Highlights of available water supply infrastructure in Nigeria and their sustainable utilization

1. D. Bashir
National Water Resources Institute, Kaduna, Nigeria
Paper presented at the Workshop on Capacity Building Programme for
Parliamentary Support Staff organized by Africa Leadership Forum at
ALF International Conference Centre, ALF Plaza, No. 1, The Bells
Drives, Benja Village, Idiroko Road, Ota, Ogun State
on 17-20 April, 2012.

2. Outline of Presentation
 Water Supply Development in Nigeria
 National Water Supply and Sanitation Policy
 National Water Supply and Sanitation Baseline
Survey
 Data Analyses
 Distribution of Total WS Schemes
 Distribution by WS Schemes Promoters
 Functionality of the WS Schemes
 Expenditure Profiles for WS Schemes
 Summary and Observations
 Recommendations
2

3. Water Supply Development in Nigeria
 Since 1980 Nigeria committed to
water supply to citizens
 Signed and ratified the UN
International Water Supply and
Sanitation Decade (1981-1990)
 Embarked on various water supply
(WS) initiatives and interventions
 Supported WS initiatives and
programs by States, LGAs,
Communities and Donors
• But WS coverage remained
low
• By 2000 only 42% access in
urban and 29% in rural
areas
• To address situation, Water
Supply and Sanitation Policy
(WSSP) approved in 2000
3

4. National Water Supply and Sanitation Policy
 Main goal of provision of
sufficient potable water and
adequate sanitation to all
Nigerians in an affordable
and sustainable way through
participatory investment by
the three tiers of
government, the private
sector and the beneficiary
 Each tier of government
given its responsibilities for
proper coordination
 Targets for service coverage
set
 However policy provisions
not fully implemented
Fed. Govt.
State Govt.
Local Govt.
Community
Rural
50%
25%
20%
5%
S/Town
50%
30%
15%
5%
Urban
30%
60%
10%
0%
Cost Sharing for Capital Investment
2003
2007
2011
Beyond 2011
60%
80%
100%
100%
Service Coverage Targets
4

5. National Water Supply and Sanitation
Baseline Survey
 Main goal was to provide
baseline data for the WSS
sector in Nigeria
 Also to document accessibility
to improved WSS facilities in
the country
 Only improved WS
technologies included in
assessment
 Contribution of 6 categories of
Promoters assessed
 6 Consultants, 1 per Geo-
political zone, carried out the
assessment
 7th Consultant, a GIS expert,
archived and analyzed the data
and produced maps
WS Technologies Assessed
 Surface WS Schemes
 Motorised Boreholes
 Handpump Boreholes
 Others
 Protected Dug-Wells
 Protected Springs
 Rainwater Harvesting
WS Promoters
 FGN
 State Govts. (+ FCT)
 LGAs
 Communities
 Donors
 Others
 NGOs
 Philanthropists
 Joint 5

6. Data Analyses
 Data analyzed were the
results contained in the
reports of the consultants
submitted to the FMWR
 Analyses to determine: (i)
zonal distribution of WS
schemes, (ii) functionality of
the schemes, (iii) promoters
of the schemes, (iv) water
demand in the various
States, (v) installed
capacities of the WS
schemes (vi) actual
capacities of the schemes,
and (vii) the percentage of
the water demand actually
met by the available
functional schemes.
Water Demand is based on
NWSSP Classification:
WS Expenditure Profiles
based on:
Surface Schemes
Motorized BH
Handpump BH
Other Schemes
N2b
N12.5m
N1.21m
N0.45m
Classification Adequate WS
(l/capita/day)
Rural Area 30
Small Town 60
Urban Area 120
6

7. Distribution of Total WS Schemes
A total of 41,058 water
supply schemes, accessible
to the public, had been
inventoried nationwide
Highest no. of Schemes
HPB – Jigawa (5,751)
MBH - Katsina (905)
Surf. – Kwara (29)
Others – Oyo (301)
South East
3,544 (8%)
South
South 3,981
(10%)
South West
4,816 (12%)
North
Central
6,089 (15%)North East
5,263 (13%)
North West
17,365
(42%)
7

8. Distribution by Categories of WS Schemes
South East
1,388 (5%) South South
1,899 (7%)
South West
1,726 (6%)
North Central
4,916 (18%)
North East
3,311 (12%)
North West
14,347 (52%)
South East
2,105 (18%)
South South
1,929 (16%)
South West
2,330 (19%)
North Central
1,062 (9%)
North East
1,854 (15%)
North West
2,827 (23%)
South East
40 (14%)
South South
16 (6%)
South West
52 (18%)
North Central
104 (37%)
North East
16 (6%)
North West
55 (19%)
South East
11 (1%)
South South
137 (13%)
South West
708 (65%)
North Central
7 (1%)
North East 82
(8%)
North West
136 (12%)
Handpump BH Motorised BH
Surface Schemes Other Schemes
8

9. Highest no. of Schemes
FGN – Katsina (635)
State Govt.s - Jigawa (2,628)
LGAs – Jigawa (2,800)
Communities – Kano (1,804)
Donors – Ebonyi (278)
Others – Benue (84)
Distribution by WS Schemes Promoters
FGN
7,694 (19%)
State Govts.
15,921 (39%)
LGAs
9,075 (22%)
Communities
3,792 (9%)
Donors
4,008 (10%)
Others
568 (1%)
9

10. Distribution by Categories of WS Schemes
by Promoters
Handpump BH
Motorised BH
Surface Schemes Other Schemes
FGN
5,004 (18%)
State Govts.
11,010 (40%)
LGAs
6,509 (24%)
Comm. 2,338
(8%)
Donors
2,377 (9%)
Others
349 (1%)
FGN
2,600 (22%)
State Govts.
4,475 (37%)
LGAs
2,107 (17%)
Comm. 1,249
(10%)
Donors
1,468 (12%)
Others
208 (2%)
FGN
15 (5%)
State Govts.
232 (82%)
LGAs
4 (1%)
Comm.
16 (6%)
Donors
13 (5%)
Others
3 (1%)
FGN
75 (7%)
State Govts.
204 (19%)
LGAs
455 (42%)
Comm.
189 (17%)
Donors
150 (14%)
Others
8 (1%)
10

11. Functionality of the WS Schemes
57.1 53.1
71.4
65.8
56.2
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
%Operational
66.1
35.6
54.0
47.1
60.0 61.6
56.2
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
%Operational
For most of the
categories, just about
half of the schemes
were operational
These indicate:
 Lack of ownership of the
schemes by the benefitting
communities;
 inadequate capacity among
the operators of the schemes;
and/or
 inappropriate O & M
strategies.
11

12. Functionality of Various Categories of WS
Schemes
12

13. Functionality of WS Schemes by Promoters
46.9
54.1 58.9
73.2
59.9 59.7 56.2
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
%Operational
• water supply schemes provided
based on community demands were
more sustainable;
• Schemes provided by Others
(especially philanthropists and
NGOs) and Donors were successful
because, in most cases, the
communities were involved in the
planning and decisions on the
execution of the projects;
• Thus, Communities consider the
schemes as theirs, and care and
protect them
• WS schemes provided by the government (especially State and Federal)
performed poorly,
• This indicates inadequate community participation in the planning and
execution of the projects.
• Generally, the closer a tier of Government is to the communities, the more
sustainable are the schemes it provides.
• Thus, the Governments would need to review its water supply intervention
strategies. 13

14. Functionality of WS Schemes by Promoters
66
90
188
135
100
234
107
44
195
37
72
168
43
23
96
11 13
80
-
50
100
150
200
250
m3/dayx104
Demand Installed Capacity Current Output
66%
26%
51%
8%
13%
34% 33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
North
Central
North
East
North
West
South
East
South
South
South
West
Nigeria
CurrentOutputas%ofDemand
14

15. Expenditure Profiles for WS Schemes
1.22 1.62
10.71
4.29 4.46
15.49
13.28
18.13
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Nb
Year
Promoter Surface(N) Motorised (N) Handpump (N) Others (N) Total (N)
FGN 30,000,000,000 32,500,000,000 6,054,840,000 33,750,000 68,588,590,000
States 464,000,000,000 55,937,500,000 13,322,100,000 91,800,000 533,351,400,000
LGAs 8,000,000,000 26,337,500,000 7,875,890,000 204,750,000 42,418,140,000
Comm. 32,000,000,000 15,612,500,000 2,828,980,000 85,050,000 50,526,530,000
Donors 26,000,000,000 18,350,000,000 2,876,170,000 67,500,000 47,293,670,000
Others 6,000,000,000 2,600,000,000 422,290,000 3,600,000 9,025,890,000
Total 566,000,000,000 151,337,500,000 33,380,270,000 486,450,000 751,204,220,000
15

16. Summary and Observations
1. Boreholes constituted 67% of the 41,058 water supply schemes in the
country;
2. There were wide variations in the distributions of the water supply
schemes among the States. North-West Zone had 42% of the schemes
while South-East had only 8%;
3. The State Governments (plus the FCT) had provided the highest number
of water supply schemes, 39% of the national total. The LGAs followed
with 22% and the FGN came third with 19% of the schemes. Thus, the
State and Local Governments, together, had provided for over 60% of the
water supply schemes in the country;
4. Investment in water supply by the State Governments also varied. Jigawa
State Government appeared the most committed to water supply as it
had provided the highest number of schemes (2,628). This may be the
impact of the State Water Initiative. Similarly, LGAs in Jigawa State had
provided 2,800 schemes, more than half of the schemes provided by all
the 774 LGAs in the country;
5. Communities in Kano State were the most committed; they had provided
1,804 water supply schemes; 16

17. Summary and Observations…
6. More than half (52.6%) of the inventorised water supply schemes
were dysfunctional. This may be as a result of the top-down approach
of government in which projects were often initiated and
implemented without the involvement of local beneficiaries, leading
to project failure at operation and maintenance stage.
7. Water supply schemes provided based on community demands were
more sustainable. This could account for the highest functionality of
the schemes provided by the communities themselves. Schemes
provided by Donors and Others were successful because, in most
cases, donor interventions were located in self-selected communities.
Generally, the closer a tier of Government is to the communities, the
more sustainable are the schemes it provides;
17

18. Summary and Observations…
8. The total installed capacity of the water supply schemes inventoried
was 6,221,596 m3/day. This could provide about 77% of the total water
supply demand in the country. However, not all the schemes were
functional. Further analysis of the survey results shows that 2,658,090
m3/day of water supply was obtainable from all the functional schemes
and this could provide only 33% of the water supply demand. This
clearly shows that with this level of provision of water supply schemes
and especially the functionality of the existing schemes, Nigeria would
remain off-track in attaining the MDGs targets for water supply;
9. This does not tally with level of expenditure in the water sector. The
total expenditure in the provision of water supply schemes in the
country by the various Promoters was estimated to be
N751,204,220,000 as at 2006. This by no means is a huge investment
that should have resulted in appreciable water supply coverage to
enable the country attain the MDGs targets. The reasons for this dismal
water supply coverage (33%) despite the huge investments may be due
to the following: 18

19. Summary and Observations…
a) Insufficient stakeholder involvement in the planning and execution of water
supply projects;
b) Inadequate capacity among operators of the schemes both at authority and
community levels;
c) Absence of clearly articulated operation and maintenance (O & M) strategies for
these schemes. Apart from the surface water schemes operated by the State
Water Boards, there has not been any O & M policy for all the other water supply
schemes in the country;
d) Inadequate investment in operation and maintenance of the surface schemes by
most of the State Governments has contributed greatly in the high numbers of
non-functional surface water supply schemes;
e) Near absence of private sector involvement in provision and operation and
maintenance of water supply schemes. As at 2006, with exception of Cross River
State, there was no deliberate and planned involvement of the private sector in
water supply provision in the country. To date, there is no nationally accepted
policy on private sector participation in water supply provision; and
f) Lack of an effective coordination mechanism to coordinate the myriad ministries,
departments and agencies (MDAs) operating in the water in the country;
including donor coordination.
19

20. Recommendations
a) The Federal Government should develop effective
strategies to encourage the State Governments to lunch
their Water Initiatives with emphasis on rehabilitation of
dysfunctional water supply schemes;
b) The FMWR should intensify capacity building of the water
supply operators at all levels. This should begin with
comprehensive Institutional Assessments of Water Supply
and Sanitation Agencies at State and LGA levels to identify
capacity gaps;
c) Sustainable operation and maintenance mechanisms
should be put in place, by all Governments, for increased
output of water supply and adequate maintenance of
infrastructures in the country;
20

21. Recommendations
d) The FMWR should concentrate in assisting water agencies at
States and LGA levels to set up and effectively run
maintenance outfits and help lines for proper O&M. This has
the potentials for job creation as well;
e) The Federal and State Governments should provide the
necessary enabling environment to facilitate the processes of
establishing supply chains for water supply and sanitation
materials, spare parts and repair tools. This also has
tremendous potentials for job creation;
f) The FMWR should, as a matter of urgency, finalize its Sector
Coordination Mechanisms to ensure effective coordination of
the activities and investments of all the water supply
promoters in the country;
21

22. Recommendations
g) The Federal and State Governments should develop and
henceforth adhere to the procedures of involvement of
relevant stakeholders, especially community members, in the
planning and execution of water supply projects;
h) The FMWR, in collaboration with Infrastructure Concession
Regulatory Commission (ICRC), Bureau for Public Enterprises
(BPE) and other relevant MDAs, should immediately set in
motion processes for development of policy, strategies,
legislation and guidelines for effective public-private-
partnership arrangements in the water sector.
22

23. 23