46304 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya i ii Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Contributing Stakeholders The Ministry of Water and Irrigation provided the umbrella under which the CRC initiative was forged. The initiative was facilitated by civil society organizations at the city level by the Kenya Alliance of Resident Associations (KARA) in Nairobi, Sustainable Aid in Africa (SANA) International in Kisumu, and Ilishe Trust in Mombasa respectively. These lead agencies worked in partnership with a loose association of between 15 - 20 stakeholders comprising civil society organizations, resident representatives and service providers responsible for water, sewerage, on site sanitation and solid waste services in each town - collectively referred to as a consortium. The three consortia owned the process at the local level, with the lead agencies responsible for convening meetings. The lead agencies alongside Network for Water and Sanitation International (NETWAS) and Institute of Civic Affairs and Development (ICAD) joined to form a multi-stakeholder umbrella policy level consortium at the national level. The Ministry of Water and Irrigation, the Water Services Regulatory Board, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Local Government as well as a small group of donors namely GTZ, UN Habitat, SIDA and DANIDA were involved in deliberations on the outcomes and the policy implications emerging from the city consortiums. WSP Africa brokered the process between the various partners and provided technical assistance. This Summary Report is based on the three city level reports drafted by the lead agencies. Members of Kisumu Consortium Lake Victoria Water Services Board (LVSWSB), Kisumu Water and Sewerage Company (KIWASCO), Kisumu Municipal Council (Environment Department), Department of Health in the Council, CARE Kenya, World Vision, Gwako Ministries, Kenya Female Advisory Organization, CSO Network for Western Kenya, Kenya Water for Health Organization,(KWAHO), Christian Children's Fund, Sustainable Aid in Africa (SANA) International Members of Nairobi City Consortium Athi Water Services Board, Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company (NAWASCO) City Council of Nairobi (environment departments), Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), Kenya Water Partnership office in the Ministry of Water and Irrigation, Kenya Water For Health Organization (KWAHO), Maji na Ufanisi (Water and Development), Consumer Information Network, Ivory Consult Limited, Resident Representative Tena Residents Association, Lavington Residents Association, African Women and Child Information Network and The Kenya Alliance of Residents Associations (KARA). Members of Mombasa City Consortium Coast Water Services Board, Mombasa Water and Sewerage Company, Department of Environment and Health of the Mombasa Municipal Council, Coast Development Authority, Environmental Trust of Kenya, Coast Development Lobby Group (CDLG), UJAMAA CENTRE, Women's Network Centre, Consumer First Network, Kituo cha Sheria, Coast NGO forum, Coast Rights Forum, Action Aid, National Council of Churches of Kenya, Residents representatives from Likoni, Mombasa Island, Kisauni, Changamwe and Ilishe Trust. Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya iii Glossary of Key Terms Kiosks: category for all kiosks whether supplied by the network or other independent sources. Mains connections: all connections to the utility network, whether private in the residence or compound or shared in the compound or block of flats. Mains kiosks: all kiosks connected to the utility network. Poor: The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) maintains a National Sample Survey and Evaluation Programme (NASSEP) for obtaining household based information. The current frame (NASSEP IV) created after the 1999 housing and population census is made up of 540 urban clusters and 1,260 rural clusters. The clusters have further been categorized by CBS into 5 strata based on wealth/poverty status of the area where the clusters are located. Therefore the clusters, hence the households falling within stratum 1 are considered to be the wealthiest ones and those falling in stratum 5, the poorest. The NASSEP IV Sampling Frame was used to draw the sample clusters (poor and non-poor) for the Citizen Report Card Survey conducted in Nairobi, Mombasa and Kisumu. For purposes of our study, strata 1 to 3 were considered to be `non-poor' while strata 4 and 5 were considered to be `poor' with strata 5 being the informal settlements. Protected sources: these include sources of water such as rainwater and covered wells that are less likely to be contaminated than unprotected sources like surface water. Rising block tariff: increasing tariffs per unit of water for higher levels of consumption. Scarcity: defined as low or lack of water supply lasting five days or longer; this is different from a short-term water cut or an advertised shortage. Unaccounted for water (UFW): the difference between the quantity of water supplied to a city's network and the metered quantity of water used by the customers. UFW has two components: (a) physical losses due to leakage from pipes, and (b) administrative losses due to illegal connections and under registration of water meters. Unprotected sources: these include sources of water like open wells and surface water (streams and ponds) which are more likely to be contaminated than protected sources like covered wells. iv Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Table of Contents Acknowledgements ix Foreword x Executive Summary 1 Introduction 7 1.1 What is the Citizen Report Card? 7 1.2 Why Prepare a Citizen Report Card? 7 1.3 The Context: Urban Water Sector Reform in Kenya 7 1.4 The Three Cities 8 1.5 The Process of Preparing the Citizen Report Cards in Kenya 9 1.6 Methodology of Data Collection and Report Card Preparation 10 2 Water Services 13 2.1 Availability, Access and Usage of Water Sources 13 What sources do people have access to and use in the three cities? 13 Do utilities meet the benchmarks for service provision? 13 2.2 Scarcity 16 What proportion of households experienced water scarcity during the last year? 16 Which are the months in which scarcity is experienced? 16 How do water usage patterns change during scarcity? 17 2.3 Consumer Perceptions on Quality and Reliability of Service 18 2.3.1Users of Mains Connections 18 What do users think of the taste, colour and smell of mains water? 18 How regular is the supply of water from the mains? 18 How frequent are stoppages? 18 What are the coping measures adopted by consumers to meet issues of quantity and quality of water? 19 2.3.2Users of Sources Outside Residential Premises 19 How accessible and convenient are sources outside residential premises? 19 How long does it take users of water sources outside the home to fetch water? 20 What kinds of problems do people encounter while fetching water? 21 2.4 Transparency of Service Provision 21 Who pays the water bills? 21 How often do customers get water bills? 22 How prevalent is the presence of water meters, and how frequently are they read? 22 Do consumers report getting advance announcements on service provisions such as stoppages? 23 Are the households who pay water bills being asked for bribes, or offering them? 23 2.5 Interactions with the Water Company and Responsiveness 24 How many households reported billing problems, and what problems did they have? 24 Did people who had a problem complain? 25 How satisfied are consumers with their interaction with the water company? 25 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya v 2.6 Costs Incurred in Accessing Water 26 How much are households paying for water? 26 How much are households spending on storage tanks? 28 2.7 Satisfaction with Water Provision 29 How satisfied are households with the overall provision of water? 29 How satisfied are households with specific indicators of service quality? 30 3 Sanitation Services 33 3.1 Availability, Access and Usage of Sanitation Options 33 What types of sanitation are people using? 33 Where does the waste from toilets go? 34 3.2 Problems Faced with Sewerage 35 How many people said they had problems with the sewerage system? 35 What types of problems with sewerage did people face? 36 3.3 Satisfaction with Sanitation 36 How satisfied are people with pit latrine emptying services? 36 How satisfied are people with the sewerage system? 36 How satisfied are people with public toilets? 36 4 Solid Waste Management 39 4.1 Availability, Access and Usage of Solid Waste Management Options 39 How do people dispose of rubbish? 39 4.2 Satisfaction with Solid Waste Management Services 39 How satisfied are people with solid waste management services? 39 Are people aware of the public health officers and know what they do? 40 5 Quality of Information Provision on Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Issues 43 Are people aware of recent changes in policy? 43 Do people feel communication is adequate? How would they like to share their views? 43 6 Summary of Satisfaction with Public Services 45 7 Key Findings and Conclusion 49 7.1 Water Supply 49 7.1.1 Access and Usage 49 7.1.2 Reliability and Quality 49 7.1.3 Customer Service, Cost and Satisfaction with Water Services 49 7.2 Sanitation 50 7.3 Solid Waste Management 50 7.4 Communications 50 7.5 Overall Satisfaction 50 7.6 Priority areas for improvement 50 Conclusion 51 vi Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya List of Tables Table 1 Poverty figures by City 1 Table 2 Amount paid for 1,000 litres from the network and from kiosks 3 Table 3 Characteristics of the three cities and utilities 8 Table 4 Scarcity experienced by poor users of kiosks 16 Table 5 Percent of mains users obtaining water from mains seven days a week 19 Table 6 Accessibility and convenience of opening hours of sources outside residential premises 20 Table 7 Frequency of billing 23 Table 8 Payment of incentives outside official payments 24 Table 9 Households experiencing billing problems in last 12 months 25 Table 10 Interactions with water company 26 Table 11 Tariffs in each city 27 Table 12 Amount paid for 20 m3 from mains connection 28 Table 13 Amount paid for 30 m3 at a shared connection 28 Table 14 Amount paid for 6 m3 from main and 1 m3 from kiosk 28 Table 15 Extrapolation of amounts invested in storage tanks 29 Table 16 Satisfaction of mains connections users 29 Table 17 Satisfaction of poor users of mains kiosks 30 Table 18 Reasons for practicing open defecation or using "flying toilets" 35 List of Figures Figure 1 Satisfaction of users of public agency services 2 Figure 2 Achievement of benchmarks in water supply coverage 2 Figure 3 Main source of sanitation 4 Figure 4 Access to water sources 13 Figure 5 Access to mains in and around the home 13 Figure 6 Water sources used by the poor 14 Figure 7 Water sources used by the non-poor 14 Figure 8 Water sources used for drinking 14 Figure 9 Use of kiosks among the poor and non-poor 15 Figure 10 Achievement of benchmarks in water supply coverage 15 Figure 11 Scarcity from primary water source in the last year 15 Figure 12 Scarcity in the last year among households using mains for drinking water 15 Figure 13 Months in which scarcity is experienced from mains connections 16 Figure 14 Months in which scarcity is experienced from kiosks 17 Figure 15 Primary source of drinking water in normal and scarcity times for Nairobi households who experience scarcity 18 Figure 16 Primary source of drinking water in normal and scarcity times for Kisumu households who experience scarcity 19 Figure 17 Primary source of drinking water in normal and scarcity times for Mombasa households who experience scarcity 20 Figure 18 Perceptions of mains water quality 21 Figure 19 Hours per week of service 21 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya vii Figure 20 Experience of major stoppages 21 Figure 21 Percent of mains users who treat water 22 Figure 22 Methods of treatment used (by city) 22 Figure 23 Percent of households with storage tanks 22 Figure 24 Time spent by the poor in fetching water from sources outside the home 23 Figure 25 Problems encountered when fetching water in normal times 23 Figure 26 Problems encountered when fetching water in scarcity times 23 Figure 27 Percent of mains users who pay their own bills 24 Figure 28 Households which report seeing announcements of stoppages in the media 24 Figure 29 Percent of respondents completely satisfied with interaction with the water company 25 Figure 30 Amounts spent by households in each city on mains water, kiosks and vendors 26 Figure 31 Amounts spent by the poor on mains, kiosks and vendors 26 Figure 32 Amounts spent on water from mains connections 27 Figure 33 Amounts spent on storage tanks by households using mains 28 Figure 34 Satisfaction among users of mains connections 30 Figure 35 Satisfaction among users of mains-connected kiosks 30 Figure 36 Main place where family members relieve themselves 33 Figure 37 Prevalence of pit latrines as main source of sanitation 34 Figure 38 Prevalence of flush toilets as main source of sanitation 34 Figure 39 Modes of sanitation used by the poor 34 Figure 40 Modes of sanitation used by the non-poor 34 Figure 41 Percent of households who use public toilets once a month or more 35 Figure 42 Where waste from flush toilet goes 35 Figure 43 Where waste from pit toilet goes 36 Figure 44 Percent of respondents who have experienced problems with sewerage 36 Figure 45 Problems experienced with sewerage 37 Figure 46 Satisfaction with pit latrine emptying 37 Figure 47 Satisfaction with sewers 37 Figure 48 Satisfaction with public toilets 37 Figure 49 Collection options available for getting rid of rubbish 39 Figure 50 What households do to get rid of rubbish 40 Figure 51 Use of private rubbish collection agencies by poor and non-poor 40 Figure 52 Satisfaction with council rubbish clearance services 40 Figure 53 Awareness of recent changes in policy 43 Figure 54 Adequacy of government information on water services 43 Figure 55 Preferred medium for sharing views 43 Figure 56 Satisfaction of users of services provided by public agencies 45 Figure 57 First priority area for improvement in water services - mains connections users 46 Figure 58 First priority area for improvement in water services - mains kiosk users 46 Figure 59 Proximity of source as a first priority - poor and non-poor 46 Figure 60 Reduction or control of water prices as a first priority - poor and non-poor 46 Figure 61 First priority area for improvement in sanitation services 47 Figure 62 First priority for improvement in sewerage services 47 Figure 63 Presence of sewers as first priority - poor and non-poor 47 viii Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Acknowledgements Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya ix Foreword The Ministry of Water and Irrigation's stated CRC as a timely and welcome health check. priority for reform in the water sector is the The CRC will be discussed in detail and used strengthening of the quality of service delivery. as a basis for continued dialogue among citizen Typically, such reform programmes target service groups, service providers and policy makers delivery primarily through capacity building of towards marked improvements in the quantity the `supply' side of service provisioning, such and quality of services. as institutional strengthening, strategic planning, training and increased budgetary allocations. The voice of citizens, often weak, will This bias is premised on pressure to institute be amplified through structured dialogue as reforms and disburse funds, and the `expert- an important and growing pillar of the reform driven' generation of the data that is informing process in Kenya. The newly formed sector the implementation of the reforms. institutions within the three cities of Mombasa, Nairobi and Kisumu should use the CRC as a Lessons learnt in the sector during the 70's catalyst for change in the present, and refer to and 80 demonstrate clearly that it is not sufficient these findings to measure progress in the future. to concentrate on supply driven mechanisms in At the policy level of special priority will be the efforts of improving service delivery. There is a the challenges related to services to the urban need also to capacitate the `demand' side through poor for whom the achievement of the urban ensuring that the users of water and sanitation MDGs are of central focus in the Ministry. We services are not only informed of the stated invite you to join in the dialogue over service direction of policy, but are enabled to exercise improvements not only for this special group, their voice through participating, contributing but for the realization of quality urban water and even holding the government and service and sanitation services for all Kenyans. providers to account as regards the impact policy has had on citizens livelihoods. It is in this vein that the Ministry of Water and Irrigation welcomed the Citizen Report Card (CRC) initiative on urban water and sanitation Engineer Robert Gakubia services in Kenya. The Ministry views citizens' Director of Water Services, experiences, levels of satisfaction and priorities Ministry of Water and Irrigation for service improvements as captured in the May 29th, 2007 x Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Executive Summary This is a national summary of the Citizen's The information provided in a CRC may be Report Card (CRC) on water, sanitation and helpful to utility managers in strategic planning; solid waste (i.e. rubbish) services undertaken in to policy makers in guiding the sector; to Kenya's three largest cities - Nairobi, Mombasa regulatory bodies in sector oversight; to investors and Kisumu in September and October 2006. in deciding where to channel funds; and to civil CRCs are a tool providing service providers and society representing an objective measure of policy makers with feedback from citizens. public perception. Most importantly, CRCs These CRCs were undertaken by a representative are useful for citizens who generally lack the group of stakeholders in each city and individual information conducive to meaningful dialogue. city reports have been prepared alongside the national summary. The CRC is the experience of citizens as told by citizens. It is not a technical sector overview CRCs gauge both citizens' access to and written for specialist audiences and does not satisfaction with services. They point out areas include figures from the service providers where service providers are succeeding and such as volume of water produced or number areas that need improvement. When prepared of households served. It is meant to guide regularly, CRCs may be used as a combined recommendations but does not in itself provide advocacy/benchmarking tool. the solutions. Residents appreciate the water companies' water. Users are especially vulnerable performance in the following areas. during times of scarcity as prices rise and they are forced to use expensive or unsafe · The overall levels of satisfaction are alternatives like ponds and rivers. adequate for Nairobi's non-poor. · Consumers want a stronger customer- · Consumers like the taste, smell and colour orientation and improved information of water from mains connections. services from the service providers and · Consumers on the network are receiving policy makers. bills on a monthly basis. · Residents express lower satisfaction with Findings that need to be addressed sanitation than water services. They want more public toilets and expansion of the · All consumers want increased reliability of sewerage network. the water supply. · The poorest people do not have access to · The poor are paying higher prices for lower adequate sanitation facilities. levels of service than the non-poor. · Overall satisfaction with solid waste · Kiosks are a critical source of drinking services is low. 1The Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI) is responsible for policy formation and overall sector coordination; the Water Services Regulatory Board (WSRB) is a statutory Table : Poverty Figures by City2 body in charge of setting and enforcing standards for dealing with consumer complaints, developing guidelines for tariff setting and developing performance agreements between WSPs and Boards; Water Companies are also called Water Service Providers (WSPs) or City Percentageofpoorpeople Water Utilties; Water Service Boards (WSBs) own the water and sewerage infrastructure in their area and can lease the infrastructure to qualified WSPs for operation and Nairobi 2% management; and City Councils are responsible for solid waste collection and on-site sanitation (including the management of public toilets). Mombasa 38% 2 Basic Report on Well-being in Kenya. Based on Kenya Integrated Household Kisumu 43% Budget Survey - 2005/06. April 2007. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. The Regal Press Kenya Ltd, Nairobi, Kenya. Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Process and Methodology Figure : Satisfaction of users of public agency services 100 The value of the CRC is in the findings but also 90 in the collaborative process that was used. The 80 process was undertaken in a manner to equip 70 and build the capacity of civil society to engage 67 in continued and meaningful dialogue with 60 54 50 service providers and policy makers. NGOs 50 Respondents 45 44 45 45 led the initiative on behalf of a wider, multi- of 40 % stakeholder consortium in each respective city. 30 30 24 In Nairobi, the Kenya Alliance of Residents 20 17 Association (KARA) was the lead agency; Ilshe 10 10 9 Trust in Mombasa; and Sustainable Aid in Africa 0 International (SANA International) in Kisumu. Connection on Kiosks on the Sewer services Council solid the network network waste collection Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa The methodology for the CRC was designed with both qualitative (focus group discussions) and quantitative (survey) tools. An important objective of the CRC was to investigate the Figure 2: Achievement of benchmarks5 in water differences in access and satisfaction of services supply coverage by poor and non-poor households. To this end, 100 90% = good the Central Bureau of Statistics prepared a list 90 89 84 of randomly-selected households. The survey 80 80% = acceptable 74 consisted of 2,905 household interviews in the 70 access three cities (Nairobi ,378; Kisumu 79; and 60 58 Mombasa 808) conducted in September and reporting 50 October 2006. 40 Seven themes were selected for data analysis Households of 30 27 and presentation: % 20 13 · availability, access and use of services 10 · costs incurred by customers 0 · perception of water quality and reliability Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa of supply Total Access to Mains Connection Access if Mains Kiosks and Mains Kiosks Removed · satisfaction with services · transparency3 in service delivery · priority areas for improvement Finally, satisfaction with sewer and solid waste · interactions with the service providers collection services is considerably lower than satisfaction with water services, but little is The sections below present the main findings being done to improve or reform these services. on overall satisfaction followed by individual Consumers feel they are not getting enough sections on water, sanitation and solid waste. information on water and sanitation services and are not informed of changes in policy. Key Overall Findings on Satisfaction Consumers overwhelmingly state they prefer with Services face-to-face interaction with water companies In comparing the three cities, the residents of over other channels of communication. Kisumu and Mombasa are less satisfied with A key point is that the poor in Nairobi, public-agency provided services than the Mombasa and Kisumu pay higher prices for residents of Nairobi. Satisfaction with kiosks connected to the network is less than 50 percent 3 in all cities, much lower than the satisfaction We asked users of mains connections about how "transparent" their service provision was in terms of billing practices, information on of customers with connections to the network. stoppages, and petty corruption. 2 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Table 2: Amount paid for ,000 litres from the network and from kiosks Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Total per month for ,000 litres from network (KES) 7 47 25 Total per month for ,000 litres from kiosks (KES) 00 00 00 lower levels of service than the non-poor. In level of service. Currently, none of the three addition, kiosks users are especially vulnerable water companies achieves a score of "good" during periods of scarcity as they shift to more (>89 percent coverage) and their scores drop expensive or unsafe sources of water like ponds even more when kiosks are omitted from the and rivers. calculation. Water Services:Key Findings Reliability and quality Access and usage Many households are experiencing periods of water scarcity and the poor are more likely to There are distinct inequities in access to network face scarcity6 than the non-poor. Households connections between the poor and the non- in Kisumu are more likely to report scarcity poor. In Kisumu, only 7 percent, an alarmingly than those in the other two cities. Periods of low fraction of the poor, are connected to the network.4 Poor households in all three cities scarcity are forcing consumers to use unsafe and expensive sources of water. Overall, are much more likely than the non-poor to consumers appreciate the taste, smell and colour use kiosks as their primary source of water. of water from mains connections. However, The non-poor are faring significantly better in it is interesting to note that the overwhelming Nairobi and Kisumu where 95 percent and 8 majority still treat their water, demonstrating percent respectively are connected to the mains marked uncertainty with the safety of the water in or around the house, compared to only 50 percent of the non-poor in Mombasa. It is clear that kiosks are helping the Improved Customer Service water companies achieve their benchmarks for coverage, even though kiosks are a lower "The NCWSC services have improved a lot.Unlikeinthepast,youdonotneedto know or pass through anyone. When you haveabillingproblem,allyouhavetodo Mombasa woman shares experience is to visit the next business centre or its of shifting sources as coping Kampala Road headquarters and one will mechanism during scarcity getaverylong,long,reallylongprintoutof Mama Khadija is a vegetable vendor and yourbillingstatement.Youcanevencarry life-long resident of the Kashani-Bombo itawayinacarton!Youwillthengothrough areaofKisauniDivisioninMombasa.Sheis bitbybitwithanofficer.Youwillthereafter disappointedinthecompany'sprovisionof leavesatisfiedonwhetheranerrorexisted water. She laments, "December-February ornot.Theymustbecommendedforthis." isanightmareuntiltherains.Thenaround Source: Focus Group Discussion, Nairobi JulytoAugust,againwesuffer.Werelyon Feb 2006 the role played by the vendors - where elsewouldwegetwater?Weareinsuch needwetakeit.Wedonotaskwherethe water comes from because we have no 4 choice.Whenthereisshortageofwaterwe The connections to the network category includes private connections inside the home and shared connections in the compound. buy from the vendors one 20-litre for 30 5 These are Government of Kenya benchmarks set by the Water Services shillings."Source: Focus Group Discussion, Regulatory Board (WSRB). The WSRB accepts both kiosks and connec- Mombasa Feb, 2006. tions in the figures for coverage. 6 Scarcity is defined as low or lack of water supply lasting five days or longer. Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 3 are obliged to use sources outside the home, Figure 3: Prevalence of pit toilet as main like kiosks, are spending long periods of time sanitation facility fetching water and enduring inconvenience and 100 stress. This burden is falling more on women 90 than on men, as almost 70 percent of households 80 said the primary water collector is a woman. 70 61 60 Customer service, cost and satisfaction 50 40 To the companies' credit, billing frequency Respondents 40 of % for most users is monthly, in conformity with 30 22 the requirements of the service agreements. 20 However, consumers do not find the water 10 10 10 6 companies accessible and have little faith in 0 having their complaints resolved. As a result, Poor Non-poor Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa consumers are not complaining and interacting with the companies. In addition, the companies are not being effective in reaching households with information on service disruptions and stoppages. Interestingly, few households Experience from Kisumu on sanitation reported offering or being asked for bribes from "In Manyatta many of us have lived the water companies. However, the question in our own homes for many years and was only asked of people with household we use pit latrines. But many houses connections to the mains who pay their own lacklatrines.Theownersofbighouses bills, leaving out a large number of people who (landlords)buildbigandspacioushouses also interact with the water companies, such as without leaving space for constructing kiosk operators and landlords. latrines.Thetenantsareforcedtouse flying toilets which they throw away at There are significant differences in the ourresidentialhomes.Doesthecouncil amounts paid for water by consumers in the look into latrines while approving the three cities. The table on the left shows the house plans?" Source: Focus Group averages across the cities, but it is clear that the Discussion, Kisumu, Feb 2006 poor spend a larger percentage of their income on water than the non-poor. The rising block There is a clear divide between the poor and tariffs7 may result in high prices for those at the non-poor in the types of facilities used. shared connections, or those buying water from private connections. Finally, the heavy reliance Poor households are more likely to be by the poor on kiosks, where water is more relying on pit latrines and shared (rather than expensive in volumetric terms than at private private) sanitation facilities. In Mombasa, 6 connections, means the poor are paying large percent of the poor rely on pit latrines as their amounts for water, and more per cubic meter main sanitation facility, compared with only 0 than people with connections as demonstrated percent of the poor in Nairobi. It is evident that in the table below. In Nairobi, the poor are poverty is preventing some people from having paying almost six times as much for water than toilets at home and there is a lack of affordable, the non-poor.8 accessible public toilets to address the problem of open defecation and "flying toilets." Sanitation Services:Key Findings 7 Overall, the residents of Nairobi, Mombasa A rising block tariff is where there are increasing tariffs per unit of water for higher levels of consumption. and Kisumu express lower satisfaction with 8The estimates are derived by using the water companies' actual tariffs sanitation services than with water services. and assuming a kiosk price of 2 KES per 20-litre jerrycan. 4 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya People are generally confused about where Solid Waste Services:Key Findings their toilet waste goes, but it is clear that some toilets are being allowed to empty into storm The options for solid waste disposal are very sewers, soak pits and cesspits, where fecal waste limited, and many people resort to burning presents an environmental and health hazard. or dumping their solid waste in open areas or Many people report experiencing problems drains. City Councils are providing very few with the sewer system, especially bad smells, solid waste services and residents are extremely overflowing and leakage from broken mains. unsatisfied with the Councils' performance. In Almost three-quarters of respondents in Kisumu Nairobi, 80 percent of the non-poor are using report that they have experienced problems private solid waste collection agencies. Poor with flooding of the mains sewer. people have even more limited options as few of them use private collection agencies, probably Eastlands man shares on nuisance because of cost. For example, only 0 percent with pit latrines of the poor in Kisumu use private solid waste collection agencies. "OnceinthemorningasIwasleavingfor workIsawtwopeopleworkingveryhardat Partnerships for Moving Forward thebottomofthehilldiggingachannelthis way,upwards.Iwonderedwhattheywere digging,butIwasinahurrytogotosite,so The CRC provides feedback on citizens' Ididnotaskandforgotaboutit.Thatnight, experiences, levels of satisfaction and priorities justafterIhadgonetosleeptherewasa for service improvements in water, sanitation sound`...bubbb bbup bubb bub bub bbb and solid waste. In addition to its advocacy pa!'andthenaloudsmell,itwasunbearable, strengths, the CRC benchmarks service provider fillingeverywhere.WhenIcheckedoutside performance at the city level. By analyzing the throughthedarkIcouldseesomepeople trends across three of Kenya's major cities, the emptying the latrine near us, pushing the CRC has unveiled urgent priorities for national contents onto the ground. Everything in policy consideration, especially regarding the latrine was flowing downwards from services for the urban poor. thetoilet.Irealizednowthatthechannel thatwasbeingdugfromthebottomofthe As a collaborative tool, the CRC will be hillsincemorninghadreachedthelatrine discussed in detail and used as a basis for near our house and everything was being continued interaction among citizen groups, carried down like a heavy stream making service providers and policy makers. The authors thisstrangesoundandwithaterriblesmell, hope that this interaction contributes to marked causingeveryonetowakeup!Thechannel improvements in the quantity and quality of wasusedtopusheverythingfromthetoilet services. The stakeholders intend to issue intothestreamwhichleadstoNairobiRiver the second Citizen Report Card on water and atthebottomofthevillage." Source: Focus Group Discussion, Nairobi Feb 2006 sanitation services in two years to see how far we have come and to continue working together towards the same goal--better service for all. Guidetosymbolsused A unique feature of this report is the use of Satisfaction symbols to provide an easy indication on the overall satisfaction levels of citizens with the Dissatisfaction services. For ease of reference, the symbols Challenges of equity between different used indicate the following: social groups require attention Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 5 6 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 1 Introduction 1.1 What is the Citizen Report Card? quantitative information on the aspects of service provision that users know best, and The Citizen Report Card (CRC) is a simple but are based directly on users' experience. powerful tool to provide public agencies with This information can be used to generate systematic feedback from users of public serv- recommendations on sector policies, program ices, and enable them to identify strengths and strategy and management of service delivery. weaknesses in their work. CRCs are compiled Furthermore, the information can be used as a from data collected during a randomized sample basis for policy makers, service providers and survey of the users of public services - in our consumers to engage in dialogue, an important case, water, sanitation and solid waste (rub- step towards improved public services. bish) management services. The responses are aggregated in order to rate the services. Just like CRCs facilitate prioritization of reforms and the report cards used to rate students in school, corrective actions needed to improve quality of the Citizen Report Cards give consumers an op- services by drawing attention to the problems; portunity to `score' the quality and adequacy of they can be particularly powerful in pointing water and sanitation services, and express their out the inequalities in services provided to the satisfaction with them. They thus allow the con- rich and the poor. CRCs also provide positive cerns of consumers to come to the attention of feedback to service providers by identifying decision-makers, and give consumers and civil good practices, and can also facilitate cross- society organisations a tool for bringing pressure fertilization of ideas and approaches. to bear for their resolution. 1.3 The Context: Urban Water It is important to understand the difference Sector Reform in Kenya between the data provided by a CRC and that of other studies or reports. Whereas a study of service provision standards may provide factual The Citizen Report Cards for urban water, sani- information on the number of connections tation and solid waste management have been registered by a utility, the water quality based undertaken in the context of recent and active on laboratory tests, or the volume of wastewater change. The water sector reforms currently un- treated, CRCs provide information of the derway in Kenya have been a reaction to a sector consumers' perceptions of services: whether in crisis - a sector overwhelmingly character- they have access to connections, whether they ized by inefficiencies, lack of investment, poor think the water is clean, whether they feel the management and a confusing array of legal and service meets their needs. institutional frameworks. In addition, the sector has suffered from poor governance, manifested in 1.2 Why Prepare a Citizen high levels of corruption, lack of clarity of roles Report Card? and responsibilities, and a lack of transparency and accountability by service providers. In ad- dition to these institutional and financial chal- Historically, consumers of public services lenges, the exponential growth of Kenya's urban in Africa have not enjoyed high levels of centers has put increasing pressure on utilities to engagement with service providers on the extend services to new areas. planning or ongoing management of their services. Strengthening `consumer voice' It is in this context that the Kenyan government and the accountability of service providers has launched a water sector reform program. is very important in order to improve public Reform has been driven by a number of official services. Citizen Report Cards provide reliable, policies and strategies, of which the most Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 7 Table 3: Characteristics of the three cities and utilities Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Date Company Established 2003 200 2005 Total Population of Service Area 2,500,000 480,000 826,000 Number of Registered Connections 220,000 7,600 56,729 Percent of Inactive Connections 56% 26% 38% People per Active Connection 26 85 23 Volume of Water Produced Monthly (m3) 3,280,707 488,000 ,739,250 Volume of Water Produced Monthly per capita (m3) 5.3 .0 2. Unaccounted for Water 40% 66% 35% important legal milestone was the enactment on procedures for dealing with consumer of the Water Act of 2002. The overarching complaints; developing guidelines for tariff philosophy of the reform has been to separate setting;anddevelopingperformanceagreements water resources management from water supply between WSPs and Boards. and sewerage development. Within the water supply and sewerage development component, Service Provision Agreements are signed asset ownership, services provision, regulation between the Water Services Boards and the Water and policy formulation have been further Service Providers. These include benchmarks separated. for minimum levels of service provision, for instance the percentage of the population with Although the Ministry of Water and Irrigation access to water provision, hours of service, and remains at the helm of the sector, new bodies billing frequency. have been created with explicit roles and responsibilities. Within the newly-decentralized One of the reform's stated goals is to institutional and legal framework, there are now increase stakeholder and beneficiary community four major institutions: involvement in the planning and operations of water supply facilities. · the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI) is responsible for policy formulation and overall sector coordination. 1.4 The Three Cities · Water Service Providers (WSPs) are the utilities or water companies; they are state- The Citizen Report Cards were undertaken in owned but have been commercialized to three of the largest cities in Kenya: Nairobi, improve performance and run like businesses Mombasa and Kisumu. As can be seen in Table within a context of efficiency, operational 3, the populations of these three cities vary and financial autonomy, accountability and dramatically, as do the sizes of their water strategic, but minor, investments. utilities. Nairobi is by far the largest city, and its utility has the largest number of connections · Water Services Boards (WSBs) own the water (thoughmanyofthemareinactive). Kisumuisthe and sewerage infrastructure in their area smallest city, with a very small utility. Kisumu's and can lease the infrastructure to qualified water company produces the smallest amount WSPs for operation and management; they of water of the three, but Mombasa produces are also responsible for mobilizing financial the least on a per-connection basis. Nairobi and resources for investment in new assets and Kisumu both produce approximately 60 cubic rehabilitation of existing ones. meters of water per month for each registered · the Water Services Regulatory Board (WSRB) connection, but Mombasa produces only 30. is a statutory body in charge of setting and If the population as a whole is considered, enforcing standards within the sector and Nairobi produces 5.3 m3 per capita per month, issuing licences to WSPs; advising WSPs Mombasa 2. m3 per capita per month, and 8 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Kisumu only .0 m3 per capita per month. In based stakeholder alliances to `drive' and `own' summary, while Nairobi's utility has the largest the processes locally were created. The meetings reach and serves a large proportion of the were used to build shared understanding of city's population, Kisumu's utility is very small, CRC objectives, expected outcomes, timelines, serving a subset of the city's residents. and the roles and responsibilities of different institutions. A "consortium" in each city and one The figure for "unaccounted-for water" in at national level now existed, with membership the table is the difference between the quantity made up of utilities, NGOs, and officials from of water supplied to a city's network and the the Ministry, the regulatory agency and the metered quantity of water used by the customers. relevant city councils. UFW has two components: (a) physical losses due to leakage from pipes, and (b) administrative The civil society organizations who would losses due to illegal connections and under- act as Lead Agencies were selected in each city, registration of water meters. To a large extent, and were introduced to each City Consortium. the level of UFW is an indicator of how well a These were: utility is managed, and the reduction of UFW · In Nairobi, the Kenya Alliance of Residents is a crucial step to both improve the financial Associations (KARA); an umbrella body for health of a water utility and save scarce water residentassociationsacrossKenyaestablished resources. UFW in a well-run utility is generally in 999, KARA champions pertinent issues in the order of 5 to 20 percent. All three raised by neighborhood groups, such as good utilities have high UFW, with Kisumu's being governance, environmental sustainability, the highest at 66 percent; well over half of the security, water, land and judicial issues. water produced there either does not reach the · In Mombasa, Ilishe Trust; established in consumer or does not result in revenue for the 993, Ilishe Trust supports grassroots human company. rights action. Its activities include legal representation, education and awareness The reforms initiated by the government programs, and savings and credit programs. are in different stages in each city. While · In Kisumu, Sustainable Aid in Africa (SANA) Nairobi has made considerable progress in International; established in 200, SANA implementing change, Kisumu and Mombasa assists communities in Kisumu and rural have started only recently. parts of Nyanza Province to access water and sanitation services. 1.5 The Process of Preparing the Citizen Report Cards in Kenya A training workshop was subsequently held for members of the Lead Agencies. They were The CRC process began by building awareness trained on the key concepts and methodology of the potential of Report Cards in four cities: of the Citizen Report Card process, including Nairobi, Kisumu, Mombasa in Kenya, and design of the questionnaire, advocacy and Dar es Salaam in Tanzania. This introduction, disseminationofthefindings.Adetailedplanning through a series of participatory workshops with process was undertaken to chart milestones in stakeholders, was combined with assessments the CRC process. to ascertain whether local conditions were In February 2006 each Lead Agency in suitable. Political receptivity, the openness of Mombasa, Kisumu and Nairobi organized service providers to receive feedback and the several Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with vibrancy of civil society and media in the cities groups of city residents to examine the issues and were assessed. It was decided to focus the challenges affecting delivery of water supply, process in three cities in one country, Kenya, sanitation and solid waste management services. and Mombasa, Nairobi and Kisumu were A total of 40 FGDs were conducted amongst selected in June 2005. communities, spread over the low, middle and In November 2005 a national meeting and high income residential areas, and capturing three city-level meetings were held to involve inputs across different gender, age groups and all stakeholders in the CRC process, and broad- social profiles. The FGDs were guided by a Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 9 common checklist developed by the city-level The Central Bureau of Statistics prepared a consortia, and which focused on issues around list of randomly-selected households that were access, costs, coping mechanisms, quality of then contacted by Research International's services, experiences in seeking redress, and interviewers to participate in the survey. economic governance. Mombasa and Kisumu were "over- Research International, a locally-based sampled", that is, the sample size was increased social research firm, was recruited through a disproportionate to the actual population, in competitive process in September 2006. Their order to ensure there were enough respondents tasks included designing the survey instrument, for analysis. Only data based on sample sizes of determining the sampling methodology, at least 30 respondents has been reported in this collectingthedatathroughhouseholdinterviews, Report Card. Despite this, for some categories of analyzing the data and presenting it in a Survey data the number of respondents was too small Report. Inputs from the city-level consortia for analysis, and any data based on sample ­ especially those from service providers and sizes smaller than this has either not been used, citizens ­ were critical in the design of the or is presented with suitable explanation for survey instrument. As the data were analyzed, indicative purposes. they were discussed with the Lead Agencies, and in November 2006 meetings were held of Oversampling was adjusted for during the consortia at city and national level to present analysis by weighting the data. This ensures the top-line findings. that in any analysis of the three cities together, Kisumu and Mombasa are taken in their actual proportion relevant to Nairobi. 1.6 Methodology of Data Collection and Report Card Preparation In order to carry out the household interviews, RI mobilized field teams of a The survey consisted of 2905 household total of 44 interviewers, seven team leaders, interviews in the three cities (Nairobi 378, three supervisors and three quality control Kisumu 79, Mombasa 808). The survey aimed supervisors. All attended a centralized five- to cover the area in which the water companies day training session in Nairobi. Quality control are mandated to provide services. Thus the comprised full checks of questionnaires in the sample, designed by the Central Bureau of field, percent of interviews were selected Statistics, was made up of households within at random and checked by the supervisor the municipal boundaries of the three cities. ("back-checks"), and in 7 percent of interview interviewers were accompanied by supervisors. An important objective was to investigate Representatives of the Lead Agencies and WSP the differences in perception of services by poor attended the training and participated in some and non-poor households. In order to do this, the of the fieldwork. Fieldwork took place between existing Central Bureau of Statistics definitions September 7th and October 8th 2006. of urban socio-economic strata were used. The major urban areas have been stratified into the Six themes were identified for data analysis and following five categories of living standards: presentation: . upper . Availability, access and use of services 2. lower upper 2. Perceptions of quality and reliability 3. middle of services 4. lower middle 3. Transparency of service delivery 5. lower 4. Interactions with the service agencies 5. Costs incurred by users Of these, strata four and five were classified as 6. Satisfaction with services "poor" within our sample, and the first three strata were classified as "non-poor". Note that Each of the city-level report cards, and this poor formal settlements would be included in National Summary, is organized according to Strata 4, and informal settlements in Strata 5. these themes. 0 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 2 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 2 Water Services 2.1 Availability, Access and Usage Figure 4: Access to water sources of Water Sources 80 74 71 What sources do people have access to 70 63 and use in the three cities? 60 50 Figure 4 shows the pattern of access for the 34 38 40 total population of the three cities. These are 40 Respondents 31 35 the sources that are available to a household, of % 30 27 not only the ones they choose to use. (Note that 20 7 18 respondents could indicate that they had access 13 13 9 to more than one source.) The data reveal that 10 14 6 9 2 Nairobi has the highest rate of access to mains 0 connections, considerably higher than the other Mains Water Kiosks/ Water Bottle Protected Unprotected Around Home Public Taps Delivered Water Sources Sources two cities, and Kisumu the lowest. Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa We asked respondents about their use of a wide range of different water sources, each one described in detail by the interviewer. In order to Figure 5: Access to mains in and around the home make comparison across the three cities easier, 100 95 some of the subcategories of water sources have 90 been combined in this summary. For instance, all 81 80 connections to the mains, whether private in the 70 69 residence or shared in the compound, have been 60 combined. Water kiosks, whether supplied by 50 50 mains or other independent sources, and whether Respondents managed privately, by the water company or by of 40 % NGOs, have been shown together. Likewise, all 30 22 water delivered or supplied commercially "on 20 demand" by third parties, whether from mobile 10 7 vendors or tankers or in the form of bottled water, 0 Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa has been joined into one category. Protected sources, such as rainwater and covered wells Poor Non Poor with handpumps are shown as one category, as are unprotected sources (open wells and surface water such as streams and ponds). More details There are distinct inequities in access of these individual categories can be found in the to mains connections between the city-level Report Cards. poor and the non-poor, with the poor reporting lower access. We found that access to mains connections is significantly lower among the poor in each of the three cities (see Figure 5). The We asked respondents which sources they used, difference is particularly dramatic in Kisumu, as well as which sources they had access to. The where only 7 percent of the poor report results are presented in the following figures, having access to mains connections, while divided by poor and non-poor. In both Mombasa 8 percent of the non-poor do. and Kisumu, mains are clearly the predominant Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 3 Figure 6: Water sources used by the poor Figure 7: Water sources used by the non-poor 90 100 94 80 78 90 81 70 69 68 80 60 70 60 50 50 45 Respondents 40 38 37 Respondents of 33 33 of 40 % 30 29 % 32 32 30 22 36 20 21 22 20 11 13 10 7 10 6 6 6 10 7 7 8 2 2 5 1 2 2 0 4 3 0 0 Mains Water Kiosks/ Water Bottled Protected Unprotected Mains Water Kiosks/ Water Bottled Protected Unprotected Around Home Public Taps Delivered Water Sources Sources Around Home Public Taps Delivered Water Sources Sources Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa source used by the non-poor. Poor consumers Figure 8: Water sources used for drinking are much more likely to report using kiosks, 100 except in Mombasa where they are used to a 90 large extent by the non-poor as well. In all three 80 73 cities, and particularly in Kisumu, a number of 70 66 poor households report using unprotected and 62 60 unsafe sources. 50 Respondents When respondents were asked what sources of 40 % 31 they used specifically for drinking water, we 30 23 found that unprotected sources are even being 20 15 used for drinking water (Figure 8). 10 10 7 6 1 2 2 1 3 0 0 Mains Water Kiosks/ Delivered/ Protected Unprotected A small but significant number Around Home Public Taps Bottled Water Sources Sources of households is using unprotected Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa sources for drinking water. mains water in and around the home), but high When we look at the data on the use of kiosks9 among the poor at 63 percent. It is interesting to note that the use of kiosks by the non-poor in (Figure 9) we see the extent of the difference Mombasa, at 32 percent, is almost as high as the in usage patterns among poor and non-poor. use among the poor in Nairobi at 36 percent. Over 60 percent of the poor in both Kisumu and Mombasa report using kiosks, showing that they are the main source of water for the poor Poor households are much more in both these cities, despite the low level of likely to be using kiosks as their primary source of water than the non-poor. service they offer (discussed further in Section 2.3.2). Although the use of kiosks by the poor is highest in Mombasa, where 7 percent of poor respondents reported using them, 28 percent of Do utilities meet the benchmarks for the non-poor in that city also use them. This service provision? means that the level of inequity is highest in Kisumu, where kiosk use is very low among the In order to meet the benchmark for "coverage of non-poor (over 80 percent of whom report using the service area" specified in the performance agreementsacertainpercentageofthepopulation 9 has to have "adequate drinking water" through This includes all kiosks and standposts, whether supplied by the water company or by private wells. the public distribution network. Two levels of 4 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Figure 9: Use of kiosks among the poor and non-poor Figure 0: Achievement of benchmarks in water 80 supply coverage 73 100 70 90 89 90% = good 63 84 60 80 80% = acceptable 74 50 70 Access 60 58 40 36 Respondents Reporting 50 of 32 % 30 40 20 Households of 30 27 % 10 7 20 13 2 10 0 Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa 0 Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Poor Non Poor Total Access to Mains Connection Access if Mains kiosks and Mains Kiosks removed Figure : Scarcity from primary water source Figure 2: Scarcity in the last year among households in the last year using mains for drinking water 50 50 45 45 44 45 44 42 40 40 35 35 31 30 30 27 25 25 Respondents espondentsR of 20 of 20 19 % % 15 15 12 13 13 15 13 10 10 5 5 0 0 Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa naiRobi Kisumu mombasa Poor Non Poor pooR non pooR service are included in the definition of the (either private or shared) and excluding kiosks, distribution network: connections to mains the difference is dramatic. None of the three water and kiosks served by mains. cities achieves an "acceptable" score, and access in Kisumu and Mombasa is very low. Figure 0 reveals that none of the three water companies achieves a score of "good" in terms of coverage, as all provide less than 90 None of the three water companies percent of their population with access to the achieves a score of "good" in terms of coverage, and Kisumu does not reach a mains. Two of the cities achieve "acceptable" score of "acceptable". coverage of over 80 percent, but Kisumu is far below even this level, at total access of Water companies are relying heavily only 58 percent. on access to the mains through kiosks to achieve their benchmarks for coverage, If the numbers are re-computed including despite the fact that kiosks offer a much only access to the mains through connections lower level of service than connections. Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 5 Figure 3: Months in which scarcity is experienced from mains connection 60 50 city scar 40 experiencing 30 those of %20 10 0 January February March April May June July August September October November December Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Table 4: Scarcity experienced by poor users of kiosks the non-poor are too small to allow analysis of NairobiKisumuMombasa the data, but the data for the poor show that, as with mains connections, a much higher number Percentage of poor kiosks of users in Kisumu report experiencing scarcity users reporting scarcity 9 43 3 than in the other two cities (see Table 4). 2.2 Scarcity M a n y h o u s e h o l d s a r e experiencing periods of water What proportion of households experi- scarcity, and the poor are more likely to enced water scarcity during the last year? face scarcity than the non-poor. Households in Kisumu are more likely to We asked respondents about times of scarcity, report scarcity than those in the other which were defined as low or lack of water two cities. supply lasting five days or longer. It was explained to respondents that this is different from a short term water cut or an advertised Which are the months in which scarcity shortage. is experienced? As Figure shows, significant numbers of The two figures below show the months in households told us they experienced scarcity, which scarcity was reported by users of mains particularly in Kisumu, where more than 40% connections and kiosks. The pattern is very of both the non-poor and poor experienced similar (not surprisingly as most kiosks are scarcity. Scarcity is lowest in Mombasa and served by the mains), showing that the months among the Nairobi poor. Nairobi showed the in which it is most likely for most respondents to most dramatic difference between the poor and experience scarcity are July and August. A higher non poor, with poor households more than twice percentage of kiosk users reported scarcity than as likely to say they experienced scarcity. users of mains connections, suggesting that in times of scarcity kiosks are less likely to receive The households using mains connections water than domestic connections. for drinking water (see Figure 2) are even more likely to report periods of scarcity than A higher proportion of Mombasa households the population as a whole. Again, poor users reported scarcity throughout the year. Scarcity are more likely to report scarcity from mains thus appears to be a chronic situation in connections in all three cities, but particularly Mombasa. The highest percentage of users in Nairobi. Users of kiosks also reported that reporting scarcity is found in Kisumu, where they experienced scarcity. The sample sizes for scarcity reaches its peak in August; in that month 6 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Figure 4: Months in which scarcity is experienced from kiosks 60 50 city scar 40 experiencing 30 those of %20 10 0 January February March April May June July August September October November December Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa almost 60 percent of kiosk users report problems. use the mains, and the others increase their Significant numbers of households in Nairobi use of kiosks and protected source outside the report scarcity continuing into September and home. Even among the non-poor, percent October, especially kiosk users. start using unprotected sources. In Kisumu, few of the non-poor in this subset How do water usage patterns change use the mains to start with, and this reduces to during scarcity? only percent in times of scarcity. Kiosk use also goes down, and clearly many households We analyzed the data on water use for drinking migrate to protected sources (from 2 percent for the subset of respondents who said they to 24 percent) and unprotected sources (from experienced scarcity. We found that the poor percent to 9 percent). Among the non-poor, and non-poor differ in their response to scarcity. the use of water delivery increases significantly, Non-poor users, who are more likely to use the and the percentage using unprotected sources mains in normal times, also seem to be much rises from percent to 2 percent. more likely to continue to use them in scarcity times, at least in Nairobi and Kisumu. The non- In Mombasa most of the poor households poor are also more likely to migrate to using who experience scarcity use kiosks during water delivery and bottled water in times of normal times, and their use drops significantly scarcity, whereas the poor seem to rely more in times of scarcity. The use of delivered and on protected wells and rainwater and even bottled water increases from 5 percent to unprotected sources, including rivers, streams 34 percent, and the use of protected sources and dug-out wells, presumably because of the outside the home increases from 0 percent to cost implications of buying supplemental water. 4 percent. None of these households reported For both the poor and the non-poor, we can using unprotected sources in normal times, but conclude that the problems posed in times of 2 percent said they do in scarcity times. The scarcity impose a cost, either in amounts spent non-poor who experience scarcity in Mombasa on delivered or bottled water, or in the time rely largely on purchased water in scarcity spent fetching water from outside the home. times: 62 percent of this subset use this source, up from 25 percent in normal times. In Nairobi, Figure 5 shows that the use of purchased water and protected sources outside the home among the poor increases significantly Periods of scarcity are forcing in times of scarcity. The use of unprotected consumers to use unsafe and sources also rises from percent to 3 percent. expensive sources of water. Among the non-poor, 65 percent continue to Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 7 Figure 5: Primary source of drinking water in normal and scarcity times for Nairobi households who experience scarcity 100 90 89 80 74 70 65 Households 60 50 Experiencing- 40 36 city 30 30 Scar 22 of 20 19 % 10 7 6 8 10 8 1 2 1 3 1 1 0 1 0 Poor - Normal Times Poor - Scarcity Times Non-Poor - Normal Times Non-Poor - Scarcity Times Mains water in and around the house Protected Sources Outside the Home (Well and Rain Water) Kiosks and Public Taps Unprotected Sources Outside the Home Water Delivered and Bottled Water 2.3 Consumer Perceptions on Quality service. In scarcity times, most mains users and Reliability of Service in Mombasa reported getting water only three days a week. 2.3.1 Users of Mains Connections As well as asking about the number of days per week, we asked respondents who used the The data presented here are for users of mains how many hours a day they received connections to the mains, whether at the home water from them. Combining the figures for or shared. days per week and hours per day results in an What do users think of the taste, colour aggregate measure of the reliability of mains and smell of mains water? service. The maximum combination is 24 hours of water seven days a week, or 68 hours The data show that the vast majority of a week. The benchmarks for service require households using water from connections to provision of a minimum of 20 hours a day, or the mains said they found the taste and smell 40 hours a week, to be scored as "good", and acceptable, and that the water was clear. a minimum of 6 hours a day, or 2 hours a (There was little variation in the responses week, to be scored as "acceptable". for poor and non-poor, so total numbers are presented here.) As can be seen from Figure 9, none of the three utilities merit a score of "good", even Consumers are happy with the taste, in normal times. Only Nairobi and Kisumu smell and colour of water from mains have acceptable scores, and Nairobi's drops connections. to being unacceptable during scarcity times. Mombasa's service provision in this regard is well below the acceptable level in both normal How regular is the supply of water from and scarcity times. the mains? We asked respondents who used mains how How frequent are stoppages? many days a week they receive water. In normal times a large proportion of mains users Figure 20 shows the percent of mains-using in Nairobi and Kisumu reported getting water households who reported experiencing major seven days a week, but the figure is lower for stoppages, defined as interruptions in water Mombasa. In scarcity times only mains users supply lasting more than 24 hours. It is clear in Kisumu report having a consistent level of that the poor seem to experience more stoppages 8 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Figure 6: Primary source of drinking water in normal and scarcity times for Kisumu households who experience scarcity 100 90 80 70 69 60 Households 60 50 47 41 Experiencing- 40 36 31 city 30 28 24 Scar 21 of 20 % 10 7 9 7 2 1 1 2 1 4 5 2 0 Poor - Normal Times Poor - Scarcity Times Non-Poor - Normal Times Non-Poor - Scarcity Times Mains water in and around the house Protected Well and Rainwater Kiosks and Public Taps Unprotected Sources Water Delivered and Bottled Water than the non-poor in all three cities, and that Table 5: Percent of mains users obtaining water from stoppages affected more of the population in mains seven days a week Kisumu than the other three cities. Nairobi KisumuMombasa Normal Times 68 79 48 Hours per week of service are below Scarcity Times 44 8 28 the performance agreement benchmarks, particularly in Mombasa households were most likely to report having which does not achieve an acceptable a storage tank (a total of 72 percent of mains- score in either normal or scarcity times. using households). In Nairobi the figure was 43 Major stoppages of more than percent, and in Mombasa it was the lowest at 34 24 hours are common, and the poor percent. Poor households using the mains were experience more stoppages than the much less likely to have storage tanks (see Figure non-poor. 23), perhaps reflecting affordability problems ­ this is despite the fact that the data suggest they suffer more from stoppages. What are the coping measures adopted by consumers to meet issues of quantity Users of mains sources in all three and quality of water? cities are incurring costs in terms of home treatment methods and storage Despite good impressions of taste, smell tanks in order to cope with problems of and colour, Figure 2 shows that a majority water quality and unreliability of service. of users in each city felt it was necessary to treat mains water, probably because they are worried about bacterial contamination. Kisumu consumers are most likely to treat their water. The poor treat their water less, perhaps 2.3.2 Users of Sources Outside reflecting affordability problems. Residential Premises Boilingisthemostcommonformoftreatment How accessible and convenient are in Nairobi and Kisumu, but chemicals (defined sources outside residential premises? here as alum, chlorine or "WaterGuard") are more common in Mombasa. Households using sources outside the We asked households that used the mains residential premises reported that they were whether they had storage tanks. Kisumu open, on average, six or seven days a week. Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 9 Table 6: Accessibility and convenience of opening hours of sources outside residential premises Nairobi KisumuMombasa Mean number of days a week sources are open 7 7 6 Percent of households who say sources are open 24-hours 4 3 7 Percent of households who say opening hours are convenient 78 9 69 Figure 7: Primary source of drinking water in normal and scarcity times for Mombasa households who experience scarcity 100 90 80 72 70 62 Households 60 50 45 Experiencing- 40 34 city 30 25 Scar 22 23 21 20 of 20 % 14 10 5 7 8 8 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 Poor - Normal Times Poor - Scarcity Times Non-Poor - Normal Times Non-Poor - Scarcity Times Mains water in and around the house Protected Well and Rainwater Kiosks and Public Taps Unprotected Sources Water Delivered and Bottled Water Very few households reported that they spent fetching water increases during scarcity were open 24 hours a day. Despite this, the times (perhaps as a result of low pressure at the majority of these households said that the waterpoint.) Households report fetching water opening hours were convenient. Interestingly, between four and six times a day. the non-poor seemed to be less likely to say The total number of minutes a day was these hours are convenient. taken as the average number of minutes spent fetching water multiplied by the average number of times households fetched water each day. As How long does it take users of water can be seen in Figure 24, poor families in all sources outside the home to fetch water? three cities are spending at least 40 minutes a We asked households who used sources outside day in water collection during normal times, the residential premises how many minutes and in Nairobi and Kisumu this increases they spent fetching water every day. (As the dramatically in scarcity times, with a maximum vast majority of the households fetching water of 200 minutes (more than three hours) in from outside the household premises is poor, Kisumu. In all three cities the majority of only the data from the poor are presented here. households (68 percent in Nairobi, 67 percent Small sample sizes made the data from non- in Kisumu, 65 percent in Mombasa) reported poor households unsuitable for analysis). that adult women were the ones who fetched water. It is clear that women are shouldering Poor households in Nairobi are spending an the burden of water collection, and that this is average of 8 minutes fetching water (walking to exacting a high price in terms of time spent. the waterpoint and back plus waiting) in normal If women from poor families are spending an times, and those in Mombasa 20 minutes. hour or more a day fetching water in normal The longest average time to fetch water is in times, and even more in scarcity times, they are Kisumu, where it takes 28 minutes. The time losing out on wage earning activities, have less 20 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Figure 8: Perceptions of mains water quality Figure 9: Hours per week of service 100 94 95 180 168 hours = maximum 90 90 88 90 86 89 82 160 81 80 140 140 hours = good 133 133 70 120 120 112 hours = acceptable 60 Received 100 50 aterW 90 85 Respondents of 40 80 72 % eekW 30 per 60 20 Hours 40 10 20 0 0 Acceptable taste Acceptable smell Clear colur Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Normal Times Scarcity times time to take part in community activities, get Figure 20: Experience of major stoppages an education or care for other family members, 100 and will also be suffering from exhaustion. 90 The data show that the participation of 80 men in water collection increases in scarcity Mains 70 times, with adult males becoming slightly more use 62 60 who 55 involved. It can be assumed that this also has 50 49 an impact on the wage-earning potential of 40 households. Respondents 36 of 32 % 30 26 21 19 What kinds of problems do people 20 13 encounter while fetching water? 10 0 We asked households who reported using Acceptable taste Acceptable smell Clear colur water sources outside their residential premises, Poor Non Poor Total such as kiosks, if they faced problems when they fetched water. The highest proportion of respondents saying yes was in Kisumu, where 79 percent of users said they faced problems. stress. This burden is falling more on In Mombasa the figure was 56 percent, and in women than on men as almost 70 percent Nairobi 42 percent. of households said the primary water collector is an adult female. The top three problems households told us about all related to how water collection is organized: long queues, quarrelling and queue jumping. These data indicate that fetching 2.4 Transparency of Service Provision water from kiosks and other outside sources is stressful and unpleasant. As Figure 25 and We asked users of mains connections about Figure 26 show, the problems become even how "transparent" their service provision was more pronounced in times of scarcity. in terms of billing practices, information on stoppages, and petty corruption. Those consumers who are obliged to use sources outside the home are Who pays the water bills? spending long periods of time fetching water, and enduring inconvenience and When households who reported using mains connections were asked who paid the bills, an Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 2 Figure 2: Percent of mains user who treat water Figure 22: methods of treatment used (by city) 100 100 93 90 88 90 80 76 80 77 76 77 81 70 70 70 62 60 58 59 60 52 50 50 47 40 40 36 Respondents Respondents of of 31 % 30 % 30 20 20 10 10 6 2 1 0 0 Poor Non-Poor Total Boil Chemicals Water filter Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa The implications of this are that many Figure 23 : Percent of households with storage tanks 100 households, particularly in Nairobi, do not know the exact amount that their water consumption 90 86 is costing, and have little direct contact with the 80 77 utility. It places great responsibility on landlords 70 in correctly charging renters for water use, for 60 55 55 handling complaints about water charges, and 50 for dealing in a transparent manner with the 40 34 water companies. Respondents of 30 21 % 20 How often do customers get water bills? 10 The data presented in Table 7 show that most 0 mains users who pay their own bills report Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa receiving a bill in the last month, which is Poor Non- in conformity with the requirements of the service agreements. However, the numbers of households who said they received a bill in the interesting result was found ­ that a significant last month in Nairobi and Mombasa are lower number of people do not pay their bills directly. than that for Kisumu, suggesting that these cities In these cases, people said that their bill was need to improve their billing regularity. Nine paid by their landlord, and the cost of water percent of respondents in Mombasa reported either included in the rent, or passed on to never receiving a bill, all of whom are poor. them as a variable monthly cost. This means that many consumers do not have direct contact with the utility in terms of billing. This was Billing frequency for most users is especially true in Nairobi, where only 33 percent monthly,inconformitywiththerequirements of households reported paying their own bills, of the performance agreements. with a much lower proportion of the poor (26 percent) paying their own bills than the non- How prevalent is the presence of water poor (54 percent). This was also the case in meters,and how frequently are they read? Mombasa, where 65 percent of households paid their own bills (56 percent of the poor and 80 The data showed that most people who paid percent of the non poor). However, in Kisumu their own bills reported having a meter, and most almost everyone paid their bills directly. of them reported that it had been read in the last 22 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Figure 24: Time spent by the poor in fetching water Figure 25: Problems encountered when fetching from sources outside the home water in normal times 100 100 90 250 80 74 70 200 200 60 Day 150 50 47 Per 126 40 112 Respondents 34 31 Minutes100 of % 30 28 24 20 54 20 17 17 50 40 34 10 0 0 Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Heckling and quarrelling Long queues Queue jumping Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Normal Times Scarcity Times Figure 26: Problems encountered when fetching Table 7: Frquency of billing water in scarcity times 100 NairobiKisumuMombasa 90 Received bill in the last month 72 96 73 80 77 Received bill in the last 2 months 0 0 6 70 Never had a bill though eligible 2 9 60 58 50 49 poor households in Kisumu were much more 44 44 40 likely to be aware of announcements than poor 37 Respondents of households in either of the other two cities. % 30 27 26 28 This suggests that Kisumu is using more effective 20 and egalitarian media for announcements. The 10 Kisumu water company is known to make 0 Heckling and quarrelling Long queues Queue jumping extensive use of radio and this may be the reason. Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Water companies are not being month. However, a significant percentage said effective in reaching households with they did not know if the meter had been read information on service disruptions and or not, suggesting that meter readers need to stoppages. communicate more effectively with customers. Do consumers report getting advance Are the households who pay water bills announcements on service provisions being asked for bribes, or offering them? such as stoppages? Although we asked questions about bribes Figure 28 shows that the cities vary in their paid and received, the data were not conclusive. success in reaching consumers with information One reason was that the question was only about major stoppages. Fewer than half of the asked of people with household connections to households who use the mains and encountered the mains who pay their own bills, leaving out stoppages reported having seen announcements, a large number of people who also interact with with the percentages in Mombasa and Nairobi the water company, such as kiosk operators very low (less than 20 percent). Even though and landlords, or people who pay bribes not sample sizes were small, the data suggest that associated with billing. Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 23 Table 8: Payment of incentives outside official payments Nairobi KisumuMombasa Percentage of respondent households who paid their own bills and reported paying any incentives outside official payments 5 4 0 Figure 27: Percent of mains users who pay Figure 28: Households which report seeing their own bills announcements of stoppages in the media 100 100 93 90 90 80 78 80 stoppages 80 70 70 60 56 encountered 54 60 and 50 50 Households mains of 40 use 40 40 % 30 26 who 30 20 20 19 15 10 Respondents of 10 0 % Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa 0 Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Poor Non-Poor Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa We asked respondents "Have you ever had Few households reported offering or to offer any incentives outside official payments being asked for bribes in relation to (this is a bribe including money, gifts, incentives service delivery from the water company. or other assistance) in order to get a service or sort out a problem?" To the water companies' credit, only a small percentage of customers who pay their 2.5 Interactions with the Water own bills reported ever offering or being asked Company and Responsiveness for incentive payments. Of the three cities, bribery of this sort seems to be most common We asked respondents who used mains in Mombasa. Though the numbers are low, it connections and paid their own bills about their is of concern that 0 percent of respondents in interactions with the water company. Mombasa reported incidents of bribery. At the Focus Group Discussions held in each How many households reported billing city in advance of the survey many participants problems,and what problems did they have? told use that petty corruption is occurring. As The households that reported paying their own many people, especially in Nairobi, rely on bills were asked if they had experienced ay landlords to pay their water bill, this opens problems with their billings in the last 2 months. the possibility that bribery is occurring at the Approximately a third of respondents said yes. interface between landlords and water company Of these, a large majority reported that their bills staff. Examining this was beyond the scope of were too high. This was much higher than bills a household survey. Likewise, the survey did that were too low, perhaps due to the fact that not examine whether bribery occurred between customers are more likely to notice the problem if kiosk operators and water company staff. bills are too high. 24 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Table 9: Households experiencing billing problems in last 2 months Nairobi KisumuMombasa Percent of Households Experiencing Billing Problems in the Last 2 Months 34 37 28 Problems they reported: Bill amount was wrong-too high 84 95 83 Bill came too late to pay on time 4 5 7 Bill did not/has not come 3 0 Disconnected even though paid the bill 0 0 Bill amount was wrong-too low 3 0 Percent who complained 75 78 76 Figure 29: Percent of respondents completely satisfied with interaction with the water company 100 90 80 70 60 50 Respondents 40 of % 30 20 10 0 Satisfaction with time Satisfaction with time Satisfaction with behaviour Satisfaction with information Satisfaction with Satisfaction with taken to attend to you taken to address your issue of staff in dealing with you provided by the staff helpfulness of the staff helpfulness of the staff Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa It is interesting that Kisumu households are the not think of it. However, a significant number most likely to report monthly billing (see Table 7) in Nairobi said that they did not know where or but a higher percentage of respondents in that city with whom to interact, suggesting that the water reported receiving a bill that was too high. company needs to improve its accessibility. In all three cities a small but significant percentage said that they did not think that contacting the Did people who had a problem complain? utility would make any difference, indicating a lack of faith in the company to hear and address As Table 9 shows, one quarter of those who their concerns. experiencedproblemstoldustheydidnotcomplain. Due to small sample sizes, we were not able to ascertain the difference between the poor and the non-poor, except in Nairobi where the poor had a Consumers do not find the water lowerrateofregisteringacomplaint.Table0 reveals company accessible, have little faith that many people who use mains connections in in having their complaints resolved, Nairobi and Mombasa have never interacted with and are not complaining and interacting the water company, though a slight majority has in as a result. Kisumu. (Note that mains users were asked about interactions within the time period that the water How satisfied are consumers with their company for their city had been operating.) Most interaction with the water company? people who did not interact with the company said that it was because they were satisfied or did The data reveal that satisfaction with the Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 25 Table 0: Interactions with water company Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa inlast5years inlast3years inlast1year Have not interacted with Water Company 79 42 64 Ofthosethatdidnotinteract: Satisfied with services 37 26 48 Did not think of interacting 29 55 40 Did not know where or with whom to interact 9 3 Did not think it would make any difference 7 9 7 Figure 30: Amounts spent by households in each Figure 3: Amounts spent by the poor on mains, city on mains water, kiosks and vendors kiosks and vendors 3000 2770 1800 1600 2500 1581 1400 2000 1200 1581 1650 1000 1500 month month 800 681 per per Kshs1000 916 Kshs 600 476 413 681 369 520 400 315 360 500 273 414 440 266 200 0 0 0 Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Water from mains kiosks Vendors Mains Water Kiosks Vendors Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa way complaints and other interactions with 2.6 Costs Incurred in Accessing Water the water company are handled is not high. We can assume that having 50 percent of How much are households paying the people a company interacts with leaving for water? completely satisfied is a minimum level of achievement. We asked households who reported using mains The Mombasa water company scored connections, kiosks and vendors how much below this level for most parameters. Nairobi they spent on water per month. The results and Kisumu only exceeded 60 percent are presented in the following three charts. satisfaction in a few. Overall, the Kisumu We had to use caution with these figures as water company seems to achieve the highest for several of them the base of respondents satisfaction. was too small for analysis. Figure 30 shows the amounts paid by households (poor and non-poor combined) on mains, kiosks and Almost half of customers are vendors. We can see that there are interesting dissatisfied with their interactions variations by city. In Nairobi, those with the water company. households using vendors are paying very high amounts, and in general households are 26 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Table : Tariffs in each city Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Meter rent Kshs 25 Kshs 50 Kshs 50 First block to 0m3 Kshs 2 0 to 6m3 Kshs 33 Up to 0m3 Kshs 200 (minimum charge) Second block to 30m3 Kshs 8 7 to 20m3 Kshs 40 to 20m3 Kshs 25 Third block 3 to 60m3 Kshs 27.5 2 to 40m3 Kshs 50 2 to 50m3 Kshs 30 Fourth block 6 and above Kshs34.5 4 to 60m3 Kshs 55 5 to 00m3 Kshs 45 Fifth block - - 6m3 and above Kshs 60 0 to 300m3 Kshs 75 spending more on vendors than on kiosks, Figure 32: Amount spent on water from mains probably because prices charged by vendors connections are higher than that charged at kiosks. In 3000 Kisumu, mains water appears to be costing households a great deal (the most per month 2500 of any of the categories). A comparison 2000 with the current tariff in Kisumu suggests that these figures must be interpreted with 1500 caution as the volumes of water that would month per have to be used to incur these costs are very Kshs1000 high ­ above what would be considered normal single-household domestic use. It 500 may be that many households in Kisumu are on-selling water to the unconnected. 0 Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa This data can be presented for the poor Poor Non-Poor alone (see Figure 3), but without data on the amounts paid by poor mains users in Kisumu (there were less than 30 respondents who gave A household using 20 cubic meters of us information on that question, which makes water a month through a private connection these data unreliable). Figure 3 shows us would thus pay the following in each city: that poor households are spending significant amounts per month on kiosks and vendors. The amount paid for 20m3 in Kisumu is In Nairobi in particular, expenditure by poor almost three times as much as that paid in families on vendors is very high, and this water Nairobi. This may in part be a reflection of the is costing far more than mains water. economies of scale in running a large utility like that in Nairobi. Figure 32 presents the amounts paid on mains connections by poor and non-poor (shown It should be noted that households using again without data for the Kisumu poor). It is shared connections under step tariffs can end up clear that the non-poor are paying much greater paying more than those at private connections, amounts on mains water. We can assume that as the combined use by several households this is because they rely on it to a greater extent drives the price up into the higher steps of the than the poor. tariff structure. For instance, five poor families sharing a tap, each using 6 m3 of water for a total The variation in amounts spent on mains of 30m3 per month, would incur the following water is borne out by an examination of the charges: tariffs in each city. Each has a step tariff, with different prices levied depending on how much In this case, the poorer families in Nairobi water a household uses. Each city also levies a and Kisumu would actually be paying more meter rent. on a volumetric basis than their wealthier Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 27 Table 2: Amount paid for 20 m3 from mains connection Table 3: Amount paid for 30 m3 at a shared connection City NairobiKisumuMombasa City NairobiKisumuMombasa Total per month Kshs 325 Kshs 908 Kshs 500 Total per month Kshs 505 Kshs 408 Kshs 750 Average per m3 6 45 25 Average per m3 7 47 25 Table 4: Amount paid for 6m3 from main and Figure 33: Amounts spent storage tanks by m3 from kiosk households using mains 10000 City NairobiKisumuMombasa 9000 8990 Total per month for Kshs 0 Kshs 282 Kshs 50 8220 6m3 from mains 8000 Total per month for Kshs 00 Kshs 00 Kshs 00 7000 m3 from kiosks Total for 7m3 20 382 250 6000 Kshs Average per m3 5000 29 55 36 4380 4000 3460 neighbours with a private connection. This is 3000 1890 also the case when unconnected households 2000 780 buy water from connected neighbours. The 1000 increased water use drives the price into the 0 Poor Non poor third or even fourth block of the tariff, making the volumetric price very high. Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Thedifferenceintheamountpaidisevenmore dramatic if the poor families had to supplement How much are households spending on their water use with water purchased from kiosks storage tanks? or vendors. This could easily be the case if they We asked households who used mains required water during periods of scarcity, which connections and said they had storage tanks they could not ride out as they did not have how much they had spent on them. The data storage tanks (which we can assume the non- in Figure 33 show that households are spending poor household has). A household purchasing significant amounts on storage to compensate 50 jerrycans a month from a kiosk at the price of for unreliability of supply, with the non-poor Kshs 2 per jerrycan would pay an additional Kshs investing more than the poor. 00 per month. This amount would be much higher if the price at kiosks was higher than Kshs The average amount our respondents 2, as it often is. Our data suggest that households reporting spending is Kshs 200 in Nairobi, are actually spending well over Kshs 200 and up 2630 in Kisumu and Kshs 5600 in Mombasa; to Kshs 700 per month on kiosk water. from which it appears that storage tanks are most expensive in Mombasa. Figures for the number There are significant differences in the of the storage tanks suggest that households amounts paid for water by consumers install, on average, two tanks, and the total in the three cities. capacity is between 000 litres and 3000 litres, The heavy reliance by the with the poor reporting less capacity. poor on kiosks, where water is When we take the average amount our more expensive in volumetric terms than respondent households reported spending and at private connections, means the poor extrapolate it over the entire city, it becomes are paying large amounts for water, and apparent that very large amounts of money more per cubic meter than people with connections. have been invested in storage tanks. If each of the estimated 655,000 households using the The step tariff may result in high prices mains in Nairobi has invested Kshs 200, this for those at shared connections, means an astonishing total of approximately or those buying water from private .3 billion shillings has been invested so far connections. city-wide to overcome shortcomings in utility 28 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Table 5: Extrapolation of amounts invested in storage tanks Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Total number of households in the city 886,54 243,492 70,600 Percentage of households using mains connections 74% 3% 27% Number of households using mains connections 655,754 3,654 9,062 Average amount spent on storage tanks by each Kshs 200 Kshs 2630 Kshs 5600 household using mains connection Total estimated investment in storage tanks Kshs ,377 million Kshs 83 million Kshs 07 million Table 6: Satisfaction of mains connections users Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Poor Non- Poor Non- Poor Non- poor poor poor Completely satisfied with: % % % % % % Distance to source of water for drinking 6 7 53 57 5 66 Time it takes to get water 57 66 39 55 46 6 Regularity of water supply during normal periods 68 73 79 68 58 56 Regularity of water supply during periods of scarcity 25 23 8 20 25 Adequacy of water supply during normal times 67 74 93 69 65 57 Water pressure 6 72 57 58 59 47 Cleanliness 77 73 76 6 76 73 Other aspects of water quality 66 75 67 63 74 78 Behaviour of staff 24 32 36 29 29 49 Maintenance 5 64 32 49 58 50 Billing system 30 32 36 36 26 46 supply. The calculations for all three cities are with services, suggesting either that there is a shown in Table 5. still a large amount of goodwill towards water companies, or that users have developed low Households are finding it necessary to expectations. invest significant amounts of However, in all three cities roughly half of money in storage tanks, amounting to an users are not satisfied, suggesting that water estimated one and a half billion shillings across the three cities. companies need to do a lot more to address consumers' concerns. Kiosk users are far less likely to be satisfied, reflecting the lower level of service provided by these sources. Interestingly, the non-poor 2.7 Satisfaction with Water Provision expressed more dissatisfaction with kiosks than the poor. How satisfied are households with the overall provision of water? Half of all users of mains connections Despite problems of scarcity, stoppages and are not satisfied, and dissatisfaction is unreliability, a surprisingly high percentage even higher among users of mains kiosks. of users of mains connections are satisfied Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 29 Figure 34: Satisfaction among users of mains Figure 35: Satisfaction among users of connection mains-connected kiosks 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 66 66 70 satisfied satisfied 60 55 60 53 52 47 completely 50 completely 50 43 44 40 40 38 37 respondents 30 respondents 30 of of 24 % 20 % 20 14 10 10 0 0 Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Poor Non-Poor Poor Non-Poor Table 7: Satisfaction of poor users of mains kiosks Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Completely satisfied with % % % Distance to source of water for drinking 63 39 59 Time it takes to get water 65 34 54 Regularity of water supply during normal periods 68 69 62 Regularity of water supply during periods of scarcity 22 4 Adequacy of water supply during normal times 72 67 67 Water pressure 66 59 57 Cleanliness 64 54 8 Other aspects of water quality 60 57 82 Behaviour of staff 48 43 60 Maintenance 42 6 48 Billing system 25 2 4 How satisfied are households with billing and relations with staff. Mains kiosks specific indicators of service quality? users in all three cities were also dissatisfied with the water supply during scarcity times Among mains connections users, the areas that and the billing systems at kiosks. In Kisumu, rated the lowest in terms of satisfaction are they also expressed significant dissatisfaction the regularity of water supply during scarcity with the distance to kiosks and the time it times, the behaviour of water company takes to get water. staff and the billing system. It is clear that the conditions during scarcity times are a source of particular dissatisfaction for users, There is serious dissatisfaction as this aspect rated by far the lowest. It is with a number of parameters of interesting that the other two low-scoring water services, in particular regularity aspects of service relate to the interaction the of supply during scarcity times. customers have with the utility in terms of 30 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 3 32 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 3 Sanitation Services 3.1 Availability, Access and Usage public toilets or open defecation as their primary of Sanitation Options mode of sanitation. What types of sanitation are people using? Poor households are much more Figure 36 shows the main place where likely than non-poor ones to be relying respondents said their family members relieve on pit latrines and shared (rather than themselves. It is clear that pit latrines are the private) sanitation facilities. type of toilet used by many people. Pit latrines are used much more by the poor (see Figure 37), and are more prevalent in Mombasa than We asked households about the use of elsewhere (they are used by significant numbers public toilets, and this question revealed that of the non-poor in Mombasa). more people in Nairobi and Kisumu than in Mombasa used public toilets once a month or The prevalence of flush toilets is presented in more frequently. The poor use public toilets Figure 38, and it can be seen that a majority of much more than the non-poor in Nairobi and the non-poor use them, particularly in Nairobi. Kisumu, but the reverse is true for the small However, access to flush toilets among the poor number who use them more frequently than in Nairobi is also quite high. once a month in Mombasa. The next two charts show the breakdown A small number of respondents in the by mode of sanitation (private, shared, public sample (three percent of the sample as a whole, and open) for the poor and non-poor. A large a total of 89 respondents) said that their family majority of the non-poor use private sanitary occasionally uses "flying toilets" or uses the facilities, whether pit latrines or flush toilets. open ground as a toilet. (This is not reflected in The poor are more likely to use shared facilities, the data presented above as they are for only the and a small number practice open defecation, main place where the family relieve themselves, especially in Kisumu. None of the non-poor and no respondent mentioned flying toilets in respondents, on the other hand, use either that category.) We asked respondents who said Figure 36: Main place where family members relieve themselves 100 90 80 70 60 58 50 Respondents of 40 37 % 33 30 30 30 24 23 20 14 13 11 10 7 1 3 3 2 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 Private pit toilet at Private flush toilet Neighbour's pit toilet Public/community Shared pit toilet Shared flush toilet On open ground home at home pit toilet block/ multiple house block/ multiple house compound compound Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 33 Figure 37: Prevalence of pit latrines as main source Figure 38: Prevalence of flash toilets as main of sanitation source of sanitation 100 100 91 90 90 87 80 80 74 70 70 61 63 60 60 50 50 respondents 40 respondents of 40 of 40 % % 30 30 25 25 22 20 20 10 10 10 6 10 0 0 Poor Non poor Poor Non poor Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Figure 39: Modes of sanitation used by the poor Figure 40: Modes of sanitation used by the non-poor 100 100 96 92 90 90 83 80 80 72 70 70 61 60 57 60 50 50 respondents respondents of 40 37 of 40 % 34 % 30 27 30 20 20 15 10 10 8 2 5 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Private Shared Public Open Defecation Private Shared Public Open Defecation Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa some family members practice open defecation Where does the waste from toilets go? or use flying toilets to tell us the reasons why. It appears that the main reason given for using We asked people who said they used flush flying toilets or open defecation is inaccessible toilets where the waste from their toilet goes. public toilets and a lack of money to construct A majority of respondents using flush toilets toilets at home. As any resident of a Kenyan in Nairobi and Kisumu said their toilet waste city can confirm, even a small number of people goes into the sewers, but in Mombasa more using flying toilets can cause an unbearably people said their flush toilets are emptied into unhygienic situation. septic tanks. A few respondents, notably in Mombasa, said their flush toilets empty into a pit, which is of concern as pits are usually not Poverty is preventing some people suited to the large quantities of wastewater that from having toilets at home, and there is flush toilets produce. a lack of affordable, accessible public toilets to address the problem of open defecation When we asked those people using pit and "flying toilets" which results. toilets where their waste goes, we found the range of responses was much wider, with some 34 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Table 8: Reasons for practicing open defecation or using "flying toilets" Reason PercentofRespondents No toilet at home because - no money to build 9 No toilet at home because - no space 5 Cannot construct toilet because does not own the land or property 3 Not near enough to a public toilet 23 Public toilet too expensive 5 Public toilet too dirty / disgusting / smelly Landlord refuses to construct toilet 6 Doesn't mind it or prefers it 3 Toilets are unsafe for the children 3 The toilets are full and often overflow 5 Due to poorly constructed toilets, they collapse frequently 2 pit toilet users saying their toilet empties into Figure 4: Percentage of households who use the sewers or a septic tank, and others saying it public toilets once a month or more empties into storm sewers, soak-aways and cess 35 pits designed for kitchen waste. This is a cause 30 30 for concern as these do not provide suitable 27 treatment of fecal waste. However, the data raise 25 the question of whether people actually know 20 19 where their toilet waste goes, as some people said their pit latrine waste goes into sewers, and respondents 15 overall more respondents reported having access of % 10 to mains sewers than are officially provided with 10 8 8 this service. This highlights the need for better 5 education and awareness on sanitation issues. 0 Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa People are generally confused about Poor Non-Poor where their toilet waste goes, but it is clear that some toilets are being allowed to empty into storm sewers, Figure 42: Where waste from flush toilets goes soak pits and cess pits, where fecal 100 waste presents an environmental and 90 88 health hazard. 80 70 70 60 3.2 Problems Faced with Sewerage 50 respondents 40 of 40 How many people said they had problems % 31 30 with the sewerage system? 23 22 20 Figure 44 shows the percentage of respondents 10 7 7 1 who said they had experienced problems 0 Mains Sewer Septic Tank Pit with sewerage in the last year. The figure is particularly high for the Nairobi poor. Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 35 Figure 43: Where waste water from pit toilet goes 100 90 81 80 78 70 60 50 42 Respondents 40 of % 30 28 20 10 6 9 4 5 7 7 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 Pit Mains Sewer Septic Tank Storm water drain Open soak pit Cess pit Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa What types of problems with sewerage Figure 44: Percent of respondents who have did people face? experienced problems with sewerage 100 As Figure 45 shows, the problems 90 that seemed to be the most prevalent were 80 flooding and overflowing of the sewers, 70 and bad smells. 60 58 50 45 Many people report experiencing respondents 40 problems with the sewer system, mostly of overflowing and leakage from broken % 30 27 27 24 mains, and bad smells. 20 19 10 0 Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Poor Non-Poor 3.3 Satisfaction with Sanitation How satisfied are people with pit latrine but even there less than a half of respondents emptying services? were happy with either the maintenance or the presence of sewers (see Figure 47). Satisfaction Those people who expressed an opinion on pit was considerably lower in the other two cities. latrine emptying services were not, in general, satisfied with them. Satisfaction in Kisumu was How satisfied are people with public the lowest for both the poor and the non-poor. toilets? Overall, less than a third of people expressing an opinion were happy with these services. Figure 48 shows the satisfaction with the availability of and cleanliness of public toilets. In Nairobi, two-thirds of respondents expressing How satisfied are people with the an opinion said they were satisfied, but the sewerage system? rate of satisfaction in Kisumu is lower, and in Mombasa even lower, with less than a quarter Satisfactionwiththesewersoperatedbythewater of respondents there happy with the cleanliness and sewerage company was highest in Nairobi, of public toilets. 36 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Figure 45: Problems experienced with sewerage 80 70 60 50 40 Respondents of 30 % 20 10 0 Mains sewer broken Mains sewer has No mains sewer Raw sewerage Bad smells No treatment Open sewers flooded/dirty water in open of sewage breeding mosquitoes spilled out Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Figure 46: Satisfaction with pit latrine emptying Figure 47: Satisfaction with sewers 100 100 90 90 80 80 opinion 70 opinion 70 indicating 60 60 indicating 50 50 49 44 40 39 40 Respondents respondents of 32 30 30 of % 30 29 27 % 30 26 20 18 19 20 19 19 19 14 10 10 0 0 Poor Non-Poor Total Satisfaction with Satisfaction with maintenance of the sewers presence of sewers Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Figure 48: Satisfaction with public toilets 100 The data show that satisfaction with 90 sanitation is lower than for water services, and 80 that sewerage in particular is less satisfactory opinion than the mains water supply. an 70 64 66 60 53 expressing 50 44 40 35 respondents of 30 Many people have experienced % 24 problems with sanitation services 20 such as sewers, pit latrine emptying 10 and public toilets, and satisfaction with 0 Satisfaction with Satisfaction with them is low (lower than satisfaction with availability of public toilets cleanliness of public toilets water services). Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 37 38 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 4 Solid Waste Management 4.1 Availability, Access and Usage of Figure 49: Collection options available for getting Solid Waste Management Options rid of rubbish from households 100 How do people dispose of rubbish? 90 80 We asked about the options available to 70 households for having their rubbish collected 64 60 (see Figure 49). It appears that the city council 50 offers services to very few households, 40 especially in Nairobi and Kisumu. However, Respondents of 32 64 percent of households in Nairobi reported % 30 having access to private collection companies, 20 17 10 and 7 percent and 32 percent in Kisumu and 10 3 3 4 Mombasa, respectively. 1 1 0 Collection by Council rubbish bins/ Collection by council independent private official dump sites are from household What households actually do to get rid of company present in the area doorstep their rubbish is shown in Figure 50. While some Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa households take advantage of the collection options available, it is clear that many others are resorting to burning and throwing their rubbish in open areas and drains, with the accompanying environmental consequences. The options for solid waste Very few households use council collection disposal are very limited, and services. many people resort to burning or dumping their rubbish in open areas or drains. City Few poor households, especially in Kisumu councils are providing very few solid and Mombasa, use private collection agencies waste services. Poor people have even suggesting that the cost of this service may be more limited options as few of them use an issue (see Figure 5). Though the numbers private collection agencies, probably were small, it appears that poor households are because of cost. also unlikely to use council collection services, where they exist. None of the poor households surveyed in 4.2 Satisfaction with Solid Waste Nairobi and Kisumu reported using collection Management Services services provided by the city council, and only percent of them in Mombasa. How satisfied are people with solid waste management services? Households that use private collection services were asked how much they pay for We asked respondents about their them. The average amount paid per month satisfaction with solid waste management for private collection in Nairobi is Kshs 52, in services provided by the council. Overall, Kisumu Kshs 82 and in Mombasa Kshs 230. the percentage of respondents saying they Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 39 Figure 50: What households do to get rid of rubbish 100 90 80 70 61 60 51 50 48 44 Respondents 40 of 33 % 32 32 30 20 14 12 10 9 1 1 4 3 3 3 3 5 0 Collection by Throwing rubbish in Burning rubbish Council rubbish bins/ Collection by council Burying rubbish independent private open areas/drains/ official dump sites are from household company other places present in the area doorstep Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Figure 5: Use of private rubbish collection agencies Figure 52: Satisfaction with council clearance services by poor and non-poor 100 100 90 90 80 80 80 70 70 60 60 57 59 59 50 50 respondents 40 39 Households 40 of of % 30 27 28 % 30 25 20 18 20 10 8 10 10 6 0 0 Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Poor Non-Poor Poor Non-Poor were "completely satisfied" was low, with a residential area. An overwhelming majority total of 30 percent of respondents expressing said no, with only 3 percent of the total sample satisfaction in Nairobi, 0 percent in Kisumu saying yes. Of the few who said yes, a third and 9 percent in Mombasa. The rate of said they did not know what the role of public satisfaction was lower among the poor than health officers was, and two thirds expressed the non-poor (see Figure 52). dissatisfaction with their performance. Satisfaction with solid waste Satisfaction with solid waste management services is extremely management services is extremely low, particularly among the poor. low, particularly among the poor. Are people aware of the public health officers and know what they do? Households were asked whether they were aware of public health officers assigned to their 40 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 4 42 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 5 Quality of Information Provision Figure 53: Awareness of recent changes in policy Figure 54: Adequacy of government information on water services 100 100 90 90 80 80 aware 70 are adequateis 70 they 60 60 saying 50 information 50 40 39 saying 40 respondents 30 of 24 30 % 20 20 25 22 20 12 respondents 20 10 10 9 of 13 14 %10 9 0 Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa 0 Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Poor Non-Poor Poor Non-Poor Figure 55: Preferred medium for sharing views 80 70 60 50 40 Respondents of 30 % 20 10 0 Letters E-mails Face to face Over the Telephone Through TV Through Radio Through Newspaper Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Are people aware of recent changes in policy? and sharing views, respondents overwhelmingly indicated that they preferred face-to-face Figure 53 shows that few people are aware of interaction. This is interesting when compared to recent changes in government policy in the water the fact that a common cause for dissatisfaction and sanitation sector, especially in Kisumu. The with water companies is the behaviour of staff, Nairobi non-poor have the highest awareness. and suggests that there are good reasons to improve the way staff relate to citizens. Do people feel communication is adequate? How would they like to share their views? Consumers feel they are not getting enough information on water and Few households felt they were getting adequate sanitation services, and are not informed of information on water services (see Figure 54). changes in policy. They would prefer face- When they were asked what medium they would to-face interaction with water companies. prefer to use for interacting with the water company Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 43 44 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 6 Summary of Satisfaction with Public Services The following charts show satisfaction with the four public-agency provided services Figure 56: Satisfaction of users of services provided by public agencies examined by this Report Card: water services 100 through mains connections and mains kiosks, 90 sewerage, and council-provided rubbish 80 collection. 70 In general: 60 · residents of Kisumu and Mombasa are 50 less satisfied with public-agency-provided 40 services than residents of Nairobi Respondents of % 30 · satisfaction with mains kiosks is lower than 20 that of mains connections, at less than 50% 10 in all cities 0 Mains Mains kiosk Sewer services Council rubbish · satisfaction with sewer and rubbish connection collection services collection services is considerably lower Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa than satisfaction with water services. Poor people are much more likely to say These findings are worrying given that the current that having their source of water close to them reforms seem to be aimed almost exclusively as is an important area for improvement than the water services. non-poor, reflecting the fact that poor people are more likely to use sources outside the home Satisfaction of users of kiosks is (see Figure 59) lower than that of mains-connections users in all three cities. Satisfaction with sewer and council rubbish collection services is much People want cleaner lower than satisfaction with water services, particularly in Kisumu and Mombasa, but water and little is being done to improve or reform more reliable supply. these services. When we asked respondents about what Kiosk users want their they would like to see improved, we found that sources to be closer. the areas of improvement differed according to whether a respondent was a user of a mains Proximity of the connection or a mains kiosk. The charts below water source is more show the first priority area mentioned. Having cleaner water was the most important area important to poor for improvement for both groups. Having people than to the more reliable service was also important, but bringing the source closer was more important non-poor. to kiosk users. Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 45 Figure 57: First priority area for improvement in water services - mains connection users 45 40 35 30 25 20 Respondents of % 15 10 5 0 Clean water Water should be Provide enough Water pressure Bringing source Well maintained Correct and Reducing/ Other regularly water for all your is high enough closer to you pipes and other timely bills controlling price available family needs water equipment of water Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Figure 58: First priority area for improvement in water services - mains kiosk users 45 40 35 30 25 20 Respondents of % 15 10 5 0 Clean water Bringing source Water should be Water pressure Reducing/ Provide enough Well maintained Get water in the Other closer to you regularly is high enough controlling price water for your pipes and other shortest time available of water family needs water equipment possible Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Figure 59: Proximity of sources as a first priority Figure 60: Reduction or control of water prices as a -poor and non-poor first priority - poor and non-poor 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 respondents 50 respondents of of % 40 %40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Poor Non-Poor Poor Non-Poor 46 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Figure 6: First priority area for improvement in When we looked at the data for priority sanitation services areas of improvement for all users (not just mains 70 connections and mains kiosks) and analyzed it 60 according to what the poor and non-poor said, we found that reduction of price was a low 50 priority for both (see Figure 60). This suggests 40 that improved quality of service, not reduced price, is the main concern of users, regardless 30 of whether they are poor or non-poor. Respondents of % 20 10 0 Increase Improved Increased Presence/ Improving quality availability of cleanliness frequency of pit availability of of water services is public toilets of public toilets latrine emptying exhaustion facilities Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa more important than reducing their cost. Figure 62: First priority area for improvement in sewerage services 70 60 50 We asked the respondents what areas of improvement they thought were important in 40 sanitation services (sewers, pit latrine emptying, 30 public toilets). Many respondents, particularly Respondents of in Mombasa, said they wanted to see more % 20 public toilets. Increased frequency of pit latrine 10 emptying was important to more residents of Kisumu than the other two cities (see Figure 6). 0 Maintenance of presence of sewers presence of drainage the sewers for domestic waste water In terms of sewerage services, better Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa maintenance of the sewers was important to people in Nairobi, but greater presence of sewers was mentioned by many more in Mombasa (see Figure Figure 63: Presence of sewers as a first priority 62). When we looked at the question of presence -poor and non-poor of sewers in detail, we found that more poor people 100 though this was important, perhaps reflecting the 90 fact that sewerage is much less common in poor 80 neighbourhoods (see Figure 63). 70 60 respondents 50 People want of % 40 more public toilets 30 20 and greater access 10 to sewers. 0 Nairobi Kisumu Mombasa Poor Non-Poor Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 47 48 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 7 Key Findings and Conclusion 7.1 Water Supply Users of mains sources in all three cities are incurring costs in terms of home treatment methods and storage tanks in order 7.1.1 Access and Usage to cope with problems of water quality and There are distinct inequities in access to unreliability of service. mains connections between the poor Those consumers who are obliged to use and the non-poor, with the poor reporting lower sources outside the home are spending long access. periods of time fetching water, and enduring A small but significant number of inconvenience and stress. This burden is falling households is using unprotected sources more on women than on men as almost 70 for drinking water. percent of households said the primary water collector is an adult female. Poor households are much more likely to be using kiosks as their primary source of water than the non-poor. 7.1.3 Customer Service, Cost and Satisfaction with Water Services None of the three water companies scores "good" in terms of coverage, and Billing frequency for most users is monthly, Kisumu does not score "acceptable". in conformity with the requirements of the service agreements. Water companies are relying heavily on access to the mains through kiosks to achieve Water companies are not being effective their benchmarks for coverage, despite the fact in reaching households with information that kiosks offer a much lower level of service on service disruptions and stoppages. than connections. Few households reported offering or being asked for bribes in relation to service 7.1.2 Reliability and Quality delivery from the water company. Many households are experiencing Consumers do not find the water company periods of water scarcity, and the accessible, have little faith in having their poor are more likely to face scarcity than the complaints resolved, and are not complaining non-poor. Households in Kisumu are more and interacting as a result. likely to report scarcity than those in the Almost half of customers are dissatisfied other two cities. with their interactions with the water company. Periods of scarcity are forcing consumers There are significant differences in the to use unsafe and expensive sources of water. amounts paid for water by consumers in Consumers are happy with the taste, the three cities. smell and colour of water from mains The heavy reliance by the poor connections. on kiosks, where water is more Hours per week of service are below the expensive in volumetric terms than at private benchmarks, particularly in Mombasa which connections, means the poor are paying large does not achieve an acceptable score in either amounts for water, and more per cubic meter normal or scarcity times. than people with connections. Major stoppages of more than 24 The step tariff may result in high prices hours are common, and the poor for those at shared connections, or those experience more stoppages than the non-poor. buying water from private connections. Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 49 Households are finding it necessary to Public health officers are not visible in invest significant amounts of money in the communities, and are perceived to storage tanks, amounting to an estimated one and have little impact. a half billion shillings across the three cities. Half of all users of mains connections are 7.4 Communications not satisfied, and dissatisfaction is even Consumers feel they are not getting higher among users of mains kiosks. enough information on water and There is serious dissatisfaction with a sanitation services, and are not informed of number of parameters of water services, in changes in policy. They would prefer face-to- particular regularity of supply during scarcity times. face interaction with water companies. 7.2 Sanitation 7.5 Overall Satisfaction Poor households are much more likely Satisfaction of users of kiosks is lower than than non-poor ones to be relying on pit that of mains-connections users in latrinesandshared(ratherthanprivate)sanitation all three cities. facilities. Satisfaction with sewer and council Poverty is preventing some people from rubbish collection services is much lower having toilets at home, and there is a than satisfaction with water services, particularly lack of affordable, accessible public toilets to in Kisumu and Mombasa, but little is being done address the problem of open defecation and to improve or reform these services. "flying toilets" which results. People are generally confused about where their toilet waste goes, but it is clear Priority areas that some toilets are being allowed to empty into storm sewers, soak pits and cess pits, for improvement where fecal waste presents an environmental and health hazard. · People want cleaner water Many people report experiencing and more reliable supply. problems with the sewer system, mostly overflowing and leakage from broken mains, and bad smells. · Kiosk users want their sources Many people have experienced problems to be closer. Proximity of the with sanitation services such as sewers, pit latrine emptying and public toilets, and water source is more important satisfaction with them is low (lower than to poor people than to the non- satisfaction with water services). poor. 7.3 Solid Waste Management The options for solid waste disposal · Improving quality of water are very limited, and many people services is more important resort to burning or dumping their rubbish in open than reducing their cost. areas or drains. City councils are providing very few solid waste services. Poor people have even more limited options as few of them use private · People want more public collection agencies, probably because of cost. toilets and greater access to Satisfaction with solid waste management services is extremely low, particularly sewers. among the poor. 50 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya Conclusion Monitoring and evaluation tools, like the CRC, are All three cities have moved to a flat rate for most useful when performed at intervals and when kiosks - 0 KES/m3 in Nairobi; 5 KES/m3; and stakeholders know where the sector is aiming. a whopping 55 KES/m3 in Kisumu. However, This helps track progress over time and helps step tariffs still exist for domestic connections ensure a planning process that is focused with even though it is widely known that households clear milestones. in low-income areas resell water and/or share a connection with other households. The negative Synopsis of Water effect of step tariffs on the poor should be noted by the WSRB and water companies The goals of the water reforms are clear - an institutional framework that ensures access to Also, there is a wide variation in the tariffs of clean, affordable water and improved services the three cities, with Kisumu being significantly for all Kenyans. However, there is a clear policy more expensive than Nairobi and Mombasa. gap in the sanitation and solid waste sectors. The The three cities have a different history when it findings of this Citizen's Report Card give us a comes to setting tariffs. To its credit, the WSRB is clearer understanding of how these gaps affect working on Guidelines for Setting Tariffs that will people in their day-to-day lives. The findings help systematize tariff setting across Kenya. reinforce what we largely know - that the poor Kisumu is the most successful at interacting are paying more for water and relying heavily and communicating with its customers. In contrast, on kiosks. However, it also gives us insight into one-fifth of consumers who have not interacted lesser-known areas and offers tangible figures and with the Nairobi Water Company do not know a more coherent storyline for making informed where to go or who to talk to. decisions and evaluating progress. There is definite room for improvement in the As one would expect in a complex sector, area of communication between water companies the findings are both positive and negative. For and consumers. Increased communication on example, the Nairobi non-poor are relatively reforms is also necessary as the majority of satisfied with water services even though the residents are unaware of policy changes. findings indicate that consumers in Nairobi, as well as Mombasa and Kisumu, suffer from frequent Synopsis of Sanitation stoppages and interruptions. The reason for high satisfaction even amidst frequent interruptions is Residents of all three cities express high that the non-poor can afford coping mechanisms dissatisfaction with sanitation facilities. This is an like storage tanks. area where policymakers and service providers need to increase their focus, especially in terms It is clear that the poor are disproportionately of options for the poor. One-third of the poor in affected by unreliable water supplies. Unlike the Nairobi-- and the majority of the poor in Mombasa non-poor, the poor have little to no safe, affordable and Kisumu - use pit latrines as their main source alternatives. Reducing the vulnerability of the of sanitation. poor is an issue that the water companies and the WSRB should address. The current policy framework on sanitation does not recognize or regulate pit latrines, even The water companies are relying heavily on though they are used by the majority of Kenya's kiosks to reach the benchmarks for coverage, urban poor. As a result, there are no pit latrine by- even though kiosks are a lower level of service. laws for technical standards or effluent disposal. The poor rely on kiosks as their main source of drinking water, but even one-third of the non-poor In terms of sanitation improvements, residents in Mombasa use kiosks. In all three cities, it is in Nairobi, Kisumu and Mombasa are asking for mostly adult women who are fetching water and more public toilets and increased coverage of the facing long queues. sewerage network. Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya 5 Synopsis on Solid Waste and ensure that everyone, especially the poor, have access to services. The current picture we Like sanitation, satisfaction with solid waste have of the sanitation and solid waste options is management is much lower than water. The non- that options are substandard or limited and not poor depend on private operators for solid waste coordinated for the greater public good. collection. However, the vast majority in Kisumu As a collaborative tool, the CRC will be and Mombasa burn or throw their rubbish in open discussed in detail and used as a basis for spaces. Like sanitation, solid waste management continued interaction among citizen groups, has serious public health implications and progress service providers and policy makers. The authors will be slow without significant policy intervention hope that this interaction contributes to marked and adequate investment. improvements in services. The stakeholders intend Both the sanitation and solid waste sectors to issue the second Citizen Report Card on water could benefit greatly from serious reforms that and sanitation services in two years to see how far outline clear revenue streams and by-laws; provide we have come and to continue working together institutional clarity on roles and responsibilities; towards the same goal--better services for all. 52 Citizens' Report Card on Urban Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Services in Kenya