Research Report Research Report
Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership A WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AUDIT OF KITUI COUNTY
Cliff Nyaga, University of Oxford January 2019 PHOTO CREDIT:PHOTO CLIFF NYAGA/UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
Prepared by: Cliff Nyaga, University of Oxford
Reviewed by: Mike Thomas, Rural Focus; Eduardo Perez, Global Communities; Karl Linden, University of Colorado Boulder (UCB); and Pranav Chintalapati, UCB.
Acknowledgements: The Kitui County Government would like to acknowledge the financial support received from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Further, the Kitui County Government appreciates its longstanding partnership with the University of Oxford and UNICEF Kenya through various collaborating programs, including the DFID-funded REACH Program.
The leadership received from Emmanuel Kisangau, Kennedy Mutati, Philip Nzula, Augustus Ndingo, and Hope Sila — all from the County Ministry for Water Agriculture and Livestock Development — throughout the audit exercise is appreciated. The sub-county water officers were instrumental in logistics planning and in providing liaison between the field audit teams, communities, and County Ministries for Agriculture, Water, and Livestock Development and Administration and Coordination. A team of local enumerators led field data collection: Lucy Mweti, Grace Muisyo, Abigael Kyenze, Patrick Mulwa, Lydia Mwikali, Muimi Kivoko, Philip Muthengi, Mary Sammy, Ruth Mwende, Peter Musili, Annah Kavata, James Kimanzi, Purity Maingi, Felix Muthui, and Assumpta Mwikali.
The technical advice and guidance received from Professor Rob Hope of the University of Oxford and Dr. Andrew Trevett of UNICEF Kenya throughout the planning, data collection, analysis, and preparation of this report is very much appreciated.
Front cover: This Katanu Hand pump was developed in the late 1990s by the Government of Kenya and is the main water source for Nzamba Village in Ikutha Ward, Kitui. Photo credit: Cliff Nyaga/University of Oxford.
About the Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership: The Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership is a global United States Agency for International Development (USAID) cooperative agreement to identify locally-driven solutions to the challenge of developing robust local systems capable of sustaining water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) service delivery. This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through USAID under the terms of the Cooperative Agreement AID-OAA-A-16-00075. The contents are the responsibility of the Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. For more information, visit www.globalwaters.org/SWS, or contact Elizabeth Jordan ([email protected]).
2 Table of Contents
Acronyms...... 6
Foreword ...... 7
Executive Summary ...... 8
Introduction ...... 13
Kitui County Water Audit ...... 17
Approach and Methodology ...... 19
Audit Results ...... 24
Opportunities for Sustainability of Rural Water Services ...... 56
Conclusion ...... 62
Annex A: Kitui County Water Audit Methodology ...... 63
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of Kenya (left) and map of Kitui County showing the eight sub-counties (right) ...... 14
Figure 2. Sample report on the ONA dashboard providing a quick analysis of audit data ...... 21
Figure 3. Photo menu of ONA web showing image data submitted by enumerators ...... 22
Figure 4. Distribution of the 3,126 water sources located mapped through the water audits in 2011, 2016, and 2017 ...... 24
Figure 5. Distribution of water sources mapped by type, number, and proportion of the total 3,126 sources ...... 25
Figure 6. Distribution of the 3,126 water sources mapped by sub-county ...... 27
Figure 7. Kitui seasonal rainfall anomalies (left) and distribution of infrastructure (earth dams, hand pumps, and rock catchments) developed over time (right) ...... 28
Figure 8. Reported annual reliability of surface and sub-surface dams ...... 28
Figure 9. Functionality status of all water sources mapped on the day of audit...... 29
Figure 10. Functionality of all water sources mapped on the day of audit by source type ...... 30
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 3 Figure 11. Functionality status of all water sources mapped and counted by sub-county ...... 31
Figure 12. Kitui County investors by number of water sources developed ...... 32
Figure 13. Leading investors in leading water infrastructure installed since 2000 ...... 33
Figure 14. Cumulative unadjusted investment (USD) in leading source types since 2000 ...... 34
Figure 15. Cumulative unadjusted USD investment made in piped schemes from 2000 to 2017 ...... 35
Figure 16. Functionality of hand pumps across the different management options documented ...... 36
Figure 17. Leading cause of mechanical breakdown in non-operational hand pumps registered ...... 37
Figure 18. Dry periods for the 32 percent of hand pumps that reported unreliable supply ...... 37
Figure 19. Water distribution pressure for piped schemes (left) and the primary energy source(s) in pumped schemes (right) ...... 38
Figure 20. Operation status of piped schemes by the energy sources used for water pumping ...... 39
Figure 21. Reported broken features in partly-functional and non-functional piped schemes on the day of the water audit ...... 41
Figure 22. Reported cost of major repairs completed in 2 years and the volatility of repair costs ...... 42
Figure 23. Actors involved in fixing the most recent breakdown in piped schemes ...... 43
Figure 24. Downtime for all failures reported by piped schemes during the audit ...... 44
Figure 25. Common preventive maintenance tasks done in rural piped schemes ...... 44
Figure 26. Leading reasons for scheme close-down at certain times of the year ...... 45
Figure 27. Reliability against condition of piped scheme ...... 46
Figure 28. Maximum one-way distance (kilometers) travelled by households to piped scheme sources (left) and density of piped scheme investments per capita and per km2 (right) ...... 47
Figure 29. Variation of TDS (ppm) levels across the eight sub-counties of Kitui ...... 49
Figure 30. Domestic and productive water uses recorded in the audit ...... 49
Figure 31. Reported key monthly expense items in piped schemes by value ...... 50
Figure 32. Reported collection efficiency range by piped schemes for billed revenues ...... 51
4 Figure 33. Documented management options in piped schemes ...... 51
Figure 34. Number of employees by the employing entity...... 52
Figure 35. Proportion of piped scheme employees occupying observed roles ...... 53
Figure 36. Mean monthly salary reported by job/role in piped schemes ...... 54
Figure 37. Mean monthly salary (USD) for piped scheme staff against education attained ...... 54
Figure 38. Reported primary and secondary alternative sources of drinking water for piped scheme users ...... 58
Figure 39. Functionality of piped schemes by sub-county ...... 60
List of Tables
Table 1. Number of water sources mapped by type, and their distribution by sub-county ...... 26
Table 2. Number of major breakdowns recorded in piped schemes in 2 years ...... 42
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 5 Acronyms
CBO Community-Based Organization
DFID Department for International Development
KIMWASCO Kiambere-Mwingi Water and Sanitation Company
KITWASCO Kitui Water and Sanitation Company
MAWL Kitui County Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Livestock Development
O&M Operation and Maintenance
ONA A web and mobile app product for field data collection
PPP Public-Private Partnerships
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SHG Self-Help Group
SWS Sustainable WASH Systems
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
UCB University of Colorado Boulder
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene
WASREB Water Services Regulatory Board
WMC Water Management Committee
WSP Water Service Provider or Water Utility
6 Foreword
This county water audit has been conducted at a strategic point in time when we really want to determine how much water is accessible to the people of Kitui. Under the leadership of Her Excellency, The Governor Charity K. Ngilu, provision of clean and reliable water is the development manifesto pillar number one for Kitui County Government. This is informed by the multiple benefits that come with access to reliable and safe water: improved health for the population, improved access to good nutrition, and creation of time for other livelihood activities. It is a common thing in many rural areas of Kitui to see women and even children sitting in long queues waiting to fetch water. Sometimes this water is not easily accessed, and the people are forced to dig deep and risky sand wells to get water. It is the desire of our governor through the Water Department to make this water available at the homestead level and remove the burden on women of carrying water with their backs. Due to the expansiveness of Kitui County, water access is still low in terms of coverage and quantity. Quite a significant population walk long distances in search of water and queue for long hours waiting to draw water. This situation is unacceptable and forms our thrust in planning for investment.
This report has produced a very useful inventory of both functional and non-functional rural water facilities to facilitate evidence-based decision making. It shows the facilities to direct our investments toward, and at the same time it underscores the need for inclusion of a kitty for maintenance in the budgeting process. The report also identifies key actors and their contribution in the water and sanitation sector, and this forms a useful database for strengthening coordination and hence improving service delivery. As I have observed in just about a year in this office, for smooth implementation of WASH programs, a proper information management system is paramount. Data management is a key factor in giving us baselines, setting targets, and monitoring progress over time. The county water audit provides a rich data set that will require frequent updating by all WASH actors in the county. This will ultimately improve sectoral coordination and inform improved planning and better policies and practices, which will accelerate Kitui County’s achievement of the sustainable development goals to ensure universal water access by 2030. My office will strive to establish this information system and always encourage relevant collaboration by all partners.
I want to take this opportunity to register my sincere appreciation to the organizations who have given their best energy, time, expertise, and financial resources to make this work a success. The support that we have received so far and continue to enjoy from the University of Oxford, UNICEF Kenya, and Rural Focus through the USAID Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership is immense and highly appreciated. I will not forget to thank my team in the Water Department for being available to support this process whenever they are needed.
Thank you all.
Emmanuel Kisangau, County Minister for Agriculture, Water, and Livestock Development
7 Executive Summary
Kitui County is one of 47 counties in Kenya, located approximately 160 kilometers (km) east of Nairobi City. The county has an estimated population of 1,221,000 people, with 14 percent located in urban areas and 86 percent in rural parts of the county. The county established two water service providers (WSPs), Kitui Water and Sanitation Company (KITWASCO) and Kiambere-Mwingi Water and Sanitation Company (KIMWASCO). The WSPs are licensed and regulated by the Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB) to manage water and sanitation services in Kitui County. According to WASREB, in 2017, KITWASCO and KIMWASCO served 32 percent of the county population (approximately 360,000 people), in predominantly urban areas due to limited network coverage in rural parts of the county. County-wide estimates indicate that 42 percent of the combined rural and urban population have access to at least a basic water service. Performance of the rural water sub-sector has not been comprehensively documented; hence, an information gap exists on water coverage and quality of service for a large segment of the county population.
To fill this gap, the Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership (SWS), funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the REACH Program, funded by the Department for International Development (DFID), conceptualized and supported a water audit in 2016 and 2017. The water audit aimed to locate major rural water infrastructure and collect information on installation and operational performance to inform county planning, investment, institutional development, and dialogue on sustainability.
The University of Oxford developed a water audit instrument with the county government and piloted it in Mwingi North Sub-County. The team recruited and trained local enumerators and collected data using the Open Data Kit mobile platform in Mwingi North Sub-County in August 2016, and for Kitui’s remaining seven sub-counties from November to December 2017. The water audit targeted major and equipped infrastructure, namely hand pumps and piped schemes, and non- equipped sources that skirted the equipped infrastructure. The analysis in this report therefore reflects major infrastructure, rather than a systematic survey, and it is possible that not every water source in the county was located and mapped.
Results of the Water Audit Cumulatively, the audits mapped 3,126 equipped and non-equipped water sources spread across Kitui County. In terms of number of equipped sources, 687 hand pumps (22 percent) and 460 piped schemes (15 percent) were audited. In terms of non-equipped sources, 655 sand dams (21 percent), 613 earth dams (20 percent), 268 shallow wells (9 percent), 89 rock catchments (3 percent), 28 springs (1 percent), and 52 incomplete boreholes (2 percent) were documented. On the day of the audit, 60 percent of all sources mapped were fully functional and 40 percent were either partly working (15 percent) or not working at all (25 percent). By number of sources developed, NGOs are the leading investor (37 percent) in county water infrastructure, followed by national and county governments (23 percent) and community-funded development (10 percent). For 11 percent of the sources mapped, respondents credited funding for infrastructure development to bilateral and multilateral donors. More bilateral and multilateral donors than reported here may have invested in the Kitui County water sector, given that they constitute a primary grants source for NGOs. In terms of value of investment, piped scheme sources account for more than half of the total investment (unadjusted) made in Kitui County since 2000, followed by earth dam sources. For 19
8 percent (86) of piped schemes where cost information was available, the total value of the capital investment was $5.22 million (unadjusted).
Reliability of water sources is a key issue for Kitui County, stemming from a climate-related lack of year-round availability of water at sources mapped. Climate analysis suggests that there is a high inter-seasonal rainfall variability and extreme drought risk in some parts of the county. When paired with infrastructure mapped, the analysis suggests that many surface water sources (i.e., rock catchments, earth dams, and hand pumps) have been constructed in areas of sequential dry periods.
Results for Hand Pump Sources A hand pump was defined as a well or borehole with hand-operated mechanical pumping equipment installed for groundwater abstraction. Afridev is the dominant hand pump type in Kitui County (86 percent), followed by the India Mark II hand pump (7 percent). Two out of three hand pumps supply water all year round, while the remainder, 32 percent, experience periods of decreased flows, especially in the months of August, September, and October. Pump rods (32 percent), foot valves (28 percent), and rising main pipes (31 percent) constituted the most broken parts in non- operational hand pumps.
Results for Piped Scheme Sources A piped scheme was defined as a water source (whether borehole, rock catchment, shallow well, earth dam, or sand dam) that incorporates a water distribution network and/or includes pumps, tanks, valves, meters, pipeline, kiosks, and standpipes, among other features. In total, 460 piped schemes were audited, 454 of which were fully completed and six under construction. On the day of the audit, 56 percent of the completed piped schemes were fully functional, 15 percent were partly functional, and 28 percent were not working. The most broken features in the piped scheme constituted the pipe network (17 percent), generators (13 percent), boreholes (12 percent), pumps (10 percent), and storage tanks (10 percent). Twenty-five percent of the breakdowns experienced in the 2 years of the audit were resolved within 7 days, while it took up to 30 days to resolve 46 percent of the breakdowns reported. On average, pipe network and vandalism-related failures took a shorter time to fix (169 and 159 days, respectively) compared to pump failures, which took 352 days on average to fix. Kitui County Government is the most active entity involved in fixing breakdowns, for 32 percent of the piped schemes, followed by local technicians, for 30 percent of the schemes. Regarding reliability of service, the average duration of water supply for fully operational piped schemes at the time of the audit was 9.1 hours every day, and performance in this metric varied by sub-county, functionality, and overall maintenance condition of schemes.
Most piped schemes rely on pumping (79 percent), either wholly or partially, for distribution of water. The main sources of energy used for pumping are generators (53 percent) and solar energy (23 percent). Hybrid sources of energy combining a primary and a backup power source were documented in 13 percent of the piped schemes. The team documented over 28,000 cubic meters (m3) of installed water storage capacity in 831 storage tanks, which translates to an average storage of two tanks per piped scheme, each with 33 m3 capacity. Overall, a metering ratio of 50 percent was recorded for source or production points and 76 percent for connections to households, institutions, standpipes, and kiosks. Sixty-seven percent of the piped schemes did not record meter readings despite having a meter.
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 9 Ninety-five percent of the piped schemes did not treat water before distribution to users, while 21 (5 percent) indicated they practice some form of water treatment. Commonly used water-treatment methods were chlorination (12 piped schemes) and flocculation (6 piped schemes). Users from 17 percent of all piped schemes expressed concerns over the quality of their water source. The main issues reported relate to salinity or salty taste of water (53 percent) and assumed contamination (14 percent), from reports of stomach aches or diarrhea after drinking water from the piped scheme source. Water supplied by piped schemes is primarily used for domestic purposes — namely drinking, washing, bathing, and cooking — and for productive uses (brick making and irrigation).
Commercial Performance of Piped Schemes Nine in 10 piped schemes administer a “per jerrycan” tariff, and users generally pre-pay for water at the collection point using cash. A small proportion of piped schemes (5 percent) charge households a monthly flat fee of $0.77 on average for unlimited water access. The average sales price for a 20– 22 liter jerrycan of water is $0.03, and credit sale of water to households is practiced in one-third of the piped schemes. For tariff payment, 1 in 2 piped schemes reported that at least 40 percent of the revenue is not collected from users due to non-compliance. A sizeable proportion of piped schemes (42 percent) reported having an active bank account for purposes of revenue and savings management, while 33 percent of the piped schemes do not bank revenues and entrust a committee member with cash storage. Mobile banking is an emerging alternative embraced by 5 percent of the piped schemes audited. The leading operational expenditure items are fuel or electricity (42 percent), salaries (36 percent), and repair and maintenance (13 percent).
Governance and Management Eighty-two percent of piped schemes are managed by users or communities through elected representatives or water management committees (WMCs). The typical size of a WMC is 10 elected members, and half of the WMCs represent up to 100 households or members. Generally, the WMC has equal representation of men and women. Two in three piped schemes are legally registered as self-help groups (SHGs) or community-based organizations (CBOs) with the department for social services in Kenya, have formalized by-laws to regulate their conduct, and regularly prepare minutes of their WMC meetings. Some of the cross-cutting management weaknesses documented by the audit include failure to maintain technical performance records and books of accounts, develop plans and budgets, and conduct regular and independent audits.
A total of 711 people are employed in the county to support operations of piped schemes. On average each piped scheme employs two staff members to fill the common roles of kiosk attendant, pump operator, or watchman. Sixty-nine percent of the scheme employees attained primary school- level qualification, and less than 3 percent attained tertiary or college-level qualification. The average monthly salary paid to employees was $42 and varied based on the role and level of education.
Opportunities for Rural Water Service Sustainability Article 43 of the Constitution of Kenya (2010) entrenches water and sanitation as a right, and Article 21 obligates county governments to take steps to ensure they progressively realize this right. The water audit methodology provides a low-cost and adaptable approach for other county governments in Kenya to establish a baseline status of water services and advance service provision in their jurisdiction areas. For Kitui County, 3,126 sources spread over an area of 24,194 square kilometers (km2) were mapped at an all-inclusive cost of $80,000.
10 To better promote sustainability of rural water services, Kitui and other county governments need to: (1) integrate climate risk analysis in the selection of water source type and location for investment to mitigate drought risks and improve service reliability; (2) explore potential benefits of a standardization policy for technologies deployed by actors, considering that multiple brands of equipment have been installed over time and considering the added complexity to repair and maintain service provision; (3) build capacity of WMCs to embrace simple but essential practices and systems of operations management to improve performance; and (4) address the widespread land disputes that are documented and review the traditional model by WASH actors wherein “land contribution” by communities is linked with sustainability.
Even when all the equipment is working, the water audit shows that piped schemes close operations in the wet season because users shift to using free surface and groundwater alternatives. The primary alternative is shallow wells, which are an unimproved source and expose users to health risks. Use of alternative sources in the wet season also negatively impacts business viability of piped schemes, and there is thus a need to counter these deep-rooted behavioral issues to achieve sustainable and universal water service coverage.
Kitui County’s water strategy aims to reduce the distance covered to water source by county households to 2 km by 2022. The water audit provides indicative figures of the average distance covered by households for each sub-county and accentuates inequalities. There is an opportunity for Kitui County Government to enshrine the “distance to source” metric in relevant county policies on resource allocation and to target resources or investments in the coming years to specifically address inequalities.
Finally, there is an opportunity to (1) establish an information management system or database to build on the baseline information provided by the water audit and (2) design an updating mechanism to enable cost-effective monitoring of the county water sector. For better management and monitoring of water infrastructure, Kitui and other county governments will also need to develop unique identification format and physical tagging of water points.
Conclusion The audit provides an invaluable data set of key water sources and a baseline status of water services in Kitui County. It suggests that investments in county water infrastructure have grown considerably, but sustainability of water services remains a challenge. Non-functionality of water sources is the main drawback to the county’s goal of ensuring that improved water and sanitation services are available and accessible to all by 2030, as outlined in the Kenya Vision 2030 blueprint for the water and sanitation sector.
Commissioning a database to hold the water audit data set, coupled with an updating mechanism, will support efficient monitoring of the county water sector. Targeted support of the rural water sub-sector is necessary to improve performance of the popular community management model. This may include integration of public-private partnership (PPP) models of operation and maintenance (O&M) for rural sources to amplify performance.
County governments in Kenya are tasked by the constitution with ensuring universal water service access, and leveraging the private sector would complement their finances, technology, and expertise in delivery of this mandate. This will require creation of better policies and incentives to attract the
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 11 private sector and investment of county resources to accelerate uptake of novel PPP models at scale.
12 Introduction Overview of Kitui County Kitui County is one of the 47 counties of Kenya and is located about 160 kilometers (km) east of Nairobi City. Kitui is Kenya’s sixth-largest county, covering an area of 30,496.51 square kilometers (km2), of which 6,302.7 km2 are occupied by Tsavo East National Park. The county topography is generally low-lying and falls within the altitude range of 400 to 1,800 meters (m) above sea level.1
Administratively, Kitui County is further sub-divided into eight sub-counties: Kitui Central, Kitui West, Kitui East, Kitui South, Kitui Rural, Mwingi North, Mwingi Central, and Mwingi West (see Figure 1). Each sub-county is composed of several wards, and each ward represents several villages. There are a total of 40 wards and 246 villages in Kitui County.2 The sub-counties, wards, and villages are governed by appointed officers of Kitui County Government, namely sub-county administrators, ward administrators, and administrators.
Kitui County’s population was 1,012,7093 in 2009 and was composed of a 53 percent (531,427) female and 47 percent (481,282) male population. The county’s annual population growth rate is approximately 2.1 percent and slightly lower than the national average population growth rate of 2.6 percent. In 2018, the county’s estimated population was 1,221,001 people. Kitui Central was Kitui County’s most densely populated sub-county, with 238 people per km2, and Kitui East was the least populated, with 29 people per km2. The county average was 50 people per km2. The average household size was five people per household.
Kikanga Sand Dam in Matinyani Ward, Kitui, was audited on November 21, 2017. Photo Credit: Cliff Nyaga/University of Oxford
1 Kitui County Government (2013), First Kitui County Integrated Development Plan 2013–2017: Planning for Sustainable Socio-Economic Growth and Development. 2 Kitui County Villages Act 2015, Part III. Available at: http://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Acts/KituiCountyVillagesAct2015.pdf (Accessed June 4, 2018). 3 Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2009), The 2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census, Nairobi, Kenya.
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 13
The two main urban centers in the county are Kitui Town and Mwingi Town, which together account for 14 percent of the county population. The remaining 86 percent of the county population is categorized as rural.
Kitui County falls in the semi-arid climatic zone of Kenya and is mostly dry and hot, with temperatures ranging between 14°C during the coldest months (July through August) and 34°C during the hottest months (January through March). The maximum mean annual temperature ranges between 26°C and 34°C, whereas the minimum mean annual temperature ranges between 14°C and 22°C. The county receives between 500 and 1,050 millimeters (mm) of rainfall annually, with average rainfall of 900 mm a year. The topography of the landscape influences the amount of rainfall received. The highland areas of Mumoni Hills to the north, Kitui Central, Mutitu, and Endau Hills receive 500 to 1,050 mm per year, while the drier lowlands stretching from the north (Tseikuru, Kyuso, Mwingi, Ngomeni, Nguni, and Nuu) through the Yatta plateau, the eastern areas (Mutito and Mwitika), and southern areas (Mutomo and Ikutha) receive less than 500 mm.4 Kitui County has two rainy seasons: May through June (long rains) and September through October (short rains). The short rains are more reliable and are the county’s principal productive season. The long rains usually provide about 30 percent of crop production, mainly pulses, including green grams and pigeon peas.
Figure 1. Map of Kenya (left) and map of Kitui County showing the eight sub-counties (right)
4 Kenya Meteorological Service (2015), Kitui County Climate Information Services Strategic Plan. Available at: http://www.adaconsortium.org/index.php/component/k2/item/download/51_c1737bfaf1145ef5fcf15d d148e6b742 (Accessed June 11, 2018).
14 Devolution of Water Services in Kenya Articles 6, 174, 175, and 176 of the Constitution of Kenya (2010) created a two-tier system of governance comprised of one national government and 47 county governments. The responsibility to provide water and sanitation services in Kenya is now devolved and a function of county governments. In addition, Article 43 of the Constitution of Kenya entrenches water and sanitation as a constitutional right by recognizing the right to “reasonable standards of sanitation” and “clean and safe water in adequate quantities.” This obligation, as per Article 21, should be delivered by the county governments and requires them to take steps to ensure they progressively realize this right. Linked with this, the Government of Kenya is implementing its economic blueprint, the Kenya Vision 2030,5 which seeks to make Kenya a newly industrializing middle-income country providing high- quality life for all its citizens by 2030. The blueprint, among other objectives, outlines the goal of delivering universal access to water and sanitation by 2030 and identifies priority investments.
Kenya officially endorsed the sustainable development goals (SDGs) in late 2016, at which time it was already in the eighth year of implementing the Kenya Vision 2030, executed in five-year cyclic Medium-Term Plans. By the time the SDGs were adopted, the second Medium-Term Plan (2013–2017) and the first County Integrated Development Plan for the same period were in their third year of implementation. Preparation of the third Medium-Term Plan and the second County Integrated Development Plan for the period of 2018–2022 is complete, and these plans have further mainstreamed the SDGs.
The Water Act (2016)6 provides the policy framework for alignment of Kenya’s water sector to the devolved structure of government described in the Constitution of Kenya and clarifies mandates of the various national, regional, and local-level sector institutions and actors. The Water Act mandates county governments to establish Eighty-nine rock catchment sources (non-equipped) Water Service Providers (WSPs) and the were mapped in Kitui County. Photo Credit: Cliff Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB) Nyaga/University of Oxford. to license, regulate, and maintain an information system of water service levels
5 Government of Kenya, 2007. Kenya Vision 2030: A Globally Competitive and Prosperous Kenya. 6 The Water Act, 2016, Part IV. Available at: http://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Acts/WaterAct_No43of2016.pdf (Accessed March 7, 2018)
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 15 and quality, among other roles. As of 2017, 88 WSPs in Kenya were regulated by WASREB, including two WSPs established by Kitui County Government.7
Kitui County Government owns two WSPs, Kitui Water and Sanitation Company (KITWASCO) and Kiambere-Mwingi Water and Sanitation Company (KIMWASCO). These WSPs are licensed and regulated by WASREB to provide water services in the county, in accordance with a set of regulations and quality standards established by WASREB.8 However, the two WSPs currently serve roughly one-third (390,000) of the total county population (1,221,001) due to various constraints that include limited infrastructure coverage, inefficient operations, inadequate water resources, urbanization, and unprecedented demand or population growth. The remainder of the county population is partly served by rural sources or schemes that play a critical role in closing the water access gap. These sources have been developed by different actors, including national and county government agencies, bilateral and multilateral donors, NGOs, churches, philanthropists, and users or communities. County-wide estimates indicate that 42 percent of Kitui County’s population has access to at least a basic water service (i.e., time taken for a return trip to collection point is 30 minutes or less).9
Almost all small rural schemes are unlicensed and unregulated by WASREB, and availability of information on their functionality, performance, and service quality is limited. For Kitui County Government to develop and actualize its water service delivery goals, develop realistic investment plans and policies, and accurately inform national-level monitoring, there is a need to shed light on performance, impact, and the potential role of rural schemes in transforming county water service delivery.
At the national level, WASREB is leading various initiatives to bring more rural water supply schemes under its regulation. Key among them is a review to develop simple and relevant indicators that will allow county governments to efficiently monitor and report to WASREB on performance of rural schemes in their jurisdiction area. Further, in recognition of challenges with the traditional rural water service delivery model in which operation and management of infrastructure is often left to local communities with limited capacities, WASREB is developing public-private partnership (PPP) models for potential adoption by county governments and sector actors to address some of the fundamental issues and increase sustainable water service access. This may also help to bridge the $12 billion funding gap required for Kenya to deliver universal water access by 2030.10
7 Water Services Regulatory Board (2018), Impact Report, Issue 10: A Performance Report of Kenya Water Services Sector 2015/2016 and 2016/2017. Available at: https://wasreb.go.ke/impact-reports/ (Accessed August 1, 2018). 8 Water Services Regulatory Board (2018). Water Services Regulatory Board’s Website. Available at: https://wasreb.go.ke/water-service-regulations/ (Accessed August 1, 2018). 9 Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2018), 2015/2016 Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey, Kenya. 10 Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources & JICA (2014), The Project on the Development of the National Water Master Plan 2030.
16 Kitui County Water Audit What Is a Water Audit? A water audit entails undertaking a comprehensive assessment of equipped sources (see Box 1) across construction details and operation performance, including: location details, technical specifications of parts or features, maintenance history, reliability, water quality, breakdown history, maintenance practices, commercial performance, management, and governance structures in place. Selected water quality parameters — namely pH, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids (TDS), and temperature — are measured using a probe meter. Data collected include image files of the water source documentation, meter reading records, and physical infrastructure.
Box 1: Definition of source types
Equipped sources • Piped scheme: a water source (whether borehole, rock catchment, shallow well, earth dam, or sand dam) incorporating a water distribution network and/or including pumps, tanks, valves, meters, pipeline, kiosks, and standpipes, among other features. • Hand pump: a well or borehole with a hand-operated pumping mechanism installed for groundwater abstraction. • Water kiosk: a WSP-operated or -managed kiosk that forms an extension of its network.
Non-equipped sources • Borehole: a machine-drilled source that is not equipped, whether under construction, abandoned, or stalled. • Rock catchment: a reservoir created by storing runoff from a rock surface or catchment. • Shallow well: a large-diameter, hand-dug hole in the ground for abstraction of groundwater. It may include a bucket and rope mechanism for water abstraction. • Earth dam: a reservoir created by excavating open ground to collect and store surface runoff, with a pipe network installed to prevent direct drawing of water by people and/or livestock. • Spring: the natural flow of groundwater from an aquifer to earth’s surface, both protected and unprotected. • Sand or sub-surface dam: a small wall built above ground and into the riverbed of a seasonal river to accumulate sand upstream and obstruct groundwater flow resulting in water storage below ground level.
The University of Oxford developed the water audit methodology and piloted it in Mwingi North Sub-County in August 2016 with funding from the REACH Program.11 The audit for the remaining seven (of eight) sub-counties of Kitui was supported by the Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership (SWS), a global United States Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded initiative to identify locally-driven solutions to the challenge of developing robust systems capable of sustaining water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services. Implementation of SWS is ongoing in
11 REACH is a global research program to improve water security for 5 million poor people in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa by delivering world-class science that transforms policy and practice. https://reachwater.org.uk
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 17 Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Cambodia by a consortium of eight partners led by the University of Colorado Boulder (UCB).
In Kenya, SWS will be implemented over 5 years, from 2017 to 2021, by the University of Oxford, UNICEF Kenya, and Rural Focus. This program of work aims to test, demonstrate, learn, and share knowledge on the application of systems-based approaches to improving sustainability of rural water services. The geography of focus is Kitui County, working in close partnership with the County Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Livestock Development (MAWL).
Goals of the Audit The broad objective of the water audit was to conduct an objective assessment of all major water infrastructure and provide evidence on the status of rural water services in Kitui County. The audit also sought to inform dialogue and consensus building on issues that need to be addressed to achieve sustainability of rural water services.
The specific objective was to locate and map all equipped rural water infrastructure and collect information on installation details and operational performance to inform county dialogue, planning, policies, and investment decisions at MAWL. In addition, the audit would provide the basis for the development of a water service monitoring system for Kitui County Government. Non-equipped water sources, defined as sources with no distribution network or pumping mechanism installed (see Box 1), were also audited, although less extensively compared to equipped sources.
Kwa Muithya shallow well in Mutonguni Ward of Kitui was developed by community members in 2008. The well is unreliable during the dry season due to receding of groundwater table. Photo Credit: Cliff Nyaga/University of Oxford.
18 Approach and Methodology County-Level Consultations The audit scope, tools, and work plan were developed and reviewed with MAWL and adapted prior to commencing field work to align with Kitui County Government’s plans and needs. MAWL undertook formal introduction of the water audit activity to relevant ministries, including the County Ministry for Administration and Coordination, and to local county government officers to encourage their cooperation and support of the field data collection activity.
Recruitment and Training of Enumerators A one-tier recruitment process for enumerators involved circulation of the terms of reference, with more than 300 applicants expressing interest. The desired threshold was a water-related diploma (or higher) qualification; prior experience in WASH-related surveys or research, preferably in Kitui; and proficiency in the local language, Kamba. The team shortlisted 23 potential candidates and conducted face-to-face and phone interviews. Fourteen enumerators and two12 team leaders were then selected and trained for 5 days, November 6–10, 2017. The first three days of the training covered the audit purpose and approach, rural water sources and their characterization, audit tool questions, their meaning and translation to Kamba for uniformity of understanding, and the use of the adopted mobile field data collection platform, which integrates a web (ONA) and mobile app (Open Data Kit) product. Participants were also trained in data management and submission using the Open Data Kit app.
A pilot exercise was conducted on day four of the training to simulate the actual field data collection. For logistical convenience, training and piloting were both done in Mwingi North (Kyuso Ward), and the group of 16 enumerators was split into two, with eight enumerators in each group. Each group visited three different water source types and conducted interviews with the WMCs (for piped scheme sources) and users if available on site (for kiosks, hand pumps, and non-equipped sources). On day five, all data collected in the pilot exercise were reviewed and several changes made to the audit instrument to accommodate all emerging issues and enumerator feedback.
Field Data Collection Field data collection kicked off on November 13, 2017 with three field teams of 4 to 6 enumerators each. Team A, with six enumerators, covered Mwingi Central, Kitui East, and Kitui South Sub-Counties. Team B, with four enumerators, covered Mwingi West and Kitui Rural Sub-Counties. Team C, with four enumerators, covered Kitui West and Kitui Central Sub-Counties.
12 A third team leader, also part of the audit team, was a staff of the SWS program and did not require recruitment and training.
19 Each team was headed by a team leader with a minimum of an undergraduate degree qualification whose daily role included logistics management, pre-arranging audit meetings with WMCs for piped schemes, data quality control, including checks for completeness, and managing online submission of completed audit forms. A project manager was responsible for the overall audit exercise; their primary role was to provide technical support to field teams if/when required and data quality control. Team leaders pre-arranged meetings with WMCs in close liaison with local county officers (sub- county water officers, ward administrators, and village administrators), who had received a prior directive from Kitui County Government to support the field activity. Audit meetings would often be held at the water source site and followed by a “transect walk” with the WMC across the distribution network to map and assess the condition of key infrastructure features at the scheme in question, including storage tanks, generators, pumps, standpipes, valves, and kiosks. WMC members for a hand pump source convene for the water audit exercise. Photo Credit: Cliff Each enumerator was provided with a tablet Nyaga/University of Oxford. computer, a handheld GPS (where the tablet’s GPS functionality was weak), a power bank (where the tablet battery did not last for a full day), a map of the assigned sub-county, and stationery. Locally sourced motorcycle taxis (boda bodas) were used to provide transport for efficient movement from one water source to another.
A daily target was set in which each enumerator was expected to audit one piped scheme and at least five other non-equipped sources. The audit instrument for piped schemes was more detailed and therefore longer. It required a meeting with a WMC to complete, unlike other source types. Field data collection ended on December 23, 2017, with teams spending between 27 and 36 working days (including Saturdays) in the field.13
13 The team that covered Mwingi West and Kitui Central Sub-Counties took 27 days to complete field work.
20
Data Quality Control and Cleaning Data quality checks were performed daily and at two levels. First, at the end of the day, the team leader checked completed surveys in the Open Data Kit for any inadequacies before online submission to the ONA server for web access. The team leader would also tally visited water sources against the inventory provided by MAWL to ensure all known sources in a target village were located and audited. The project manager would then access data submitted to ONA web on the previous day for further quality checks. Figure 2 shows a sample report available on the ONA dashboard, which allowed for a quick appraisal of teams and submitted data.
Submitted data were triangulated using Excel analysis, which the audit instrument was designed to allow. Image files on ONA web (see Figure 3 below) were used to visually validate some of the discrepancies noted, such as the wrong distinction between some of the rare hand pump types. A daily report was provided to team leaders seeking clarification and/or specifying sources to be re-audited by enumerators to fill material gaps if noted.
Figure 2. Sample report on the ONA dashboard providing a quick analysis of audit data
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 21 The final phase of data cleaning began immediately after completion of field data collection. In general, this involved deleting duplicates for sources where enumerators had been sent for a repeat audit exercise. Distinct outliers in the data set were also isolated for further verification and correction. This process resulted in minor adjustments, especially in cases where GPS coordinates had been manually entered due to commission errors. Eight duplicate water points were deleted from the data set in addition to a few other corrections of individual data elements. The cleaned data were then merged with data sets from previous audits (for Mwingi North Sub-County) to enable a comprehensive county- wide analysis.
Figure 3. Photo menu of ONA web showing image data submitted by enumerators
Water Audit Limitations 1. The primary goal of the audit was to locate and assess major water infrastructure comprising hand pumps and piped schemes. Because non-equipped sources that skirted the hand pumps and piped schemes were targeted and mapped, it is unlikely that all non-equipped sources were found. The “kiosk” source type represents WSP-managed infrastructure; they were not a priority for the audit but were included following a request from Kitui County Government to provide them with an additional layer of information. 2. The water audit covered seven sub-counties and excluded Mwingi North Sub-County, where a similar exercise was conducted in 2016 (for piped scheme sources) and 2011 (for hand pump sources). Data sets collected from these different periods were updated with the available information and merged for analysis to provide the county-wide picture included in this report. For some of the metrics, required information was not available for updating.
22 3. The Mwingi North Sub-County data set that was collected in 2011 and 2016 and is included in this analysis is composed of equipped sources only (i.e., piped schemes and hand pump source types). However, for the remaining seven sub-counties, key findings on both equipped and non-equipped sources (see Box 1) are reported. 4. The water audit data were collected in greater detail for piped schemes than any other source type, mainly because they comprise the key infrastructure in rural geographies providing safe14 drinking water to rural households. Piped schemes also serve relatively more people than point sources, and the water audit sought to provide empirical evidence to support planning and investments by the county WASH actors in development, operation, maintenance, and monitoring of this type of infrastructure. 5. Information on piped schemes was sourced primarily through interviews with WMCs and scheme operators and, where possible, by inspection of scheme records. In many cases, construction and operations records were either unavailable or limited, and enumerators frequently relied on self-reporting by WMCs to fill gaps. Accordingly, it is important to recognize that this may have increased the risk of bias or inaccuracy of some of the responses or data collected and Water from piped schemes is supplied to households through reported. multiple collection points, mainly water kiosks and standpipes. Photo Credit: Cliff Nyaga/University of Oxford.
14 The nature of piped scheme construction prevents outside contamination. A few of them incorporate basic water treatment, mainly sedimentation and chlorination.
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 23 Audit Results Water Sources, Distribution, and Coverage
Figure 4. Distribution of the 3,126 water sources located mapped through the water audits in 2011, 2016, and 2017. The map is not exhaustive because it is likely that more non- equipped sources have been installed but were not located.
24
The combined water audits have located and mapped 3,126 water sources to date, spread across Kitui County (see Figure 4). Non-equipped sources are predominant, followed by equipped sources. Among the equipped sources, hand pumps comprise the most installed infrastructure in the county at 22 percent (687), followed by piped schemes at 15 percent and water kiosks at 9 percent. The water audit mapped 274 KIMWASCO- and KITWASCO-managed water kiosks, of which 3 in 5 are located in Kitui’s two urban sub-counties (Mwingi Central and Kitui Central).
Across Kitui County, 454 Boreholes, 52, 2% completed piped schemes were Kiosks, 274, 9% audited and most (357) rely on boreholes as their water source. Shallow wells, 268, 8% Fifty distribute water from rock catchment sources, 20 depend Springs, 28, 1% Earth Dams, on spring sources, 16 depend on 613, 19% shallow wells, and 6 piped schemes supply surface water from earth dam sources. The Sand Dams, 655, remaining 11 piped schemes get 21% Handpumps, 687, 22% water from multiple sources, a combination of a sub-surface dam (or sand dam) and river/stream source or an earth Piped Schemes, 460, 15% dam and a river/stream source. Rock Catchments, 89, 3% A total of 687 hand pumps were mapped. Of these, 82 percent Figure 5. Distribution of water sources mapped by type, number, were installed on hand-dug wells and proportion of the total 3,126 sources (wide diameter) while 18 percent were installed on machine-bored boreholes.
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 25 Table 1. Number of water sources mapped by type, and their distribution by sub-county
Sub-County/ Kitui Kitui Kitui Kitui Kitui Mwingi Mwingi Mwingi Grand Source Type Central East Rural South West Central North West Total Boreholes 3 5 8 5 2 16 4 9 52 Earth dams 31 77 61 142 71 147 2 82 613 Hand pumps 71 94 114 87 81 95 78 67 687 Piped schemes 35 62 36 97 37 68 49 76 460 Rock 13 3 36 22 15 89 catchments Sand dams 36 77 176 73 74 64 155 655 Springs 12 5 1 1 4 5 28 Shallow wells 52 41 49 22 39 51 1 13 268 Water kiosks 96 7 19 15 56 68 13 274 Total 336 381 467 478 360 535 134 435 3,126
Among all non-equipped sources, sand dams (21 percent) comprise the most installed infrastructure, followed by earth dams (19 percent), shallow wells (8 percent), rock catchments (3 percent), boreholes (2 percent), and springs (1 percent), as indicated in Figure 5.
Fifty-two non-equipped boreholes were mapped in the audit, 22 of which were under construction, while the remaining 30 were drilled and abandoned. This occurred for various reasons but was mainly due to a lack of funds to complete installation, low yield (inadequate source), and water quality-related issues such as reported colored water and high salinity. Almost all springs (26 out of 28) are located in four sub-counties of Kitui: Kitui Central, Mwingi Central, Kitui East, and Mwingi West. An additional 20 spring sources with water distribution infrastructure installed were documented but are categorized under piped schemes in line with the definitions used in this report.
By geographical spread, Figure 6 shows that most water infrastructure is installed in Mwingi Central (17 percent), Kitui South (15 percent), and Kitui Rural (15 percent) Sub-Counties.15 The types and number of sources in each sub-county vary widely, as detailed in
15 Data for Mwingi North was collected in 2011 and 2016 and captures information related to hand pump and piped scheme sources only.
26 .
Reliability of water sources is a key issue stemming from a climate-related lack of year-round availability of water at sources mapped. An analysis of the 1,132 dams and ponds mapped shows that 1 in 2 dams/pans do not supply water throughout the year (see Figure 7). This is more pronounced for surface dams (rock catchments and earth dams), compared to sub-surface dams or sand dams.
Distribution and the proportion of all water sources mapped by sub-counties of Kitui (n=3,126) 17% 600 18% Earth Dams 15% 15% 14% 16% Sand Dams 500 12% 14% 12% Handpumps 11% 400 12% Piped Schemes 10% 300 Rock Catchments 8%
Prorportion (%) Prorportion Shallow wells Number of Sources of Number 200 4% 6%
4% Boreholes 100 2% Springs
0 0% Kiosks Kitui Kitui East Kitui Kitui Kitui Mwingi Mwingi Mwingi Central Rural South West Central North West Proportion, out of Sub-Counties of Kitui the 3,126 sources Figure 6. Distribution of the 3,126 water sources mapped by sub-county
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 27 Maps of Kitui showing rainfall variability (left) and infrastructure distribution (right), including the longitude (x-axis) and latitude (y-axis) to indicate location.
Figure 7. Kitui seasonal rainfall anomalies (left) and distribution of infrastructure (earth dams, hand pumps, and rock catchments) developed over time (right). Adapted from Ellen Dyer (University of Oxford), Reach Program, 2018.
Is water available at the source (dam/pond) all year Is your dam/pond reliable round? (n=1132) all year round? (n=1132)
600 562 Don’t Know No No response Yes Don’t Know 500 Yes 7% 400 338 13% 313 300 180 No 171 respo 200 147 150 nse No 85 87 69 52 60 30% 100 30 50% 3 17 0 0 All Dams Rock Catchments Earth dams Sand Dam
Figure 8. Reported annual reliability of surface and sub-surface dams
A detailed analysis of rainfall anomalies for Kitui County was performed using CHIRPS — a quasi-global (spanning 50°S–50°N and all longitudes), high-resolution (0.05°) precipitation data set from 1981 to present — to create rainfall trend analysis and seasonal drought patterns. Figure 7 (left) affirms that there is a high inter-seasonal rainfall variability and extreme drought risk in the eastern and southern parts of the county (deep brown patches). When layered with infrastructure mapped during the audit
28 (right), the analysis suggests that surface water sources (i.e., rock catchments, earth dams, and hand pumps) have been constructed in areas of sequential dry periods. These sources are vulnerable to ensuing climate extremes and are rendered unreliable during dry periods; it is therefore paramount for Kitui County Government and its partners to ensure that future infrastructure investments consider such definite drought risks.
Functionality of All Sources Mapped The water audit sought to establish functionality of each source mapped, this being one of the key performance indicators used in the sector to ascertain quality of the water service accessible to users. Functionality was defined using the following criteria: (1) full functionality, (2) partial functionality for sources that are broken but working sub-optimally, and (3) non-functional status for sources broken and not working at the time of the audit. Figure 9 shows operation status registered on the day of the water audit, with 60 percent of all water sources in Kitui County fully functional and 40 percent either partly working (15 percent) or not working at all (25 percent). Not operational Functionality varies by the type of source (see 25% Figure 10) and by administrative unit (see Figure 11). Generally, the highest functionality was Operational recorded for springs (89 percent), perhaps due 60% to the rudimentary maintenance skill required Partly operational for this source type, while a high non- 15% functionality was recorded for water kiosks16 (68 percent), hand pumps (55 percent), and piped schemes (44 percent), all of which are sources that are mechanized or incorporate water distribution infrastructure. Figure 9. Functionality status of all water sources mapped on the day of audit
16 No audit meetings were pre-arranged for WSP-managed kiosks. It is possible that the reported non- functionality was partly associated with closure or lack of demand due to rains in the audit period.
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 29
Functionality by water source type (n=3,126)
120% Operational Partly operational Not operational
0% 100% 6% 8% 8% 11% 15% 28% 14% 28% 80% 38% 29% 51% 11% 60% 15% 17% 89% 40% 76% 76% 16% 63% 56% 59% 20% 45% 32%
0% Earth Dams Handpumps Piped Rock Sand Dams Springs Shallow wells Water Kiosks Schemes Catchments Figure 10. Functionality of all water sources mapped on the day of audit by source type
Mwingi North and Kitui South Sub-Counties lead in terms of the proportion of sources that are operational, whereas Mwingi West and Kitui Central lag behind all other sub-counties. One possible contributing factor for Mwingi North’s accomplishment may be the FundiFix model,17 a PPP initiative led by the University of Oxford and UNICEF Kenya in partnership with Kitui County Government to address the functionality of rural water infrastructure. FundiFix is an insurance-based model that has provided repair and preventive maintenance service to local communities and institutions managing piped schemes and hand pumps since 2016. The FundiFix model works by incubating county-based enterprises to provide the maintenance service — and in turn deliver year-round functionality — for reliable water access to rural communities, schools, and health facilities. At scale, the model offers an alternative pathway for Kitui and other county governments in Kenya to rapidly achieve universal drinking water service coverage.
17 A rural PPP model for maintenance of rural water services, by the University of Oxford and UNICEF Kenya, under incubation in Kitui County and that worked in Mwingi North at the time of the audit. For more information: http://www.oxwater.uk/model.html or www.fundifix.co.ke.
30
Functionality of all sources by sub-county (n = 3,126)
Operational Partly operational Not operational No of sources
100% 600 28% 26% 28% 21% 20% 28% 21% 18% 90% 500 80% 478 535 467 70% 435 400 381 60% 360 336 50% 300 40%
Functionality (%) Functionality 200 30% (no) SourcesTotal 20% 134 100 10% 50% 64% 60% 67% 62% 60% 72% 55%
0% 0
Kitui East Kitui
Kitui rural Kitui
Kitui West Kitui
Kitui SouthKitui
Kitui CentralKitui
Mwingi West Mwingi
Mwingi North Mwingi Mwingi Central Mwingi Name of sub-County Figure 11. Functionality status of all water sources mapped and counted by sub-county
County WASH Partners and Investments The 3,126 water sources mapped represent investments in the county water sector dating back to 1952 by a diverse range of actors comprised of government, NGOs, multilateral and bilateral donors, churches, private philanthropists, and local communities. For 20 percent of the sources mapped, development of infrastructure was financed through a collaborative effort of two or more organizations.
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 31 By number of sources, NGOs are the leading investor (37 percent) in Kitui County water infrastructure development (see Figure 12). Key players include CARITAS, AMREF, World Vision, German Agro Action, Adventist Development and Relief Agency, Anglican Development Services, Sahelian Solutions Foundation, Africa Sand Dam Foundation, Dorcas Aid, ACK Church, LDS Church, Miltilateral Samaritans Pulse, and Action Aid. For this /Bilateral analysis, churches and foundations that have 11% supported infrastructure development are Community categorized under NGOs. Bilateral and NGO 10% multilateral programs (e.g., the National 37% Agriculture and Livestock Extension Program) were quoted in 11 percent of the sources Don’t mapped and include JICA, Germany, GIZ, GTZ, Know 19% Kfw, USAID, DANIDA, the European Union, Italy, Egypt, UK Aid, the World Bank, UNICEF, World Food Program, and the Food and Government Agriculture Organization. It is worth noting that 23% the analysis was based on reported details by WMCs and site branding because records were Figure 12. Kitui County investors by number of water not available for verification in most cases. It is sources developed therefore likely that more bilateral donors than reported here have invested in the Kitui County water sector, as they constitute the primary source of grants for NGOs. Communities or users and individual philanthropists have financed development of 10 percent of the sources — mainly shallow wells, earth dams, and hand pumps — in most instances with co-funding from other partners.
National and county government agencies — including MAWL, Tanathi Water Service Board,18 Water Sector Trust Fund, National Drought Management Authority, National Water and Pipeline Corporation,19 a former national ministry of Arid Lands and Northern Development, and the Constituency Development Fund — funded the construction of 23 percent of all infrastructure audited. Investors or donors who supported infrastructure development were not known for 19 percent of the sources, and even where this information was provided, documentary evidence was in most cases not availed by WMCs for validation. The private sector is predominantly involved in construction of new water infrastructure in the county through contracting and employed by the above-mentioned funders. Private sector involvement in one-off rehabilitation and repair works was also documented, although at a relatively small scale. An emerging thematic area for the rural sector is how to attract private sector enterprises in the repair and maintenance space to principally increase functionality of water infrastructure. For Kitui County, FundiFix (through a local social enterprise, Miambani) is one such model that is already serving this market.
18 In transition to become a Water Works Development Agency in line with the Water Act (2016). 19 In transition to become a National Water Storage and Harvesting Authority in line with the Water Act (2016).
32 An analysis of capital investment data for both equipped and non-equipped sources dating back to 2000 shows that by number of sources, piped schemes, earth dams, and shallow wells dominate the infrastructure developed between 2000 and 2017. The leading financier has been the government and NGOs, with the exception of shallow wells, where communities have been more actively involved (see Figure 13). By value of investment, Figure 14 suggests that piped schemes account for more than half (62 percent) of the total investment (unadjusted) in water infrastructure made over the same period, followed by earth dams.20
Leading investors in earth dams, piped schemes, shallow wells, hand pumps, and sand dams
Bi/Multilateral Community No Data Government NGO
62%
51%
50%
37%
34%
31%
27%
25%
23%
23%
19%
17%
15%
14%
12%
11%
8%
8%
7%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
2%
ES
O W
SA N D DAMS
DAMS
PI PE D
UMPS
SHALL
WELLS
E A RTH
SCHEM HANDP Figure 13. Leading investors in leading water infrastructure installed since 2000
Investment data for piped schemes were collected in two phases. In the first phase, enumerators interviewed and examined scheme documentation with WMCs as part of field data collection for the water audit. Gaps were identified following analysis of the data, and the second phase involved contacting the different actors reported to have financed development of piped schemes of interest (i.e., NGOs, donors, government agencies, etc.) to obtain information on the accurate cost infrastructure development. The first round yielded factual and estimated cost data for 12 and 77 piped schemes, respectively. Follow-up with the various organizations yielded correct data for 74 piped schemes. Data sets from both phases were consolidated to provide an accurate record of the 86 (19 percent) piped schemes analyzed in this report.
20 Investment or construction cost data were available for 212 earth dams, and supporting documents were unavailable for validation purposes.
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 33
Cummulative USD investment in selected water source types since 2000
$6,000,000 Earth Dams (n=43) Handpumps (n=21) $5,000,000 Piped Schemes (n=82) Sand Dams (n=24)
$4,000,000 Wells (n=44)
$3,000,000
$2,000,000 Cummulative Investment (USD) InvestmentCummulative
$1,000,000
$0
2002 2009 2016 2000 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 Year of Investment Figure 14. Cumulative unadjusted investment (USD) in leading source types since 2000
The total unadjusted capital investment of the above-mentioned 86 piped schemes, developed in Kitui County over the period of 1950–2017, is equivalent to $5.2 million.21 Figure 15 reveals that $5.08 million (unadjusted) was invested in the 82 piped schemes developed between 2000 and 2017, and 90 percent ($4.6 million) of this investment was realized from 2011 onward. This coincides with the decentralization of water service provision mandate in Kenya.
21 1 United States dollar (USD) = 100 Kenya shillings (January 2019).
34
Unadjusted USD investment in piped schemes (n=80)
$6,000,000 Cumm. Investment Cumm. Piped Schemes 100
84 86 90 $5,000,000 80
70 $4,000,000 61 60
$3,000,000 44 50
40
31 piped of no. schemes Cummulative Cummulative Investment (USD) InvestmentCummulative $2,000,000 23 30 17 13 20 $1,000,000 10 11 7 5 6 10
$0 -
2009 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Year of Investment
Figure 15. Cumulative unadjusted USD investment made in piped schemes from 2000 to 2017
Equipped Water Sources Hand Pump Sources Detailed information was collected for 609 out of the 687 hand pumps mapped in the audit.22 The data suggests that the Afridev hand pump type is dominant (86 percent), followed by the India Mark II23 hand pump type (7 percent). Variants of the Tara pump (eight in total) and the Tany pump (three in total) were found and mapped; however, these hand pumps exhibited a high non-functionality rate of 75 percent and 100 percent, respectively. It was not possible to identify 5 percent of the hand pumps on the day of audit24 due to missing super structure.
Most hand pumps (87 percent) are managed by user communities through WMCs and are formally registered with the government of Kenya as community-based organizations (CBOs) or self-help groups (SHGs). Seven percent of the hand pumps are privately owned or managed, and local institutions (i.e., schools and health facilities) manage 2 percent of the hand pumps mapped. Privately owned or managed hand pumps exhibited a higher functionality measure compared to those managed by users or communities (i.e., CBOs or SHGs) and schools (see Figure 16).
22 In total, 687 hand pumps were mapped by the combined audits. 23 This also lumps several India Mark II extra-deep well type hand pumps mapped in the audit. 24 Theft or vandalism of surface parts was the main reason for missing hand pump super structure and, in a few instances, safe storage by community members following a breakdown.
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 35
Functionality of hand pumps by management model (n=600)
120% Operational Partly operational Not operational
100% 7% 16% 80% 41% 56% 55% 60% 19% 40% 11% 77% 9%
Functionality Status & & Level Status Functionality 20% 40% 33% 36%
0% CBO/SHG Other Private owner School
Management/Ownership option Figure 16. Functionality of hand pumps across the different management options documented
Generally, as shown in Figure 17, pump rods (32 percent), foot valves (28 percent), and rising main pipes (31 percent) constitute the most broken parts in non-operational hand pumps. Even when the pumping or mechanical system is working, 2 in 3 hand pumps supply water reliably (i.e., all year round) and the remaining 32 percent experience dry periods due to decreased groundwater flows, especially in the dry season period from July to September (see Figure 18).
36 Poportion of non-operational hand pumps by the reported broken part on the day of audit (n=223 )
35% 32%
31%
30% 28%
27% 27% 25%
25%
24% 24%
25% 24%
21% 21% 19%
20% 18%
15% Failure rate (%) rate Failure 10%
5%
0%
Hand pump features/parts Figure 17. Leading cause of mechanical breakdown in non-operational hand pumps registered
Proportion of hand pumps with reliable (or unreliable) water supply by month, in an average year (n=195)
100% %Reliable %Unreliable 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30%
Proportion reliable/unreliable (%) reliable/unreliable Proportion 20% 10% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month of the year
Figure 18. Dry periods for the 32 percent of hand pumps that reported unreliable supply
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 37 Piped Scheme Sources The water audit mapped 460 piped schemes, 454 with construction completed and six under construction at the time of the audit. The latter have been excluded from the results.
Technical Performance Energy sources: The majority of piped scheme sources rely on pumping (79 percent), either full or partial, for distribution of water to users. The main sources of energy for pumping documented were generators (53 percent) and solar energy (23 percent), as shown in Figure 19. Hybrid sources of energy combining a primary and a backup power source were encountered in 13 percent of the piped schemes. Over 30 generator brands and over 16 solar module brands have been installed in Kitui County, based on documented evidence from the water audit.
Proportion of pumped, gravity, and Common sources of power for combined flow schemes (n=454) pumped piped schemes (n=355) 45% 42% 60% 53% 40% 37% 50% 35% 40% 30% 30% 25% 21% 23% 20% 20% 11% 15% 8% 10% 4% 10% 1% 1% 0%
5% Grid
0% Solar
Genset
Windmill
Solar+Grid
flow
Gravity
Genset+Grid
Genset+Solar
Pumping
Gravity Pumping+
Figure 19. Water distribution pressure for piped schemes (left) and the primary energy source(s) in pumped schemes (right)
For pumped and combined flow piped schemes, performance of the pumping technology adopted was examined by juxtaposing the different options with functionality level. Figure 20 shows that hybrid- powered piped schemes (i.e., those that use a combination of a generator with a grid or solar power source) and grid-powered piped schemes recorded higher functionality levels than pure generator and pure solar-powered schemes. In addition, pure solar-powered piped schemes recorded a higher functionality rate (61 percent) compared to pure generator-powered schemes (55 percent). However, fewer pure solar-powered piped schemes were operational compared to hybrid-powered schemes, suggesting that augmentation of the power supply of a piped scheme by introducing an alternative or backup power supply may have a positive outcome on functionality.
The analysis above does not attempt to simulate the implication of capital expenditure and operating expenditure of respective energy technologies on functionality due to insufficient data. It is therefore important to consider financial sustainability in selection of an appropriate energy source. Further
38 studies are also needed to conclusively quantify influence of the different energy sources or pumping technologies on the functionality of piped schemes.
Functionality status of piped scheme across the main sources of energy used (n=323)
Partly Operational Operational Not operational 90% 83% 80% 69% 70% 64% 61% 60% 55%
50%
40% 30% 28% 30% 20% 20% 15% 16% 16% 16% 11% 8% 8% 10%
0%
Proprotion of piped schemes(%) piped of Proprotion Genset Solar Grid power Genset+Grid Genset+Solar
Energy source for pumping
Figure 20. Operation status of piped schemes by the energy sources used for water pumping
Water storage: Storage tanks are an important feature in a piped scheme; their purpose is to allow low-cost water distribution by gravity, provide supply buffer in periods of peak demand, and guarantee short-term water supply during a network outage. The 450 piped schemes with complete data available accounted for over 28,000 cubic meters (m3) of installed storage capacity in 831 storage tanks. This translates to an average storage of two tanks, of 33 m3 capacity each, installed in each piped scheme. Concrete and masonry material tanks accounted for 76 percent of the total installed capacity, plastic tanks accounted for 16 percent, and steel tanks accounted for 8 percent. In terms of volume, 90 percent of the installed storage was in good working condition on the day of the audit, and the remaining 10 percent had fallen into disuse due to breakdown of the tank and, in limited cases, inadequate water pressures impeding flows in some sections of the distribution network. In terms of number of tanks, plastic or polyethylene material tanks manifested a higher failure rate compared to tanks of other material. The leading cause of failure for plastic tanks was breaching or cracking.
Metering: Regular monitoring of water distribution in a WSP is an important element of ensuring prudent management of the service. Information on volume of water abstracted and distributed to users may guide WSP managers in quantifying supply and demand, capturing wastage or losses, prioritizing investments, and improving billing practices. In this regard, the water audit located and mapped 235 production meters and 3,179 user meters (for schools, clinics, kiosks, standpipes, and households), all installed and functional for the purposes of monitoring the water service. Overall, a metering ratio of 50 percent was recorded for production points and 76 percent for consumption points. For the latter, yard
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 39 or household connections (85 percent) and clinics (83 percent) reported the highest metering levels, while community standpipes (19 percent) and kiosks (59 percent) were the least metered. On the day of the water audit, WMCs in just 10 percent of the piped schemes produced a record of their monthly meter readings, albeit with gaps, while 67 percent of the schemes did not keep a record of meter readings at all. This implies limited management of operations data and their application in decision making. In a rural piped scheme context, the WMC is ideally responsible for overseeing scheme operations, including reading of meters to effectively account for water abstraction, sales, and losses; however, the water audit findings suggest that this is not being done.
Novel technologies for monitoring water usage have emerged and give greater focus to improving accuracy of information and automation to enable remote and real-time access to information. “Water ATMs” are an example of such technologies and allow high-frequency monitoring of both volumes and revenues, relevant to both rural and urban water supply contexts. A water ATM is an automated water vending machine that works like a regular bank ATM, the main difference being that it provides water instead of money. Water ATMs dispense water to users based on prepaid tariffs and are installed at public water points such as kiosks or standpipes to achieve varied objectives, including accountability, increased water sales revenue, low operation costs, reduced non-revenue water, among others. A University of Oxford research team developed a Water Data Transmitter25 that measures volume of water dispensed by a hand pump and transmits the data, via a global system for mobile communication network, to a bespoke online dashboard on which a hand pump breakdown can be flagged and functionality validated, supported by background analytics. More than 1,000 water data transmitters have been installed in rural Africa and Asia and continue to support rural water service design and delivery to local communities and schools. Sweetsense is an Internet of Things company that has also developed sensor technology26 to support performance or functionality monitoring of borehole-type sources, linked to a user interface. Such technologies may augment traditional metering technologies and provide richer empirical evidence to support policies and design of robust institutions for rural water sustainability.
Infrastructure performance: The audited schemes provide water services through 2,961 household connections, 649 water kiosks, 317 connected schools, 182 standpipes, and 48 connected health centers. For the partly-operational and non-operational piped schemes, the audit sought to establish specific infrastructure components that were broken. Figure 21 confirms that pipe networks (17 percent), generators (13 percent), boreholes27 (12 percent), pumps (10 percent), and storage tanks (10 percent) constitute the most broken infrastructure. Other noteworthy issues that disrupt scheme operations include theft and vandalism of generators and solar pumping equipment, as well as disputes over land ownership.
WMCs were asked to provide details of all breakdowns experienced in the last 2 years, including duration, repair cost, who financed the repairs, type of repair, and whether or not the issue was
25 Further information available at http://www.oxwater.uk/technology.html. 26 Further information available at http://www.sweetsensors.com/our-technology/. 27 This is general and reported where communities did not have details of the specific part that was broken.
40 resolved. Table 2 shows that 1 in 2 piped schemes had experienced at least one major breakdown within the 2-year period of the water audit. Further analysis of the data suggested that, in terms of cost, scheme failures caused by pump, generator, pipe network, or storage tank breakdown are among the costliest types of failure to resolve and expose users to shocks due to relatively high volatility (standard deviation > $400) of repair costs (see Figure 22). Again, using a threshold of $500 to differentiate between major versus minor repair needs, an assessment of the investment required to fix defects observed by enumerators on the day of audit indicates that 58 percent (261) of the piped schemes required over $500 to fix outstanding defects, while 28 percent (129) of the piped schemes required less than $500 to return to “normal” working condition. Just 14 percent (64) of the piped schemes were in good working condition and required no rehabilitation or repairs.
Number of piped schemes against infrastructure components (n=406 - 428) Broken Functional 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 No of Piped Schemes Piped of No 50 0
Figure 21. Reported broken features in partly-functional and non-functional piped schemes on the day of the water audit
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 41
Total USD cost and standard deviation for major repairs completed in 2 years (n=82) $30,000 Sum of Cost of Repair 1,867 $2,000
STD Dev $1,800 $25,000 $1,600
1,279 $1,400 $20,000 $1,200
$15,000 $1,000
$800 Std Dev.(Ksh) $10,000 $600 438 470 394 429
Total Total Costof Repairs 290 $400 $5,000 177 148 85 $200 - - - $0 $0
Major piped scheme failures reported in 2 years
Figure 22. Reported cost of major repairs completed in 2 years and the volatility of repair costs
Table 2. Number of major breakdowns recorded in piped schemes in 2 years
Breakdowns in the Last 2 years Number of Piped Schemes Total Breakdowns 0 160 0 1 195 195 2 40 80 3 7 21 4 3 12
7 1 7 Piped schemes (n) 406 Mean breakdowns in 2 years 0.8
42 Repair duration and maintenance practices: Nine in 10 piped schemes do not store spare parts for regular repair and maintenance; those that do typically stock pipes. Overall, Kitui County Government (both the sub-county and head office) is the most active entity involved in fixing breakdowns in 32 percent of the piped schemes, followed by local technicians in 30 percent of the piped schemes28 (see Figure 23). In terms of the magnitude of breakdown, the county government is typically active in fixing major breakdowns, while local private technicians and scheme employees are commonly active in the repair of minor breakdowns. The rule of the thumb in the sector has been that tariffs charged by rural schemes should at least cover the costs of system repair and maintenance while government complements this with support for assets replacement and network extension. However, government activity was also documented in minor repairs, although marginally, in 1 in 5 piped schemes.
Based on self-reported timelines, 1 in 4 breakdowns experienced in the 2 years of the audit were resolved within 7 days. It took up to 30 days to resolve 46 percent of all breakdowns reported by piped schemes (see Figure 24). The downtime varied based on the type of failure; generally, pipe network and vandalism-related failures took a shorter time to fix (169 and 159 days, respectively, on average) compared to pump failures, which took the longest time to fix (352 days on average).
No. of piped schemes (n=159)
Water utility 1% Constituency dev. fund 1% sub-County govt 9% Scheme plumber, Local tech 1% Scheme plumber, County govt 1% Scheme plumber 3% Other 19% MCA/Politican 1% Local technician, sub-County govt 1%
Local technician 30% Who solved the breakdown solved Who last National government 4% NGO/Donor 5% County Govt - Water Dept 23%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Figure 23. Actors involved in fixing the most recent breakdown in piped schemes
28 Analysis is based on 250 piped schemes for which the most recent infrastructure breakdown had been resolved.
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 43 Downtime (days) for all failures reported by piped schemes in the 2 years to the audit (n=240)
30%
25% 25% All failures 20% 21% 19% 15% 14% 10% 12% Proportion of failures fixed(%) failures of Proportion 10% 5%
0% 1 to 7 8 to 30 31 to 90 91 to 180 181 to 365 >365
Number of Days
Figure 24. Downtime for all failures reported by piped schemes during the audit
The audit also sought to establish whether preventive maintenance of infrastructure is a norm for rural piped schemes, and the results show that 4 in 5 piped schemes regularly carry out at least one preventive maintenance task. Figure 25 suggests that commonly performed tasks are pipeline inspection for bursts or leaks (61 percent) and storage tank inspection (63 percent). Tasks performed by fewer schemes include monitoring pump meters or gauges, pump maintenance, solar equipment cleaning, and generator maintenance.
Proportion of piped schemes by maintenance tasks done (n=451)
70%
60% 50% 40% 30% 61% 63%
20% 38% 10% 21% 23% 8% 14% 12%
0%
Meters
Pipeline
inspection inspection
defects
Inpecting
Reading pump Reading
gauges/meters
Solar Cleaning Solar
Pump servicing Pump
Pumphouse for Pumphouse
Genset Genset Servicing Tanks inspection Tanks
Figure 25. Common preventive maintenance tasks done in rural piped schemes
44 Reliability of water service: One in 5 (23 percent) piped schemes close operations at certain times of the year, mainly due to low user demand in the rainy season. Availability of free alternative sources of water in the rainy season causes a slump in scheme revenues; respondents linked this to schemes’ inability to finance operations in such periods (see Figure 26).
Porportion of piped schemes that reported seasonal close-downs (n=93)
Other reason 9%
Cant Afford to run Scheme 9%
Operator leave 0%
Lack ofof resourcesrevenue 19%
Low demand 41%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Figure 26. Leading reasons for scheme close-down at certain times of the year
For this analysis, reliability was defined as the average hours in a day that water was available for collection at yard taps, kiosks, or standpipes when there was no breakdown. For greater accuracy, only the data for fully operational schemes were analyzed. Reliability was derived from the number of days water was supplied in a week and the average daily hours of water service reported by WMCs. Results show that fully operational piped schemes supplied water for 9.1 hours every day at the time of the audit. Performance in this metric varied by sub-county: Kitui East (10.2 hours per day) and Kitui Central (10.7 hours per day) recorded the highest reliability, while Kitui South (8.0 hours per day) and Kitui West (8.3 hours per day) had the least-reliable water service in the county. These figures are unadjusted for close-downs during the wet season.
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 45 Juxtaposing reliability with the condition Average daily hours of water supply for of piped scheme, as determined by operational piped schemes, by condition enumerators, for fully operational piped (n=253) 12.0 schemes only, Figure 27 suggests that newly constructed and well-maintained 10.0 working piped schemes provided a more 9.3 8.0 8.8 reliable service than poorly maintained 7.3 working schemes, which may underscore 6.0 the importance of maintenance in 4.0 n=29 n=24 n=200 improving quality of water services. This analysis does not incorporate correlated 2.0 service quality indicators — such as per supply daily of hoursAverage - capita water access — due to insufficient New schemes Well maintaned Poorly maintained data, and therefore further studies are schemes schemes necessary to corroborate this inference. Maintenance condition operational piped schemes Figure 27. Reliability against condition of piped scheme Distance to piped scheme sources: The audit sought to measure progress made by Kitui County toward achieving its goal of ensuring that all county households have access to drinking water within 2 km. The distances reported here are not actual or observed but rather estimated and provided by WMCs during the water audit. Results show that at the time of the audit no sub-county had achieved Kitui County Government’s goal of providing drinking water service within 2 km of households (see Figure 28, left). Analysis of the maximum one-way distance travelled by households to piped scheme sources showed that the county average ranges between 6.4 km (if we include non-operational schemes) and 6.9 km (fully operational schemes only).
There is wide intra-county variance, and the reported distance to source is lowest for Kitui West (3.4 km) and Kitui Central (3.2 km) households and above the county average in Mwingi Central (9.6 km), Kitui South (8.1 km), and Kitui East (7.4 km) Sub-Counties. Figure 28 (right) provides the density of piped scheme investments mapped in each sub-county, per capita and per land area, in km2. The figure implies that the foremost sub-counties (Kitui Central, Mwingi West, and Kitui West) are the smallest in terms of land mass and yet have the highest density of piped scheme investments per km2.
Future investments in Kitui will need to advance equity to reduce the distance travelled to the source by households in the more expansive and sparsely populated sub-counties of Kitui. Furthermore, despite Mwingi West Sub-County recording the highest density of piped scheme investments both per capita and per km2, the low functionality of piped schemes (48 percent fully operational) eroded progress and meant the sub-county ranked third, with households covering 4.8 km to the source on average. This suggests that investment in restoration of broken piped schemes may potentially reduce the distance travelled by users to the source.
46
Maximum (one-way) distance (Km) covered to Density of piped schemes by sub-county Source County Target 0.080 All PS per KM2 0.00080 Kitui Working PS per KM2 Centra 0.070 All PS per Capita 0.00070 Working PS per Capita l 0.060 0.00060 10.0 Grand Kitui 8.0 0.050 0.00050 Total East 6.0 0.040 0.00040 4.0 0.030 0.00030 Mwingi 2.0 Kitui West Rural 0.020 0.00020 - 0.010 0.00010
Mwingi Kitui - - North South Mwingi
Kitui Kitui East Kitui
Centra Rural Kitui Kitui West Kitui
West SouthKitui Kitui CentralKitui
l West Mwingi
Mwingi North Mwingi Mwingi Central Mwingi Figure 28. Maximum one-way distance (km) travelled by households to piped scheme sources (left) and density of piped scheme investments per capita and per km2 (right)
Water quality and uses: Of the 454 piped schemes audited, 431 (95 percent) did not treat water before distribution to users, whereas 21 (5 percent) indicated that they practice some form of water treatment. Commonly used water-treatment methods were chlorination (12 piped schemes) and flocculation (6 piped schemes).29
Seventeen percent (77 piped schemes) expressed concerns over the quality of their source. The primary water quality issues reported relate to salinity or salty taste of water (53 percent) and assumed contamination from reports of stomach aches or diarrhea by users after drinking water from their respective piped scheme source (14 percent). Observed teeth discoloration (1 percent) and animal droppings in water (1 percent) were also mentioned, while 30 percent of the piped schemes did not provide an explicit reason for their concerns.
29 It was not possible to ascertain the treatment method, if any, used by three piped schemes.
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 47 The enumerators tested the water quality in piped Box 2: Water quality parameters tested schemes using portable handheld meters, where schemes were operational and a water sample Electrical conductivity: a measure of the available. The following parameters were checked: saltiness of water done on a scale from 0 to electrical conductivity (mS), TDS (ppm), pH, and 10,000 microsiemens per centimeter (uS/cm). temperature (see Box 2). TDS: a general indicator of water quality that Results showed that high salinity is widespread and measures the combined total of organic and more profound in borehole sources. The mean TDS inorganic substances that are dissolved in for 223 piped schemes where a sample was available drinking water, in parts per million (ppm). EC was 1,190 ppm. TDS values above the threshold meters that also read TDS use a correction (1,500 mg/l) set by the Kenya Bureau of Standards factor that varies between 0.5 and 0.8 to and WASREB guidelines30 were recorded in Mwingi convert a quantity expressed in uS into an North, Mwingi Central, Mwingi West, and Kitui East equivalent TDS value expressed in ppm. Sub-Counties (see Figure 29). The water pH in 51 (24 percent) of 211 measured piped schemes fell Temperature: EC of drinking water changes outside the 6.5 to 8.5 range set by the World with its hotness or coldness, and a higher Health Organization and Kenya Bureau of Standards temperature will generally give a higher EC for drinking water. reading.
pH: a measure of the relative amount of free The water audit provides clues on localities where hydrogen and hydroxyl ions to determine how salinity and other quality-related issues are likely to acidic (pH of less than 7) or basic (pH of occur; however, further studies are necessary to greater than 7) drinking water is. spatially map out the geophysical and hydrogeological properties of the water resource in high resolution to support the delivery of safe drinking water.
30 Water Services Regulatory Board (2008) Guidelines on Drinking Water Quality and Effluent Monitoring. Available at: https://wasreb.go.ke/downloads/Water_Quality_&_Effluent_Monitoring_Guidelines.pdf.
48 TDS (ppm) levels recorded in piped schemes by sub-county (n=223) 10000 12000 9000 10000 8000 7000 8000 6000 5000 6000
4000 TDS TDS (ppm) 4000 TDS (ppm) 3000 2000 2000 1000
0 0
west
Kitui
Kitui
rural
Kitui
south
Kitui
west
north
central
central
Mwingi Mwingi Mwingi
Kituieast sub-County Figure 29. Variation of TDS (ppm) levels across the eight sub-counties of Kitui
In 4 of 5 schemes, water is used for domestic purposes (drinking, cooking, washing, and bathing) and livestock watering. Productive uses, specifically brick making (42 percent) and irrigation (30 percent), were also recorded in numerous piped schemes (see Figure 30) and form a significant part of rural water use in Kitui County. These productive uses were consistently recorded across all source types, water qualities, and tariffs. In one piped scheme, water was used for fish farming, in addition to domestic uses.
Common uses of water supplied by the piped schemes (n=460)
Other 3%
Irrigation 30%
Brick making 42%
Livestock 83%
Washing 91%
Bathing 91%
Cooking 84%
Drinking 85%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 30. Domestic and productive water uses recorded in the audit
Because of Kitui County’s semi-arid climate, low water service coverage in rural areas, and water- intensiveness of the productive uses documented by the audit, further studies are needed to quantify the
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 49 impact and trade-offs between domestic and productive water uses. As highlighted in the previous section, limited metering and record keeping made it difficult to analyze and quantify the volumes and value of water supplied for domestic uses, irrigation, brick making, and fish farming.
Commercial Performance Tariffs and revenues management: Nine in 10 piped schemes administer a “per jerrycan” (most jerrycans have a 20–22 liter capacity) charge for water sold, and users typically pre-pay using cash at the drawing point. For livestock, the same tariff is applied and a livestock unit (goat or cattle) is often the equivalent of a jerrycan. The average sales price for a jerrycan of water is $0.03 ($0.029 for members31 and $0.031 for non-members). A few piped schemes (5 percent) charge users a monthly flat fee of $0.77, on average, for unlimited water access.
Based on complete and self-reported data of 216 piped schemes, representing over $60,000 worth of monthly expenses, fuel and electricity (42 percent) and salary (36 percent) costs constitute the bulk of rural piped schemes’ expenditures (see Figure 31). Repair and maintenance is a USD 60,000 in monthly operating distant third at 13 percent. The 216 expenditures (n=216) schemes reported capital expenditures equivalent to $165,000 in the previous year (2016–2017) spent on pipeline Salaries extensions (55 percent), major repairs Fuel 36% (42 percent), and loan repayments (3 42% percent).
Reported revenue collection efficiency by WMCs was relatively high, and 1 in 2 schemes reported collecting over 60 Admin Repairs percent of its billed income (see Figure Allowances 3% 13% 32). However, credit sale of water to 5% households is common, as affirmed by one-third of the piped schemes audited. Figure 31. Reported key monthly expense items in piped schemes by value A sizeable proportion (42 percent) of piped schemes reported having an active bank account for the purposes of revenue and savings management and stated monthly banking of collected cash as their preferred frequency. The total savings held in bank accounts of all 112 piped schemes that made regular savings amounted to $78,000. Notably, one-third (33 percent) of the WMCs reported that they entrust a committee member with cash storage, locally referred to as “mattress banking.” Mobile banking (Mpesa/Mshwari) is an emerging savings alternative that had been embraced by 5 percent of WMCs at the time of the audit.
31 Members contributed in-kind or financially toward establishment of the SHG or CBO or toward the development of the water source. They have voting rights, may be entitled to lower tariffs, and, in some schemes, collect dividends.
50 Maintaining books of accounts, preparing budgets, and conducting regular and independent audits are not common practices. Just 1 in 10 piped schemes attempt to audit their records annually, and this was often done informally, by fellow WMC members. The observed poor accounting for income and expenses remains a key limitation to independent and sound analysis to ascertain scheme and sector- level financial performance and guide sustainability measures.
Proportion of piped schemes (n=337)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
81-100% 26%
61-80% 24%
41-60% 24%
Coll. bandColl. efficiency 21-40% 13%
0-20% 12%
Figure 32. Reported collection efficiency range by piped schemes for billed revenues
Governance and Management Who manages piped schemes? (n=452) Nearly all (82 percent) piped schemes are managed and operated by the beneficiary communities, through elected School County Individual 8% WSP Govt representatives or WMCs, usually set up 4% 2% 0% for each scheme (see Figure 33). The remainder of the schemes are managed by NGO/Church 2% local institutions that include schools (8 percent), local NGOs and churches, WSPs, Hospital and health facilities. In institution-operated 1% schemes, the management running the Community respective institution doubles as the 82% scheme management. Private individuals in Kitui County manage 4 percent of the piped schemes, which is a significant contribution to rural water service Figure 33. Documented management provision in the county. options in piped schemes
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 51 Two in three community-run piped schemes are formally registered as SHGs or CBOs32 with the department of social services in Kenya, are guided by by-laws, and regularly prepare minutes of their committee meetings. The typical size of a WMC is 10 elected members who represent the interests of community members or shareholders. Generally, there is equal representation of men and women in the WMCs for piped schemes. In operational schemes, the sitting committee had been in office for a mean duration of 4 years at the time of the audit. One in three WMCs reported they had met once or twice in the previous year to deliberate scheme management matters.
Figure 34 provides a distribution of all employees working in the audited piped schemes and suggests there are at least 711 people directly employed in the schemes, the majority in community-managed piped schemes (600), followed by schools-managed piped schemes (52).
Number of piped scheme employees (n=452)
Schools, 52 WSPs, 17 Private owner, 31 Kitui County, 1 NGOs, 7
Hospitals/Clinics, 3
Community , 600
Figure 34. Number of employees by the employing entity
Of the 711 employees documented, the leading employee roles observed were kiosk attendants (59 percent), pump operators (12 percent), and watchmen (12 percent), as shown in Figure 35. The average number of employees in a piped scheme was two (range 0–20), and one employee would often assume more than one role for small schemes. Additional roles were documented in bigger schemes, including that of plumber, scheme manager, revenue collector, meter reader, and pipeline inspector or patroller.
The highest qualification attained by most of the scheme employees (69 percent) was primary-level education, and less than 3 percent held tertiary/college-level or higher qualifications. This suggests a limited ability of the rural water sector to attract highly trained professionals.
32 A legally registered group or association with membership drawn from the local level and established to solve issues within a community. CBOs and SHGs are formally registered by the Government of Kenya through its Ministry for Gender, Children, and Social Development.
52 The average monthly salary in the county piped schemes and for staff holding the aforementioned roles was $42 per month, based on available data for 521 employees. This varies ($30–$100) depending on position or role (see Figure 36). Furthermore, higher-educated scheme employees earned a higher monthly salary on average, though still significantly lower than the set minimum wages for the relevant occupation and skill category in Kenya,33 of between $82 per month (for a night watchman) and $133 per month (for an unskilled artisan), as shown in Figure 37.
Proportion of employees by observed roles (n = 521)
Revenue collector 1%
Secretary 0%
Kiosk attendant/Pump operator 5%
Pump operator/Watchman 2%
Watchman 12%
Treasurer 0%
Pump operator 12%
Plumber 3%
Meter reader 1%
Manager 3%
Line patroller 2%
Kiosk attendant/watchman 1%
Kiosk attendant 59%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Figure 35. Proportion of piped scheme employees occupying observed roles
33 The Labour Institutions Act: The Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order, 2017. Available at: http://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/LegalNotices/2017/LN111_2017.pdf (Accessed June 4, 2018).
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 53
Mean monthly salary by employee role (n=521)
120 $100 100
80
$60 $59
$57 $50
60 $50
$48
$46
$46 $40
$39
$31 $30 40 $30 20 -
Plumber
Manager
Secretary Treasurer
Watchman Meter reader Meter
Line patroller Line
Pump operator Pump
operator Kiosk Kiosk attendant
Revenue collector Revenue
Kiosk Kiosk attendant/Pump
Fund collector/watchman Fund Kiosk Kiosk attendant/watchman Pump operator/Watchman Pump Figure 36. Mean monthly salary reported by job/role in piped schemes
Mean monthly salary (USD) by education level (n=521)
$70 60 57 $60 48 $50 40 $40
$30
$20 Monthly average salary, USD salary, averageMonthly $10
$0 Primary Secondary Tertiary University
Highest education qualification attained
Figure 37. Mean monthly salary (USD) for piped scheme staff against education attained
The typical layout of piped scheme infrastructure comprises a source, pumping equipment, pipe network and its accessories, storage tanks, and water collection points. The water audit sought to establish ownership of land on which these piped scheme features are built. In 55 percent of the piped schemes, assets have been built on CBO- or SHG-owned land, while in 21 percent of the schemes, land is wholly or partially provided by private individuals through formal or informal agreements. Regardless, these agreements are weak, given the widespread disputes documented during the audit between the WMCs
54 and the land owners. In many of the noted disputes, post-agreement demands for further financial or in- kind compensation have ensued and affected service delivery.
The commonplace approach adopted for many years by donor and NGO projects in Kenya was that the beneficiary communities would contribute land and, at times, free labor during infrastructure construction, while the donor or NGO would provide construction materials and technical expertise. As a result, in instances where the community did not own any land, an individual would be approached to “contribute” part of their land in return for free water for the life of the piped scheme. However, this approach appears to have incentivized context-inappropriate practices such as the use of water for irrigation, brick making, water resale, and non-payment of tariffs by the land owners and usually their extended family members, among other malpractices. Some of the reported implications included loss of scheme revenues and lack of resources for repair and maintenance. In extreme cases, violence led to closure of schemes and denied affected communities access to the water service.
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 55 Opportunities for Sustainability of Rural Water Services
Upscaling of the Water Audit Methodology The County Governments Act of 2012, section 104, obligates the 47 county governments in Kenya to regularly develop integrated plans containing their medium-term priorities and comprising a 5-year County Integrated Development Plan, 10-year sectoral plan, and a Geographic Information System-based 10-year spatial plan. The first integrated plans spanning 2013–2017 were developed by counties and adopted toward the end of 2013. In the second round, counties sought to align plans for 2018–2022 with the Kenya Vision 2030 blueprint and the SDGs. The development process for the current integrated plans was completed in 2018.
The water audit methodology provides an approach for Kitui and other county governments in Kenya to inform the integrated plans development process. For WASH planning, a water audit is key to establish the correct water service baselines and provide a basis to continually monitor implementation progress of the various county strategy documents against goals. The information can also guide counties to set realistic objectives in their future planning. The audit methodology, in Annex A, advocates for low-cost mobile survey solutions for data collection and management and is easily adaptable to other counties. The audit instrument (available upon request) is also adaptable to varying geographies with flexibility to embody local dynamics relating to water services.
Water meter for the borehole at Skyokithumbi Farmers piped scheme in Kwamutonga/Kithumula Ward, Kitui. Photo Credit: Cliff Nyaga/University of Oxford.
For Kitui, 3,126 water sources spread over an area of 24,194 km2 (excluding 6,302 km2 county land in Tsavo National Park) were mapped over a cumulative period of 4 months (including preliminaries) with a combined team of 22 enumerators and at an all-inclusive cost of $80,000. The benefits of information
56 collected through the exercise unequivocally exceed the cost, and therefore an opportunity exists for both national and decentralized governments to adopt, adapt, and scale up the water audit methodology.
Identification Tagging of Water Sources The audit data set provides location information for each water source or point mapped based on the local administrative units (including sub-county, ward level, and village level details), local name, and GPS coordinates. A notable issue from this approach is the similarity of local names for different and even same water source types at the lowest administrative level (same sub-location and village). For clustered sources, e.g., those less than 10–15 m apart34 in the case of the subject audit, the GPS positions would overlap when plotted on a map and would make on-site identification onerous, depending on the measurement error of GPS technology used for mapping.
A unique identification format to identify each water source is proposed, which will require a county policy on (1) a standard format for unique identification of sources, (2) physical tagging of all water sources following the agreed identification formation, and (3) setup of an off-site catalogue to manage water source or point information, including their assigned identity. In the subject water audit, the source coding format “sub-county name/ward name/village name/source type initials/count, in terms of number of sources mapped” was used and provides a starting point for the dialogue between Kitui or other counties and their WASH actors to develop an appropriate identification policy for water sources.
Improving Operational Sustainability of Rural Water Sources Climate risk analysis for Kitui County suggests a high intra-county variability of seasonal rainfall, with extreme dry events more pronounced in some parts of the county than others. Coincidentally, most of the surface water sources (rock catchments, hand pumps, and earth dams) have been built in these high- risk areas, which exposes them to dry periods and undermines their reliability. In the future, integration of climate risk analysis in selection of water source type and location for investment is recommended to mitigate this aspect and deliver a more reliable water service.
Presence of multiple brands of installed equipment (e.g., in the case of generators and solar pumping systems) suggests complexity of supply chains for parts and expertise needed to keep these diverse technologies properly maintained and working in rural and remote contexts. A county dialogue on potential benefits of a standardization policy for technologies installed by actors in relation to future repair and maintenance burden of the infrastructure is paramount.
Limited record keeping and absence of or non-adherence to operation and management best practices in piped schemes — such as stocking of spares, convening of regular WMC meetings, service monitoring and meter reading, banking and accounting for revenues, and conducting annual and independent audits — was noted and ultimately weakens accountability and governance systems required for good performance of schemes and, eventually, the quality of water service provided. There is an opportunity to continuously build the capacity of WMCs to embrace simple but essential practices and systems of operation and management, which may increase sustainability of the rural water service in Kitui.
34 The average accuracy range recorded by tablet computers used in the audit.
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 57
The water audit recorded many unresolved issues in piped schemes where infrastructure was constructed on private land. The widespread land disputes call for a rethink of the traditional model by WASH actors, where “land contribution” by communities for water infrastructure development has been advocated and is assumed to contribute to sustainability of the service.
Improving Consistent Use of “Safe” and Reliable Sources Leading causes of piped scheme closure identified in this audit report are (1) mechanical breakdown of equipment or network and (2) the wet season, which leads to low user demand for paid water due to the availability of surface and groundwater alternatives. As shown in Figure 38, unimproved sources (shallow wells) constitute the immediate alternative source of water for the majority of piped scheme users, despite their high vulnerability to contamination, as well as droughts and associated health risks. This suggests that, even when piped schemes are working, users may still switch to unimproved alternative water sources, especially during the wet season, so that they do not pay tariffs. Other than the adverse effects on household health and productivity, the shift to use of such alternative sources also affects scale of operations and impacts O&M viability because many piped schemes are not able to collect adequate revenues to cover their operation costs and end up closing operations during the wet season. Therefore, to sustainably advance the provision of universal, safe, and reliable water services in rural Kitui County and other similar contexts, system approaches that not only seek to deliver 24/7 functionality of infrastructure but also seek to understand and address local practices and behavioral drawbacks are required.
Proportion of piped schemes by alternative source used
Earth Dam Piped Scheme Spring Shallow well
41%
36%
26%
21%
15%
13%
13% 7%
PRIMARY SECONDARY
Figure 38. Reported primary and secondary alternative sources of drinking water for piped scheme users
58 Advancing Policy on Ensuring Water Access within 2 km of Every County Household The draft Kitui County Water Services Strategy aims to reduce the distance covered by households to a water source to 2 km on average by 2022. The water audit results show that good progress has been made, yet inequalities between sub-counties remain. The audit has provided an indicative maximum distance covered by households to a water source in all eight sub-counties as of 2017 (2016 for Mwingi North Sub-County), which allows the Kitui County Government to target its investments in the coming years to specifically address this emerging issue. This will require a delicate balance to achieve both equality and equity, as the results show that the smallest sub-counties have a higher density of piped schemes per km2 compared to the more expansive, rural, and sparsely populated sub-counties of Kitui. This has partly contributed to the latter lagging behind the former in terms of distances travelled by household to source. Therefore, enshrinement of the “distance to source” metric in the relevant county policies as part of the criteria for allocation of county resources will be a critical first step to address this inequality.
The audit results also show that ensuring all piped schemes are working would potentially reduce the average distance to source. As such, policies that ensure that all water infrastructures continue to operate many years after construction may potentially insulate Kitui and other counties from non- functionality-related erosion of water service coverage.
Enabling Rural PPPs for Water Services Delivery The predominant community (CBO or SHG) model of operating and managing rural water infrastructure in the county has not delivered full functionality, especially for the more complex sources (hand pumps and piped schemes). Exploring integration of the community management model with targeted PPPs may strengthen the capacity to resolve the high non-functionality and other issues highlighted by the audit and may enable better sustainability of the sector. WMCs in 79 percent of the piped schemes confirmed interest in FundiFix’s maintenance service, which implies demand for PPPs.
The FundiFix model is an example of a rural PPP based on the insurance logic that is advancing four pillars for drinking water sustainability: (1) monitoring, (2) professional maintenance service provision at scale, by incubating a local social enterprise, (3) sustainable finance, and (4) coordination by government. In the FundiFix model, the community (through WMCs) and local institutions managing rural water infrastructure enter into performance-based contracts with a locally established FundiFix enterprise for guaranteed maintenance and repair of broken water infrastructure within 3–5 days. FundiFix has been working in Kitui County though a local enterprise, Miambani, since mid-2016 and has seen increased functionality of piped schemes and hand pumps. Disaggregating functionality by sub-counties is one indication; for example, better performance of piped schemes (69 percent) was recorded for Mwingi North (see Figure 39), coinciding with FundiFix’s presence in the sub-county. The FundiFix model has guaranteed reliable water services for 57,000 people in Mwingi North thus far, including schools and health facilities.
At the current scale of FundiFix’s operations in Kitui County, community or user payments are insufficient to cover local costs of maintenance service provision. For the last 2 years, FundiFix has been
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 59 underwritten by a Kitui County Water Services Maintenance Trust Fund that is part of a learning/research activity. Coincidentally, Kitui County’s Water Strategy seeks to improve service delivery and sustainability of installed water infrastructure by reducing the repair response time from 3 months to 1 week on average by 2022. FundiFix’s results demonstrate an opportunity for the county to build partnerships with the private sector and expedite the realization of this objective.
In addition to the FundiFix model, different private-sector-based water service delivery models aimed at improving performance and quality of water service in rural and low-income areas have been developed and piloted in Kenya and other countries. These include private operator/management contracts, lease contracts, professionalized management, and delegated management contracts, among others.35 Kitui and other county governments could consider these models to strengthen rural water service delivery. This would allow them to strengthen focus on policy development, monitoring and regulation, planning, and coordination roles. Engaging the private sector would also contribute to the financing strategy adopted by many county governments of mobilizing the private sector to realize their development targets. Accordingly, to advance universal access to safe and affordable drinking water service in rural Kenya, a conversation is needed to (1) ascertain which PPP models are appropriate for interested counties, (2) develop required policies and institutions to support such models, and (3) allocate smart investments or incentives for adoption of the selected models at scale and in return for impact.
Piped schemes functionality by sub-county (n=454)
120% Operational Partly-Operational Not Operational
100% 28% 28% 27% 24% 22% 26% 80% 37% 33% 11% 8% 15% 14% 60% 19% 10% 26% 14% 40% 65% 69% 57% 53% 57% 59% 20% 49% 48%
0%
Kitui
Kitui
Kitui
Rural
West
South
Kitui
West
North
Mwingi Mwingi
Mwingi
Central Central Kitui East Kitui Figure 39. Functionality of piped schemes by sub-county
35 Water Sector Trust Fund (2017), Service Delivery Model Toolkit for Sustainable Water Supply. Available at: https://waterfund.go.ke/publications (Accessed August 23, 2018).
60 Water Services Information Management System This report provides a baseline status of county water sector performance as of December 2017; however, there is currently no systematic mechanism in place to capture and update most changes that have happened since. For that reason, audits provide a solid basis for county governments to commission water services monitoring systems or databases to resolve this shortcoming. A database that is linked to an updating mechanism may ensure that the audit data set remains up to date in the future and provide a more efficient tool for progressive tracking of changes in the sector. A simple inaugural database capable of managing prioritized key performance indicators is proposed, to be followed by a phased and carefully managed upgrade down the road informed by successes, challenges, and learning from piloting. The monitoring regime adopted by the national water sector regulator, WASREB, provides a relevant benchmark for adaption by Kitui and other counties that the database initiative would need to align to.
The database would underpin future decision-making by county governments and their stakeholders on water services delivery, including planning and targeting of investments especially for O&M of already- audited sources and development of new water sources. Such networking in a unified monitoring system may further promote collaborative behavior among stakeholders through information sharing and possibly lead to more impactful interventions. For Kitui County, the county-led WASH forum meetings held quarterly with stakeholders and co-facilitated by UNICEF Kenya and SWS are an opportunity to conceptualize and operationalize the database, continually examine performance of the water services sector, and reflect on implications in terms of what needs to change to bring about sustainability.
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 61 Conclusion The audit results suggest that investments in county water infrastructure have grown considerably; however, sustainability of water services remains a challenge. High non-functionality due to infrastructure breakdown is a principal weakness, with far-reaching implications on reliability and other water service quality indicators.
Kitui County falls within the arid/semi-arid climate zone, and an analysis of seasonal rainfall anomalies reveals high intra-county variability, with the implication that selection of location and type of future infrastructure investments will need to consider the inherent risk of drought, especially for surface water sources. For instance, earth dam sources account for the second largest investment by value but demonstrate a high vulnerability to droughts. High salinity was recorded and appears more pronounced in some parts of the county than others, and further studies are necessary to develop detailed water quality maps. Incidences associated with possible contamination of sources were also reported, yet 95 percent of the piped schemes do not treat drinking water before distribution. WMC’s capacity to collect and use operational data is limited and thus there is an opportunity for ongoing capacity building to improve financial management, accountability, and wider governance structures. The audit findings point to the need for continued monitoring and targeted support of the rural water sub-sector for sustainable drinking water services to be achieved.
The audit has provided a baseline status of water services as of December 2017. Meanwhile, many changes continue to take place. Building on the data set by establishing a monitoring system to keep this information up to date may be the most cost-efficient way for Kitui County Government to monitor and manage its water services sector. This would involve development of a modest database in the early phase to ease recognition of gaps and moderate dialogue on how best to progressively fill them, with gradual improvements informed by learning. The database would provide a basis for Kitui County Government to coordinate all WASH actors, monitor services, and ensure that their interventions respond to emerging evidence from sector performance reports. The reports would also inform county- and national-level strategies, polices, and targeting of investments.
The responsibility for universal water service delivery in Kenya ultimately rests on county governments, a formidable task requiring major financial investments. There are prospects for county governments to leverage the private sector for finances, technology, and expertise to complement their resources. Nationally, the Government of Kenya through the National Treasury is supportive of PPP initiatives, having enacted the PPP Act (2013) and Regulations (2014) that established a PPP unit to provide technical, legal, and financial support to various government agencies, including county governments, to undertake PPP projects. In addition, the Water Act (2016) allows county governments in Kenya to engage the private sector for water services provision through contracting, and WASREB has, through the collaborative efforts of national WASH actors, developed alternative models for water services delivery in rural areas. One of the promising models is FundiFix, an insurance-based PPP rural water infrastructure maintenance that has successfully worked in Kitui County and demonstrated results. Therefore, creating better policies and incentives for the private sector, and investing resources to accelerate the uptake of novel models of rural water service delivery, may reinforce efforts by county governments to deliver a sustainable drinking water service for all.
62 Annex A: Kitui County Water Audit Methodology
Objectives 1. To map and audit all of the water sources in Kitui County, including equipped sources (piped schemes and hand pumps) and non-equipped sources (boreholes, rock catchments, shallow wells, earth dams, springs, and sand dams). 2. To collect information in adequate detail to provide: o an inventory of rural water infrastructure components; o baseline key performance indicators and benchmarking related to technical operations, financial management, and governance at water supply schemes; and o a broader understanding of existing maintenance practices and challenges. 3. To provide key information for MAWL to assist with strategic planning, investments, and service delivery improvements. 4. To provide key information for further development of models for water infrastructure maintenance.
Outputs The following outputs will be produced and shared with MAWL: 1. a summary report on the county water services situation; and 2. data files on all water sources mapped and audited (Excel).
Methodology Collaboration: The activity shall actively engage MAWL officers (county and sub-county level) and county administration officers (at sub-county, ward, and village levels). Meetings will be pre-arranged with the management structure of each equipped source through the village administrators and sub- county water office. Current management (committees, school boards, and individuals) will be asked to prepare all their available scheme documentation for the meeting to increase the likelihood of committee members and documents being available.
For non-equipped sources, no meetings will be pre-arranged, and information will be collected from secondary sources including on-site locals or users, village administrators, signs, and other branding installed on site. This is in addition to geodata and imagery that will be collected by the enumerator.
Respondents: Enumerators will conduct the survey with the management team (all adults over 18 years of age), who are responsible for operation and management of the water scheme. In the case of a committee, the chairperson, secretary, and treasurer should be present where possible. Other committee members may be present depending on availability.
Officials such as ward and village administrators will provide a preliminary list (name, type, contact, and history) of all known water sources in their jurisdiction area but will be discouraged from being present during the survey to avoid bias. However, results may be triangulated using separate interviews with key informants where necessary.
A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 63 Confidentiality and participation: Enumerators will introduce themselves, present the objectives of the research, and explain that the information given will be available to MAWL, as well as used for research purposes, and that participation is voluntary. All participants will be asked to confirm their name, position, contacts, age (>18 years), and willingness to participate. Respondents can choose to participate anonymously.
Data collection: A digital survey tool using the software ONA will facilitate data collection and analysis using tablets. Key information on water source, infrastructure, operations, usage, water quality, management, and finance will be gathered from participants. Some discussion and probing may be needed to elicit the response, and answers will be cross-checked by the enumerator for consistency.
Additional details, observations, and qualitative data will be recorded by enumerators in a notebook and submitted as “notes” in digital form. A mapping exercise will generate a sketch map of the scheme components and nearby alternative sources, as well as key points of interest (schools, markets, clinics, etc.), and photos will be taken of the different infrastructure components.
Where available, and where consent is given, photos of the following documentation will be taken: • meter readings for the past 12 months, • financial records (income and expenditure) for the past 12 months and bank statements, • registration certificates of management body, • constitution or by-laws, and • minutes of the most recent management meeting. Water will be tested for pH, EC, TDS, and temperature parameters using handheld Hanna meters.
Staff: Enumerators recruited will be required to: • have had formal diploma or degree training in water resources technology, water engineering, or other related field with experience in rural water supply; • have some experience in a community engagement or facilitation role; • speak fluent Kamba and be familiar with Kitui County; and • attend a 5-day training on the survey tool, including a piloting exercise.
Duration Approximate field time to be allotted to complete the work in seven sub-counties of Kitui based on available data is 42 days, working with 14 enumerators.
Number of schemes: The audit will cover the more than 1,348 known water sources, as per the Kitui County Government’s inventory.
64 To learn more about the Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership, visit: www.globalwaters.org/SWS
University of Oxford http://www.ox.ac.uk/ Cliff Nyaga [email protected]