Financial Sustainability of Rural Water Supplies in Western Kenya: Comparing technology types and management models

Introduction In order to improve people’s health worldwide, many efforts have been made in order to meet Millennium Development Goal 7c: reducing by half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and sanitation. Kenya is in the top ten of countries with the largest population without access to safe drinking water (UNICEF and WHO, 2012). Because most of these people live in rural areas, large investments are done in the Kenyan rural water supply. But recent studies show that many of the new water supplies stop functioning within a few years after implementation (MWI, 2007 and RWSN, 2007). Causes for this low ‘post-construction sustainability’ can be technical, institutional, financial, social or environmental. One of the most critical factors which is mentioned in literature is an adequate financing of operation and maintenance. This Master Thesis is about the post-construction sustainability of rural water supplies in Western Kenya, with a specific focus on the financial part of it (or financial sustainability). In the rural water supply practice in Western Kenya, several water supply technologies exist. Some of these technologies require hardly any operation and maintenance (O&M), like springs, surface water catchment, rain water catchment and a well without a pump. These technologies are not included in the current research. Remaining technologies are a handpump and a motorized pump, both used for groundwater pumping. Apart from the differences in technologies, several management models for rural water supply exist within Western Kenya: community management, government management, private management and institutional management. The latter one is not included in the current research because at these locations serving the community is in general not the main purpose. As the access to clean and safe water in adequate quantities is recognised as a human rights issue in Kenya (Constitution of Kenya, 2010), mechanisms for finding sustainable service delivery is a key national priority. As different management models are likely to result into different levels of sustainability, government of Kenya is in search of a most sustainable model for Kenyan context. Objective The objective of this study is to compare the financial sustainability of rural water supplies in Western Kenya. Within this comparison the aim is to compare different technology types, different management models and different combinations of these two. The final goal is that this comparison can be used by the Government of Kenya and other supporting entities in the development of policies and projects for the rural water supplies. Methodology Data for this study is collected during interviews with the responsible persons for the water supplies. Data is collected about service level, O&M, financial management, cost recovery and finances. Service level includes system functioning, water quantity, walking distances and water quality. O&M includes who is responsible for the daily operation and pump check and for the maintenance arrangements and the days it takes between a breakdown and a repair. Financial management includes: responsibility for the finances, water tariff, tariff structure, bank account, bookkeeping and service cut-off for non- payment. Cost recovery includes the practice of the payments, the extent in which the income covers the O&M costs and whether replacement is expected to be a problem on the long term. The finances include the yearly income, costs and costs per user. To all above mentioned factors scores are assigned depending on the output per criteria. The scores are also given a weighing factor. In this way, for every water supply a weighted score can be determined for all the four sustainability categories. In total 27 handpumps and 25 motorized pumps were evaluated. Conclusions and recommendations Out of all handpumps, the locations with community management and the locations with combined community and government management scored low. The communities were not able to collect enough money to keep the system functioning on the long term. The private managed handpumps scored good, especially in terms of cost recovery and quick response to breakdowns. The motorized pumps scored low at the locations with combined community and government management and at the locations with government management. At the combined managed motorized pumps the responsibilities for O&M and financial management were not clear. At the government managed motorized pumps the payments were not good enough to cover the costs. At the community managed motorized pumps, the committees were well organized but they did not manage to make all users pay. At the privately managed motorized pumps, the responsibilities for O&M and financial management were not clearly defined but the financial situation was good. There was enough money for the O&M and for replacement on the long term. Comparing the two technologies, the handpumps score higher on cost recovery and the motorized pumps score higher on O&M and financial management. At the handpumps it happens more often that the regular money collection is neglected. The responsible entities at the motorized pumps have more need to be organized because of the daily need for staff and money for e.g. fuel refilling. A negative side of the motorized pumps are the high costs per user per year, about nine times higher than at the handpumps. Comparing the four management models, the differences were not big. The community managed locations have difficulties with making people pay. At the combined managed systems the responsibilities for O&M and financial management are not clear. At the government systems the costs (including high salaries of government staff) are too high for the amount of users. The privately managed systems score slightly higher, especially in terms of cost recovery. Because of the fact that the water quantity is not sufficient at many locations and the walking distances are large, more water supplies are needed in the research area. It is recommended to focus more on handpumps than on motorized pumps for new water supplies. The reason for that are the high yearly costs at the motorized pumps. These costs make the motorized pumps less suitable for the rural areas of Western Kenya, where domestic income is low and people are not open to pay for their water. In some situations, with low water tables or high population density, a handpump is not feasible and than a motorized pump can be a good option for rural water supply. It is also recommended that action is taken in order to improve users’ willingness to pay. Four recommendations are: - Activities for economic development like job creation and microfinance projects. When people get to spend more, they become more open to pay for water. - Training in communities about the importance of clean water, which is not free. This includes basic insight in costs of water supply technologies. - Training for responsible entities about dealing with sanctions against non-payment and about making finances more transparent. In order to improve community management it is recommended that costs and responsibilities are shared within communities, local authorities and the central government. In the current situation, especially the tasks of the local authorities are not fully recognized: financing a part of major repairs of water supplies, monitoring the performance of individual facilities, conflict and problem resolution and retraining of mechanics and communities. For their monitoring task, the current study and other studies are used to constitute a basic half yearly performance monitoring. Since the private management model scores high on financial sustainability, it is recommended that the Government of Kenya and development partners pay more attention to this option. In order to create a situation where private management is a serious option, several aspects need to be considered: - The government need to contribute in investment costs. For e.g. the handpumps, they can contribute in the same way as in the current programmes with the community managed handpumps where the government pays 65% of the investment costs. - Community sensitization is required about the option of a private handpump. People need to know about this option. And they need insight in the costs and possible revenue. - Training is required for private owners of a water supply about water supply technologies, maintenance and dealing with financial management. - Formal recognition and regulation of such private investors is necessary as they will be running water systems as businesses.