2011年-世界发展银行全球_Water_Supply_and_Sanitation_in_Kenya___Turning_Finance_into_Services_for_2015_and_Beyond_36页_1mb

Summary of Water Supply and Sanitation in Kenya: An AMCOW Country Status Overview

Core Content

This document presents an analysis of Kenya's water supply and sanitation sector as part of the second round of Country Status Overviews (CSO2) commissioned by the African Ministers' Council on Water (AMCOW). It outlines the progress made, current challenges, and priority actions needed to transform financial resources into effective water and sanitation services, with a focus on the four subsectors: rural and urban water supply, and rural and urban sanitation and hygiene.

Main Points

1. Sector Overview: Coverage and Finance Trends

• Coverage: As of 2006, Kenya's water supply coverage was 42%, and sanitation coverage was 31%.
• Targets: The government aims for 76% coverage in both sectors by 2015.
• JMP Data: According to the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP), water supply coverage increased from 43% in 1990 to 59% in 2008, but current trends suggest missing the MDG target of 72% by 7 percentage points.
• Sanitation: Sanitation coverage increased from 26% in 1990 to 31% in 2008, but is still only at 63% of the MDG target for 2015.

2. Investment Requirements

• Water Supply: Total annual capital investment requirements are estimated at US$303 million, with US$246 million expected from public finance.
• Sanitation: Total annual capital investment requirements are US$386 million, with US$108 million expected from public finance.
• Household Contributions: The SIM assumes that households will cover 25% of rural water supply costs and 0% of urban costs, while for sanitation, it is 95% for on-site and 100% for sewerage.
• Deficit: There is a significant CAPEX deficit for rural water supply and sanitation, with public investment falling short of requirements.
• O&M Costs: Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are also a concern, with estimates of US$124 million for water supply and US$17 million for sanitation.

3. Reform Context and Scorecard

• CSO2 Scorecard: The scorecard evaluates the service delivery pathway in three stages: enabling, developing, and sustaining services.
• Enabling Stage: Kenya's enabling building blocks score well compared to its peer group, reflecting policy and planning reforms and budget allocations.
• Developing Stage: Challenges include matching resource allocation with local needs and improving monitoring systems.
• Sustaining Stage: Kenya's subsectors perform below the peer-group average, with a need to improve cost recovery and reduce nonrevenue water.
• Reform History: Key reforms since 1952 include the Water Act 2002, establishment of Water Sector Institutions (WSIs), and the introduction of the Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp) in 2006.

4. Institutional Framework

• WASREB: The Water Services Regulatory Board is the regulator, but lacks full authority over WS providers.
• WSBs: Water Services Boards were created to devolve ownership to regional levels, but their roles and responsibilities are not fully defined.
• Coordination: There is a need for better coordination between institutions, including WASREB, WSBs, and the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MoWI).
• Stakeholder Involvement: The scorecard highlights the need for more clarity in institutional roles and stronger implementation of policies.

Key Challenges

• Legal and Policy Alignment: The Water Act 2002 needs to be aligned with the new Constitution of Kenya 2010.
• Sanitation Strategy: A clear sanitation strategy is required, including hardware subsidies, utilization of environmental health workers, and monitoring of uptake.
• Funding Deficits: Anticipated public investment is insufficient for rural water supply and sanitation, and lacks clarity on household contributions.
• Equity and Quality: Rural areas face significant challenges in terms of resource allocation, management systems, and service quality.
• Urban Challenges: Urban water supply and sanitation coverage has not improved significantly, with risks of raw water shortages and poor cost recovery.
• Implementation Gaps: The service delivery pathway is incomplete, with bottlenecks in governance, regulation, ownership, and operations.

Priority Actions

Sectorwide

• Align the Water Act 2002 with the Constitution of Kenya 2010.

Rural Water Supply

• Improve management and coordination of investment planning.
• Develop a database to monitor coverage and functionality of rural water systems.
• Raise funds to reduce the deficit, especially for multivillage bulk supplies.

Urban Water Supply

• Agree on the final placement of water services assets.
• Intensify focus on informal settlements.
• Raise funds for storage and transmission projects.
• Enforce corporate governance principles for service providers.

Rural Sanitation and Hygiene

• Complete the sanitation strategy, including hardware subsidies and subsector costing.
• Clarify the role of environmental health workers in promoting sanitation and hygiene.
• Establish mechanisms to monitor uptake.
• Address vulnerable groups in sanitation planning.

Urban Sanitation and Hygiene

• Ensure the sanitation strategy outlines the role of environmental health workers in urban areas.
• Address shared sanitation among tenants.
• Improve coordination among responsible ministries.
• Invest in low-cost sewerage options such as small-bore sewerage and decentralized treatment plants.

Conclusion

The CSO2 analysis highlights the need for continued reform, better coordination, and increased investment to meet Kenya's water and sanitation targets by 2015. While progress has been made, significant gaps remain in both coverage and service quality, especially in rural areas. The findings emphasize the importance of aligning policy with legal frameworks, improving financial management, and ensuring that all stakeholders, including communities and donor agencies, are actively involved in the service delivery process.