1. 2nd WATER DIALOGUE FORUM
Louis Leakey Auditorium.
National Museum of Kenya.
5TH NOVEMBER 2013
by
ENG. PETER NJAGGAH
Water Services Regulatory Board
1

2. 







Looking Back- Old days of WSS
General Context of WSS-Governance gaps
Water Sector Reforms of 2002
Achievements
Challenges
CoK(2010) and WSS
Lessons learnt
Looking forward
2

3. History – the old days of WSS
Utilities were depts. in
municipality and the
water revenue was used
to fund other
uses.(milking without
feeding)
No independent standard
setting and monitoring
Utilities were under performing /
few professionals and ignored
low-income areas (formal +
informal/slums)
National Government was directly
providing water in rural areas
and handing over to communities
1974 establishment of Ministry of Water Resource
Management and development1974 National Water Master Plan
– Slogan: Water for all by the year 2000
WSS service provision in rural and low income areas was
left to informal / community / NGOs / cartels which filled the
gap – disengagement of Utilities
Result: water coverage for all not improving;
Situation of the poor got worse; (child mortality in
slums 2 times higher than country average)
infrastructure badly worn out; no repayment of loans
3

4. 
The OECD has identified multi-level governance gaps in water policy
related to water resource management and to the delivery of water
services (OECD, 2012)
◦ Policy gap: Overlapping, unclear allocation of roles and
responsibilities
◦ Administrative gap: Mismatch between hydrological and
administrative boundaries
◦ Information gap: Asymmetries of information between central and
sub-national governments [and between utilities and
governments, and consumers]
◦ Capacity gap: Lack of technical capacity, staff, time, knowledge
and infrastructure
◦ Funding gap: Unstable or insufficient revenues of sub-national
governments to effectively implement water policies [and to invest
and operate infrastructure]
◦ Objective gap: Intensive competition between different ministries
◦ Accountability gap: Lack of citizen concern and awareness about
water policy, plus low involvement of water users’ associations
The Water Act 2002 attempted to solve these problems by
separating Policy , Regulation and Enforcement , Asset
Development, Operation and Maintenance

Have these Issues been solved in the Kenyan WSS ?
4

5. Water Act 2002 reform brought appropriate
framework /
Utilities commercialized and regulated and
remained in public hands
Utilities are forced/helped
into the low-income areas
State mobilized resources for asset
development
Monitoring of asset
development
Regulation sets standards, influence sector
development
Pro-poor financing mechanism help to close
the “last mile”
Concept of economies of
scale and formalization is
introduced
WSPs can now act in an enabling framework …
Commercialization: WSPs as State agent have to
achieve government targets and account for
performance
Regulation: standards to be set and enforcement in
the whole value chain of water supply and
sanitation services
Devolution : Enhancing the gains brought on by the
water 2002 by leveraging COK 2010
5

6. Current institutional framework of
water services sub-sector
Ministry of Environment, Water &
Natural Resources
Water Services Regulatory Board
License
Service Provision
Agreement (SPA)
Service
Provision Rules
Water Services Boards (WSBs) –
asset holders
Water Service Providers (WSPs)
Consumers
Upward
feedback/
engagement/
complaints
resolution
Water Action
Groups (WAGs)
Sensitization
Mandated by Water Act 2002 and guided by national policy,
Wasreb regulates 8 WSBs and 103 WSPs
IWA Development Congress 2013
6

7. ACHIEVEMENTS-GROWTH IN WATER SECOTR BUDGET(1)
Water Sector Budget
45,000
40,000
35,000
Kshs, Million
30,000
25,000
Recurrent
20,000
Development
TOTAL
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2004/5
2005/6
(Source : MWI- Annual Water Sector review report 2011-12)
2006/7
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
7

8. Achievements (2)
• Continuous sector performance reporting since 2005/06 increases
transparency and accountability of sector institutions in
guaranteeing rights of consumers
• Steady improvement of data quality, completeness &
representativeness
100
Compliance in %
Positive trend
in number &
ratio of WSPs
submitting
from 2005/06
to 2011/12
120
80
WSPs complying with data
submission requirements
60
47
40
20
59
87
96
99
62
28
0
2005/062006/072007/082008/092009/102010/112011/12
Year
IWA Development Congress 2013
8

9. Achievements (3)
80
• Performance
improvements on
most KPIs since
2005/06; e.g. Water
Coverage
70
50
40
60
60
60
40
30
48
42
40
63
47
38
46
71
68
53
52
Water Coverage 21 urban WSPs
reporting since 2005/06
Water Coverage all urban WSPs
20
10
0
2005/6
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
Viability ratio per WSP size category
(2011/12)
80
% viable
• Regular performance
assessments (e.g.
viability of WSPs) help
inform sector
decision-making/
strategy
2006/7
65
100
80
60
40
20
0
43
Very Large
Large
Very Large
Large
Medium &
Small
Medium & Small
WSP size categoy
IWA Development Congress 2013
9

10. 







Noncompliance in the water services sector- Need for:
a robust Legal Framework at national and County level
which set out clear standards and supported by rules
and regulations that have meaningful penalties.
a strong enforcement mechanism.
need for resources to ensure appropriate monitoring
and compliance
Governance in the water sectorIncomplete reform process has hampered transparency
and accountability in management of resources;
various interests in the deployment of resources.
This will now be exacerbated by the issue of devolution
and multiple power centres.

11.  Realization
of universal access the articulation of coherent vision and a
national strategy that balances the various
demands;
 the mobilisation of resources at national
and county level to ensure universal access;
 the determination of the standards and
enforcement of the same at each level of
government to achieve universal access
guided by the human right to water and
sanitation.

12.  Institutional
strengthening and capacity
building:
 More qualified people to play all the roles
required.
 strong institutional framework.
 continuous improvement of the quality.
 financial resources and outlay of proper
technology
 Stakeholder participation in the sector Meaningful public participation in the
provision of WSS from policy
making, legislation, regulation, asset
development, asset O +M and monitoring.

13. 



Obligation to observe – the normative content of the
right to water and sanitation services and not
retrogress from where it is currently by going
backward
Obligation to respect – refrain from directly
interfering or indirectly with enjoyment of the right
to water
Obligation to protect – state to prevent third parties
from interfering in any way with the enjoyment of
the right to water ( legislation and enforcement and
regulatory system )
Obligation to fulfil – state to facilitate and promote
so that individuals and communities can enjoy the
right
13

14. 

The right to water is best achieved in a
sector operating under uniform norms
and standard on quality, service
delivery, cost recovery and protection
of consumers.
Good performance can only be
ascertained if it is measured against
agreed benchmarks, reported and
audited regulary.
14

15. Lessons Learnt.
• The right to water is best
achieved in a sector operating
under uniform norms and
standard on quality, service
delivery, cost recovery and
protection of consumers.
• Good performance can only be
ascertained if it is measured
against agreed benchmarks,
reported and audited regulary.

16. Devolution of Water Services: lessons learnt.
What to safeguard!!!!
Ring fencing of Revenue: to be ploughed back
exclusively to the water sector to grow it.
Protection of assets: Most asset are cross county in
benefit and should remain so to avoid disruption of
services.
Shared resources: Shared resources and their
sustainable management for future generation and
economic prosperity must be maintained.
Investment into the water sector. Since the reforms of
2002 positive trend in sector funding has been registered
with huge support from donors and development
partners.

17. B
U
L
K
S
U
P
P
L
Y
Bulk Supply
Mzima
Springs
Tiwi
Boreholes
Baricho
Wellfield
Marere
Springs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D
I
S
T
Kililfi
R
Mombasa
I
Malindi
Voi
B
Likoni
U
Kwale
Mombasa
T
South Coast
North Coast
I
O
N
17

18. WATER IS A NATIONAL
RESOURCE
I won’t pay for
water, Joho tells
counties
“ IT WILL BE WRONG FOR
COUNTIES TO DEMAND
REVENUE
• Taita-Taveta Governor John
Mruttu targets revenue
from water supplied to
Mombasa county from
Mzima Springs in his county.
• Kilifi Governor Amason
Kingi …… county would
demand a share of revenue
generated from Baricho
Water Works in Kilifi.

19. Counties’ water cash bid opposed
• “Taita Taveta,
Kilifi and Kwale
counties have no
mandate over the
production and
supply of water in
Coast”-CEO-CWSB

20. Devolution of Water Services: lessons learnt.
Summary of Key Messages
Water services sector is already commercialised for
better service delivery. Counties should continue with
commercialisation.
Smooth devolution of water services call for counties to
drive reform but without disrupting service delivery.
Well performing WSPs can play a role in strengthening
the legitimacy of the County governments.
Devolution of water services still require greater clarity
and certainity on pertinent issues.

21. Getting governance right ?
Water Budget Speech tells water
governance arrangements have
been developed which will allow
“communities to participate in
their own development”

22. Thank you for
your attention!
Contact: njaggah@wasreb.go.ke
WASREB URL: www.wasreb.go.ke
IWA Development Congress 2013
22