Poverty Targeting in Kenya Water and Sanitation Programme

Presentation to Danida Water Sector Workshop

Accra, Ghana 1st Feb. 2005

By Peter Jorgensen, Sector Adviser, Kenya

0Summary

This paper describes the targeting approach developed with support from the Kenya Water and Sanitation Programme. It argues for the importance of poverty targeting of water sector investments in poor countries with high levels of inequality.

1Introduction and background

Kenya is a country in Eastern Africa bordering the Indian Ocean.

The 2005 population is estimated at around 34 million persons living on 583,000 km2.

The GDP per capita (PPP) is $1,100 (2004 est.), life expectancy 48 years, water coverage estimated at 48% and sanitation coverage estimated at 82%.

1.1 Water Sector Reforms

The Kenya water sector is under radical reform driven by respectively the national policy on water resources management and development (1999) and the draft strategies on water resources management (December 2004) and water services (December 2004). These policies and strategies are either supported by or prepared in accordance with the new Water Act of 2002 and the draft Zero Investment Plan (2003).

The main thrust of the reforms is to separate water resources management from water services delivery and to focus the role of Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI) on policy formulation. Detailed regulations are left to a number of para-statal institutions representing different stakeholder interests. Implementation is intended to be demand driven and utilising water service providers in the private and non governmental organisation sectors. Other aims of the reforms are to improve effectiveness and efficiency of water services delivery.

The reforms are gathering momentum, the Water Service Boards (WSBs), the Water Services Trust Fund (WSTF), the Water Resources Management Authority and the Water Services Regulatory Board are established. As from 1st July ’05 most of the MWI staff were officially seconded to the new institutions, while their salary in the transition period continues to come from MWI. The Ministry itself is likewise in a process of major reorganisation.

1.2 Kenya Water and Sanitation Programme (KWSP)

Kenya and Sweden have since Independence been co-operating in the water sector and by mid 2003, Kenya and Denmark agreed to re-start the co-operation in the sector. In order to secure efficient co-operation between Kenya and the two donors it was agreed to join the Danish and Swedish support into a single programme, the Kenya Water and Sanitation Programme (KWSP). However, KWSP is open to other donors and prepared to a wider transformation leading to a Sector Wide Approach to planning (SWAp).

KWSP has a total budget for 5 years 2005-9 of 4,571 million Kenya Shillings, which is around 381 million DKK. Danida contributes 160 million DKK.

KWSP has three components:

  1. Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS) (around 70% of total budget)
  2. Water Resources Management
  3. Water Sector Reform

2. Poverty Targeting of RWSS investments

2.1 Kenya is characterised by extreme inequality. This makes reaching MDGs almost impossible

The 10% richest households earn 56 times what the 10% poorest earn![1] This makes Kenya one of the most unequal countries of the world. The Kenyan elite historically capture most new investments in all sectors of the economy. According to UNDP, “without improved income distribution Sub-Saharan Africa would require implausibly high growth rates to halve poverty by 2015”[2] as required in the MDGs. The HDR goes on to recommend a pro-poor “growth pattern in which people in poverty capture twice the share of future growth as their current share in national income. For Kenya this version of pro-poor growth shortens the time horizon for halving poverty by 17 years … . The conclusion: when it comes to income poverty reduction, distribution matters as well as growth.”

2.2 Poverty Targeting of RWSS investments

In the water sector relatively few of the funds invested have historically tended to reach the poorest. The Sida program 1985-2004 had many good strategies and a lot of poverty rhetoric, nevertheless the bulk of the funds went to areas in central Kenya to communities which were poor but not very poor.

KWSP has adopted a very ambitious aim:

The bulk of KWSP RWSS investments shall go to very poor communities.

This requires careful targeting at several levels:

•Geographical (regions, locations, communities)

•Gender

•Socio-economic groups

•Age

•Persons from HIV/AIDS affected families

•Technology choice

Due to space constraints this paper will mainly focus on the geographical targeting.

2.3 Geographical poverty targeting

In the first year of the programme, a number of pilot activities were funded directly by the Danish and Swedish Embassy respectively, before the formal targeting criteria had been adopted. With exception of the pilot activities, the bulk of RWSS component funds is channelled through WSTF.

The core objective of the Trust Fund is to assist in the provision of water and sanitation services to communities without adequate water services in the country, priority being given to poor and disadvantaged groups.

2.3.1 Targeting the poorest locations with lowest W&S coverage

Kenya is administratively divided into 7 provinces, 70 districts and about 2500 locations. A typical rural location has a population of about 10,000 persons on 2-300km2.

Targeting of locations with the poorest communities is a key strategy for WSTF. This strategy is based on the understanding that the poorest communities will most likely have the worst access to quality water and sanitation services. The objective is to focus WSTF resources in areas where the greatest impact on poverty will be realised.

Currently all WSBs lack adequate water and sanitation data to identify these target locations. It is hoped that the data will be developed gradually so as to provide a more comprehensive assessment and consequent determination of the target locations. In the meantime, WSTF in partnership with the WSBs, and supported by KWSP has developed a rapid assessment methodology involving the use of the national poverty data from the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) , Ministry of Planning and National Development. These data are based on the census and detailed poverty maps have been prepared by CBS with support from World Bank, Sida and Society for International Development. These data and maps are widely recognised as the best material available on the geographical distribution of poverty in Kenya.

Due to the lack of reliable water and sanitation coverage data, indicators for these parameters were determined in stakeholder workshops including District Water Officers, District Development Officers, Public Health Officers and Non-Governmental Agencies active in the Board areas.

The four indicators considered are as follows:

  1. Poverty Levels (% of individuals living below the poverty line, using CBS data);
  2. Level of investment in water and sanitation infrastructure;
  3. Access to quality water services; and
  4. Sanitation coverage levels

50% of the score was based on the poverty level and 50% on the aggregate W&S score.[3]

A minimum of 50 poorest and most deserving locations were selected from each WSB. Hence nationally 362 locations were selected out of a total of about 2500. In the first investment year the WSTF will only fund investment within the 362 selected locations. This means 100% of funds will go to the 14% locations which are generally the poorest. As far as we are aware, this is the first time a major water programme in Kenya has so specifically targeted the poorest locations.

2.3.2 Targeting poor communities within the poorest locations

The targeting of the poorest location within each region/WSB area should ensure that funds in a given WSB area go to priority locations. The next question is how to select specific communities within these locations. This process is designed to be demand-responsive[4]. All communities within the selected location will be informed about the WSTF and the possibility to apply for assistance and will be given application forms. A Community wishing to apply will form a Community Based Organisation (CBO, many already exist) and apply through the regional Water Service Boards. WSBs and consultants will score the applications based on three main criteria:

  • Degree of need (distance to current water source, time spent to fetch, water quality etc.)
  • Degree of community ownership of application
  • Technical, financial, environmental and social Feasibility.

2.3.3 Regional targeting

The targeting of the poorest location within each region/WSB area should ensure that funds in a given WSB area go to priority locations, and the above process should ensure that feasible projects in needy communities are selected. The next question is how the funds should be divided between the regions. Here KWSP has the further complication that the programme is supposed to work in all regions, but Danida funds are earmarked to arid and semi-arid (ASAL) areas in 3 of the 7 regions. Danida selected these three regions in order to overlap with Danida’s Health and Agriculture Sector Programme Support. Most of the 350 selected locations are in ASAL areas.

KWSP Programme Coordination Unit (PCU) has for a long time recommended that the WSTF announces the regional breakdown of the funds for the first round of projects that comply with the agreed Community Project Cycle. In the absence of action the PCU brought it to the Programme Coordination Committee which recommended that the first round of funds totalling 100 Million KSH be allocated as follows:

  • A minimum of 10 MKSH for each region (7*10M=70 million) – equity principle
  • Balance 30M to be distributed among regions with fast progress – demand responsive, effectiveness principle

The WSTF is still to confirm this and to communicate it to the boards.

2.4 Socio-Economic Targeting

This includes targeting by gender, socioeconomic groups, age, disability, and persons from HIV/AIDS affected families.

The community project cycle includes detailed procedures for this targeting within the community, aiming to prevent that the benefits of the interventions are captured by the relatively well off.[5]

3. Conclusions and recommendations

3.1 Conclusions

Macro level:

  • Due to the low level of human development[6] and extreme inequality in Kenya, both accelerated economic growth and reduction of inequality are required as prerequisites for any realistic attempt by Kenya to meet the MDGs

Programme level:

  • The broad set of poverty targeting measures put in place by WSTF and WSBs, supported by KWSP, represent the most systematic attempt to date at mainstreaming poverty targeting in the RWSS sector in Kenya
  • The jury is still out on how effective the actual poverty targeting will prove to be. The elite in Kenya tends to have ways to ensure they get (more than) their share, hence rigorous monitoring will be required at all levels to ensure the targeting principles are implemented

3.2 Recommendations

  • Given the importance of economic growth for reaching the MDGs in Sub-Saharan Africa, programmes should aim to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the water sector as contribution towards an enabling environment for growth[7]
  • Poverty targeting should be both geographic and socioeconomic
  • Geographic targeting need to be considered at several levels – in Kenya at least Region, location and community – relevant levels will be country specific
  • Socio-economic targeting need to consider gender, socioeconomic groups, age, disability, and persons from HIV/AIDS affected families
  • The actual implementation of the targeting need to be monitored at all levels.

Annex

Abbreviation / Full
ASAL / Arid and Semi-Arid Land
CBO / Community Based Organisation
CBS / Central Bureau of Statistics
Danida / Danish International Development Assistance
KSH / Kenya Shillings
KWSP / Kenya Water and Sanitation Programme
MDG / Millenium Development Goal
MWI / Ministry Of Water And Irrigation
PCU / Programme Coordination Unit
RWSS / Rural Water Supply and Sanitation
Sida / Swedish International Development Co-operation Agency
WSB / Water Services Board
WSTF / Water Services Trust Fund

Author: Peter Jorgensen, Sector Adviser (Danida and Sida), Ministry of Water and Irrigation, Nairobi. Tel: +254 723960677;

Page 1

[1] Source: “Pulling Apart – Facts and Figures on Inequality in Kenya” P.13, SID, Ministry of Planning, Sida

[2] Source: “UNDP HDR 2005”

[3]The details of the W&S scoring system varied slightly between the 7 regions.

[4]Although some WSBs are still arguing that they should pre-select the communities.

[5] Water and Sanitation Project Implementation Guidelines for Preparation Phase of CPC. (Jan. 2006) plus other related CPC documents.

[6] The level is 0.474, putting Kenya in the category of Low Human Development, ranked 154 of 177 countries ranked in UNDP HDR 2005.

[7]KWSP is addressing these issues through its Water Sector Reform Component.