&WI gets donor support or any assistance for sanitation improvement, this support should feed into MOH for coordination purposes and where appropriate an agreement of understanding drawn between the two parties to avoid overlaps and duplication. Provide recycling incentives: This can be done through tax rebates on plastics that can be recycled or increasing the price to consumers on non reusable plastic bags (as is done in South Africa) and should be replicated by other countries. This measure can be supported by having more recycling centres particularly close to industrial areas and involving local communities. Some economic instruments should be put in place in Kenya’s waste management practice like user charges, import duty waivers on recycling and collection equipment and instruments that motivate public cooperation in solid waste management.

CHAPTER SIX

SEWERAGE

6.1 The Framework

Sessional Paper Number 1 of 1999 on the National Water Policy on Water Resources Management and Development provides direction on ensuring safe wastewater disposal for environmental protection. There are also policies on sewerage systems and sewage disposal under the ministries of Local Government and Health. However, the policy is not comprehensively stated under the Water Act 2002. The national policy on water resource management and development recognizes that one cannot separate wastewater (sewage) management from water supply. Development of water supplies in urban areas will therefore have to be accompanied by corresponding sewerage development to handle the wastewater to protect public health and water resources. Currently, the operation and maintenance of sewerage services are mandated to the Water Service Boards and delegated to the Water Service Providers. 6.2 The Current Situation

Domestic sewage and industrial effluent are the main sources of pollution to our water resources. Raw or partially treated sewage, when discharged into water bodies or the environment may pollute water resources and harm public health. In 2001, raw sewage discharge from a sewage treatment works in Embu into a nearby river killed several people who used the water downstream for domestic purpose (source daily newspaper). The current treatment methods or technologies for sewage/ domestic wastewater treatment are either oxidation ditches, aerated lagoons, trickling filters, stabilization ponds, wetlands and trickling filters combined with stabilization ponds. The predominant type of treatment facilities is the pond system. These are shallow man-made basins into which wastewater or sewage flows in and comes out naturally treated. They are simple and cost-efficient to construct and easy to operate and maintain. The efficiency of the ponds depends on whether the industrial effluent is pre-treated before it is mixed with domestic sewage. The ponds depend on natural reactions of micro-organisms to biologically degrade the waste. Mixing industrial effluent and domestic sewage in mixed sewer system in urban areas is responsible for poor performance of the pond treatment system (e.g. Dandora waste stabilization ponds) due to toxicity to micro-organisms from the industrial effluent, which is not pre-treated.

In general, there is poor sewerage service delivery in Kenya and where facilities exist, their standards of operation are low and many experience severe operation and maintenance problems resulting in poor service delivery. Investment over the years has tended to favour water development and operation, leaving little attention to sewerage.

A number of Government institutions operate their own sewerage systems. At present, sewerage operation and maintenance facilities are the responsibility of newly formed water and sanitation companies (though a number are unaware of this). The coverage is however very low compared with water supply coverage. Sewerage services cover only 14% of urban centres, and local authorities are the main urban sewerage service providers. In Nairobi, for example, the water supply coverage is 55%, while the population served with sewerage facilities is only 35%. The table below is a summary of the sewerage facilities.

Table 10: Urban Centres with Sewerage Facilities

Population range (in thousands)

Number of Urban Centres with Sewerage

Number of Urban Centres without Sewerage

Total

Greater than 300 2 0 2

100 – 300 8 0 8

20 – 100 16 8 24

Below 20 4 177 181

Total 30 185 215 Source: JICA After Care Study of the National Water Master Plan, 1998

6.3 Challenges

Deteriorated facilities: Most existing water supply and sewage collection treatment and disposal systems were constructed 20 to 40 years ago. With inadequate maintenance, the facilities have deteriorated and fail to meet increasing demand.

Limited sewerage: Kenya has a mixed sewer system which receives both domestic sewage and industrial effluent. Urban sewerage has not been expanded to cope with rapidly increasing demand. This has contributed to frequent sewer bursts or leakages due to overloading. Non pre treatment of industrial effluent: It is a requirement that all industrial waste waters must be pre-treated before being discharged into the municipal sewer systems and lack of adherence is punishable by law. However, the enforcement of various legislations has been lacking. Studies have shown that industrial effluent is a major cause of pollution of water bodies and environment. Where industrial waste is not pre-treated, this leads to sewer bursts due to blockages from suspended solids, corrosive effluent and secondary reactions of effluent in the sewer line. 6.4 Recommendations

Promote public private partnerships to urgently fill the gaps in sewerage management: Only 14% of Kenya’s urban towns have sewerage systems and disposal facilities and this calls for a paradigm shift. Since there is strong link between sewerage, sanitation and hygiene, the implementation of environmental sanitation and hygiene policy will enhance filling the gaps. A framework for public private partnership is crucial in tapping the private sector especially for onsite sanitation and appropriate technologies in informal settlements. Adopt low-cost facilities in the short term: Such facilities can include pit-latrines and ecosanitation, as conventional sewerage may be too expensive for many to afford. Many view sewerage and sewage disposal as service without returns unlike water.

Expand sewerage systems and sewage treatment plants: This can be done by allocating adequate resources to sewerage and sewage treatment plants. Resources should also cater for operations and maintenance of these facilities.

Upgrade existing treatment plants: This can be done with advanced treatment technologies such as chemical coagulation and sedimentation, wetlands, filtration and/or chlorinating systems for effluent to meet discharge standards.

Enact and enforce appropriate and comprehensive policy and legal instruments on sewerage

and sewage disposal: The policy must assign roles and functions and recognize the importance of mechanisms and coordination. The key actors here are the ministries of Water and Irrigation, Health, Local Government, WRMA and NEMA.

Compel industries to pre-treat waste: Industrial waste is often more toxic than domestic sewage as it contains higher concentrations of metals, chemicals and complex organic pollutants. Removing toxic elements of any industrial effluent in the form of pre-treatment is essential to safeguard water supply sources, sewerage and sewage treatment plants. Non adherence to pre-treatment of industrial wastes will lead to a near irreversible situation like the Nairobi River.

Formulate strict regulations and standards for sewage treatment plants and enforce these by

fining polluters: This is critical as a deterrent measure, and can also act as a way of financing sewerage development and management through the enforcement of polluter pays principle.

Encourage sewer usage and proper disposal of wastewater: This can be done through public education and awareness of good kitchen practice for example. Disposal of industrial sewage containing heavy metals and other substances should be

conducted away from public and ground water systems: This will help avoid contamination.

CHAPTER SEVEN

CAN KENYA ACHIEVE THE MDGs?

7.1 Population Trends

Kenya’s population is predominantly rural. By 2000, 67% of the population (20 million) was living in rural areas and 33% (9.96 million) in urban areas. Although rural population will still dominate by 2015, strong population growth in urban centres (4.2% per year) compared to rural areas (0.2% per year) means that the share of rural population will go down by between 14% to 53 per cent. In the same period, the share of the urban population, in Nairobi, will go up 10%. Nairobi’s population growth (4.3%) will be stronger than that of other urban centres (4.2%).

7.2 Status of Access to Improved Water Source and Sanitation Services6

Access to an improved water source refers to the percentage of the population with reasonable access to adequate water from an improved source, such as a household connection, a public standpipe, a borehole, a protected well or spring, and rainwater collection. Unimproved sources include vendors, tanker trucks and unprotected wells and springs. Reasonable access is defined as the availability of at least 20 litres person a day from a source within one kilometre of the dwelling.7 Access to improved sanitation facilities refers to the percentage of the population with adequate waste disposal facilities (private or shared, but not public) that can effectively prevent human, animal and insect contact with excreta. Improved facilities range from simple but protected pit latrines, to flush toilets with a sewer connection. To be effective, facilities must be correctly constructed and properly maintained.8

By 2000 only 31% of the rural populations had access to improved water sources compared with 86% for urban populations. On improved sanitation facilities, 81% of rural populations had access, against 96% for urban populations. In absolute numbers, this means that out of a population of 30 million people in 2000, 15.2 million had no access to improved water supply, 91.5% of them (13.9 million) in rural areas. Some 4.2 million had no access to improved sanitation, the great majority (3.8 million, or 91%) of them in rural areas. Using 1990 as a base year, the MDGs on water supply and sanitation, data from the 2000 WHO-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) were used to calculate global and regional MDGs to provide a baseline for the country desk reviews. By 2015, access to safe water is expected to be 70%, with intermediate targets of 54% for 2005 and 61% for 2010. Access to improved sanitation is expected to be at 92% by the year 2015, with intermediate targets of 86% for the year 2005 and 88% for the year 2010.

6 2000 WHO – Unicef JMP 7 http://www.developmentgoals.org/Definitions_Sources.htm 8 World Health Organisation and United Nations Children's Fund, Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report

If Kenya achieves the MDG targets for water, it will still be below the average for Sub-Saharan Africa. Regarding sanitation, the table below shows that by the year 2000 Kenya had already reached its monitoring target for the year to 2005, which is 86% in terms of facilities. Kenya’s progress on MDG targets for water and sanitation are shown in the table below.

Table 11: Access to Water Supply and Sanitation

2000 2015 MDG GAP (2000-2015)

Pop …………..

Access…………….

Access …………

Pop……

Access….

Access…

Investment Added

(m) (m) (%) (m) (m) (%) (m) (US$/yr)

Rural 20.1 6.2 31% 20.8 %

Urban 9.9 8.5 86% 18.4 %

Wa

ter

Total 30.0 14.7 49% 39.2 27.4 70% 12.7 $35m

Rural 20.1 16.3 81% 20.8 %

Urban 9.9 9.5 96% 18.4 %

Sa

nit

ati

on

Total 30.0 25.8 86% 39.2 36.0 92% 10.2

Source: WHO- Unicef – 2000 Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) 7.3 Relationship Between MDGs on Water and Sanitation, and Gender Equity

Achieving the MDG target on “safe water and adequate sanitation” will take Kenya closer to achieving other MDG targets on gender equity and reduced poverty. Water has been recognized as having both social and economic value and is a major catalyst for economic growth and wealth creation. Studies have shown that where gender concerns are mainstreamed in water and sanitation, there is generally improved level of service. Provision of safe water and adequate sanitation reduces water borne diseases and also improves child attendance to schools and hence contributing to meeting partially other MDGs. Table 12: Access to Water and Sanitation in Kenya and MDG Targets

Historical data Targets Baseline Reference Intermediate

Monitoring MDG’s

1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 Kenya

Access to safe drinking water (ASDW)

40% 49% 54% 61% 70%

Access to improved sanitation 84% 86% 86% 88% 92%

Population (Millions) 23.55 30.08 33.09 36.23 39.23

Sub-Saharan Africa, ASDW 49% 55% - - 74%

Sources: MDG web-page. except years ASDW 2005 and 2010 and sanitation 2005, 2010, 2015 which are estimated targets. The population figures are taken from the WHO-UNICEF assessment 2000 and United Nations Population Division. With effort, access to water can also improve. At a population growth rate of 1.9% per year, it is estimated that in year 2015, the population will be 39 million. Therefore, between 2000

and 2015, an additional 24 million will need access to safe drinking water, and an additional 13 million, to sanitation. 7.5 Investment Required to Meet MDGs on Water and Sanitation

Between 1997 and 2002, less than 500 small towns and rural water facilities had been constructed each year, at an expenditure of about US$35 million a year from various financiers including government, development partners, NGOs and communities. To achieve the MDGs, it is estimated that the total investments required between 2000 and 2015 amounts to US$1,800 million. Table 13: Construction Cost Estimates for Water Supply and Sewerage Development to

Year 2015

2005-15 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Total 244,219 14,206 14,493 14,790 15,721 18,030 21,937 26,332 29,518 31,237 31,213 26,743

Rural 135,471 6,860 6,985 7,115 7,709 9,312 12,073 15,164 17,340 18,426 18,232 16,256

Water Supply

83,056 5,149 5,230 5,313 5,597 6,317 7,536 8,898 9,866 10,366 10,314 8,471

Rehabilitation 52,965 4,308 4,366 4,425 4,498 4,612 4,794 5,051 5,352 5,665 5,956 3,939

Extension 30,091 841 864 888 1,099 1,705 2,741 3,847 4,514 4,700 4,358 4,532

Sewerage 52,415 1,711 1,756 1,802 2,112 2,995 4,537 6,266 7,474 8,060 7,918 7,785

Rehabilitation 21,120 1,284 1,314 1,344 1,392 1,492 1,683 1,969 2,313 2,672 3,000 2,657

Extension 31,294 427 442 458 720 1,503 2,854 4,297 5,161 5,388 4,917 5,128

Urban 108,748 7,346 7,508 7,676 8,012 8,718 9,864 11,168 12,178 12,812 12,981 10,487

Water Supply

32,473 2,353 2,403 2,455 2,544 2,712 2,975 3,273 3,508 3,663 3,719 2,867

Rehabilitation 22,529 1,882 1,915 1,949 1,986 2,031 2,090 2,164 2,248 2,337 2,423 1,504

Extension 9,944 471 489 507 558 681 885 1,108 1,259 1,326 1,296 1,363

Sewerage 76,276 4,992 5,104 5,220 5,468 6,006 6,889 7,896 8,670 9,149 9,261 7,620

Rehabilitation 48,879 3,957 4,029 4,103 4,188 4,302 4,464 4,678 4,928 5,191 5,446 3,594

Extension 27,397 1,036 1,076 1,117 1,280 1,704 2,425 3,217 3,742 3,957 3,816 4,026

Source: Ministry of Water and Irrigation calculations, 2004

With the assumption that the rehabilitation of water supplies and sewerage systems program will be finalized by 2014, funding requirements for the sector drop significantly and full cost coverage can be achieved by 2025. To achieve full cost recovery (including depreciation and financing costs) by 2015, considerable tariff adjustments are necessary. This should then be combined with targeted pro-poor strategies to make water available and accessible to all groups of Kenyan society. Given that this Government allocates in water budget provisions approximately Kshs.5 billion per year and a similar amount comes from external sources, Kenya has an estimated shortfall of Kshs. 235 billion between now and 2015 to enable it to meet the MDGs. As witnessed in the budget for fiscal year 2005/06, Kenya has increased its financing to the water and sanitation sector and this includes Kshs.1.5 billion has been allocated to arid and semi arid districts for domestic and livestock water.

CHAPTER EIGHT

CROSS CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS Provision of adequate safe water and sanitation is vital to improving life. It promotes health, educational advancement, gender equity, income equality and environmental sustainability. Approximately 60% of Kenya’s hospital attendance is due to preventable diseases. About 50% of these illnesses are related to sanitation, hygiene and water. Studies demonstrate that girls’ enrolment in school increases with the provision of latrines in schools and other gender considerations, while easy access to safe water sources frees women from spending hours every day drawing and carrying water from and over long distances. As much as a quarter of household time in rural Africa is estimated to be spent on fetching water. Statistics show that the majority of those who fetch water are women and children. Hence there is need to pay special attention to gender mainstreaming in water service provision. Safe water and sanitation also underpin economic growth and environmental sustainability. Income benefits (for both households and the government) may result from a reduction in the costs of health treatment, and gains in productivity. Productivity gains stem from time saved from collecting water, availability of water as an input to the productive sector, and a decline in water and sanitation related illnesses. Threats to water sustainability are both qualitative and quantitative. For this socially and economically critical sector to improve and contribute to national development, we recommend seven areas of strategic intervention; institution building, capacity development, awareness and information sharing, community and user integration, gender mainstreaming, regulation and financing. 8.1 Institution Building

Harmonize legislations touching on water, sewerage and sanitation with the Water Act 2002

to minimize conflicts: These include the Lands Act, the Agriculture Act, the Public Health Act, the Forests Act and the Local Government Act among others touching on water. Land ownership allows one with a title deed to have access and activities up to the river bank. The Agriculture Act spells out the farming distance from the river bank but this is always ignored and farmers cultivate to the river. NEMA deals with pollution and effluent discharges under Environmental Management and Coordination Act (1999) while WRMA deals with pollution and the polluter pays principle under the Water Act 2002. Today, some aspects of the Water Act, Cap 372 are still in force e.g. the water rights provisions. There is urgent need to bring all operations into the new dispensation under the Water Act, 2002.

Review and harmonize the water, sanitation and sewerage management: NEMA and WRMA operate under different legislations though both dealing with pollution. Coordination between these two institutions could reduce duplication and overlaps. However, despite the presence of legal authority, enforcement is inadequate.

Improve governance at the local level: Local institutions need to understand and support the new framework. There is need to engage local level actors through series of awareness campaigns and education on the new framework and where appropriate simplification of framework undertaken.

8.2 Capacity Development

Staff new institutions adequately: The personnel transfer plan must adhere to the set time table and periodically review the need for new skills.

Build competence of WSBs: Training will help WSBs evaluate work done by the Support Organizations (SOs) and Quality Control Agents (QCAs). The WSBs also need to understand their roles and begin to plan for it. It is with these plans in mind that they can guide the SOs and QCAs. Rehabilitate water supply and sewerage systems urgently: The Kitale, Webuye and Bungoma, Homabay, and Nor Turesh water and sewerage systems, in particular, are in dire need of rehabilitation and augmentation.

Open performance contracts to public scrutiny: Institutions mandated to provide water and sewerage services are now required to be accountable to the public through performance contracts with set targets. Since the contracts are currently secret or confidential documents, the consumers and stakeholders may not be aware of what the performance targets are. In the absence of scrutiny, the consumers may not adequately evaluate the holders. Performance contracts should be made open for public consultation and review, and applied to lower levels including community water service providers and made to include incentives for improvement and innovativeness. Overall performance contracts, increase accountability for results and targets and reduce confusion or misunderstanding from multiplicity of objectives and presumes an employment contract between employee and employer. Therefore a citizen report card on these set targets and a transparent performance evaluation arrangement would be useful interrogation of the process between the user and the implementer.

Increase research and development: This will save time, money and personnel resources in efforts to meet water, sanitation and sewerage needs. Experience from the past has shown that this country has tended to depend more on foreign technologies. As a part of the implementation of water policy on technology, continuous research should be undertaken on old and new appropriate technologies which are friendly, acceptable, and affordable, and which use local materials as much as possible. Emphasis should be made on action or applied research where these technologies are tested on water and sanitation facilities on pilot basis and lessons learnt documented for replication elsewhere. 8.3 Awareness and Information Sharing

Monitor and document the status of reforms: This information should also be shared with stakeholders so that they know which body is responsible for what task. Provide clear guidelines on service fees to public projects: Constituency development committees and other stakeholders appear to be unclear on whether Ministry of Water is supposed to provide technical assistance for public projects e.g., surveys for CDF projects, at no cost. CDF should factor in technical costs for investigations and designs including borehole siting in their budgets. Where government experts are not available, CDF management needs to outsource these services from the market.

Inform CSOs of the framework and how it should function: The intention to use Support Organisations (SOs) for this exercise will succeed only if there is adequate guidance and supervision from the respective Water Service Boards. District offices should coordinate sector activities: There are several players such as donors, private, faith based, government and development partners in this sector. Therefore there is an urgent need for information sharing and coordination of ongoing and planned activities to avoid unnecessary replication and inefficient resource allocation. 8.4 Community and User Integration

Have clear compensation criteria and procedures: Communities need to be considered for their contributions to schemes currently operated and managed by M&WI/ NWCPC to be handed over or have been handed over to water services boards. Mechanisms for getting access to water supplies owned by local authorities and community/NGO schemes should be made clear as plans are being put in place to appoint them as WSPs.

Encourage communities to fill service gaps and enable them to do so in a regulated manner: Communities in Kenya have contributed immensely in water development and management in kind, cash and labour. In many cases their contribution is under estimated or not costed all together. Communities can contribute land for construction of water and sanitation facilities.

Urge users to monitor and evaluate services: This can be done through tools such as the Citizens Report Card (CRC) or Community Score Cards (CSC) to obtain feedback on service level that is then used to improve service delivery. 8.5 Gender Mainstreaming

Gender issues are often misrepresented and misunderstood. In the 1990s, support agencies and water actors insisted on involving women in management of water and sanitation facilities (committees). Many water supply projects got support by forming women groups. Though this strategy worked well in financing water projects, it caused conflict in families where cultural beliefs preponderated. Gender equity can be achieved through a number of ways, including gender mainstreaming. To mainstream gender: Enact and implement the 2000 Policy on Gender and Development National Gender: The policy spells out an approach to gender and empowerment and the sessional paper provides a framework for gender mainstreaming in policy, planning and programming.

Provide budgetary support to programs to reduce gender inequalities: Studies have shown that lack of a policy and effective strategies to implement it has contributed to increased gender disparities in Kenya. With policy in place, budget provisions will reduce gender inequalities through gender mainstreaming and funding of gender friendly projects.

Strengthen and empower the National Commission on Gender and Development to

adequately monitor gender parity and ensure gender mainstreaming in water, sanitation and

sewerage projects and programs: The new gender policy calls for elevation of current gender desk officers in Ministries to fully pledged gender divisions. Set up a Training Needs Assessment (TNA) system for gender mainstreaming to enable an

effective capacity building program: This well help gender mainstreaming experts from the

sector to develop local packages for training, advocacy, data collection, analysis and monitoring. Ensure that there is more female representation in the framework: This is required by the Water Act, 2002. Greater representation of women in water and sanitation committees at local and national levels may also facilitate gender mainstreaming in WATSAN.

8.6 Regulation

Base resource allocation to public entities on performance evaluation and make performance

a criterion for renewing service licences: This will assist in ensuring that set goals and targets are achieved.

Establish rules for cost recovery: This can be done by developing appropriate service provision tariffs. Establish rules for the specification of geographical jurisdiction of water utilities: This will help utilities achieve the desired economies of scale by licensing and monitoring small scale service providers and eliminating middlemen or unauthorized vendors who may increase the cost of water to the final beneficiaries. Likewise support for water and sewerage services in marginalized areas should be based on geographical classification and index of level of needs. Enforce the polluter pays policy: The national pricing or costing policy for domestic sewage or industrial effluent discharged into the public sewers only takes into account the volume discharged. The polluter pays principle ensures that industries discharging beyond the recommended standards are charged according to quality or biological/chemical load of effluent. Enforce discharge standards: There are two discharge standards. One for discharge from the sewage treatment plants into the aquatic environment, and the other for discharge into the sewers. Although the standards can be considered relatively stringent for environmental protection, enforcement has generally been lacking. 8.7 Financing

Harmonize and prioritize use of funds: The water sector receives significant funding, particularly from non-state actors, but resources are not always directed to priority need. Re thinking the mode of resource allocation is, therefore, critical to avoid waste and inefficiency. This will require information sharing and coordination between the water sector stakeholders.

Tap into the money market: Funds can be raised through bonds or commercial loans, e.g., micro-finance schemes. Commercialization also plays an important role in facilitating funding from this source because financiers and lenders want to be assured that their money will be paid back. Make polluters pay for waste discharge: The policy requires those who discharge effluent into river bodies or municipal sewers to meet the cost of pre-treating their effluent and of repairing the consequences to the environment. Unfortunately, it is yet to be enforced.

Involve private sector: Private companies bring in management expertise, technical skills and credit standing to finance investments. Partnerships can be fulfilled in different forms, such as service, management and lease contracts, concessions, joint ownership or commercialization. Develop appropriate tariffs: The low tariffs for both urban and rural domestic water supplies do not promote efficient utilization of water, environmental conservation and preservation. With the increasing pressures on the water resources the need to have a different view on pricing becomes urgent. Water should be seen as an economic and social good that has a cost. Water should be priced at rates that meet full operation and maintenance costs, and partial investment costs especially in rural areas. In urban set ups, tariffs should cover full cost but with due consideration to informal settlements. At the same time, water as a basic right should have a tariff that favors the poor and marginalized people, and governments through social responsibility can support this by way of targeted subsidies for vulnerable groups. This can include a life-line tariff for a fixed volume of water to meet the basic needs of poor urban consumers (based on South African model of free water for first 6,000 litres of water per capital per month but localized to Kenya financial situation). Introduce utility specific pricing: This option embraces the principle of cost recovery where the price covers maintenance, operation and capital cost recoveries and sector self-financing to cover all water services. This strategy reflects the true user pays principle and embodies the marginal pricing concept that is key to implementing an economic approach to water pricing. In this option every scheme is priced separately due to its technical, commercial and operational nature. Encourage private households to finance their own sanitation facilities through micro-

finance schemes and merry-go-round arrangements: Communities need to be assisted with appropriate sanitation facility designs that use local materials as much as possible. Registered community health clubs that promote improved sanitation and hygiene practices may access micro finance for construction of facilities and other income generating activities.

CHAPTER NINE

SUMMARY

In developing Kenya’s water policy and the review of legislation, study tours were made in South Africa, Zambia, Uganda and other countries. Subsequently, Kenya adopted to some extent the Zambian and South African frameworks’ approach on water supply, water resources, sewerage and sanitation management with local adjustments. This has helped create a more sound institutional design. The Water Act 2002 recognises water as a basic right. Unlike Kenya, South Africa entrenches this right in the constitution. Every South African has a right to receive free water and receives the first 6,000 litres of water free every month. However, the water consumed above this amount must be paid for. Kenya may not be in a position to provide free water due to huge finances required. In order to make safe water accessible to most Kenyans, a tariff policy that favors the poor need to be put in place. However, those who use water for commercial/industrial and other huge income generating purposes should be made to pay for water at the user pays tariff. Kenya’s water and sanitation sector has undergone major structural reforms aimed at improving the service. The purpose of this research paper is to inform policy makers, stakeholders, service providers and implementers of the ongoing reforms in the water sector; the successes, constraints, challenges and way forward. This is because adequate water in quantity and quality is a basic requirement for economic growth and performance. Towards this, the study has briefly outlined the history of the water, sanitation and sewerage framework in Kenya prior to recent reforms. It then discussed the current framework, the challenges and made suggestions on the way forward. The discussion was based on selected principles of a good framework as clear roles and relationships between actors, rules of operation and adherence to the rules, and accountability to a higher authority. This framework should then ultimately, act as a means to achieve a policy. The study finds that the water sector reforms initiated by the Water Act 2002 are beneficial and on track. However, as mentioned in this study, there are emerging challenges and gaps that need to be addressed to accelerate the achievement of MDGs. The roles and relationships between all players in the framework are not well understood. Secondly, rules of operation in the form of strategies are yet to be put in place but are fortunately, in the advanced draft stage awaiting public and stakeholder consultations before gazettement and adaptation. Rules in the form of pollution and abstraction regulation measures do exist but are not being complied with. Lastly, the new framework does call for accountability from the players at least within the policies and draft strategies, however, where stakeholder and consumer awareness is low, accountability will be difficult to enforce. It is recommended that water, as a key catalyst to economic growth, be given a higher priority in national development. More specifically, this paper has identified seven areas of strategic intervention. These are institution building, capacity development, awareness and

information sharing, community and user integration, gender mainstreaming, regulation

and financing . If adopted, these recommendations can facilitate efficient policy realization. This will then translate into quality and accessible water, sanitation and sewerage service, and therefore better lives for Kenyans including businesses.

CHAPTER TEN

CONCLUSION

Kenya has made substantial progress in broadening water coverage. Kenya has also developed a policy in the area of sanitation, and strategies for water resource management, supply, and sewerage. This study shows that water, sanitation and sewerage sector reforms are underway, beneficial and encouraging. It should be said that public sector reforms can benefit from non state support in service provision, infrastructure development and financial support, and this has been shown in this paper. This study assessment and recommendations should be used to improve the design and implementation of the water institutional framework to meet the needs of Kenya in terms of better water, sanitation and sewerage services now and in future. With continued effort and efficient inclusion of stakeholders, reforms in this area should yield positive results that we can all be proud of.

REFERENCES

Government of Kenya, Chief’s Act, Pre – Independence Act Government of Kenya, Public Health Act, Cap 245 Government of Kenya, Water Act 2002, October 2002 Government of Kenya, Water Act Cap 372, Commencement date, 7 May, 1952 Government of Kenya, Local Government Act (Cap 265) Harper Collins, Encyclopaedia, 1996 Ministry of Agriculture, IDRP – Study on Irrigation Potential in Kenya, 1987 Ministry of Finance, Government of Kenya, Budget Strategy Paper 2006/7 Ministry of Health, Draft Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy (ESHP), 2005 Ministry of Land Reclamation, Regional Development and Water Development, National Guidelines on hand over of rural water supplies to communities, 1997 Ministry of Planning and National Development, Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (2003-2007) Ministry of Planning and National Development, National Development Plan 2002-2008, dated 2001 Ministry of Sports, Gender, Culture and Social Services, Draft National Policy on Gender and Development – Sessional Paper, 2006 Ministry of Water and Irrigation, The National Water Resources Management Strategy (WRMS), 2004 Ministry of Water and Irrigation, The National Water Services Strategy (NWSS), 2005-2007, December, 2004. Ministry of Water and Irrigation: www.water.go.ke Ministry of Water Resources, National Policy on Water Resources Management and Development, April 1999 Ministry of Water Resources/JICA. The Aftercare Study on the National Water Master Plan in the Republic of Kenya, November, 1998 Ministry of Water and Irrigation/Water and Sanitation Donor Coordination Group - Sector Wide Approach to Planning (SWAp), NETWAS library and Water Sector Reforms Secretariat, 2005

Mumma A. (2005). Kenya’s New Water Law: An Analysis of the Implications for the Rural Poor. A Paper Presented at the International Workshop on ‘African Water Laws: Plural Legislative Frameworks For Rural Water Management In Africa’, 26-28 January 2005, Johannesburg, South Africa U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau For Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) Office Of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA), Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, & Somalia) – Complex Emergency Situation Report #10 (FY 2006), 2 May 2006 Wambua S and Mwarania S. (2005) Study on Operationalization of Water Act 2002 in Rural Water and Sanitation in Kenya, NETWAS/CAS Wikipedia, a free-content encyclopedia on the Internet www.wikipedia.org World Health Organisation (WHO)/UNICEF, Joint Monitoring Program Report, 2000 World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program (WSP -AF), Case study Zambia, Water Tariff, Kisima Publication, July 2005 World Summit on sustainable Development, Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI), 2002 Water Sanitation Program – Africa Region. Field notes on Small Scale Independent Service Providers ( SSISPs), 2004

Annex I: Conflict and Overlapping Roles of Key Public Institutions under the Old Water Act Cap 372

MoLF

Conflict and overlapping roles of key public

institutions caused by old Water Act Cap 372

Conflict, duplication and overlapping leading to poor services

* Local Authorities

Source: WSRS

Policy

Form

ula

tion

Regula

tion

Serv

ice

Pro

vis

ion

MWRMD NWCPC MoLG SHG/NGOs MoA

Irrigation

LAs*

Many Institutions Making Policy Separately & in Un coordinated Manner

Conflic

ts o

n a

llocatio

n

of re

sourc

es

Poor Water Supply & Sanitation Services

Livestock

water

Conflic

ts o

n c

hecks

and b

ala

nces

Conflic

ts o

n c

hecks

and b

ala

nces

Conflic

ts o

n c

hecks

and b

ala

nces

This old act cap 372 is repealed by Water Act 2002 (refer to chart 1 on page 14)

Annex 2: Objectives of the National Water Policy On Water Resources Management and Development The Policy has four broad objectives:

• Water supply and sewerage provision;

• Water resources management;

• Legislative framework; and

• Financing mechanisms.

Sessional Paper Number 1 of 1999 on National Water Policy on Water Resources Management and Development provides the policy direction to overcome the above mentioned broad objectives and challenges. The policy directions include:

• Preservation, conservation and protection of available water resources

• Sustainable, rational and economical allocation and apportionment of water resources

• Supplying adequate amounts of quality water meeting acceptable standards for the various needs

• Establishment of an efficient and effective institutional, policy and legal framework to achieve systematic development and management;

• Ensuring safe wastewater disposal for environmental protection and safeguard ecological processes

• Developing a sound and sustainable financial system for effective water resources management, water supply and water borne sewage collection, treatment and disposal

Source: Water Sector Reforms Secretariat/Draft National Water Services Strategy, 2004

Annex 3: The table below shows access to safe water and sanitation in selected African countries as reported in the WHO-UNICEF JMP 2000, and country PRSPs. PRSP data on water and sanitation are not available in a number of countries and are indicated with a nil (-) in the row/column. Access to Water and Sanitation: Status and Reporting in PRSPs

Country Access to Safe Water Supply and Sanitation (% of Population) 2000

JMP Data As Reported in the Country PRSP

Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural

Water Supply 1. Benin 2. Burkina Faso 3. Ethiopia 4. Kenya 5. Malawi 6. Mauritania 7. Mozambique 8. Rwanda 9. Senegal 10. Tanzania 11. Uganda 12. Zambia

63 42 24 57 57 37 57 41 78 68 52 64

74 66 81 88 95 34 81 60 92 90 80 88

55 37 12 42 44 40 41 40 65 57 47 48

62 -

36 50 66 35 -

52 88 - - -

76 90 72 70 - -

44 60 93 68 60 89

52 58 24 30 - -

12 44 83 49 52 37

Sanitation

1. Benin 2. Burkina Faso 3. Ethiopia 4. Kenya 5. Malawi 6. Mauritania 7. Mozambique 8. Rwanda 9. Senegal 10. Tanzania 11. Uganda

12. Zambia

23 29 12 87 76 33 43 8 70 90 79 78

46 39 33 95 96 44 69 12 91 99 93 99

6 27 7 82 70 19 26 8 48 86 77 64

- 30 29 - 81 - - 15 - - - -

- - - - - - - - 37 - - 73

- - - - - 10 - 85 - - - 68

Note: Not reported Source: WHO- UNICEF JMP on Water and Sanitation (www.wssinfo.org) and PRSP documentation for each country, www.worldbank.org/poverty/strategies)

Annex 4: Kenya’s Drainage system

The national drainage system is determined by the Great Rift Valley which runs approximately north-south. From its flanks, water flows westwards to Lake Victoria and eastwards to the Indian Ocean. Kenya's drainage system is subdivided into five drainage areas (basins) consisting of 192 subdivisions. The five drainage areas are as follows:

1. Lake Victoria basin (46,229 km2) composed of the whole of the area west of the Rift Valley that drains into Lake Victoria.

2. The Rift Valley (130,452 Km2) is an area of internal drainage discharging into Lake Turkana in the north and Lake Natron in the south.

3. The Tana River area (126,026 km2) drains the eastern slopes of the Aberdare ranges, the southern and eastern slopes of Mt. Kenya and the Nyambene ranges and discharges into the Indian Ocean. The Tana is Kenya’s largest river.

4. The Athi/Sabaki River area (66,837 km2) comprises the southern part of the country east of the Rift Valley. It drains the southern slopes of the Aberdare ranges and flanks of the Rift Valley south of the Athi River. Athi is the Kenya’s second largest river.

5. The Ewaso Nyiro North River area (210,226 km2) comprises the northern part of Kenya and drains the northern slopes of the Aberdare ranges and western Mt. Kenya into the Indian Ocean.

A R

apid

Ass

essm

ent

of

Ken

ya’

s W

ater

, S

anit

atio

n a

nd S

ewer

age

Fra

mew

ork

27

An

nex

5:

Sta

tus

of

Gaze

tted

Urb

an

Wate

r an

d S

ewer

age

Ser

vic

es P

rov

isio

n i

n K

enya (

1998)

P

rovin

ce

Dis

tric

t D

istr

ict

Pop

.

Nam

e of

Sch

eme

Wate

r U

nd

er-

Tak

er

Are

a

Cover

ed

In K

m2

Tota

l M

ain

s L

ength

in

K

m

Met

ered

C

on

sum

ers

U

nm

eter

ed

Con

sum

ers

T

ota

l

Reg

iste

red

C

on

sum

ers

Nair

ob

i N

air

ob

i 2,1

43,2

54

Nai

robi

Nai

robi

CC

540

4,0

00.0

0

142,2

06

7,3

58

149,5

64

Nyan

za

Nyam

ira

498,1

02

Nyam

ira

DW

D

77

802

296

1,0

98

K

isii

491,7

86

Kis

ii

NW

CP

C

25

138.5

3,0

78

620

3,6

98

G

uch

a

460,9

39

K

isu

mu

504,3

59

Kis

um

u

Kis

um

u

MC

180

112

13,6

53

13,6

53

H

om

a D

ay

288,5

40

Hom

a B

ay

DW

D

40

1,4

98

10

1,5

08

M

igori

514,8

97

Mig

ori

D

WD

1.5

450

380

830

K

uri

a

151,8

87

R

ach

uon

yo

307,1

26

B

on

do

238,7

80

S

iaya

480,1

84

Sia

ya

NW

CP

C

18

9.5

1,3

89

319

1,7

08

S

ub

a

155,6

66

N

yan

do

299,9

30

Wes

tern

B

un

gom

a

876,4

91

Bungo

ma

NW

CP

C

40

34

3,0

27

30

3,0

57

M

alak

isi

DW

D

45

500

400

900

K

imil

ili

DW

D

90

1,1

67

1,0

90

2,2

57

W

ebuye

DW

D

43

1,5

52

554

2,1

06

A R

apid

Ass

essm

ent

of

Ken

ya’s

Wate

r, S

an

itati

on

an

d S

ewer

age

Fra

mew

ork

6

1

B

usi

a

370,6

08

Busi

a D

WD

3

9

1,9

47

277

2,2

24

V

ihig

a

498,8

83

Kai

mosi

D

WD

4

30

450

900

1,3

50

An

nex

5:

Sta

tus

of

Gaze

tted

Urb

an

Wate

r an

d S

ewer

age

Ser

vic

es P

rov

isio

n i

n K

enya (

1998)

M

asen

o

Luan

da

DW

D

1.5

31

899

1,0

00

1,8

99

K

ak

am

ega

603,4

22

Kak

ameg

a N

WC

PC

50

5,4

53

36

5,4

89

B

ute

re –

M

um

ias

476,9

28

Mum

ias

DW

D

6

24

869

130

999

L

ugari

215,9

20

T

eso

181,4

91

M

t. E

lgon

135,0

33

Cen

tral

Kia

mb

u

744,0

10

Lim

uru

D

WD

10

21.5

537

656

1,1

93

K

iam

bu

Kia

mbu

MC

2

9

1,5

80

- 1,5

80

K

ikuyu

DW

D

8

3.2

1,1

81

1,1

81

R

uir

u

DW

D

2

0.5

650

650

T

hik

a

645,7

13

Thik

a T

hik

a M

C

80

82

K

irin

yaga

457,1

05

Sag

ana

DW

D

5

16.1

662

5

667

K

erugoya

DW

D

4

13

1,8

51

1,8

51

M

ura

nga

348,3

04

Kan

dar

a N

WC

PC

1

2.5

740

740

K

angem

a N

WC

PC

4

615

165

780

M

ura

nga

DW

D

5

1.1

2,6

72

2,6

72

M

ara

gu

a

387,9

69

A R

apid

Ass

essm

ent

of

Ken

ya’s

Wate

r, S

an

itati

on

an

d S

ewer

age

Fra

mew

ork

6

2

N

yan

daru

a

479,9

02

N

yer

i 661,1

56

Kar

atin

a D

WD

37

15.3

1,3

56

1,3

56

An

nex

5:

Sta

tus

of

Gaze

tted

Urb

an

Wate

r an

d S

ewer

age

Ser

vic

es P

rov

isio

n i

n K

enya (

1998)

Oth

aya

NW

CP

C

10

12.6

5,0

09

4,1

37

9,1

46

N

yer

i N

yer

i M

C

20

100.2

5,8

48

5,8

48

East

ern

E

mb

u

278,1

96

Runyen

jes

Runyen

jes

MC

15

10.5

4,8

52

840

5,6

92

E

mbu

NW

CP

C

10

73.7

4,6

95

4,6

95

Is

iolo

100,8

61

Isio

lo

DW

D

18

32.2

2,7

71

2,7

71

K

itu

i 515,4

22

Kit

ui

DW

D

10

21.2

1,4

72

250

1,7

22

M

win

gi

303,8

28

M

ach

ak

os

906,6

44

Uaa

ni-

Taw

a C

om

munit

y

4

-

844

844

A

thi

Riv

er

Mav

oko M

C

35

16

1,2

00

1,2

00

M

achak

os

NW

CP

C

25

22.5

2,9

50

2,9

50

M

ak

uen

i 771,5

45

M

ars

ab

it

121,4

78

Mar

sabit

D

WD

7.5

643

37

680

M

oyale

53,4

79

M

eru

C

entr

al

498,8

80

Mer

u

DW

D

12

7.3

2,2

47

272

2,5

19

C

huka

DW

D

14

655

- 655

M

eru

Nort

h

604,0

50

N

ith

i (M

eru

S

ou

th)

205,4

51

A R

apid

Ass

essm

ent

of

Ken

ya’s

Wate

r, S

an

itati

on

an

d S

ewer

age

Fra

mew

ork

6

3

T

hara

ka

100,9

92

M

bee

re

170,9

53

An

nex

5:

Sta

tus

of

Gaze

tted

Urb

an

Wate

r an

d S

ewer

age

Ser

vic

es P

rov

isio

n i

n K

enya (

1998)

N

ort

h

East

ern

G

ari

ssa

392,5

10

Gar

isa

DW

D

35

958

1,9

09

2,8

67

Man

der

a

250,3

72

Man

der

a D

WD

27.7

1,6

00

1,6

00

W

aji

r 319,2

61

Rif

t V

all

ey

Kaji

ad

o

406,0

54

Ngon

g

Com

munit

y

19

6

300

1,7

76

2,0

76

K

ajia

do

NW

CP

C

50

7

755

- 755

L

oit

okit

ok

NW

CP

C

25

8.1

1,4

35

- 1,4

35

N

aman

ga

DW

D

12

8.5

57

473

530

K

eric

ho

468,4

93

Ker

icho

Ker

icho M

C

66

100

4,7

57

- 4,7

57

B

ure

t 316,8

82

Soti

k

NW

CP

C

10

875

- 875

B

om

et

382,7

94

T

ran

s M

ara

170,5

91

L

aik

ipia

322,1

87

Nyah

uru

ru

Nyah

uru

ru

MC

4.8

17.9

2,2

50

32

2,2

82

N

anyuki

Nan

yuki

MC

60

N

ak

uru

1,1

87,0

39

Nak

uru

D

WD

44.1

218.4

17,3

17

2,9

73

20,2

90

E

lburg

on

NW

CP

C

1

702

840

1,5

42

G

ilgil

N

WC

PC

2

11.8

525

660

1,1

85

N

aro

k

365,7

50

Nar

ok

Nar

ok M

C

3

913

114

1,0

27

T

ran

s N

zoia

575,6

62

Kit

ale

DW

D

76

1,9

20

194

2,1

14

A R

apid

Ass

essm

ent

of

Ken

ya’s

Wate

r, S

an

itati

on

an

d S

ewer

age

Fra

mew

ork

6

4

U

asi

n G

ish

u

622,7

05

Eld

ore

t E

ldore

t M

C

150

477

8,7

76

1,0

29

9,8

05

B

ari

ngo

264,9

78

Kab

arnet

N

WC

PC

3

700

170

870

K

oib

ate

k

138,1

63

Eld

ama

Rav

ine

NW

CP

C

10

496

1,6

45

2,1

41

M

ogoti

o

DW

D

580

- 580

K

eiyo

143,8

65

Iten

D

WD

5

572

37

609

N

an

di

578,7

51

Kap

sabet

N

WC

PC

25

950

30

980

S

am

bu

ru

143,5

47

T

urk

an

a

450,8

60

Lodw

ar

DW

D

3

6

1,6

52

25

1,6

77

W

est

Pok

ot

308,0

86

Kap

enguri

a D

WD

2

93

536

629

E

lgey

o

Mara

kw

et

140,6

29

Coast

K

ilif

i 544,3

03

Kil

ifi

NW

CP

C

120

241

2,4

50

- 2,4

50

M

aria

kan

i N

WC

PC

30

108

1,0

09

- 1,0

09

M

ali

nd

i 281,5

52

Mal

indi

NW

CP

C

5

100

4,4

50

- 4,4

50

W

atam

u

NW

CP

C

6

45

1,2

50

- 1,2

50

K

wale

496,1

33

Kw

ale

NW

CP

C

4

60

655

- 655

M

sam

bw

eni

NW

CP

C

30

4

1,2

00

- 1,2

00

L

am

u

72,6

86

Lam

u

DW

D

6

1,3

15

- 1,3

15

M

om

basa

665,0

18

Mom

bas

a N

WC

PC

12

13

20,0

40

- 20,0

40

T

ait

a T

avet

a

246,6

71

Tav

eta

NW

CP

C

6

30

756

- 756

V

oi

NW

CP

C

9

16

3,2

10

- 3,2

10

W

undan

yi

DW

D

12

17.5

1,0

57

- 1,0

57

T

an

a R

iver

180,9

01

Thes

e ar

e gaz

ette

d u

rban

wat

er s

uppli

es r

un b

y D

WD

, N

WC

PC

and M

unic

ipal

itie

s. N

ote

that

som

e dis

tric

ts a

t t

hat

tim

e, m

ay h

ave

had

no u

rban

wat

er s

upply

ru

n b

y e

ither

MO

WR

or

NW

CP

C l

ike

Suba.

The

mai

ns

cover

pip

elin

es l

ager

than

80m

m a

nd s

om

e so

urc

es m

ay b

e bore

hole

s.

An

nex

5:

Sta

tus

of

Gaze

tted

Urb

an

Wate

r an

d S

ewer

age

Ser

vic

es P

rov

isio

n i

n K

enya (

1998)

A R

apid

Ass

essm

ent

of

Ken

ya’s

Wate

r, S

an

itati

on

an

d S

ewer

age

Fra

mew

ork

6

5

Sourc

e: JI

CA

1998 A

fter

Car

e S

tudy.

A Rapid Assessment of Kenya’s Water, Sanitation and Sewerage Framework 27

Annex 6: Case Study 1, Water Tariff In Zambia (courtesy of KISIMA)

Water tariff adjustments in Zambia are linked to sustainability of the systems and to the performance of the providers. In so doing, the Zambia National Water and Sanitation Council (NWASCO) ensures that social interests are taken into account and that consumers do not pay for the inefficiencies of the service providers. In a country where more than half the population is poor, NWASCO has successfully developed guidelines on mandatory WSS service provision to the peri-urban areas which account for almost 30 percent of the urban population. The guidelines are complete with service standards and tariff setting guidelines. Together with this has been the establishment of the regulator-supported Water Watch Groups (WWGs) which provide a platform for addressing complaints between consumers and providers on the one hand, and represent the regulator on the ground, on the other hand. The WWGs are made up of volunteers who represent different community groups. In addition to playing watchdog, the WWGs sensitize customers on their responsibilities in the sector. Within the regulatory body itself, consumer interests are well represented. NWASCO’s 16-member-board is nominated by the Minister for Energy and Water Development, and comprises a mix of Government, consumer and private sector representation. The Ministry of Local Government and Housing supervises the local authorities to ensure WSS provision through commercial utilities. The representation of a large number of stakeholders in the Board ensures that the risk of capture is kept at a minimum and a high level of transparency is secured. NWASCO’s autonomy was demonstrated by the Board’s approval of a 100 per cent tariff hike just before Zambia’s 2002 general election. Though maintaining a Board of such composition ensures high transparency, it is costly to run and nomination of members is time consuming. NWASCO is financed by commercial utilities, which pay one per cent of their turnover as licence fees to the regulator. Financing the Board through levying the commercial utilities gives NWASCO considerable financial autonomy, an approach that the regulator adopted from the beginning, since Government funds were only available during the start-off period. Sector information sharing is another key achievement precipitated by regulating the sector. Information on service provision is generated nationwide and yearly reports issued. The information also compares the providers by using benchmarks and is accessible to all interested groups. Unfortunately, not all state institutions recognise the legal authority given to NWASCO. Consequently, when the providers are instructed by NWASCO, the instructions are often perceived as interfering with the powers of the ministries even when the objective of the action is well shared. Besides, NWASCO has come under scrutiny several times since the regulator’s role of advocating for the poor, promoting low-cost technology and harmonizing low-cost investment is seen as a conflict of interest to the water sector reform’s commercialization objective.

Annex 7: Case Study 2 Lesotho - An Example of a Successful Sanitation Program

Lesotho’s national sanitation program shows how consistent policies can achieve long-term results in sanitation. By 1980 Lesotho had a national water supply program. But the professionals working in the sector identified a sanitation gap initially in urban infrastructure and subsequently in the rural areas. After a series of technical studies by various international organizations, in the early 1980s the government started a two-part national improvement program covering both the rural and urban areas.

From the onset, this program was carried out by government organizations, specifically by the two Urban and Rural Sanitation Improvement Teams. The teams were designed to create the minimum necessary number of permanent government posts, complemented by a larger number of short-term donor-funded posts to start the program and engage and train the private sector. By the late 1990s the donor funding had tampered out as planned, and the local private sector organisations continued to sustainably implement sanitation improvement activities.

Lesotho rural sanitation program adopted a consistent set of principles. It ensured a proper institutional arrangement at national and district levels, involved communities in planning and management, and gave priority to the government’s education and promotion efforts. It insisted on full cost recovery from the users – the government did not subsidize latrine costs. It promoted the use of the small-scale private sector to build latrines and trained the builders. Regarding technology, the program adopted the ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine, which is suitably adapted to local conditions, construction techniques and preferences.

Each of these principles is well known to professionals in the sanitation sector. The important point about Lesotho is that these efforts have all been put into practice together, consistently and for a long time.

The government of Lesotho put most of its own effort to promoting sanitation and the training of sanitation professionals. The media used for promotion included printed matter, radio, tape-slide presentation and videos. A quarter of the trained latrine builders in Lesotho are women. While there is a success story in the case of Lesotho in promoting sanitation, South Africa is far ahead in meeting the MDG targets on water supply but far behind in meeting sanitation targets. In Kenya there is no stand alone sanitation policy. Sanitation is best addressed at the household and personal levels.

GLOSSARY

Abstract n. Drain to remove water, waste water and sewage Aquifer n. An underground impervious layer of rock and sand that contains water Catchment n. Any device or structure that captures water Intake n. A structure constructed e.g. a weir or bank, where water flows above

the structure, but at the side there is a sort of intake box where water enters, and goes to your pipe or channel

Manage v. To succeed in doing; be in charge of; administer, handle or control;

cope with financial difficulties Management n. Administration or organization

Permit n. Document giving permission to do something Resource n. Thing resorted to for support, sources of economic wealth; stock that

can be drawn on Wastewater n. Any water that has been adversely affected in quality by anthropogenic

influence. It comprises liquid waste discharged by domestic residences, commercial properties, industry, and/or agriculture and can encompass a wide range of potential contaminants and concentrations. In the most common usage, it refers to the municipal wastewater that contains a broad spectrum of contaminants resulting from the mixing of wastewaters from different sources

Sewage n. The subset of wastewater that is contaminated with faeces or urine;

waste matter or excrement carried away in sewers Sewer n. Drain to remove wastewater and sewage Sewerage n. System of sewers

Supply v. Provide with something required; make available

Sanitary adj. Promoting health by getting rid of dirt and germs

Sanitation n. Sanitary measures, especially onsite sanitary systems

Taken from the Collins Gem English Dictionary, HarperCollins, 1996 and Wikipedia, The

Free Encyclopaedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wik