1) The document summarizes the results of a water point mapping exercise conducted in Isiolo County, Kenya. It found that 61% of improved water sources were functional while 39% were non-functional. 2) Management of water points was split between community-based organizations (41%), private individuals (25%), and no clear management system (27%). The majority (58%) of water points supplied water without requiring payment. 3) Key issues identified that contributed to non-functionality included a lack of clear ownership and management practices, low willingness to pay for services, and insufficient routine maintenance. The data was seen as valuable for stakeholders to address systemic challenges and improve rural water service delivery.

1. SNV - Building on Water Point Mapping for Improved Water Services
Governance
Kisumu County
Presented by: Binagwaho Gakunju

2. SNV Sector Focus
WASH Agriculture
Renewable Energy

3. Programmes in the WASH Sector
3
Sanitation Results
Programme
Non-revenue
water
Rural WASH (Water
mapping, Functionality)

4. Context: The Sustainability Question for Rural Water
4
• Post Construction
support- a big challenge.
• Non-functionality 30-40%
• Rural data gap
• Management
‘to think that communities can
be empowered to manage
fairly complex water systems
no longer seems realistic. Just
as it is utopian to think that
the government can manage
and maintain all the rural
systems…’

5. Functionality of Rural Water Supplies Approach
5
Partnership
with
KEWASNET

6. Water Point Mapping
• Water Point Mapping (WPM) has been defined as an exercise
whereby the geographical positions of all Water Points (WPs)
are gathered in addition to management, technical and
demographical information. This information is collected using
GPS and a questionnaire at each water point locationt. The data
is entered into a geographical information system and then
correlated with available demographic, administrative, and
physical data. The information is displayed using digital maps
(Water Aid, 2005).
6

7. Mandated Institutions - Why Water Point Mapping & After WPM
1. Evidence Based Policy and
Investment planning
2. For effective targeting
interventions (market)
3. Improved Equity and inclusion
4. Support coordination of WASH
platforms
5. Monitoring and Evaluation
• Currently making the case for
WPM in partner programme
counties;
• End Goal 1 – Institutionalising
water point functionality
monitoring for mandated
institutions
• End Goal 2 – Develop sustainable
consumer feedback mechanisms
as part of the service delivery
approach

8. SNV Lessons – Challenges of WPM Process
• Training and mobilisation of state and non-state actors took more time than expected
• Availability of community members to respond to some questions in the field
(Institutional memory of water projects)
• Terrain - Difficulties in accessing some areas
• Weather conditions - Heavy rains and flooding in some areas caused delay, some days
were not covered within the short time frame
• Community engagement - Lack of willingness to participate and community members
being unaware of the exercise or expecting some financial gains before volunteering
some information
• Security- A number of the areas are still riddled with high insecurity and cannot be
accessed
• Development of sustainable updating mechanism for the data uptake
8

9. Some WPM Indicators
• Funded by (Whom/Year)
• Improved or Unimproved
• Length of time non-functional
• Reason for non-functionality
• Ownership
• Registered Service Provider ( through what means)
• Management Committee (In Place? By laws? Election process?)
• Number of women in management committee
• Estimated No of people served
• Quality standards assessment (Bacteriological, distance,
sufficient quantities etc.)
9

10. 10

11. Results of WP Mapping
3 June 2015
Northern Water Services
Board
11
• The WPM process in Isiolo County began on 22nd May, 2013 and
was carried out for a period of 30 days by 2 teams.
• A total of 267 water sources (229 WPs and 38 piped schemes)
mainly within Central and Oldonyiro Divisions
• 75% of all mapped water sources are improved while 25% are
unimproved
• The rest of this presentation only concerns the mapped points

12. Functionality Status
• Of the mapped points from improved sources, 61%
are functional while the rest, about 39% are non-
functional.
3 June 2015
Northern Water Services
Board
12

13. Maintenance of WPs
• From the mapped points, the largest proportion at
31% of WP are not maintained at all and were at
extreme risk of becoming non-functional.
• In 8% of the cases it was not clear if routine
maintenance takes place.
3 June 2015
Northern Water Services
Board
13

14. Management of WPs
• CBOs play a significant role in the management of WPs
accounting for 41% of all improved WPs. Private individual
manage 25% while 27% of WPs had no management system
in place according to respondents
• Raises questions on the responsibility and accountability for
service delivery
3 June 2015
Northern Water Services
Board
14

15. Payment for water use
• Majority (58%) of WPs mapped supply water without
requiring any payment for the services.
3 June 2015
Northern Water Services
Board
15

16. WPM Findings - Systemic Issues of Non-Functionality
• Lack of Clear ownership structure
• Availability of easy money to run Water Operations (“Market distortion”)
• A lack of credible Governance & Management Practices
• Leaders place Personal Interests above communal interests
• Low Willingness to Pay for service and Contribute to Project development
• Poor attitude towards routine Maintenance
• Unregulated Service provision
• Expertise not available at Community for Operations and Maintenance

17. WAY FORWARD
• Despite the challenges, the data from the exercise holds
valuable information for stakeholders on systemic issues and
best practices in management and operations of RWSS
• SNV is engaging stakeholders to leverage national and
development partner resources to update and upscale Water
Point Mapping (institutionalization, consumer feedback etc.)
• Policy and advocacy – The value of combining evidence and
collaboration to address issues of accountability (County WASH
Platform tool)
17