KENYA- Situational Analysis: CLTS/SLTS/ULTS

KENYA- Situational Analysis: CLTS/SLTS/ULTS

Prepared by: Sammy Musyoki and David Owuor

Dated: November 2012

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

Water supply and sanitation in Kenya is characterized by low levels of access, in particular in urban slums and in rural areas, as well as poor service quality in the form of intermittent water supply. Only 9 out of 55 water service providers in Kenya provide continuous water supply.[3] Seasonal and regional water scarcity exacerbates the difficulty to improve water supply.

The Kenyan water sector underwent far-reaching reforms through the Water Act No. 8 of 2002. Previously service provision had been the responsibility of a single National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation as well as of a few local utilities established since 1996. After the passage of the act service provision was gradually decentralized to 117 Water Service Providers (WSPs). These are linked to 8 regional Water Services Boards (WSBs) in charge of asset management through Service Provision Agreements (SPAs). The Act also created a national regulatory board (WASREB) that carries out performance benchmarking and is in charge of approving SPAs and tariff adjustments. The Ministry of Water and Irrigation is in charge of policies for water supply and the Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation is in charge of policies for sanitation.

Although urban water tariffs are high by regional standards (US$0.46 per m3 on average in 2007)[4] the level of cost recovery is low due to a high level of non-revenue water (average of 47%) [8] and high costs. Costs are high due to the need to tap distant water sources (e.g. Mombasa is supplied from a source located 220 km from the city) and due to high levels of staffing (11 workers per 1000 connections or more than twice the sector benchmark).[9] Investment in the sector increased fivefold from US$55m in 2004-05 to almost US$300m in 2008-09. 58% of this amount was financed by the government with its own resources, 31% by external donors and 11% was self-financed by utilities.[6]

Countrywide estimates for 2008 by the JMP indicate that 31% (27% of urban and 32% of rural) Kenyans had access to private improved sanitation. In urban areas an additional 51% of the population used shared latrines. In rural areas, open defecation was estimated to be still practised by 18% of the population.[1][17] In 2006-2007 it was reported that half of the Kenyan population within the service area of 55 WSPs had access to improved sanitation facilities (this definition includes flush, pour flush toilets connected to a piped system, septic tanks, VIP latrines and pit latrines). In Nairobi, sanitation coverage was about 23% in 2006-2007.[2] The Kenyan Integrated Household Budget Survey of 2006 reported a much higher sanitation coverage 84%, including shared latrines and shallow pit latrines.[18]

1.2. Population Size and Distribution

1.3 Economic Conditions

2. Sanitation overview

Access to sanitation in Kenya continues to be a major challenge. The 2009 census puts the overall access levels at 65% with rural coverage at 56% and Urban at 79%. The JMP, which considers those using shared facilities as lacking access, puts the overall coverage at 31% with rural coverage at 32% and urban at 27%[1]. These figures indicate that over 8 million Kenyans still defecate in the open which result in prevalence of diseases such as diarrhoea, amoeba, typhoid and cholera. In economic terms, Kenya loses KES 27 billion[2] annually due to poor sanitation[3].

Sanitation policy is in the hands of the Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation (MoPHS).[39] To harmonise the institutional framework for sanitation MWI and the MoPHS have developed a common Water Supply and Sanitation Concept with clearly defined sanitation targets. As of early 2011, the Minister of Water and Irrigation is Charity Ngilu, chairperson of the National Party of Kenya, which supports Prime Minister RailaOdinga. The Minister of Health and Sanitation is Beth Mugo of the Party of National Unity of President MwaiKibaki.

Other Ministries also play a role in the water and sanitation sector. The Ministry of Education co-operates with MWI and MoPHS in the area of school sanitation by participating in Water and Sanitation Programme Committees. The Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit deliberates on all issues related to agriculture, including irrigation which is overseen by MWI. The MWI also co-operates with the Ministries of Forestry, of the Environment and of Special Programmes to further the rehabilitation and maintenance of water towers.[40]

Over the years, sanitation and hygiene interventions have been carried out using different approaches and these have realised different results. Common features in these interventions included awareness raising, training on hygiene and external subsidy of sanitation hardware materials. Recently, there has been a rapid spread of understanding and acceptance that external subsidies to rural households for sanitation hardware (and prescriptive toilet designs) are counterproductive and inhibit collective local action[4]. In some cases it has been found that though the number of toilets in the villages did increase through external subsidy, the practice of open defecation continued. The Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach pioneered in Bangladesh in 1999, takes these lessons into consideration. The approach starts from the premise that, if communities transform their minds through discovery of the dangers and loss of dignity associated with open defecation they will do everything within their means to end the practice. The approach has a zero tolerance to external hardware subsidies to households.

CLTS focuses on igniting a change in sanitation behaviour rather than constructing toilets. It does this through facilitating a triggering process that evokes emotions such as disgust and shame associated with the practice of open defecation. It concentrates on the whole community rather than on individual behaviours. Collective benefit from stopping open defecation (OD) can encourage a more cooperative approach. People decide together how they will create a clean and hygienic environment that benefits everyone. It is fundamental that CLTS involves no individual household hardware subsidy and does not prescribe latrine models.

3. Approaches

3.1 Kenya Specific Approaches

CLTS was introduced in Kenya by PLAN Kenya in May 2007[5], following two training workshops in Tanzania and Ethiopia attended by 3 of their WATSAN staff. From one Open Defecation Free (ODF) village (Jaribuni in Kilifi District) in November 2007, they were able to achieve close to 50 ODF Villages. The interventions generated interest with Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation (MOPHS) and NGOs who thereafter participated in various hands-on CLTS training. In 2010, MOPHS in partnership with UNICEF and SNV embarked on a pilot in six districts in Nyanza and Western Kenya. Within a period of one year this initiative registered impressive results with over 1,000 villages (571,231 people) attaining open defecation free status. From lessons learned in this initiative, MOPHS was inspired to adopt CLTS as a key strategy for scaling up sanitation in Kenya.

3.2ODF Rural Kenya 2013 Roadmap

This was followed by the launch of the ODF Rural Kenya 2013 campaign in May 2011. A roadmap to actualize the campaign was drafted thereafter.

The roadmap entails working through partnerships and devolved government structures throughout rural Kenya to reach all the communities and ensure that they are ODF. At national level, the roadmap calls for a coordinated approach among stakeholders including NGOs and donors, hands on capacity building for facilitation and support for the implementation of the campaign; strengthening planning monitoring and evaluation systems; undertaking Research, Documentation and Knowledge Management; linking communities with affordable sanitation products and solutions; working with the media to keep the ODF agenda alive and sustain behaviour change; and engage in advocacy for increased resources.

At County and local levels the roadmap will entail: mapping and securing commitment from partners and supporting them in developing work-plans and securing resources for implementation of their plans for attaining ODF at County level. The roadmap emphasizes the importance of working with the private sector to respond to demand created through the ODF rural Kenya 2013 campaign.

For this roadmap to be realized, the MOPHS is calling upon all stakeholders to rally behind the campaign and commit their time and resources to the same.

Key Sector Issues

• Low access to safe drinking water supply.
• Extremely low levels of access to adequate sanitation facilities. In total, 30% of rural population or about 2 million people do not use any type of latrine.
• Leadership of the RWSS sector is diffused at national level.
• Inadequate policy and institutional framework to facilitate sustainable provision of water supply and sanitation. Aspects of community ownership of assets, community contributions, definition of basic service levels, and regulation of service provision are not clear.
• Lack of sector investment plans. Service provision is not demand-driven, and investment planning is done without effective participation of stakeholders.
• Lack of systematic collection and management of RWSS sector information.
• Lack of an effective maintenance system for community water supply facilities.
• Low financial sustainability of RWSS at local level.
• Government funding of the sector is low, and major investments in the last decade have been from donor funding with inadequate contributions from the treasury.
• Inadequate technical, financial, and institutional capacities at district council level to support planning, implementation and maintenance of rural water supply facilities.

Other shortcomings with respect to the RWSS policy include: (i) levels of community contributions are not specific, with different projects charging different amounts; (ii) the policy is silent on the ownership of community based assets or facilities; and (iii) lack of policy direction on sector coordination resulting in varied development approaches, duplication of effort and aid ineffectiveness.

The RWSS policy is also inadequate with respect to rural sanitation. There is no definition of basic service level with respect to RWSS facilities; the policy is also silent regarding investment support for individual or household sanitation facilities; and roles and responsibilities for rural sanitation. The National RWSS programme will address these shortcomings in order that the GRZ can meet the MDGs for WSS in the rural areas.

Major Ongoing programmes/Initiatives

Major RWSS investments in the past have been funded primarily by donors and some smaller scale investments by a number of international and local NGOs. They include the on-going KfWfinanced Eastern Province RWSP and North-Western RWSP, the AfDB financing Northern and Luapula Provinces RWSSP, the Danida finance RWSSP in Western, Central and Southern Provinces, and the JICA financed Groundwater Development and Sanitation Improvement Project in Northern Province. The above financial flows suggest that annual expenditure for RWSS between 2000 and 2007 has been about US$15m, not far off the FNDP figures of US$14m. UNICEF with funding from DFID is supporting scalability of CLTS to all the 74 rural districts in Zambia with an investment of British Pound19 million. While other support in CLTS and SLTS is from Plan International, DAPP, WaterAid, SPLASH, etc in selected districts under the sector wide approach model.

Reference

WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation, retrieved on April 22, 2010

Water and Sanitation Coverage - WASREB Impact Report 2009, pp.20-23. Retrieved 10 March 2010

Kenya Census 2009, accessed on May 9, 2010

[1] 2008 figures in which shared facilities stand at 51% for Urban and 18% for Rural

[2] Approximately USD 270m (assuming 1USD = KShs 100, as of Sept 2011)

[3](WSP, 2011)

[4]Handbook on Community-Led Total Sanitation.KamalKar with Robert Chambers. Plan UK, 2008.

[5]Musyoki S. M. Participatory Learning and Action: 61. IIED London. 2010