ACF Water Governance Study in Kenya Analyzes Devolution and Access Issues

Funded by:
ACF - France
ACF - United States of America
WASH governance analysis Report
Kenya
Alix Lerebours
a.lerebours@gmail.com
WASH
Study on Governance
KENYA, August 2014
Kenya, August 2014

ACF - Wash governance Study in Kenya - Report – Alix Lerebours – August 2014 II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thanks go to the people who launched and supported this project: ACF-mission in Kenya, including Philippe Carette,
County Director, Charles Matemo, WASH Coordinator, Joy Kiruntimi, Deputy County Director and Titus Mung’ou,
Advocacy and communication Manager. Then the Advocacy Department of ACF Paris who have funded the study,
along with ACF WASH department in New York, and the Kenyan mission. Finally, the Scientific & Technical
Department of ACF-France, Ioana Kornet, S&T Department Director and Jean Lapègue, Senior WASH Advisor.
Statement on Copyright
© Action Against Hunger | ACF-International
Unless otherwise indicated, reproduction is authorised on condition that the source is credited. If reproduction or use of texts and
visual materials (sound, images, software, etc.) is subject to prior authorization, such authorization will render null and void the
above-mentioned general authorization and will clearly indicate any restrictions on use.

ACF - Wash governance Study in Kenya - Report – Alix Lerebours – August 2014 III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...............................................................................................................................................................II
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................................................... III
ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................................................................................V
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES.............................................................................................................................................VI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................................1
I- INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................................................5
A – Definition of water governance ........................................................................................................................................5
B – Definition and basic principles of advocacy ...................................................................................................................7
B1) Advocacy: a tool to complement ACF’s programs ..............................................................................................7
B2) The 5 pillars of the ACF International Advocacy Strategy.................................................................................8
B3) Complementarity regarding advocacy, programmes and technical research ...................................................9
II- PRESENTATION OF THE STUDY.....................................................................................................................................10
A – The Context: Kenya, Tana River and Nairobi .............................................................................................................10
A1) Short overview on the water sector in Kenya: .................................................................................................10
A2) Context of the Tana River County.....................................................................................................................12
A3) Context of Nairobi................................................................................................................................................12
A4) ACF intervention in Kenya .................................................................................................................................13
B – Scope of the study .............................................................................................................................................................14
B1) Objectives of the Study........................................................................................................................................14
B2) Outcomes of the Study.........................................................................................................................................14
C – Methodology of the study ................................................................................................................................................14

ACF - Wash governance Study in Kenya - Report – Alix Lerebours – August 2014 IV
III- FINDINGS OF THE STUDY................................................................................................................................................17
A - At National level: the devolution process, context and analysis................................................................................17
A1) The Water Act 2002 and the Water sector institutions .....................................................................................17
A2) The Constitution 2010 and the Water Bill 2014.................................................................................................21
B - At rural local level: the example of Tana River .............................................................................................................27
B1) Access to Water, KAP survey findings.................................................................................................................27
B2) WMC: challenges and opportunities.....................................................................................................................31
B3) Key underlying issues...............................................................................................................................................33
C - At urban local level: the example of slums and peri-urban areas in Nairobi...........................................................38
1) Urban challenges and opportunities ........................................................................................................................38
2) Example of projects visited .......................................................................................................................................44
IV - CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................................................................46
V - RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................................................................................49
A - To ACF Kenya Mission ....................................................................................................................................................49
A1) General recommendations...................................................................................................................................49
A2) Advocacy’s areas for engagement.......................................................................................................................50
A3) Programmatic recommendations........................................................................................................................51
B – To other ACF-missions....................................................................................................................................................55
ANNEXES..........................................................................................................................................................................................56
A - List of key documents sent to the team .........................................................................................................................56
B – Water Governance.............................................................................................................................................................57
C – Water as a human right: the principles.........................................................................................................................588
D – GLAAS important figures for Kenya............................................................................................................................59
D – Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................................................61
E – List of interviews and meetings.......................................................................................................................................63

ACF - Wash governance Study in Kenya - Report – Alix Lerebours – August 2014 V
ABBREVIATIONS
ACF Action contre la Faim / Action against Hunger
AMREF African Medical and Research Foundation
ASAL Arid and Semi-Arid Lands
CAACs Catchment Area Advisory Committees
CBO Community based organisation
CDF Constituency Development Fund
CLTS Community-Led Total Sanitation
CPC Community Project Cycle
DSDO District Social Development Officer
EHSWG Environmental Hygiene & Sanitation Working Group
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
GAA / WHH German Agro Action / Welt Hunger Hilfe
KAP Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MWI Ministry of Water and Irrigation
MEWNR Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources
NIB National Irrigation Board
NCC Nairobi City Council
NEMA National Environmental Management Authority
NGO Non-governmental organisation
NWCPC National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation
NWSC Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company
SPA Service Provision Agreement
UNICEF United Nations Children Fund
WAB Water Appeals Board
WASREB Water Services Regulatory Board
WMC Water Management Committee
WRMA Water Resources Management Authority
WRUAs Water Resources Users Associations
WSB Water Services Board
WSP Water Service Providers
WSTF Water Sanitation Trust Fund
WUAs Water Users Associations

ACF - Wash governance Study in Kenya - Report – Alix Lerebours – August 2014 VI
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1: Dimensions of water governance ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Map of ACF intervention in Kenya ...............................................................................................................................13
Figure 3: The institutional framework of the Water Act 2002 ...................................................................................................18
Figure 4: The institutional framework of the Water Bill 2014 .................................................................................................222
Figure 6: Source of drinking water ..................................................................................................................................................27
Figure 7: Fetching time for water ...................................................................................................................................................27
Figure 8: Access to hygiene and sanitation ....................................................................................................................................28
Figure 9: Water management in the surveyed communities.......................................................................................................29
Table 1: The five pillars of ACF Advocacy Strategy...................................................................................................................... 8
Table 2: Use of rinking water sources and sanitation facilities (JMP 2014).............................................................................20
Table 3: Sample households and clusters for the KAP survey...................................................................................................20
Table 4: Roles of Water sector Institutions under the Water Act 2002....................................................................................20
Table 5: Change of names and roles of key institutions between Water Act 2002 and Water Bill 2014..........................244
Table 6: The state of TAWASCO in Hola (Impact Report 2013)...........................................................................................365
Table 7: Water providers in Huruma slum ..................................................................................................................................409

ACF - Wash governance Study in Kenya - Report – Alix Lerebours – August 2014 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
780 million people in the World lack access to an
improved water source. Unclean water is the second
biggest killer of children: 1.8 million children die every
year as a result of diarrhoea of other diseases caused by
unclean water and poor sanitation. Health costs
associated with poor water and sanitation have a big
impact on productivity and economic growth, trapping
vulnerable households in cycles of poverty. It has been
already agreed, that this water-crisis is not, at least not
only, about scarcity, but mostly about water resource
mismanagement. In other terms, it is a “governance
crisis”. Governance systems “determine who gets what
water, when and how, and decide who has the right to
water and related services.” Even if water governance is
specific to each context, some good governance
principles have been widely accepted, and agreed on by
ACF: it should be participatory, consensus oriented,
accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and
efficient, equitable and inclusive, follow the rule of law
and aim at sustainability.
The Republic of Kenya has a population of
approximately 43 million in 2012. The population is
diverse, with 42 different communities, young, with
73% of residents aged below 30, and rapidly growing.
The population is mostly rural (75.6%).Access to water
is generally low in the country and especially in rural
areas and slums, and the quality of services is quite poor.
According to the JMP 2014, in 2012, 62% of the
population had access to improved water sources, with
an important gap between urban areas (82%) and rural
areas (55%). The figures regarding sanitation are even
lower, with 30% of the Kenyans having access to
sanitation facilities, with 31% in urban areas and 29% in
rural areas. Kenya is a water-scarce country, with less
that 1000m3 per capita of renewable freshwater
supplies. 80% of the country is arid and semi-arid lands.
A study on water governance
To address better this situation, ACF decided to
conduct a study on WASH governance. The objectives
were to get a clear, documented picture of the
devolution process in regards to the water sector, which
includes up-to-date reforms and plans of reforms,
foreseen gaps and strategic areas for engagement. This
study aimed also at pointing out hindrance in local
governance that limits access to water for the most
vulnerable along with possible solutions/approaches.
Finally, the study looked at the appropriation of the
services by the community, to identify gaps and
opportunities, and possible ways of improving it.
This study has been conducted within ACF during 2
months (June-August 2014), most of the time was spent
in Kenya, including two weeks in Tana River County
(22nd June - 4 July 2014). Two approaches were used: a
qualitative one, through interviews of stakeholders of
the water supply sector at national and local level, using
the examples of Tana River County and Nairobi, and
through readings; and a quantitative one, through a
survey of 210 households in Tana River.
An important devolution process
The new Constitution 2010 passed by a wide margin.
Among other things, it delegates more power to local
government, and gives Kenyans a bill of rights
recognizing the right to water and sanitation. Kenya has
now only two levels of Government: National and
Counties. The country is divided into 47 semi-
autonomous counties, headed by governors, who were
elected in the first general election under the new
constitution in March 2013.
The ongoing devolution process brings many changes to
the water sector. Indeed, the Water Act 2002 had
established a new institutional framework, pyramidal,
with a clear separation between water resource
management and water service provision. This good
overall framework allowed important gains and an
increase in the resource invested in the sector. However,
there was in practice a low focus on water resources
management, a lack of coordination and communication
between actors and levels of institutions, a weak
monitoring and evaluation system, and an inadequate
feedback and complaint mechanisms.

The new Constitution of Kenya of 2010 introduced
major changes to the country institutional framework,
and to the water sector: a devolution of most powers
from the national government to the counties, including
water and sanitation service provision, and the
constitutional recognition of the right to water and
sanitation. Following these changes, the Water Act 2002
needs to be revised and a Water Bill 2014 has been
drafted and is now in Parliament. Devolution is often a
good step towards good governance. In the Kenyan
context, it should improve the accountability of the
institutions and the providers, their responsiveness, and
give local solutions to local problems.
According to the Water Bill 2014, the right to water and
sanitation is recognised, water resource management will
remain the responsibility of the national government,
and the county governments are now in charge of water
and sanitation services provision. Some gaps identified
in the Water Bill 2014 are an unclear link between water
resource management institutions and the counties, and
between the national service provision institutions and
the counties. Regarding the process, the distribution of
roles is still quite blurred and there was few
communication and information on the process,
especially at local level. Finally, the current low
capacities of the counties, along with a focus on impact,
may limit the realisation of the universal access to water
and sanitation aimed by the country.
At rural local level: the example of Tana River
Tana River County is located in Eastern Kenya,
covering an area of 38,782 km² with an estimated
population of 269,164 people. Its only permanent
source of water (Tana River) traverses the northern
border of the county, which makes the inhabitant
community heavily reliant on seasonal rivers during the
wet season and their river beds for water during the dry
season. It is estimated that 72% of the population live
below the poverty line. In March 2013, 62% of the
County population was noted to obtain water from
unprotected water sources. Less than half of the
population has latrine facilities with average sanitation
coverage of 30%. In Tana River County rural areas, the
Water Management Committee (WMC) model is the
most present.
A quantitative analysis conducted in 17 villages shows
that if most people have protected access to good
quality water, the fetching time is very high and the
quantity is probably too low. Moreover, still 30% of the
people do not have access to safe water. Access to
sanitation and hygiene is very low with half of the
people with no access to them. The possibility of
participation of people of the management of their
water point is average: most have a WMC and half meet
regularly. There is then room for improvement to allow
people to participate to water-related decisions,
especially since other stakeholders like the headmen and
chiefs also take decisions. Moreover, the knowledge of
the people on the management is not very high. This
can be linked with a high number of people not paying
for water. The people who pay seem more aware of the
management of the point. This shows an interesting link
between knowledge of the system, possibility of
participation, and payment for water, and thus
sustainability of the water point, and access to water.
One of the main challenges of the rural water points in
Tana River is the payment of water. It is very difficult to
make sure that people pay for water, and when they do,
it is often a very low price. This low payment does not
provide the community with enough money to face big
breakdowns of the well and threaten the functionality of
the water points. This issue of payment is also the result
of a low accountability and transparency of the WMC.
This is also linked with a problem of ownership: if the
community feels that the infrastructure in their village
belongs to an NGO, the government, or to no one, they
won’t take responsibility for it. They rely on the NGOs
or the government to maintain and most of the time to
come rehabilitate it. The communication between
committees and communities is key for the success of a
project and its accountability. Although most know the
district water engineer, they don’t know about the
current devolution and about the new set-up of the
county. Thus they cannot ask the county for help.
Although the WMCs face important challenges, that will
need to be addressed, there are also opportunities on
which we can build to improve the governance and thus
the sustainability of the projects: there are regular
meetings between WMC and community, devolution
brings institutions closer to the people. Some people
were trained for minor repairs, women are present in
WMC, often as treasurer, vulnerable people rarely pay
for water, and there are strong committees and
communities that could be used as models.

At county level, we observe a lack of capacities (human
resources, cars, computers...) and the absence of a good
monitoring system that impact the planning. Moreover,
some issues are overlooked: multiple-use water, water
resource management, and sanitation. A good spare
parts chain is needed, along with more communication
with all the stakeholders on who does what and how to
contact them, especially between counties and
communities.
Regarding the officials water service providers, they are
often not viable and operate thanks to subsidies. The
lack of resources and of sewerage system prevents the
implementation of sanitation facilities, and access to safe
drinking-water for all. Moreover, political issue after the
devolution regarding the transfer of schemes that were
run by another WSP (Madogo) or institution (Bura)
limits it too.
At urban local level: the example of slums and peri-
urban areas in Nairobi
ACF does not work in urban settings in Kenya. In-
depth urban and peri-urban governance analysis would
require more information, but key points have been
highlighted.
Rapid population growth (2.7% p.a.) and urbanisation
pose a continuous challenge to meeting national and
international development targets. Contrary to rural
areas, in urban and peri-urban areas, there is one or
several Water Service Providers (cf section II), which
operate under a contract with the Water Service Boards,
the Service Provision Agreements, following the
standards set by WASREB. The objectives and tariffs of
each WSP are negotiated with the WSB and WASREB.
The latest is also in charge of monitoring the WSPs’
performance and work.
Although there are great needs in urban and peri-urban
areas, the formal WSPs do not focus on the slums and
the peri-urban poor. Moreover these areas would
probably fall under the subsidised prices. However, a
WSP has to serve the poor in its area; it is part of the
performance targets and evaluation. These areas suffer
also of inequality of attention. Sewerage systems are
often non-existent or outdated and limited. Sanitation
facilities are few, most of the times shared by a lot of
people and very expensive. Finally, Corruption is not
only present in the water sector, nor only in urban and
peri-urban areas, but it is a challenge that cannot be
forgotten. Water cartels (see later) are present and sell
water at high prices, politicians use their influence to
prioritize their areas, companies discharge untreated
water in the rivers in impunity...
Regarding the slums, 50% of the population of Nairobi
lives in these informal settlements. The Nairobi Water
and Sewerage Company’s coverage over its area is 74%
regarding water and 73% for sanitation. In average, it
supplies water 16 hours a day. Non-revenue water is
estimated to be of 42%. People have low access to water
and sanitation, as the facilities are not numerous enough
and the prices not affordable. The double standards
from the government along with the water cartels are a
cause of it. Moreover, ageing infrastructures, leakages
and burst pipes, in addition to illegal connection shows
the weakness of the systems in place. Finally, the poor
and especially the women and youth, are not much
involved in decision-making processes.
Peri-urban areas have their own challenges. They are
often neglected, and as an interface between urban and
rural context, they face challenges and opportunities of
both set-ups. The demand for WASH services is diverse
and changing. Agriculture is also important and they
often use wastewater and toxic river water for irrigation,
resulting in health hazards. As they are sometimes
outside of the area of the formal WSPs, they may have
to use small or middle scale water schemes, but their
management by the community is a challenge.
Conclusion:
In conclusion this study shows the link between WASH
governance issues and access to water and sanitation.
Each context and county have their own challenges and
specificities on which ACF needs to build. The
devolution process is reshaping the water and health
sectors and stakeholders like ACF are to adapt to it. It
brings good opportunities of cooperation with local
actors and of improvement of the WASH situation in
the country. It will be important to liaise and cooperate
with the counties, to increase the sustainability of
WASH facilities in the country and to address the
increasing demand of the population.

Recommendations:
As a result of this study, recommendations were made
to ACF-Kenya missions in several areas. First regarding
the devolution process, it is important to note that the
counties have become very important partners, ACF
already cooperates with them, and this should be
continued and enhance when possible, while integrating
ACF’s approach (for malnutrition and food security).
Strengthening WESCOORD, to make it a real platform
of coordination, will also bring more coherence in
NGOs’ work.
Advocacy is key to ensure equitable access to water and
sanitation. ACF should strengthen its team and advocate
for the following subjects, integrating them in its
advocacy strategy, aiming at the incorporation of
community participation in the county structures,
targeting of marginalized people, training of
communities, using community-based advocacy.
To improve rural programmes, key is to take more time
with the communities, to build a trust relationship and
ownership of the facilities. Strengthening the WMC,
developing strong links between communities and
counties, and contributing to develop a spare parts chain
will improve the sustainability of the programmes.
Finally, capacity building of the county, a good mapping
of facilities and stakeholders and stronger resource
management will allow the counties to perform better.
Towns and peri-urban areas call for collaboration with
both the WSP and the county, for a deep analysis of
stakeholders, while taking enough time to avoid failures
of programmes. Looking at what other actors are doing
can help designing a good model of governance.
Finally, for slums and peri-urban areas programmes, a
deeper analysis will be needed, but partnerships with
stakeholders already in place, good relationships with all
actors, and innovations are key for success, along with
addressing water safety and multiple use of water, which
are very important in these areas.

I- INTRODUCTION
A – Definition of water governance
780 million people in the World lack access to an improved water source1. Unclean water is the second biggest killer of children:
1.8 million children die every year as a result of diarrhoea of other diseases caused by unclean water and poor sanitation2. Health
costs associated with poor water and sanitation have a big impact on productivity and economic growth, trapping vulnerable
households in cycles of poverty. Thus, one of the Millennium Development Goals is to halve, by the year 2015, the proportion
of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation3.
It has been already agreed, that this water-crisis is not, at least not only, about scarcity, but mostly about water resource
mismanagement. In other terms, it is a “governance crisis”4. Indeed, the UN World Water Development Report of 2006 says
that “mismanagement, corruption, lack of appropriate institutions, bureaucratic inertia, and a shortage of new investments in
building human capacity as well as physical infrastructure” are largely responsible for today’s situation5.
Definition of water governance
Governance systems “determine who gets what water, when and how, and decide who has the right to water and related
services.”6 So they are not limited to government, but include local authorities, the private sector and civil society. “Water
governance is defined by the political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place, and which directly or
indirectly affect the use, development and management of water resources and the delivery of water service delivery at different
levels of society”7.
Water governance addresses, among other things: principles such as equity and efficiency in water resource and services
allocation and distribution; the formulation and implementation of water policies and legislation; and the clarification of the roles
and the responsibilities of the stakeholders (government, civil society, private sector).
The importance of water governance
How water resources are governed impacts largely people's livelihood opportunities. Improving water governance will thus
provide one cornerstone to alleviate poverty. Water governance is composed of four dimensions namely social, economic,
political empowerment and environmental sustainability.
The social dimension is linked to equitable use of water resources. Water is not only unevenly distributed in time and space, it is
also unevenly distributed among a society. The economic dimension relates to the efficient use of water resources and the role of
water in overall economic growth. The political empowerment dimension points at granting water stakeholders and citizens at
large equal democratic opportunities to influence and monitor political processes and outcomes. Finally, the environmental
sustainability dimension shows that improved governance allows for enhanced sustainable use of water resources and ecosystem
integrity.
1 WHO/UNICEF, Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation, 2012
2 UNDP, Human Development Report, 2006
3 UN, MDG 7, Target 10
4 OECD, Water governance in OECD countries: a multi-level approach, 2011
5 UN, World Water Development Report, 2006
6 UN, World Water Development Report, 2006
7 Global Water Partnership, Effective Water Governance, 2003

Figure 1: Dimensions of water governance
Good water governance
Kemal Dervis of the UNDP analysed that the sources of the water crisis are not the same everywhere, but some common
themes can be found. First, water and sanitation are rarely political priorities, then, the poorest are often paying the highest prices
for water, and finally, the international community has failed to prioritize water and sanitation. He writes in the Human
Development Report of 2006: “For some, the global water crisis is about absolute shortages of physical supply. This Report
argues that the roots of the crisis in water can be traced to poverty, inequality and unequal power relationships, as well as flawed
water management policies that exacerbate scarcity.”8
Good governance matters a lot for economic, social and environmental outcomes. Conditions for good governance are
accountability, participation, transparency, predictability and responsiveness. If these conditions are not verified, we talk about
poor governance. Poor governance leads to increased political and social risk, along with deterioration in the capacity to address
problems. Governance systems should facilitate action and not create an obstacle to development.
Social analysis has shown that there is a strong link between better governance and better development outcomes9. A stable and
just social order based on clear institutional rules helps poverty reduction. Effective governance is thus essential to poverty
reduction and “can help the poor to help themselves”10. Poor governance is a barrier to development and makes development
channels weaker and more vulnerable to change. So, institutional and structural reforms are needed to turn poor governance into
more effective governance, and to ensure accountability, national capacities, policies' implementation, participation...
9 Kaufmann et al. (1999)
10 Effective water governance

Key indicators of water governance
Even if water governance is specific to each context, some good governance principles have been widely accepted, and agreed on
by ACF: it should be participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable
and inclusive, follow the rule of law and aim at sustainability11.
The participation of all, and particularly of the most vulnerable, is needed to guarantee the quality, relevance and effectiveness of
government policies. Broad participation is built on social mobilization and freedom of association and speech. Transparency
and accountability are built on the free flow of information. Governance institutions need to communicate among the actors and
stakeholders in direct and various ways. The institutions should also work in an open manner to guarantee transparency,
especially with regards to financial transactions12, and explain and take responsibility for what they do.
Good water governance implies that the interest of all groups is taken into account, and that decisions are based on the rule of
law. Legal and regulatory framework should be fair and enforced impartially. The system is efficient regarding economic
efficiency, but also political, social and environmental efficiency. The long-term sustainability is an objective, in order to
guarantee access to water for the future generations.
Interest of water governance for an NGO like ACF
A study on water governance is quite new for ACF. This is however a good opportunity for an NGO to enhance the impacts of
its programs, through advocacy and strengthening the institutions and the civil society. A study on the water governance set in a
country allows spotting the issues, the reforms needed and the quick wins that the NGO can accomplish. It is a way to think its
exit strategy and to hand over the water facilities knowing that they will be supported by an effective institutional set.
B – Definition and basic principles of advocacy
B 1) Advocacy: a tool to complement ACF’s programs
ACF International is an NGO with extensive field experience which has witnessed the effects of hunger for more than three
decades. It is therefore in a clear position to report and advocate on issues relating to hunger and to influence change at political
level. Its work in around 45 countries to tackle hunger and undernutrition provides it with unrivalled, specialized evidence that
can be used to inform and influence major stakeholders. ACF has been carrying out advocacy work as a joint strategic effort
since 2005 with what was initially called the “Hunger Watch” project. With the development of ACF’s International Strategic
Plan (ISP 2010-2015), advocacy became a key pillar of ACF’s strategic ambitions. In October 2012, ACF International adopted
its new International Advocacy Strategy for the period 2012-2015.
The ACF International Strategic Plan (ISP 2010-2015) states that “advocacy is an essential tool for the organization to accomplish our
mission and realise our vision of a world without hunger”. This is particularly true for ACF to achieve aims 3 and 4 of its ISP.
12 Effective water governance

There are many definitions of advocacy but fundamentally, advocacy is a set of organised activities designed to influence policies
and actions of those in power, with the aim of achieving lasting and positive change. Hence, advocacy requires a good
understanding of power relationships (who makes decisions and at what level, and who has the power to influence them?) and
sets out to effectively engage with and influence the multiple expressions of power to achieve a desired change.
B 2) The 5 pillars of the ACF International Advocacy Strategy
The ACF International Advocacy Strategy reflects the organisation’s advocacy priorities and goals. It is a roadmap guiding our
actions in the near future and reflects our long term ambitions as an internationally recognised humanitarian organisation.
Key Pillars of Advocacy Action
Pillar Pillar 1:
Scale up diagnosis
prevention and
treatment of Severe
Acute Malnutrition
Pillar 2:
Mitigate the effects of
seasonal hunger and
recurring crises
Pillar 3:
Promote sustainable
access to food and water
for all
Pillar 4:
Drive Change on
global humanitarian
issues
Objective ACF calls for the
recognition of SAM as a
major health issue and
integration of its
prevention and
treatment into
strengthened national
health systems. Its
ultimate aim is to
achieve universal
coverage of SAM
treatment.
ACF wants to promote
seasonal thinking in risk
management and
development planning It
is necessary to adopt a
twin track approach,
which ensures that the
immediate needs of
vulnerable populations
are met whilst
simultaneously building
their long term resilience.
This calls for a rethink in
the way humanitarian and
development programmes
are conceived and
delivered.
ACF promotes the
development of nutrition
sensitive food security
and livelihood policies.
Furthermore, ACF
advocates for better
access to clean water,
good sanitation, a healthy
environment and
adequate hygiene
practices. Indeed, these
are all factors that have an
impact on mortality and
morbidity due to
undernutrition and other
preventable childhood
diseases.
ACF believes that
secure access to
vulnerable
populations and the
safety and security of
humanitarian workers
must constantly be
reaffirmed and
preserved. ACF feels
it is its duty to defend
the core principles of
humanitarian aid
(neutrality,
impartiality, humanity
and independence).
Pillar 5 : Bring ACF advocacy to its full potential
This transversal objective appears as a sine qua non condition for the achievement of our four external objectives (i.e.
without it, none of the other pillars would be achievable. It will give rise to the capacity building of ACF staff in
advocacy techniques and planning.
Table 1: The five pillars of ACF Advocacy strategy13
13 Source: ACF International Advocacy Toolkit, 2013

B 3) Complementarity regarding advocacy, programmes and technical research
Advocacy is interrelated with the rest of ACF’s programmes, research and technical work. The three areas support, complement
and strengthen one another. Indeed, its evidence-based advocacy draws legitimacy and credibility from its technical knowledge
and research and its operations and direct work with communities in emergency, recovery and development contexts. ACF
expertise in the fields of nutrition, food security & livelihoods and water & sanitation adds the most value to its voice in the
political scene. This will enable ACF to become a force for change. In turn, ACF advocacy also supports its programmes when,
for example, it defend humanitarian access to populations or zones in a country or promote the elaboration or improvement of
national technical protocols.
Through this advocacy ACF promote its technical positions and evidence to political authorities and institutions, seeking to
influence not only technical frameworks but also policy or financial frameworks to achieve its objectives. The added-value of
advocacy is thus critical, since it is the most powerful way of fostering the strong political will that is necessary to achieve its
mission of a world free from hunger.

II - PRESENTATION OF THE STUDY
A – The Context: Kenya, Tana River and Nairobi
A 1) Short overview on the water sector in Kenya:
The Republic of Kenya, and its capital Nairobi, is a country in the African Great Lakes Region of East Africa, with a population
of approximately 43 million in 201214. The population is diverse, with 42 different communities, young, with 73% of residents
aged below 30, and rapidly growing15. The population is mostly rural (75.6%)16.
Kenya’s climate varies from tropical along the coast to temperate inland to arid in the north and northeast parts of the country. It
has a warm, humid climate along its Indian Ocean coastline, and around Lake Victoria, a cool climate near Mount Kenya, and
arid and semi-arid areas in the north-eastern regions.
The economy of Kenya is the largest by GDP in Southeast and Central Africa. Kenya is still a poor developing country with a
Human Development Index (HDI) of 0.519, putting the country at position 145 out of 186. About 46% of Kenyans live below
the poverty level17, and 16% of them are underweight (moderate or severe)18 Agriculture is the main employer (24% of GDP for
75% of the workforce), but is considered as largely inefficient. The service industry, and especially tourism, higher education and
telecommunications, is also a major economic driver (61% of GDP). Industry and manufacturing is the smallest sector that
accounts for 14% of the GDP. Nairobi is home to Kibera, one of the world’s largest slums. Kenya is also East and Central
Africa’s hub for financial services.
Independent since 12 December 1963, Kenya is now a presidential representative democratic republic: the president is both the
head of state and head of government, executive power is exercised by the government, legislative power is vested in the
government and the National Assembly, and the Judiciary is independent for other powers. In 2012, Kenya ranked 139th out of
176 countries in the Corruption Perception Index of Transparency International, also good developments have been seen
regarding curbing corruption over the last few years: creation of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), codes of
conduct for government agencies, Open Data Portal19...
After election riots in 2007-2008, a coalition government was formed and a new constitution was proposed to the people of
Kenya through a referendum on 4 August 2010. The new Constitution passed by a wide margin20. Among other things, it paved
way to establishment of county governments that delegates more power to the local government, and gives Kenyans a bill of
rights recognizing the right to water and sanitation. Kenya has now only two levels of Government: National and Counties. The
country is divided into 47 semi-autonomous counties, headed by governors, who were elected in the first general election under
the new constitution in March 201321. Competencies were transferred to the counties through the devolution process, including
water and health services provision.
14 Source World Bank : http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/kenya
15Fertility rate = 4.5, population annual growth rate 1990-2012 = 2.8, 2012-2030 = 2.4. Source Unicef:
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/kenya_statistics.html#85
16 Source Unicef : http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/kenya_statistics.html#85
17 Source World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/country/kenya
18 Source Unicef : http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/kenya_statistics.html#85
19 https://www.opendata.go.ke/
20 67% of Kenyan voters
21 Republic of Kenya, Constitution, 2010

Access to water is generally low in the country and especially in rural areas and slums, and the quality of services is quite poor.
According to the JMP 2014, in 2012, 62% of the population had access to improved water sources, with an important gap
between urban areas (82%) and rural areas (55%). The figures regarding sanitation are even lower, with 30% of the Kenyans
having access to sanitation facilities, with 31% in urban areas and 29% in rural areas22. Few water service providers provide
continuous water supply. The situation is generally improving, although urban water coverage has decreased.
Kenya is a water-scarce country, with less that 1000m3 per capita of renewable freshwater supplies. 80% of the country is arid
and semi-arid lands. Seasonal and regional scarcity exacerbates the difficulty to improve the situation. Indeed, the country
experiences every three to four years droughts and floods. This scarcity during the dry season, especially in case of droughts, can
lead to conflicts among communities, most of all between farmers and pastoralists. It is also important to note that a recent
discovery has been made in Turkana of a huge aquifer, which can be a sign of other unexplored resources in the country. Kenya
is divided into five drainage basins: Lake Victoria (covering 8.0% of the country), Rift valley and inland lakes (22.5%), Athi River
and coast (11.5%), Tana River (21.7%), Ewaso Ng’iro (36.3%)23. The main sources of piped water are the surface waters of the
rivers and groundwater. There are estimated 1800 domestic water supply schemes, and 9000 boreholes, most of which require
rehabilitation.
Agriculture is the main user of water (up to 80%). There are three types of irrigation schemes: smallholder schemes, commercial
or private schemes and schemes of the National Irrigation Board. However, agriculture is mainly rainfed, as only about 3.5% of
food crops are equipped with irrigation24. Water is also very important regarding electricity, as 46.5% of the country’s electricity
is for hydroelectric power25.
Year
Use of drinking water sources (percentage of population)
Urban Rural Total Progress
towards
MDG target
Improved Unimproved Improved Unimproved Improved Unimproved
Kenya 1990
2000
2012
92%
87%
82%
8%
13%
18%
33%
43%
55%
67%
57%
45%
43%
52%
62%
57%
48%
38%
Not on track
Year
Use of sanitation facilities (percentage of population)
Urban Rural Total Progress
towards
MDG target
Improved Unimproved Improved Unimproved Improved Unimproved
Shared
Other
ODF
Shared
Other
ODF
Shared
Other
ODF
Kenya 1990
2000
2012
26%
29%
31%
40
44
48
31
24
18
3
3
3
24%
26%
29%
16
17
19
38
38
35
22
19
17
25%
27%
30%
20
22
26
36
35
31
19
16
13
Not on track
Table 2: Use of drinking water sources and sanitation facilities (JMP 2014)
Another important source of information on the country is the UN-Water Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and
Drinking-Water (GLAAS). It monitors the inputs required to extend and sustain water, sanitation and hygiene. In the 2013
report, concerning Kenya some questions are not answered which highlights the lack of data in the Water and Health sector.
Main weaknesses identified by the GLAAS are about financial flows and their availability, utilization of donor capital
22 JMP 2014
23 Irrigation in Africa in Figures - Aquastat Survey 2005 - Kenya
24 FAO, Aquastat, 2014
25 Source: Energy Regulatory Commission: Scaling up renewable energy plan, 2014

commitments, equity in distribution of funding, specific provision for slums and informal settlements, non-revenue water, and
assessment of measures (see Annex)26.
A 2) Context of the Tana River County
Tana River County is located in Eastern Kenya. It comprises of 3 sub-county (Tana North, Tana River and Tana Delta),
covering an area of 38,782 km² with an estimated population of 269,164 people27. There are three main livelihood zones in the
county namely, Marginal Mixed Farming (which accommodates 49% of the population), Pastoral (14%) and Mixed Farming
(37%). The County is inhabited by people from the Pokomo, Orma, Wardei, Somali, Malakote, Bajuni, Mijikenda and
Munyoyaya ethnic groups.
Its only permanent source of water (Tana River) traverses the northern border of the county, which makes the inhabitant
community heavily reliant on seasonal rivers during the wet season and their river beds (laga) for water during the dry season.
The county experiences a bimodal rainfall pattern, with the long rains falling between April and June and the short rains falling
between October and December. The mixed farming livelihood zone is mainly short rains-dependent while the marginal mixed
farming and pastoral livelihood zones are long rains-dependent. The mean annual rainfall ranges between 220mm to 500mm,
with the exception of the mixed farming livelihood zone, where rainfall ranges between 750mm to 1250mm. Many parts of the
county receive erratic and poorly distributed rains.
It is estimated that 72% of the population live below the poverty line, therefore, do not have access to adequate food and
consequently heavily rely on relief food aid and charitable donations28. With the on-going rehabilitation of irrigation schemes,
many people are shifting from the former heavy reliance on pastoral activities to agricultural activities.
In March 2013, 62% of the County population was noted to obtain water from unprotected water sources. Less than half of the
population has latrine facilities with average sanitation coverage of 30%. Most of the community members with access to
sanitation share the facilities which are mainly pit latrines or ventilated improved pit latrines. The most affected areas are the
pastoral and agro pastoral zones recording low latrine coverage.
A 3) Context of Nairobi
Rapid population growth (2.7% p.a.) and urbanisation pose a continuous challenge to meeting national and international
development targets. The total urban population rose from 6 million people in the year 2000 to 12.4 million in the year 200929.
The capital Nairobi is the most populated city in eastern Africa, with more than 3 million people, covering 696m². It is a political
and financial hub for all Africa. Slums make up over 50% of the population and yet occupy only 5% of the total residential land.
The most well-known of the slums is Kibera, which was named the largest slum in Africa (the population figures were not
completely trustworthy). The 2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census reports a population of 170 000 for Kibera (contrary
to estimation of 1 or 2 million before). In Nairobi, a number of slums are located on land that is unsuitable for construction and
all have high to very high population densities, with up to 2300 people per hectare. Slums and informal settlements are widely
located across the city, typically in proximity to areas with employment opportunities. Slums contain urban residents who earn
low incomes and have limited assets. Employment is largely low skill (domestic help, waiter, bar maid, guard), often on a casual
basis (construction labour), small business owners (kiosk owner, newspaper seller) and other income-generating activities.
Discrimination, especially along ethnic lines, exists, with most ethnic groups living in (sub) communities of their own ethnic
background. Clashes between ethnic groups have been experienced. There is a lack of a clear policy that would facilitate and
guide urban development in Kenya, and urban interventions are largely made on an ad hoc basis. Most slums are located on
unplanned sites that are unsuitable for housing, and their residents are exposed to different forms of pollution. In some slums,
26 GLAAS, 2013
27 Projected population for 2013 according to 2013 HIS, based on 2009 census and projected population growth
28 Tana River Development Plan
29 KNBS, 2010

housing and infrastructure programmers are being put in place through joint efforts of the government, donors and civil society
organizations. These interventions have had mixed results. Around Nairobi, there are also a number of peri-urban areas, some of
them being very rich, some are also very poor. The Peri-urban poor either work in their area as farmer or in small business, or
they work in Nairobi or in the rich peri-urban areas. Around Nairobi, we can find both formal and informal peri-urban poor
areas. Both slums and peri-urban poor areas have low access to sanitation and to water, and face big health issues.
A 4) ACF intervention in Kenya
Currently, ACF Kenya has 5 operational bases in 4 different counties: West Pokot, Isiolo, Tana River and Garissa. Its activities
are Nutrition and WASH in West Pokot, Nutrition and Food Security in Isiolo, Nutrition in Garissa, and WASH in Tana River.
Tana River is a hot spot of political and tribal violence but it is a location largely neglected by most donors despite the acute
needs. ACF advocacy strategy for 2014 focuses mainly on nutrition.
ACF beneficiaries are vulnerable population. In Kenya, they are situated across several livelihood groups: the Pastoralists, in the
north, northeast, northwest and the southern Maasai rangelands; Destitute pastoralists who have dropped out of the pastoral
economy after losing livestock to droughts, floods, and conflict, located close to urban centres near their respective traditional
grazing areas; Agro-pastoralists in the south and northwest; Marginal agricultural households in the coastal and south-eastern
lowlands; Marginal agricultural and fishing households situated around the lake shore; and Urban poor in most of the major
towns.
Regarding WASH, in ASAL counties, like Tana River, ACF strategy is to promote sustainable water, sanitation and hygiene
programs., integrate program activities with FSL supporting community initiatives to build resilience, partner with other WASH
actors to scale up and strengthen the sustainability of WASH programs, strengthen community capacity in water resource
management and emergency preparedness, link community disaster risk reduction management with the Drought Management
Authority, explore and adopt new innovations/technologies to increase sustainability of program outcomes, and actively
participate in county coordination fora to identify opportunities for nutrition programs in the new county organizational
structure.
Figure 2: Map of ACF intervention in Kenya

B – Scope of the study
This section will introduce the objectives of the study, its problematic and hypotheses, and its outcomes.
B 1) Objectives of the Study
The study is linked in finding out areas of strategies, policies or regulation that have not adequately addressed the inequalities in
water access especially by poor people in ASAL regions, urban and peri-urban informal areas as well as gaps and risks in
implementation of these strategies and policies. The study also looks at the poor governance at community level which has led to
high levels of failure of water supplies. Other key area is on the decentralization of the services through devolution and
challenges/gaps that are likely to be encountered.
Then, the objectives were to give ACF a clear, documented picture of the devolution process in regards to the water sector,
which includes up-to-date reforms and plans of reforms, foreseen gaps and strategic areas for engagement.
Second of all, the study aimed at pointing out hindrance in local governance that limits access to water for the most vulnerable
along with possible solutions/approaches.
Finally, the study looked at the appropriation of the services by the community, to identify gaps and opportunities, and possible
ways of improving it.
B 2) Outcomes of the Study
The study comes with recommendations oriented to ACF in order to improve its programmes, and build its strategy on
governance and WASH advocacy. It will support ACF’s partners and governmental structures (national and local level) in
identifying factors that could improve service delivery and improve efficiency of the WASH sector’s development.
Following the study, this report will be published and shared with ACF missions, and with all governmental, non-governmental
and intergovernmental agencies. Finally, a presentation of the study will happen at ACF-France headquarter (September 2014).
C – Methodology of the study
This study has been conducted within ACF during 2 months (June-August 2014), most of the time was spent in Kenya, including
two weeks in Tana River County (22nd June - 4 July 2014). Two approaches were used: a qualitative one, through interviews of
stakeholders of the water supply sector at national and local level30, and through readings31; and a quantitative one, through a
survey of 210 households in Tana River.
C a – Literature review
Reading and analysis key documents:
 Review of existing strategies, policies and laws to understand the framework of the WASH sector
 Analysis of reports, to get more insights on the situation
 Other relevant documents32
30 See the list of interviews in the appendices
31 See the bibliography
32 See bibliography

C b – Key Stakeholders Interviews33
Interviews of:
 Institutional stakeholders to have their insights/ analysis on: the daily work of the institutions, the decision making
processes, their role in the (non-)enforcement of the laws and policies…
 Local government’s officials to understand their knowledge of the institutional and legal framework, and on water
issues. Questions were also asked on what human resources are available, how they are trained, what equity measures
exist…
 NGO partners (international, national and local) to know their assessment of the situation and of the implementation
of the policies at county level, and of the needs, bottleneck and problems they identified.
C c – Focus group
Focus group discussions with community members to explore the understanding of WASH sector governance in the past,
knowledge and expectations of the new system, and possibilities of improvement.
C d – Household survey
A household survey has been conducted at local level, among 210 households, using KAP-survey methodology. This shows the
real situation on the field (quality, access, tariffs, equity, participation…).
To bring a quantitative input to the study, a survey was necessary. The objective of the survey is to understand the links between
different water governance indicators and the situation of access to water of the population. The survey covered the 17 project
site locations (initial target sites) in Tana River County that will be benefiting from the charity: water hygiene promotion and
water supply program.
Questions on governance were added to the questionnaire.
Sampling
Random Cluster sampling was used as the total population of the village is too large for an exhaustive survey. A list of villages in
the area and their population was listed first. The principle consists of determining the number of households that constitute a
cluster by following a precise method34, and then choosing the clusters to be sampled. The sample size was calculated using an
accuracy level of 10%.
Table 1 below provides breakdown of the sampled households and questionnaires to be administered.
33 See list of interviews and meetings in Annex
34 ACF method on KAP survey
Sub-Village HH No. of Clusters No. of Interviews
1 Handampia B 87 1 7
2 Bondeni 500 4 28
3 Maweni 250 2 14
4 Duwayo 100 0 0
5 Vukoni 120 1 7
6 Bububu 200 2 14
7 Chewani 260 2 14
8 Maroni 250 2 14
9 Maziwa 180 1 7
10 Korlabe 334 3 21

Table 3: Sample households and clusters for the KAP survey
Training of data collectors
The Current locations for the WASH project and data collection were relatively new. Two day training was conducted for the
community health workers from the local community who were used as data collectors before the field data collection. The main
objective was to build capacity in the local community in conducting assessment in future. The training comprised of the
quantitative surveys data collection techniques. Key areas that the training focused on included interview guideline and the use of
survey tools such as random number table and questionnaires. During the training, a pre-test of the questionnaire was conducted
to understand both the timing a questionnaire will take per household and if the questionnaire fits the community. After pre-
testing the tool, a few corrections were made to refine the draft questionnaire before the final questionnaire was adopted.
Data analysis
Quantitative data has been analysed using the excel program. Similar responses are aggregated and presented as proportion of
the whole sample.
11 Wema 400 3 21
12 Kiembeni 130 1 7
13 Anole 350 3 21
14 Laini 300 2 14
15 Bawama 150 2 14
16 Matagalla Kimilo 54 0 0
17 Hewani 150 1 7
Total 3815 30 210

III - FINDINGS
The findings of the study will be divided in three sections, to address the three different topics studied: the National level and the
devolution process, the rural areas and its small rural communities and small towns, and the urban areas focusing on the slums
and the peri-urban poor. Some of the findings are cross-cutting.
A - At National level: the devolution process, context and analysis
The ongoing devolution process brings many changes to the water sector. Therefore, it is important to understand the previous
framework and the directions taken towards a new law, in order for ACF to position itself rightfully.
A 1) The Water Act 2002 and the Water sector institutions
A 1 a - The Water Act 2002 and key national strategies
Before 2002, the policy formulation, the regulation and the service provision was the responsibility of several Ministers, thus
leading to confusion and overlapping roles. In 1974, the government set a goal for the country: “Water for all by the year 2000”.
This goal could not be achieved, partly due to the unclear chain of responsibility and budget constraints. In 2000, only 57% of
people living in urban areas had access to safe water supply and 42% of people living in rural areas35. To improve the situation, a
significant reform was launched in 2002.
The Water Act 2002 established a new institutional framework, pyramidal, with a clear separation between water resource
management and water service provision. The key elements of this framework are:
- State ownership of all water resources in Kenya,
- Separation of policy formulation, regulation and services provision functions,
- Decentralization of services to the regional level,
- Institutionalizing sector coordination through Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI),
- Institutionalizing support to the financing of water services for underserved rural areas,
- Development of a national monitoring and information system on water resources and water services,
- Establishing mechanism for handling disputes in the water sector,
- Equitable allocation of water for all Kenyans: domestic use is priority, response system in emergencies,
- Cost recovery as a means of sustainable service provision
- Protection of the quality of water resources
- Stakeholder participation and involvement in management of water resources.
The National Water Services Strategy 2007-2015
In 2007, the Government published its first national water services strategy (NWSS), its goal is to ensure sustainable access to
safe water and basic sanitation to all Kenyans, which are recognized as a human right. Water and sanitation are both a social and
economic good. Service provision for the poor shall be enabled by social tariffs. In urban settings, priority for investment in
extension is to poor or uncovered areas. In rural settings, water supply programs must promote health and hygiene awareness
and have sanitation components, WSPs should move forward to cost-recovery36. Regarding sanitation, the NWSS states that
sewerage systems are rehabilitated, extended or built when feasible and sustainable, users shall be consulted regarding choice of
technology for basic sanitation, all water sector institutions and organisations are engaged in implementation and promotion of
sanitation according to their capacities.
35 Institute of Economic Affairs, A rapid assessment of Kenya’s Water, Sanitation and Sewerage Framework, June 2007
36 COHRE and Hakijamii Trust, A summary of the Kenyan Water Act 2002 and leading water sector policies, 2008

National Water Resources Management Strategy 2007-2009
In January 2007, the Government published its first national water resources management strategy, which outlines the
Government strategy for the managing, assessing, maintaining and developing of Kenya’s available and renewable fresh water
resources. Its key objectives are: put in place mechanisms promoting equal access to water for all through shareholders
involvement in planning and development of resources, strengthen roles of gender in resources management, create mechanisms
for an integrated approach to land and water resources planning and management, create mechanisms for catchment
conservation and management with land users, put in place measures to enhance availability and quality of water.
The Pro-Poor Implementation Plan for Water Supply and Sanitation (PPIP-WSS) 2007
Published in 2007, it seeks to ensure that the preparation, planning and implementation of activities focuses on poor, vulnerable
or marginalised groups and those underserved. All institutions should use a pro-poor approach, fast track actions to increase
coverage, offer appropriate low-cost technology and managements systems, improve data collection, ensure sanitation is given
high priority, improve good governance, and mobilize more funds and use of WSTF. Formal service provision is to replace
gradually informal one, WSPs are to expand services to underserved areas, and service provision for the poor shall be one of the
key indicators for all sector institutions. Tariffs for basic consumption should be affordable. Boards of sector institutions and
WSPs should include representatives from areas underserved and ensure gender balance. Poor should have access to
information, communication and complaint systems. Management and operation of public water points should be preferably by
the poor and particularly women.
Figure 3: The institutional framework of the Water Act 2002

A 1 b - The water sector institutions
Policy formulation and sector coordination lies in the hands of two main institutions: the Ministry of Water and Irrigation
(MWI) for water, and the Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation (PoPHS) for sanitation. Other Ministries also play a role in
the sector: the Ministry of Education, the Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit, and the Ministries of Forestry, of the
Environment and of Special Programmes.
Regulation is the responsibility of the Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB)37. It is in charge of economic regulation and
monitoring, through issuing of licenses to water services boards and approval of Service Provision Agreements, developing tariff
guidelines and carrying out tariff negotiations, setting standards and developing guidelines for service provision, publishing the
results of sector monitoring in the form of comparative reports. It oversees the work of the Water Service Boards.
The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) carries the environmental regulation since 2002. It promotes the
integration of environmental considerations into government policies, plans, programmes and projects. For the water sector, it
formulates water quality regulations.
Water resource management is in the hand of the Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA) 38. Its mandate is to
protect and conserve water resources, and its functions are planning, management, protection and conservation of water
resources. It determines applications for water permits and their monitoring. WRMA is represented at catchment level. Public
participation is encouraged through Catchment Areas Advisory Committees (CAACs) and Water Resources Users Associations
(WRUAs). These groups advise WRMA on conservation and use of water resources, and on permit grant and variation.
Asset management is the responsibility of the eight regional Water Services Boards (WSBs). Regarding asset management,
there are in charge of development and rehabilitation of water and sewerage facilities, of investment planning and
implementation.
The WSBs are also responsible for service provision. They are not required to provide services directly and can delegate them
to Water Service Providers (WSPs). Water Service Providers include companies, CBOs, other persons or bodies. Their functions
are direct provision of water and sanitation services, and the development, rehabilitation and maintenance of water and sewerage
facilities of the WSBs. Informal small service providers (SSPs) also work in both rural and urban low income areas. They sell
water often at high prices. Self-help groups exist as well, providing piped water supply. Informal providers and groups don’t fall
under WASREB tariff regulation, which’s in charge of official WSP.
The Water Services Trust Fund39 assists in financing capital costs of providing services to underserved communities without
adequate water and sanitation services. It is funded through donations and grants from development partners and allocation by
the government. The WSTF has developed three “financing windows” for service provision for the poor: the Community
Project Cycle makes fund available for local community willing to comply with minimum service standards, the Urban Poor
Concept subsidies expansion of the networks of the WSPs to the poor urban areas, and the WRUA development cycle.
Finally, regarding water sector arbitration, an independent Water Appeals Board has been established in 2005 to settle water
related disputes and conflicts. Its activity has been very small, and it is now pending.
The private sector plays a limited role in operating water supply systems in Kenya. The Civil society, on the other hand, is very
active, through many local NGOs40. The Kenya Water and Sanitation Civil Society Network (Kewasnet) was founded in 2007 to
monitor service delivery and policy implementation, and to provide information to the people.
37 Interview with WASREB in Nairobi (10/07/2014)
38 Interview with WRMA in Garissa (24/06/2014)
39 Interview with WSTF in Nairobi (10/07/2014)
40 COHRE and Hakijamii Trust, Summary Description of Water Sector Institutions in Nairobi, Kenya, and their roles, 2008

Table 4: Roles of Water sector Institutions under the Water Act 2002
A 1 c - A good framework with implementation challenges
Generally, the legal-policy framework has created commendable policy institutions and networks for good governance of water
services in Kenya. This is especially true when it comes to the creation of public interest institutions, conflict resolution
institutions and procedures and participatory systems. The 2002 reforms are acknowledged to be one of most advanced and
comprehensive institutional designs and intervention packages for the water sector in the whole of Africa. The stakeholders seem
to agree that the 2002 reforms were a key step to improve water and sanitation in the country, and that the sector is experiencing
significant progress. The new framework promotes demand-based water management that would lead to sustainable utilization
of water as a natural resource. This is one of the key objectives of effective water governance.
A problem of the water sector in Kenya is the sustainable management of the resource. The country is seriously water-scarce,
and nonetheless water is neither understood, treated, developed nor managed as a scarce resource. There are strong incentives,
including for the government and donors, for achieving immediate results on access to water services, while conservation and
long-term sustainability of the resource does not seem to be an immediate priority. It is much easier to get finance for water-
sector hardware than for software such as watershed management, study, policy-making, monitoring, or environmental and
pollution control... This trend is also externally reinforced by the MDG priority focus on access for all to safe drinking water,
while much less international attention is dedicated to natural resources sustainability. An exclusive focus on access today
without attention to the long-run sustainability of the resources risks leading to a lack of water tomorrow. This low focus reflects
in financial constraints of WRMA and in the small number of employees of WRMA and NEMA, which results in difficulties to
monitor water resource uses41. Some consumers, both citizens and industries are misusing the rules with impunity as a result of
this weak enforcement of WRMA recommendations.
The most striking feature of the water sector in Kenya is probably the huge increase in the overall resources invested in the
sector in recent years. The 2002 reforms and the subsequent increased spending by national government, private investors, and
international donors brought funding levels for water from Kshs. 2 billion in 2002 to 28 in 2009 to Kshs. 32 billion in 201042.
This has resulted in a booming interest by a wide range of actors for water related issues. Vested interests and relatively small
circles of those who really make decisions do not call for real transparency and independence in the water sector. The extreme
personalization of roles results in institutions highly dependent on who runs it, and thus weak. Inadequate communication and
information management systems, lack of real sector monitoring and evaluation, make it difficult to know who is accountable for
41 Interview with WRMA in Garissa (24/06/2014)
42 Samantha Marshall, The Water Crisis in Kenya: Causes, Effects and Solutions, Global Majority E-Journal, Vol 2, 2011

what. Moreover, the complaint and feedback mechanisms are extremely weak. The formal mechanisms often do not work, for
instance the Water Appeals Board has not been very active since its establishment. All these elements impact the accountability
and the transparency of the water sector.
To tackle this weak coordination between stakeholders, several initiatives have been set up: the Water sector working group and
the sanitation technical groups for government and development partners, Wescoord, for emergencies, and different forums
such as the Learning forums.
WESCOORD, the Water and Environmental Sanitation Coordination, brings together various actors involved in implementing
emergency WASH interventions in the country. It’s a sectorial specialist group, under the Kenya Food Security Steering Group
(KFSSG), led by the MEWNR, the Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation, and co-chaired by UNICEF. It operates in 24
emergency-prone Counties and is open to all WASH sector stakeholders43. Its aims are to ensure coordination of WASH actions
before, during and after emergencies, to coordinate WASH emergency preparedness efforts and contingency planning, to
harmonize WASH standards and guidelines used in emergencies, and to advocate for the WASH policies and strategies that are
appropriate for emergency-prone areas. In 2012, its focus expanded to areas outside the "drought zones" to include flood-
affected, conflict-prone and cholera endemic areas. It also initiated a capacity development plan at national and at county level,
focused on enhancing WESCOORD’s influence at national level through information sharing; and supporting county/district
WESCOORDs to develop strategic plans in line with GoK and WASH sector priorities44.
A 2) The Constitution 2010 and the Water Bill 2014
The new Constitution of Kenya of 2010 introduced major changes to the country institutional framework, and to the water
sector: a devolution of most powers from the national government to the counties, including water and sanitation service
provision, and the constitutional recognition of the right to water and sanitation. Following these changes, the Water Act 2002
needs to be revised and a Water Bill 2014 has been drafted and is now in Parliament. The Bill may still evolve, so this report will
analyse it as it is in July 2014.
A 2 a - The advantages of the devolution in the Kenyan Water Sector
Devolution is often a good step towards good governance. In the Kenyan context, it should improve the accountability of the
institutions and the providers, their responsiveness, and give local solutions to local problems. The water sector was already
devolved with the Water Act 2002, but at the regional level. Devolution at the county level will bring the institutions in charge
even closer to the people. Indeed, it will be easier for the communities and the individuals to go see their local government and
complain. Most stakeholders believe that this will improve the services. Furthermore, water will become more political. It will be
difficult for the governor or elected officials to marginalize people who will vote during next elections, and they won’t be able to
point fingers at someone else like the national government. This can be also a risk, since the county government could only
favour its electors or the higher density areas where there are many voters. Finally, as the new Constitution recognizes the right
to safe water and adequate sanitation, and as the Water Bill 2014 defines it as a progressive right like in South Africa, it is
possible that the people will be able to sue their county. The county will then have to prove that they do everything to ensure
this right, that they have a plan to address a specific area. The case of South Africa is a good example of how such trial helped
improve the water situation of the country. Thus, closer institutions will improve the accountability of the sector.
Then, it will also increase the responsiveness of the institutions, since it will be easier for the counties than for the national
government to answer to the real needs and demands of the population, to know which project really need subsidies. They will
have to consider the needs, since the constitution gave people power. For every action, including policies, budgets and projects,
the counties will have to involve people, or they will be able to go to court and declare the project, the law or the policy illegal.
43 WESCOORD, Annual Report 2012, Coordinating Wash response in Kenya, 2013
44 Interview with WESCOORD in Nairobi (19/06/2014)

Finally, such devolution will be a good opportunity to give local solutions to local problems. The counties can identify more
easily pockets, strengths and opportunities, where national government was focusing on the average figures. Regarding projects,
some could work in Isiolo and not in Tana River, although they are both ASAL counties. This devolution will be a good way to
consider traditions and cultural ways of life of the people, along with natural and ecological particularities45.
A 2 b - The Water Bill 2014
The key facts of the Water Bill 2014 are:
- Water resources still belong to the State of Kenya
- Water resource management stays at national level,
- The national government will, following public consultation, formulate a Water Strategy, to achieve the progressive realisation
of the right to water,
- The water and sanitation service provision is the responsibility of the county governments.
Figure 4: The institutional framework of the Water Bill 2014
45 Interview with County Water Director in Hola (26/06/2014)
NationalLevel
Regional
Level
LocalLevel
FormulationRegulationProvisionConsumer
Water
Tribunal
WSTF
National Water
Harvesting and Storage
Authority

The main institutions provided by the Water Bill 2014 are the following46
.
Water resource management is the responsibility of the National government.
The Water Resources Regulatory Authority (WRRA) formulates and enforces standards, procedures and regulations for the
management and use of water resources and flood mitigation, issues and enforces the water permits, ensures the existence of a
national monitoring and information system on water resources, declares protected catchment and groundwater conservation
areas.
The Basin water resources committees (BWRC) take care of the management of the water resources within their basin area,
advise WRRA, report to users, collect data, write water allocation plans, protect water resources and carry out flood mitigation
activities, and facilitate the formation of WRUAs.
The WRUAs remain. They are community-based association for collaborative management of water resources and resolution of
conflicts concerning the use of water resources, at the sub-basin level.
The National Water Harvesting and Storage Authority is in charge of public water works for water resources storage, maintains
and manages national infrastructure for storage, develops and enforces water harvesting strategies.
Water service provision will lie in the hands of the counties, with help and guidance from the National government.
The Water Works Development Boards (WWDB) will develop national public water works for water services (very big projects),
aggregate the county development plans into development and investment plans for their area, and assist technically the WSPs.
The Water Services Regulatory Authority (WSRA) protects the interests and rights of consumers in the provision of water
services, determines and monitors national standards, recommends water and sewerage tariffs to WSPs, sets and monitors the
conditions to licenses for WSPs, establishes a complaint mechanism for consumers, maintains a national data base and reports to
the public, and recommends on how to provide basic water services to marginalized areas,
The Water Service Providers (WSPs) are public liability limited companies. They are in charge of the efficient and economical
provision of water services in their area and of development of county assets for water service provision, and complaint
mechanism. They can enter into public-private partnership with the county government executive and WSRA approve it.
The Water Sector Trust Fund (WSTF) will provide conditional and unconditional grants to counties, in addition to the
Equalisation Fund, to assist in financing the development and management of water services in marginalized areas or
underserved areas, including: Community level initiatives for sustainable management of resources, Development of water
services in rural areas, considered as not commercially viable for WSP, and Development of water services in the under-served
poor urban areas.
Finally, the Water Tribunal can hear and determine any dispute concerning water resources or services.
At the county level, the institutional structure will probably vary between counties. The Water Minister will be in charge of the
strategy and supervision of the Water Officers, the former District water officers. The officials of water and of health services
will be working closely, as water, sanitation and hygiene are highlighted as linked issues both in the Constitution 2010 and in the
Water Bill 2014. The Water Service Provider(s) will be supervised by the county, but may also be cross-county, where former
WSPs were providing water to areas belonging now to several counties. Community water projects are still a possibility, but the
Water Bill 2014 encourages their licensing as formal service providers, or their joining existing WSPs. It is yet to be seen how it
can be implemented, since there is a lot of challenges to have them work as official service providers.
46 Water Bill 2014

Name in the
Water Act 2002
Name in the
Water Bill 2014
Addition in the Water Bill 2014
compared to Water Act 2002
Deletion in the Water Bill 2014
compared to Water Act 2002
WRMA WRRA - Flood mitigation
- Collect water permit fees and water
use charges
- Gather and maintain information on
water resources, projections and
forecast
Catchment Area
Advisory
Committees
Basin Water
Resources
Committee
- Protect water resources and
increase water availability
- Report to users and public annually
- Collect water resources data,
analyse and manage the information
system
- Facilitate formation of WRUA
WRUA WRUA - They can be contracted by BWRC
to perform certain duties
National Water
Conservation
and Pipeline
Corporation
National Water
Harvesting and
Storage
Authority
- Develop and enforce water
harvesting policy and strategies
- Carry out ground water recharge
using flood water
- Develop, retain existing and expand
bulk water supply to Water Service
Boards and other Water Service
Providers
WASREB WSRA - Develop guidelines on the
establishment of consumer groups
and facilitate their establishment,
- Make recommendations on how to
provide basic services to
marginalised areas
- Promote water conservation and
demand management measures,
- Liaise with other bodies for the
better regulation and management of
water services
Water Services
Board
Water Works
Development
Boards
- Develop national public water
works for water services,
- Formulation of development and
investment plans,
- Hand over developed public assets
to the WSP,
- Facilitation of establishment of
cross-county WSPs
- Responsible for the efficient and
economic provision of water services
by authorized licensees
Table 5: Change of names and roles of keys institutions between Water Act 2002 and Water Bill 2014
A 2 c - Challenges and opportunities of the devolution process
Although the devolution is not completed, the process has already been ongoing for a year. The Constitution 2010 was adopted
in March 2013 and provided for a transition period of 3 years during which its provisions would be implemented. The water
sector was then supposed to have the time to build the capacities and the institutions at the county level, and to pass a new
Water Act before the devolution really happened. However, the counties claimed that the competency for water and sanitation
service provision was already theirs, thanks to the Constitution and decided to take it. This hurry to get the competency has
resulted in some confusion. Indeed, the current law governing the water sector is still the Water Act 2002, which does not
provide for the counties. Thus, there is no clear distribution of roles between the institutions, and most importantly, between the

national and the county levels47. Each institution is trying to get more responsibilities or not to disappear (like the WSBs). The
new law is then coming after its own implementation. It will give the sector some clarity about the different responsibilities and
the interactions between the different levels of government. The confusion might not be over directly though, because the law
will also provide for a 3-years transition period, during which the institutions of the Water Act 2002 will remain active as long as
the national government revokes them.
This confusion is also the consequence of a low communication and information on the devolution process. Although the
national institutions seem to know quite well what is happening in the water sector, at the local level, the interpretations of the
process reflect a lack of knowledge about it. Some local stakeholders are still referring to the Water Bill 2012 that has evolved a
lot before becoming the Water Bill 2014. Others think that water resource management is now in the hands of the counties,
when it is something that has always been national, even in the several drafted Bills. This creates confusion in the roles of the
institutions, but also a lack of accountability, since people don’t know who is in charge. Again, this will be clarified by the
enactment of a new Water Act, but even this new Act will require information and explanation to the stakeholders to demystify
the received opinions. This is a bigger challenge if one looks at inter-sectorial communication: sectors that are supposed to work
together, like the water sector, the health or the social services departments, don’t know where the devolution process stands in
other sectors. This lack of information might result in lack of coordination, and at this time of writing county policies for each
sector, it could really impact the county strategies.
These lacks of communication and unclear distribution of roles have consequences on the personnel. Indeed, the people who
were employed by the national government at local level don’t always know where they belong. Most of them were transferred in
January 2014 to the counties, and their pay goes now through the counties. They are not always completely incorporated to the
county structure, and some of the staff of the WSBs is still under the national government. This results in an unclear chain of
command and low accountability when people don’t know for whom they work and report to. Also, most of the county water
director and staff were nominated before the devolution, now the counties might want to employ their own people. Due to this
political side of human resources, the current employees sometimes feel they are at the mercy of the water minister, and that
there is not much power left to the technicians.
Of course, as the country is now in a transition period, these issues should be resolved thanks to time. The counties and the
national government are now in a learning curve. For example, at the beginning, it was very difficult for the two levels to work
together. The counties wanted to get as much competencies as possible, and the national government had to learn to let go some
of its functions. Now counties are realizing they cannot work in isolation and agree to collaborate with the national government.
They came to understand that some competencies have to remain national. It is not yet the case of all of them. To ease the
transition, WASREB, Wescoord and WSTF are having lots of meetings with governors to explain their role and their importance
to them, so that they can work together48. One of the issues being that if, for now, a county refuses to collaborate with these
national institutions and platforms, they can. It might then be difficult for WASREB to monitor the sector, and ensure the
implementation of its standards.
The transition period is also characterised by low capacities of the counties. They lack resources (computers, fuel, cars,
phones...), human resources (for some of them) and absorption capacities. The budget of the water departments increased a lot,
since they have new competencies. This budget comes from the national government. Few counties have their own taxes. The
repartition among counties is based on needs and on population. The counties now need to recruit new people, and plan for
more projects to spend this money. At local level, the experts are not numerous, often less than one per division, and thus
cannot answer to the communities rapidly if they need help. The state of human resources and capacities is at very different stage
depending on the counties. The water directors now need to write and present a number of plans and strategies to the county
elected, including a revenue plan for water. All this takes time, but they often lack time and support. This is why the
advancement of the counties depends a lot on the people, more than on the law and on the money they have. If the county water
director and his/her hierarchy are really motivated, they can move forward faster than others. The lack of staff and clear
47 Interview with WASREB (10/07/2014)
48 Interview with WSTF (10/07/2014)

responsibilities is noted to lead to more political decisions not supported by technical facts, including the process of budget
making. For instance, while the budget was small and quite limited to meet the overall development objectives as envisaged by
the County Directors for water and health plans, distribution is even more challenging as the political leaders would like to
distribute the funds evenly across the entire County despite differences in need. The small number of technical personnel in the
County water department due to the small budgetary support is also major concern in meeting the huge needs across the County.
Thanks to devolution, the counties are now able to choose their priorities. At national level, the government’s projects will only
be very big projects that affect several counties. At local level, the counties can decide to focus on specific areas or population
targets. What comes out of the County Integrated Development Plans (CIDPs) read and of meetings with stakeholders, for the
example of Tana River County, is that also at county level, the focus is on big projects, small towns, expanded water schemes...
meaning on impact49. This is an opportunity for them to increase the number of population who have access to water faster than
if they focus on urban. Likewise, they aim mostly at construction, rehabilitation and expansion of schemes and points, and not at
empowering the communities who will run them. For some of these big projects, they will end in TAWASCO’s hands, so there
is no need to train a water user association. However, the community needs to be sensitized on the importance of clean water, of
paying for it, of reporting any issue, or on complaint mechanisms... Moreover, as mentioned later, WSPs like TAWASCO have
already issues in serving small towns, so it might be challenging to expand and even more to manage community points. This is
neither the county’s nor TAWASCO’s focus50. It results that the small rural communities might not see improvements of their
situation and will remain underserved.
Community participation, as mentioned, is crucial to ensure accountability of the sector, payment and sustainability of the water
projects. The Water Act 2002 already provided for mandatory participation. The Constitution 2010 enhances it, and all strategies,
policies, laws and budgets have to go through a consultation and participatory process. The Water Bill 2014 follows the
provision of the new Constitution. However, it is not yet clear how the Counties will implement this obligation. They will have
to pass legislation on it, and/or include provisions on public participation in all the legislations. Up to this date, we don’t know
how they will ensure it, if it will allow for real community participation or if it will be only the elites participating, what means
they will allocate to it, how they will collaborate with traditional structure in pastoralist communities...
Likewise, regarding natural resources management, which remains a national competence, we don’t know yet how it will be
addressed at regional and local level, which means will be allocated to it... The Water Bill 2014 provides for its importance, but
does not create a link with the counties, nor clear obligations for the counties regarding water resource management. The
traditional institutions which are so critical to sound natural resources management in the ASALs have not been integrated
within the new arrangements. For now, there are few controls over the spread of settlements and water points, creating localised
degradation and more risk of conflict. There are also few mechanisms to ensure a fair distribution of the wealth from the natural
resource base.
The devolution process is, then, a good opportunity for the country to build on the gains of the Water Act 2002. Although the
process is not clear and suffers low communication, there is good hope that, after the transition periods, the water sector will
improve. However, some weaknesses have been identified above, and it is yet to be seen how the new Water Act will address
them.
49 Interview with County Government in Tana River (1/07/2014)
50 Interview with TAWASCO in Hola (02/07/2014)

ACF Water Governance Study in Kenya Analyzes Devolution and Access Issues

ACF Water Governance Study in Kenya Analyzes Devolution and Access Issues

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ACF Water Governance Study in Kenya Analyzes Devolution and Access Issues

Similar to ACF Water Governance Study in Kenya Analyzes Devolution and Access Issues (20)

ACF Water Governance Study in Kenya Analyzes Devolution and Access Issues