Water and Sanitation Budget Brief - UNICEFallocated about 9 per cent of the sector budget, with a...

1 KIPPRA Policy Brief No. 66/2018-2019

Supporting Sustainable Development through Research and Capacity Building

The KENYA INSTITUTE for PUBLICPOLICY RESEARCH and ANALYSIS

No. 66/2018-2019

Water and Sanitation Budget BriefPrefaceThe water and sanitation budget brief is among five (5) budget briefs which seek to identify the extent to which the needs of children are addressed by the national budget and social sector budgets in Kenya. The brief presents the size and composition of the 2013/14-2017/18 budget and how the budget allocation to the sector is likely to affect provision of children needs. The brief is organized into the following sections: Introduction; Water and Sanitation Spending Trends; Composition of Spending; Budget Credibility; Decentralization and Water and Sanitation Spending; Equity of Water and Sanitation Spending; and Financing Sources.

Key Messages and RecommendationsThe analysis brings out the following emerging policy issues:

(i) Access to improved water and sanitation (WASH) is low at 63 per cent and 31 per cent of the population, respectively, compared to the target of universal coverage (100% by 2030). Low access exposes the underserved population to various risks including water borne diseases, absenteeism in schools, high health expenditures, and reduced time available for productive activities by women to generate income for families. It exposes the population to water conflicts. There are disparities in access across counties, and the rural population lags behind the urban areas, while informal settlements have much lower access. More investments and capacity development are required especially in rural areas and informal settlements in urban areas. More resource allocation will enhance parity and equity across counties. Decentralization of the national government budgets in the sector will ensure investment equity and balanced development.

(ii) The sector financing is skewed against sanitation and sewerage which together are allocated about 9 per cent of the sector budget, with a large share allocated to water supply and resource management. This is aggravated by the low share (2.2%) of sector budget in national budget and translating to 0.6 per cent of the gross domestic product. It will be important to assess sources of water and sanitation for the entire population with specific focus on children, while supporting equity in water and sanitation across the entire population and regions.

(iii) The difference between sector resource allocation and requirement increased from 16 per cent to 36 per cent between 2012 and 2016. This affects the performance and service delivery of the sector by unsatisfactory coverage in WASH and reduction of related vulnerabilities including health, education and income risks. This is exacerbated by low budget execution (limited absorption) in the sector. Budget credibility is largely affected by limited resource mobilization strategies while budget execution is affected by delayed disbursement, procurement bottlenecks and project delivery challenges. Capacity development on budgeting and project management could improve on credibility and execution in planning and budgeting.

(iv) The WASH sector has not fully internalized and mainstreamed child sensitive planning and budgeting. This calls for intensive capacity building among government institutions on

KIPPRA Policy Brief No. 66/2018-20192

various accounts of child sensitive planning and budgeting, especially the need for water and sanitation services for households, schools, health centres, markets and other public places; programmes and infrastructure for children; hand washing and menstrual hygiene; and disaggregation of data and information on beneficiaries.

(v) The sector sustainability policy and plans need re-engineering. Government allocation to the sector has been declining, and internally generated funding. Further, the structure of financing by development partners is skewed towards loans than grants. Negotiations for loans could focus more on concessionary loans which have lower interest rates and longer repayment periods.

(vi) There is a weak integrated approach to planning and budgeting for the WASH initiatives. A multi-sectorial approach in planning, budgeting and monitoring is critical to encourage synergies among the social sectors. Relevant sectors include education, health, social protection, water and sanitation while promoting adequate mainstreaming of children needs in the sectors’ plans and budgets.

(vii) Mechanisms for collecting and processing data and information are not integrated among social sectors. This limits the availability and disaggregation of data to enable analysis that adequately informs policy especially on issues related to children rights and needs. There is need to establish a centralized platform and working group on integrated data and information for WASH.

Introduction

WASH sector overviewThe Constitution of Kenya 2010 recognizes access to safe water, decent sanitation, and clean environment including basic hygiene as basic human rights. The constitution assigns responsibility of water resources management to the national government while devolving provision of water and sanitation, including hygiene services to county governments. Further, the policy and planning environment for WASH is guided by the Kenya Vision 2030 and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Water Act (2002, revised 2016), Public Health Act (1986, revised 2012), National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy (2015-2030) and National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Strategic Framework (2016-2020), Water Policy (1999, which is under review), National Open Defecation Free Kenya (2020), Urban Areas and Cities Act (2011), Environmental Management and Coordination Act (1999, Amended 2015), National Water Quality Management Strategy (2012-2016), National Water Master Plan (2030), National Water Resources Strategy (2016) and National Water Resource Management Rules (2012). The organization, operations and functions of various government ministries, departments and agencies are governed by Executive Order No. 1 of June 2018.

The WASH sector is funded by the national government, county governments, development partners and civil society organizations. Government agencies are expected to raise funds from the services they offer, but these sources are limited and the agencies have to be supplemented by government transfers and disbursement from development partners. This is not sustainable, stressing the need to enhance self-financing mechanisms, including optimal pricing of the services rendered and ring-fencing financing of WASH services.

Kenya targets universal access to improved water and sanitation services by 2030, which is aligned to the SDGs. By 2015, the MDG target of 40 per cent sewerage, 80 per cent water and 76 per cent sanitation coverage were missed. As a result, the water sub-sector has focused on improved access to water and sanitation, innovative self-sector financing mechanisms, and adequate investment planning to steer the sector into the path of the Vision 2030. In areas serviced by water utilities, accessing safely managed drinking water reached 58 per cent in 2016, with 68.3 per cent for urban and 50.2 per cent for rural areas. Sewerage coverage is estimated at 15 per cent of the population in urban areas while the overall access to improved sanitation in both urban and rural areas was below 40 per cent.


Most of the functions in the sector are under the responsibility of the Ministry of Water and Sanitation. However, recognizing that water is inseparable from improved sanitation and basic hygiene, other WASH services are provided by the Ministries of Health, Education and Social Services. Further, the sector is divided into sub-sectors, including water supply and sanitation, environment management, land reclamation and water resource management. Given the multiplicity of players and the sub-sectors, integrated planning and budgeting is critical to tap on the diverse expertise and synergies.

Access to Safe Drinking WaterAccess to improved water in the country is low and below sector targets. This means that some sections of the population have no access to drinking water that is reachable within short period and whose quality and fitness for human consumption can be accounted for. The sector growth is also limited due to mismatch of infrastructure development and maintenance, and population growth. Investment in urban water infrastructure has not matched the increase in proportion of population in urban areas. The infrastructure has also been depreciating over time, leading to an increase in non-revenue water (through bursts and other leakages) and high costs of infrastructure maintenance. Nevertheless, there has been significant increase in the percentage of population with access to improved water sources in rural areas from over 54 per cent in 2012 to about 60 per cent in 2016. There was a marginal decrease in percentage of population with access to improved water sources in urban areas from 82.5 per cent in 2012 to about 81.6 per cent in 2015 and an increase to 86.7 per cent in 2016 (Figure 2a). These trends can be attributed to increased rural-urban migration, thereby exerting more pressure on water infrastructure. The water sector reforms that established regional bodies (Water Service Boards - WSBs) ensured increased investment in water access in rural areas. The initiatives of non-governmental organizations, community and faith-based organizations and civil society have also contributed to improvements in water access in rural areas.

Low access to safe drinking water has adverse effects on women and children who are predominately expected to fetch water for households use. This reduces the time available for women to participate in productive roles, generate income, and ensure food for the family. The Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey by KNBS (2015/16) reveals that 75 per cent of the population walk to fetch water, including 63.4 per cent of the population spending less than thirty minutes and 11.6 per cent spending more than 30 minutes to fetch water. The girl child is deprived quality time for education and leisure since they are forced to fetch water from long distances for the family. In pastoral areas, the boy child is engaged in herding, which forces them to travel long distances to access water for the animals, sometimes getting into conflicts, and increasing school absenteeism.

Figure 2a: Improved water source trends in Kenya, 2012-2016 as a % of population with access

54.8

82.5

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

2011

/12

2012

/13

Perc

enta

ge

2013

/14

2014

/15

2015

/16

Rural Urban

Source of data: World Bank Databank, WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme


Figure 2b: Improved water source by location in selected countries, 2015 as a % of population with access

Com

oros

Bots

wan

a

Swaz

iland

Perc

enta

ge

Leso

tho

Mal

awi

Eritr

ea

Buru

ndi

Rw

anda

Zim

babw

e

Sout

h Af

rica

Uga

nda

Mad

agas

car

Ango

la

Moz

ambi

que

Ken

ya

Tanz

ania

Ethi

opia

Total Rural Urban

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0


Low water coverage in urban areas has led to sourcing of water from vendors. These vendors often sell water of questionable quality at very high cost, collude to fix water prices, and create artificial shortages. As a result, there have been outbreaks of water-related and water borne-diseases in urban areas due to water shortages, which affects children more due to their vulnerability. With sustained and progressive increase in water coverage, the population is expected to have better health, sanitation, hygiene and improved livelihoods, and improved education especially for the girl child.

Though the country is making progress in access to water, it lags some peer countries in Africa (Figure 2b). For instance, in the progress report by WHO and UNICEF under the joint monitoring programme, some countries such as Swaziland, Malawi, South Africa and Ethiopia have met the targets while others such as Kenya, Rwanda and Botswana made good progress. Other countries in Figure 2b made moderate, little or no progress. This calls for peer review mechanisms with the comparator and aspirator African countries which have recorded high access levels to water, for both rural and urban. Exchange programmes with these countries to learn on their technologies, approaches and strategies that make them have higher performance in water service delivery could be explored.

Access to Decent SanitationOpen defecation has improved over time. Urban areas register low proportions of the population practicing open defecation, though the practice is still high in rural areas (Figure 2c). Compared to other countries, very few people are practicing open defecation in Kenya, 2.7 per cent in urban areas and 15.3 per cent in rural area compared to countries such as Namibia which has 20.1 per cent population in urban and 75.9 per cent in rural areas practicing open defecation (Figure 2d).

Notable is continuous improvement in sanitation both in rural and urban areas. For example, in the period 2012 to 2015, 31.2 per cent of the population in urban and 29.7 per cent in rural areas was able to access improved sanitation facilities (Figure 2e). Despite the increasing population accessing improved facilities, the achievement is still low, thus the need to invest more and build capacity in the sector. In comparison to other countries, Kenya has inadequate sanitation services coverage at about 30 per cent, which is below half of the population (Figure 2f ), apart from Angola and Botswana.

The status of sanitation has far-reaching implications on health, education, poverty and gender vulnerabilities. Poor sanitation increases cases of waterborne diseases, especially among vulnerable groups such as children. It increases the cost burden for the public health sector and out-of-pocket expenditure by households. Households are further subjected into various deprivation, including food and nutrition, due to diversion of household income


Figure 2c: Open defecation trends by location, 2012-16 as a % of population practicing

0

5

10

15

20

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

2014

/15

2015

/16

Rural Urban

Perc

enta

ge


Figure 2d: Open defecation by location in selected countries, 2015 as a % of population

0

20

40

60

80

Com

oros

Rw

anda

Buru

ndi

Leso

tho

Nam

ibia

Mal

awi

Uga

nda

Zam

bia

Zim

babw

e

Som

alia

Keny

a

Tanz

ania

Sout

h Su

dan

Mad

agas

car

Ango

la

Moz

ambi

que

Ethi

opia

Total Rural Urban

Perc

enta

ge


Figure 2e: Improved sanitation trends by location, 2012-2015 as a % of population with access to improved facilities

29.3

29.7

30.8

31.2

28

29

29

30

30

31

31

32

2011

/12

2015

/13

2013

/14

2014

/15

Rural Urban

Perc

enta

ge



Figure 2f: Improved sanitation by location in selected countries, 2015 as a % of population with access

0

20

40

60

80

100

Total

Com

oros

Swaz

iland

Bots

wan

a

Nam

ibia

Leso

tho

Rw

anda

Eritr

ea

Buru

ndi

Zam

bia

Zim

bam

bwe

Sout

h Af

rica

Som

alia

Mal

awi

Sout

h Su

dan

Ango

la

Mad

agas

car

Moz

ambi

que

Ken

ya

Uga

nda

Tanz

ania

Ethi

opia

% Rural % Urban

Perc

enta

ge


to health spending. Illnesses associated with poor hygiene and sanitation affect school attendance, as children stay away from school to go to hospital or attend to sick siblings. The productivity of parents, especially mothers, is affected as they forfeit income-generating activities to care for the sick. This is worse for mothers who are bread-winners and living from hand to mouth.

Trends in Water and Sanitation SpendingThe sector experiences financing deficit. This has grown over time to reach Ksh 19 billion in 2016 up from Ksh 6 billion in 2012, reflecting 36 per cent deficit in 2016 up from 16 per cent in 2012. As much as actual receipts have been increasing for development expenditure, they have remained below the sector requirement (Figure 2h). Though national government sector budget requirement has been increasing especially for development budget, the recurrent budget remained relatively stable, though a decline from 2013 was recorded (Figure 2g). This shows the growing need to boost investment in infrastructure to serve the underlying status of need for water and sanitation services. This has a ripple effect on service delivery and related risks in health, education, poverty and gender. The sector players need to re-engineer the mechanism for funding to bridge the financing gap.

Figure 2g: Size of spending – recurrent requirement versus receipts (Ksh billions)

Figure2h: Size of spending – development budget requirement versus receipts (Ksh billions)

Source: HDI (2018), KDHS (2008)3

4

5

6

7

10

20

30

40

50

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/162011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Am

ount

(Ksh

bill

ions

)

Am

ount

(Ksh

bill

ions

)

Receipt

Requirement

Receipt Requirement

Source of data: Ministry of Water and Sanitation, Annual Water Sector Reviews


Figure 2i: Share of WASH budget in national budget and gross domestic budget (%)

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

Percentage of Gov’t budget Percentage of GDP Sector Contribution to GDP (%)

Perc

enta

ge

Source of data: Ministry of Water and Sanitation, National Treasury and Kenya National Bureau of Statistics

Figure 2j: Nominal and real expenditure for 2012-2018 (in Ksh billions - base year is 2010)

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Nominal expenditure Real expenditure Inflation index

Nor

min

al e

xpen

ditu

re (K

sh b

illio

ns)

Rea

l exp

endi

ture

(Ksh

bill

ions

)


The share of the sector budget is on a declining trend. It averaged 2.2 per cent of the total national budget and relatively constant 0.6 per cent of gross domestic product over the period 2014-2018. The sector contribution to GDP was constant at about 0.7 per cent over the review period. Nevertheless, the budget increased in absolute terms during the review period. The sector, however, faces stiff competition from other national priorities such as health, education, infrastructure and security which share more than 80 per cent of the national budget.

The effect of inflation has deepened over time as captured through the widening gap between sector real and nominal expenditure (Figure 2j). This reflects reduced purchasing power of the sector budget. The trend implies that the planned activities are affected by rising prices, which opens up risks of budget adjustments or scaling down of the projects and services initiatives. The stakeholders financing the sector will have to factor in inflation adjustment to ensure that projects and programmes are not affected.


Figure 3a: Sector spending by institution, 2016-18 as a % of sector budget

0%

82%

12% 0%

0% 0%

6%

616

87%

526 232

2,935 1,203

2%

80%

9%

232 ; 1%

0% 7%

1%

Ministry WSBs WSTF

KEWI WASREB WRA

KWHSA


Figure 3b: Sector spending by levels (or services), 2015-18 (Ksh millions)

934

20,2

87

2,15

3

3,93

6

818

30,4

74

2,14

3

2,24

9

892

41,6

61

3,96

8

2,37

1

734

23,7

57

8,35

2

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

General Administration Water Supply Water Resource Storage and Floods

Spen

ding

(Ksh

mill

ions

)

2014/15

2015/16

2016/17

2017/18


Composition of WASH SpendingWater Service Boards (WSBs) absorb the highest proportion of sector financing, accounting for around 85 per cent of spending in recent years. Beyond the WSBs, the Water Sector Trust Fund (WSTF) is the second largest recipient of sector financing, with around 10 per cent of resources. The Ministry of Water, in contrast, accounts for a very small portion of sector spending (around 2% in recent years) to perform its administrative and oversight roles. The prioritization of resources to WSBs reflects well on sector’s policy on distribution of resources, since the WSBs are spread across the country to serve specific regions, and are thus key service providers and facilitators under decentralization of national resources.

Allocation for water supply which includes water and sanitation services takes up over 70 per cent of the sector budget (Figures 3b). This tends to crowd out the allocation for water resource management, water storage and harvesting. In the overall sector budget for 2016-2018, a large proportion of the sector budget (91%) is allocated to water while the remaining 9 per cent is shared between sanitation (6%) and sewerage (3%). However, the value chain of water service requires a balanced approach with respect to resource management, harvesting


and storage, and distribution. It is important to note that harvesting and storage components serve a critical role in mitigating climate change effects such as droughts and floods, which continually affect many parts of the country, especially in the northern parts of Kenya.

Capital expenditure accounted for over 80 per cent of the sector budget in the period 2012-2016, reaching a high of 88 per cent in 2016. This demonstrates that the sector is more capital intensive, thus requiring significant support for infrastructure development. However, the components of operations and maintenance which is estimated at about Ksh 20 billion per annum should not be compromised because it affects service delivery, thus

Figure 3c: Recurrent and development expenditure, 2012-16 as a share (%) of expenditure

18 18 19 12 12

82 82 81 88 88

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Shar

e (%

)

Recurrent Development


Figure 4a: Budget credibility by economic classification, 2015/2016-2017/18 (deviation from amount approved %)

-16%

-34%

3%

-35%

-26%

-17%

-45%

-65%

-32%

-73% -70% -71%

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

Dev

iatio

n (%

)

Compensation Transfers Use of goods ad services Development

Source of data: Ministry of Water and Sanitation (Various), Annual Water Sector Reviews

rendering existing infrastructure less productive. Maintenance funding is crucial in reducing the rate of depreciation of infrastructure, minimizing water losses and ensuring that vulnerable populations can access water and sanitation services.

Budget Credibility In recent years, the WASH sector has been characterized by very large deviations between approved budgets and actual spending, thus undermining budget credibility. This is especially true of the capital budget, which had an average under-spending (under-allocation) of more than 70 per cent during 2015/16-2017/18 (Figure 4a). Under-spending on goods and services is also a concern, which was 65 per cent in 2017/18 and 30 per cent in 2017/18. This lowers the sector capacity to negotiate for more allocation, thus one of the reasons for under-funding. It undermines the credibility of the planning and budgeting process especially on its linkages with resource mobilization. The sector needs to review its resource mobilization to be able to fund the sector requirements, besides improving on absorption levels.


Budget execution is affected by low absorption rates of budget receipts (Figure 4b). Low absorption of development funds, and low absorption for use of goods and services, affects development of WASH infrastructure and service delivery, respectively. Some of the factors contributing to low absorption of budget include long procurement processes, delays in dispatch of finances from the National Treasury, inadequate planning and slow pace of implementation of projects. This affects the sector’s ability to negotiate for more allocation or support due to low capacity to absorb already allocated funds besides demonstrating delay in service delivery and slowing down realization of sector targets.

Decentralization and WASH Spending

Decentralization context in WASHKenya has decentralized water supply and sanitation. The national government has the mandate of water resource management and development of capital infrastructure through Water Service Boards which have a regional orientation. With the devolved system of governance, the county governments have the mandate to manage the provision of water and sanitation services, which can be done through establishment and management of water service providers.

WASH funding under the national government is transferred from the National Treasury and development partners to the Ministry of Water and Sanitation and then onto service providers. These include the Water Service Regulatory Board (WASREB), WSBs, Water Resources Authority (WRA), Water Sector Trust Fund (WSTF) and Kenya Water Institute (KEWI). WASREB brings together all service providers under the regulatory regime and ensures compliance to minimum requirements such as water quality testing, publication of test results, tariff according to justified costs, non-revenue water, and customer service requirements. WSBs are government agencies charged with development of infrastructure at sub-national level. The WSTF implements pro-poor programmes while WRA implements projects on water resource management. KEWI is mandated to develop the necessary skills required for the sector especially in the middle-level skills.

Sub-national spending trendsBudget allocation per capita is not necessarily correlated with the share of population across regions. As such, area of coverage and water resource availability or scarcity are critical in determining investment requirement towards equity. For instance, whereas Lake Victoria South (LVS) and Lake Victoria North (LVN) water service boards LVS and LVN have higher

Figure 4b: Budget execution by economic classification, 2014/2015-2017/18 (deviation from amount approved %)0%

-6%

-15%

-11%

-18%

-14%

-21%

0% 0%

-12%

-24%

-15%

-7%

-18% -17% -16%

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

Dev

iatio

n (%

)

Compensation Transfers Use of goods ad services Development



Figure 6a: Access to improved water source by county by 2016 (% of households)

72.6

61.8

86.7

97.1

93.2

89.9

89.4

88.3

87.3

82.7

83.6

82.6

81.9

79.9

79.9

79.8

78.4

75.7

75 75 74.9

72.3

70.2

69.3

68.4

67.8

67.2

66.4

65.9

64.2

63.7

63.3

60.9

60.6

59.8

59.3

57.1

53.2

53.1

48.4

44.8

44.7

44.2

42.9

4237

.234

.533

.932

.827

.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Nat

iona

lR

ural

Urb

anN

airo

biKi

ambu

Kaka

meg

aKi

sii

Vihi

gaKa

jiado

Nya

mira

Nye

riM

omba

saN

yand

arua

Taita

Tav

eta

Kisu

mu

Tran

s N

zoia

Kilif

iBu

ngom

aIs

iolo

Lam

uBu

sia

Nak

uru

Mer

uU

asin

Gis

huM

acha

kos

Mur

ang’

aTa

na R

iver

Keric

hoEm

buLa

ikip

iaKi

rinya

gaTu

rkan

aM

igor

iKw

ale

Gar

issa

Thar

aka

Nith

iSi

aya

Kitu

iM

akue

niBa

ringo

Nan

diW

ajir

Elge

yo M

arak

etM

arsa

bit

Sam

buru

Wes

t Pok

otN

arok

Hom

a Ba

yM

ande

raBo

met

(%) o

f Hou

seho

lds

Source of data: Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2015/16), KIHBS Report

population share, they receive the least allocation per capita. Athi and Rift Valley would be expected to receive relatively equal allocation per capita, but there exists huge disparity between them. Population should be one of the parameters in determining regional allocation, among other factors as discussed later under equity spending.

Equity of WASH SpendingEquity in the sector can be understood through an account of performance in service delivery and budget allocation by both national government and sub-national units in the case of developed functions.

Equity in access to serviceWide disparities are witnessed across counties when looking at access to water. For instance, 11 of the 47 counties attained less than 50 per cent of the households accessing improved water sources, with Bomet emerging as the worst performer with only 28 per cent coverage. In terms of accessibility to improved water sources at the county level, a higher proportion of households in urban areas have higher access to improved water sources at 86.7 per cent than rural areas which are at 61.8 per cent of the households. It

Figure 5a: Allocation per capita share (%) Figure 5b: Population share (%)

Athi29%

Athi14%

Tana7%

Tana10%

RV17%

RV13%

LVN5%

LVN17%

LVS5%

LVS19%Northern

6%

Northern8%Tanathi

12%

Tanathi10%

Coast19%

Coast9%



is expected that the counties with low access will invest more resources in water service delivery.

About 86.3 per cent of urban households and 48.8 per cent of rural households are using improved sanitation. Improved sanitation includes sanitation facilities that hygienically separate human excreta from human contact such as sewer connections, septic system connections, pour-flush latrines, ventilated improved pit latrines and pit latrines with a slab or covered pit. There are disparities in access to improved sanitation with Taita Taveta County leading with 98.8 per cent while Wajir lags with 6.2 per cent of households accessing improved sanitation services. The country needs capacity development programmes in the areas with low access to improved sanitation services.

The culture of washing hands after using the toilet in Kenya is low. Only 30 per cent and 13 per cent of households in urban and rural areas, respectively, have water points by the toilets for washing hands; the national average is 20 per cent. Isiolo, Nairobi, Kiambu, Taita, Meru and Kajiado are the only counties with percentages significantly above the national average, but none is above 50 per cent. The worst performing counties are Kisii, Wajir, West Pokot, Makueni and Nyamira. Wash of hands after using the toilet is one of the strategies in preventing spread of illness and infections. For instance, germs from unwashed hands contaminate food and can be spread from person to person through handshake and touching surfaces, materials and equipment. Hand washing is one of the areas where sensitization programmes can

Figure 6b: Access to improved sanitation by bounty 2016 (% of households)

Nat

iona

lR

ural

Urb

anTa

ita T

avet

aEm

buKi

sum

uTh

arak

a N

ithi

Nai

robi

Kiam

buM

akue

niKi

rinya

gaM

omba

saKa

jiado

Mac

hako

sU

asin

Gis

huN

yand

arua

Keric

hoEl

geyo

Mar

akw

etBa

ringo

Nan

diIs

iolo

Kilif

iLa

mu

Mur

ang’

aN

akur

uBu

sia

Tana

Riv

erKi

tui

Nye

riM

eru

Gar

issa

Siay

aVi

higa

Laik

ipia

Nar

okKi

sii

Man

dara

Nya

mira

Bung

oma

Mig

ori

Tran

s N

zoia

Kwal

eKa

kam

ega

Turk

ana

Sam

buru

Bom

etW

est P

okot

Mar

sabi

tH

oma

Bay

Waj

ir

65.2

48.8

86.3

98.8

98.4

96.3

96.3

91.9

90.3

88 87 86.3

84.3

83.5

83.2

81.8

7972

.971

.371 70

.770 70 65.6

62.1

61.6

60.6

56.8

55.2

48.7

45.1

43.7

43.2

42.3

42.1

41.3

40.9

40.4

39.3

37.9

36.1

33.7

32.4

31.9

31.5

30.6

27.3

26 25.1

6.2

(%) o

f Hou

seho

lds

Source of data: Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2015/16), Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey Report

Figure 6c: Practicing basic hygiene, washing hands by 2016 (% of households)

Nat

iona

lR

ural

Urb

an

Taita

Tav

eta

Embu

Kisu

mu

Thar

aka

Nith

i

Nai

robi

Kiam

bu

Mak

ueni

Kirin

yaga

Mom

basa

Kajia

do

Mac

hako

s

Uas

in G

ishu

Nya

ndar

ua

Keric

ho

Elge

yo M

arak

wet

Barin

go

Nan

di

Isio

lo

Kilif

i

Lam

u

Mur

ang’

a

Nak

uru

Busi

a

Tana

Riv

er

Kitu

i

Nye

ri

Mer

u

Gar

issa

Siay

a

Vihi

ga

Laik

ipia

Nar

ok

Kisi

i

Man

dera

Nya

mira

Bung

oma

Mig

ori

Tran

s N

zoia

Kwal

e

Kaka

meg

a

Turk

ana

Sam

buru

Bom

et

Wes

t Pok

ot

Mar

sabi

t

Hom

a Ba

y

Waj

ir

0102030405060708090

100

Place to wash No place to wash

(%) o

f Hou

seho

lds

Source of data: Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2015/16), Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey Report


make significant impact across the country, since the technologies required are simple and affordable and locally available. For instance, the household just needs a soap, 5 litre container with a tap to design a water point, including the use of liquid soap to avoid sharing of bar soaps which is also a hygiene risk. The sensitization can easily be effectively achieved through schools and health centres.

Figure 6d: Trends in pro-poor spending through WSTF (Ksh millions)

1009

1416 1376

1950

2720

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Spen

ding

(Ksh

mill

ions

)


Figure 6e: Regional budget per capita allocation and access to water 2014-2016 (Allocation in Ksh, Access %, change in access %)

Athi

Athi

Tana

Tana

RV

RV

LVN

LVN

LVS

LVS

NorthernTanathi

Tanathi

Coast

Coast

Northern

12 3

4

5

6

7

8

12

3

5

6

68

0

20

40

60

80

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000A

cces

s an

d C

hang

e in

Ace

ss (%

)

Allo

catio

n (K

sh)

Allocation Access Change in access

Source of data: Ministry of Water and Sanitation and WASREB

Equity WASH Spending Kenya has made some efforts in decentralizing and devolving the WASH sector spending. This is realized through funding of regional institutions such as Water Service Boards and county governments. In addition, issues of income inequalities are being addressed by channelling funding through the Water Sector Trust Fund. The sector strategy towards social and economic equity which is implemented by the Water Sector Trust Fund supports pro-poor initiatives in rural areas and the urban poor. This has seen budget allocation increase significantly from Ksh 1.0 billion to Ksh 2.7 billion between 2012 and 2016 (Figure 6d).


Decentralization of sector financing through Water Service BoardsThe allocations per capita can have implications on quality of service delivery. For example, eight (8) regions served by a Water Service Board show some evidence that higher allocations translate to better service delivery in terms of access to water and vice versa, as is the case of Athi, Rift Valley, Tanathi and Coast Water Service Boards (Figure 5e). However, this is not always the case, as indicated by Tana, Northern and Lake Victoria North. There is need to undertake a national survey on cost of delivering water and sanitation service to inform more equitable allocation with respect to access status.

Figure 7a: Financing by government and development partners (% share)

55.60

53.15

44.73

47.76

18.27

44.40

46.85

55.27

52.24

81.73

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Share (%)Government Partners

% s

hare


Figure 7b: Structure of financing by development partners (%)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Loans Grant

Perc

enta

ge


Financing the WASH SectorUntil 2014, government allocation to the WASH sector was larger than development partners, a trend which has since been reversed (Figures 7a). Most of the funding from development partners goes to large infrastructure projects such as large dams and water supplies. The government contribution to the sector has been inconsistent, with some years having allocation of over Ksh 15 billion while other years have below Ksh 10 billion. Development partners have continued to support the sector consistently, with loans and grants having grown to Ksh 27.4 billion over the period 2008-2016, commanding a share of 81 per cent in 2016. This raises genuine questions on the sustainability of sector, especially on self-financing. This shows that the sector external financing has changed from charity and social investment to commercial investment, underlying the fact that the sector is not necessarily have low return on investment.


Figure 7c: Main sources of financing the WASH sector, 2016-18 average (as a % of total)

39%

3% 16%

7%

4%

17%

7% 2% 5% Central Government

Government of Belgium

Government of Italy

KFW - Germany

Government of France

IDA - World Bank

African Development Bank

IFAD

Others

Source of data: Ministry of Water and Sanitation

Figure 7d: Main sources of financing the 2014/15-2017/18 (in Ksh billions and as a % of total)

13 13.017.7

11.4

0.5 1.5

4.711.2

6.77.7

3.6

7.8

3.55.3 1.7

0.5

-

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

Others

IFAD

African Development Bank

IDA - World Bank

Government of France

KFW - Germany

Government of Italy

Government of Belgium

Sub-national Government

Central Government

Source of data: Ministry of Water and Sanitation

The structure of financing by development partners is largely on loans than grants with a proportion of over 80 per cent over the period 2013-2016 (Figure 7b). The structure of the loans is also critical, where the sector can suffer more if the loans are skewed towards commercial lending as opposed to concessionary lending. There is need for a gradual shift from dependency on external financing to internally-generated funds within the water sector

for long-term sustainability. This calls for renewed focus on policies advocating for increasing and ring-fencing revenue generated from the water sector.

There are variations every year in commitments by development partners. The government could make adjustment and reallocations to meet the sector targets. The development commitments are dependent on the level of implementation of projects funded. For example, during inception stage, the level of funding is low while during actual implementation there is a high commitment. There was less donor commitment in 2017, which can be attributed to political uncertainty as it was an election year. The sector needs to shift focus to funding of only those projects that are self-sustaining with a large impact especially by development partners.

Implementation Strategy on Key IssuesThe following strategies have been proposed to ensure that the policy issues emerging from the analysis are addressed.


Issue Recommendation Responsibility

Low access to WASH services Improve equitable distribution of resources, enhance resource mobilization, and improve efficiency in utilization of resources

National Treasury and Planning

Ministry of Water and Sanitation

Limited detailed data and information for policy analysis

Integrate sector wide approach data and information system

Ministries in charge of water, sanitation, health, social protection and education. To be convened by the Ministry of Water and Sanitation

Limited child sensitive planning and budgeting

Capacity building in mainstreaming child rights and needs in programmes and projects

National Treasury and PlanningKIPPRAUNICEFMinistry of Water and Sanitation

Low budget credibility Capacity building in resource mobilization, budget absorption and investment planning

National Treasury and Planning

Ministry of Water and Sanitation

Limited coordination of programmes and projects on WASH across sectors such as water, sanitation, education, health, agriculture, social protection.

Establishment of sector wide approach and working group and an integrated approach to planning and budgeting, monitoring and evaluation framework.

Ministry of Water and Sanitation to convene sector working groups drawing membership from the Ministry and other sectors

The KENYA INSTITUTE for PUBLICPOLICY RESEARCH and ANALYSIS

Acknowledgements The preparation of this Water and Sanitation Brief was funded and supported by UNICEF and ESARO under the Child Responsive Planning and Budgeting project. The Brief was prepared by Victor Mose (KIPPRA) with support from Dorcas Achieng’, Jackline Kipkato and James Muturi (Ministry of Water and Sanitation). The entire process of preparing the brief was guided by the KIPPRA Executive Director, Dr Rose Ngugi. We are most grateful to the UNICEF team of Ousmane Niang and Godfrey Ndeng’e (UNICEF KCO) and

Matthew Cummins (UNICEF ESARO) for providing technical support throughout the process of writing the briefs. The KIPPRA research team comprised Dr Eldah Onsomu, Phares Mugo, Boaz Munga and James Ochieng’.

For more information, contact

Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and AnalysisBishops Road, Bishops Garden TowersP.O. Box 56445-00200, NairobiTel: 2719933/4 ; Cell: 0736712724, 0724256078Email:[email protected]: http://www.kippra.org Twitter: @kipprakenya

Water and Sanitation Budget Brief - UNICEFallocated about 9 per cent of the sector budget, with a...

Documents

Transcript of Water and Sanitation Budget Brief - UNICEFallocated about 9 per cent of the sector budget, with a...