Water Framework Study a Rapid Assessment of Kenyas Water Sanitation and Sewarage Framework

8/8/2019 Water Framework Study a Rapid Assessment of Kenyas Water Sanitation and Sewarage Framework

1/72

A RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KENYAA RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KENYAA RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KENYAA RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KENYA’’’’SSSS

WATER, SANITATION ANDWATER, SANITATION ANDWATER, SANITATION ANDWATER, SANITATION ANDSEWERAGESEWERAGESEWERAGESEWERAGE FRAMEWORKFRAMEWORKFRAMEWORKFRAMEWORK

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

June 2007


2/72

A RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KENYAA RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KENYAA RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KENYAA RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KENYA’’’’SSSSWATER, SANITATION ANDWATER, SANITATION ANDWATER, SANITATION ANDWATER, SANITATION AND

SEWERAGESEWERAGESEWERAGESEWERAGE FRAMEWORKFRAMEWORKFRAMEWORKFRAMEWORK

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

June 2007


3/72

Published by:

Institute of Economic Affairs5th Flr. ACK Garden House, 1st Ngong Avenue

P O BOX 53989 – 00200 Nairobi, Kenya

Tel: 254 020 2717402, 2721262Fax: 254 020 2716231

E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.ieakenya.or.ke

© Institute of Economic Affairs 2007First Published 2007

ISBN: 9966-7183-1-1

With funding from Heinrich Böll FoundationRegional Office East and Horn of Africa

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

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

Website: www.hbfha.com


4/72

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The first Water Act in Kenya was the Water Ordinance, 1929 which was then repealed by theWater Act Cap 372, published in May 1952, it was revised in 1962, and once again in 1972with minor changes. Under this Water Act, Ministry of Water Resources Management andDevelopment (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. Thismade several Government organs the policy formulators, regulators and service providers,causing confusion and overlapping of roles (A diagram indicating the responsibility lines ofthese ministries is shown in Annex 1).

In 1974, a National Water Master Plan Initiative was launched. The primary aim of theInitiative was to ensure availability of potable water within reasonable distance to allhouseholds by 2000. The initiative bore the slogan, “Water for all by the year 2000” whichwas to be achieved through the development of water supply schemes. Until 1974, water wasmanaged by the Department of Water Development (DWD) which was housed in variousministries including Public Works, Natural Resources and Agriculture. In line with the 1974Initiative, the Government upgraded the Ministry of Agriculture’s Department of WaterDevelopment into a Ministry of Water. This new Ministry embarked on an ambitious watersupply development program. Unfortunately soon after in the 1980s, Government beganexperiencing budget constraints which curtailed its desire to provide safe water and expandwater and sewerage systems. Priority was therefore given to the rehabilitation of existingschemes and construction of a number of huge water projects that included the Baricho andKilimanjaro water schemes.

Handing over to Communities

Despite these efforts and investments, the goal was far from being achieved. The Governmentsoon 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 toincrease water access and coverage in the rural and urban areas. Attention therefore turned tofinding ways of involving players other than the Government in providing water andsewerage services, a process that came to be known as “handing over.”

There was general agreement over the need to hand over Government water supply systemsbut not the aspects of what was to be handed over. In 1997, the Government published anational guideline on how to hand over rural water supply systems to communities (Ministryof 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 watersupply schemes. The communities will act as custodians of the water supply schemes,


5/72

including the assets, when they take over the responsibility for operating and maintainingthem.”

The community felt that to ensure good management and ownership, the handing over shouldhave 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 toconstitute 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 whichwas adopted by Parliament as Sessional Paper No 1 of 1999 in April, 1999. It was officiallylaunched in August, 1999 for implementation. The 1999 policy justified a management handover, arguing that ownership of a water facility encouraged proper operation and maintenanceand 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 urbanwater systems to autonomous departments within local authorities, and the rural watersupplies, to communities. In a nutshell, the Policy moved Government away from directservice provision and restricted it to regulatory functions. Service provision was left tomunicipalities, private sector and communities. More about the policy is contained in Annex2.

The Policy also stated that the Water Act, Chapter 372, would be reviewed and updated totransfer water facilities to other service providers. Regulations would be introduced to giveother 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 managing73 piped urban water systems serving 1.4 million people, and 555 piped rural water supplysystems serving 4.7 million people. The NWCPC was operating piped water supply systemsin 21 urban centres for 2.3 million people and 14 large rural water supply systems for 1.5million people. However this investment in water systems still fell short of the targets andwater for all by year 2000. Therefore alongside the DWD and the NWCPC, largemunicipalities were licensed to supply water in their areas of jurisdiction, and by 2000, tenmunicipalities supplied 3.9 million urban dwellers with water. Some municipalities thatestablished a water and sewage department were Nyeri, Nairobi, Kericho, Eldoret, Thika,

Nyahururu, Kitale, Nanyuki, Meru and Nakuru. Additionally, about 2.3 million people werereceiving some level of service from systems operated by self-help (community) groups whohad built systems often with donor funding and technical support from district officers of theDWD. Those who were not served under any of the above arrangements i.e. DWD, NCWPCor a municipal, served themselves. Typically, this was done by collecting water directly froma 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. Accessto safe water supply stood at 57% in urban areas and 42% in rural in 2000. The urbansanitation coverage was 95%, and rural coverage, 82%, averaging 87%. (These data areshown 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


6/72

the criteria and definition used. The current national coverage figures, as given elsewhere inthis report, are 68% in urban and 49% in rural areas for water supply and less than 50% forsanitation.

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 NationalTask Force to review the Water Act, Cap 372, and draft amendments. The Water Bill 2002was published on 15 March, 2002, and passed by Parliament on 18 July, 2002. It wasgazetted in October 2002 and came into effect in 2003. The Water Act 2002 was a keyinstrument and tool to implement the policy. The Act would operate concurrently with theWater Act Cap 372 until completely repealed.

1.2 Purpose of this StudyThis research assesses the design and implementation of Water Act 2002. More specifically,it (i) highlights strengths and weaknesses of Kenya’s water, sanitation and sewerageframework as per Water Act 2002 and (ii) ways in which the identified strengths can be builtand 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 waterreforms, and suggest some ways forward. The study can also be used to enlighten publicsector 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. Itconsists of people, entities, rules and systems. It can be said that the elements of a goodframework are (i) clear roles and relationships between actors (ii) rules of operation andadherence 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 thatform the basis for this rapid assessment of the Kenya water, sanitation and sewerageframework.

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.


7/72

The study commenced in February 2006 and was peer reviewed twice by water stakeholdersfrom different parts of Kenya, in Nairobi, in May 2006. The comments made on the studywere 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 wasshared with relevant Ministries in May 2007. The final document will then be launched tostakeholders, donors and the general public in June 2007.


8/72

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, useand 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 variousinstitutions with separate functions/ mandates and starts by first, removing Government fromservice provision.

The institutional framework as spelt out in the new Water Act 2002 is pyramidal. At the apexare the Water Appeals Board and the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MW&I). Thefunctions 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, FloodControl and Land Reclamation Policy, Waste Water Treatment and Disposal Policy, NationalIrrigation Policy and a policy on Water Schemes and Community Water Projects. 1 The WaterServices Regulatory Board (WSRB) and Water Appeals Board (WAB) are independentinstitutions to regulate and deal with disputes respectively.

The Water Act 2002 provides for a Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA) tomanage water in an integrated way. WRMA is charged with responsibility for managing,regulating, protecting, apportioning and conserving water resources naturally, includingtransboundary waters.

In the case of water supply and sewerage, the Act gives responsibility for service delivery toseven Water Services Boards, who in turn, retain service provider(s) such as watercompanies, NGOs, institutions and community owned schemes, to provide day-to-day servicewithin their areas of responsibilities. Seven service boards on a regional basis have beenestablished and are operational. These Boards are to be regulated by the Water ServicesRegulatory Board.

While the Regulatory Board has been gazetted, it is yet to be fully functional (this isdiscussed in Chapter Three). The Water Appeals Board (WAB) has also been established butis 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 reforminstitutions are fully operational and meeting their mandates. The Water and River UsersAssociations (WRUAs) are entities created to give the consumer a voice. However, not allWRUAs 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


9/72

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. Thestrategy objectives are to make arrangements to ensure that at all times there is in every area aperson capable of providing water, and to design a program that progressively extendssewerage to every centre of population. The national strategy describes the process ofensuring that every area has adequate water and sewerage services and that there is a serviceprovider. The Transfer Plan, which was subjected to public hearing in 2005, is underimplementation. It is expected that Water Services Strategy will soon be subjected to publicconsultations 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 SewerageStrategy have been drafted. The strategies suggest guidelines on the hows and whys of watermanagement and supply in the country. As per section 11 of the Act, the strategies cannot begazetted 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 begazetted by end of the year.

MoWI

PolicyFormulation

Regulation

Services

Provision

National level

Regional

level

Locallevel

Consump-tion,Use

Water Appeals

Board WAB

WaterServices

RegulatoryBoardWSRB

WaterResources

ManagementAuthorityWRMA

WaterServicesBoardsWSBs

CatchmentAreas Advisory

CommitteesCAACs

Water Services

ProvidersWSPs

Water Resources

User AssociationsWRUAs

Water SectorReform Steering

Committee WSRSC

Water SectorReform

Secretariat

Water ServicesTrust Fund

WSTF

RegionalOffice

WRMA

Consumers, Users


10/72

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. Theseinclude the WSRB, WSBs, WSTF, WRMA and some WSPs. The transfer plan was approvedin July, 2005. During 2006, the Ministry of Water and Irrigation would focus on

consolidation of commercialization of WSPs, WRUAs etc and development of BusinessPlans for new institutions. In the same period, Ministry would also focus on its core businessby embracing the SWAP and sector investment plan.

Table 1: Implementation Status of FrameworkPhase One (2004)Establishment and staffing of newinstitutions, situation analysis of all watersupplies and water resources underrespective WSBs, and publicconsultations of Transfer Plan.

StatusStaffing of new institutions is still ongoing aftergazettement of the transfer plan. About 600staff mostly technical from Ministry of Waterand NWCPC, have been transferred to WSBs.Situation analysis of all existing water supplies,sewerage and water resources has not beendone. Public consultations of Transfer Planhave taken place.

Phase Two (2005) Gazettement of the Transfer Plan and thetransfer of services to the Water ServicesBoards and water resources to the WaterResources Management Authority. Notethat after the transfer of servicespreviously undertaken by DWD andNWCPC to WSBs, the DWD would beappointed as interim WSP for one year.

StatusThe process for the transfer of these services isoutlined in The Plan for Transfer ofmanagement and operation of water services towater services boards 2004. The plan has beengazetted and is being implemented. All watersupplies previously managed by MW&I andNWCPC have been transferred to WSBs with alegally binding transfer agreement. In turnWSBs have appointed WSPs like Nairobi Waterand Sewerage company.

Phase Three (2006)Ensuring effective implementation ofnew institutions and enhancinginstitutional capacities.

StatusAll new institutions have been established and 7WSBs have been licensed by the WRSB andtransfer of staff from MW&I and NWCPC andrecruitment effected. Some of the Ministry andCorporation staff at districts not absorbed byWSBs has been attached to communityprojects. WSBs and other new institutions havedeveloped strategic business plans and actionplans to implement their mandates. Capacitybuilding has been incorporated in plans andtraining 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 thenew institutions. Management teams have been appointed and placed on performancecontracts. Staffing of the institutions, which is the final milestone in the transfer process waseffected from 1 July, 2005, with 7,200 civil servants working in the Ministry of Water and


11/72

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 thedistrict level, all the ministry staff, including those currently undertaking Projects/Programand the NWCPC personnel in regional offices, have moved directly to their respectiveBoards. Likewise, the water supply infrastructure previously under the Ministry and the

Water Corporation went to the Boards. Those serving at the provincial headquarters as waterdevelopment staff were retained to provide support for coordination, supervision, monitoringand evaluation in consultation with the regional bodies (WSB and WRMA) head offices.However those serving in planning, design, operations, maintenance and water resourcemanagement moved to the relevant institutions.

At the NWCPC head office, those performing functions that have been delegated weredeployed appropriately and the rest retained. The Corporation now serves as the constructionarm of the Ministry and, therefore, all Ministry staff engaged in water conservation anddrilling report to the Managing Director of the NWCPC for deployment.

2.4 Gender Issues in New FrameworkThe issue of gender is critical and features in all sectors at both the management anddevelopment levels. However, in majority of cases, gender concerns are often given lowattention and in many cases left out. The major hindrance has been the lack of a NationalGender Policy and, in turn, a legal framework to implement the policy.

A National Commission on Gender and Development has been established by an act ofparliament in December, 2003, to coordinate implementation and facilitate gendermainstreaming in water and sanitation program and to give advice. The commission isrecruiting staff to strengthen its capacity to address gender issues. Efforts have however, beenmade 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 couldbe used to push gender agenda through various programs undertaken by ministries andgovernment departments.

An attempt is being made to mainstream gender into the new framework by appointingwomen representatives to the boards/institutions and in management. It is a requirement tohave female representation in water boards and water service providers. Although progresshas been made in the community water and sanitation committees and women groups dealingwith 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 2002which play a critical role in water resource management, sanitation and sewerage. Theyinclude National Environmental Management Authority, Ministry of Lands, Ministry ofLocal 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 theMinistry of Gender, Culture, Sports and Social Services should play a major role in watersupply and sanitation as majority of support agencies have insisted on incorporation ofgender and other cross-cutting issues like poverty alleviation and HIV/Aids in water andsanitation development and management.


12/72

CHAPTER THREE

WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

3.1 The Framework

Kenya is classified as a water-scarce country with per capita water being below the globalbenchmark of 1,000 cubic metres. In 2005, the estimated per capita was about 612 cubicmetres for all uses. This scarcity is expected to worsen by 2025 when per capita is projectedto be about 235 cubic metres. This poses a serious threat to socio-economic development andthe 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 ofwater, land and related resources to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in anequitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems (as defined by

Global Water Partnership, 2001). The IWRM planning process in Kenya started with ahistoric meeting in Mbagathi, Nairobi, in March, 2002. The main objective was to discusspriority water management issues and challenges in Kenya. The outcome was a NationalWater Resources Management Campaign based on the following action platforms; treatingand managing water as a scarce resource with social and economic value, entrenching theright to water and protection of the resource in the Constitution to guarantee the people’sright and to safeguard this vital resource, setting appropriate levels of budgets to supportongoing water resource management reforms and investment needs and recognizing thatthere are many stakeholders with different interests, values and concerns about waterutilization, protection and conservation, and that it is essential to work jointly to address thenational needs.

This management approach is essentially about building capacity and institutions at differentlevels 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 normativeframework to guide all decision makers in the sector

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

• Recognition of the river basin as the unit of water and land resource planning andmanagement and creation of River Basin Organizations in place ofterritorial/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 efficientlyused 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 ‘waterbecomes everybody’s business’

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


13/72

will, through this process, set up a reporting mechanism on the progress of implementing theplan. Specifically the JPOI calls for development of country IWRM plans by 2005. Towardsthis, Kenya has drafted a Water Resource Management strategy which will be presented tostakeholders 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 Act2002.

Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA)

The Authority is responsible for managing, protecting, apportioning and conserving waterresources 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 chargedwith:

• 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 beingimplemented. The CAACs work is to help the WRMA in water and environmentalconservation activities through the regional managers.

Under the regional offices, WRMA have established sub-regional offices to work in closeliaison with the WRUAs and the CAACs. However, it is necessary to hasten the staffrecruitment process for the WRMA to be fully operational up to the sub - regional level. Allthe staff previously working in the Department of Water Resources of the Ministry of Water


14/72

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

• Provide detailed information and advice on water resources as relates to WaterResources 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 toincreasing storage capacity;

• Advise on trans-boundary water resource management;

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

• Support the Water River Users Associations (WRUAs);

• Visit community hotspots (conflict prone flash areas) and motivate them to coalesceinto 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 withagriculture and other competing uses and upstream and downstream users to avoid conflictsover water. This means that some base flows have to be maintained for sustenance of theecological systems downstream. Since Water Act 2002 has taken the management of waterresources down to the communities, it is expected that communities will act as policingagents 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. Elgonand Cherangani hills (Map 1). These towers support all major sectors of the Kenyaneconomy. The Mau Forest Complex is the source of the Rivers Mara and Sondu. The formerriver supports the Masai Mara Game Reserve and hence is key to the survival of wildlife inthe Maasai Mara Game Reserve and the Serengeti National Park of Tanzania. The SonduRiver has a hydropower complex (supported by the Japanese Government) expected tocontribute about 60 MW to the national grid. The Njoro River, flowing from the Mau ForestComplex, 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 Kenyawith five (5) hydro power dams. It also supports agricultural development along the TanaBasin. The numerous streams and springs that support commercial and subsistence farmingon 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.


15/72

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 watertowers, such as the proposed excisions of forests, poor land-use practices and encroachmentinto recharge areas, have the potential to adversely affect the performance of major sectors ofthe economy.

Water Sources

The water sources for 130 out of 141 urban centres, and 283 out of the 295 large-scale ruralwater supply schemes are summarized in the table below:

Table 2: Water Supply Schemes and their sources

Surface Water Ground WaterWaterSupplySchemes

River Lake Off takefrompipeline

Sub-total

Borehole /ShallowWell

Spring RockCatchment

Sub-total

Total

UrbanWSS

70 2 11 83 40 7 0 47 130

RuralWSS

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


16/72

Surface Water Abstraction

The main sources of piped water in Kenya are the surface waters of the rivers andgroundwater. Surface water source facilities can be grouped as river intakes, large dams andreservoirs 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 abstractwater from a surface or ground water source for domestic, irrigation or industrial use. InKenya, water supply schemes managed by the Department of Water, NWCPC,municipalities, self-help groups, a large number of farms, industrial firms, institutions andothers, abstract surface water for domestic, industrial and irrigation use. One is not supposedto abstract river water in excess 60% of the water body. The permits previously issued byWater Apportionment Board and currently by WRMA, ensure equitable apportionment,regulation and allocation of available water for purposes intended. The Department of WaterResources 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 toproblems associated with irregular gauging, illegal abstraction, infrastructure neglect andstaffing, the present database is useful and is used to estimate the amount of water abstractedfrom surface water sources for domestic, industrial, livestock, irrigation and other uses. Thedatabase 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 andCoastal areas of the country), and seasonal (commonly known as Lagas), mainly found insemi-arid and arid areas. Floods occur intermittently. An attempt has been made to draw up achronology of flood events from reports, survey interviews and field reconnaissance as wellas 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 in1963/64, 1968, 1977/78, 1982, 1985, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1997. Most of thesefloods usually affect the Lake Victoria and coastal basins. The floods inundated the Kanoplains, Yala swamps and other low-lying areas around Lake Victoria. They also hit the lowerTana reaches.

Ground Water Potential

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

1. Ground water in the volcanic regions occurs at varying depths and several aquifersmay exist on top of one another. The aquifers in these areas are confined and thedepths to the aquifers and piezometric levels within them vary widely. The averageyields 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 ofaquifers and static water levels vary within the rocks. Sample statistics give anaverage yield of 4.5 m3/hr, and average depth of the main aquifer of 55 m.


17/72

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

Deep ground water abstraction is expensive and therefore these depths of aquifers andexpected 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 and540,000 ha in 1979. The potential for land reclamation by drainage and flood protection isestimated at approximately 600,000 ha, located mainly in Western, Nyanza and Coastprovinces. 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 irrigationdevelopment. 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 alonglower Tana, may have started centuries ago. Records of the early European settlers in the late19th century gave the impression of indigenous irrigation in Elgeyo Marakwet, West Pokotand 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. Theseinclude Perkerra, Mwea, Yatta Furrow, Tana River and Ishiara. Post independence irrigationdevelopment saw the establishment of a National Irrigation Board (NIB) in 1966 toadminister the national irrigation schemes. Private large-scale irrigation is now confined tocoffee in the rainfall deficit agro-ecological zones, pineapples and other horticulture. Thereare 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 areashas been slow but steady. The Ministry of Water Development (MoWD), has the broadresponsibility of developing the national water resources in this country. It has overallresponsibility for the allocation of water for irrigation and any other use through the WaterApportionment Board, and is engaged in detailed investigation and planning for waterdevelopment on a national scale. The MoWD maintains an 'Irrigation and ReclamationSection,' no doubt having its roots from times when the water section moved from onedepartment/ministry (Public Works, Natural Resources, Agriculture) to another, until itsettled as a Ministry of Water Development in 1974. In establishing the pre-independentnational irrigation schemes, the Department of Public Works (Hydraulic Engineers) wasresponsible for engineering aspects, the Department of Agriculture for production, and theProvincial Administration for labour and settlement matters. All these functions weretransferred 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 totalnumber of schemes have an area of less than 100 ha. Most of the irrigation methods used inthe country are basin, furrow and sprinkler or drip. Most of the major irrigation systems likethe Yatta canal and the Mwea Rice Irrigation scheme were established during the colonial

2

IDRP, 1987 – a study on Irrigation potential in Kenya


18/72

days. The major constraints encountered in irrigation schemes are; inadequacy of source ofwater, 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 policyhas been formulated.

Drainage System

The national drainage system is determined by the Great Rift Valley which runsapproximately north-south. From its flanks, water flows westwards to Lake Victoria andeastwards 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, RiftValley, Athi/Sabaki River, the Tana River and the Ewaso Nyiro River. More details of thebasin 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 floodprotection, while the Inter-Ministerial Task Force estimates the land to be 208,000 ha. Thereclaimed 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 andEthiopia. There are 18 international drainage basins relevant to Kenya. So far no majorconflicts have emerged between the riparian countries concerning the utilization of water inthese rivers, however, as more projects are proposed and developed in future, conflicts mayarise as a result of over-utilization of water from rivers with low flows. Simmering conflictshave 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 isestimated at 20,619 million cubic metres a year. From this water resource potential and dueto a rapid population growth over the last 30 years, our water per capita decreased from 1,853cubic metres in 1969 to 704 cubic metres in 2000, to the current estimate of 647 cubic metresthus 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 freshwatersupplies 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 thecountries 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 capitarenewable fresh water supplies of 2,940 and 2,696 cubic metres per capita a year. Theavailability of water is often a key factor in determining the patterns of human settlement andsocio-economic development. Within the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASAL) that form about80% of Kenya, there is limited endowment of water resources. This imposes an addedfinancial burden on the population compared with other countries. The burden is even greaterbecause of the country’s vulnerability to rainfall variability. Under these circumstances, water


19/72

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 thedanger 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 facemore 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 fromconflict in and between communities over water resources or where water resourceavailability has threatened basic livelihoods. According to a ‘Horn of Africa (Djibouti,Ethiopia, Kenya, & Somalia) – Complex Emergency Situation Report #10 (FY 2006)’ byUSAID, “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 dryseason.” 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 Makuenidistricts.

Limited CACCs: Whereas the Water Act, 2002 establishes a very elaborate and clearmanagement structure (comprising of numerous institutions) for water supply, the oversightof the water catchment areas (or water resource in general) is left to the Catchment AreasAdvisory Committees (CAACs) which have no direct authority over the WRMA regionalmanagers who oversee the allocation and use of water. In other words, the WRMA regionalmanagers 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 consideredindividually rather than based on an overall allocation plan. This has created a situationwhere there is very little information on abstraction on a catchment basis. Currently, threetypes of illegal abstraction behaviour are observed; (1) those that are authorized but have no

Per Capita Water Availability

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1969 1979 1989 1999 2010

Year

V o l u m e ( m 3

p e r

p e r s o n )


20/72

permit and abstract in accordance with the quantities specified in the authorization (2) thosethat 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 underwhich 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 notbeen gazetted and the Water Act Cap 372 is still being applied. Once the new rules andregulations are gazetted by the Minister, then the provisions of Water Act 372 will berepealed. 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, theeffluent discharge standards are not specified and the fees are different to those of theWRMA. Additionally, there is non-point source pollution from poor land-husbandry,

sanitation, and liquid and solid waste-disposal practices. For example, studies carried out onpollution in Nairobi River found that sewage, nutrients, toxic metals, human waste, solidwaste dumping, industrial and agricultural chemicals are main pollutants, and that due to poorenforcement, the river may not support aquatic life (UNEP Pollution Assessment Report2000). Political, economic, social and environmental issues are all facets that need attentionif the Nairobi River Basin is to be managed in a sustainable manner and Nairobi Damrevived.

The above examples show that the regulatory framework over the use and management ofwater resources is seriously wanting and involvement and coordination of key stakeholders iscrucial 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 resourcesand reduce related conflicts.

Better water rights management: This can be done by enacting and implementing the RiverBasin Authorities to manage Kenya's water resources. These authorities can then lend supportto the WRMA. Updating abstraction data to identify who is abstracting and the amountabstracted as well as enforcing conditions of permits including borehole master meters,storage, conservation measures in the catchment and riparian environments and functionalityof 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 andimplementing criteria for water allocation for different uses and using these criteria to resolveconflicts of earlier permit terms under Water Act Cap 372 and conditions with the Water Act2002 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 andconservation in catchment area. This should include licensing for raw water use and chargingappropriate levies at the economic value of water, conservation measures and reduction ofpollution levels. New rules, regulations and fees developed by WRMA need to be gazettedand operationalized.


21/72

Upgrade infrastructure as a matter of urgency: One of the responsibilities of WRMA is toconserve and apportion water resources. To ensure accurate and updated data for use inissuance of abstraction permits and for purposes of development planning, the dilapidatedgauging stations, weirs, storage dams need to be rehabilitated and new ones constructed.

Enforce pollution control: The implementation of Environmental Management andCoordination 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 iscritical, and pollution control measures should include culture change.


22/72

CHAPTER FOUR

WATER SERVICES

4.1 The Framework

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

Water Services Boards (WSBs)

These Boards have been established at the regional level and delineated on the basis ofcatchments, 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 thesystems in their areas. The Boards are to effect their mandate by contracting the WaterService Providers (WSPs) as agents for this purpose. They are to monitor and enforceprovision agreements (SPAs) with the WSPs in accordance with the licence requirements.


23/72

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 BoardsWater Services Board No. of districts Area km2 1999 PopulationAthi 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 28,703,000Source: 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 servicestandards and guidelines set by WSRB are observed,

maintained and adhered to by its agents the WSP

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

sector within its area of jurisdiction

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

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

WSB can only do so in certain circumstances with authorityof WSRB

Developer WSB is responsible to ensure that existingfacilities are properly maintained rehabilitated andexpanded and new assets established


24/72

Table 4: A summary of WSBs officials and coverage areaWaterServicesBoard

Board Chair CEO Location ofHeadOffice

Coverage area

Athi Mr. Patrick

Kinyori

Eng.

LawrenceMwangi

Nairobi Nairobi, Kajiado, Thika,

Machakos, Kiambu andMakueni districts

Coast Mr. JonathanMturi

Eng. IddiMwasina

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

Tana Mr. HaronWachira

Mr. SamuelMuchai

Nyeri Nyandarua, Nyeri, MeruCentral, Meru North,Nithi, Kirinyaga, Embu,Mbeere, Mwingi and KituiDistricts

Rift Valley Prof Ezra

Maritim

Eng.

RobinsonGaita

Nakuru Nakuru, Turkana, West

Pokot, Marakwet andNarok Districts

Northern Mr.MohamedSheikhow

Mr.MohammendShurie

Garissa Samburu, Laikipia,Garissa, Wajir, Isiolo,Marsabit and ManderaDistricts

Lake VictoriaNorth

Mr. JosephMurunga

Eng. DiruMagomere

Kakamega Teso, Bungoma, TransNzoia, Keiyo, UasinGishu, Nandi, Kakamega,Mt Elgon and VihigaDistricts

Lake VictoriaSouth

Mr. JohnJuma

Eng. PatrickOmbogo

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

Source: Water Sector Reforms Secreatariat, 2004

Nairobi and the Central Water Services Boards have been renamed as Athi and Tana WaterServices Boards to be in line with the River Basins. In 2005, new districts were created andcarved out of existing districts for easier administration. It should be noted that none of theChairs 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 toidentify another entity, a Water Service Provider (WSP), to provide water services as itsagent. The WSB can only provide water services directly in situations where it has not beenable 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 sewerageservices 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


25/72

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 accordancewith an agreement with a licensee (the water services board).” The key responsibilities of theWSP 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 watersupply. It is supposed to mobilize funds from the Exchequer or donors. The Fund will helpfinance 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 Boardadditionally develops guidelines for fixing tariffs and other charges on water services inaccordance with the national strategy. At the national level, the WSRB is responsible forimplementing government policies and strategies on WSS. It is also responsible for issuinglicenses to Water Services Boards, determining service standards, advising the Ministry onsector policies and providing a mechanism for handling complaints. Major complaints anddisputes will be handled by WAB.

Established in 2003, WSRB has so far issued interim licenses to the seven WSBs in thecountry 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 ServicesBoards 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 andconflicts that may not be solved by WRMA and WSRB defined above. The Water AppealsBoard shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes. The Appeals Board provides amechanism 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 bulkwater and development of state schemes for water conservation. The NWCPC is to serve as alink between management and service provision through bulk water supply and development,enhancing storage capacity and conservation. The NWCPC has since been reorganized as agovernment contractor in borehole drilling and construction of water conservation structures.As with the DWD’s, the NWCPC managed schemes have been transferred to the respectiveWSBs who, in turn, appoint WSPs.


26/72

This framework is depicted below:

National Water Services Strategy

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


27/72

water supply and sewerage, plans for the extension of water services to underserved areas, thetimeframe for the plan, and the investment program. The overall principles underlying thestrategy 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; and9. Environmentally friendly operations.


Overall water coverage has been declining in terms of quality, quantity and reliability due tothe aging of existing infrastructure. Most of Kenya’s population lives in rural areas (24million), while 9 million live in urban areas out of which more than half live in informalsettlements. Access to safe water is estimated at 68% in urban areas and only 49% in ruralareas.

According to a study carried out in 1998, urban per capita water consumption almost doubledthat of rural areas. This is shown in the figures below;

Table 5: Water ConsumptionService Area Total Population (1995) Per Capita Consumption –

Litres per Capita perDay(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 areuseful for the design of water systems.

As of 2005, the ratio of served to unserved population is 30:70. This translates to only 30% ofthe population being served which is far below acceptable standards. In addition, there areregional inequalities in water supplies. Rift Valley has the highest percentage of unserved at80%, 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.


28/72

Table 6: Summary of Urban and Rural Water SuppliesWaterServicesBoard

Board areaPopulation

UrbanPopulationServed

RuralPopulationServed

TotalPopulationServed

TotalUnserved

Athi5,617,220 2,098,316 275,727 2,374,043 3,243,177

LakeVictoriaSouth

5,730,956 422,723 716,591 1,139,314 4,591,642

LakeVictoriaNorth

5,135,894 589,205 350,797 940,002 4,195,892

Tana5,012,208 511,078 2,217,023 2,728,101 2,284,107

North1,703,695 204,008 533,807 737,815 965,880

RiftValley 2,999,370 344,500 206,453 550,953 2,448,417

Coast2,487,264 314,593 109,951 424,544 2,062,720

Total 28,686,607 4,484,423 4,410,349 8,894,772 19,791,835Source: Ministry of Water & Irrigation – SWAp (2005)

Water Supply Schemes

The main providers of water services in the past were the Director of Water Developmentunder the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (M&WI), the National Water Conservation andPipeline Corporation (NWCPC), some local authorities, NGOs, community basedorganisations and self-help schemes. Other actors include local communities, variousinstitutions, churches and NGOs who operate and maintain their own water supply systems.

Table 7: Number of Water Supply Facilities (1994) and Population ServedProvider/Supplier No. Pop served (millions)Director of Water under MOWI 579 5.6

National Water Conservation and PipelineCorporation

188 3.7

Community 339

Non-Government Organizations 266

Self-help Schemes 2434.8

Local Authorities 164 3.9

Total 1,779 18

Source: JICA Aftercare Study, Final Report 1998


29/72

Water supply schemes can be classified as urban and rural water supplies. The most typicalschemes 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 areassimultaneously; and

4. Many other small schemes constructed in urban centres.

Urban Water Supply Schemes: Each urban centre is usually served by one scheme. In 1998there were 73 government-run urban water schemes serving 69 districts with total populationof 28.7 million people. Only 17% of the total population were served by the schemes. Thisindicates that the remaining 83% are served by informal sources of water, community watersupplies, institutional supplies or other sources.3

Rural Water Supply Schemes: By 1998, there were 295 large-scale rural water supplyschemes serving approximately 4.2 million people. The small scale rural water supplyschemes were serving approximately 5.5 million people. In general, it was observed thatthese schemes served about 43% of the rural population. The rest of the population got waterfrom 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 ActCap 372 (the former Water Act). Water undertakers had to apply to the Ministry for authorityto adjust tariffs, except local authorities, which had some flexibility. The regulation and tariffsetting is the responsibility of the newly established WSRB. Due to public and politicalpressure, the tariffs have remained static over the last several years (for example, refer to casestudy of Zambia where the tariff was increased by 100% before 2002 general elections inAnnex 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).


30/72

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

Table 8: Water Tariff and Water Undertakers by DistrictCategory

Vol……

NUK…

NWCP.

MW&I

NRB….

KSM…

ELD….

NYR…..

KRO…

NKU……...

KTL.

CubicMetres 1997/8 1997/9 1997/9 1997/8 1996/7 1996/7 1996/7 1996/7 1995/6 19940-10 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 9Domestic 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 9Over60 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 9Gov/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 10Over60 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

Over60 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 theWSBs in their regions. These companies have applied for and obtained licenses to operate asWSPs under the Water Act 2002. During this period of transition, the companies have had torestructure their operations. Changes have been made in a number of areas includingorganizational structures, service delivery, billing and customer care. The effects of thechanges are beginning to be felt by consumers in various regions. Some of these companieshave undertaken technical audits and training needs assessment as a way of restructuring theiroperations 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 discussedbelow.

4.3 Challenges

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


31/72

Unaccounted for water: Most water supply schemes in Kenya source water directly fromrivers; and intake structures are constructed as source points with mains leading to treatmentworks or storage tanks or direct to distribution systems. Other water schemes source waterfrom ground water which requires minimal treatment. These systems are either gravity or

pumping systems, the latter having higher operational costs. Unaccounted for water is acommon challenge in the water supply systems. This has been estimated at an average of 60per cent of water produced lost. Factors contributing to the high levels of unaccounted forwater are illegal connections, technical losses, un-metered connections (flat-rate billing), poormaintenance of the infrastructure, poor management of the systems, especially inconsistentbilling; and the extended life of intake and distribution infrastructure. Urgent rehabilitation isrequired in almost all supply systems. The Kitale, Webuye and Bungoma systems inparticular are in dire need of rehabilitation.

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

High pumping costs: Pumping costs are relatively high and these costs increase tariffs whichare, in turn, transferred to the consumer.

Lack of/non functioning meters: Most water connections are not metered, and for those thatare, over half are non functional. This frustrates commercialization efforts.

Low public and government understanding of the framework: A communication strategy onthe 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 playthe original role they played at the MW&I. Furthermore, some WSBs are seconding the staffto the WSPs where there are gaps. The staff now has to re-orient themselves to their newtasks. Additionally, the existence of many players on the scene means that the public is notsure of who their service provider is.

Transfer of assets: Communities are apprehensive about the transfer of assets to therespective boards and as a result, some groups were reluctant to give up their self developedassets. The communication on how the boards will handle the community projects remainsunclear 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 andmanagement of assets.

Capacity constraints: WSBs have limited capacity to fulfil their roles. An attempt to addressthis challenge was made by entering arrangements with Support Organizations (SOs) andQuality Control Agents (QCAs). The SOs’ were to support the communities in preparinggood project proposals while the QCAs would monitor the SOs’ activities. However, theprocess of engaging the SO and QCA services was difficult for the WSBs. The approach wasnot clear to all and as a result, varied responses were received which were extremely difficultto evaluate in terms of capability and scope of works. This process is still ongoing and iscausing delay in implementing phase 3 of the reform program. While WSBs rely mostly on


32/72

funds promised by donors, in the long run, WSBs need to develop mechanisms for raisingfunds for operations and development of infrastructure. More competence and financialrecord keeping, especially in the case of local government and community providers, is alsorequired.

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

Vulnerable and unreliable infrastructure: Unreliable power, roads and telephoneinfrastructure, old and obsolete water supply facilities and non-functional systems andprolonged droughts and heavy floods frustrate water supply efforts. The cost of rebuildingthese 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 onsource. Most of the data used in the reforms are from the1998 JICA after care study. Theafter care study objectives were:

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

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

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

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

4.4 Recommendations

Expand and/or rationalize existing systems: Small uneconomical systems can be merged withother systems to enhance economies of scale in operations. Clusters of small water supplies

could be established and appropriate technology options installed for efficiency servicedelivery.

Shift from pumping to gravity-operated systems: This will reduce operational costs. Dams canalso be constructed to boost water supply. Inappropriate technologies need to be expungedand install efficient and affordable water systems.

Adjust tariffs: Zambia’s water tariff adjustments are linked to sustainability of the systemsand 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


33/72

developed guidelines on mandatory WSS service provision to the peri-urban areas, whichaccount for almost 30 per cent of the urban population. The guidelines are complete withservice standards and tariff setting guidelines. A similar exercise on tariffs like that done inZambia, needs to be undertaken by WRSB in Kenya.

Update National Water Master Plans: The current sector information developed in theimplementation of policy and water act 2002, should feed into the review of the 1998 JICAAfter 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 JICAAfter care study +10 (2008) study be undertaken to support the reforms.


34/72

CHAPTER FIVE

SANITATION

5.1 The Framework

The Government has made significant progress in developing an Environmental Sanitationand Hygiene Policy that mandates the Ministry of Health to spearhead such activities. TheMinistry of Health is expected to provide leadership to all concerned agencies such as theministries of Local Government, Water and Irrigation and Environment as well as NonGovernmental Organizations (NGOs) among others in the sector. The policy recognizes theneed for a people-centred and national participatory approach to sanitation. The policy hasoutlined the following instruments in promoting hygiene; the use of participatory approachesor methodologies, communication approaches that incorporate tested household healtheducation messages, development of training tools and promotional materials, conducting

campaigns and exhibitions, partnerships with media, a national sanitation week or day in linewith the WASH Dakar Road map that proposes the celebration of a sanitation week as anaction-oriented program to raise the political profile of sanitation, and information on a rangeof safe sanitation options, with clear implications for aiding household choices.

School sanitation is a top priority within the Policy which has committed to ensuring thatevery school has separate boys and girls sanitary facilities by 2010. It affirms children’s rightto basic facilities, such as toilets, safe drinking water, clean surroundings and information onhygiene. If these conditions are created, children go to school, enjoy learning, and takeconcepts and practices on sanitation and hygiene back to their families. Children can becomeagents of change at home and in the community.

People learn about sanitation technologies mostly from their neighbours, public healthworkers, public meetings and community workers. Some implemented strategies include thecreation of health awareness and training of community leaders, construction ofdemonstration facilities, provision of construction materials and equipment and enforcementof the Public Health Act and the Chief’s Act in the event of epidemics. These have beensuccessful 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 asreduction, recycling and reuse of solid wastes. Urban agriculture that aims to maximize use ofwastewater for food production is at pilot stage. Recycling is limited by the availability ofindustry to receive and process recycled materials.

Dumping

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


35/72

Financing

Water, sanitation and sewerage services receive money from government, donors and theprivate sector. To support rural pockets inhabited by poor communities who are underserviced 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, theExchequer, 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. Sincethe start of operationalization of Water Act 2002 in March 2003, development partners havesupported the new institutions and currently about Kshs. 20 billion has been committed bydonors. 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 arecommitted in areas that donors wish to support and in agreement with the government.


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 severeimpediments to economic progress.” Approximately 60% of Kenya’s hospital attendance isdue 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 below50%, mainly because the ministry’s classification does not consider pit latrines in urban areasas coverage.

Sanitation falls into two broad categories; (i) onsite, mainly pit latrines and (ii) offsite orwaterborne. Onsite sanitation is the common mode of human waste disposal in rural, sub-

urban and unplanned settlement areas. The waterborne sewerage systems, which areprevalent 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 andmissionaries almost 100 years ago. The main purpose was to prevent outbreaks of diseasessuch as cholera. Construction of household pit latrines was done through the Public HealthAct, which was enforced by the Chief. The pit latrine has been a very successful wastedisposal facility in Kenya, with about 73% of the population having access to it. Theventilated improved pit (VIP), introduced in the late 80s, did not expand much beyond thepilot 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 pitlatrines built using the locally available materials. The communities especially in the ruralareas were unable to replicate project VIPs simply because they were too expensive. Someindividuals often use open spaces to defecate or dispose of human waste.

Increased community awareness and sub-division and ownership of land in the denselypopulated areas have reduced this practice. Factors contributing to better sanitation in the pastand present have been captured by a WSP-AF field note. This information is indicated inTable 9.

4

WHO - JMP Report


36/72

Table 9: Historical and Current Factors on Sanitation

Historical Demand for SanitationFacilities Present Demand forSanitationfacilities

Chief’s ordersduring diseaseoutbreaks

Chief’s orders influenced 56%of demand by households toconstruct and own a sanitationfacility

Health awarenessand education

Hygiene educationand awareness havecontributed to 86%of demand

Enforcement ofthe PublicHealth Act

Enforcement by public healthofficers influenced 36% ofdemand to construct sanitationfacilities

Land sub-division,desertification andneed for privacy

Small land and lackof bushes havecontributed 72% ofdemand

Influence ofmissionaries andearly settlers

Missionaries and theirinfluence and contribution tohealth matters led to 28%contribution of demand

Prevention ofwater bornediseases

Initiatives onpreventive has led to62% of demand

Project assistance-donor andgovernmentsupport

Support to projectsaddressing aspectson hygiene andsanitation have ledto 52% of demand

Source: WSP Field Note, June 2004

5.3 Challenges

Un-enacted Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy: Government is yet to enact theEnvironmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy. Additionally, there are inadequate nationalsanitation 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 othercompeting needs, lack of awareness of sanitation and hygiene, lack of knowledge on how toconstruct and maintain household pit latrines, adverse geo-hydrological conditions andcultural practices. Geo-hydrological conditions such as weak soil structures lead to thecollapse of latrines especially during the rainy seasons or where water tables are high, or pitsare shallow or impossible to dig. This can lead to surface and ground water pollution. Inplaces with high basement rock, pits are shallow and when there is flooding which is oftenthe case in low-lying areas, pits fill and overflow. When facilities collapse, re-buildingbecomes expensive and some families prefer to use the bush. Cultural constraints can beexemplified by nomadic pastoralism. This way of life creates little demand for excretadisposal facilities because people are always moving with animals in search of new pasturesand water. Other cultural practices that can limit latrine access include the prohibition ofsharing sanitary facilities between adults and children, men and women and in-laws andoutsiders. Fortunately, such cultural barriers are dying.


37/72

Although the Water Act 2002 states that WSBs and WSPs mandates cover water, sewerageand sanitation, many of them ignore the sewerage and sanitation aspects. Subsequently, theneed to meet sanitation and sewerage needs has been left mainly to communities or individualhouseholds. It should also be pointed that under the Environmental Sanitation and HygienePolicy, 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 urbansettlements require adequate coverage. This need is complicated by problems of non legaltenure, and the ad hoc expansion of such settlements. The Government has made someprogress by establishing the Local Authority Service Delivery Action Plan (LASDAP) andthe Local Authority Transfer Fund (LATF) to respond to planning and infrastructure demandsfor 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

Water Framework Study a Rapid Assessment of Kenyas Water Sanitation and Sewarage Framework

Documents

Transcript of Water Framework Study a Rapid Assessment of Kenyas Water Sanitation and Sewarage Framework