63347 2011 June Field Note t -- - - - - =- - -- ~ - . I _ _ _ _ -- L . _ Promoting voice and accountability in urban water and sanitation services Lessons on introducing demand side accountability tools in Kenya Summary • Putting in place strategies to overcome the legal, institutional, technical and social barriers to service delivery within informal settlements. The introduction of the Citizen Report Card (CRC) tool in three Kenyan cities formed a basis for dialogue between citizenry and A less understood aspect of reform is how to ensure that utilities give corporate decision makers on urban water and sanitation issues. The CRC attention to the priorities of the poorest j replicates the private sector practice of collecting and acting on and most vulnerable customers. In particular sector players have often not consumer data for self~improvement, but applies it to public goods had the tools to take citizen views into and services, framed in an open and public consultative process. account when planning and implementing utility operations. The CRC tool was followed by institutionalized approaches to The capacity to tap into, and promoting social accountability, such as specialist civic networks strategically channel citizen voice is an important factor when ensuring on the demand side, and reguJatory supported citizen monitoring access to quality water and sanitation and feedback mechanisms on the supply side. This note and services in rapidly growing urban accompanying DVD describes the context, processes and results cities in developing countries. When services are inadequate or break of the initiative which seeks to increasingly bring citizens to the down, there is usually little pressure center of urban water and sanitation sector reforms. from citizens for service providers to address concerns, in particular those of the poor, who constitute the low revenue segments of the population. One reason for this is that citizens Background have lacked the organizational skills, experience, confidence and tools to Urbanization in Africa and reforming urban water and sanitation services exact accountability from sector decision In 2010, Africa experienced the fastest growth in urbanization worldwide, with current makers. On the other hand, utilities have estimates showing that by 2015 approximately 55% of all African residents will be not always put in place the mechanisms residing in cities (UNDP, 1991). Unless current approaches to urban development to receive and act on feedback from change radically, by 2020 almost half of this population (about 300 million people) will those using what is generally seen as a be living in shanties - areas that are unplanned and lack basic services such as water secondary level of service. and sanitation (World Bank, 1996). The process used in strengthening the voice of citizens in Kenya's urban To address the challenge of accessing urban water and sanitation services, informal water and sanitation sector is governments have embarked on reforms which aim at: the focus of this note. The section that • Improving the policy and regulatory framework and restructuring the industry to follows describes the background of the reduce political interference. initiative, and how the institutions created • ~stablishing ,!,odern management practices, professionalization of services, by the Water Act 2002 participated in improving utility financial viability, and reinvesting water revenues in operations and the process of receiving and acting on maintenance. feedback. 2 Urban water and sanitation in Kehya government and newly formed institutions Regulatory Board. The Ministry of Water The Government of Kenya embarked on as illustrated in Figure 1 below. and Irrigation was separated from water reforms to address the downward service delivery and charged solely with spiral of service delivery evidenced in the Three features defined the gist of formulating policy. Second, the reforms early 1990s. A new policy dir~tion was Kenya's water reforms; separation, provided enhanced decentralization set through the Kenya Session Paper decentralization and participation. of service delivery. The expectation no. 1 of 1999, the 'National Water Policy First, separate regulatory institutions was that by holding jurisdiction over on Water Resources Management and were created for the management of smaller areas, decentralized institut,ions Development.' To bring this into effect, water resources, now under the Water would provide more effective planning the government enacted the Water Act Resources Management Authority, and and supervision of services than the 2002 which delineates the roles of central service delivery, under the Water Services centralized ones of the past. Accordingly, Figure 1: Institutional framework of the Water Act 2002 Source: Water Sector Reform Program, GTZ the government established and licensed To address sanitation and hygiene the rights and responsibilities and strengthen eight independent water services boards Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation the provider - client relationship. across the country. These boards were developed a new National Hygiene The accountability framework required to provide services within their and Environmental Sanitation Policy. The World Bank's World Development jurisdiction, primarily. through agents However, unlike the water sector an Act Report (Making Services Work for Poor who sign Service Provision Agreements. of Parliament is yet to be developed to People, 2004) argues that successful These agents, although owned by local put the sanitation policy into effect. services need relationships in which authorities, were required to create clients can monitor and pressure autonomous and commercially run In a shift from the past, one of the water providers (client power). It also contends companies and plough back water that citizens can have a strong voice in revenues to finance operation and reform's stated goals was to increase policy making and regulation through maintenance. stakeholder and beneficiary involvement politicians and bureaucrats (the voice) , in sector activities. As the reforms while politicians and policy makers create In summary the key institutions created unfolded, citizens remained unaware of the incentives for providers to service for water and sanitation services by the the expected benefits of the reforms, not clients (the compact). Water Act 2002 are: understanding who was responsible for The accountability framework suggests • The Ministry of Water and Irrigation what. In this situation, citizens did not that citizen voice and client power can (MWI) responsible for policy demand improved levels of service from serve as elements for improving service formulation and overall sector institutions which were now required to delivery. Citizen voice can draw attention coordination . adhere to new service benchmarks.The to and negotiate compliance in the • Water Services Boards (WSB) Water and Sanitation Program recognized compact at on ~ level, and organized responsible for asset holding and that social accountability tools could clients can cat~lyze responses within development and ensuring service contribute to citizen awareness of their service organizations at another. delivery through Water Service Providers. • Water Service Providers (WSP) Figure 2: Accountability framework responsible for providing services to customers. WSPs, otherwise referred to as utilities or water and sewerage companies, are loca~ government owned commercial entities operating under contractual Service Provision Long route of accountability Agreements. • The Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB) responsible for: setting Short route and enforcing standards within the sector and issuing licenses to water providers; advising WSPs on Client Power procedures for dealing with consumer complaints; consumer protection; developing guidelines for tariff Services setting; and developing performance agreements between WSPs and WSBs. Source: World Development Report, 2004 4 CRC, which ranged from civil SOciety Box 2. What is a Citizen Report Card? organizations, resident representatives and service providers up to national level The citizen report card (CRG) was pioneered by the Public Affairs Center in Bangalore, policy making organizations such as India, as a tool to provide public agencies with systematic feedback from users of public the ministries responsible for water and services. sanitation. CRCs are compiled from data on consumer perceptions collected during a random sample survey of the users of services. The responses are aggregaled in order to rate the The consortia services, and released publicly in concise reports called report cards. City level consortia became the center of the CRC process forming direct CRCs were repeated in Bangalore every two or three years, and in this way were used links between the service provider and to monitor improvements over time and benchmark agencies' progress. The CRC is the experience of citizens as told by citizens. citizens, so that citizens could receive information on the reforms and water and How can a citizen report card be used? sanitation issues. The consortia provided an avenue for the voices of the poor The information provided in a CRC may be helpful to: through their resident representatives. • Citizens, as a basis for dialogue with service providers. • Policy makers, in policy formulation and targeting sector investments. Lead agenCies • Utility managers, in strategic planning and management. The lead agencies in each of the three cities were drawn from civil SOCiety, • RegtJlatory agencies, in ruling on quality, incorporating stakeholder views in decision­ making and in setting minimum service standards. each with different backgrounds, strengths and abilities. In Nairobi, the • Investors, in deciding where to channel funds. Kenya Alliance of Resident Association (KARA) was well known for its use of • Civil society, to advocate and monitor sector processes. net-based communications to support advocacy between resident associations Source: Adapted from the Public Affairs Foundation and public authorities. lIishe Trust, with a membership of over 200 community 18 months after the launch of the eRe citizens monitor progress at a public hearing. 6 Piloting the CRC in Kenya Box 1: Ust oi commonly used social accountability tools To respond to the situation in Kenya and the opportunities presented by the Water • Participatory Budgeting: a process through which citizens participate directly in the Act of 2002, WSP Africa and partners different phases of budget formulation, decision-making, and monitoring of budget reviewed an array of social accountability execution. tools (see Box 1) which could be used to • Independent Budget Analysis: citizens study a public budget to build their strengthen citizen voice. The CRC (see understanding, lobby for adjustments, and monitor expenditure. Box 2) was selected as a pilot project. • Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS): a quantitative survey of the supply side of Decision-makers within the Ministry of public services. Water and Irrigation endorsed the initiative • Citizen Report Cards (CRCs): surveys that solicit user feedback on the performance of and viewed the proposed CRC as a public services. useful opportunity to receive feedback on the impact of the reforms thus far. An • The Community Score Card (esc): a community level tool that links service providers to the community and facilitates assessment of the services towards negotiated assessment showed that Kenya enjoyed improvements. the advantage of democratic space, experienced research organizations, • Social Audit: citizens engage in collecting impartial and evidence-based information, free media and vibrant civil society. In which is used to expose and deter corruption and mismanagement. addition, service providers demonstrated • Citizens' Juries: selected members of a community make recommendations to a willingness to receive and act on citizen decision-makers on complex issues after a period of investigation. feedback - an factors that made local conditions suitable to implement the CRC • Community Radio: a non-profit service provides an interactive medium of communication that offers opportunities for listeners to participate. It deals with local approach. The outcome of the assessment issues in local languages and in a cultural context. was the decision to implement the process in Mombasa, Nairobi and Kisumu, the • Enumeration: A process used mostly by residents of urban informal settlements to major urban centers in Kenya. establish the numbers of households and the quality and quantity of facilities available. Information is used as an advocacy and negotiation tool. Citizen report card objectives The CRC aimed to strengthen citizen Source: John Ackerman, 2005. voice with quality data, especially for marginalized groups. Specifically the objectives of the initiative were to: dialogue and advocate for improved and Ministry of Local Government) • Create larger scale and more direct services for both the urban poor and played the role of enabler, supporting the links between citizens, water and non-poor. initiative at national level. Water utilities sanitation policy-makers and service appointed representatives to engage in providers. the initiative from beginning to end. To • Deepen citizen understanding of the Methodology anchor the demand side, civil society water and sanitation reforms, of their agencies acted as conveners at city rights and of the collective service The CRC was implemented through level. Thus, civil society, as a secretariat, delivery issues faced in the three cities consortia comprising government, led the initiative on behalf of the wider, in Kenya. service providers and civil society. multi-stakeholder consortium in each • Use the evidence from the CRCs to Government (through the Ministry of respective city. Figure 4 captures the support citizens to carry out informed Water and Irrigation, Ministry of Health various partners and their roles in the Figure 3: Partners and roles in the CRC process Citizen Report Card Partners and Roles '-----------+1----/ based organizations in the Coast region, The lead agencies all provided an Partnership broker: WSP Africa was known for its grassroots linkages and important ingredient of credibility to the WSP Africa provided technical assistance to successful engagement on land reform CRC: their established linkages and long the CRC process. It assessed the suitability issues on behalf of the poor. In Kisumu, term engagement with citizens on the of conditions for the CRC, identified key Sustainable Aid in Africa International ground. partners to steer the process at city level, (SANA International), was an agency brokered meetings between stakeholders, created to progress the model of an assisted in the analysis and interpretation of 18-year bilateral water and sanitation Resident representatives Resident representatives from both formal the CRC data and oversaw documentation. program in the Nyanza region of western Kenya, and was associated with pro-poor and informal residential areas were part of water and services implementation. each consortium, as shown in figure 5. Figure 4: Residents' represented Box 3. Example of city level CRC findings: Mombasa In the consortia Water Urban Commun~y • 84% of Mombasa residents access water through MOWASCO, the main utility, during normal times (as opposed to times of scarcity) from both kiosks and household mains. The service and distribution level to Mombasa residents is dominated at 70% by kiosks, vendors or small-scale redistributors. Only 27%, mostly the non-poor, have Residents' access to direct mains water in and around the home. Mombasa residents pay the A&8ocIatIon bulk of their water costs to middle men. repIe88f1IIng all cHII8n8 • There is high reliance on alternative self supply through protected wells, rainwater, and even unprotected sources during times of scarcity. Residenlon • Citizens reported obtaining water only 85 out of 168 hours during normal times, the fringe, uses dropping further during times of scarcity. uUIty water but through raseDers, not connected • 65% of households reported that adult women are responsible for fetching water for acce::. ResIdent not domestiC use from sources away from home. • 21 % of the poor and 55% of the non-poor have invested in storage tanks as a coping measure with capacities ranging between 1,000 lit res and 3,000 litres. • Almost 90% of Mombasa residents rate the taste, smell and color of water as Source: Adapted from a presentation acceptable. by Mike Muller. June 2008 , • 79% of Mombasa residents still treat mains water before drinking it. Communications to citizens CRC parameters Seven parameters were selected for data • 20% of the poor and 24% of the non-poor are aware of recent reforms undertaken by the government. Preferred means of communication is face to face, followed by radio. analysis and presentation as follows : i. Availability, access and usage of Sanitation different water sources, sanitation • Over half of Mombasa residents (51 %) rely on household pit latrines. A further 11 % ophons and solid waste management share pit latrines between multiple households. The minority, 23% have access to a methods. private household water closet 0Nc) while a further 11 % share a WC between multiple households. ii. Instances of seasonal scarcity and coping mechanisms. • Increased availability of public toilets is the highest sanitation priority. iii. Issues of quality and reliability. • Only 5% of Mombasa residents were aware of public health officials assigned to their iv. Direct and indirect costs to capture area. transparency issues. v. Satisfaction, dissatisfaction and the Source: Mombasa City Water and Sanitation Report Card, 2007 underlying reasons. vi . Demographic details of the respondent household. vii. Priorities for improvement. 8 CRC process, challenges and lessons learnt Table 1: Steps In the CRC process and lessons learnt CRCstepand Activity Lessons learnt time frame Assessment WSP Africa began the CRC process by building awareness Indicators to assess suitability for implementing a CRC Step 1 of the potential of report cards in four cities combined with • A conducive policy environment 1 month assessments to establish whether local conditions were • A level of political freedom and democratic space suitable. • A level of decentralization in service delivery • The research capacity to undertake and analyze random sample surveys • A vibrant civil society • A free press • The willingness and capacity of service providers to receive and act on feedback . Consortium Four consortia were created to own and drive the Partnership benefits of a consortium formation process. The consortia agreed on the objectives, roles, and capacity responsibilities, timelines and outputs for each step of the Despite initial fears that the service agencies and civil building way. society organizations would not be able to work together, Step 2 the consortia became effective forums for discussing 2 months Through a transparent bidding process, civil society and exchanging views. They enabled accountability organizations were selected as 'lead agencies' in the dynamics (between the supply and demand side) to consortia of each city. The lead agencies' capacity was unfold constructively between service providers and built through a one week training on the key concepts and citizens. methodology of the process, including supervision of focus group discussions, (FGDs) data analysis, dissemination of the findings and advocacy. A detailed planning process was undertaken. Qualitative The lead agencies facilitated focus group discussions The FGD stage offered an opportunity for citizens to research on water, sanitation and solid waste. The FGDs were share their experiences first hand and provided an Step 3 guided by a common checklist developed jointly by the understanding of the CRC issues from a qualitative 2 months city-level consortia. 40 FGDs were conducted across the perspective, which later informed the quantitative data. three towns in high, middle and low-income areas, with The material from the FGDs was used as case studies, to combined and separate groups of men, women, leaders illustrate findings in the city and national level CRCs. and youth groups. The lead agencies compiled the results, which were then used to prepare the survey instrument for the quantitative research. Survey and Research International, an international survey agency Stakeholders involved in the CRC were keen to include data entry drafted the survey instrument using the FGD reports. Each a wide array of questions in the questionnaire. The final Step 4 consortia provided feedback on the questionnaire drafts. questionnaire was 50 pages long, and required two 2 months hours to administer. This led to respondent fatigue and The research methodology provided the means to measure reduced responses towards the tail end of the interviews. the differences in service provision between poor and non- Good practice is to limit duration of questionnaires to 45 poor households. The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) minutes. supplied a stratified sample of Kenyan citizens within five distinct living standard categories - upper, lower upper, (Continuation) Table 1: Steps in the CRC process and lessons learnt CRCstep and Activity time frame Lessons learnt middle, lower middle and lower. Data were collected Survey administration from over 2,900 randomly selected households, and the Because of time and budget issues, the Central Bureau sample differentiated responses from poor and non-poor of Statistics (CBS) sampling clusters are not regularly households for further analysis. updated. While using the maps, the enumerators discovered that some of the enumeration areas had Research International appOinted enumerators, supervisors changed Significantly: either new structures had replaced and field managers with local language abilities. The open spaces, or the selected households had been enumeration team was oriented through a fIVe-day training demolished. This forced them to make substitutions session on the survey objectives, the water and sanitation within the enumeration areas, causing delays. sector terminology used in the tool, and field testing of the questionnaire. Training on how to read the CBS maps to Due to poor security in the city, enumerators were often identify the randomly selected households was another denied access to interview households, especially in the part of the enumerators' orientation process. non-poor areas. In certain cases the enumerators had to return with supervisors or meet first with the community leaders to explain the purpose of their presence, and only afterwards were they granted permission to continue with the household interviews. I Data analysis The final sample was weighted by the CBS to compensate It is important to establish that the analytical skills exist Step 5 for any non-response within each cluster. The data were within the survey firm to accu$tely reflect respondent 2 months analyzed by city, by poor and non-poor and also by the categories by size, and weight samples for non­ respondents ' level of service, i.e. those using water from response, to ensure that the final set of findings provide a kiosks as opposed to those with a household connection. reflection of the wider population. Research International The analysis was done mainly by averaging responses and strengthened their capacity by enlisting the support of comparing the results against sector benchmarks. CBS staff. Report card The lead agencies prepared city level CRCs, and WSP An action matrix developed with service providers is drafting and Africa used these to compile a summary national CRC . an important tool for citizens to monitor compliance to action planning The consortia in Mombasa, Kisumu and Nairobi met commitments on service improvements. Step 6 ahead of the public launch, to deliberate on the findings 3 months emerging from preliminary analysis. Frank discussions The limitation to the action matrices was that beyond from the perspective of the boards, water companies and management improvements, many of the problems other officials, were held to discuss the causes behind recorded in the CRC resulted from years of under the problems. An action plan in the form of a matrix was investment and lack of resources to correct the compiled for each city. The action matrix singled out the situation. Often the agencies were not certain when the problem, the action to be taken, the responsible party, and government would provide resources for urgently needed the deadline: these matrices were presented to the public capital-intensive improvements. From this, civil society during the launch. began to perceive that its role would not only include pushing for improved services, but advocating at the national level for increased resources in the sector. Launch of Following the consortia's endorsement of key findings, Senior government officials, such as the assistant Citizen Report and prior to the launch, a media strategy was developed. minister for water, participated in the launch. An Card The goal was to ensure that citizens outside the consortia important lesson in its success was the decision on I Step 7 would gain access to the CRC findings. 'no surprises': top line findings were discussed with 1 day service providers and policy makers ahead of the launch, enabling them to engage with the media and face queries from the public. 10 (Continuation) Table 1: Steps in the CRC process and lessons learnt CRC step and Activity Lessons learnt time frame On 29 May 2007 the GRG findings were publicly released A media kit assisted the press to engage. It contained in Nairobi. POlicy makers and service providers gave public the GRG press release, a GO containing the report , key commitment to address the issues raised and presented charts, as well as the names, deSignation and contacts their action matrices as developed within the consortium. of key informants who could be interviewed to respond Following the launch, a series of television talk shows and to the issues raised in the GRG. news stories were carried in the local press for several weeks. Advocacy and Longer-term advocacy was undertaken within the A media strategy enabled the GRG to draw public accountability consortia at city level. Service providers and civil society attention to the performance of the water and sanitation Step 8 met to review progress against specific commitments as sector institutions in Kenya. Although the media kit 2 years documented in the action matrices. captured both the positive and negative findings of the GRG, it seemed, from the press coverage, that the findings were all negative and that only bad news was 'news.' The lesson thus is that prior to the launch, the GRG process should incorporate media training for editors to explain the reform and development objective of the GRG and the need to motivate service providers in areas where marked improvements are evident. Beyond appeals, The Water Act of 2002 has not outlined a procedure for changing from one water service provider to another in the event that citizens or the Water Services Regulatory Board find fault with their performance. One limitation of the GRG is that action remains at the discretion of the service provider. The real extent of rights within the CRG process is the right to have a 'voice' that can induce sustained pressure resulting in appropriate remedial action. The Water Services Regulatory Board, provided a new destination for citizen voice on water and sewerage, (though not for on-site sanitation) by putting in place a citizen watch dog and feedback mechanism in the form Resident representative gives her contribution during one of the of Water Action Groups (described in next chapter) . The Mombasa city consortium meetings. regulator has begun to define clear steps to ensure that when utilities fail to comply to guidelines and standards, they are penalized or sanctioned. Documentation To share lessons on the process with others, the As this was the first comprehensive and collaborative of lessons documentation began early. A video firm was hired to water and sanitation-focused GRG in Kenya, agencies Step 9 capture the process, the findings, citizen voice, and the interested in replicating the tools have access to the 3 months emerging impacts of the GRG. documentation for reference. . -­ . .­ Results and impact Table 2: Results of KIWASCO performance improvement presented in CRC review The section below discusses observed impacts and results from the process. Parameter Status in 2006 Status March 2010 Citizens monitor service improvement Water production 13,OOOm3 • Sustained at 17,OOOm3 plans Table 2 provides an example of service Population served 162,000 • 185,000 (at least 6 hrs per day) improvements reported to citizens Water quality 80% compliance level • 95% compliance level (WHO & during the CRC action matrix review KEBS) by the Kisumu Water and Sewerage Non-revenue water 67% Reduced progressively to 47% r Company (KIWASCO) in 2009. Lake Victoria South Water Services Board Customer service Complaints resolution 66% • 10,300 accounts have running and the French Development Agency meters E-billing not available supported rehabilitation of infrastructure • Customer complaints resolution and improved metering and customer 85% care-improvements which were • 6,000 customers registered for presented to citizens during the reviews. E-bill When the CRC was launched in 2007 the company's communication strategy Billing cycle 30 days 30 days was undefined; three years later they Collection efficiency 90% 95% I' had initiated a range of customer care mechanisms and citizens for the first Communication Nonexistent • Quarterly stakeholder meetings time were able to monitor these service • Interactive radio shows improvement plans, • Hotlines StrengU1ened citizen voice • Dedicated corporate The CRC deepened residents' communications offICe engagement, both with service providers and policy makers. For example, in 2008 • Community outreach governance challenges were reported Delegated Piloted • Fully operational and reduced management in non-revenue water to 9% in the to be plaguing the Mombasa Water informal settlements areas served Company and the Coast Water Services Board. In response, Mombasa residents • Reduced the price of water to worked collectively to appeal to the the poor by 50% minister responsible for water to ensure Source: Presentation by KIWASCO Managing Director, Nairobi April 2010 that appointments to the coast Water Services Board reflected public interest. in a frank question and answer session Civil society engagement strengthened Strengthened citizen voice was also regarding the CRC findings and their Recognizing the importance of oversight visible through media engagement. planned actions. A series of television and accountability in the sector as a Sector decision-makers participated and radio call-in and talk shows, whole, a water and sanitation sector civil in a press conference during the CRC sustaining engagement on water issues society Network (KEWASNET) began to launch in May 2007 engaging journalists with the wider public. form. The Nairobi lead agency for the 12 CRC, the Kenya Alliance of Resident The Water Services Regulatory Board complaints. The regulator intends that by Associations, led efforts to put in place (WASREB) acted on the CRC feedback channeling grassroots voices in this way, the Kenya Water and Sanitation Civil that citizens desire more and direct the reforms can become more tangible Society network. Their goal was to engagement with their service providers. and meaningful under-served citizens. collectively promote good governance, The regulator tested a citizen feedback transparency and compliance. Three method from the grassroots upwards, years after the launch they had registered to ensure that citizens' interests are Recommendations a network, created a website, developed heard and acted on . The mechanism from Citizen Report an active list-serve, produced a seeks to guarantee an audience for quarterly e-newsletter and put in place citizens, first with the utility, then with the Card Findings a five year strategic plan to guide their regional water services board, ultimately escalating unresolved issues and Equitable investment targeting engagement. The KEWASNET strategy complaints to the regulator itself. Dubbed Across the board the citizens of Nairobi aims to promote accountability tools 'Water Action Groups' or WAGs for short, reported better access to, and higher in sector processes. Already they have citizen representatives, drawn from urban levels of satisfaction with services, made significant contributions to sector resident associations, are appointed to than citizens in the secondary towns of governance discourse from a demand Kisumu and Mombasa. Although this side perspective. monitor water and sanitation provision, might relate to the quality of management provide feedback on the quality of local within the Nairobi utility, it is likely Citizen feedback institutionalized service delivery, and follow up unresolved that earlier investment decisions are a contributing factor (Water Operator Partnership, 2009). In the past two decades, capital investment loans were used to improve both infrastructure and institutional performance in Nairobi, while no comparable investments were targeted at Mombasa or Kisumu. It is recommended that policy makers develop a formula to target investments equitably at growing urban centers across the country. Levels of water service In all three cities, less than 20% of those defined as 'poor' reported access to a private water and sanitation connection. They instead relied on small water resellers (kiosks), and when giving feedback stated that they disliked the inconvenience associated with the kiosk service. Analysis of feedback on access against the regulator's benchmarks, revealed that when reporting progress, Members of Kenya 's civil society discess ways of improving governance in the water and sanitation sector. the sector combines public taps and kiosks with household connections. Thus, kiosks are helping the water companies achieve the coverage benchmarks set by the regulator, even though they have a much lower reported level of citizen satisfaction. For a more realistic picture, when reporting progress policy makers should separate kiosks and household connections. This would encourage more attention to those not yet connected, and build political will to enhance investment in household connections in poorer areas. Cost is another issue associated with service level. The CRC survey showed that while the poor continue to rely heavily on kiosks where water is more expensive in volumetric terms than for private connections, they use a larger proportion of their income on water than the non­ poor. The long-term solution would be to increase network coverage for the poor (Foster et ai, 2005), while in the short term, the regulator should ensure that intermediary water providers do not exploit the situation by providing unsafe water at storage tanks that would meet their needs status of water quality and safety in urban high prices during times of scarcity. areas, is also an important policy level mandate. Water reliability and coping mechanisms Water quality and household treatment All households in the three cities Across the three cities feedback on Urban sanitation experience periods of water scarcity, water quality from utility connections was Most municipal council by-laws in mainly in the months of June and positive. Nevertheless, many people still Kenya recognize sewer, septic tanks and December. When asked how they cope treat their water with commercial products, conservancy tanks but exclude pit latrines. during times of scarcity, the poor reported indicating low confidence in drinking water Pit latrines that are appropriate for rural that they resort either to expensive water directly from the tap. Due to confusion areas (due to space and housing patterns), sold by vendors in plastic containers, or about the quality of these products are also the de facto technical solution for to unsafe, open sources of water. The citizens require that these commodities the majority urban poor. Yet, due to their non-poor, on the other hand, stated that not only have a guarantee of safety from unofficial status there is no lead institution they rely on household storage. All the the Kenya Bureau of Standards, but also to support the technology. Instead, on-site utilities require longer-term water resource the sector ministries overseeing service urban sanitation is addressed informally solutions in the face of Kenya's burgeoning delivery. Policy makers role should by different stakeholders at different times, urban populations. In the meantime, the thus ensure that products developed to with different levels of skills and technology ministries responsible for health, water and 'enhance' utility water supplies conform while citizens continue to empty their sanitation should ensure that emergency to recognized safety standards and have waste into storm sewers, soak pits and strategies are in place to buffer the poor, clear instructions on their use. Regular public water bodies (Citizen's Report Card who have neither the space nor money for communication to consumers on the on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid 14 Waste Services in Kenya: Summary of dwelling houses with sanitation Citizen engagement wit~ water and of results from Nairobi, Kisumu and facilities. However, the city council sewerage services Mombasa, 2007). planning departments are responsible The Water Act 2002 supports citizen for land allocation and designating engagement through their presence The CRC findings showed that an space for public conveniences, while the on sector boards. It also commits to inadequate policy and legislative ministry responsible for housing is the undertake wide consultations with the framework for urban sanitation has led implementing agent on behalf of other public on major decisions affecting them. to low access, poor quality facilities and government departments when facilities the absence of a coherent management are constructed or rented. Still, at the end The Regulator needs to widely system. This is manifested in a crisis of the day, household sanitation remains disseminate guidelines on the criteria of poor sanitary conditions in informal an individual responsibility. In Nairobi, and procedure of board appointments in settlements in all three cities, the worst meeting this responsibility is hindered both companies and overseeing Water being Nairobi where the population is by the fact that the majority of Nairobi's Service Boards. If citizens are aware highest. urban poor are tenants who have no of the guidelines, it would promote power to improve the sanitation facilities transparency, build accountability and Responsibility for guiding effective of the dwellings they occupy. reduce contention over appointments. disposal, transport and treatment The reality remains though, that once of sludge for the urban poor has for Due to the complexity of sanitation for named as board members citizens are many years remained undefined. For the urban poor in Kenya, a strong policy obliged to adhere to board confidentiality example, the Public Health Act provides intervention is urgently required to create and fiduciary responsibilities. This laws that deal with the prevention of a framework of cooperation between may limit the scope of their voice and ::1uisance, usually arising from unsanitary stakeholders and release the resources autonomy in certain instances. Alongside conditions. The same Act addresses the required for a coherent institutional representation therefore, varied channels positioning, supervision and regulation response. for citizen engagement should be encouraged and sustained . . Finally, for citizens without basic access to water and sanitation services, institutional plans, progress and targets for capital investment are of great interest, and become a point of frustration when such information is not made accessible. In the spirit of the Water Act 2002 policy makers need to ensure that information related to their activities in the sector is regularly availed to the public and that sector interventions respond to local demand. Accountability tools like participatory planning, budgeting and progress reviews need to be incorporated as part of regular sector practice at the appropriate level. Priorities for improvement Left: One household's solution within a Mombasa informal settlement. In all three cities of Nairobi, Mombasa Right: A shared sanitation facility in Kibera, Nairobi, which drains into the Nairobi 'River. and Kisumu , citizen recommendations for improvement converged around the below five priorities: • Citizens want a more reliable water supply and reported that improved reliability was more important than cost reduction • Citizens using kiosks want their sources to be closer • Citizens want access to more public toilets and greater access to the sewer network • Citizens want more and direct access to their service providers, firstly face to face, and secondly through local radio. Process recommendations From the implementation of the process, useful recommendations are drawn for replicating the CRC tool. The key process recommendations when implementing a CRC are: • Involve policy makers, providers and citizen representatives from the beginning. The process is directly correlated to acceptance and outcomes, and is therefore of equal importance. • Ensure that a senior sector agency endorses the initiative, provides a destination for citizen voice and gives actionable support to emerging policy recommendations. • Adopt formal progress implementation reviews to sustain commitment to action. • Ensure to institutionalize citizen The managing director of a water and sewerage company responds publicly to c~izens' queries during a CRC review. participation at key stages of sector processes so that mechanisms are in place for their voices to feed into long­ term reform. 16 Conclusion Promoting sector accountability benefits from a partnership paradigm and strategy. The process provided a platform not only for citizen feedback, but dialogue between the supply and demand sides as well. The joint ownership of the initiative encouraged utility acknowledgement of and action on the findings. In the end the initiative showed that when accountability tools are jointly conceived and managed they can hold more value for reform efforts than if pursued independently. However, partnership is time consuming and requires investment to build skills, clarify objectives, and reach agreement on processes and outputs. WASREB's citizen feedback initiative points at the benefit of evidence-based Gtccountability tools like the CRC. In this case it showed that policy makers and decision-makers can be persuaded to act on behalf of citizens' interests to put in place mechanisms to promote provider compliance and responsiveness over the long term. Finally, as shown in the consortia and emerging civil society networks, accountability tools can assist citizens to work collectively, improve their skills in representing diverse views, use evidence to support demand responsive reform, and contribute to creating a more accountable sector overall. Voices of men, women, boys and girls can be channeled to ensure that services meet their different needs. Cities of the CRC Pilot ..,37930 KENYA ETHIOPIA SOMALIA ........, . INDLAN DeliAH TAIZAIIA , o .. , •, j i o .. Source: World Bank