Final SWAP report Kenya
Ministry of Water and Irrigation
Water Sector Working Group
STUDY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECTOR-WIDE APPROACH TO PLANNING (SWAP) IN THE WATER AND SANITATION SECTOR IN KENYA
FINAL REPORT
[pic]
Frame Consultants Ltd
May 2006
This report is the complete report - a summary volume of less than 20 pages is available – a CD ROM with an electronic version of the available documents summarised in the annotated bibliography of annex E is also available from the SWAP secretariat MWI or Frame Consultants Ltd.
The report authors are Eric Buhl-Nielsen (team leader), Jens Vad, Francis Kimani, John Nguri and Naomi Ngeno
PEMCONSULT a/s
WILDERS PLADS, BYGN. J, 2 SAL
DK-1403 KØBENHAVN K
TEL.: +45 32 952626
FAX.: +45 32 952646
pemconsult@pem.dk
Frame Consultants Ltd
Loita House, 3rd Floor Loita Street
P.O.BOX 58624 – 002000 Nairobi
Tel: 213755, 251505
Fax: 213990
Info@
Executive summary
The objective of this study is to assist the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI) and its partners to prepare a Sector Wide Approach to Planning (SWAP) for the water sector. The specific objectives are: i) compile all the necessary background information; ii) gather relevant experience from SWAPs in other sectors and countries; iii) outline a SWAP framework and, iv) present a roadmap for the preparation and establishment of a water sector SWAP.
1. Framework
Ten key principles have emerged to guide the development of the SWAP based on an analysis of how best to realise a number of opportunities and addressing key challenges and risks:
• SWAP and the reforms potentially complement and reinforce each other;
• SWAP presents a mechanism for better inter-sectoral coordination;
• SWAP can lead to reduction of transaction costs and a more efficient sector;
• SWAP can mobilise more resources;
• SWAP can improve the MWI Financial Management Systems (FMS) and flow of funding;
• SWAP should reinforce decentralised rather than centralised planning;
• SWAP should simplify rather than complicate reforms;
• SWAP should enhance rather than reduce NGO and private sector involvement in the sector;
• SWAP should increase government capacity rather than overwhelm it;
• SWAP should be flexible enough to recognise when project modalities have advantages.
Based on these principles a framework composed of 8 crucial elements is presented which sit within policy, planning and funding frameworks as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Core elements of the SWAP framework
|Framework |Core elements |
|Policy framework |Definition of the national sector framework (what to align to) |
| |Partnership principles (common donor policies on how to align) |
|Planning framework |Sector Investment Plan –SIP (tool for prioritisation) |
| |Sector Information System – performance monitoring |
| |Coordination – both inter-sectoral and with external partners |
|Funding framework |Channels of funding (ladder of options – project, basket, budget support) |
| |Financial management (transparency, accountability, value for money) |
| |Resource mobilisation (using SWAP to increase funding) |
Most of the actions implied by this framework are already part of the ongoing reforms and normal processes of sector management. Thus the role of a SWAP roadmap will not be to build a separate series of plans and actions but instead to support, strengthen and consolidate the present reform roadmap and “fill in pot holes” where the SWAP process has a comparative advantage. The comparative advantage of SWAP will derive from. i) breathing new life into processes that have stalled; ii) increasing the leverage arising from improved harmonization and alignment of external efforts and, iii) using the SWAP as a presentation and communication tool to harness the efforts and cooperation of actors in other sectors. This role of SWAP is also a reflection that the reform secretariat is winding down as the transition tasks are over and that the main focus now will be on longer term improvements and maintenance of sector performance – thus the SWAP will mainstream and take over the longer term requirements of the reforms.
A number of pre-requisites are needed as minimum steps before a SWAP can be meaningfully launched. After launching there will be a number of benchmarks to be attained (and maintained) over the years before a SWAP can be said to be fully operational. In addition, each particular funding modality will itself have a series of “Funding Modality Pre-requisites” which are to be developed, defined and updated in the partnership principles.
Table 2: SWAP pre-requisites and benchmarks
|Framework |Pre-requisite (pre launch) |Benchmarks (sub sequent to launch of SWAP) |
|Policy |Government leadership |NSF completed (irrigation & sanitation) |
| |MOF involvement |Transferred staff trained and effective in new duties |
| |Partnership Principals signed | |
| |MWI staff transfer | |
|Planning |Interim SIP |SIP updated |
| |Annual sector review |SIS – performance review undertaken, results acceptable |
| | |Annual Sector Review undertaken |
| | |WSBs, WRMA, WSRB, WSTF and WAB fully operational and in control of their own|
| | |budgets and staff |
|Funding |Funding Modalities Pre-requisites defined |Tracking results acceptable |
| |Review of FMS systems |Value for money acceptable |
| |Anti corruption, enforcement, |Audits acceptable |
| |accountability |Funding levels increased at a rate that will see target met |
Note: indicators are given in the main report under chapter 6: SWAP framework
Each of these pre-requisites and benchmarks have a number of indicators and means of verification which are elaborated on in the main report.
The pre-requisites for adopting a particular funding modality will be of a financial, technical and managerial nature. Financially, the pre-requisites will aim at determining when the fiduciary risks are at an acceptable level i.e. the same or lower than project or basket modalities. Technically, the pre-requisites will aim at determining when the technical capacity is in place such that correct investment and technical decisions are taken in the use of capital and recurrent funds e.g. that a database system is selected and used in a technically correct way. Managerially, the pre-requisites will aim at determining when the organisation is well managed such that funds are only directed towards strategically correct purposes and in a cost effective manner.
The funding modality pre-requisites should as far as possible be absolute values that either trigger or don’t trigger a move to another funding modality. In practice, the conditions which they aim to measure are often subjective and require judgment and have to not only be attained but also maintained. Thus the pre-requisites need to be periodically confirmed by spot checking. There will often be uncertainty about their attainment, in such cases, it is often constructive to give the benefit of doubt and then put in place safeguards. The design of the safeguards will essentially be determined by the nature of the uncertainty or the particular areas of weakness. The tendency of allowing the presence of uncertainties to slow down the progress towards budget support can also be minimised by demanding that the burden of proof is on the argument for why budget support should not be given.
A key principle has been to select funding modality pre-requisites that are already part of the sector activities and normal management instruments and do not require special studies or interventions. Those pre-requisites which do not fall into this category are marked with an * in table 3.
Water resources developments are considered to fall under the area or sector that uses the infrastructure, so if for water supply it will be a Water Services Board (WSB), for irrigation it will be the National Irrigation Board (NIB), for hydropower the Ministry of Energy etc. The pre-requisites are separated into those that relate to: investment funding; support to recurrent budget and, technical assistance.
The funding modality pre-requisites related to investment funding are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Investment related funding modality pre-requisites
|Investments and |Relevant Institution|Funding modality Pre-requisite |
|related promotion | | |
| | |From project to Basket (project |From either project or basket to Targeted budget support |
| | |pooling) | |
|RWSS |WSTF |The WSTF is in essence a basket |SIP adherence |
| | |already. |Annual workplan/budget |
| | | |Sector Information System (SIS) – performance measurement of |
| | | |RWSS sector |
| | | |Audit of WSTF (financial& procurement) |
| | | |Timely financial reporting |
| | | |Tracking study |
| | | |Value for Money (sustainability focus) |
|UWSS |WSBs, WSPs |Analysis to demonstrate validity of |The 7 pre-requisites above plus |
| | |retaining project type modality due |Capacity analysis (for larger investments)* |
| | |to size, complexity of investment and| |
| | |capacity of the WSB.* | |
| | |Transaction costs can be reduced by | |
| | |pooling | |
|Irrigation |Regional Development|Assistance will be in the form of projects until the irrigation sector reforms are in place |
| |Authorities (RDAs), | |
| |NIB, MWI | |
The funding modality pre-requisites for recurrent expenditure (salaries, allowances, travel, equipment, office running, consumables, routine training, outsourcing of specialist tasks) is shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Recurrent expenditure related funding modality pre-requisites
|Recurrent expenditure |Institutions |Funding modality Pre-requisite |
| | |From project to Basket (project pooling) |From either project or basket to Targeted |
| | | |budget support |
|Water and sanitation |WSBs, WRMA, WSRB, |Analysis to demonstrate validity of retaining |Annual workplan and budget approved |
|related |WSTF, MWI, WSPs, |project type modality due to size, complexity of |Audit (both financial and procurement) |
| |MWI |investment and capacity of the WSB.* | |
| | |Transaction costs can be reduced by pooling | |
| |MOH, RDA,NIB |To be defined once reforms in place |
|Sanitation and Hygiene |MOH |The funding modality pre-requisites will be defined under the emerging Health SWAP |
|promotion (not linked to | | |
|investments) | | |
The funding modality pre-requisites for capacity building (technical assistance and the costs associated such as workshops – provided it is beyond the normal routine training that will be required by the organisation in perpetuity) is shown in Table 5:
Table 5: Capacity building funding modality pre-requisites
|Capacity Building |Institutions |Funding modality Pre-requisite |
| | |From project to Basket (project |From either project or basket to Targeted budget |
| | |pooling) |support* (TBS) |
|Water and sanitation |WSBs, WRMA, WSRB, |Analysis shows that value can be |Annual workplan and budget approved |
|related |WSTF, MWI, WSPs, |added by in-kind delivery of TA |Audit (both financial and procurement) |
| |MWI |Transaction costs can be reduced by |Procurement capacity for local TA |
| | |pooling |Procurement capacity for international/ regional TA |
| |MOH, RDA,NIB |To be defined once reforms in place |
|Sanitation and Hygiene |MOH |The funding modality pre-requisites will be defined under the emerging Health SWAP |
|promotion | | |
As mentioned earlier, safeguards can be used in order to allow a softening of the pre-requisites and thus advance the progression towards budget support. .It is however, very important that the safeguards are designed to avoid the introduction of parallel systems of financial control and technical and/or managerial decision making. Otherwise the safeguards risk to undermine the very purpose of targeted budget support which is to direct all efforts at reinforcing national systems from within.
2. Roadmap
The SWAP roadmap is not a new programme separate from the reform process, but rather a process that can add to consolidation of the reforms and highlight aspects of the reform that are especially important for an operational SWAP. The roadmap below presents a number of ‘potholes’ – these are aspects of the reform process that need particular attention in order to make the SWAP operational. These are shown as red stars on the activity charts within the policy, planning and funding frameworks. An important part of the funding framework is that the links between MWI and the MoF are intensified and consolidated.
Table 6: Policy framework road map
[pic]
Table 7: Planning framework roadmap
[pic]
Table 8 Funding framework road map
[pic]
3. Action plan
A general plan for the activities in the sector that will support the development of a SWAP over the next six months is shown below in relation to the Policy Framework, the Planning Framework, the Financial Framework and some general activities in support of SWAP.
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
The following specific activities are recommended to be carried out to ensure that the pre-requisites for launching a Water Sector SWAP towards the end of 2006 are achieved:
|Action |Responsibility |Timeframe |
|1. The WSWG and the SWAP Committee will use the draft final SWAP Report to discuss in |WSWG |April 2006 |
|detail the action plan and the road map and assign in detail the responsibilities for | | |
|implementation. The Consultant will facilitate a short workshop with WSWG members for | | |
|assessment of the action plan. | | |
|2. A draft TOR for support to the SWAP process in Annex K should be finalised and the SWAP|SWAP Committee |April 2006 |
|Committee procure a consultant to undertake the support tasks | | |
|3. The SWAP framework and road map contain prerequisites for moving towards a SWAP and the|SWAP Committee |Monthly |
|SWAP Committee should monitor the fulfilment of these and report to the WSWG on a regular | | |
|basis. | | |
|4. The reforms in irrigation and land reclamation are important to develop a consistent |PS MWI |Ongoing |
|sector reform framework – a programme for designing and implementing these and | | |
|identification of funding is important steps to move towards a SWAP. | | |
|5. Adopt and operationalise the National Environmental, Sanitation and Hygiene Policy |MoH |September 2006 |
|6. Discussions will have to take place in the WSTG and the WSWG on the draft PPs and these|WSWG |May – June 2006 |
|amended to form a realistic compromise between the ideal and the possible in the present |WSTG | |
|context. | | |
|7. The ongoing programmes should be screened to identify how and where these do not comply|WSWG/ |July – August |
|with the PPs – this can guide the partners in the design of new programmes and amendment |Consultant for | |
|of ongoing programmes |independent screening| |
|8. Elaboration of the sub sector and sector wide information systems | |December 2006 |
|9. The design of the interim SIP needs to be taken into account in the work that is |SIP Project |July – September |
|ongoing in developing Business Plans in the sector institutions | | |
|10. Agreement on the structure/design of the SIP and identification of the funding for the|WSWG |April 2006 |
|SIP Project must be done soonest to avoid further delays. | | |
|11. The sub-sector working groups should be constituted in July to assist MWI in the |WSWG |June 2006 |
|annual revision of the strategic plan | | |
|12. The MWI head office reorganisation is highest priority for improving the overall |PS MWI |July 2006 |
|sector performance – capacity building of the Planning Policy and M&E unit as anchor for | | |
|the SWAP is important to operationalise the SWAP | | |
|13. The FMS activities must include priority given by MWI PS and the CEOs to financial |PS MWI |May – August 2006|
|management, independent evaluation of the new FMS in the institutions and training in |CEOs | |
|transparency/ anti-corruption to key sector stakeholders. The key for implementing the |Consultants for FMS | |
|SWAP and mowing towards budget support is that confidence building is needed towards the |Review and training | |
|DPs in the adequacy of the sector financial management systems. | | |
|14. Audits for different DP activities should be coordinated and to the degree possible | | |
|combined in a common audit set-up | | |
|15. Value for money studies should be carried out to contribute to the Joint Annual Water |MWI Director Water |July 2006 |
|Sector Review and the Public Expenditure Review – initially the VFM could target specific |VFM Consultants | |
|sub-sectors e.g. the RWSS/ WSTF to gain experience – in later years combined VFM studies | | |
|can be carried out for the different projects and programmes. | | |
|16. The joint KWSP/WSPR reviews should be conducted just before the broader Joint Annual |PS MWI/ KWSP |August – October |
|Water Sector Review that should include all main sector stakeholders – this should be done| |2006 |
|for the first time in October – November 2006 to lead up to the launching of the SWAP | | |
|17. The sector should take advantage of the launching of the SWAP to communicate the water|PS/ Unit responsible |August – October |
|sector programmes and achievements to the wider public – this can potentially contribute |for communication in |2006 |
|to better coordination of sector activities and increased attention to the sector |MWI | |
|programme from politicians. | | |
|18. The launching of the SWAP on a stakeholder workshop towards the end of 2006 to create |PS MWI |October – |
|awareness about the aspirations in the sector – not that the SWAP will be effective from | |November 2006 |
|that date. | | |
4. Methodology and process for the SWAP Study
The development of the SWAP framework, roadmap and action plan has been led by the SWAP committee established by the MWI and through active involvement of other structures has encompassed a broad partnership of sector actors. The committee was supported by a team of Kenyan and international consultants who undertook more than 100 interviews and constructed an annotated bibliography of some 200 relevant reports, studies and strategies developed in the Kenya water sector, other sectors such as health and education as well as relevant international experience on establishing SWAPs. This work was complimented by the development of case studies for the water sector SWAPs in Uganda, Tanzania and Zambia.
Continuous reporting such as an inception report, an interim report and frequent meetings with the SWAP committee, senior staff of MWI and others in the sector ensured that Kenyan leadership was retained throughout the process. A half day stakeholder workshop with more than 40 participants was held on 28th March to discuss the issues raised and comment on the presentation by MWI of an outline framework and roadmap and the presentation by Ministry of Health (MOH) of the related SWAP activities in the health sector as well as a presentation by the Ministry of Finance (MOF) of the linkage between the water SWAP and the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) budget process. This workshop endorsed the overall framework and ensured that a number of valuable additions and corrections were made to the framework and roadmap and included in this report.
The main report provides:
• A full list of abbreviations
• A glossary of definitions of key terminology
• The context of the study (chapter 1)
• An assessment of the demand for a SWAP in Kenya (chapter 2)
• A detailed analysis of the requirements for a SWAP (chapter 3)
• Presentation of the experiences of SWAP in Kenya and elsewhere (chapter 4)
• A detailed risk analysis for establishing a SWAP in the water sector (chapter 5)
• The detailed SWAP framework (chapter 6)
• The detailed roadmap (chapter 7)
• The TOR for the study (annex A)
• The stakeholder workshop proceedings (Annex B)
• Summary of findings from interviews (Annex C)
• List of stakeholders consulted (Annex D)
• Annotated bibliography of the water sector in Kenya (Annex E)
• Detailed information on other SWAPs in Kenya and elsewhere (Annex F)
• Current donor programmes in the water sector in Kenya (Annex G)
• Medium Term Expenditure framework calendar in Kenya (Annex H)
• Draft Partnership Principles (Annex I)
• Outline for the first Annual Sector Review (Annex J)
• Draft TOR for support for the launching of the SWAP (Annex K)
Table of Content
Executive summary i
Table of Content ix
List of Abbreviations x
Terminology xii
1. Introduction 1
2. Demand Assessment 3
2.1 The Present Situation and Institutional Set-up 3
2.2 Sector Coordination 12
2.3 Harmonisation and Alignment 15
2.4 Major current stakeholders 18
2.5 Advantages and potential for a SWAP in the Kenyan WSS 27
2.6 Essential structural, institutional and procedural prerequisites for a SWAP 30
2.7 SWAP Contribution to Reaching the MDGs 31
3. Requirements for a Water Sector SWAP 33
3.1 SWAP Requirements 33
3.2 Components of a SWAP 34
4. Experiences in establishment of SWAPs 36
4.1 SWAPs Experiences in other sectors in Kenya 36
4.2 Water Sector SWAP Experiences in Neighbouring Countries 43
5. Risk Analysis 52
6. SWAP Framework 55
6.1 SWAP principles 55
6.2 Framework 55
6.3 Pre-requisites and milestones 58
6.3.1 Rationale and measurement of pre-requisites prior to launch of the SWAP 58
6.3.2 Rationale and measurement of the SWAP benchmarks after launch of the SWAP 60
6.4 Funding Modality Pre-requisites 60
7. Roadmap and Action Plan 64
7.1 Roadmap for Policy Framework 64
7.2 Roadmap for Planning Framework 66
7.3 Roadmap for Financial Framework 68
7.4 Action Plan 69
Annex A Terms of Reference 1
Annex B Workshop Proceedings 7
Annex C Draft Summary Findings Matrixes 28
Annex D Initial List of Stakeholders for consultations 48
Annex E Document Review 56
Annex F Lessons Learned in other SWAPs 76
Annex G List of Current Donor Supported Programmes 106
Annex H MTEF Calendar 112
Annex I Draft Partnership Principles 114
Annex J Draft Outline of Annual Sector Review 121
Annex K Draft TOR for Support to SWAP Process 127
List of Abbreviations
|ADA |Austrian Development Agency |
|AFD |Agence Française de Développement |
|AfDB |African Development Bank |
|ALGAK |Association of Local Government Authorities of Kenya |
|AMREF |African Medical Relief Foundation |
|ASAL |Arid and semi arid lands |
|BADEA |Arab Development bank |
|BTC |Belgian Technical Cooperation |
|CAAC |Catchment Area Advisory Committees |
|CBO |Community Based Organisations |
|CEO |Chief Executive Officer |
|CIFA |Country Integrated Fiduciary Assessment |
|Danida |Danish International Development Assistance |
|DCG |Development Counsellors Group |
|DP |Development Partner (Cooperation Partner, Donor, Financier) |
|DFID |Department for International Development – United Kingdom |
|ERS |Economic Recovery Strategy |
|EU |European Union |
|FMA |Financial Management Agent |
|FMS |Financial Management System |
|FY |Financial Year |
|GJLOS |Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector |
|GoK |Government of Kenya |
|GTZ |German Technical Cooperation |
|HAC |Harmonisation, Alignment and Coordination Group |
|HIP |Harmonization in Practice (in Zambia) |
|HIV/AIDS |Human Immune Deficiency Virus / Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome |
|HRD |Human Resource Development |
|HRM |Human Resource Management |
|IDD |Irrigation and Drainage Department (in MWI) |
|IFAD |International Fund for Agricultural Development |
|IPAR |Institute for Policy Analysis and Research |
|IP-ERS |Investment Program for the Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation |
|IRC |International Water and Sanitation Centre |
|IWRM |Integrated Water Resources Management |
|IWUA |Irrigation Water User Associations |
|JFA |Joint Financing Agreement |
|JICA |Japan International Cooperation Agency |
|JICC |Joint Inter-agency Coordinating Committee (in the Health Sector) |
|JPR |Joint Programme Review |
|JTR |Joint Technical Review |
|KEPSA |Kenya Private Sector Alliance |
|KESSP |Kenya Education Sector Support Programme |
|KEWI |Kenya Water Institute |
|KFW |German Financial Cooperation |
|KIPPRA |Research Institutions such as Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis |
|KJAS |Kenya Joint Assistance Strategy |
|KWSP |Kenya Water and Sanitation Programme |
|LGA |Local Government Authority |
|M&E |Monitoring and Evaluation |
|MDGs |Millennium Development Goals |
|MoA |Ministry of Agriculture |
|MoE |Ministry of Energy |
|MoEARC |Ministry of East African and Regional Cooperation |
|MoENR |Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources |
|MoEST |Ministry of Education, Science and Technology |
|MoF |Ministry of Finance |
|MoH |Ministry of Health |
|MoLFD |Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development |
|MoLG |Ministry of Local Government |
|MoPND |Ministry of Planning and National Development |
|MoRDA |Ministry of Regional Development Authorities |
|MoTI |Ministry of Trade and Industry |
|MPER |Ministerial Public Expenditure Review |
|MTEF |Medium Term Expenditure Framework |
|MWI |Ministry of Water and Irrigation |
|NCCK |National Council of Churches |
|NCNGO |National Council of NGOs |
|NEMA |National Environmental Management Agency |
|NESC |National Economic and Social Council |
|NETWAS |Network for Water & Sanitation International |
|NGO |Non-Governmental Organisation |
|NHSSP |National Health Sector Strategic Plan |
|NIB |National Irrigation Board |
|NSF |National Sector Framework |
|NWCPC |National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation |
|O&M |Operation and Maintenance |
|OP |Office of the President |
|PEMAAP |Public Expenditure Management Assessment and Action Plan |
|PER |Public Expenditure Review |
|PRS |Poverty Reduction Strategy |
|PS |Permanent Secretary |
|RDA |Regional Development Authority |
|RWSS |Rural water supply and sanitation |
|SAGA |Semi-Autonomous Government Agency |
|Sida |Swedish International Development Assistance |
|SIP |Sector investment plan |
|SIS |Sector Information System |
|SWAP |Sector-Wide Approach to Planning |
|TBS |Targeted Budget Support |
|TOR |Terms of Reference |
|UN-HABITAT |United Nations Centre for Human Settlements |
|UNICEF |United Nations Children’s Fund |
|UWSS |Urban Water Supply and Sanitation |
|W&S |Water and Sanitation |
|WAB |Water Appeal Board |
|WB |World Bank |
|WRM |Water Resources management |
|WRMA |Water Resources Management Authority |
|WRUA |Water Resource User Associations |
|WSB |Water Service Board |
|WSPCC |Water and Sanitation Programme Coordination Committee |
|WSP |Water Service Providers |
|WSP-AF |Water and Sanitation Programme – Africa |
|WSPPFC |Water and Sanitation Programme Procurement and Finance Sub-Committee |
|WSRB |Water Services Regulatory Board |
|WSRP |Water Sector Reform Programme |
|WSRS |Water Sector Reform Secretariat |
|WSS |Water Supply and Sanitation |
|WSTF |Water Services Trust Fund |
|WSTG |Water Sector Technical Group |
|WSWG |Water Sector Working Group |
Terminology
Alignment: actions between donors and governments that aim to increase national ownership of development processes. Alignment stands for donors providing assistance that accords with and supports partner government national and sector development strategies and relies on partner government systems and procedures – e.g. national public financial management systems, monitoring and evaluation systems and procurement policies – to manage the aid implementation process.
Harmonisation: increased coordination between, and the streamlining of, aid agencies such that transaction costs are reduced for partner governments. This includes sharing of information, working towards the simplification of procedures, reducing the number of donor missions and creating common arrangements for designing, managing and implementing aid.
On-budget: that project funds appear in the sector budget at the ministry but are not channelled through the government system.
Ownership: actions taken at the national/ sector level by the government – legitimised by parliamentarians and citizens – that assists progress towards development and poverty reduction. In order for ownership to result in enhanced aid effectiveness the necessary institutional reforms and capacity building must be successfully completed.
SWAP - Sector Wide Approach to Planning: pooling of resources to support a single sector policy and expenditure programme, under Government leadership, adopting common approaches across the sector and progressing towards relying on Government procedures to disburse and account for funds.
Project funding modality: Implementation administered outside the national institutions with its own financial management and procurement modalities normally prescribed by the financier.
Basket Funding: Two or more Development Partners agree to implement programmes with harmonised modalities for administration and financial management often aligned to but not integrated into the government procedures.
Targeted Budget Support: Funding earmarked for specific activities or institutions through the Treasury financial management system. Normally the funding for targeted budget support would be administered by treasury as part of the normal government financial management system. A modified form of administering the Targeted Budget Support would be to initially channel funds trough a Special Account in Ministry of Finance to the implementing agencies e.g. Water Service Boards to allow for easy tracing of the flow of funds.
Budget Support: General budget support is provided as financial input to the government’s budget without earmarking the support to specific activities. The administration of the funding relies completely on the government’s financial management and procurement systems.
1. Introduction
This Draft Final Report for the Study for the Establishment of a Sector-Wide Approach to Planning (SWAP) in the Water and Sanitation Sector in Kenya presents the Demand assessment, the SWAP requirements, the SWAP experiences from other sectors in Kenya where SWAPs have been introduced and from the water sectors in Tanzania, Zambia and Uganda. The report also describes the framework, structures and procedures that are need for a SWAP in the water sector in Kenya and the roadmap and action plan for the establishment of the SWAP.
The results presented in this report are based on literature review and interview with close to 100 stakeholders in the water sector in Kenya as well as study of documents and interview with stakeholders in the Education Sector, Health Sector and the Justice Sector in Kenya and the water sectors in Tanzania, Zambia and Uganda. The background to the study and the methodology and work plan for the assignment are described in the Terms of Reference (TOR) (Annex A) and in the Inception Report, dated February 2006.
The objectives of the present study assisting the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI) in the development of a SWAP in the Kenyan Water and Sanitation (W&S) Sector are to:
i) Avail all information and documents necessary for the preparation and establishment of a SWAP;
ii) Gather relevant experience from SWAP processes in other sectors in Kenya and in the W&S sectors in the East African region and assess and validate these for the benefit of a Kenyan W&S SWAP;
iii) Outline and design the necessary structural and procedural steps for the sector including all relevant stakeholders for the establishment of a SWAP;
iv) Prepare a detailed road map for the preparation, establishment and consolidation of a Kenyan W&S SWAP.
Chapter 2 of this Report contains the findings related to Demand Assessment (Task 1); Chapter 3 presents the requirements for a SWAP (Task 2) and Chapter 4 presents the experiences with establishment of SWAPs in three sectors in Kenya and in the water sectors in three neighbouring countries (Task 3).
Chapter 5 presents a risk analysis of the process of establishing a SWAP, Chapter 6 describes the structures and procedures that are proposed to operationalise the water sector SWAP and Chapter 7 describes the road map and action plan for the establishment of the SWAP.
The TOR for the study is attached as Annex A. Annex B contains the proceedings from the stakeholder workshop on the 28th of March 2006 and Annex C contains a summary of the findings in a matrix format. Annex D contains the current list of stakeholders that have been consulted during the study. The documents that have been reviewed as part of the study are listed in Annex E together with brief synopsis describing the content and relevance of the document in relation to the SWAP. All these documents are available on a Compact Disk distributed to the stakeholders on the 28th March Workshop. Annex F contains the detailed information on the lessons learned from SWAPs in the Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector (GJLOS), the Health Sector and the Education Sector in Kenya and the water sectors in Zambia, Tanzania and Uganda.
A list of the current donor supported programmes in the water sector is enclosed as Annex G. Annex H contains detailed information on the current annual calendar used by Ministry of Finance (MoF) in the preparation of budgets according to the 3-year Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF).
A first draft of Partnership Principles based on the format used in the Education Sector is enclosed in Annex I. Annex J presents a draft outline for planning of the annual sector review and finally Annex K described a draft TOR that can be used by the SWAP Steering Committee to engage Consultants to support the process until the planned launch of the SWAP in October – November 2006.
2. Demand Assessment
2.1 The Present Situation and Institutional Set-up
The overall resource allocation and financial planning in the W&S sector in Kenya takes place through the budgeting process steered by the MoF. In the planning and budgeting set-up, the W&S sector is regarded as a sub-sector of the ‘Physical Infrastructure Sector’. The achievements of the W&S sub-sector as well as the plans for the next 3 years are described in an annual ‘Physical Infrastructure Sector MTEF Report’, based on the Ministerial Public Expenditure Review (MPER) Report, prepared by MWI in November – December each year. The current report dated February 2006 covers the period 2006/07 to 2008/09. The report provides an overview over the Government of Kenya (GoK) and on-budget donor funding to the sector.
The Ministry of Planning and National Development (MoPND) together with the MoF provides guidance to the planning and budgeting process and sets the ceilings for sector spending. The ceilings cover the GoK budgets including the on-budget donor support.
The institutional set-up in the water sector is illustrated on Figure 2-A. This diagram has been used during the reform process to describe the institutional responsibilities – irrigation is not included as this sub-sector was not part of the water sector reforms.
Figure 2-A: Institutional Set-up in the Water Sector
Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI)
In the new institutional set-up the MWI is responsible for development of legislation, policy formulation, sector coordination and guidance, and monitoring and evaluation. The process of operationalising the reforms is led by the MWI and in particular by the Water Sector Reform Secretariat (WSRS) within the ministry. The MWI has 3 Directorates: Water (overseeing water resources management and water service provision), Irrigation (Irrigation and Drainage Department (IDD) developing and implementing smallholder irrigation and National Irrigation Board (NIB) for large schemes) and Land Reclamation (land reclamation, water and irrigation activities especially in the Arid and Semi-arid Lands (ASAL) Areas[1]).
The MWI is presently undergoing a transformation process to implement the reforms and revise the organisational set-up and the staffing levels to correspond to the new institutional set-up in the water sector. The transformation includes changes to staffing of MWI and a Human Resource Management Strategy and plan for Capacity Building[2] has been prepared by the ministry. The MWI organisational restructuring process is lead by an inter-ministerial team headed by the Permanent Secretary Public Sector Reform and is expected to be completed before the end of June 2006.
Water Appeal Board
The Water Appeal Board (WAB) will arbitrate in water related disputes and conflicts. The Chairman was appointed in early 2005, however the board is not yet operational as decision on membership has been delayed and is only now ready for submission to Attorney General for approval.
Water Resources Management
The organisational structures related to water resources management and the roles and responsibilities[3] are:
Figure 2-B Map of WRMA Catchment areas
Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA)
– Management, protection and conservation of water resources;
– Allocation, apportionment, assessment and monitoring of water resources;
– Issuance of water permits;
– Water rights and enforcement of permit conditions;
– Catchment and water quality management;
– Coordination of the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Plan.
Catchments Area Advisory Committees (CAACs) in each of 6 river basins:
– Advising WRMA on water resources issues at catchment level.
Water Resource Users Associations (WRUAs) at local level:
– Involvement in decision making process to identify and register water user;
– Collaboration in water allocation and catchments management;
– Assisting in water monitoring and information gathering;
– Conflict resolution and co-operative management of water resources.
The national office for WRMA was established during the 2004/05 Financial Year (FY). All 6 regional offices have been established this FY with office space, furniture, transport, e-mail etc. with staff seconded from MWI. The CAACs were gazetted in September 2005, have all been inaugurated and have had 1-2 meetings and made tours of the catchment areas. There are some practical issues to be resolved to clarify their role as an advisory body vis-à-vis the role of the WRMA regional and sub-regional offices. 6 Sub-regional offices have been established, each covering sub-catchments, typically 3 – 4 districts. Approximately 10 more are in various stages of establishment and by the end of the year there will be 15 - 20 operational. The final target according to the operational plan is 25 sub-regional offices. A number of WRUAs are active and perform the water resource management duties at the lowest level.
The main sources of funding for water resources management are the GoK recurrent and capital budgets (Kshs 500 – 600 million for the 2005/06 FY[4]) and the contribution from the Kenya Water and Sanitation Programme (KWSP) for water resources management (Kshs 272 million for the 2005/06 FY). In addition World Bank (WB) funded Water Resources Management (WRM) activities as part of a Natural Resource Management project are in the last stages of formulation with appraisal planned for April 2006. The project will be implemented under the Presidents Office, jointly by the WRMA and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MoENR). The project will focus on WRM in western Kenya and in the upper Tana Catchments and include funding for implementation of dams and water harvesting structures.
Water and Sanitation Service Provision
The organisational structures related to provision of water and sanitation services and their roles and responsibilities are:
|Water Service Board |Districts |Km2 |Population |
| | | |(1999) |
|Athi WSB |6 |40,130 |5,617,000 |
|Tana WSB |13 |52,777 |5,032,000 |
|Coast WSB |7 |82,816 |2,487,000 |
|Rift Valley WSB |8 |113,771 |2,999,000 |
|Lake Victoria North WSB |11 |16,977 |5,135,000 |
|Lake Victoria South WSB |16 |20,340 |5,730,000 |
|Ewaso Nyiro WSB |9 |244,864 |1,703,000 |
|Total |70 |571,675 |28,703,000 |
Water Services Regulatory Board (WSRB):
– Regulation and monitoring of Water Services Boards;
– Issuance of licenses to Water Services Boards;
– Setting standards for provision of water services;
– Developing guidelines for water tariffs.
Figure 2-C Map of WSB Areas
Water Services Boards (WSBs):
– Responsible for efficient and economical provision of water services;
– Developing water facilities;
– Applying regulations on water services and tariffs;
– Procuring and leasing water and sewerage facilities;
– Contracting Water Service Providers (WSPs).
Water Service Providers (WSPs):
– Provision of water and sewerage services.
All 7 WSBs are established and in different stages of operationalising their functions and fulfilling their mandate. The Athi WSB was established first and therefore further than the other WSBs in implementation of the transfer process and establishing WSPs for the water systems.
A transfer plan is in progress[5] transferring the responsibility for management of the previously MWI operated water systems to WSPs and the ownership of assets to the WSBs. The transfer also include providing a framework for WSBs to make arrangements for water facilities owned by Local Government Authorities (LGAs) as well as facilities owned by Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), Community Based Organisations (CBOs) and community self-help groups. The transfer process is ongoing and the target for the WSBs to enter into WSP agreements for all the existing schemes is end of June 2006.
The new institutional set-up for W&S service provision implies that users of a rural scheme will form a trust that will be the WSP and employ the operational staff. GoK will continue to pay salaries for 3 years to the operators that have previously been employed by GoK to assist the WSPs to get established. From 1st of July the revenue will no longer be paid to treasury but remain with the WSP and training in financial management for the WSPs is ongoing. The assets of the GoK owned schemes will be transferred to the WSB who will lease them to the WSPs. Compilation of assets registers is presently ongoing. The community owned schemes will continue to be owned by the users who will operate as a WSP under their own arrangement.
Water Services Trust Fund (WSTF):
– Financing provision of water and sanitation to disadvantaged groups.
The WSTF is established and operational. The current funding that has been provided for the WSTF and the expenditures to February 2006 are shown on Figure 2-D. 47 projects have received funding from the WSTF.
The National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation (NWCPC)
The functions of the NWCPC are defined in the Water Act 2002.
The NWCPC is not expected in the future to operate water systems, except in emergency situations as defined by the WSRB. The NWCPC will continue to develop and manage assets for provision of bulk water supply and other works as directed by the Minister. Presently the NWCPC is mostly constructing dams and pans for water harvesting and drilling of boreholes funded directly by the GoK development budget. From the 2006/07 FY the funding for NWCPC construction activities is expected to come from the development budgets for the respective WSBs. This will ensure that the structures undertaken by the NWCPC are included in the planning of the WSBs. Memorandum of Understanding between the NWCPC and the WSBs have been established to guide the coordination between the institutions.
According to NWCPC, the organisation has the ability to provide prompt action when required e.g. in the current case of drought by avoiding the sometimes tedious tendering procedures. Another reason for using NWCPC as an official GoK contractor is to control prices for construction of water facilities. All construction work by the WSBs should be coordinated with the NWCPC like dam construction, development of new and rehabilitation and expansion of the existing W&S facilities[6]. NWCPC is only expected to undertake major engineering projects like dams and major water pipelines and flood control measures while small projects like boreholes should be done by the WSBs when they have the required capacity.
There seems to be different opinions on the role of NWCPC in the sector. In the new water sector institutions the view is that NWCPC should purely be a contractor and not involved in design and planning. However, NWCPC is of the opinion that it has capacity for planning and design in addition to construction and that this should be utilised. NWCPC might have useful capacity for meeting the requirements of the WSBs and WSPs in management and operations. These capacities should be made available to the WSBs and WSPs in an open, transparent and competitive process in order to ensure the WSPs and WSBs could fulfil their roles and responsibilities as early as possible with maximum competence and therefore make the entire reform more credible.
The NWCPC is not getting support from Development Partners (DPs) – possibly due to uncertainty concerning the role of NWCPC in the new sector framework. There is also a need to clarify the role in relation to multi-purpose facilities e.g. dams for hydropower between the Ministry of Energy which develops dams for hydropower, the MWI and the Regional Development Authorities (RDAs) under the Ministry of Regional Development Authorities (MoRDA).
Kenya Water Institute (KEWI)
KEWI trains existing government staff and new students however the majority are government employees and employees of the various WSBs. The curriculum is on the whole water cycle from source to supply in the water services and irrigation sector as well as water conservation. KEWI also carry out research as a recently developed department within the institute. The main courses and qualifications obtained are:
a) Higher Diploma in water engineering
b) Diploma in Water Engineering (Modular)
c) Certificate in Water Engineering (Modular)
d) Certificate in Water & Wastewater Laboratory Technology
e) Operators and Allied Personnel Courses
f) Short Courses
Currently KEWI has partnership with Arche (an NGO through French embassy and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)) and German Technical Cooperation (GTZ).
Irrigation and Drainage
The National Irrigation Board (NIB) was established in 1966[7] with a mandate to develop and manage 9 national irrigation settlement schemes in specified gazetted areas. NIB took over the management and operation of the Mwea, Hola and Perkerra schemes and later developed the Ahero, West Kano, Bunyala and Bura schemes and expanded the Mwea and Hola schemes. NIB budget comes from GoK/MWI (approx. Kshs 100 million) and from BADEA (approx Kshs 80 Million).
The Small Scale Irrigation Unit was created in the Ministry of Agriculture in 1977 to coordinate the development of small-scale irrigation schemes. The unit was upgraded and renamed the Irrigation and Drainage Branch in 1978, and is now the Irrigation and Drainage Department (IDD) in the MWI, with the main objective of promoting the development of smallholder (farmer-managed) irrigation and drainage schemes. Smallholder schemes are classified into two categories i) Schemes where the irrigation structures are operated and maintained by Water Undertakers e.g. NGOs and ii) Schemes where the Irrigation Water User Associations (IWUA) have full responsibility for water supply, distribution and the accompanying operation and maintenance (O&M) activities. There are 3000 smallholder schemes operated by IWUAs under the guidance and support from IDD. IDD gets finance from GoK and Donors (Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and German Financial Cooperation (KFW)) for development of new irrigation projects. The workplan for this year include 7 projects in 5 districts. IDD has engineers in 61 districts that design new projects after application from the farmers and assist IWUAs in implementation and operation and maintenance (O&M).
Regional Development Authorities (RDAs) were formed from 1980, and given broad mandates for regional development that included irrigation. The RDAs started by developing institutional commercial farms and later also community based irrigation schemes. Examples of RDA schemes are Yala Swamp by Lake Basin Development Authority, Sigor by Kerio Valley Development Authority, Kibwezi and Tana Delta by Tana and Athi River Development Authority. RDAs must generate revenue from their investments so the schemes are not handed over to NIB.
Figure 2-E Irrigated Areas
The development of private commercial irrigation schemes started in the 1960s in sugarcane, coffee and pineapple estates and in the late 1980s for production of fruits, vegetables, cut flowers and other high- value crops mainly for export. Most private schemes are found around Naivasha, Athi River, Nanyuki, Nairobi and in several parts of Central Province.
The development of private, national and small holder schemes are shown in Figure 2-E[8]
Problem areas in the Irrigation sub-sector have been identified as
– Absence of clear coordination among the many actors leading to poor planning and haphazard interventions.
– Development of expensive and unsustainable irrigation and drainage schemes;
– Conflicts among public sector actors e.g. between NIB and some RDAs in resource mobilisation and operational areas,
– Conflicts between IDD and some RDAs in approaches to smallholder scheme development;
– Lack of adequate coordination and regulation leading to conflicts among beneficiaries sharing irrigation water or river systems.
Some institutional confusion appears in the WRM and Irrigation sector. Clearance of roles and responsibilities also to the extent of termination of institutions is required. The existence of state-owned and private irrigation schemes as well as WRM programmes does not mean that each sub-sector requires its own institutional structure with overlapping functions and responsibilities.
The current involvement of many public sector actors leads to a thin spread of human and financial resources and has resulted in duplication of efforts and slow pace of development. In the effort to improve the draft policy it is proposed that government will:
– Create a regulatory body to set targets, standards and guidelines for irrigation and drainage research and development and another body to be responsible for irrigation and drainage development and research under the ministry responsible for irrigation and drainage;
– Continue being responsible for policy formulation and its implementation through the ministry responsible for irrigation and drainage; and
– Promote the formation of Water Users Associations in the irrigation and drainage schemes and empower them.
The draft policy on irrigation and drainage from March 2004 has not been addressed by cabinet yet. The aim will be to harmonise the NIB act and develop a new act covering all irrigation activities, as the activities under the IDD are not covered by an act. There is a need to reassess the draft policy since it is not taking the water sector reforms into account as the IDD was in the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) when the policy formulation started. The institutional set-up is not well aligned with the principles of the water sector reforms, e.g. separation of service provision from regulation. The process is ongoing and the IDD has budgeted for continuation of the policy and strategy development process in the 2006-07 FY.
Water Sector Funding
The current sources of funding for W&S service provision are:
– GoK capital and recurrent budgets
– DP funding on budget
– DP funding off budget
– Loan funding
– NGO funding
– Private investments
– User payment of tariffs and connection fees
The current levels of GoK and on-budget donor funding are illustrated in Figure 2-F based on the MWI MPER Report 2005 and approximate sub-division in sub-sectors/ institutions like NWCPC and KEWI. The proportion of GoK to on-budget donor funding is shown on Figure 2-G indicating that GoK provide approximately 60% of the budget.
The effectiveness of the GoK budgeting and financial management processes can be illustrated by actual expenditure versus budgets as shown in Figure 2-H. The development budget is generally only utilised 60% - 75% while the recurrent budget has been both over and under spent. The inefficiencies in financial management is according to MoF deficiencies in line ministries in submission of accurate returns and according to MWI delays is allocation of funding to line ministries e.g. funding made available in the last month of the FY.
Figure 2-H Expenditures vs Budgets
Information on the total funding to the water sector in Kenya is not readily available, especially the funding provided through NGO projects is not easily accessible. The map below in Figure 2-I illustrates the activities by different NGOs in the water sector, especially in relation to drought affected districts.
Figure 2-I Map indicating W&S activities of organisations in drought affected districts
[pic]
The Water and Sanitation Programme – Africa (WSP-AF) undertook a study of sector finance and resource flows for water supply in Kenya in 2003/04[9] that provides valuable insight into the overall distribution of funding to the sector. Although the study did not include irrigation, the overall proportion of funding between various sources as illustrated in Figure 2-J can probably be used as a good indicator for the general funding distribution in the water sector. It indicates that the GoK and on-budget donor funding only represents 38% of the total funding in the W&S sector based on 2000/01 expenditures.
An interesting aspect in relation to the new institutional set-up in the sector is that local authority budgets in 200/01 contributed 17% of the total W&S sector budget – this part will in the future need to be replaced by improved revenue generation by WSPs to cover previous subsidies by LGAs for service provision.
Figure 2-K presents an attempt to show a picture of the GoK/donor funding to the W&S sector. The amounts are based on the MTEF paper for the GoK funding[10] and the information that has been collected from sector stakeholders and the Project Matrix developed by the Water Sector Technical Group (WSTG). The figures are only indicative as annual expenditures for some of the donor funding have been based on the limited information available.
Figure 2-K Estimated Water Sector Funding
It appears from Figure 2-K that the WB, Agence Française de Développement (AFD) and KFW together with the GoK are the main funding agencies in the sector in terms of amount of funding. The KWSP with the funding from Swedish International Development Assistance (Sida) and Danish International Development Assistance (Danida) is also contributing substantially across the different sub-sectors with a programmatic approach that includes investments as well as institutional development.
2.2 Sector Coordination
National Level Coordination
A number of regular coordination meetings takes place within the top management of the GoK some of which in relation to the water sector are:
– Monthly meetings of the Permanent Secretaries (PSs) chaired by the Head of the Civil Service;
– Kenya Food Security Committee with monthly meetings between PSs and senior staff of relevant ministries related to food security;
– Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources with monthly meetings between PSs from ministries related to agriculture and natural resources;
– East Africa/ Lake Victoria Infrastructure Committee with quarterly meetings between PSs from countries bordering the Lake Victoria;
– Lake Victoria Environmental Management Programme meetings;
– Nile Basin Commission with regular bi-monthly meetings between countries in the Nile Basin;
– National Economic and Social Council (NESC).
Within the Physical Infrastructure Sector, coordination takes place in the Sector Working Group as part of the MTEF budgeting process. The Physical Infrastructure Sector does not include key line ministries linked to water such as MoA and MoLFD, MoEST and MoH and is therefore not very effective in the coordination between MWI and the water related ministries.
The overall coordination in the water sector between the GoK and DPs take place in the ‘Water Sector Working Group’ (WSWG) that has membership from the water sector institutions, other ministries with links to the water sector and the DPs active in the sector. The WSWG meetings are chaired by the PS of MWI and the group meets regularly on a bi-monthly basis.
|Members of the Water Sector Working Group (WSWG) |
|MWI and Water Sector Institutions |Development Partners |
|MWI Principal Secretary (Chairman) |Agence Française de Développement (AFD) |
|MWI Director Water |German Financial Cooperation (KFW) |
|MWI Deputy Director |German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) |
|MWI Head of Water Sector Reform Secretariat |Swedish International Dev. Assistance (Sida) |
|CEO of WSRB |Danish International Dev. Assistance (Danida) |
|CEO of WSTF |World Bank (WB) |
|CEOs for the 7 WSBs |Water and Sanitation Programme - Africa (WSP-AF) |
|CEO of WRMA |United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) |
|CEO of NWCPC |Netherlands Development Assistance |
|CEO of National Irrigation Board |Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) |
|Ministries related to the water sector |Department for International Development (DFID) |
|Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources |German Agro Action |
|Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development | |
|Ministry of Health | |
|Members of the Water and Sanitation Technical Group (WSTG) |
|Agence Française de Développement (AFD) Present Co-chair |
|German Financial Cooperation (KFW) Present Co-chair |
|German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) |
|French Embassy |
|Austrian Development Agency |
|Swedish International Dev. Assistance (Sida) |
|Danish International Dev. Assistance (Danida) |
|World Bank (WB) |
|Water and Sanitation Programme - Africa (WSP-AF) |
|United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) |
|United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UN-HABITAT) |
|Netherlands Development Assistance |
|Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) |
|Department for International Development – United Kingdom |
|(DFID) |
Coordination between the DPs also takes place through meetings in the Water and Sanitation Technical Group (WSTG) that is a forum of the DPs active in the water sector that meets every 2 months in between the WSWG meetings to discuss issues and share information on activities in the W&S sector. The WSTG and WSWG meetings are purposely alternating so that the frequency is regular and high. Coordination in the sanitation sub-sector between national and international stakeholders is not developed and needs to be improved.
The WSWG and WSTG are part of an overall coordination system in the foreign aid structure for Kenya consisting of the HAC-Group[11] which assists the Development Counsellors Group (DCG). These are all working on the preparation and implementation of a Kenya Joint Assistance Strategy (KJAS) which should help focussing foreign and national aid to enhance implementation of the ERS. The water sector is represented in the coordination fora and the sector’s role can be enhanced through the establishment and consolidation of a SWAP.
Joint funding with GoK is provided to the water sector from Sida and Danida through the KWSP. Coordination of funding through GTZ is documented in Joint Financing Agreements (JFAs) and similar agreements between the KWSP and UNICEF for the funding to RWSS from the Netherlands Government are in the process of being established.
The JFAs are interesting for the establishment of the SWAP for the water sector as the purpose and aims are very much related to the SWAP process. The JFAs aim at:
– facilitating the implementation of reforms and development activities in the water sector by promoting harmonisation and enhanced coordination of internal and external resources.
– increasing openness and transparency by promoting a common format for information sharing, dialogue and consultation between sector institutions, other stakeholders and DPs and thereby contribute to the introduction of a SWAP and eventually MTEF-based budget support to the sector.
The consultative process agreed in the JFA includes annual Joint Programme Reviews (JPRs) to review programme progress and performance in the previous financial year in relation to long-term sector indicators and specific targets and outputs according to Annual Work Plan for the previous financial year. The JPRs also review the progress for the current financial year and the Forward Work Plan and budget and strategic issues for the forth-coming financial year. The JPRs provide an opportunity to assess and approve/ reject proposed modifications to the agreed programme and for discussing strategic sector issues with sector stakeholders.
Joint Technical Reviews (JTRs) are held 6 months after the JPR to review progress with regard to the agreed upon annual workplan for the current financial year, and follow up on the issues agreed upon at the JPR. The JTR will review the preparations of the forward workplan. Quarterly review meetings provide for consultations and adjustments regarding current matters between the JPRs and the JTRs.
The coordination arrangements include establishment of a ‘Water and Sanitation Programme Coordination Committee’ (WSPCC); and a ‘Water and Sanitation Programme Procurement and Finance Sub-Committee’ (WSPPFC). The mandate of the WSPCC includes assessment of reports and work plans/ budgets and recommendations for subsequent decisions by GoK and DPs. The WSPPFC shall monitor financial and progress reporting; foresee problem related to the financial control of expenditure and suggesting solutions; propose and supervise common reporting and auditing systems; monitor tracking and value for money studies; review and advise on procurement procedures. The WSPCC is intended to be a forum for coordination in general in the sector between the WSBs, WRMA and MWI and has so far been an effective tool for the coordination of the KWSP activities. The WSPPFC has not yet been effective mainly due to issues of appointing the membership.
Outside the KWSP activities, the coordination between MWI and DPs related to WSS service provision takes place through the WSWG.
Coordination between the stakeholders involved in irrigation and drainage activities is not well developed. At the government level overall coordination between the IDD and NIB takes place as the Director of Irrigation is a board member of NIB, however at the more practical level there is limited coordination in planning of infrastructure development as the two institutions implement their own projects and there is no forum for coordination between different DPs. The DPs tend to have their own priorities e.g. JICA will presently only fund projects in Central and Southern Kenya. The coordination with the NWCPC for planning of projects only takes place through the information that is shared through the budgeting process in MWI. There are also NGOs active in the irrigation sector but there is no information in IDD or coordination of the NGO activities with the IDD activities. IDD get information on NGO activities through field visits and newspapers.
When RDAs plan new schemes the IDD is invited through a inter-ministerial committee for appraisal of the scheme. Coordination is important at an earlier stage in the planning to utilise information and previous studies. It has happened that a RDA undertakes studies in the same area that has earlier been done by the NWCPC or the IDD and visa versa.
In the agricultural sector there is not yet a process of developing a SWAP, however, there are programmes which improve sector coordination such as the ‘Strategy for Re-fertilization of Agriculture’ between MoA and Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development (MoLFD), the ‘National Agriculture and Livestock Programme’ defining how the two ministries of Agriculture and Livestock can deliver services efficiently and the ‘Kenya Agricultural Productivity Programme’ aiming at enhancing agriculture productivity in the greater agricultural sector. These programmes do however not seem to include MWI as a main partner.
Coordination takes place between different ministries via the budgeting process for ministries within the same sector. MWI is in the infrastructure sector however there limited need for coordination between water and e.g. roads. In contrast there is much need for coordination between the MWI and the MoENR, MoA and MoLFD which is not taking place since these ministries are all in the agricultural sector.
2.3 Harmonisation and Alignment
General Harmonisation and alignment of procedures[12]
Various international conferences on aid modalities have taken place over the last few years. In summary the main results and agreements are:
Monterrey 2002
1. Increase aid and improve ODA targeting to the poor.
2. Partner countries commitment to strengthen policies and institutions that stimulates growth and reduce poverty
3. Use development frameworks owned and driven by partner countries.
4. Untie aid.
Rome 2003
1. Increased harmonisation of donor policies, practices and procedures.
2. Development assistance delivered in accordance with partner country priorities, incl. PRS.
3. Reduce donor missions, reviews, and reporting, streamline conditionalities and donor procedures and practices, incl. for TA.
4. Increase the flexibility of donor country-based staff (decentralisation).
5. Increase provision of budget or sector support.
Marrakech 2004
1. Focus on results in programme preparation, implementation and evaluation.
2. Manage for not by results.
3. Align with agreed country-owned results frameworks, incl. PRS.
4. Keep results-reporting simple and rely on country systems.
5. Use results information for management learning and decision making.
Paris, 2005
Governments should
1. Prepare operational development strategies (PRS, sector strategies) linked to MTEF and reflected in annual budgets.
2. Encourage broad participation of national actors in setting development priorities.
3. Undertake necessary reforms of procurement and public financial management systems.
4. Integrate capacity development objectives in national dev. strategies.
5. Publish timely, transparent and reliable reporting on budget execution.
6. Make progress towards building institutions and establishing effective governance structures.
7. Establish results-oriented frameworks to assess progress against national and sector strategies.
Donors should
1. Support partner capacity to exercise country leadership.
2. Align around national priorities/ aid flows to government sector is reported on partners’ national budgets.
3. Avoid creating dedicated structures for programme management.
4. Provide reliable indicative commitments of aid over a multi-year framework.
5. Progressively rely on partner systems for procurement.
6. Untie aid.
7. Implement donor action plans.
8. Implement common arrangements at country level and increase use of programme-based aid modalities.
9. Reduce the number of separate missions.
10. Support joint analytic work
11. Avoid performance indicators not consistent with partners’ national strategies.
12. Rely on partners’ results-oriented reporting and monitoring frameworks.
13. Harmonise monitoring and reporting requirements with other donors.
The GoK is a signatory of the Rome agreement on donor harmonization. The new strategy for economic growth with poverty reduction is defined in its Investment Program for the Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (IP-ERS). The IP-ERS was developed through a participatory process and is based on three interlinked pillars:
– Economic growth, supported by reforms of financial services and an expansion of investments in infrastructure;
– Equity and poverty reduction, which would be aided by actions to improve the access of the poor to basic services (education, health, and HIV/AIDS), and the revival of agricultural growth;
– Governance, including strengthening public safety, law, and order.
GoK has a programme to improve governance. It has enacted the Anti-Corruption Act, the Public Officer Ethics Act, and the Public Audit Act. GoK has also established the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, which is responsible for policy on administration of justice, law reform, anti-corruption strategies, integrity and ethics, legal sector reform, legal aid and advisory services.
The DPs committed themselves to implement the harmonization agenda following a meeting of the Strategic Partnership for Africa. The GoK agreed to convene meetings with the donors every two months, to discuss and reach agreement on coordinated interventions in support of the implementation of the IP-ERS. The WB is taking a lead role in improving coordination at both the general and sectoral level. The GoK is now in the process of establishing a Kenya Joint Assistance Strategy (KJAS) with the DPs. The KJAS is expected to be complete before the end of 2006. GoK has adopted a SWAP in the Governance, Justice, Law and Order sector (GJLOS) and initiated development of SWAPs for education and the health sectors.
Public Expenditure Management
Public Expenditure Management in Kenya is weak as indicated by i) a big gap between the original (printed) budget and outturn, and ii) a huge stock of expenditure arrears. As a result, the budget is an ineffective instrument for strategic linking of resources and spending. However, budget support is the preferred form of donor assistance for GoK and the government is taking actions to create the conditions for direct budget support, e.g. in revising the budget cycle/process. A focal point has been created in the MoF in the Office of the Internal Auditor General to coordinate the reform programme.
A joint DFID-WB Country Financial Accountability Assessment was completed in 2001. A Public Expenditure Management Assessment and Action Plan (PEMAAP) was undertaken by the International Monetary Fund the WB in collaboration with the GoK, DFID and European Commission in May 2003. GoK prepared an action plan for enhanced financial management in the public sector that incorporates recommendations of the financial accountability assessment and the PEMAAP.
Kenya’s Public Financial Management systems have been regularly assessed since 2003 using the sixteen standard benchmarks established under the PEMAAP framework. A Country Integrated Fiduciary Assessment (CIFA) was prepared in early 2005. It confirms that GoK now meets five of the sixteen standard benchmarks. The procurement systems benchmark has not been met. The PEMAAP assessments and the CIFA have focused on budget formulation, execution, reporting and procurement.
The procurement system is weak. The Public Procurement and Disposal Bill has been amended to further strengthen the provisions relating to security and defence purchases. It was signed by the President in early November 2005.
The GoK jointly with the WB, Sida and other DPs launched the Poverty Map report in November 2005, containing the first geo-referenced database of poverty and inequality estimates for the country. GoK has established a framework for Monitoring and Evaluation in the IP-ERS. The first Annual Progress Report of the IP-ERS was prepared in March 2005 with support from development partners, stakeholders and representatives of civil society.
A joint overall public financial management reform plan implemented by MoF include the establishment of an integrated financial management information system which is expected to substantially improve the financial management, in terms of improved transparency, timeliness of processes and a better overview of financial transactions.
The Rome Declaration on Harmonisation acknowledged that differing and complex donor procedures are a burden on partners’ financial and administrative systems and constrain ownership and capacity development. The Rome Declaration committed donors to pursue the harmonisation of their procedures and practices and, wherever possible, to integrate fully development assistance into the financial management and accountability framework of the implementing partner. A number of donor agencies agreed a joint action plan for effective aid delivery through the harmonisation and alignment of their practices. A Joint Procurement Policy was developed to encourage a harmonised approach, amongst donors[13], to procurement activities.
Purpose and coverage of the Joint Procurement Policy:
The purpose is to ensure that procurement activities contribute to the Millennium Declaration, the Millennium Development Goals and poverty reduction – by converting the statements in the Rome declaration and other joint statements into a policy on procurement. The policy:
i. Sets out the guiding principles for deciding who should undertake and be accountable for the procurement of goods, services and works, irrespective of the aid modality or partner through which the assistance is channelled.
ii. Forms an element of all programmes and projects as well as of the policy dialogue between development partners.
iii. Describes appropriate procedures for assessment of procurement capacity and various implementation options.
iv. Ensures that responsibilities and risks are appropriately managed, and that accountability is safeguarded.
v. Eradicates ad-hoc practices.
vi. Supports harmonisation and alignment.
Key policy principles
i. Public procurement activities should ensure economy and efficiency while upholding the principles of equal treatment, transparency and zero tolerance towards corruption;
ii. Whenever a partner has the appropriate procurement capacity, and the partner and donor have agreed to use donor funds for procurement, procurement should be aligned to partner systems, i.e. the partner will undertake the procurement activities;
iii. When procurement capacity is assessed as insufficient, donors will jointly support the partners’ procurement capacity development in order to enable them to undertake procurement;
iv. The party that undertakes procurement activities should be fully accountable for its procurement actions and decisions.
Harmonisation and alignment in the Water Sector
In the Kenyan water sector, harmonisation and alignment of structures and procedures takes place mainly through the structures of the WSWG and the WSTG and for the participants in the KWSP through the WSPCC, the WSPPFC and the JFAs as described above.
The new institutional framework in the water sector provides a good opportunity for harmonising procedures in the sector. The WSTF is via its mandate a vehicle that potentially can harmonise procedures for funding and service provision in particular in the rural water and sanitation sector. The WSTF is presently funding projects with resources from the GOK, Danida and Sida and is likely in the near future also to administer funding from the Netherlands through the UNICEF programme and from the African Development Bank (AfDB) under the rural water and sanitation initiative. The WRMA revenues from water permits are proposed to be channelled to the WSTF and as a common funding mechanism for GoK and DP funding the WSTF has the potential to become a valuable tool in the implementation of the SWAP.
The establishment of the new institutions responsible for water and service provision, (the WSBs and especially the WSRB that will provide a uniform regulatory framework for the WSBs and WSPs) is also an important aspect of harmonising the procedures for cooperation and funding to the sector.
Matrix 1.1 in annex C summarises the present situation in terms of organisational structure, sources of funding, harmonisation, coordination and alignment of structures and procedures for the water sector and the sub-sectors respectively.
2.4 Major current stakeholders
The background documentation and the consultations reveal that the water sector in Kenya is complex and has many stakeholders that need to be taken into account if a SWAP for the entire sector is to be successful. The roles of all the stakeholders need to be identified and analysed so that the process of establishing the SWAP can take these into account so that the participation in the SWAP coordination can be structured in an effective manner and prioritised to the key stakeholders initially.
The stakeholders that are regarded by MoF as important in the W&S Sub-sector are listed in the Physical Infrastructure Sector MTEF Report[14] and the textbox on the right. Notably, the Ministry of Health (MoH), the Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) and the MoPND are not included in the list.
Ministry of Health
The cooperation with MoH is important since this ministry has mandate, expertise and capacity in relation to sanitation and hygiene education. Effective promotion of integrated hygiene, sanitation and water programmes is important for achieving health impact of water and sanitation investments. The cooperation between the water sector and the MoH is important in order to develop a sanitation strategy that is complementing water service delivery strategy.
The full mandate to MoH on sanitation and hygiene is articulated through the presidential circular No. 1 of 24th September 2004. Sanitation and hygiene are MoH core functions on a continuous basis – MWI only deals with sanitation and hygiene through projects. Currently, a MoU between the two ministries is being developed. The MoH has developed a draft National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy[15]. The vision, goals and key elements of the policy are:
National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy
Vision: As a basic human right, all Kenyans should enjoy a quality of life with dignity in a hygienic and sanitary environment and be free from suffering any ill health caused by poor sanitation. Our vision is to create an enabling environment in which all Kenyans will be motivated to improve their hygiene behaviour and sanitation facilities, and they will have access to the necessary support to achieve this.
Goals: By the year 2015, as a contribution to Kenya attaining the Millennium Development Goals, we want to achieve the following:
1. All households will be educated and made aware of the importance and need for improved ESH practices for improved health, resulting in positive changes in behaviour.
2. Every school community and 90 percent of households will have access to, and make use of, hygienic, affordable, functional, and sustainable toilet and handwashing facilities.
3. All households and their immediate surroundings will be clean and free from solid waste and unpleasant odours, and will have adequate drainage.
4. The national incidence of preventable sanitation-related diseases will be halved.
Key building blocks: In order to effect widespread behaviour change and improvement of facilities, the following building blocks will, among others, be needed:
1. A nationwide, gender-sensitive campaign for hygiene promotion and marketing to stimulate changed behaviour and household demand for improved facilities
2. Information on a range, or ladder, of safe sanitation options with clear implications for aiding household choice
3. Training and support for private sector builders and operators of sanitation facilities, assisting them to make sanitation improvement into a viable and attractive business
4. Clear standards and guidelines for provision or improvement of sanitation facilities that are environmentally, technically, and financially appropriate, child friendly, and gender sensitive
5. Training and support for public health officers and technicians, other public officials, and community workers to enable them to facilitate and monitor sanitation improvements
6. Recognition of the Ministry of Health as the national lead agency for on-site sanitation, supported in this role by all other national ministries and public institutions
7. A high-level mechanism to ensure coordination with other interested parties
8. Prioritised and increased commitment of public money to creating and facilitating the above activities
9. Consistent public finance policies to reduce inappropriate choices by public authorities and households
10. Credit arrangements for households and small service providers
Notably in relation to the water sector SWAP is the key building block number 6 and 7 emphasising the need for support from other line ministries and public institutions to MoH to fulfil its role in environmental sanitation and the need for a high level mechanism to ensure coordination with other parties.
The Health Sector MTEF Report[16] indicates that deliberate policy and budgetary steps are taken to shift resources away from curative to preventive services (p 6) – however it is worth noting that the words ‘hygiene’, ‘sanitation’, ‘water borne’ are not found in the 35 page report. The budget allocated for environmental health is only 0.6% of the total possibly indicating less priority by MoH on preventive hygiene interventions.
The water sector SWAP will need close links with the MoH and the ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST) in the field of water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion in schools.
Ministry of Local Government
The cooperation and coordination with MoLG seems to be important to facilitate that the new WSBs finds effective ways of working with the LGAs in planning of new infrastructure and service provision and to foster good relations between the local structures like the CAACs and WRUAs and the LGAs. The mandate in relation to W&S service provision as expressed by the MoLG is to provide technical and legal assistance to WSPs and to continue owning assets and hire them out to WSPs. The LGAs have previously provided almost 20% of the funding to the water sector and cooperation in the transfer process seems very important both at local and WSB level as well as at national level.
The Association of Local Government Authorities of Kenya (ALGAK) can be an important stakeholder to represent the views of the various LGAs in the SWAP coordination structures. In Kenya there are LGA at various levels: 1 City Council (Nairobi), 45 Municipal Councils, 62 Town Councils and 67 County Councils.
Ministry of Planning and National Development
The involvement of ministries with coordinative functions such as MoF, MoPND and the Office of the President in the SWAP processes is crucial to ensuring that the sector-based efforts towards coordination and collaboration are properly reflected in the national budget, MTEF and other regulations. The MoPND is responsible for determining sector ceilings and therefore very important as a partner in the planning with the different DPs contributing with funding to the sector. The involvement of the coordinative ministries as convenors or co-convenors of meetings could facilitate cooperation between the line ministries.
The MoPND seems to be a key partner in sector planning and coordination as well as monitoring and evaluation of sector performance. The functions of the Ministry are shown in the text box below and these all reflect functions that link to the SWAP for the water sector in terms of planning as well as establishing the sector performance monitoring framework. The Bureau of Statistics falls under the MoPND.
Functions of the Ministry of Planning and National Development
1. Improve policy formulation, planning and implementation for national development through:
– Spearheading national planning process through short, medium term and long term plans
– Ensuring a participatory public policy making that is transparent and accountable at national, district and lower levels (including constituency levels)
– Establishing a supportive framework for national planning co ordination, monitoring and reporting
– Re engineering the DFRD to ensure beneficiaries are more intensely involved
– Establishing links and feedback mechanisms with other national policy institutions, Ministries and departments
– Establish clear links with the Ministry of Finance for better planning- budgeting linkages, including improvement of the MTEF
2. Improving the effectiveness of public expenditure management through:
– Institutionalisation of the Public Expenditure Review (PER) process
– Delivering an appropriate institutional and legal mechanism for implementation of Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys in all ministries and departments
– Institutionalising programme/project vetting for efficiency and effectiveness and to avoid duplication of efforts by key stakeholders
3. Improve the capacity of the national statistical system to enable it to collect, collate, analyse and disseminate statistical information through:
– Restructuring the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) through an amendment of the Statistics Act to create the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) an autonomous body (SAGA)
– Implement the Strategic plan of the CBS to build its capacity
– Establish a National Statistical System (NSS) comprising users and suppliers of official statistics
– Put in place an M&E framework to monitor implementation of statistical development programmes
4. Develop and implement sound population and management policies through:
– Operationalise National Coordinating Agency for Population and Development (NCAPD) a SAGA with autonomy hence with more flexibility to respond to population related issues
– Enhance research and policy analysis capacity of the NACPD
– Enhancing partnership and collaborative arrangements,
– Putting in place an M&E framework
– Building the capacity of the NACPD
5. Strengthening the entire Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system in the country through:
– Developing M&E institutional structures
– Developing M&E methodologies and procedures
– Developing of capacity for use of M&E information and data
– Developing adequate capacity for M&E implementation
6. Improve or strengthen human resource management and development through:
– Improving the schemes of service
– Providing appropriate training to staff,
– Improving working environment
– Developing an HIV/AIDS management mechanism
– Gender mainstreaming,
– Moving towards results based management
Line Ministries
Within W&S service provision, water resources management and irrigation, other line ministries and agencies need to be considered, e.g.
– Environment and natural resources – water resources management and the links between water resources and natural resources, vegetation cover, erosion control etc.
– Agriculture – coordination of planning and implementation of irrigation and the effect of agricultural activities on water resources
– Livestock and fisheries – especially in the ASAL areas, all activities in provision of water supply must consider livestock. The development of fisheries needs to consider water resources and planning of irrigation dams etc
– Industry – reliable water and sewerage services are important prerequisites for promotion and development of industries in the country
– Energy – Kenya’s electricity is based on hydropower and therefore linked very closely with water resources management
– Regional Development Authorities – the activities of the RDAs especially concerning irrigation and industrial developments require coordination with the water sector
– Regional cooperation – Kenya is a partner in the regional coordination activities around the Lake Victoria and the Nile basin that influences the water sector
The linkages between the water sector and the line ministries grouped according to the MoF division in sectors are illustrated on Figure 2-L. It is apparent that most linkages are outside the Physical Infrastructure Sector.
Figure 2-L: Water Sector Linkages to Line Ministries
[pic]
The draft National Irrigation and Drainage Policy document identifies the following stakeholders in the development of irrigation and drainage schemes:
Public sector:
– Irrigation and Drainage Department in MWI;
– NIB;
– RDAs;
– Office of the President (OP);
– Ministry of Agriculture (MoA);
– Department of Water;
– Research organisations such as Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Centre for Training and integrated Research in Arid and semi-arid lands Development.
Private sector:
– Commercial farmers;
– NGOs such as Care Kenya, World Vision, Plan international, Christian Children’s Fund;
– CBOs, specifically farmer groups and church based organizations.
The agreed minutes of the joint review of the KWSP and the Water Sector Reform Programme (WSRP) emphasised the need to involve all sector stakeholders, including the public, private sector and civil society. Effective monitoring of progress in the sector is an important aspect for the sector to be able to attract increased funding to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Improved cooperation with the MoPND and the Bureau of Statistics and development of a well structured performance monitoring framework will be an important step in providing reliable statistics for the sector.
The civil society stakeholders have a potential to enhance demand-driven sector performance as they could provide a link to influence from the public on the planning and implementation in the sector and thereby increase the transparency and accountability from the public sector institutions towards the users. The civil society stakeholders also have an important role to play in information dissemination and awareness raising that can contribute to increased self-financing of water and sanitation facilities as well as initiatives to improved water resources management.
The National Council of NGOs (NCNGO) is an umbrella organisation with 3800 members. The council is enacted under the NGO act to provide leadership and regulation to the NGO sector and should be a focal point for the civil society and also cover associations etc. The NCNGO has rules and regulations for the sector and a Code of Conduct for NGOs. In addition to the NCNGO there is a government office for registration of NGOs, the NGO Bureau and the NGO Coordination Board that provides statistics on NGO activities. The NGOs are bound by regulations to report to the board. The law enforces that once the NGOs are registered with the NGO Bureau they are automatically members of the NGO Council. The NCNGO activities are funded from membership fees (15%) and from international and national donor funded projects.
The aspirations to involve a large number of stakeholders in the discussions around the establishment of the SWAP and eventually the consultative structures needed for the SWAP to function need to be balanced with the effectiveness of the consultative structures. An analysis of the stakeholder roles will therefore be important in order to design effective structures and procedures for the SWAP.
In the design of consultative structures for the SWAP, the roles of the stakeholders should be taken into account, so that effective coordination takes place between stakeholders that have a significant role to play in the respective areas. Table 2.-1 shows an analysis of the main stakeholders in the water sector and the grouping according to the sub-sectors of water resources management, water and sanitation service provision (rural and urban) and irrigation.
Table 2-1: Stakeholders per sub-sector
|Stakeholder Involvement per Sub-Sector |Water |WRM |Urban |Rural |Irriga|
| |Sector| |W&S |W&S |tion |
|Water Sector Institutions | | | | | |
|Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI) Head office | | | | | |
|The Water Services Boards (WSBs) | | | | | |
| The Water Services Regulatory Board (WSRB) | | | | | |
|The Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA), | | | | | |
|Catchment Area Advisory Committees (CAACs); | | | | | |
|The Water Services Trust Fund (WSTF); | | | | | |
|The Water Appeal Board (WAB) | | | | | |
|National Irrigation Board (NIB) | | | | | |
|National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corp. (NWCPC) | | | | | |
|Coordinating Ministries | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Finance (MoF) | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Planning and National Development (MoPND) | | | | | |
|- Bureau of Statistics under NoPND | | | | | |
|Office of the President (disaster management) | | | | | |
|The Ministry of East African and Regional Coop.(MoEARC) | | | | | |
|Line Ministries related to Water Sector | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Health (MoH) | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST) | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MoENR) | | | | | |
|National Environmental Management Agency (NEMA) | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development (MoLFD) | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MoTI) | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Energy (MoE) | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Regional Development Authorities | | | | | |
|Development Partners: | | | | | |
|German Financial Cooperation (KFW) | | | | | |
|German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) | | | | | |
|Agence Française de Développement (AFD) | | | | | |
|Danish International Development Assistance (Danida) | | | | | |
|Swedish International Development Assistance (Sida) | | | | | |
|Austrian Development Agency | | | | | |
|World Bank (WB) | | | | | |
|Water and Sanitation Programme - Africa (WSP-AF) | | | | | |
|African Development Bank (AfDB) | | | | | |
|European Union (EU) | | | | | |
|United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) | | | | | |
|United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UN-HABITAT) | | | | | |
|Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) | | | | | |
|Department for International Development (DFID) | | | | | |
|Netherlands Development Assistance | | | | | |
|Private Sector: | | | | | |
|Investors | | | | | |
|Consultants | | | | | |
|Contractors | | | | | |
|Kenya Private Sector Alliance (KEPSA) | | | | | |
|NGOs implementing WSS or WRM related programmes | | | | | |
|Kenya Water for Health Organisation (KWAHO) | | | | | |
|Representatives from Water Service Providers (WSPs) | | | | | |
|Civil Society: | | | | | |
|National Council of Churches (NCCK) | | | | | |
|Natinal Council of NGOs | | | | | |
|Association of Local Gov. Authorities of Kenya (ALGAK) | | | | | |
|Research Institutions e.g. KIPPRA, IPAR, University of Nairobi | | | | | |
|Media Owners Association | | | | | |
|NETWAS representing Rainwater work, IRC, WSSCC | | | | | |
|Residents Associations | | | | | |
|Transparency International Kenya | | | | | |
|Human Rights Commission | | | | | |
|Local NGOs | | | | | |
|Representatives from Water Resource User Ass. (WRUAs) | | | | | |
|Representatives from Water User Associations WUAs, IWUA | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
|Number of 'key' stakeholders |28 |21 |26 |26 |16 |
|number of 'associated' stakeholders |21 |14 |15 |15 |16 |
|Total number of stakeholders |49 |35 |41 |41 |32 |
|Legend: | | | | | |
|Key Stakeholder | | | | | |
|Associated Stakeholder | | | | | |
The European Union (EU) is listed above as a stakeholder, however EU is not active in the WSWG and does not provide funding directly to the water sector and MWI. EU finance water systems through the Community Development Trust Fund and recently a number of projects have been approved for funding through the EU-ACP Water Facility as listed in the textbox on the right. The application for funding for these projects did not go through MWI, and this is an example of where information on various stakeholders is required to ensure a well planned use of the resources available for the sector.
Table 2-2 shows an analysis of the roles of the various stakeholders in Policy Development, Sector Planning & Coordination, Funding, Implementation, Monitoring, Evaluation and Control functions. These roles will have to be considered when evaluating the possibilities and effectiveness of SWAP coordination structures for the sub-sectors.
Table 2-2 Stakeholder Roles
|Stakeholder Roles |Policy|Sector|Fundin|Implem|Monito|Evalua|Contro|
| |Develo|Planni|g |entati|ring |tion |l |
| |pment |ng & | |on | | | |
| | |Coordi| | | | | |
| | |nation| | | | | |
|Water Sector Institutions | | | | | | | |
|Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI) Head office | | | | | | | |
| The Water Services Regulatory Board (WSRB) | | | | | | | |
|The Water Services Trust Fund (WSTF); | | | | | | | |
|National Irrigation Board (NIB) | | | | | | | |
|National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corp. (NWCPC) | | | | | | | |
|Coordinating Ministries | | | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Finance (MoF) | | | | | | | |
|- Bureau of Statistics under NoPND | | | | | | | |
|Office of the President (disaster management) | | | | | | | |
|The Ministry of East African and Regional Coop.(MoEARC) | | | | | | | |
|Line Ministries related to Water Sector | | | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Health (MoH) | | | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) | | | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST) | | | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MoENR) | | | | | | | |
|National Environmental Management Agency (NEMA) | | | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) | | | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development (MoLFD) | | | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MoTI) | | | | | | | |
|The Ministry of Energy (MoE) | | | | | | | |
|Ministry of Regional Development Authorities | | | | | | | |
|Development Partners: | | | | | | | |
|German Financial Cooperation (KFW) | | | | | | | |
|Agence Française de Développement (AFD) | | | | | | | |
|Swedish International Development Assistance (Sida) | | | | | | | |
|Austrian Development Agency | | | | | | | |
|World Bank (WB) | | | | | | | |
|Water and Sanitation Programme - Africa (WSP-AF) | | | | | | | |
|African Development Bank (AfDB) | | | | | | | |
|European Union (EU) | | | | | | | |
|United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) | | | | | | | |
|United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UN-HABITAT) | | | | | | | |
|Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) | | | | | | | |
|Netherlands Development Assistance | | | | | | | |
|Private Sector: | | | | | | | |
|Investors | | | | | | | |
|Consultants | | | | | | | |
|Contractors | | | | | | | |
|Kenya Private Sector Alliance (KEPSA) | | | | | | | |
|NGOs implementing WSS or WRM related programmes | | | | | | | |
|Kenya Water for Health Organisation (KWAHO) | | | | | | | |
|Representatives from Water Service Providers (WSPs) | | | | | | | |
|Civil Society: | | | | | | | |
|National Council of Churches (NCCK) | | | | | | | |
|National Council of NGOs | | | | | | | |
|Association of Local Gov. Authorities of Kenya (ALGAK) | | | | | | | |
|Research Institutions e.g. KIPPRA, IPAR, University of Nairobi | | | | | | | |
|Media Owners Association | | | | | | | |
|NETWAS representing Rainwater work, IRC, WSSCC | | | | | | | |
|Residents Associations | | | | | | | |
|Transparency International Kenya | | | | | | | |
|Human Rights Commission | | | | | | | |
|Local NGOs | | | | | | | |
|Representatives from Water Resource User Ass. (WRUAs) | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
|Number of 'key' role players |5 |31 |18 |17 |14 |24 |8 |
|Key Role Player | | | | | | | |
|Contributing | | | | | | | |
An up-dated list of stakeholders that have been consulted in relation to the study is included as Annex D. The water sector is dynamic and the stakeholders that could be relevant for the coordination structures in relation to SWAP might change over time. It could be considered to start the SWAP consultative structures with a minimum number of stakeholders to gain experience and gradually expand as the need presents itself, rather that start with a large and complex consultative group.
2.5 Advantages and potential for a SWAP in the Kenyan WSS
The water sector stakeholders have been interviewed concerning their views on the advantages and potential for a SWAP in the water sector in Kenya. The key responses are:
The potential and advantages in relation to improved planning
All stakeholders in the public sector, especially MoF budget department emphasized the positive impact that the SWAP could have on sector planning, especially by harmonising the planning and ensure that it is included in the MTEF. The MoF also emphasised that it is important to use the government financial management systems and avoid using separate and parallel Financial Management Agents (FMAs) as this separates the sector monitoring and financial control from the GoK systems.
It was also emphasised that the SWAP will enhance coordination between the Irrigation and WRM thereby improve sustainability of irrigation schemes and that the SWAP potentially will eliminate the previous lack of coordination of investments in irrigation that have led to unsustainable schemes. Potentially SWAP will allow greater consideration of irrigation in the allocation of resources for development and improved planning under the SWAP is also expected to facilitate investments in the long term WRM and improved food production rather than the present investment in emergency measures
SWAP is expected to encourage interrelation within different institutions and thereby encourage non-repetition of services.
Amongst the DPs, the response was positive but with reservations on capacity of MWI and decentralized institutions to handle sector planning and financial management. It was emphasised that attention is needed for SWAP not to stop decentralisation process and also there is a need for pro-poor policies with regard to planning. The SWAP can potentially be instrumental in forging public/private partnerships. The EU expressed that it is not confident on the MWI’s ability to implement the SWAP due to tribal factors, mismanagement and lack of capacity.
In the private sector there was a positive response from a number of stakeholders, but a concern that SWAP will not respond to grass-root level needs. The NGOs would support a SWAP as long as all stakeholders are well coordinated and informed within the operational chain.
The potential and advantages of a SWAP in relation to policy development and dissemination
In the public sector it was emphasised by MoF that the MTEF planning calendar facilitates policy feedback and that this planning calendar should be used as the basis for planning in the sector. The consultative group meetings between GoK and the DPs are an established tool for policy discussions and this will be enhanced by a SWAP.
The DPs emphasised that the SWAP is expected to facilitate coordination and policy dialogue and that the role of MWI in policy formulation should be strengthened by the SWAP. It was emphasised again that there is a need for pro-poor policies with regard to sector strategies. In a SWAP it would be expected that the procurement policies will follow the government systems and bilateral donors should not use ‘tied aid’ and should adhere to the Paris Declaration.
The SWAP is expected to assist in establishing clear investment strategies and policies for the sector including clear planning policies. It was also mentioned that there is a need for analysis of pros and cons of the current project support system before the decision is taken to adopt the SWAP.
The responses from the private sector emphasised that the implementation policies should avoid separate FMAs, but that the present government systems are not sufficiently transparent to sustain a SWAP.
The potential and advantages of a SWAP in relation to potentials for enhanced funding
The responses from the public sector emphasised that financial management in MWI must improve and that the SWAP has a potential for improving the sector performance and thereby increasing the utilisation of GoK funding. The water sector institutions are of the opinion that the delays coursed by financial management weaknesses and bottleneck in funds release are caused by the MoF.
According to views expressed by the DPs, the SWAP will enable the water sector institutions to express their needs to the donors and not as presently where the donors are identify projects. It was also emphasised that capacity constraints in the water sector institutions must be addressed before funding can be increased. There is a need for MoF to participate in the SWAP to enhance funding and ensure integration in GoK systems. Some DPs are not willing to participate in a SWAP if MoF is not a key partner. Basket funding mechanisms would not allow the EU to contribute to the basket.
The responses from the private sector and NGOs pointed out that the public water sector institutions do not have the capacity to handle a SWAP and the potentially increased funding to the sector. There was a fear by International NGOs that they would not have a role to play or that their funding will be reduced by the introduction of a SWAP and pooling of funds. It was also felt that high transaction costs will make the SWAP arrangements unsustainable as the GoK does not have capacity to manage SWAP and therefore hiring of costly FMAs would be required.
The potential and advantages of a SWAP in relation to improved implementation efficiency
The public sector stakeholders commented that the implementation of the MTEF budgeting process will be enhanced in a SWAP. The MoF claims that MWI lacks the capacity to implement and produce proper financial reporting on the use of funds while MWI claims that MoF delays transfer of funds for implementation. Potentially therefore, a SWAP could improve the coordination between the two ministries and assist in removing the bottleneck in financial flows.
SWAP is expected to improve the monitoring tools and this will make inefficiency implementation visible. The SWAP will assist in clarifying the roles of various stakeholders and allow for inter-sectoral coordination thereby increasing efficiency and reducing duplication of effort.
The DPs emphasised that there is need to evaluate the capacity water sector institutions and that the SWAP arrangements must include capacity building of the institutions. The procedures that will be introduced through the SWAP e.g. the audits and value for money procedures will assist the sector institutions to improve their efficiency. The SWAP will allow government to identify and prepare new programmes for donor funding rather than the present situation where donor efforts are duplicated in project formulation.
The private sector and the NGOs mentioned that there is a negative potential in SWAP to increase ‘red tape’ and make the process of responding to community needs longer. It was also feared that the current government structure allows corruption and that it will be difficult for some DPs to support the SWAP.
The potential and advantages of a SWAP in relation to Monitoring and Evaluation
Public sector stakeholders expressed the hope that the SWAP will facilitate greater coordination with the MoPND monitoring and evaluation and therefore improve these as a uniform performance monitoring in the sector.
The DPs emphasised that the SWAP will allow joint donor monitoring which will avoid duplication of effort.
The potential and advantages of a SWAP in relation to Control functions, Audits etc.
The public sector especially the MoF emphasised that the SWAP should utilize the government FMS to ensure GoK involvement in controls and avoid the dangers in parallel financial management systems.
The DPs also emphasised that the MoF should be fully involved in the control functions and that the SWAP will facilitate harmonisation of specific donor financial management guidelines and anticorruption guidelines for more effective financial controls. It was mentioned that Danida’s financial management guidelines and anticorruption guidelines could be used as examples. The EU will not accept to follow procurement procedures other than theirs and thereby hindering the implementation of a full SWAP in the sector.
The responses on the perceptions on the demand and potentials and advantages of a SWAP from the interviews are summarised in Matrix 1.2 in Annex C
2.6 Essential structural, institutional and procedural prerequisites for a SWAP
The perceptions on the pre-requisites for a water sector SWAP to contribute to achieving the MDGs based on literature review and consultation with stakeholders are briefly described below.
Structural prerequisite for SWAP to contribute to achieving MDGs
Some of the structural prerequisites for a SWAP to substantially contribute to achieving the MDGs are according to public sector stakeholders that the SWAP requires the full involvement of the coordinating ministries (MoF, MoPND) in the formulation and operation of the SWAP.
The SWAP must fit into the government budgetary and planning programmes. The water sector as a sub-sector under infrastructure seems not to enhance the coordination with key ministries in the agricultural sector such as MoA, MoLFD and MoENR. The SWAP cannot be effective on its own but should be done in conjunction with public sector improvement programmes. The SWAP should have clear inputs, outputs and indicators and must have appropriate feedback systems e.g. public hearings.
It is important that the shortfall and gaps are identified in the GoK Financial Management Systems (FMS) and that separate FMAs should be avoided as it causes duplication to the functions undertaken by the MoF and weakens the government’s FMS. Instead strategies for strengthening the FMS as a precursor to the establishment of a SWAP should be considered.
The DPs mentioned that the definition of the water sector needs to be clarified e.g. which public sector institutions need to be included in the SWAP and for example the relation between the health and water sector SWAPs and the environmental sanitation linkages. The SWAP must have proper policies and coordinating framework to ensure coordinated services to the sector and the SWAP process should be all inclusive and allow for partners who will not contribute to a basket. There must be a Code of Conduct established for all players in the sector.
It was emphasised that the SWAP structure shall facilitate collection of needs of the poor. The GoK should be in a position to engage NGOs for implementation in the areas where they are most effective. The SWAP should enhance the decentralisation process. The SWAP and project funding should be able to work as a combination so long as the approach is clearly defined and the SWAP must accommodate all players in the sector without changing them and must include all sector programs.
The NGOs mentioned that the system of disbursement of funds need be established at the beginning of introducing the SWAP to avoid misappropriation of funds.
Institutional prerequisite for SWAP to contribute to achieving MDGs
The public sector stakeholders mentioned that the SWAP should be institutionalised within the operations of the MWI and that operational bottlenecks in MWI in relation to procurement and financial management must be addressed.
The DPs mentioned that the operationalisation of the reforms must come before the operation of a SWAP especially the reorganisation of the MWI. It is also a prerequisite that the performance of sector institutions improve for SWAP to have any meaningful impact. There is a need for sector boundaries between rural and urban areas. The Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of the WSBs who are all engineers should be trained in management.
Procedural prerequisite for SWAP to contribute to achieving MDGs
The public sector mentioned that it is needed with a review and updating of the sector strategic plans. As an integrated part of the SWAP, public expenditure reviews shall be organising and facilitated and it must be ensured that the whole budgetary process is in coordination with the overall GoK budgetary programs in the MTEF. This means that the DP commitments must be in by March for them to be included in the budgets and that by April the country’s budget strategy will have firm figures for each sector which cannot be changed.
The budget for the sector will be based on a ceiling which is based on the ability for the ministry or the sector to absorb the funds. The absorption ability is determined by the previous years performance in terms of how much was returned to the Treasury at the year end, the capacity and the country’s balance of payment.
According to DPs the prerequisites are the need for establishment of audit procedures and good FMS and clear rules and regulation in distribution of resources. It is a prerequisite that there is an operational and reliable Sector Information System (SIS) and there must also be an acceptable Sector Investment plan (SIP) that is recognised by the MoF and MoPND. There must be established monitoring procedures.
The sub-sectors should be responsive to their needs and not wait for DPs to determine the sectoral needs. Training and capacity building should be undertaken before the establishment and implementation of SWAP. There might be a need to allow for earmarking of funds from specific DPs to certain geographical areas and different activities.
These structural, institutional and procedural prerequisites for a water sector SWAP to contribute to achieving the MDGs are summarised in Matrix 1.3 in Annex C.
2.7 SWAP Contribution to Reaching the MDGs
|Present coverage |National Average |Urban |Rural |
|statistics[17] | | | |
|Water |57% (49%) |89.7% (86%) |43.5% (31%) |
|Sanitation |81% (86%) |94.8% (96%) |76.6% (81%) |
The MoPND in the ‘Millennium Development Goals in Kenya – Needs and Costs[18]’ sets the target access to water and sanitation in 2015 as: 80% nationwide coverage of safe water supply (urban 96% and rural 66%) and 96% coverage of improved sanitation (urban 96% and rural 89%). The report provides recommendations for how the water sector should reach the MDGs related to water and sanitation:
– To achieve and sustain the MDGs, the government’s priority should be to quickly implement the Water Act 2002. The service delivery institutions provided for in the Water Act are intended to provide service delivery with adequate autonomy to operate sustainable services.
– The government should be committed to the achievement of the MDG by fulfilling its share of the resource requirements and attract donor support for the gap. Third, community involvement should be an essential part of project formulation. Consequently, every effort should be made to train communities, especially women, to equip them with the appropriate knowledge and skills for this purpose, and promote community-based water committees with clearly defined roles.
– The government should encourage and support private sector participation and community management of services backed by measures to strengthen local institutions in implementing and sustaining water and sanitation programmes.
– The government should launch a vigorous public hygiene education to popularise safe water use and safe disposal of human wastes to promote good health and conserve the environment. Use of mass media including radio, television, print, drama, etc. shall be instrumental in this campaign.
– In order to stem the current trend of giving low investment priority to sanitation, there is need to identify the factors that drive demand for improved sanitation. The lessons learned can then be used to build strategies for marketing sanitation as a sustainable intervention for poverty reduction. Social marketing will ensure that people will choose to receive the kind of sanitation they want and are willing to invest in.
– There is also need to hasten the preparation of the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Plan to provide the framework for addressing the multiplicity of issues that arise in the Water and Sanitation Sector. Implementation of the IWRM plan will form the basis for beneficial use of the water for both health improvement and income generation and hence poverty reduction.
The resource requirements to fulfil the MDGs for water and sanitation have been estimated to be Kshs 237 billion (USD3.0 billion) by 2015 to meet the MDG for provision of water and sanitation services. This corresponds to an annual investment of Kshs 20 – 25 billion as compared to the current level of government and on-budget donor funding of Kshs 7 billion. Assuming that the proportion of government funding to total sector funding is approximately 40%[19], this translates into a present funding level of 17 billion. This very rough calculation therefore indicates that the funding to water and sanitation needs to increase with about 50% over the next 10 years in order to reach the MDGs.
As documented above, it is the perception of stakeholders that the SWAP has the potential to improve the effectiveness in the sector and possibly increase the funding from DPs. Improved sector performance will be necessary to reaching the MDGs – therefore SWAP should not be a goal in itself, but only as a contribution to improved sector performance by integration of DP funding into sector planning and implementation arrangements.
3. Requirements for a Water Sector SWAP
3.1 SWAP Requirements
The overall modalities for the SWAP framework include that it is led by the GoK/ MWI and based on a common approach according to sector policies and strategies and on partnership principles agreed by all partners. The SWAP partners shall contribute to commonly agreed sector plans. There is a need to establish sectoral boundaries and for appropriate institutionalisation of procedures for the SWAP.
The present status of the policy and strategic framework is that the sector strategy is finalised for WRM and the strategy for W&S Services has been prepared and consultation process ongoing. For the Irrigation and Drainage sub-sector, a policy formulation process is ongoing. The SIP Project has started with the development of the overall framework for investment planning by the MWI head office.
The institutional structure of the SWAP as seen by the stakeholders will include:
– Sector Working Group as the coordination and communication structure between donors and relevant government ministries (water, finance, planning, health, education, environment, agriculture)
– Anchor in the MWI Planning Division
– MWI role to be focussing on sector monitoring and control as well as strategy and priority setting
– Effective Sector Investment Planning (Sector working group)
– Program required to ensure the ongoing reform process does not hinder the establishment of SWAP
– Need to strengthen the MWI monitoring capacity – the SIS Project has started.
The present status is that the WSWG exists but needs to be strengthened by participation from the coordinating ministries of MoF, MoPND and from the important line ministries with links to the water sector such as health, education, agriculture, livestock, environment and natural resources and local government as well as other stakeholders such as NCNGOs, ALGAK and KEPSA.
A SWAP Committee/ Secretariat exist under the MWI Deputy Director Water as the focal point for developing the SWAP. One of the expected outcomes of a SWAP is reduced implementation delays and increased absorptive capacities of implementing bodies. Presently Treasury has problems in releasing funds to the ministries the structures undertaking implementation leading to delays and lack hence absorption capability. According to Treasury the problems in releasing funding are related to inadequacies in financial reporting from the MWI.
The Working Methodology and Modes of Delivery of the SWAP as suggested by stakeholders includes Joint Annual Reviews and agreement on sector plans for investment and capacity building by all partners in the sector. The SWAP will also imply common reporting on sector progress using harmonised performance indicators. The MWI Planning Division as the key organisation responsible for planning in the water sector must play a central role in the operationalisation of the SWAP.
There is expected to be a gradual harmonisation of funding mechanisms towards the GoK systems. Allocation of pooled funds should be based on monitorable objectives and development strategies evolved from the sub-sectors. The design of the development or investment program is very key to SWAP.
The procurement and financial management problems in MWI must be assessed and improved before any implementation of increased DP funding through GoK systems can be expected to take place. A Joint Procurement Policy based on the GoK systems will have to be agreed.
The present experiences from the common funding arrangements in the KWSP, although operating as a parallel system to GoK is providing some valuable insight into the working methodologies that can be relevant in a SWAP.
The Procedural Requirements for the SWAP will include harmonised reporting requirements and planning schedules as well as common quality assurance and performance monitoring procedures. The SIP is important to define a common investment programme. The methods of prioritisation will be very important to decide how to spend the money in a common basket.
Harmonisation of procurement systems based on the procurement Act must be implemented and the procurement capacity of the MWI must be strengthened.
The work presently done in the KWSP in developing audit procedures including value for money studies will provide valuable insight into the procedures that will be required under a SWAP.
The Communication requirements for a SWAP include that all partners share plans and information. There is an urgent need to establish an information system for the sector and this work has already started in the SIS Project. In the present situation it is very difficult to get accurate information on the activities in the sector, especially the NGO activities but also the various donor projects. The amounts presented in Chapter 2 on the annual sector financing are rough estimates based on the limited information available in the matrix that has been compiled by the WSTG.
3.2 Components of a SWAP
The potential of different aspects of SWAP and the expectations on impact, risks and challenges of developing and implementing a Kenya W&S Sector SWAP have been identified based on consultation with stakeholders. The roadmap towards establishing a SWAP is expected to take the following components and aspects into account:
– Code of Conduct or Partnership Principles
– Harmonisation, alignment and coordination
– Confidence-building and other inter- and intra-sectoral requirements for enhanced cooperation and coordination
– Institutional, structural, procedural and behavioural risks and challenges during SWAP preparation, establishment and implementation
– Integrated investment planning process
– Willingness and preparedness of stakeholders to technically and financially contribute to the establishment of a SWAP and increase funding
– Willingness and preparedness of stakeholders to adjustment and alignment of technical and financial support procedures
– Harmonised quality assurance and sector performance monitoring procedures
The stakeholders’ perceptions on the Potential of the SWAP, the Expectations on Impact, the Expectations on Risks and the Expectations on Challenges on these components are described in Matrix 2.2 in Annex C. Some of the main points are:
– All DPs joining the program to be governed by the Paris declaration. Harmonisation of procedures of various stakeholders critical for SWAP success. DP individual conditionalities must be eliminated in a SWAP system. DPs’ roles must be clear and should avoid mixing up with the role of the government. ‘Red tapes’ in the implementation process of the various programs both from the DPs and the government is a risk to effective implementation of the SWAP. Project initiation should be from the borrower as opposed to the current situation where the DPs initiates projects;
– MWIs capacity to build and implement the SWAP is doubtful, MWI lack of capacity to handle the SWAP might hinder its success;
– SWAP is a good idea but depends on what the basket will do and how it is managed. If it is going to be managed through Treasury then the problems of funds flow will still continue to be a problem for program implementation due to the latter’s fund release systems. Establishment of FMS will be difficult since there are no lessons on establishment of appropriate FMS systems. Sole reliance on the government FMS only way to succeed on the SWAP. Some existing partners will not join the basket fund hence need to consider other funding options. Management of basket funds critical to avoid misallocation and hence liquidity problems. The implications of the withdrawal of one partner from the basket needs to be assessed and strategy established for financing the arising deficit;
– Joint agreements shall allow for joint monitoring. The MWI monitoring currently in the economic department need to be strengthened, self monitoring at WSB level will not be adequate;
– Need to investigate whether a sector or sub-sector SWAP would be more appropriate;
– Increased cooperation and improved planning are expected;
– Political interferences possess a threat to the successful implementation of the SWAP by interfering with operations of the WSBs and in turn the SWAP;
– There is need to develop a single policy governing facilities for multi-purpose use and therefore avoid likely conflict between the partners. National environmental sanitation and hygiene policies are needed. The Water Act needs revision to incorporate irrigation and needs institutionalisation to the lowest levels in the ministry structures;
– Successful only if SWAP is undertaken within the MTEF. SWAP might hinder the effort made in decentralisation of planning. The planning and budgeting process should be evolved so the lowest unit is involved in the budget making process. Decision should be made through consultations and MWI should not go backwards to the centralized systems where headquarter used to control all the funds;
– SWAP unresponsiveness to grass-root level needs might hamper willingness of partners to support the SWAP;
– Need to enhance transparency and integrity within the sector institutions if SWAP is to work.
4. Experiences in establishment of SWAPs
4.1 SWAPs Experiences in other sectors in Kenya
DPs and the GoK have implemented SWAPs in the Education Sector and in the Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector (GJLOS). A SWAP is also being developed in the Health Sector.
1. Education Sector
The Partnership Principles that are the basis for the Education Sector SWAP are:
– Responsibility: The Kenya Education Sector Support Programme (KESSP) fits into the Economic Recovery Strategy (ERS). The MoPND is responsible for overall coordination of the ERS, with the MoF responsible for managing the MTEF and national budget through which it is implemented. External Resource Division in the MoF is responsible for overall aid coordination and for negotiating financing agreements with DPs in the context of the national budget. The MoEST is responsible for co-ordinating all the activities within the education sector including formulating education sector plans and budgets
– Alignment with Planning and Budget Processes: The KESSP reflect the Ministry priorities as actualised in the Public Expenditure Review for the education sector, Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), and Annual Budget. MoEST develop sector expenditure proposals and work plans as part of the annual budget cycle and MTEF, consulting with DPs to include all sector expenditures. DPs will ensure that proposed and current support to the education sector is aligned with the KESSP
– Information Sharing: DPs will provide information on future levels of support to the education sector and likely financing modalities in order to facilitate GoK planning. MoEST will consult in advance with the DPs on envisaged changes to policies, plans, management arrangements, or budget allocations.
– Meetings, Missions, and Reports: MoEST will lead and chair all joint consultative mechanisms. The key mechanisms will comprise an annual Joint Review of the Education Sector, a follow up Budget Workshop in April, and quarterly consultative meetings with the DPs. DPs will appoint a Donor Group Leader to represent the DPs in policy dialogue and consultative mechanisms.
– Harmonisation of Systems: when appropriate mechanisms for reporting and financial management are in place and the draft KESSP is finalised, the education sector will move towards a holistic approach to planning, financial management, procurement, and monitoring, with agreed indicators of progress in meeting agreed goals, and with an increasing share of external support provided via pooled mechanisms in support of KESSP programs. The GoK and DP financial, procurement, reporting, monitoring and evaluation procedures should, as far as possible, be harmonized. DPs for whom full harmonisation to GoK systems is not presently possible, will nevertheless harmonise their procedures to the maximum feasible extent in order to minimize multiple and parallel processes and to reduce transaction costs.
– Capacity Building and Implementation: MoEST will establish mechanisms to provide adequate capacity for successful program implementation. DP programmes will work through the structures designated by the Ministry, in order to build capacity, improve sustainability, and ensure maximum integration with the Ministry’s policies and programmes.
– Technical Assistance: The donor-funded technical assistance to the Ministry should be driven by the Ministry’s priorities and absorption capacity, should support the Ministry institutional capacity by focusing on skills transfer, should not be restricted to supporting individual donor programs or projects but rather programs within the Ministry. MoEST will be responsible for preparing an annual capacity building plan, identifying programme implementation priorities with associated financing needs.
– Performance Monitoring and Review, & Conditionality: MoEST will be responsible for sector performance monitoring and review, using indicators, reporting formats, and methodological approaches agreed with the partners. They will plan and lead annual Joint Reviews of the Education Sector, incorporating appropriate representation from other GoK ministries and institutions. They will be responsible for preparing a summary technical and financial performance report to feed into the Joint review of the Education Sector to review performance for the previous year and discuss future action. Subject to need and agreement, DPs may provide support for an independent assessment of sector progress with the objective of identifying strategic issues to inform and focus discussion at the joint sector reviews.
More details on the Partnership Agreement is included in Annex F
Present status of the SWAP building process: the KESSP has been established which has pooled funding arrangement through GoK financial systems. The KESSP is aligned with the broader framework of ERS and a Education Donor Coordination Group has been established made up of donors- bilateral, multilateral, development banks & NGOs offering support to MoEST.
Success in creating conditions for increased sector resource mobilisation and diverse funding arrangements: the arrangement in the education sector are inclusive and do not exclude assistance outside KESSP and the GoK funding mechanisms, however there are laid down procedures that donors are encouraged to follow.
Success in avoiding unnecessary implementation delays and obstacles: This is achieved through intensive information sharing and consultations by both parties through the Education Donor Coordination Group. The partners inform the government of their commitment in time before finalisation of the budget. MoEST also endeavours to make sure that the DPs have all information on relevant plans and activities which they require assistance for. MoEST ensures that there is no breach of fundamental principles underlying the programme and DPs will also ensure that education sector commitments are not interrupted for reasons external to the sector.
Success in promoting cooperation, synergies and available driving forces : is achieved through Education Donor Coordination Group objectives. These are: supporting government ownership and leadership of the KESSP, promotion of coordinated policy dialogue and technical support on strategic issues in education with all stakeholders and finally, ensuring that support of DPs is increasingly provided in a harmonised and coordinated manner.
Success in applying priority setting concepts for efficiency gains: All KESSP investment programmes are prioritised and costed over the five year period (2005 – 2010)
Success in promoting communication and participation: MoEST produces and disseminates a quarterly news bulletin on all on- going projects. This is availed to all stakeholders. This is in addition to the meetings, joint evaluations and reports that are disseminated to all stakeholders.
Success in enhancing transparency and anti-corruption attitudes and behaviour: MoEST initiates annual sector performance monitoring and review mechanisms together with appropriate involvement of DPs and other ministries and institutions. When necessary DPs may provide support for an independent assessment.
The education sector SWAP is regarded by the MoF as the only successful SWAP in Kenya.
4.1.2 Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector
The GoK has committed itself to a fundamental reform of the governance, justice, law and order sector and formulated a Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector Reform Programme (GJLOS):
Development goal: ‘improved quality of life for men, women, girls and boys in Kenya, especially those who are poor, marginalized and vulnerable’.
Purpose: ‘improve Governance, Justice, Law and Order.
Vision: ‘safe, secure, democratic, just, and corruption-free, human rights respecting and prosperous Kenya for all’
Mission: ‘to reform and strengthen sector institutions for enhanced protection of human rights, efficient, accountable and transparent governance and justice’
The GoK has requested the support of DPs[20] to the GJLOS and the Partnership Principles between GoK and DPs are:
– Promotion of full participation of stakeholders in the policy and planning of GJLOS;
– Promotion of a rights based approach;
– Equal access to services, including promoting the rights of women and children, in particular those who are poor;
– Adherence to the reform priorities and the reform agenda of GJLOS;
– Focus of the reform on timely, specific, and achievable results;
– Improved complaint mechanisms at the national and local level;
– Improved coordination, while respecting independence of institutions, especially the judiciary and the statutory bodies;
– Improved monitoring and evaluation and feedback mechanisms;
– Anti-corruption measures enforced and opportunities for corruption minimised;
– Increased integration of GJLOS in the MTEF and the budget reform;
– Strong political leadership for the reform, including for anti-corruption.
The financial contributions to the GJLOS Medium Term Strategy will be decided on within the agreements between the GoK, represented by the MoF and the DPs.
The GoK and the DPs have jointly prepared a Joint Statement of Intent in November 2005 in line with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and have reached an understanding on common procedures for consultation and decision-making, disbursement mechanisms, monitoring and reporting, review and evaluation, audit, financial management and the exchange of information and co-operation between the signatories as reflected herein. This understanding is intended to enhance effective implementation of the GJLOS medium term strategy, reduce the administrative burden on the GoK and minimise transaction costs.
The Joint Statement of Intent has two parts:
– Part 1 – Provides a framework of collaboration among the GoK and the DPs based upon the GoK’s adherence to principles of good governance, democracy and respect for human rights and the rule of law and to the DPs adherence to the Paris Declaration and the principles of harmonisation and co-ordination. It regulates the relationship among the DPs providing support to the GJLOS medium term strategy. The Joint Statement of Intent allows for the inclusion of new DPs who choose to join in support of the programme.
– Part 2 – Provides a specific framework for co-operation for DPs that will provide funds through a joint donor Basket Fund (B-Partners) managed by a FMA. Management by the FMA is to continue for a period of two years, during which the DPs will assess the financial management capacity and reform orientation of the GoK, with a view to potentially providing further support through a special account.
Present status of the SWAP building process: GoK and DPs have signed a Joint Statement of Intent for funding of Medium Term Strategy. The DPs are categorised into three (those who contribute to a Basket Fund (B partners), those who contribute to a specific task (S -Partners) and those who channel their support through multilateral donors (M-partners). A Programme Coordination Office with an advisory team consisting of local and international consultants has been established for a period of two years to assist in setting up the SWAP. The Programme Coordination Office consists of 4 advisers/ specialists, a GoK Programme Officer and 6 government support staff . The roles of the coordination office include sector wide planning, budgeting monitoring and evaluation and coordination of the implementation of the reform. The coordination office has developed a medium term strategy for the next five years from 2005 to 2009. The SWAP finances are managed through an FMA which is currently operated by KPMG.
Success in creating conditions for increased sector resource mobilisation and diverse funding arrangements: The joint statement of intent guides the funding mechanism: B Partners channel their funned through a FMA. The FMA has established an account that procures goods and services and disburse funds on a regular basis based on requests contained in GJLOS medium term strategy and Thematic Work Plans (basket account). S Partners will be regulated under specific bilateral and multilateral arrangements with GoK and M-partners funds will be regulated through an arrangement between the multilateral and bilateral donor and a specific arrangement between multilateral donor and GoK.
Success in avoiding unnecessary implementation delays and obstacles: DP disbursements will be harmonised with GoK’s fiscal year and medium term strategy. DPs shall develop and a disbursement plan with GoK. This plan will be based on DPs’ financial years. DPs will provide indicative figures for support at least 4 months prior to commencement of GoK new financial year. GoK is fully responsible for implementation and will also contribute own funds.
Success in promoting cooperation, synergies and available driving forces : Each contributing DP nominates at least a representative and an alternate as members of GJLOS-Donor Group. The regular consultations are deemed very necessary and GoK will ensure that the regular meetings take place.
Success in applying priority setting concepts for efficiency gains: DPs will assist GoK in funding outputs and results as specified in GJLOS medium term strategy and approved. The medium term strategy is based on Thematic Work Plans describing the extent of the decided funding levels and within individual DPs established policies, priorities, approval processes, rules and regulations.
Success in promoting communication and participation: has been achieved by creation of bodies such as Programme Co-ordination Office, Technical coordinating Committee, Inter Agency Steering Committee to enhance service delivery. The GoK and the DPs work together to develop the frameworks.
Success in enhancing transparency and anti-corruption attitudes and behaviour: The joint statement of intent has a clause that clearly bars DP staff and consultants from engaging on any activity that can be construed as recipe for corruption.
The MoF expressed some dissatisfaction with the arrangement with a FMA for the GJLOS SWAP as they find it i) expensive ii) provides the ministry with limited possibility for monitoring the performance in the sector and iii) defeats the intention of the SWAP which is to avoid cost duplication.
The employment of the consultants in the coordination office is viewed as unnecessary cost structure which eats into the funds required for the developmental activities. The budgeting process in the coordination office is outside the government system which may cause conflicts.
The lesson from this must be that if parallel financial management systems are used, the reporting from these shall be correlated with the GoK financial reporting so that the MoF receives information at the same level as if the financial management was through the Treasury system.
Separate implementation structures like the Coordination Office for the SWAP seems not to be appropriate as they remove the SWAP procedures from the government planning and budgeting system and are not sustainable. In relation to the water sector SWAP a more appropriate solution to capacity problems seems to be strengthening of the MWI capacity within the institution e.g. the unit that will be responsible for policy, planning, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in the new institutional set-up in the MWI head office.
4.1.3 Health Sector
The MoH and the DPs established a Joint SWAP Coordinating Committee chaired by the PS to guide the development of a SWAP in the Kenyan health Sector. A consensus building and consultation process took place in October 2005 with the aim of raising awareness among health sector partners on SWAP[21]. A series of task forces are proposed to guide the work of the design phase for the SWAP around specific areas of work (i.e. planning and budgeting, procurement, financial management, human resources, information & communication and M&E).
Coordination between MoH and the various stakeholders has improved through an established health sector coordination framework. There is a single sector policy, the Kenya Health Policy Framework; the second National Health Sector Strategic Plan (NHSSP II), was officially approved by the Joint Inter-agency Coordinating Committee (JICC) in September 2005; and, a MTEF has been adopted along with the ERS. Annual MPER and Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys are being done as part of the expenditure framework.
MoH and DPs jointly defined the overall vision and mission for the SWAP as contributing to the vision for the health sector as stated in the NHSSP II. The Kenyan health SWAP mission is to improve the health status of the Kenyan people through working together with all stakeholders as partners in the health sector with:
– One sector strategy (NHSSP II) under leadership of MoH;
– One expenditure framework;
– Common M&E framework;
– Common management arrangements, ensuring all-inclusive coordination and achievement of clearly defined milestones.
Agreed principles of partnership for the SWAP include:
• Mutual respect and trust;
• Transparency;
• Accountability;
• Openness and readiness for genuine dialogue.
Fundamental to taking forward the Kenyan health SWAP is the role of GoK and the MoH in particular in providing leadership and in taking ownership of the process. MoH outlined leadership of the SWAP process at three levels:
– The political level, with MoH taking responsibility for supporting and gaining acceptance of the SWAP process in Cabinet and Parliament;
– The policy level, with the PS giving distinct policy directives for the implementation of SWAP within Kenya’s health sector; and
– The technical level, where Heads of Departments and other managers have beeen provided with an understanding of SWAP principles and laid the ground for leadership of the process in their respective areas.
It is recognised that in order to nurture the mutual trust needed for an effective partnership, urgent, specific and concrete action should be taken to fight corruption and promote effectiveness, efficiency, accountability and transparency among all actors in the health sector.
The involvement of non-governmental actors, other GoK entities, in particular the OP, MoF and the MoPND are seen as essential to advance the health SWAP. Other line ministries, such as the MWI, the MoEST, and the MoLG, also need to be co-opted into the SWAP process. Their participation should be facilitated both through direct contacts at high management levels and through the co-convening of meetings by the MoPND. The development of Memoranda of Understanding for such cases will be considered.
The coordination structures include:
– A Joint Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee (JICC) that provides policy guidance at the highest levels (Ministers, Heads of Missions);
– A Global Inter-Agency Committee, a sub-committee of the JICC, that provides technical oversight of funding applications for the Global Fund;
– An Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee, that provides policy & technical guidance on the development of support systems in the health sector as well as on the management of existing Essential Programmes, such as Reproductive Health, HIV/AIDS, Malaria, Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses and Tuberculosis. These inter agency coordination meetings take place regularly under the leadership of the PS or Departments;
– A District Health Stakeholders Forum that strengthens collaboration and coordination between stakeholders at the district level (District Health Management Team/ District Health Management Board, NGOs, Civil Society Organisations and others).
In addition, a Joint SWAP Coordinating Committee has been established, composed of technical staff from MoH and DP and mandated by the PS to prepare for the implementation of the Kenyan health SWAP. The planning and budgeting cycles of GoK and DPs are out of phase with each other, reflecting the specific interest of the partners, e.g. DPs develop plans which are specific to projects and government develops plans which only reflect public expenditures. Both government and DPs’ strategic objectives must be aligned under one national strategic plan. SWAP implies a desire to gradually move to common management arrangements, which aim to use government systems for planning, budgeting and disbursing of funds.
The MoH has been implementing Treasury Circular 2000/3 for the last five years. This system uses budgetary controls through an Authority to Incur Expenditure process. The process is cumbersome and there is a high level of frustration by both MoH and DP with the current disbursement system.
In collaboration with all the procurement stakeholders, the following activities are considered to initiate the SWAP in procurement:
– Coordinating a procurement assessment in light of the new Bill and the performance of Kenya Medical Supplies Agency;
– Assessing procurement capacity to guide capacity development;
– Establishing/ reviewing standardised list of pharmaceuticals, non-pharmaceutical, equipment and consulting / outsourced services;
– Supporting the mainstreaming and institutionalising of the Medium Term Procurement Plan;
– Assessing MoH capacity building needs to effectively procure other services, especially technical assistance.
Performance Monitoring
There is overall consensus about the need for one agreed M&E system with agreed indicators and targets. The problems in the current M&E system are:
– Poor quality of information and incomplete, often late, data collection;
– Data that is collected is not used for planning or implementation;
– Duplication of reporting tools (ie. DPs and vertical programs each use different tools);
– Limited skills in data management/analysis;
– Departments / programmes are not always inclined to share their information;
– Only a small part of the available information is collected by MoH and information from private sector (Faith Based Organizations, NGOs, City Councils and private/private) is not systematically received by MoH; and,
– Different information systems in use do not ‘talk’ to each other (e.g. Health Management Information System, Finance & Accounting, Vertical programs, Commodity control, Integrated Payroll and Personnel Database, Procurement, Transport management, others).
The conclusion is that information is unreliable for determining important health priorities and plans and monitoring progress. Performance monitoring can be strengthened through the following activities:
– Reaching agreement on the reporting tools and the reporting format to be used by all stakeholders;
– Reviewing and re-aligning existing DP and vertical programme M&E systems in line with NHSSPII performance indicators;
– Aligning MoH tools with tools in use by other stakeholders (NGO, MoLG); and,
– Adapting the Paris declaration indicators to the Kenyan health SWAP.
Human resource development/ capacity building
Human resources development and improved human resources management is an essential prerequisite for an effective SWAP. A number of the current weaknesses and gaps need to be addressed: There is currently no concrete training policy: Training is responsive to individual not service needs; There are no skills inventory or training plans/projections; Budget provisions for training are inadequate; and there are outdated service schemes. In particular, there is a recognized lack of adequately trained staff in the key areas of financial management, data management and procurement. Analysis of capacity development needs will be undertaken.
Communication and Information and Communication Technology
The development and implementation of specific communication strategies to support both the SWAP process as well as implementation of the NHSSP II should be considered as a main priority for the design phase.
Coordination process
Effective coordination and buy-in for the health SWAP will require a broadened Joint SWAP Coordinating Committee that includes representation from the various arms of Government, the Faith Based Organisations, NGOs and the private-for-profit sector. The proposed thematic areas should also reflect a diverse representation of partners across the sector. Care should be taken to restrict the number of JSCC members in order to allow for effective and efficient working arrangements and speed in decision-taking. Ownership is essential for the SWAP building process and all chairs of thematic areas should be led by Kenyans to work on the basis of the TOR, agreed by the Joint SWAP Coordinating Committee.
Key Milestones to be achieved:
– Dissemination and consensus building around the NHSSP II, Annual Operational Plan I and SWAP concept paper as the basis for more detailed planning to advance NHSSP implementation and the Kenyan heath SWAP;
– Constitution of a expanded Joint SWAP Coordinating Committee and finalisation of the TOR for the suggested thematic areas;
– Work carried out during the upcoming design phase is fed into the development of Annual Operational Plan II; and,
– Annual Operational Plan II finalised and approved at the May 2006 Health Summit, reflecting the SWAP related areas and issues raised in the consultation process.
Work is ongoing on the thematic groups and some results have been achieved like an improvement plan for FMS, assessment report and plan for human resources, plans for information and communication and for improved service delivery. A joint appraisal mission is planned for April 2006 to agree on actions and a Health Summit in May 2006 is expected to bring the SWAP Process forward. The modalities and coordination structures for the SWAP in the health sector appears very comprehensive and ambitious. The water sector should follow the process closely and learn from these experiences and how the pre-requisites are being fulfilled in order to take advantage and incorporate good practices in the water sector process.
4.2 Water Sector SWAP Experiences in Neighbouring Countries
4.2.1 Water Sector Zambia
Status of the WSS SWAP: Zambia has benefited since 2004 from the overarching Harmonization in Practice (HIP) initiative. All donors in the water sector are signatories to HIP and there are signs that it has started having positive effects on coordination of activities in the water sector although significant concrete benefits are yet to materialise. The HIP demands very close donor coordination and obliges sectors to find means of working towards SWAP type arrangements. The water sector is divided into 3 different sub-sectors that are institutionally separate: Urban WSS and Rural WSS (Ministry of Local Government and Housing) and Water Resources Management (Ministry of Energy and Water Development).
Following the HIP initiative of 2004, both Ministry of Local Government and Housing and Ministry of Energy and Water Development informally presented their ideas of how to establish SWAP in early 2005. These ideas are not immediately compatible and a dialogue process is required before structure and modalities for one SWAP for the water sector can be presented. Likewise on the donor side, there are different opinions on whether a whole sector SWAP or three Sub-sector SWAPs are preferable. A stalemate has arrived and in an attempt to break the deadlock a special workshop training event is planned for involving external facilitation. In the meantime, the plans for a SWAp for the rural sub-sector are progressing fast. A national RWSS programme has been drafted and could start by late 2006. Given the necessary preparations a RWSS sub-sector SWAP could in the best case be in place by mid 2007. The Devolution Trust Fund is a basket funding mechanism which is specifically targeted at the low income urban areas. There are controversies over whether or not the Devolution Trust Fund should be turned into a broader funding mechanism in the framework of SWAP.
Lessons learnt and best practice
Funding: The resource mobilization role of a SWAP can actually increase the difficulties of getting necessary institutional cooperation. So far the institutional conflicts inherent in the water sector in Zambia which probably have as their base competition for resources have also been a hindrance to the process of developing a SWAP. In the Zambian institutional set-up, the implementation of a SWAP in the stricter sense would require to “competing ministries” to jointly mobilize resources and split them among themselves. This is very hard to implement in practical terms. Existing and potential funding arrangements are described in a number of documents. Historical or even an ad hoc funding arrangement can potentially be used as channel for funds directed to a SWAP – the WSTF in Kenya could be considered. The Devolution Trust Fund which was originally established under the urban sector regulator for the peri-urban water sector is one of the possibilities for a SWAP funding mechanism. The main sector players are currently not in agreement on this option.
Implications for Kenya: Ensure that the SWAP strategy for resources mobilization in Kenya does not create conflicts as institutions and departments compete for resources. Consider the Kenyan WSTF as a potential funding vehicle. The control structures of the WSTF should be very clear before the decision is made. In Zambia, the disputes on the Devolution Trust Fund began only after the first serious funds had been pledged.
Implementation: The institutional conflict in Zambia has led to long delays and perhaps will even lead to a collapse of an attempt to introduce SWAP. The institutional separation from Water Supply and Sanitation (responsibility Ministry of Local Government and Housing and Water Resources Management (responsibility Ministry of Energy and Water Development) was one of the results of the comprehensive sector reform. While this has many advantages from a content point of view it has also brought about a more complex institutional set-up with increased need for cooperation. The transfer of responsibilities has not gone smoothly and is still the source of conflicts. The fact that two ministries have to work jointly towards establishing a SWAP is a serious obstacle which has proven very hard to overcome.
The creation of sub-sector SWAPs promises to be one way of overcoming obstacles as not all the problems in all the sub-sectors have to be solved at once. The advantage of sub-SWAPs is that the two ministries can implement them independently of each other. Hence there is less friction. There is however always a number of overlaps which have to be dealt with in order to achieve similar efficiency gains as in a whole sector SWAP. Therefore, the sub-sector SWAPs will have to be accompanied by an adequate harmonisation framework which also basically requires solving all underlying institutional conflicts.
Generic agreements on harmonisation of external assistance that cover all sectors is very helpful as the water sector cannot go alone and advance far beyond other areas of cooperation. In Zambia the HIP initiative in particular has paved the way for improved conditions for SWAPs – although because of the institutional conflict in the water sector this has not yet resulted in progress. A Joint Assistance Strategy has been developed for all sectors that maps the donor involvement, outlines comparative advantages and provides generic TOR for donor involvement.
New institutions created by the reforms (in the case of Zambia, the Commercial Utilities, the regulator, the Devolution Trust Fund etc) could be strong leaders in a SWAP process. They are less tied to the past and have been created to serve the new agendas of decentralisation and separation of provision from regulation.
Implications for Kenya:
– Consider the advantage and disadvantages of the use of sub-sector SWAPs to simplify the implementation arrangements. Sub-SWAPs are sub-optimal but in some cases may still be the most practical first step. If so, identify possibly areas of overlaps between the sub-SWAPs and find solutions how to deal with them.
– Look to the presence of any generic donor- government harmonisation arrangements and work within these to legitimise the water SWAP efforts.
– Beware of institutional jealousy that a new SWAP initiative might inflame.
– Consider giving a leadership role to the new institutions that have been created to implement the water sector reforms (e.g. the WSTF, the WSBs etc)
Cooperation and incentives: Those that lead the SWAP should not necessarily be financial gainers from SWAP if the sector has conflicts of interest. The main problem has been that the perception from an individual agency basis is that there has been more to loose from not being the SWAP leader than there is to gain from SWAP if another organisation obtains the leadership.
Implications for Kenya:
– Those that lead SWAP should not be seen to gain in detriment to other important stakeholders unless there are otherwise good reasons for doing this (otherwise it will undermine the good will needed to sustain a SWAP to completion).
– The sector leaders in the policy and regulatory sense (and therefore the initiators of a SWAP) should preferably not be money handlers it makes it very difficult for them to take a correct decision if that decision means less money for them
Priority setting: A national programme for Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS) is seen in Zambia as prerequisite for a SWAP since it provides the targets and prioritised plan that all agencies will work together for. The plan includes both institutional and physical implementation interventions. Efficiency gains will be achieved by implementing first in areas of greatest demand/need. The institutional support is aimed at increasing the efficiency of the implementing agency. Further efficiency gains are expected from harmonising the mode of deliveries as well as from institutionalising a coherent system for O&M in order to enhance the sustainability of the interventions. Only on the basis of a well maintained information system is it possible to prioritise the allocation of funds, e.g. between O&M and new investments.
Decentralisation is a key issue – can SWAP lead to re-centralisation – to what extent are SWAPs decentralisation friendly? In Zambia, the National Programme for RWSS has been designed on the basis of highly decentralised structures. Planning as well as implementation capacities on the decentralised level are still very weak. This risks to be the actual bottleneck for the implementation. A SWAP that pays more than lip service to decentralisation is complicated. Not only in terms of consultation but also in terms of ensuring that national plans are bottom up and based on local plans. This is the ideal situation but local plans are not yet ready and likely to take a very long time before they are compatible with each other to the extent that a national plan can be derived from them.
The Urban sector can potentially be brought under a SWAP in Zambia as the investment needs and future financial sustainability are well worked out, the Commercial Utilities are in place and a powerful information system is in place at the regulator and the Devolution Trust Fund started working.
Implications for Kenya:
– The issue of the relevance of SWAP in the context of decentralization should be very carefully thought out (does SWAP lead to re-centralisation?).
– The institutional set up of regional water boards and catchment management agencies may make SWAP more relevant and less complicated in Kenya than in many countries where the water function is devolved to local government.
– A national plan for the RWSS and Urban Water Supply and Sanitation (UWSS) is needed as the basis for a SWAP.
– There is a tendency to look to the RWSS sector as the leader of a SWAP but in some cases the clearer institutional set up of the urban sector can also enable an early move towards SWAP.
Communication and participation: A water Sector Advisory Group has been set up to link the water sector better to the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS). So far, it has not worked well – mainly due to the difficulty of two ministries having to join forces. It is not clear what role the Sector Advisory Group would play in the context of a SWAP. Neither the government nor civil society has found it easy to handle the role of civil society within official forums such as the Sector Advisory Group. Civil society has generally not played a strong advocacy role. The role of the Sector Advisory Group versus the role of normal government bodies is not clear – who is responsible? of people attending the Sector Advisory Group has been poor. The whole Sector Advisory Group concept appears to have been externally invented and driven. The line ministry attached little importance to it which reflected in the low-level participation in the meetings and an absence of resources allocated to the Sector Advisory Group. A well working Sector Advisory Group however, could be an efficient coordination forum within a SWAP
Implications for Kenya:
– The consultation mechanisms must be resourced and there must be reasons to believe that government officials see such consultation as necessary or helpful to their work (otherwise it is just seen as window dressing).
– Accountability for ensuring that the participation mechanisms works well has to be built into the process – i.e. an individual or department must be held accountable for the success of the consultation.
Transparency and good governance: These issues go beyond the water sector especially when funds are increasingly channelled via local government. There is a need to link to wider processes between government and its external DPs. Transparency can be considerably enhanced within the sector compared to the status quo if joint funding mechanisms as well as procurement procedures have adequate control structures in place. Increased transparency and better governance will probably be one of the main stimulations of increased resource flows to the sector in the framework of SWAP.
Implications for Kenya:
– Don’t try to solve all transparency and governance issues just within the water sector, search for what has already been done in other sectors and if not enough then link with whatever efforts there are to make more general advances on these issues.
– All SWAP mechanisms have to be designed with adequate control structures aiming at increased transparency and good governance. SWAP should not be governance neutral it should be governance improving.
4.2.2 Water Sector Tanzania
Historical development and status of the WSS SWAP: The revised National Water Policy launched in July 2002 and followed by the National Water Sector Development Strategy in November 2004 which provides a coherent, holistic and integrated strategy for the Water Sector in order to implement the National Water Policy. A Water Sector Strategy Implementation Plan is under preparation and sets out details of implementing the national strategy. Based on these policies and strategies, the Government has engaged in the process of establishing a new development partnership for the water sector. A first Draft Road Map to SWAP was elaborated in 2003 and identified the key milestones for putting in place the foundations for the SWAP. Core elements of the Road Map included:
• Restructuring of the Ministry of Water and Livestock Development;
• Finalization of the Water Sector Strategy Implementation Plan;
• Approval of a National Water Law,
• Establishment of Joint Government/Donor Sector Reviews
• The development of a Water Sector Development Program (2006-2015) based on the sub-sector investment plans.
Over the last 2 years, progress has been achieved in some respects, in particular with regard to the elaboration of the National Water Sector Development Strategy and its Implementation Plan, as well as the review of the Law. The water sector SWAP in Tanzania is conceived to bring together the three sub-sectors (rural water supply; urban water supply and sewerage; and water resources management) under one comprehensive investment and regulatory regime that is integrated into the national budget. A three-year transition period is anticipated. The period will be used to put in place the foundations for the SWAP, prepare the necessary investment plan, build capacity at all levels for delivery and establish the necessary regulatory framework for sustained delivery of water supply services country-wide.
The key structures in a future water sector are foreseen as:
• A High-Level Forum that would debate policy choices and the effectiveness of spending, monitor performance, assess strategies, and facilitate funding decisions. It would meet semi-annually and comprise senior representatives from all key stakeholders. The High Level Forum would be convened by the Minister for Water together with the Minister for Local Government.
• A Water Sector Working Group, modelled on the case of Uganda, which would be in charge of monitoring progress, debating challenges to progress and consult on decisions. It would be co-chaired by the PS for Water and the PS for Local Government and bring together technical representatives of DPs and non-state actors on a monthly or bimonthly basis.
• Again, following the model of Uganda, Technical Working Groups would be defined around core thematic issues such as Finance, PER/MTEF, Performance Monitoring, Operation and Maintenance, Sanitation, Water Resources Management, Capacity Building etc. Some working groups will have a more permanent character whereas others might be created for a limited time to address specific issues coming up during the reviews. The Technical Working Groups will convene qualified representatives from all relevant stakeholders (Government, DPs, civil society) and define their meeting schedule depending on the respective needs. One important function of the Technical Working Groups would be to elaborate action plans to respond to the recommendations of the Joint Sector Reviews, as well as to inform on priorities for forthcoming Reviews.
• Similar to the Uganda experience, Annual Joint Sector Reviews are envisaged that would ideally take place ahead of the budget preparation process (i.e. in the first quarter of the fiscal year). An Memorandum of Understanding would be prepared.
• Sector performance assessment in the review will be the primary process linking the sector to the MKUKUTA (Poverty reduction strategy) annual progress review (either directly or via a cluster review), and to the Poverty Reduction Budget Support annual review which will assess whether the review was satisfactory.
Lessons learnt and best practice
Funding: A sector investment plan and model, inspired by similar efforts in Uganda, is being developed. The model and plan will allow policy based scenarios to be developed and enable the impact of available resources on achievement of targets to be predicted. Predictability of external funding is one of the main benefits envisaged by the Tanzania government that will arise from a SWAP.
Implications for Kenya:
– A sector investment plan (preferably simple) is at the heart of a SWAP. The plan has to be linked to the MTEF and budgeting processes.
Implementation: A 3 year transition phase has been allowed for and events have shown that this is necessary. Reform of Ministry of Water and Livestock Development is a cornerstone of the approach to SWAP. The reform entails the separation of service provision and regulatory/facilitory roles as the key objective with an enhanced role for the private sector and local government.
Implications for Kenya:
– Should the SWAP processes by managed by the existing institutions or by purpose created committees and forums? If ownership is strong enough it would be better to have SWAP managed by existing management structures.
– SWAP can contribute to implementing reforms that have already started. These reforms can have as their outcome the development of a SWAP or at least SWAP friendly conditions. The momentum of the SWAP process and reform process can be joined but not so interlinked that one can delay or stop the other.
Cooperation and incentives: DPs help by agreeing to a division of labour and delegation of cooperation to a lead donor. Aid management reforms aimed at improving use of external assistance have been ongoing since the 1990s. The Technical Assistance Strategy of 2002 was a key step forward. This has now been expanded to the Joint Technical Assistance Strategy which aims to develop a single partnership framework. The Technical Assistance Strategy and the Joint Technical Assistance Strategy serve as a multi-donor and multi sector platform for cooperation – similar to the HIP in Zambia.
Implications for Kenya:
– The Kenyan water SWAP should look to arrangements for donor cooperation and coordination that are defined generally for all sectors so that donors are able to develop consistent approaches across all their sectors of support.
– An analysis of incentives from both the donor and government side would help to bring greater understanding to the presence of political constraints and decision making processes – including the development of improved inter-government cooperation.
Priority setting: The process towards SWAP has led to a Sub sector allocation that has shifted priorities towards the rural areas where the majority of the un-served live. The SWAP is linked to the PRSP and MTEF processes and hence the priorities are set by the poverty agenda.
Implications for Kenya:
– Allocation principals can be based on policy targets and will imply prioritisation of areas of greatest unmet need. There might be “losers” in this re-prioritisation who will resist.
– The SWAP should contribute to and inform the PRSP and MTEF processes for priority setting and budget allocation rather than set up separate systems or “SWAP” targets.
Communication and participation: The SWAP is not only about getting donors to work together but also getting different Tanzanian stakeholders together from the public sector, the private sector and civil society. In response to Government of Tanzania’s call, the DPs have organised themselves into a development partners group where there is a special sub-group for water.
Implications for Kenya:
– The production of a DP Group type position paper on SWAP is helpful as it can sum up a commonly held donor position and enable the government to know the view points of the donors. A shared vision can be is an important step in developing a SWAP.
Transparency and good governance: Targets with measurable indicators for the transition plan have been developed for the Tanzanian water sector SWAP. Capacity building to manage external resources is needed to increase transparency. Performance Assessment Framework is a step in the direction accountability. The sector dialogue is foreseen as strengthening government accountability to citizens – information release can do this. Tanzania used an Independent Monitoring Group to review progress in government and external development partner relations.
Implications for Kenya:
– Capacity building targeted at good governance in the water sector with the goal of enhancing transparency could be considered;
– The SWAP transition plan should have indicators and responsibilities clearly marked for how the process is progressing;
– Setting up of a performance assessment framework that includes value for money and tracking studies is an important confidence building measure for SWAP. It can also help make such internal/external reviews a routine part of the sector.
4.2.3 Water Sector Uganda
Historical development and status of the WS&S SWAP: In the past the Government of Uganda development activities have been based on projects .This approach was perceived to have several weaknesses: planning was piecemeal; investments donor driven; little incentive to reduce costs; technical standardization compromised and, a gradual undermining of government systems especially at local level. To address the above short coming, Government of Uganda conceptualised and then implemented a strategy for a radical shift from a project driven approach to development of a SWAP. The key elements that have contributed towards a SWAP in Uganda in the WS&S sector are:
- Regulatory Framework review;
- Sub-Sector Reforms;
- Detailed Functional Analysis;
- Pro poor strategy;
- Sector Investment Plans;
- Water and Sanitation Sector Working Group;
- Donor Coordination Group;
- NGO Coordination;
- Joint Annual Reviews;
- Sector Performance Report;
- Tracking and value for money studies.
Lessons learnt and best practice
Funding: Urban sector reforms were aimed at commercialisation of small towns and especially large towns in order to create internal incentive structures for efficiency and make the water utilities more attractive to lenders so that loan finance could be raised. Old debts and maintenance backlog still hamper financial performance in the large towns. Poor economies of scale and low tariffs will prevent many small towns from reaching financial autonomy. The reforms took longer than imagined.
Targeted budget support was established as the sole means of supporting physical implementation of RWSS through official development assistance – as a consequence of decision to decentralize (including funding) to the district level- the fiscal decentralization strategy. Some important areas that were well funded by donor projects have suffered in the transition to targeted budget support for RWSS. The clearest example is the funding of sanitation and hygiene promotion. District health inspectors and their teams had far more funding under projects than under the new SWAP arrangements. The longer prospects for sanitation and hygiene promotion are probably better under SWAP.
SWAP across all sub sectors has led to greater transparency on fund allocation between the sub-sectors. As a result it became apparent that the urban sub-sectors were allocated much more than was implied by the overall policy targets since the majority of the un-served live in rural areas. A joint partnership fund pools technical assistance and capacity building funds to the sector both for water and sanitation. Whilst this has not been without problems it has enabled a very high degree of flexibility.
Implications for Kenya: SWAP can complement urban reforms – but the main source of additional funding will arise from improved institutional and technical performance of the water utilities themselves. SWAP arrangements have to consider additionality concerns if they are to attract funding that is sector specific. SWAP related funding mechanisms should consider the impact on recurrent budgets especially for the hygiene promotion function. Funding for technical assistance and capacity building can be provided off budget but still integrated within government systems – gaining the advantages of harmonization and flexibility.
Implementation: A special transition arrangement was put in place to ensure that the capacity built up in projects was gradually transferred to the districts. The temporary Technical Support Units each support 8 or 10 districts to undertake the work previously done by projects. Not only has this lead to capacity increase but it also ensured that there was not temporary lapse in implementation rate which would have discredited the whole initiative.
Once the fiscal decentralization strategy had been put in place, increases in funding to the sector can be arranged much quicker than the normal procedures of establishing new projects.
The key government units at central level under took a functional analysis as part of the process of converting from an implementation to a regulatory/ facilitating role. Transition plans were made and the strategy, staffing, systems, structure and inter relationships with other government and non-government institutions were re-orientated. A manpower analysis leading to updated job descriptions and re-training and later the introduction of results orientated accountability mechanisms were done. Implementing the recommendations resulted in institutions at central that were capable of implementing the new policy e.g. separation of service provision and regulation.
Implications for Kenya: Project modalities can be used as transition vehicles for building capacity to implement using new delivery mechanisms. New policies and roles must be accompanied by a re-engineering the institutional structure, systems, job descriptions and accountability mechanisms.
Cooperation and incentives: Strong leadership on SWAP from Government of Uganda particularly the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development was vital. The Fiscal Decentralisation Strategy was the key to the SWAP in RWSS. All parties were forced to channel funds via the government system. Vested interests in the old arrangements were overpowered by the consistency of the drive from Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development and those that supported these new developments in the sector itself.
The Water Supply and Sanitation Working Group is chaired at permanent secretary level and a very inclusive composition. It was given the mandate to coordinate but also the ultimate power to approve and accept any new initiatives. With this development sector coordination suddenly became highly relevant, well attended and successful.
Implications for Kenya: If the Ministry of Finance becomes a champion for a SWAP the prospects for success are greater. Coordination works better when the mechanism goes beyond a debating forum and undertakes a decision making role.
Priority setting: Under the finance sector working group established by the SWAP, an initiative to develop a sector investment plan that brought together 7 sub-sectors of investment was launched. The resultant Sector Investment Plan (SIP) allows a policy based comparison of the allocation between: i) rural water, ii) urban water for large towns, iii) urban water for small towns, iv) sanitation, v) water resources management, vi) water for production and vii) regulatory and sector overheads. Priorities are thus linked with the allocation of funds by establishing preferred scenarios from examining alternatives. So far this has been achieved but the model might be too complex to be robust in the long-term.
Implications for Kenya: A sector investment model can help to make the policy impact of present allocation practices between sub-sectors explicit. It can reveal where the greatest sector inefficiencies are (large costs for little gain). It can provide a tool that enables the sector ministry to demonstrate the efficiency of the sector and the coverage impact of different levels of funding from the government.
Communication and participation: An annual sector review has been held since 2000. Involving nearly 300 stakeholders from all interest groups it has enabled the sector to gain from the participation of a very broad range of experience. The review has been linked to the preparation of undertakings where those responsible have been held to account for achievement and non-achievement year by year. The undertakings are used as a trigger for Poverty Reduction Strategy Credit releases. Uganda Water and Sanitation NGOs Network was formed in 2001 as an umbrella association for improved NGO coordination, sharing of experiences and liaison with Government of Uganda and DPs. There are currently over 190 NGOs and CBOs members of Uganda Water and Sanitation NGOs Network.
Implications for Kenya: An annual sector review process will foster improved communication and ensure that at least once a year all involved in the sector can participate in a review of progress and the setting of key priorities for the next year. NGOs coordination is possible and beneficial.
Transparency and good governance: Value for money and tracking studies have been carried out but so far only sporadically. They promise, when made more regular, to bring in a greater degree of transparency and confidence in the sector. The value for money has in particular been found difficult to design. Each year a Sector Performance is published (in time for the Annual Sector Review) and this has been instrumental in making an assessment of the sector as a whole rather than individual project or sub-sector parts. The Sector Performance Review has developed “golden indicators” for the sector to provide an overview measurement of the sector.
Implications for Kenya: Regular tracking and value for money studies combined with annual performance measurement against key indicators should be used together with normal fiscal controls such as audits.
Detailed reports on the Zambia, Tanzania and Uganda Water Sector SWAPs are included in Annex F
5. Risk Analysis
A number of reservations or fears about the SWAP process were expressed during the consultations with stakeholders. A summary of these risks is listed below together with the mitigating measures that can be taken in the design of the SWAP to reduce the risks and the negative perceptions about the SWAP.
Risk 1: SWAP will re-centralise planning away from grass-root involvement/ initiative
The SWAP should not be established with separate procedures and structures that will alter the planning and institutional responsibilities in the sector. The SWAP will therefore not alter the sector reform principles of improved stakeholder involvement at grass-root level from WRUAs to CAACs in integrated planning at catchment basin level. Sector investment planning shall continue to be based on decentralised planning from WSBs and lower levels. The demand driven implementation through the WSTF will also not be affected by the SWAP – to the contrary, the SWAP could potentially contribute to attracting more funding to the WSTF.
Coordination and planning between WRM and WSS service provision and Irrigation initiatives at local or regional level is an important aspect of IWRM and is crucial for effective use of water resources. It could be considered as part of the SWAP coordination structures to establish regional coordination fora, so that coordination takes place effectively between the various stakeholders that are active in a regional area. It could be considered if this could best be organised according to WSB areas or the CAAC/ basin demarcations or a combination of the two.
Risk 2: SWAP will complicate the planning process
The SWAP should contribute to making the existing planning framework in the sector effective e.g. align and integrate the donor planning cycle in the MTEF planning cycle. There is a risk that alignment to the Gok FY will complicate planning for some DPs as typically their FY are different from the GoK FY. It should however be possible for the involved DPs to mitigate this by having a rolling planning frame based on half-yearly or quarterly budget and planning frames to accommodate different timeframes. The planning according to the 3-year MTEF planning period will also pose some challenges to the DPs as it implies that longer term commitment need to be available from the bilateral and multilateral agencies.
The cooperation and coordination structures for the SWAP need to be effective both in terms of the operational cost of the resources needed for the envisaged coordination structures and in terms of being able to function effectively. The large number of potential partners in a water sector SWAP points to that it could be an advantage with a sub-sector division[22] of the cooperation and coordination structures to avoid a situation with large time consuming coordination meetings.
A natural grouping would be around the sub-sectors: water and sanitation service provision, water resources management and irrigation. A guiding principle must be that the SWAP arrangements shall fit the national institutional framework, and since the institutions are common for rural and urban, it seems to be an advantage for the sector institutions if the SWAP arrangement should also be common. Any special issues in relation to rural or urban could be dealt with in thematic groups or working groups. The pros and cons of dividing rural and urban service provision is indicated in the table below.
|Rural and Urban |Pros |Cons |
|sub-division | | |
|Rural W&S and Urban W&S |The sector institutions e.g. the WSBs cover both urban|The stakeholders are many and therefore the |
|regarded as one sub-sector|and rural, the WSTF can finance rural community |coordination more difficult in a combined rural |
| |schemes as well as peri-urban and urban infrastructure|and urban sub-sector set-up |
| |– SWAP structures should as much as possible | |
| |correspond to the institutional set-up | |
|Rural W&S and Urban W&S |There are distinct differences between Urban and Rural|Duplication of coordination and planning efforts |
|regarded as two |in terms of financing, planning, commercialisation |as the stakeholders overlap between the urban and|
|sub-sectors |etc. therefore better to address urban and rural |rural sub-sectors e.g. the WSBs and WSTF would |
| |separately |have to participate in two coordination fora. |
| |Advantage from the DP point of view since DPs are |Defining the borderline between urban and rural |
| |largely divided between rural and urban |(small towns, peri-urban areas) will give |
| | |complications in planning |
Risk 3: SWAP will imply reduced funding for the NGO sector
NGOs with direct international funding expressed the fear that if an effective SWAP was in place in the water sector, the funding from DPs would be likely to be channelled through the GoK and not to the NGOs. This is a justified fear since as one NGO expressed it: if the GoK was performing efficiently in the sector – then there would not be a place for us’. The need in the Kenyan water sector for effective implementation of sustainable programmes is so large that there for many years will be room for all implementers with capacity to implement in a cost effective manner. The challenge in the design of the SWAP is thus to ensure that increased coordination in the sector will include all partners including the NGOs with independent funding and that this will be taken into account in the sector investment planning.
There are also positive aspects of the SWAP and the sectgor reforms that will allow for increased involvement and funding to NGO sector through the WSTF.
Risk 4: Lack of leadership and capacity in MWI to manage the SWAP process
Reorganisation of MWI head office and capacity building of the unit responsible for Policy, Planning and M&E can be enhanced by the SWAP Process provided it is given enough priority. The existing coordination mechanisms e.g. WSWG should be used to guide the SWAP process. The success of the ongoing SIP and SIS projects will be crucial in establishing the leadership in the sector by MWI as these are the key building blocks for improved planning and performance management in the sector.
Risk 5: Donors will not harmonise and align to GoK procedures
The attitude of donors and other stakeholders concerning the movement towards a SWAP represents a wide range between ‘being motivated and over-ambitious’ and ‘being sceptical and hesitating’. For the SWAP to move forward, all stakeholders will have to be open-minded and a common attitude towards being a group with joint objectives and interests and striving for win-win-situations for all needs to be in place while keeping, of course, transparency and accountability as highest principles. The SWAP design will have to include tools like Partnership Principles and surveys of compliance of the ongoing donor programmes to the principles. The process of regular monitoring of the compliance can be an effective tool to steer a process of alignment of new initiatives and gradual changes to existing programmes where possible.
Risk 6: Implementation efficiency in project implementation will be lost
Project implementation where most efficient e.g. in larger urban investments should continue to be an acceptable implementation method as long as it is planned and prioritised in accordance with the SIP. The use of project implementation modalities should therefore not be excluded in the list ‘acceptable’ funding modalities provided it is only used when it has comparative advantage over other funding modalities.
Risk 7: The coordination mechanisms will be too elaborate and not efficient
Ideally the coordination mechanisms that will be established for SWAP should not be in addition to the present coordination of planning in the sector, but should integrate the various bilateral planning activities as well as improve the planning that should take place between the various sub-sectors e.g. between irrigation and agriculture and between IDD and NIB.
The MoF Budget Calendar provides a golden opportunity for structuring the SWAP arrangements around the GoK planning and budgeting cycle. The events during the year that will be part of coordinating with the DPs in the water sector will need to the timed according to this calendar in order to fit into the GoK planning schedule.
The stakeholders that have been identified in Chapter 3 above are very many to consider for effective coordination structures. It could be considered to start the SWAP coordination structures with a much smaller group of key stakeholders and as experience is gained increase the membership according to need and not according to a perceived demand and need for coordination.
Risk 8: SWAP will delay and complicate the reform process
The issue of whether or not the implementation of sector reforms shall be given priority over the introduction of SWAP has come up in the consultations with stakeholders. The issue seems to be rather that the SWAP shall support the sector reforms and streamline the planning and implementation. There should therefore not be an either-or. To be effective the SWAP must be integrated into the way of working in the new sector institutions and therefore the SWAP and the institutional development must go hand in hand.
Time and resources for senior sector officials a constraint that needs to be considered – SWAP shall not add to the burden of coordination meetings for senior officials – aim of SWAP is to reduce the need for coordination and separate reviews, formulation missions etc. and bilateral meetings between senior ministry staff and bi-lateral and multi-lateral donors
It is important for the progress in the sector that the work on establishing the SWAP is not drawing resources and attention away from the formidable ongoing task of establishing and operationalising the new institutions in the water sector. The SWAP should rather been looked at as an opportunity at this early stage of establishing the new working methods in the sector, to harmonise the planning and implementation procedures so that the sector can work effectively in the longer term.
The design of the SWAP should therefore not establish separate processes and structures different from the institutional set-up in the sector, but only attempt to make the institutions more effective in planning and implementation. The Reform Process and SWAP should be considered to be the same and the SWAP process should only consolidate, complement and guide the reform process and fill in some ‘potholes’ for more effective implementation of the reforms.
Risk 9: GoK Financial Management Systems not effective for implementation of the SWAP
This risk is to some extent mitigated by the set-up in the water sector where the new institutions have financial management systems that do not depend on efficient FMS of the whole of the GoK system. Acceptable funding channels in the Partnership Principles will include different funding mechanisms and only integrate in Treasury system when effective improvements have materialised.
6. SWAP Framework
6.1 SWAP principles
The guiding principles behind the development of the SWAP framework are derived from the analysis of opportunities and constraints in the sector together with a risk analysis of the process of adopting a SWAP. The principles are:
– SWAP has to be simple and minimize complexity in the sector – the sector is already overwhelmed by the change processes and any new initiatives have to consolidate rather than add to the reforms;
– SWAP will support and add value to the ongoing reforms as the aims are similar. Thus the SWAP should take its departure point in the reforms – the reforms are the main roadmap – the SWAP role is fill in certain ”pot holes”. Thus the SWAP help in the reform consolidation process;
– A single SWAP will be made combining rural, urban, service provision and water resources – sanitation and hygiene promotion is a concurrent responsibility with the emerging health sector SWAP;
– Immediate adoption of the planning aspects is feasible and universally supported – so very early and universal adoption could take place;
– Adoption of the funding framework will take longer – but the process should start now;
– DPs and external support processes are at different levels, the SWAP must be flexible enough to accommodate the necessary change processes but also strong enough to move rapidly away from “business as usual” toward achieving the common sector aims;
– The SWAP should be fully integrated into the MTEF/sector planning calendar.
6.2 Framework
Based on the principles above and especially on the need to keep it simple, the overall framework is composed of 8 crucial elements which sit within policy, planning and funding frameworks as shown below:
Table 6-1 Core elements of the SWAP framework
|Framework |Core elements |
|Policy framework |Definition of the national sector framework (what to align to) |
| |Partnership principles (common donor policies on how to align) |
|Planning framework |Sector Investment Plan – SIP (tool for prioritisation) |
| |Sector Information System – performance monitoring |
| |Coordination – both inter-sectoral and with external partners |
|Funding framework |Channels of funding (ladder of options - project, basket, budget support) |
| |Financial management (transparency, accountability, value for money) |
| |Resource mobilisation (using SWAP to increase funding) |
Most of the actions implied by this framework are already part of the ongoing reforms and normal processes of sector management. Thus the role of a SWAP roadmap will not be to build a separate series of plans and actions but instead to support, strengthen and consolidate the present reform roadmap and “fill in pot holes” where the SWAP process has a comparative advantage. The comparative advantage will derive from i) breathing new life into processes that have stalled; ii) increasing the leverage arising from improved harmonization and alignment of external efforts and iii) using the SWAP as a presentation and communication tool to harness the efforts and cooperation of actors in other sectors. The SWAP role is also a recognition that the reform secretariat is winding down as the transition tasks are over and that the main focus now will be on longer term improvements and maintenance of sector performance.
Policy framework
Core element #1) Definition of the National Sector Framework (what to align to):
This element requires the definition of the Kenyan water sector policies, strategies, law, institutions, coordination bodies, decision making structures etc. This is needed because actors within the sector, within other sectors in Kenya and amongst the DPs need to have a clear and coherent National Sector Framework (NSF) to align to. The definition of the NSF is largely done and is documented in chapter 2 of this report as well as in the document review. Some areas however still remain such as irrigation and sanitation. There is a concern that the NSF is largely on paper and does not reflect reality, whilst this was the case a couple of years ago, it is not longer the case now that most of the reforms have been implemented. Nevertheless there is still much that needs to be achieved to complete the implementation of the reforms and these are outlined in the reform work plan.
The institutional framework for irrigation is out of date where the present strategies were done in advance of the adoption by government of the principles of separating regulation from provision of services. Thus the present set up of the MoA, MWI and the NIB will be revised in the future. Within sanitation and hygiene promotion there has been clarification of the leadership role between MWI and MoH. It has now been settled that the MoH will take the lead. A memorandum of understanding between the two ministries outlining the cooperation sanitation and hygiene activities is being drafted and is expected before end of 2006. The responsibilities related to environmental sanitation will also have to include the LGAs since these have the main responsibility at local level.
Core element # 2) Partnership principles (common donor policies):
These principles combine the code of conduct and represent a common and coherent donor policy of how to align and harmonise. The Kenyan government sees the template developed by the education sector as the best starting point. A screening of how the present portfolio of support matches the principles is needed in order to see what changes are needed, donor by donor. This screening is expected to result in the development of alignment and harmonization plans for each donor effort and might lead to the first practical benefits from the adoption of the SWAP.
Planning framework
Core element #3) Sector Investment Plan –SIP (tool for prioritisation):
The SIP is at the core of the SWAP since it is the instrument that provides the basis for all sector investment. It is the tool that reflects agreed allocation principals both within the different sub-sectors as well as geographically. It is the means by which the achievement of targets are prioritised. It is only useful if all significant efforts are aligned to it. This does not necessarily mean that all funding should be centralized and disbursed via the treasury but it does mean that all investments must fit into and be triggered by the SIP. There is already an ongoing work plan for developing a SIP. It is schedule to end in December 2006 although it might take longer. As it is a crucial part of the SWAP an interim SIP (i-SIP) might be needed.
Core element #4) Sector Information System – performance monitoring:
Performance monitoring is an essential part of any sector and also of any effort to introduce a SWAP. Timely and reliable data on performance will allow government and its partners to constructively adjust the levels of funding and the modalities of funding. There is already an ongoing work plan for development of an information system that can provide a sound basis for sector performance monitoring. The work plan is scheduled to deliver the first results by end of 2006.
Core element #5) Coordination – inter-sectoral / with external partners:
There are a variety of coordination mechanisms in place such as the WSWG and inter-sectoral coordination at ministry level. The WSTG is also in place and experiences have been made on annual sector reviews within the KWSP framework. These are the main instruments for ensuring that all parties work together and that threats and opportunities to the sector are responded to in a coherent manner. The sector coordination activities (WSWG, WSTG and reviews), can be scheduled according to the MTEF calendar as shown in Annex H. The coordination mechanisms needed for effective planning in the sector appear to be at three levels:
– Overall national level inter-sectoral and with external partners (covered by existing high level GoK coordination and the WSWG)
– Strategic planning at national level within sub-sectors (not covered in existing practices)
– Practical planning at regional and local levels (covered by the CAACs and WRUAs)
Funding framework
6) Channels of funding (ladder of options – project, basket, budget support):
There is a ladder of funding options[23] moving from a project which for example have its own procurement modalities, to a basket fund which essentially is a collection of projects with harmonized modalities, to various forms of targeted and direct budget support. Each has its pros and cons but there should, in general, be a movement from project to budget support – perhaps with an exception for large one-off urban investments. RWSS should for example be mainly channelled via the WSTF which is a form of targeted budget support – thus basket funding for RWSS is not a relevant step in the ladder from project to budget support. A step in the ladder of funding options could be to transfer DP funding to the water sector parastatals via special accounts in Treasury – this would provide for MoF control and monitoring while not depend on that the overall GoK FMS is adequately efficient for budget support. The creation of hybrid models where donor specific modifications of government systems are expected to be implemented by the Kenyan executing agencies should in principal be avoided.
7) Financial management (transparency, accountability, value for money):
The main budget executing agencies in the water sector are newly established parastatals such as the WSBs and the WRMA. This presents a very good opportunity to build in safeguards and robust financial management routines from the start. In the early years additional safeguards might be needed if targeted budget support is being provided. These safeguards will be related to those areas where pre-requisites are not yet attained or where they still are judged to need more intensive supervision. The key to the introduction of these safeguards which will allow early adoption of more targeted budget support is to ensure that hybrid systems do not emerge where national systems are undermined or substituted rather than being improved. Channelling of funds through special accounts at Treasury to the sector parastatals could be a possibility until the Gok FMS in general is sufficiently efficient for targeted budget support.
8) Resource mobilization (using SWAP to increase funding):
The SWAP presents to GoK and DPs alike a strong, coherent and cost effective foundation for sustainable poverty alleviation. The SWAP together with the sector performance reporting and the outcome of the annual sector reviews will be the main instrument for meeting the shortfall in funding to the sector as a whole. Individual organisations such as the WSTF will develop their own resource mobilisation strategies.
6.3 Pre-requisites and milestones
The SWAP pre-requisites are here defined as those minimum steps needed before a SWAP can be meaningfully launched and consolidated. Once this is in the place there is no pretence that all the sector challenges are over. There will be a number of SWAP benchmarks to be attained (and maintained) over the years before a SWAP can be said to be fully operational. Each funding modality will itself have a series of Funding Modality Pre-requisites which are to be developed, defined and updated in the partnership principles.
The SWAP pre-requisites and SWAP benchmarks are outlined against the policy, planning and funding frameworks.
Table 6-2 SWAP pre-requisites and benchmarks
|Framework |Pre-requisite (pre launch) |Benchmarks (sub sequent to launch of SWAP) |
|Policy |Government leadership |NSF completed (irrigation & sanitation) |
| |MOF involvement |Transferred staff trained and effective in new duties |
| |Partnership Principles signed | |
| |MWI staff transfer | |
|Planning |Interim SIP |SIP updated |
| |Annual sector review |SIS – performance review undertaken, results acceptable |
| | |Annual Sector Review undertaken |
| | |WSBs, WRMA, WSRB, WSTF and WAB fully operational and in control of their own|
| | |budgets and staff |
|Funding |Funding Modalities pre-requisites defined |Tracking results acceptable |
| |Review of FMS systems |Value for money acceptable |
| |Anti corruption, enforcement, |Audits acceptable |
| |accountability |Funding levels increased at a rate that will see target met |
6.3.1 Rationale and measurement of pre-requisites prior to launch of the SWAP
Pre-requisite #1 - Government leadership
Without government leadership the SWAP reduces to a harmonisation between donors but one that is not embedded in the national sector framework and connected to the ongoing process of policy formulation, adjustment and sector management.
Attainment of this pre-requisite is already evident in the formulation of a SWAP committee, the attention given to the SWAP study and the leadership of the SWAP workshop. It can, prior to the launch, be further confirmed by i) signing of the agreement on partnership principles; ii) leadership of the SWAP launch and iii) efforts taken to ensure attainment of the other pre-requisites.
Pre-requisite #2 – MoF involvement
MoF involvement has been found an essential element of SWAPs undertaken elsewhere. Firstly the SWAP must be fully linked to the MTEF calendar and secondly any gradual process towards budget support and the improvement of financial systems will of necessity involve a strong lead from the MoF. In the water sector the requirement for MoF involvement is perhaps less than in other sectors because many of the key budget holders are parastatal.
Attainment of this pre-requisite can be measured by: i) the seniority of the staff assigned to water sector SWAP processes e.g. the workshops, the SWAP committee meetings; ii) whether MoF make and follow up on demands and targets for improved financial management in the water sector and, iii) response to the resource mobilization targets of the sector.
Pre-requisite #3- Partnership Principles signed
The partnership principles and code of conduct are needed to formalise a common understanding amongst DPs and between DPs and government. The principles are of a vision of how to best cooperate rather than being a reflection of current practice. A screening of current practice to identify potential changes is a valuable step in implementing the principles.
Attainment is evidenced by the signed document that includes a majority of the sector DPs and eventually all of them.
Pre-requisite #4 - MWI staff transfer
The new sector set-up cannot function until the staff have been transferred to their new institutions and the MWI Head Office is reorganised in accordance with its new role in the sector. The major step is the transfer, once this is effected there will be a long term process of capacity building.
Attainment is evidenced by the official letters received by the staff announcing their new workplaces and/or retrenchment.
Pre-requisite #5 - Interim SIP
The core of the SWAP is the adherence of all significant sector funding to a coherent sector investment plan that prioritises what investments should be made and allocates funding between different target areas and sub sectors. As a fully fledged SIP based on verified data is a long term process there is a need for a simpler interim SIP.
Attainment is evidenced by the WSWG approval of the interim SIP.
Pre-requisite #6 - Annual sector review
The annual sector review brings together all relevant parties to evaluate sector performance based on the various monitoring, performance measurement, tracking and VFM studies. The review collectively develops a few key undertakings for all parties to achieve during the forthcoming year chosen for their attainability and importance in improving sector performance.
Attainment is evidenced by the signing and subsequent attainment of the undertakings.
Pre-requisite #7 - Funding Modalities pre-requisites
One of the purposes of the SWAP is to map out a coherent and collective route from project and basket support towards targeted budget support. This process demands that clear pre-requisites for adopting each funding modality are agreed upon. A first definition is given in section 6.4 of this report.
Attainment is evidenced by the attachment of the funding modality pre-requisites as an annex to the signed Partnership Principles.
Pre-requisite #8 - Review of FMS systems
The main executing agencies of the sector will be governed under parastatal regulations and are thus free to set up stand alone FMS. The systems are being put in place, during this process an external review of the adequacy of the systems (though not necessarily the adequacy of the implementation of the systems) will be an important confidence building measure that will tend to accelerate the overall SWAP aims.
Attainment is evidenced by the presence of the review and hopefully the conclusion that all is well.
Pre-requisite #9 - Anti corruption, enforcement, accountability training
The presence of an adequate FMS is in itself not enough, training and awareness raising is also needed especially as regards anti-corruption and enforcement of anti-corruption. Such training which will need to be continuous is in line with the GoK anti-corruption drive will tend to create an environment that makes corruption more difficult to thrive.
Attainment is evidenced by the training evaluation forms that indicate perception changes.
6.3.2 Rationale and measurement of the SWAP benchmarks after launch of the SWAP
The 9 benchmarks listed below are mainly related to the maintenance and extension of the pre-requisites and are largely self-evident. They will need to be fine-tuned and adjusted following the launch of the SWAP and therefore they are not elaborated on further here except to list them:
• Benchmark # 1 – NSF completed (irrigation & sanitation)
• Benchmark # 2 – Transferred staff trained and effective in new duties
• Benchmark # 3 – SIP updated
• Benchmark # 4 – SIS – performance review undertaken, results acceptable
• Benchmark # 5 – Annual Sector Review undertaken
• Benchmark # 6 – WSBs, WRMA, WSRB, WSTF and WAB fully operational and in control of their own budgets and staff
• Benchmark # 7 – Tracking results acceptable
• Benchmark # 8 –Value for money acceptable
• Benchmark # 9 –Audits acceptable
• Benchmark # 10 –Funding levels increased at a rate that will see target met
6.4 Funding Modality Pre-requisites
The 3 generic funding modalities are:
• Project
• Basket (pooling of projects)
• Targeted Budget Support (TBS) to parastatals or through treasury channels
The pre-requisites for adopting a particularly funding modality will be of a financial, technical and managerial nature. Financially the pre-requisites will aim at determining when the fiduciary risks are at an acceptable level, the same or lower than project or basket modalities. Technically the pre-requisites will aim at determining when the technical capacity is in place such that correct investment and technical decisions are taken in the use of capital and recurrent funds e.g. that a database system is selected and used in a technically correct way. Managerially the pre-requisites will aim at determining when the organization is well managed such that funds are not directed towards strategically incorrect or marginal purposes and that the efforts towards strategically appropriate directions are cost effective.
The pre-requisites should as far as possible be absolute values that either trigger or don’t trigger a move to another funding modality. In practice, the conditions which they aim to measure are often subjective and require judgment and have to not only be attained but also maintained. Thus the pre-requisites need to be periodically confirmed by spot checking. There will often be uncertainty about their attainment, in such cases it is often constructive to give the benefit of doubt and then put in place safeguards. The design of the safeguards will essentially be determined by the nature of the uncertainty or the particular areas of weakness. The tendency of uncertainty to slow progress towards budget support can also be checked by demanding that the burden of proof being is on the argument for why budget support should not be given.
The nature of the support, the area to which it is focused and the relevant institutions that will have the executing and budget holding roles (in both the donor supported and donor free world) are summarized below. The nature of support is divided into 3 categories: investment; technical assistance and, support to recurrent expenditure (which might also include routine training and outsourcing of specialist work or studies).
Table 6-3 Type of support
|Nature of support |Area and type of support |Relevant Institution |
|Investment |Rural water supply and sanitation investments and |WSTF |
| |promotion | |
| |Urban water supply and sanitation investments and |WSBs, WSPs |
| |promotion | |
| |Water resources development |WSB, WSPs, WRUA |
| |Irrigation investments |RDA, NIB, MWI |
|Temporary support to recurrent |Temporary support to recurrent expenses of key |WSBs, WRMA, WSRB, WSTF, MWI, WSPs, MOH, RDA, |
|expenditure (including routine|institutions (water related, including WRM |NIB, MWI |
|training, outsourcing etc) |monitoring) | |
| |Sanitation and Hygiene promotion (not linked to |MOH |
| |investments) | |
|Technical Assistance |Capacity building |WSBs, WRMA, WSRB, WSTF, MWI, WSPs, MOH, RDA, |
| | |NIB, MWI |
The funding modality pre-requisites for investment and related promotion (i.e. demand creation, awareness raising, capacity building of communities, promotion of sanitation and hygiene which is related to the investments) is shown below. A key principle has been to select pre-requisites that are already part of the sector activities and normal management instruments and do not require special studies or interventions. Those pre-requisites which do not fall into this category are marked with an *.
Table 6-4 Investment related funding modality pre-requisites
|Investments and |Relevant Institution|Funding modality Pre-requisite |
|related promotion | | |
| | |From Project to Basket (project |From either project or basket to Targeted budget support |
| | |pooling) | |
|RWSS |WSTF |There is no justification to continue|SIP adherence |
| | |with projects or to pool projects to |Annual work plan/budget |
| | |basket for RWSS as the WSTF is in |SIS (performance measurement of RWSS sector) |
| | |essence a basket already. |Audit of WSTFs (financial & procurement) |
| | | |Timely financial reporting |
| | | |Tracking study |
| | | |Value for Money (sustainability focus) |
|UWSS |WSBs, WSPs |Analysis to demonstrate validity of |The 7 pre-requisites above plus |
| | |retaining project type modality due |8. Capacity analysis (for larger investments)* |
| | |to size, complexity of investment and| |
| | |capacity of the WSB.* | |
| | |Transaction costs can be reduced by | |
| | |pooling | |
|Irrigation |RDA, NIB, MWI |Assistance will be in the form of projects until the irrigation sector reforms are in place and |
| | |future institutional responsibilities clarified |
The funding modality pre-requisites for recurrent expenditure (salaries, allowances, travel, equipment, office running, consumables, routine training, outsourcing of specialist tasks) is shown below
Table 6-5 Recurrent expenditure related funding modality pre-requisites
|Recurrent expenditure |Institutions |Funding modality Pre-requisite |
| | |From Project to Basket (project pooling) |From either project of basket to Targeted |
| | | |budget support |
|Water and sanitation |WSBs, WRMA, WSRB, |Analysis to demonstrate validity of retaining |Annual work plan and budget approved |
|related |WSTF, MWI, |project type modality due to size, complexity of |Audit (both financial and procurement) |
| |WSPs |investment and capacity of the WSB.* | |
| | |Transaction costs can be reduced by pooling | |
| |MOH, RDA, NIB |To be defined once reforms in place |
|Sanitation and Hygiene |MOH |The funding modality pre-requisites will be defined under the emerging Health SWAP |
|promotion (not linked to | | |
|investments) | | |
The funding modality pre-requisites for capacity building (technical assistance and the costs associated such as workshops – provided it is beyond the normal routine training that will be required by the organization in perpetuity) is shown below:
Table 6-6 Technical Assistance funding modality pre-requisites
|Technical Assistance |Institutions |Funding modality Pre-requisite |
| | |From project to Basket (project |From either project or basket to Targeted budget |
| | |pooling) |support* |
|Water and sanitation |WSBs, WRMA, WSRB, |Analysis shows that value can be |Annual workplan and budget approved |
|related |WSTF, MWI, WSPs |added by in-kind delivery of TA |Audit (both financial and procurement) |
| | |Transaction costs can be reduced by |Procurement capacity for local TA |
| | |pooling |Procurement capacity for international/ regional TA |
| |MOH, RDA, NIB |To be defined once reforms in place |
|Sanitation and Hygiene |MOH |The funding modality pre-requisites will be defined under the emerging Health SWAP |
|promotion | | |
In the project and basket funding context there will be a need for parallel financial management and technical assistance will often be required to take control of such funds. However for TBS it is important that TA and control of funds are de-linked. Control of funds, once they are provided as TBS, should not be subject to special controls as this will risk setting up parallel systems within the recipient institution. Only TA that is specially designated towards improving financial management should have any link to financial control and then only in an advisory position. An explicit exception to this might be if safeguards are introduced to advance an earlier adoption of TBS.
Safeguards
Safeguards that can be used in order to allow a softening of the pre-requisites are not defined here as they will typically depend on the nature of the weakness or uncertainty found. It is very important that they are designed to avoid the introduction of parallel systems of financial control and technical and/or managerial decision making. Otherwise they risk to undermine the very purpose of TBS which is to direct all efforts at reinforcing national systems from within.
7. Roadmap and Action Plan
A proposed roadmap for operationalising the SWAP in the Water Sector is described below within the policy, planning and financing frameworks respectively. The SWAP roadmap should not be regarded as a new programme separate from the reform process, but only as a process that can add to consolidation of the reforms and highlight aspects of the reform that are especially important for an operational SWAP, or breath new life into aspects of the reform that might have been temporarily stalled.
The roadmap defines a number of ‘potholes’ – these are aspects of the reform process that need particular attention in order to make the SWAP operational. These are shown as red stars on the activity charts within the policy, planning and funding frameworks.
7.1 Roadmap for Policy Framework
Figure 7-1: Roadmap for Policy Framework
[pic]
Activities in relation to the national sector framework
The GoK has started a process of developing the Kenya Joint Assistance Strategy (KJAS), an overall agreement between the government and the DPs on provision of assistance to Kenya. The process involves that the DPs clarify their priority sectors and that within each sector, a lead donor will be selected to participate in overall sector coordination and policy dialogue with the government. The KJAS process will complement the SWAP roadmap and provide the overall framework for donor coordination in the water sector. The KJAS will also address the issues of transaction costs. In the analysis it’s needed to separate DP and GoK transaction costs since the impact of a SWAP are different on each. Initially the SWAP will probably lead to more cost for the DPs but later these could reduce.
Development of an Irrigation Policy and Strategy in line with the water sector reforms will be important for the SWAP arrangements in the water sector. The process is ongoing, a draft policy from 2004 is being debated and an irrigation workshop in late March 2006 has accelerated the activities. The institutional framework for irrigation is expected to be aligned with the principles behind the water sector reforms – separation of responsibilities for policy, regulation and service provision and a high degree of private sector involvement in the sector.
The process of finalising the draft National Water Services Strategy from December 2004 is still pending and the stakeholder consultations have to be completed. The SWAP process could add new life into this process e.g. the proposed sub-sector strategic working groups can play a role in analysing and detailing the strategy in areas where improvements are needed e.g. clarifying issues related to service provision in sanitation.
The process of finalising the National Water Resources Management Strategy is also ongoing with final stakeholder consultation. The latest version of the strategy, Version 1, dated January 2006 is expected to be close to the final approved version.
The Health Sector is also in the process of establishing a SWAP and a coordination of this initiative with the water sector is needed to clarify the framework in the sector related to sanitation. MoH has the overall mandate for environmental sanitation which includes hygiene education, promotion of sanitation including solid and liquid waste disposal and public health inspections including drinking water quality. A sub-sector working group for sanitation with participation of MoH, ALGAK, MoLG and the MWI could assist in developing effective strategies for how the sanitation and hygiene activities related to implementation of water supply projects by MWI can complement the continuous activities by the MoH and the LGAs.
The reorganisation of the MWI head office is very important for the sector to be effective. A clear definition of the role of the MWI Head Office versus the roles of the sector institutions is important to avoid duplication of functions and effective functioning of the new sector institutions. A professional (technical – hydrological etc) over-staffed MWI Head Office will tend to take over the roles of the new institutions. The Head Office would rather need high level expertise of a cross-cutting nature to fulfil its role in the sector.
The establishment of WSPs, transfer of water schemes for operation to the WSPs and capacity building of the WSPs to function efficiently is very important for the WSBs to be able to perform envisaged duties in the sector framework. The process should be monitored closely by the WSRB and if/ when bottlenecks and resource gaps are identified, the WSWG (MWI and the Development Partners) should be informed and take the required action.
The WAB has been gazetted, but is not yet operational. This institution is an important part of the water sector as it provides the safeguards for civil society and the public to solve any issues and grievances in connection with water services and water allocation.
Activities in relation to Partnership Principles
A first draft of Partnership Principles between the Government of Kenya and Development Partners is included as Annex I in this SWAP report. This draft is based on an example that has been used by the Education Sector and is regarded by the MoF as the best generic format to be used for other sectors. This first draft will need to be discussed in the WSWG and WSTG forums and amended and agreed so that it can be a tool for aligning new programmes towards a SWAP in the sector.
A screening of ongoing support programmes for how well these comply with the Partnership Principles will assist in adjusting these towards a more consistent/ harmonious implementation in the sector.
7.2 Roadmap for Planning Framework
[pic]
Figure 7-2: Roadmap for Planning Framework
Activities related to Sector Planning
The SIP is an important tool for the SWAP – there has to be a commonly accepted plan for the GoK and the DPs to jointly implement. The timeframe for developing a full SIP is rather long since the baseline data for existing water systems and un-served population needs to be established. In the interim, an Interim SIP would be very helpful to guide the sector investments. This interim SIP could be based on the Business Plans that the water sector institutions are developing during 2006. The Draft TOR in Annex K gives more details on the content of the Interim SIP.
The SIP project has prepared an outline plan for the development of the SIP, with an initial target at the end of 2006. This plan[24] is already delayed as funding, approximately 1 Million USD, for development of the SIP has not yet been identified. The sector institutions that will be using the SIP as their planning tool in the future will need to agree on the overall structure of the SIP to make it an effective tool. It is envisaged that the SIP will be structured in a way that facilitates the overall planning framework in the sector to include i) the longer term SIP (probably initially until 2015); ii) the MTEF planning frame of 3 years and, iii) a detailed operational plan for one year. Once funding has been identified for carrying out the SIP project including the establishment of the baselines, the development of the SIP would probably take 12 months, and in the meantime the sector would be operating in accordance with the interim SIP.
The water sector institutions are presently developing business plans to guide their activities over the next 5 years. These would form the basis for the interim SIP and eventually the business planning process would most likely be integrated into the overall planning framework of having detailed rolling plans for the 3-year MTEF planning period
The WRMA has started a process of developing Catchment Management Strategies (CMSs) for the major catchments. The CMS will provide an important tool or framework for the practical planning of water resource management and water development activities at catchment and local levels and will need to be aligned with the SIP planning process.
Activities related to Sector information and performance management
A Sector Information System (SIS) Project has been initiated by the WSWG. The information system and the performance management in the sector are very important aspects for the SWAP and the sector in general to be effective. An effective performance management framework will tend to improve the performance of sector institutions as well as providing access to accurate information on performance, both these factors will tend to increase funding to the sector and the sustainable achievement of sector objectives.
The SIS will include design and operationalisation of data collection and information management systems in the WSBs, the WSRB, the WRMA and the WSTF. Work has started on these in the individual institutions and it is envisaged that by the end of 2006 these will start to be operational so that the actual data and information flow will start from 2007.
The design of the information system at MWI level is still pending. It is envisaged that the MWI information system to be effective will be an overall umbrella on the information systems from the sector institutions. The general data management will remain as decentralised systems in the sector institutions and only the overall information needed at ministry level will be forwarded to the ministry.
The data and information systems in the sector are intended to be integrated with the performance monitoring systems e.g. the licenses for the WSB from the WSRB and the performance contracts for the WSPs from the WSBs will provide the operational systems for data flows. Similarly the performance contracts for the WRMA and the WSTF will include specification of the information and the timing of reporting from the institutions to the MWI.
Activities related to Coordination Mechanisms
Coordination mechanisms to make a SWAP function in the water sector are already in place for example the Sector Working Group for the Physical Infrastructure Sector, the WSWG and various high level coordination mechanisms like the National Economic and Social Council (NESC), Kenya Food Security Committee, Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources etc.
To be inclusive as an overall sector coordination group, the WSWG would need to be active in including other stakeholders. During the consultations related to this SWAP study, organisations like National Council of NGOs, Kenya Private Sector Alliance (KEPSA), Association of Local Government Authorities of Kenya (ALGAK) and the Association of Consulting Engineers all expressed a high degree of interest and willingness to participate in improving the effectiveness in the sector through better coordination. KEPSA is in the process of forming a Water Sector Federation of private sector partners in the water sector and this would be an important partner in the WSWG.
There is a clear need for improved strategic planning between different partners in the sub-sectors e.g. between agriculture and irrigation, water resources management and natural resources and environment, water service provision and local government, sanitation and hygiene involving health, education, local government and water. To facilitate this inter-ministerial strategic planning it is proposed to establish sub-sector strategic working groups. These would have a specific task at the end of each financial year to up-date the strategic plan for the water sector – and thereby ensure that there is alignment in the strategic plans in the different sectors linking to the water sector – e.g. that the strategies for irrigation and agriculture are aligned to provide an effective strategy for food security.
At the level of practical planning of water resources management and water development activities, the CAACs can play an important role for regional coordination. The CAACs have members from the various line ministries at regional level and are responsible for approving water permits and this can be an effective tool in ensuring sustainable utilisation of water resources
The capacity of the new Planning, Policy, M&E Unit in the Ministry Head Office will be important in making the SWAP operational. Once the organisational set-up of the head office is determined, a plan for capacity building of this unit should be developed so the unit can be the anchor for overall national planning in the water sector and therefore the anchor for the SWAP coordination.
7.3 Roadmap for Financial Framework
[pic]
Figure 7-3 Road Map for Financial Framework
Activities related to Channels of funding
The structure of the water sector budget is important for effective financial management and linking input to output and therefore performance monitoring. The GoK and the DPs need a clear overview over the sector expenditures that is easily related to the SIP and to the new Institutional Framework in the sector. A consistent budget structure within the overall MOF set-up that can provide the required structure for performance management and budget support is therefore needed.
Improvements in the financial management and procurement systems in MWI including the timing and availability of funding from MOF are important pre-requisites for sector funding from DPs to be channelled through the treasury system. The implementation of the new electronic accounting systems and improvements of the financial management and procurement systems in MWI therefore needs to be given priority at highest level. The possibilities of using special accounts in treasure for transfer of DP funding to the new sector institutions could be considered until the MoF systems are ready for target or general budget support. The special accounts will provide the MoF the possibility to monitor the funding to the sector and provide an easily traceable funding flow to the sector institutions.
The budget holders for most of the funding to the sector will be the new sector institutions like the WSB, WSRB, WRMA and WSTF. The financial management systems in the new water sector institutions are therefore important and since these institutions are new, there is a window of opportunity for establishment of transparent, accountable and effective reporting and management systems in these institutions. The process of procuring and installing the accountancy software is ongoing and will need to be given priority by the CEOs so that the institutions are preparing for implementation of SWAP support based on programmes and budget support.
Activities related to Financial management
An important part of increasing the funding to the sector and increased use of the national financial management systems is confidence building between the water sector institutions and the DPs. As an initial pre-requisite for starting the SWAP it is suggested to implement training for the managers and procurement and accounting staff in anti-corruption measures, transparency in the administration and procurement. This should develop into an ongoing programme for continuous improvement in financial management and procurement.
Rational cycles of annual audits will be important tools to ensure continued DP support to the sector. The KWSP is developing some experiences in combined audits and these could be utilised in the sector as the basis for a common approach
Similarly the Value for Money studies are important tools for improving sector performance and monitoring effectiveness. These are normally carried out by external resources and it is important for the national consultants to develop capacity to carry out these studies – therefore the sooner the sector starts using the tools, the sooner these will be improved to a level where the DPs will have confidence in the sector performance monitoring. The TOR for the SWAP Support Consultant in Annex K includes development of TOR for value for money studies.
Activities related to Resource Mobilisation
The final aim of the SWAP is improved sector performance and attracting adequate funding to reach the development targets. Communication of sector achievements is important in increasing funding and the sector should take advantage of communication activities related to launching the SWAP to enhance the image of the Kenya water sector nationally and internationally.
7.4 Action Plan
A general plan for the activities in the sector that will support the development of a SWAP over the next six months is shown below in relation to the Policy Framework, the Planning Framework, the Financial Framework and some general activities in support of SWAP.
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
The following specific activities are recommended to be carried out to ensure that the pre-requisites for launching a Water Sector SWAP towards the end of 2006 are achieved:
|Action |Responsibility |Timeframe |
|1. The WSWG and the SWAP Committee will use the draft final SWAP Report to discuss in |WSWG |April 2006 |
|detail the action plan and the road map and assign in detail the responsibilities for | | |
|implementation. The Consultant will facilitate a short workshop with WSWG members for | | |
|assessment of the action plan. | | |
|2. A draft TOR for support to the SWAP process in Annex K should be finalised and the SWAP|SWAP Committee |April 2006 |
|Committee procure a consultant to undertake the support tasks | | |
|3. The SWAP framework and road map contain prerequisites for moving towards a SWAP and the|SWAP Committee |Monthly |
|SWAP Committee should monitor the fulfilment of these and report to the WSWG on a regular | | |
|basis. | | |
|4. The reforms in irrigation and land reclamation are important to develop a consistent |PS MWI |Ongoing |
|sector reform framework – a programme for designing and implementing these and | | |
|identification of funding is important steps to move towards a SWAP. | | |
|5. Adopt and operationalise the National Environmental, Sanitation and Hygiene Policy |MoH |September 2006 |
|6. Discussions will have to take place in the WSTG and the WSWG on the draft PPs and these|WSWG |May – June 2006 |
|amended to form a realistic compromise between the ideal and the possible in the present |WSTG | |
|context. | | |
|7. The ongoing programmes should be screened to identify how and where these do not comply|WSWG/ |July – August |
|with the PPs – this can guide the partners in the design of new programmes and amendment |Consultant for | |
|of ongoing programmes |independent screening| |
|8. Elaboration of the sub sector and sector wide information systems | |December 2006 |
|9. The design of the interim SIP needs to be taken into account in the work that is |SIP Project |July – September |
|ongoing in developing Business Plans in the sector institutions | | |
|10. Agreement on the structure/design of the SIP and identification of the funding for the|WSWG |April 2006 |
|SIP Project must be done soonest to avoid further delays. | | |
|11. The sub-sector working groups should be constituted in July to assist MWI in the |WSWG |June 2006 |
|annual revision of the strategic plan | | |
|12. The MWI head office reorganisation is highest priority for improving the overall |PS MWI |July 2006 |
|sector performance – capacity building of the Planning Policy and M&E unit as anchor for | | |
|the SWAP is important to operationalise the SWAP | | |
|13. The FMS activities must include priority given by MWI PS and the CEOs to financial |PS MWI |May – August 2006|
|management, independent evaluation of the new FMS in the institutions and training in |CEOs | |
|transparency/ anti-corruption to key sector stakeholders. The key for implementing the |Consultants for FMS | |
|SWAP and mowing towards budget support is that confidence building is needed towards the |Review and training | |
|DPs in the adequacy of the sector financial management systems. | | |
|14. Audits for different DP activities should be coordinated and to the degree possible | | |
|combined in a common audit set-up | | |
|15. Value for money studies should be carried out to contribute to the Joint Annual Water |MWI Director Water |July 2006 |
|Sector Review and the Public Expenditure Review – initially the VFM could target specific |VFM Consultants | |
|sub-sectors e.g. the RWSS/ WSTF to gain experience – in later years combined VFM studies | | |
|can be carried out for the different projects and programmes. | | |
|16. The joint KWSP/WSPR reviews should be conducted just before the broader Joint Annual |PS MWI/ KWSP |August – October |
|Water Sector Review that should include all main sector stakeholders – this should be done| |2006 |
|for the first time in October – November 2006 to lead up to the launching of the SWAP | | |
|17. The sector should take advantage of the launching of the SWAP to communicate the water|PS/ Unit responsible |August – October |
|sector programmes and achievements to the wider public – this can potentially contribute |for communication in |2006 |
|to better coordination of sector activities and increased attention to the sector |MWI | |
|programme from politicians. | | |
|18. The launching of the SWAP on a stakeholder workshop towards the end of 2006 to create |PS MWI |October – |
|awareness about the aspirations in the sector – not that the SWAP will be effective from | |November 2006 |
|that date. | | |
sector
Annex A Terms of Reference
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
MINISTRY OF WATER AND IRRIGATION (MWI)
WATER SECTOR TECHNICAL GROUP (WSTG)
STUDY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECTOR-WIDE APPROACH TO PLANNING (SWAP) IN THE WATER AND SANITATION SECTOR IN KENYA
CONSULTANCY SERVICES
TERMS OF REFERENCES
Terms of Reference
Study for the Establishment of a Sector-Wide Approach to Planning (SWAP) in the Water and Sanitation Sector in Kenya
1. Background
The Government of Kenya (GoK) is implementing far reaching reforms in the water sector to restructure and improve sector performance and address the problems associated with the management of the resources and delivery of water and sewerage services. The Water Act 2002 provides the legal framework for the implementation of new institutional arrangements based on the following principles:
• The separation of the management of Water Resources from Water Supply and Sanitation Services
• The institutional separation of service provisions from regulation and policy making;
• Decentralization, participation, autonomy, accountability, financial and ecological sustainability and efficiency
To implement these principles a set of new institutions have been established. This includes seven regional Water Services Boards (WSB) that have been licensed as decentralized and autonomous asset holding institutions, charged with responsibility for asset ownership and management as well as efficient and economical provision of water services. However, WSBs shall not be involved in direct service delivery. Instead, the Water Act provides for the engagement of Water Services Provider (WSP) to deliver water supply and sanitation services within its area of jurisdiction. WSPs may be rural communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), autonomous entities established by Local Authorities or private sector operators.
A transfer plan launched in July 2005 provides for a transition period of 2 years in order to fully shift new functions, duties and responsibilities from the former institutional set-up to the new structures and institutions.
The sector reform is widely supported by the Development Partners’ community. However, investment needs in the sector to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) exceed by far the resources availed through the Government of Kenya and its Development Partners. This gap can only be overcome by increasing resource mobilization through improved sector performance by enhancing the planning and implementation efficiency of investments for infrastructure and service delivery. A prerequisite for this is the establishment of a Sector-Wide Approach to Planning (SWAP).
A Sector-Wide Approach (SWAP) can be defined as “pooling of resources to support a single sector policy and expenditure programme, under Government leadership, adopting common approaches across the sector and progressing towards relying on Government procedures to disburse and account for funds”.
The development of SWAP is an inherently complex and dynamic process, which requires strong Government leadership and ownership. This calls for broad-based participation and commitment in order to ensure wider ownership and sustainable reform.
The Water and Sanitation Technical Group (WSTG) is the forum of Development Partners that meets every 2 months to discuss issues and share information on activities in the WSS sector. A total of 11 Development Partner Institutions are members. The WSTG coordinates with GoK to form the WSS Sector Working Group. The WSTG is now working closely with GoK towards establishing a SWAP in the WSS sector.
2. Study objective
The objective of this study is to assist the Ministry of Water and Irrigation in the preparation of a Sector-Wide Approach to Planning (SWAP) in the Kenyan Water and Sanitation Sector (WSS). More specifically the objective of the study is to:
i) avail all information and documents necessary for the preparation and establishment of a SWAP;
ii) gather relevant experience from SWAP processes in other sectors in Kenya and in the Water and Sanitation sectors in the East African region and assess and validate these for the benefit of a Kenyan WSS SWAP;
iii) outline and design the necessary structural and procedural steps for the sector including all relevant stakeholders for the establishment of a SWAP;
iv) prepare a detailed road map for the preparation, establishment and consolidation of a Kenyan WSS SWAP.
3. Scope of Work
Task 1: Demand assessment
The consultant shall assess in detail the demand of the Kenyan WSS for a SWAP outlining in particular
• The present situation relating to Water Resources Management as well as Water and Sanitation Service Provision of the Kenyan WSS in terms of sources of funding, harmonization, coordination and alignment of structures and procedures;
• Major current stakeholders within Government, the private sector, civil society and the Kenyan public at large in terms of planning, policy development and dissemination, funding, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and control; Furthermore, additional stakeholders with a potential to enhance demand-driven sector performance should be outlined, not the least those with a potential to contribute to increased sector funding.
• Advantages and potential for a SWAP in the Kenyan WSS in terms of promoting an enhanced base for funding as well as improvements in planning and implementation efficiency of investments in infrastructure and service delivery;
• Essential structural, institutional and procedural prerequisites for a SWAP, based on the 2002 Water Act with the objective to contribute to the achievement of the MDGs in the Kenyan WSS.
The consultant shall, in assessing the SWAP demand, outline to what extent the establishment of a SWAP is necessary to reach the MDGs in the Kenyan WSS and thus qualify its potential contribution.
Task 2: Information collection, processing and presentation on SWAP requirements
The consultant shall collect and prepare all relevant information on the framework, the institutional structure, working methodology, the procedural and communication requirements, the modes of delivery and the expected outcomes of a SWAP in the Kenyan WSS.
The information shall include an analysis on the Kenyan Partners’ and its Development Partners’ expectations on the impact, the risks and the challenges as well as the potential of a SWAP in terms of:
• Preparation, discussion and approval of a code of conduct or partnership principles for all potential SWAP stakeholders;
• Harmonisation, alignment and coordination;
• Confidence-building and other inter- and intra-sectoral requirements for enhanced cooperation and coordination;
• Institutional, structural, procedural and behavioural risks and challenges during SWAP preparation, establishment and implementation;
• Objectives and results of an integrated concise investment planning process;
• Willingness and preparedness of stakeholders to technically and financially contribute to the establishment of a SWAP, and, subsequently, contribute to the achievement of MDGs through increased financial allocations under established SWAP arrangements;
• Willingness and feasibility of stakeholders to adjust and align technical and financial support implementation procedures based on joint rules and regulations of the SWAP.
The consultant shall put an emphasis on possible concepts and implementation modalities for concise quality assurance and performance monitoring within the SWAP considering the formulation of a respective framework including qualitatively and quantitatively monitorable, assessable and verifiable objectives, indicators and results on sector performances within a defined periodical timeframe.
Task 3: Collection, assessment and validation of SWAP experiences
The consultant shall acquire and review all relevant SWAP experiences from other sectors and from the region in order to assess their usefulness for the Kenyan WSS SWAP in terms of lessons learnt and best practices. The consultant shall in particular
• Collect, review and assess relevant information on the status of SWAP building processes in other sectors in Kenya, in particular those with a close link to the water sector i.e. health, education, agriculture, environment, planning and finance;
• Collect, review and assess relevant information on the status of SWAP building processes in the water and sanitation sectors in neighbouring countries, in particular in Uganda, Zambia and Tanzania;
• Extract, formulate and present lessons learnt and best practices from gathered information for a Kenyan WSS SWAP under the objective of
➢ Creating conditions for increased sector resource mobilisation and diversified funding arrangements relating to Water Resources Management as well as Water and Sanitation Service Provision;
➢ Avoiding unnecessary implementation delays and obstacles;
➢ Promoting cooperation, synergies and available driving forces;
➢ Applying priority setting concepts for efficiency gains;
➢ Promoting communication and participation;
➢ Enhancing transparency and anti-corruption attitudes and behaviour.
Task 4: Outline and design structure and procedures for a Kenyan WSS SWAP
The consultant shall, taking into consideration results from task 1 to 3, outline and design the best suitable structure, procedures and modes of coordination, cooperation and communication for a Kenyan WSS SWAP.
In particular, the consultant shall
• Describe the prerequisites and preparatory works for the launch and establishment of a SWAP, in particular focus on
➢ A Statement of Intent between MWI and Development Partners;
➢ A Memorandum of Understanding outlining agreements between MWI, the new sector institutions, other relevant stakeholders and Development Partners participating in support and funding arrangements within a SWAP;
➢ Code of Practice or Partnership Principles outlining issues related to behaviours, means of co-operating and information-sharing between partners;
• Propose a SWAP framework that:
➢ Links the SWAP structure to the institutional framework that applies under the 2002 Water Act, in support of a demand-driven and decentralized approach to reaching the MDGs in different aspects of sector development;
➢ Integrates the WSS SWAP process into the coordinative processes that take place under the guidance of the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Planning and the Office of the President, i.a. in order to ensure that the SWAP process is integrated in and supportive of the MTEF budgeting process and the overall civil service reform;
➢ Considers the interaction among sector stakeholders, as well as the interaction between these stakeholders and stakeholders in other linked sectors, including strategic and working links to other line ministries having an impact on the water and sanitation sector;
➢ Constitutes a consultative framework that allows effective coordination and collaboration among stakeholders while safeguarding the integrity of different stakeholders in their internal management and decision-making structures, i.e. a framework that clearly differentiates between consultative and managerial functions;
➢ Provides the purposes, roles, functions and composition of different regular sector meetings, such as (i) sector reviews or conferences that serve to increase transparency and public awareness by promoting debate on sector performance and (ii) meetings, such as Water Sector Working Group meetings, that serve as mechanisms for agreeing on coordinative and collaborative arrangements.
Task 5: SWAP Road Map
The consultant shall propose a detailed road map outlining objectives, results and activities for the preparation, establishment and consolidation of a Kenyan WSS SWAP within a proposed realistic time frame.
The consultant shall in particular
• Prepare a WSS SWAP implementation road map for short term measures for the preparation of a SWAP launch, medium term measures for the establishment of the SWAP structure and procedures and long term measures for the SWAP consolidation;
• Design the various tasks and activities required for the establishment of the SWAP in terms of time, personnel and resource inputs required and within a clearly defined time frame;
• Define, along the suggested time frame, the expected outputs to be produced by the stakeholders such as the sub-sector analyses, sector investment planning etc.
4. Approach
The consultant will ensure that the entire study is carried out applying the principles of enhanced stakeholder participation and improved consensus building in order to ensure a maximum of compliance with positions and opinions of all possible SWAP participants.
The consultant shall therefore work closely together with the recently established SWAP secretariat within the MWI and report, whenever necessary or required, to the Permanent Secretary of MWI and WSTG.
5 Deliverables and Deadlines
The duration of the consultancy shall not exceed 4 months.
|No. |Deliverable |Specification |Deadline |
| | | |(after contract |
| | | |signature) |
|1. |Kick-off meeting |- establish common understanding on ToRs, deliverables and consultant’s|Week 2 |
| | |information requirements; | |
| | |- present project team (consultants and MWI SWAP secretariat) and work | |
| | |process. | |
|2. |Inception report |- presentation of findings from desk study and initial interviews with |Week 4 |
| | |stakeholders; | |
| | |- final methodology for further implementation of study; | |
| | |- statement on risks, challenges and potential of study outcomes | |
|3. |Task 1 - Demand |Quantitative and qualitative demand assessment on WSS SWAP in Kenya |Week 6 |
| |assessment | | |
|4. |Task 2 – SWAP |Quantitative and qualitative information collection, processing and |Week 7 |
| |requirements |presentation on SWAP requirements | |
|5. |Task 3 – SWAP |Collection, assessment and validation of SWAP experiences from other |Week 8 |
| |experiences |sectors and from the region | |
|6. |Task 4 – SWAP structure|Outline and design the best suitable structure, procedures and modes of|Week 9 |
| |and procedures |coordination, cooperation and communication for a Kenyan WSS SWAP | |
|7. |Task 5 - SWAP Road Map |Prepare a detailed road map with objectives, results and activities for|Week 10 |
| | |a Kenyan WSS SWAP within a proposed realistic time frame | |
|8. |Stakeholder workshop |Presentation and discussion of findings |Week 11 |
|9. |Action plan |Action plan on SWAP establishment and implementation |Week 12 |
|10. |Final report |Final report |Week 13 |
|10. |Project documentation |Adequate documentation to be delivered to all stakeholders |1 week after presentation|
| | | |of final report |
Annex B Workshop Proceedings
REPORT ON
THE WATER SECTOR SWAP STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP
HELD ON THE 28th MARCH 2006 AT KENYA SCHOOL OF MONETARY STUDIES
The SWAP refers to the pooling of resources to support a single sector policy and expenditure programme, under Government leadership, adopting common approaches across the sector and progressing towards relying on Government procedures to disburse and account for funds.
The water sector SWAP is being undertaken in line with the reform and restructuring process in the water sector in Kenya which are based on the principles:
1) The institutional separation of service provisions from regulation and policy making;
2) Decentralization, participation, autonomy, accountability, financial and ecological sustainability and efficiency.
3) The separation of the management of Water Resources from Water Supply and Sanitation Services;
For the SWAP to be successful there is need to involve all sector stakeholders, including the public, private sector and civil society in the establishment of the SWAP.
To facilitate the study initial consultations with the stakeholders has been undertaken through interviews.
This workshop forms part of the consultative process in the establishment of the SWAP. This consultative process was undertaken through presentations by the Ministry of Water and Irrigation officials as the owners of the SWAP and a representative of the Ministry of Finance as coordinators of the budgeting process.
2.0 WORKSHOP PRESENTATION ON THE SWAP
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The workshop had three objectives:
1) Presentation of the framework/ roadmap for a SWAP based on the opportunities and challenges encountered during the consultation, experiences from other SWAPs and good practice from other countries;
2) Reflection over the priority issues;
3) Determine the adequacy of the proposed SWAP framework/ road map in relation to the priority issues.
The focus throughout the workshop was on two key priority issues identified during the study for the establishment of the water sector SWAP:
1) Opportunities that are inherent in a SWAP and which should be grasped; and
2) Challenges that the SWAP would need to address
Some of the opportunities of the SWAP that have come out during the consultations with the various sector stakeholders and document reviews include:
• SWAP and the reforms complement and reinforce each other;
• SWAP presents a mechanism for better inter-sectoral coordination;
• SWAP can lead to reduction of transaction costs and a more efficient sector;
• SWAP can mobilise more resources;
• SWAP can improve the MWI FMS and flow of funding.
The key issues identified which will prove to be great challenges in the in the implementation of the SWAP revolve around the need for the SWAP to:
• Reinforce decentralised rather than centralised planning;
• Simplify rather than complicate reforms;
• Enhance rather than reduce NGO involvement in the sector;
• Increase government capacity rather than overwhelm it;
• Be flexible enough to recognise when project modalities have advantages;
2. FRAMEWORK/ ROADMAP FOR A SWAP
Eng. Gakubia, Director of Water, made a short presentation on the proposed framework /road map for a water sector SWAP.
The main Principles behind the development of the framework were:
• SWAP has to be simple and minimize complexity in the sector;
• SWAP will support/ add value to the ongoing reforms as the aims are similar;
• Thus the SWAP should take its departure point in the reforms – the reforms are the main roadmap – the SWAP role is fill in certain ”pot holes”;
• A single SWAP will be made – coordination with the Health Sector for sanitation and hygiene promotion;
• Immediate adoption of the planning framework is feasible – so adopt now;
• Adoption of the funding framework will take longer – start the process now;
• Not all donors and processes can join – allow for gradual convergence.
Based on these principles, three frameworks were identified and these were discussed on the highlighting on their main elements, Pre-requisite (pre launch) and Benchmarks (subsequent to launch) summarized as follows:
|Framework |Main elements |Pre-requisite |Benchmarks |
| | |(pre launch) |(subsequent to launch) |
|Policy framework |Definition of national sector |Government leadership |NSF completed (irrigation & sanitation) |
| |framework |MOF involvement |WS Institutions have staff trained and |
| |Partnership Principles |Partnership Principles signed |effective in new duties |
| | |Effective Sector institutions | |
|Planning framework |Sector Investment Plan |Interim SIP |SIP updated |
| |Sector Information System |Annual sector review |SIS – performance review undertaken, |
| |Coordination | |results acceptable |
| | | |Annual Sector Reviews undertaken |
|funding framework |Channels of funding |Funding Modalities pre-requisites defined |Tracking results acceptable |
| |Financial management |Review of FMS systems |Value for money acceptable |
| |Resource mobilization |Anti corruption, enforcement, accountability |Audits acceptable |
| | |training |Funding levels increased at a rate that |
| | | |will meet targets |
It is essential that specific prerequisites are met before the funding modalities can be defined as follows:
| |Funding Modality Pre-requisites |
| |From Project to Basket (project pooling) |From Project or Basket to Targeted Budget Support |
|Water, sanitation and water |Transaction costs can be reduced by pooling |SIP adherence |
|resources |Capacity analysis (for larger investments)* |Business plan (work plan/ budget) |
| | |SIS (Performance Measurement) |
| | |Audit (financial & procurement) |
| | |Timely financial reporting |
| | |Tracking study |
| | |Value for Money (focus on sustainability) |
| | |Capacity analysis (for larger investments)* |
|Irrigation |Assistance will be in the form of projects until | |
| |the irrigation sector reforms are in place | |
|Sanitation |Provided under the Health SWAP | |
|Hygiene | | |
|Promotion | | |
To reinforce the concept that the SWAP and the water sector reforms should complement each other, the SWAP Road Map was presented in line with the ingoing reform process according to the three frameworks identified. The SWAP support activities and the bodies responsible were identified and time within which it is expected to be completed specified. The presentation slides (Annex 1) gives an overview of this presentation
3. THE MTEF CALENDAR
This presentation on the MTEF Calendar was made by Mr. Samuel Kiiru from the Ministry of Finance. This presentation gave an overview of the government of MTEF calendar highlighting the identified activities including: update of ministerial strategic plans, Finalising of MPERs, Holding Sector group hearings, Consultative group meetings and submission of the itemised budget. Specific water sector activities were highlighted as shown in the attached presentation slides (Annex 2) gives an overview of this presentation.
On the whole it was confirmed that the water sector plans, especially the plans towards the establishment of the SWAP were in line with the Ministry of Finance plans. It was pointed out however that there was a need to give careful consideration to the executable plan. It was also pointed out that the items of revisions of the previous year’s budget should not be considered as part of the proposed budget for sector activities.
There was further clarification that the Consultative Group meetings were not an annual event.
4. PLENARY SESSION
One of the workshop objectives was to discuss with the stakeholders the key priority issues that have been identified with respect to the establishment of the water sector SWAP.
This was done by a voting process where
1) Participants were asked to give their views on which priority issues were of the greatest significance hence should be given most consideration (5 votes to be distributed among 10 priorities) and
2) Whether the SWAP framework and roadmap adequately addresses the priority issues
This exercise was undertaken, differentiating the votes of the various stakeholders participating in the workshop[25] and the results are as follows:
Significance of Priority Issues
The results of the vote to identify the most significant priority issues as identified by the stakeholders were as illustrated below in figure 1.
This is represented graphically as shown below in figure 2 for a better visual representation of the results
Figure 1 Table of significance of priority issues
Figure 2 Graph of significance of priority issues
[pic]
Adequacy of SWAP Framework to address Priority Issue
The results of the vote to determine the adequacy of the SWAP framework to address the priority issues as highlighted by the stakeholders were as illustrated below:
Figure 3 Table of votes showing adequacy of the proposed framework and roadmap
These results can be represented graphically as follows to reflect the opinion of the stakeholders on adequacy of the SWAP framework to address the various priority issues identified.
Figure 4 Graph showing the adequacy of the framework and roadmap
The proportionate vote by each group of stakeholders is as illustrated below:
Figure 5 Proportionate vote for adequacy of the framework and roadmap
Figure 5 indicates that the public sector is optimistic that SWAP will succeed whereas the donors are more in doubt with NGOs/private sector coming in between. Particularly significant is that the public sector view is shared by MWI and its colleagues in other areas of government. This is an interesting result. Too much cannot be read into it but indicates that at this initial stage government is perhaps more committed than donors or at least see SWAP as more likely to work. The result perhaps indicates that i) donors (and the TA staff) need to discuss and absorb the potential changes more and that ii) government needs to look ahead, anticipate and prepare for the challenges that might arise so as not to underestimate them.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE PLENARY SESSION
A number of issues came out of the plenary discussion:
Private sector and NGOs
1) The private sector is not mentioned as a concern in the simplified framework and roadmap. The strategy for involving the private sector needs to be highlighted more.
2) Private sector and NGOs should not be lumped together. The NGOs, have a watchdog and perform an advocacy role which is very different from Private sector
3) It is currently not easy to interact with the private sector because it is not a recognizable body. The private sector is however making efforts through KEPSA, to build itself to the level of a recognizable body that can be approached as an organization which will further enhance their credibility with regard to quality assurance. KEPSA is taking the role of a credible representative of the Private Sector.
Sector Investment and Planning
4) The operationalisation of the Sector Investment Plan needs to take account all the demands of the sector and consider separately the various areas (irrigation, rural, urban etc)
5) Given the consideration of the single sector SWAP, it is over simplified? Sewerage and on-site sanitation are related to water, should they not be incorporated in the SWAP
6) In the analysis of fund mobilisation there further needs to be a distinction between internal (Kenyan) and external resources (donors) and not an implicit assumption that all funds are external.
7) There needs to be established a sustainable funding framework that clearly states where the funds are from. It is envisioned that the future lies in the operation under the ‘Consumer Pays Principle’. It is expected to sustain the provision of services through tariffs for urban centre and with the WUA charges so that the projects are self financing with minimal government subsides where necessary.
Funding modalities
8) There is need to establish and maintain a clear strategy for interaction of the SWAP with the MoF in the long term.
9) There is an inherent risk in opening up for too many exceptions to common funding modalities and this should be minimized as much as possible.
10) Emphasis should be put in identifying the opportunities for enhancing transparency
11) How does the MTEF marry with sector plans? MTEF success in other sectors has been slow and at some point becomes a routine that does not seen to be achievable. Strategies need to be put in place to prevent this in the water sector SWAP.
Coordination of the water sector
12) Water in is classified for budgeting purposes under infrastructure sector, is this classification correct? It is noted that infrastructure budget gives priority to water and roads development.
13) Opportunities on SWAP. Focus should be put on issue of legitimacy where various of actors are working together to promote commitment and sustainability
14) The WSTF is not presented in simplified Planning framework this is an error even it is discussed in the main body of the report.
15) The challenge posed by the concurrent establishment of the SWAP and sector reforms should be dealt with carefully. There is need to ensure they don’t inhibit each other and that they are moving in the same direction. The SWAP should be designed to complement the reform and long term work of the sector.
16) Initially there were suggestions that the first SWAP meeting should have been in June but this has been revised. There is need to ensure targets set are practical
17) The SWAP should be flexible enough to allow different stakeholders can join in at different levels and speeds
18) There is need to ensure sector coordination through the WSWG and WSTG as well as with collaborating ministries. There is further need to incorporate the Physical infrastructure sector working group in these coordinating meetings as they are currently not included.
Interaction with donors
19) Donor reflections on the SWAP
a) The SWAP is based on the assumption of the flexibility on government to ensure that its own modalities to work well but this is not the case yet hence the pre-requisites
b) There should be safeguards or actions taken where the government systems are not yet working well enough so that a movement to SWAP can be taken.
c) There should be space for innovative projects even in a fully SWAP activated sector.
20) Transaction costs
a) Kenya external aid policy addressing the issue and should be mentioned. There is need to link if there will be reduced costs otherwise no reduction of transaction costs.
b) Need to separate donor and GoK transaction costs since the impact of a SWAP are different on each.
c) Initially SWAP leads to cost for the donor but later on reduces
2.6 BRIEF ON SWAP PROCESS IN HEALTH SECTOR
In the health sector Increased burden on health sector necessitates that the private sector be encouraged to venture into the sector due to lack of capacity of the MoH to deal with all sector demands adequately.
The reforms are underway and the sector under these reforms is classified into core parts including:
1) Health care waste
2) Drought actions and disposal of animal carcasses
3) Household sanitation, the need for community level and monitoring
4) HIV, Home based care management
5) Reproductive health, child heath and sanitation and
6) hygiene water related issues
The SWAP is envisioned to follow the reform process. The medium term strategy will be launched in the health sector and this is hoped will foster government/donor partnership and possibilities of pooling of funds. Complexity of the interaction between water and sanitation requires close collaboration between the MWI and MoH.
6. CONCLUSION from MWI and WSTG members
The participants agreed that the study was clear and the key message which had been established was that SWAP is headed same direction as reforms which will enhance sector investment and coordination. The SWAP is expected to fix potholes in the sector roadmaps already started not add yet another roadmap.
It was established that there was need to bring everyone on board and to ensure that other areas related to water are well coordinated with participating sectors such as health for sanitation, agriculture for irrigation etc. A good start had been made in this effort but it needs to be continued.
The MWI and the WSTG also acknowledged that the workshop objectives to get the comment from the sector stakeholders had been achieved and this will go a long way in facilitating achievement of its goals of enhancement of services delivery and accountability.
A key output of the workshop was the ownership taken by the government and the clear lead of both the process and content by the MWI at director and chairman of the SWAP committee level.
ANNEX 1
SWAP WORKSHOP PRESENTATION
SWAP FRAMEWORK
Slide 1
[pic]
Slide 2
[pic]
Slide 3
[pic]
Slide 4
[pic]
Slide 5
[pic]
Slide 6
[pic]
Slide 7
[pic]
Slide 8
[pic]
Slide 9
[pic]
Slide 10
[pic]
Slide 11
[pic]
Slide 12
[pic]
Slide 13
[pic]
Slide 14
[pic]
Slide 15
[pic]
Slide 16
[pic]
ANNEX 2
SWAP WORKSHOP PRESENTATION
MTEF CALENDAR
Slide 1
[pic]
Slide 2
[pic]
Slide 3
[pic]
Slide 4
[pic]
ANNEX 3
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
|No |Name |Organisation |Address |Telephone |E-mail address |
|1 |Robert Gakubia |MWI |P.O Box 49720 NRB |2716103 |rgakubia@ |
|2 |Peter Mangiti |MWI |P.O Box 49720 NRB |2737938 |pmangiti@yahoo.co.uk |
|3 |Peter Jorgensen |MWI |P.O Box 49720 NRB |2711211 |peter@ |
|4 |Eng. B.M Kelli |MWI |P.O Box 49720- NRB |0721 332244 |kellibmb@ |
|5 |Eng. D. N. Nyaga |MWI |P.O Box 49720 NRB |2726103 |ngaringari@ |
|6 |Peter Musuva |MWI |P.O Box 49720 NRB |2716103 |planning@maji.go.ke |
|7 |Samuel Kiiru |MoF |P.O Box 30007 NRB |0721446290 |skiiru@treasury.go.ke |
|8 |E.N.O Shiroko |MPND |P.O Box 30005 NRB |252299 |enshiroko@treasury.go.ke |
|9 |Phanuel Matseshe |WSTF |P.O Box 49699 -00100 NRB |0722720788 |matseshe@ |
|10 |Stanley M Amuti |WSRB |P.O Box 41621 NRB |2733559 |stanleymombo@ |
|11 |Samuel N.Muchai |TWSB |P.O Box 1292 Nyeri |0723393072 |snjengamuchai@ |
|12 |Eng. John O. Orwa |LVSWSB |P.O Box 3325 KSM |0722 228693 |awromil@ |
|13 |Eng. J.K. Wainaina |NWCPC |P.O Box 30173 NRB |556600 |jkwain2004@ |
|14 |Samson Kome |ALRMP/OP | |0722 316283 | |
|15 |George Odedeh |NIB |P.O Box 30372 NRB |2711380 |nib@nib.or.ke |
|16 |Blanche Tumbo |MOH |P.O Box 30016 NRB |0722 604054 |tblanche@ |
|17 |Ms. Birgit Madsen |Danish Embassy | |4451460-3 |bimade@um.dk |
|18 |Ms. Anthea Manasseh |AFD |P.O Box 45955 NRB |2718452/7 |manasseha@groupe- |
|19 |Peter Van Dongen |UN HABITAT |P.O Box 30030 NRB |624743 |Pieter.vandongen@ |
|20 |Ms. Cynthia Macharia |KfW |P.O Box 52074 NRB |572122 |macharia@kfw.co.ke |
|21 |Annika Jayawardena |SIDA | | | |
|22 |Roland Werchota |GTZ |MWI |0721 737955 |rolandwerchota@gtz.de |
|23 |Ms. Ulrika Akesson |SIDA | |0733 639321 |Ulrika.akesson@sida.se |
|24 |Mr Andre Vermeer |Embassy of the |P.O Box 52074 NRB |4447412 |andre.vermeer@minbuza.nl |
| | |Netherlands | | | |
|25 |Enos H.N. Njeru |UoN Nairobi |P.O Box 30197 NRB |0722714248 |enjeru@uonbi.ac.ke |
|26 |Thomas Levin |GTZ | | |Thomas.levin@gtz.de |
|27 |Mwangi Patrick |WSP |P.O Box 30577NRB |3226323 |pmwangi2@ |
|28 |Kameel Virjee |WSP |P.O Box 30577 NRB |3226000 |kvirjee@ |
|29 | J.N. Karuiru |World Bank |P.O Box 30577 NRB |3226445 |jkaruiru@ |
|30 |Japheth Mbuvi |WSp-AF |P.O Box 30577 NRB |3226321 |jmbuvi@ |
|31 |Thomas Fugelnes |WSP-World Bank |P.O Box 30577 NRB |3226318 |tfugelsnes@ |
|32 |Barbara Garbage |WSP/GTZ |P.O Box 30577 NRB | |bgarbage@ |
|33 | Fred Donde |UNICEF |P.O Box 44145 NRB |0722 711 940/ 622192 |fdonde@ |
|34 |Christine Mwaka |KEPSA |P.O Box3556-00100 NRB |07337114414 |cmwaka@kepsa.or.ke |
|35 |OnyWoki Mokenye |Millenium water |P.O Box 50816-00200 NRB |0722778151 |onywoki_mokenye@ |
| | |alliance | | | |
|36 |Ferade Mc Gland |Oxfarm GB |Shelter Afrique House |0725335578 |fergalmegrane@yahoo.co.uk |
|37 |K.N. Mbugua |Gath Consultant |P.O Box 14279 NRB |4441473 |gce@ |
|38 |Eric Alifula |KIPPRA |P.O Box 56445-00200 |2719933/4 |jairah@kippra.or.ke |
|39 |Eric Buhl-Nielsen |PemConsult | | |ebn@pem.dk |
|40 |Jens Vad |PemConsult | | |vad@leo.co.ls |
|41 |F.M.Kimani |Frame Consultants |P.O Box 58624-00200 NRB |213744 |fmkimani@ |
|42 |John Nguri |Consultant |P.O Box 14022 NRB |630862 |pcl@ |
|43 |Naomi Cheptoo |Frame consultants |P.O Box 58624 NRB | |nngeno@ |
Annex C Draft Summary Findings Matrixes
Summary of the present situation based on literature review and consultation with stakeholders
|Task 1, Matrix 1 |Organisational Structures |Sources of Funding |Coordination |Harmonization and alignment of structures |Challenges |
|Present Situation | | | |and procedures | |
|MWI HQ |Developing a new organisation|GOK – Recurrent & development budget,|Water Sector Working Group |The Rome declaration on harmonization of |National Environmental sanitation and |
| |structure and staffing levels|Medium term expenditure framework |Water Sector Technical Group |procedures and policies and integrate in |hygiene policies |
| |expected to be completed by |adopted as budgetary system |KWSP - Sector Coordination in |national framework |Decision should be made through |
| |1st July 2006. |GTZ & KWSP – Reform secretariat |Water and Sanitation Programme |The Paris declaration on aid effectiveness |consultations and MWI should not go |
| |Reform secretariat to wind-up|WSP support to reform process and |Coordination Committee’ (WSPCC) |Joint procurement policy – Denmark, Finland,|backwards to the centralized systems where|
| |by end of 2006. |capacity building |and ‘Water and Sanitation |Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, UK, |headquarter used to control all the funds.|
| | |AFD - Grants /Loans for support |Programme Procurement and Finance|Canada & Germany |The reform process and decentralization of|
| | |measures (grants or infrastructure |Sub-Committee’ (WSPPFC). |Joint financing agreement between GOK, GTZ &|MWI |
| | |projects loans |MoU between MWI and MoH to |KWSP for support to sector reforms |Project initiation should be from the |
| | |Co-operation Service of the French |enhance coordination between the |Design of SIS ongoing |borrower as opposed to the current |
| | |Embassy assistance for capacity |two ministries on sanitation and |Design of SIP ongoing |situation where the donor initiates the |
| | |building |hygiene roles |Harmonization of the policies |project. |
| | |Government of Federal Republic of | |strategies/funding and general effort in the|Budgetary allocation system where treasury|
| | |Germany (GTZ) in Water Sector Reform | |Sectoral issues. |releases funds in batches inhibits the |
| | |Program | |Division of areas of operation between |ministry’s ability for necessary capital |
| | |JICA Advisor on Water Supply | |donors. KWSP – 4 Boards, GTZ – 3 Boards and |expenditures |
| | |Planning | |WSP – MWI headquarters. |Delays in payment of suppliers lads to |
| | | | |Harmonisation and alignment in water sector |mushrooming of corrupt practices |
| | | | |programmes and initiatives “Good practice |Late submission of departmental budgets |
| | | | |paper” |leads to delays in overall ministerial |
| | | | | |planning |
| | | | | |Representation of the MOLG in the new |
| | | | | |institutions should be given due |
| | | | | |consideration as the body charged with |
| | | | | |responsibility for urban development |
| | | | | |Ownership of the new institutions should |
| | | | | |be clearly defined |
| | | | | |There is need to consider a participatory |
| | | | | |approach in sector plans including all |
| | | | | |stakeholders |
|Water Appeals Board |Established but not |GOK | | | |
| |operational | | | | |
| |Chairman and two staff | | | | |
| |members appointed | | | | |
|Water Resources |WRMA established in 2004/05 |GOK – Recurrent and development |WRMA agreed with GTZ and KWSP on |KWSP procedures integrated with WRMA FMS |Proper hydrometric network and data |
|Management Authority |FY. |budget |common national wide |GTZ activities planned by WRMA but separate |recording and reporting system for water |
| |All six regional offices |GTZ & KWSP - DANIDA and SIDA are |implementation of activities |FMS? |resources assessment and monitoring |
| |established 2005/06 FY with |major donors. | |Operationalization study completed and very | |
| |seconded from the MWI HQ |Long-term funding from water permit | |useful in developing standard procedures for| |
| |Sub regional offices |fees and charges (proposed funding | |WRM | |
| |established in six catchment |arrangements through the WSTF) | |Uniform systems for data management | |
| |areas. Total target is 25, 15|JICA- integrated flood management for| |undergoing development | |
| |expected by the end of the |Nyando | |Investment planning will take at least | |
| |year |New WB funding expected to start | |another two years to organize. The | |
| |CAACs gazetted in Sept 2005 |soon: | |Authority is not involved with the sector | |
| |and are operational |Financing natural resources | |investment plans currently on-going at the | |
| |WRMA work together with |management | |MWI. | |
| |approx. 30 operational WRUA |Support water users in the Mt. Kenya | |Custodian of basic information /Data should | |
| |to control water abstraction |region | |be with the body that collects such | |
| |and control systems |Management of catchment along Nzoia | |information. The MWI should only receive | |
| |National Water resources | | |information, which they require at policy | |
| |management strategy | | |level. | |
| |(2006-2008) guiding the WRM | | | | |
| |sector activities | | | | |
|W&S Service Provision |WSRB established and |GOK –recurrent an development |WSWG |WSTF provides common finance mechanism |Transfer of assets to WSBs and operations |
| |operational |KWSP- institutional development and |WSTG |WSBs provides common planning for service |to WSPs is ongoing and expected to be |
| |WSTF established and |funding of rural WSS. Danida funding |WESCORD-Emergency Response |provision |completed by 1st July 2006! |
| |operational |CWSB, TWSB and AWSB and Sida funding |WSRB must be involved in WSB |WSRB provides overall framework for |Establishment and Training of staff in |
| |7 WSB established and |all WSBs |strategic planning and the |harmonization of waters service provision |WSPs |
| |operational |GTZ- Institutional development |development of investment |Assets management models being installed to |Consultation ongoing for standard format |
| |Process of establishment of |AFD –Urban water and sewerage Kisumu,|planning |ensure proper management of all assets at |for WSB licence agreement and WSP SPAs. |
| |WSPs ongoing |Nairobi, Nakuru, and Mombasa | |AWSB | |
| |WSTF works with the various |AfDB- Rural Water supply | |Management information system must be | |
| |WSBs as the projects belong |Kfw urban water and sanitation | |enhanced, quarterly reports from the | |
| |to WSBs |EU – Rural and urban water supply | |institution to the Ministry of Water and | |
| |WSRB give the WSB a licence |(outside the MWI plan-funding direct | |Irrigation. WSP-( WSB-(-WSRB--( MWI | |
| |(15 – 20 yrs) while WSB |projects) | |possibly best pattern. | |
| |select WSP and sign a SPA. |World Bank –Urban water supply | |District water Officers are only required as| |
| | |JICA –Rural water supply and sewerage| |liaison officers on the ground for | |
| | |UNICEF -New funding from NDC and | |collection of information and dissemination | |
| | |support to WESCORD | |of the same | |
| | |Austrian Development Agency-Urban and| |Sanitation policy established by WSTF and | |
| | |rural water | |currently implementing sanitation issues at | |
| | |UN Habitat –Water and sanitation | |the District level. | |
| | |trust fund, Lake Victoria region | | | |
| | |water and sanitation initiative | | | |
| | |Various NGO projects | | | |
|Irrigation |Irrigation and Drainage |GOK |Coordination between IDD and NIB | |National irrigation and drainage policy |
| |Department in MWI. |JICA –Development of large irrigation|only through Director Irrigation | |under development, Zero Draft March 2004 |
| |(Established 1966 as a |schemes |board member | |Capacity deficiency in the irrigation |
| |department of Agriculture. |IFAD- finance of small scale Schemes |Coordination with RDAs through | |sector consultancy and even construction |
| |1977 small scale irrigation |BADEA finance to NIB |project appraisal process | |Research and practical planning necessary |
| |schemes unit started within | | | |to ensure productivity of the crops |
| |the MoA | | | |Structure for dissemination not well |
| |National Irrigation Board | | | |coordinated in small scale |
| |Regional Development | | | |Enable private sector to grab |
| |Authorities | | | |opportunities in the sector |
| |WRMA trying to establish | | | |Need for an integrated WRM approach for |
| |relationship | | | |Electricity, Water Supply and Irrigation |
Perception on the demand and perceptions on potentials and advantages for Kenya W&S Sector SWAP according to stakeholder roles based on desk study and consultations with stakeholders
|Task 1, Matrix 2 |Public Sector |Cooperation Partners |Private Sector |Civil Society |
|Demand for SWAP | | | | |
|according to | | | | |
|Stakeholder roles | | | | |
|Improved planning |All stakeholders especially MOF budget dept. emphasized positive impact the |Positive but with reservations on capacity of MWI and |Positive response from a number |Positive but concern on |
| |SWAP could have on sector planning |decentralized institutions to handle sector planning |of stakeholders |whether SWAP will |
| |Need for planning within the MTEF |and financial management |Concern that SWAP will not |respond to grass-root |
| |MOF emphasised use of government FMS and avoid FMAs |Attention needed for SWAP not to stop decentralisation|respond to grass-root level needs|level needs |
| |SWAP will enhance coordination between the Irrigation and WRM thereby |process. |Would support a SWAp as long as | |
| |improve sustainability of schemes |Need for pro poor policies with regard to planning |all stakeholders are well | |
| |SWAP will eliminate the previous lack of coordination of investments in |The SWAP will be instrumental in forging |coordinated and informed within | |
| |irrigation have led to unsustainable schemes |public/private partnerships |the operational chain. | |
| |Improved planning under the SWAP will enable investments in the long term |EU not confident on the ministry’s ability to | | |
| |WRM and improved food production rather than the present investment in |implement the SWAP due to tribal factors, | | |
| |emergency measures |mismanagement and lacking capacity | | |
| |SWAP will allow greater consideration of Irrigation in the allocation of | | | |
| |resources for development. | | | |
| |SWAP will encourage non-repetition of a service | | | |
| |SWAP will encourage interrelation within different institutions | | | |
| |The ministry ha the capacity to implement SWAP. It already supports pooling | | | |
| |of resources for some programmes by various by some donors. | | | |
| |National Planning/Single policy would be desirable so long as democracy is | | | |
| |enhanced. | | | |
|Policy development and |MTEF planning calendar facilities policy feedback |The SWAP is expected to facilitate coordination and |Implementation policies should | |
|dissemination |Consultative group meetings (GOK/Donors) – tool for policy discussions |policy dialogue |avoid FMAs due to their declining| |
| | |Role of MWI in policy formulation can be strengthened |capacity | |
| | |by SWAP |Present government systems are | |
| | |Need for pro poor policies with regard to sector |not sufficiently transparent to | |
| | |strategies |sustain a SWAP | |
| | |Need for procurement policies to follow government | | |
| | |systems and bilateral donors should not use ‘tied ‘ | | |
| | |aid and adhere to the Paris Declaration | | |
| | |The SWAP will assist in establishing clear investment | | |
| | |strategies and policies for the sector | | |
| | |SWAP will assist in developing clear planning | | |
| | |policies. | | |
| | |Need for analysis of pros and cons current project | | |
| | |support system before the decision to adopt the SWAP | | |
|Potentials for enhanced|Improved sector performance will increase the utilisation of GOK funding |SWAP will enable the water sector institutions to |Public water sector institutions | |
|funding |The bottleneck in funds release is caused by the MOF |express their needs to the donors and not as presently|do not have the capacity to | |
| |Donor attitudes will not allow the SWAP to succeed due to conditionalities. |where donors identify projects |handle a SWAP and increased | |
| |The SWAP should be flexible enough to allow for donors not willing to pool |Capacity constraints in the water sector institutions |funding | |
| |funds to still be able to channel support to the sector |needs to be addressed before funding can be increased.|International NGOs would not have| |
| | |Need for MOF to participate to enhance funding as some|a role to play upon pooling of | |
| | |un-willing to participate if MOF is not incorporated. |funds | |
| | |Donor preference to location of support areas. |High transaction costs will make | |
| | |Funding mechanisms would not allow the EU to |the SWAP unsustainable. GOK does | |
| | |contribute to the basket as country allocations |not have capacity to manage SWAP | |
| | |subject on the approved applications |requiring hiring of FMA | |
|Improved implementation|Implementation of the budgeting process will be enhanced in a SWAP |There is need to evaluate the capacity water sector |There is negative potential in | |
|efficiency |MOF claims MWI lacks the capacity to implement while MWI claims MOF delays |institutions and SWAP includes capacity building of |SWAP to increase ‘red tape’ and | |
| |transfer of funds for implementation = a SWAP potentially will improve the |the institutions |make the process of responding to| |
| |coordination between the two ministries removing the bottleneck |Procedures introduced through the SWAP e.g. the Audit |community needs longer. | |
| |SWAP will improve the monitoring tools and that will make inefficiency |and value for money procedures will assist the sector |Current government structure | |
| |implementation visible |institutions to improve their efficiency. |allows corruption and cannot | |
| |The SWAP will clarify the roles of various stakeholders thereby increasing |The SWAP will clarify the roles of various |support the SWAP | |
| |efficiency and reducing duplication of effort |stakeholders thereby increasing efficiency and | | |
| |The SWAP will allow inter-sectoral coordination reducing duplication of |reducing duplication of effort | | |
| |effort |The SWAP will allow government to identify and prepare| | |
| | |new programmes for donor funding rather than the | | |
| | |present situation where donor efforts are duplicated | | |
| | |in project formulation. | | |
|Monitoring and |SWAP will facilitate greater coordination with the MOPND monitoring and |SWAP will allow joint donor monitoring which will | | |
|Evaluation |evaluation |avoid duplication of effort | | |
|Control functions, |The SWAP should utilize the government FMS to ensure its involvement in |MOF should be fully involved in the control functions | | |
|Audits etc. |controls |The SWAP will facilitate harmonisation of specific | | |
| | |donor FM guidelines and anticorruption guidelines for | | |
| | |more effective financial controls | | |
| | |Danida’s FM guidelines and anticorruption guidelines | | |
| | |can be examples | | |
| | |The EU will not accept to follow procurement | | |
| | |procedures other than their own – hindering the SWAP | | |
Perceptions on the pre-requisites for W&S Sector SWAP to contribute to achieving the MDGs based on literature review and consultation with stakeholders
|Task 1, Matrix 3 |Public Sector |Cooperation Partners |Private sector, Civil Society and other |
|Pre-requisites for SWAP | | |stakeholders |
|Structural prerequisite for SWAP to |The full involvement of the coordinating ministries (MOF, |Definition of the water sector needs to be clarified e.g. which public |System of disbursement of funds need be |
|contribute to achieving MDGs |MOPND) in the formulation and operation of the SWAP |sector institutions need to be included in the SWAP |established at the beginning to avoid |
| |The SWAP must fit into the government budgetary and planning |SWAP must have proper policies and coordinating framework to ensure |misappropriation of funds. |
| |programmes |coordinated services to the sector | |
| |The SWAP cannot be effective on its own but should be done in |The SWAP process should be all inclusive and allow for partners who will | |
| |conjunction with public sector improvement programmes |not contribute to a basket | |
| |The SWAP should have clear inputs, outputs and indicators |Code of conduct for all players must be established. | |
| |The SWAP should have an appropriate feedback system e.g. public|Reliable SIS is operational | |
| |hearings |There should be an acceptable SIP that is recognised by the MOF and MOPND | |
| |The shortfall and gaps must be identified in the GOK FM systems|The SWAP structure shall facilitate collection of needs of the poor | |
| |The roles of the various stakeholders must be documented |Government will engage NGOs for implementation in the areas where they are| |
| |The MWI sub-sector to be covered by the SWAP should be in |most effective | |
| |congruence with the budgetary Sectoral classifications |The SWAP should enhance the decentralisation process | |
| |FMA should be avoided as it causes duplication to the functions|SWAP and projects as a combination may work together so long as the | |
| |undertaken by the Ministry of Finance and weakens the |approach is clearly defined. | |
| |government’s FMS. Instead strategies for strengthening the FMS |JICA has experts from Japan who can offer services to SWAP | |
| |as a precursor to the establishment of a SWAP should be |SWAP must accommodate all players in the sector without changing them and | |
| |considered. |must include all sector programs. | |
|Institutional prerequisite for SWAP to|SWAP should be institutionalised within the operations of the |The operationalisation of the reforms before the operation of a SWAP | |
|contribute to achieving MDGs |MWI |especially the reorganisation of the MWI | |
| |Operational bottlenecks in MWI in relation to procurement and |Performance of sector institutions must improve for SWAP to have any | |
| |financial management must be addressed. |meaningful impact | |
| | |Compliance to the reforms by restructuring of MWI head-quarter. | |
| | |Need for sector boundaries between rural and urban areas | |
| | |Chief Executive Officer within the boards who are all engineers should be | |
| | |trained in management. | |
|Procedural prerequisite for SWAP to |Review and updating of the sector strategic plans |Need for establishment of audit procedures | |
|contribute to achieving MDGs |Organising and facilitating the public expenditure reviews |Need to establish SIS | |
| |Ensuring that the whole budgetary process is in coordination |Need to establish SIP | |
| |with the overall budgetary programs |Good FM and clear rules and regulation in distribution of resources | |
| |All donor commitments must be in by March for them to be |GTZ – investment plans and information systems the key to success of a | |
| |included in the budgets |SWAP | |
| |Must note that by April the country’s budget strategy will have|Precondition – proper coordination | |
| |firm figures for each sector which cannot be changed |Sectors should be responsive to their needs and not let donors determine | |
| |The budget included will be based on a ceiling which is based |the Sectoral needs | |
| |on the ability for the ministry or the sector to absorb the |Training should be undertaken before the establishment and implementation | |
| |funds. The absorption ability is determined by the previous |of SWAP | |
| |years performance in terms of how much was returned to the |The monitoring procedures | |
| |Treasury at the year end, the capacity and the country’s | | |
| |balance of payment | | |
SWAP Requirements
|Task 2, Matrix 1 |Overall modalities for SWAP |Present status |Expected outcome |
|SWAP Requirements | | | |
|Framework for SWAP |Led by the GOK/ MWI and based on: |Sector strategies finalised for WRM |Improved planning and resource utilisation |
| |Common approach according to sector policies and strategies |Sector strategy for W&S Services prepared and |Integrated sector planning led by |
| |Partnership principles agreed by all partners |consultation process ongoing. |government |
| |Contribution to commonly agreed sector plans |Process ongoing to determine the policy for | |
| |JICA – Can participate if specific earmarking of the pool fund is |Irrigation and Drainage | |
| |acceptable. |Sector Investment Planning Project ongoing | |
| |Establishment of Sectoral boundaries | | |
| |Appropriate institutionalisation procedures for the SWAP | | |
|Institutional Structure of SWAP |Sector Working Group as the coordination and communication structure |Sector Working Group exists – needs strengthened |Reduced implementation delays and increased|
| |between donors and relevant government ministries (water, finance, |participation from MOF, MOP, MOE, MOH, MOA, MONR |absorptive capacities of implementing |
| |planning, health, education, environment, agriculture) |SWAP Committee/ Secretariat under MWI Dep. Director |bodies |
| |Anchor in the MWI Planning Division |Treasury has a problem in releasing funds to the | |
| |MWI role to be sector monitoring/control strategy and priority setting |ministries the structures undertaking implementation | |
| |Sector investment planning (Sector working group) |leading to delays and lack hence absorption | |
| |Program required to ensure the ongoing reform process does not hinder the|capability | |
| |establishment of SWAP | | |
| |Need to strengthen the MWI monitoring capacity | | |
|Working Methodology/ Modes of delivery |Joint annual reviews and agreement on sector plans for investment and |Common funding in KWSP (Sida, Danida, administered in| |
| |capacity building by all partners in the sector |parallel to GOK) | |
| |Common reporting on sector progress using harmonised performance | | |
| |indicators | | |
| |Led by MWI Planning Division, | | |
| |Gradual harmonisation of funding mechanisms towards GOK systems | | |
| |Design of the development program very key to SWAP. | | |
| |Procurement capacity assessment before any project is financed (Joint | | |
| |procurement policy) | | |
| |Pooled funds allocation should be based on monitorable objectives and | | |
| |development strategies evolved from the sub sectors | | |
| |Donors need to pool their resources within the first 6 months of | | |
| |financial year /allocation period to facilitate planning | | |
| |Strategies for co financing should be developed | | |
|Procedural requirements |Reporting requirements harmonised |KWSP currently involved in setting up audit | |
| |Planning schedules harmonised between partners |procedures including value for money audit systems in| |
| |Quality assurance and performance monitoring procedures harmonised |the country | |
| |Sector investment plan (SIP) | | |
| |Definition of the common investment programme | | |
| |Method of prioritisation is very important to decide how to spend the | | |
| |money in the basket | | |
| |Harmonisation of procurement systems which should follow the procurement | | |
| |Act | | |
| |Strengthening of procurement capacity of the ministry | | |
| |Development of feedback mechanisms to the departments to enhance planning| | |
|Communication requirements |All partners share plans and information |Sector Information System Project ongoing | |
| |Need for establishment of SIS and FMS | | |
Potential of different aspects of SWAP and expectations on impact, risks and challenges of developing and implementing a Kenya W&S Sector SWAP
|Task 2, Matrix 2 Components of SWAP |Potential of SWAP |Expectations on Impact |Expectations on Risks |Expectations on Challenges |
|Code of Conduct or Partnership |All donor joining the program |Increased cooperation |Harmonisation of procedures of various |Donors roles must be clear and should avoid |
|Principles |to be governed by the Paris | |stakeholders critical for swap success. |mixing up with the role of the government |
| |declaration | |The implications of the withdrawal of one |Project initiation should be from the borrower |
| |The joint agreement allow for | |partner from the basket needs to be assessed and|as opposed to the current situation where the |
| |joint monitoring | |strategy established for financing the arising |donor initiates the project. |
| | | |deficit. |There is need therefore to develop a single |
| | | | |policy governing facilities for multi-purpose |
| | | | |use and therefore avoid likely conflict between |
| | | | |the partners |
|Harmonisation, alignment and |Establishment of FMS will be | |Sole reliance on the government FMS only way to |National Environmental sanitation and hygiene |
|coordination |difficult since there are no | |succeed on the swap |policies |
| |lessons on establishment of | | | |
| |appropriate FMS systems | | | |
|Confidence-building and other inter-| | |Political interferences possesses a threat to |MWIs capacity to build implement the SWAP |
|and intra-sectoral requirements for | | |the successful implementation of the SWAP by |doubtful |
|enhanced cooperation and | | |interfering with operations of the WSBs and in | |
|coordination | | |turn the SWAP | |
|Institutional, structural, |Need to investigate whether a |Improved planning |Management of basket funds critical to avoid |MWI lack of capacity to handle the SWAP might |
|procedural and behavioural risks and|sector or sub-sector SWAP | |misallocation and hence liquidity problems. |hinder its success |
|challenges during SWAP preparation, |would be more appropriate | |‘red tapes’ in the Implementation process of the|Swap might hinder the effort made in |
|establishment and implementation |SWAP is a good idea but | |various programs both from the donors and the |decentralisation of planning |
| |depends on what the basket | |government |Donor individual conditionalities must be |
| |will do and how it is managed.| | |eliminated in a SWAP system |
| |If it is going to be managed | | |The Ministry monitoring currently in the |
| |through Treasury then the | | |economic department need to be strengthened, |
| |problems of funds flow will | | |self monitoring at WSB level will not be |
| |still continue to be a problem| | |adequate |
| |for program implementation due| | |The Act needs revision to incorporate irrigation|
| |to the latter’s fund release | | |and needs institutionalisation to the lowest |
| |systems | | |levels in the ministry structures |
|Integrated investment planning |Successful only if SWAP is | | |The planning and budgeting process should be |
|process |undertaken within the MTEF | | |evolved so the lowest unit is involved in the |
| | | | |budget making process |
| | | | |Decision should be made through consultations |
| | | | |and MWI should not go backwards to the |
| | | | |centralized systems where headquarter used to |
| | | | |control all the funds. |
|Willingness and preparedness of | | |The EU would not be willing to contribute to the|Swap unresponsiveness to grass-root level needs |
|stakeholders to technically and | | |envisioned secretariat for institutionalisation |might hamper willingness of partners to support |
|financially contribute to the | | |of the SWAP |the swap |
|establishment of a SWAP and increase| | | | |
|funding | | | | |
|Willingness and preparedness of |EU would be willing to finance| | |Some existing partners will not join the he |
|stakeholders to adjustment and |special programs as unveiled | | |basket fund hence need to consider funding |
|alignment of technical and financial|in the SWAP but directly not | | |options |
|support procedures |through the basket. | | | |
|Harmonised quality assurance and | | | |Need to enhance transparency and integrity |
|sector performance monitoring | | | |within the sector institutions if Swap is to |
|procedures | | | |work |
Lessons learned in other sectors in Kenya and in the W&S sector in neighbouring countries
|Task 3: |Present status of the SWAP |Success in increased sector |Success in avoiding |Success in promoting |Success in applying priority |Success in communication and |Success in enhancing |
|SWAP |building process |resource mob. and div. funding |implementation delays and |cooperation, synergies |setting concepts |participation |transparency and |
|experience| | |obstacles | | | |anti-corruption |
|Kenya |A three year financing plan |increased funding - links are |some evidence of improved |closer links between policy and|Swap allows greater focus on a |swap has enhanced better | |
|Health |KEPH and non KEPH |being established to credible |outputs, efficiency |implementation |selected number of key sector |dialogue and more trust | |
|Sector |prioritization criteria |medium term budget frameworks |process dependant upon key |improved quality of planning |priorities |SWAP is time | |
| |Joint SWAp Coordinating |increasing disbursement through|individuals |limited NGO/civil society |some evidence and better |consuming/difficult to | |
| |Committee (JSCC) |Government systems |overemphasis on detail |participation |allocation of resources |negotiate – increased | |
| |Establishment of the |Funding programs must be |performance management weak |slow shift from donor |development of mechanisms more |transaction costs | |
| |environmental sanitation and |achievable |centralisation of funds at SWAP|coordination to a focus on |responsive to local needs | | |
| |hygiene policies | |level will lead to |service improvement and poverty|often avoids most contentious | | |
| |(PHAST) techniques | |inefficiencies in funding of |alleviation |sector problems | | |
| |Local Authority Strategic | |needy communities. | | | | |
| |Development Action Plan | | | | | | |
| |technical subgroups of the | | | | | | |
| |ESHWG | | | | | | |
| |Paris Declaration | | | | | | |
| |MoH asked to draw up MOU with | | | | | | |
| |MWI | | | | | | |
| |Annual Operation Plan 2005-2006| | | | | | |
| |(AOP I) | | | | | | |
| |Development of the second | | | | | | |
| |National Health Sector | | | | | | |
| |Strategic Plan 2005-10 (NHSSP | | | | | | |
| |II). | | | | | | |
| |Consolidation of SD support | | | | | | |
| |systems assessments | | | | | | |
|Kenya |Adoption of KESSP as an |The use of other resources (OR)|Initially there must be well |Establishment of Directorate of|The sector has developed the |String government and donor |Formation of the Directorate of|
|Education |instruments for |can be flexibly and strongly |documented analysis of the |Policy and Planning: |Kenya Education Sector Support |leadership necessary for SWAP |Quality Assurance and Standards|
|Sector |operationalising the Sessional |aligned to SWAp development – |sector |Mapping up of what would be the|Programme (KESSP) |to succeed |The funding from the donors and|
| |Paper No. 1 of 2005 outlining |in this case Sida effectively |social/economic/political |problems and how they could be |need to define as early as | |the government must be clear |
| |various strategies and policy |operated as a type of ‘silent |factors which may derail the |overcome including the required|possible the programs to be | |and transparent |
| |direction of education and |partner’ as illustrated in |process |regulations, amendments to the |included and at what time | |The funds available must be |
| |training programmes |UNICEF operations in Cambodia |Capacity of the staff and time |laws and other institutional |SWAP should be completely owned| |able to be absorbed |
| |Ongoing process to develop a | |required to run a SWAP is |changes necessary before |by the government/ ministry in | | |
| |three pronged communication | |always underestimated and |establishment of a SWAP |charge | | |
| |strategy focusing on Advocacy, | |combination of the staff |Need to sensitize the ministry |A road map setting clear | | |
| |Social Mobilization and | |members undertaking the SWAP |and all other ministries staff |deadlines for stakeholders must| | |
| |Programme Communication. | |duties and their routine |affected by the SWAP on what is|be set from the word go. | | |
| |Capacity building of managerial| |assignments tend to create |all about it and how it will | | | |
| |staf to implemtnt the KESSP | |conflict |affect their future | | | |
| |Implemtnation of the KESSP has | |SWAP establishment program must|The private sector partnership | | | |
| |been decentralized to school | |take into account the need for |is crucial and must be well | | | |
| |level and funds are fowing | |consultancies and technical |thought out at the inception of| | | |
| |direct to schools | |assistants to evaluate and |the SWAP | | | |
| |Support to nonformal schools | |assist in implementation of the| | | | |
| |(NFS) and non formal centers | |various technical issues | | | | |
| |(NFCs) has been enhanced | |necessary before the SWAP come | | | | |
| |through mainstreamed pro poor | |to afore. | | | | |
| |targeting | | | | | | |
| |The approval of the FTI and | | | | | | |
| |intial grant amounting to US $ | | | | | | |
| |24.2 has already been | | | | | | |
| |communicated | | | | | | |
| |JFA and partnership principles | | | | | | |
| |already agreed upon and signed | | | | | | |
|Kenya |Joint statement of intent |MOF considers the FMA an added |The money contributed into the |Compliance with Paris and Rome |The budget process engaged via |GJLOS Donor Group meet |Monitoring through bi annual |
|Justice |signed in October/November |cost to the SWAP bringing about|basket gets into the government|Declarations |the Public Safety, Law and |regularly |joint review |
|sector |Program coordination office |cost duplication |system only after an AIA has | |Order Sector Working Group |The GJLOS steering and | |
| |(SWAP advisory team) set up |Employment of consultants in |been issued bringing delays | |(PSLO/SWG), |technical coordination | |
| |operational for two years |the coordination office an | | |interaction with the Ministry |committee | |
| |Medium term strategy developed |unnecessary cost structure. | | |of Finance and the Ministry of | | |
| |for 2005-2009 |The budgeting process is | | |National Planning and | | |
| |Swap finances managed by FMA |outside the government system | | |Development, | | |
| |operated by KPMG |which may cause conflicts | | |engagement with the MTEF | | |
| | |including contravention of the | | |process and the Public | | |
| | |Exchequer Act | | |Expenditure Review (PER) | | |
| | | | | |process. | | |
|Zambia W&S|Zambia has benefited since 2004|The resource mobilization role |The institutional conflict in |Those that lead the SWAP should|A national programme for RWSS |A water Sector Advisory Group |These issues go beyond the |
|Sector |from Harmonization in Practice |of a SWAP can actually increase|Zambia has led to long delays |necessarily be financial |is seen in Zambia as |(SAG) has been set up to link |water sector especially when |
| |(HIP) initiative. Donors in the|the difficulties of getting |and perhaps will even lead to a|gainers from SWAP if the sector|prerequisite for a SWAP since |theWS to the PRS. So far, it |funds are increasingly |
| |WS are signatories to HIP and |necessary institutional |collapse of an attempt to |has conflicts of interest. The |it provides the targets and |has not worked well – mainly |channelled via local |
| |it has started having positive |cooperation. |introduce SWAP. |main problem has been that the |prioritised plan. |due to the difficulty of two |government. There is a need to |
| |effects on coordination of |Historical or even an ad hoc |The creation of sub-sector |perception from an individual |The plan includes both |ministries having to join |link to wider processes between|
| |activities |funding arrangement can |SWAPs promises to be one way of|agency basis is that there has |institutional and physical |forces. It is not clear what |government and its external |
| |The WS is divided into 3 |potentially be used as channel |overcoming obstacles as not all|been more to loose from not |interventions. Efficiency gains|role the SAG would play in the |development partners. |
| |different sub-sectors that are |for funds directed to a SWAP – |the problems in all the |being the SWAP leader than |will be achieved by |context of a SWAP. Neither the |Transparency can be |
| |institutionally separate: Urban|the WSTF in Kenya could be |subsectors have to be solved at|there is to gain from SWAP if |implementing first in areas of |government nor civil society |considerably enhanced within |
| |WSS and Rural WSS (MLGH) and |considered. The Devolution |once. |another organization obtains |greatest demand/need. |has found it easy to handle the|the sector compared to the |
| |Water Resources Management |Trust Fund (DTF), which was |Generic agreements on |the leadership. |Institutional support is aimed |role of civil society within |status quo if joint funding |
| |(MEWD). |originally established under |harmonisation of external | |at increasing efficiency of the|official forums such as the |mechanisms as well as |
| |Following the HIP initiative of|the urban sector regulator for |assistance that cover all | |implementing agency and from |SAGs. Civil society has |procurement procedures have |
| |2004, both MLGH and MEWD |the peri-urban water sector, is|sectors is very helpful as the | |harmonising the mode of |generally not played a strong |adequate control structures in |
| |informally presented their |one of the possibilities for a |water sector cannot go alone | |deliveries and from |advocacy role. The role of the |place. Increased transparency |
| |ideas on SWAP in early 2005. |SWAP funding mechanism. The |and advance far beyond other | |institutionalising a coherent |SAGs versus the role of normal |and better governance will |
| |Plans for a SWAp for the rural |main sector players are |areas of cooperation. | |system for O&M. |government bodies is not clear |probably be one of the main |
| |sub-sector is progressing fast.|currently not in agreement on |In Zambia the HIP initiative in| |The National Programme for RWSS|– who is responsible? of |stimulations of increased |
| |A national RWSS prog. has been |this option. |particular has paved the way | |has been designed on the basis |people attending the SAGs has |resource flows to the sector in|
| |drafted to start late 2006. A | |for improved conditions for | |of highly decentralised |been poor. The whole SAG |the framework of SWAP. |
| |RWSS sub-sector SWAp could be | |SWAPs – although because of the| |structures. Planning and |concept appears to have been | |
| |in place by mid 2007. | |institutional conflict in the | |implementation capacities on |externally invented and driven.| |
| |The Devolution Trust Fund (DTF)| |water sector this has not yet | |decentralised level are still |The line ministry attached | |
| |is a basket funding mechanism | |resulted in progress. A Joint | |very weak. This risks to be the|little importance to it which | |
| |which is specifically targeted | |Assistance Strategy has been | |actual bottleneck. Real |reflected in the low-level | |
| |at the low income urban areas. | |developed for all sectors that | |decentralised planning is |participation in the meetings | |
| |There are controversies over | |maps the donor involvement, | |complicated in terms of |and an absence of resources | |
| |whether or not the DTF should | |outlines comparative advantages| |consultation and ensuring that |allocated to the SAG. A well | |
| |be turned into a broader | |and provides generic TOR for | |national plans are bottom up |working SAG, however, could be | |
| |funding mechanism in the | |donor involvement. | |and based on local plans |an efficient coordination forum| |
| |framework of SWAP | | | | |within a SWAP | |
|Tanzania |The revised National Water |Sector investment plan and |A three year transition phase |Donors help by agreeing to a |The process towards SWAP has |The SWAP is not only about |Targets with measureable |
|W&S Sector|Policy (July 2002) followed by |model is being developed |has been allowed for |division of labour and |led to a Sub sector allocation |getting donors to work together|indicators for the transition |
| |National Water Sector |Predictability of external |Reform of MoWLD is a |delegation of cooperation to a |that has shifted priorities |but also getting different |plan have been developed for |
| |Development Strategy (NWSDS) A|funding |cornerstone to SWAP. This |lead donor. |towards the rural areas where |Tanzanian stakeholders together|the Tanzanian water sector |
| |Water Sector Strategy | |entail separation of service |Aid management reforms aimed at|the majority of the unserved |from the public sector, the |SWAP. |
| |Implementation Plan (WSSIP) | |provision and |improving use of external |live. |private sector and civil |Capacity building to manage |
| |under preparation for | |regulatory/facilitory role as |assistance have been ongoing |The SWAP is linked to the PRSP |society. |external resources is needed to|
| |implementing the NWSDS. | |the key objective with an |since the 1990s. The Technical |and MTEF processes and hence |In response to GOT’s calls |increase transparency |
| |GoT is establishing a new | |enhanced role for the private |Assistance Strategy of 2002 was|the priorities are set by the |the development partners have |Performance Assessment |
| |development partnership for the| |sector and local government. |a key step forward. This has |poverty agenda. |organized themselves into a |Framework is a step in the |
| |water sector. | |Autonomous operation of the |now been expanded to the Joint | |development partners group |direction accountability |
| |A first Draft Road Map to SWAp | |relevant institutions without |TAS, which aims to develop a | |(DPG) where there is a special |The sector dialogue is foreseen|
| |in 2003 identified key | |political interference has |single partnership framework. | |sub-group for water. |as strengthening government |
| |milestones for SWAp Core | |facilitated the development of | | | |accountability to citizens – |
| |elements: restructuring of the | |their water sector | | | |the information release can do |
| |MoWLD, the finalization of the | | | | | |this. |
| |WSSIP, National Water Law, | | | | | |Tanzania used an Independent |
| |establishment of Joint | | | | | |Monitoring Group (IMG) to |
| |Government/Donor Sector | | | | | |review progress in government |
| |Reviews. The development of a | | | | | |and external development |
| |Water Sector Development | | | | | |partner relations. |
| |Program (2006-2015) based on | | | | | | |
| |the sub-sector investment | | | | | | |
| |plans. Progress has been | | | | | | |
| |achieved e.g. elaboration of | | | | | | |
| |the NWSDS and its | | | | | | |
| |Implementation Plan and review | | | | | | |
| |of the Law. | | | | | | |
| |SWAp will bring together the | | | | | | |
| |three sub-sectors under one | | | | | | |
| |investment and regulatory | | | | | | |
| |regime A 3-year transition | | | | | | |
| |period to prepare the | | | | | | |
| |investment plan, build capacity| | | | | | |
| |at all levels, regulatory | | | | | | |
| |framework | | | | | | |
|Uganda W&S|Government of Uganda (GoU) |SWAP can complement urban |Project modalities can be used |If the Ministry of Finance |A sector investment model can |An annual sector review process|Regular tracking and value for |
|Sector |adopted SWAP to counter the |reforms - but the main source |as transition vehicles for |becomes a champion for a SWAP |help to make the policy impact |will foster improved |money studies combined with |
| |several weaknesses of project |of additional funding will |building capacity to implement |the prospects for success are |of present allocation practices|communication and ensure that |annual performance measurement |
| |piecemeal planning |arise from improved |using new delivery mechanisms |greater |between sub-sectors explicit |at least once a year all |against key indicators should |
| |The GoU has achieved |institutional and technical |New policies and roles must be |Coordination works better when |It can reveal where the |involved in the sector can |be used together with normal |
| |Regulatory Framework review |performance of the water |accompanied by a re-engineering|the mechanism goes beyond a |greatest sector inefficiencies |participate in a review of |fiscal controls such as audits |
| |Sub-Sector Reforms |utilities themselves. |the institutional structure, |debating forum and undertakes a|are (large costs for little |progress and the setting of key|The ‘kingdom rule’ in Uganda |
| |Detailed Functional Analysis: |SWAP arrangements have to |systems, job descriptions and |decision making role |gain). |priorities for the next year |enhances accountability in the |
| |Pro poor strategy |consider additionality concerns|accountability mechanisms. | | |NGOs coordination is possible |use of resources. Effective |
| |Sector Investment Plans |if they are to attract funding | | | |and beneficial |feedback policies are necessary|
| |Water and Sanitation Sector |that is sector specific | | | | |fort he SWAP to succeed |
| |Working Group (WSSWG) |. SWAP related funding | | | | | |
| |Donor Coordination Group |mechanisms should consider the | | | | | |
| |NGO Coordination |impact on recurrent budgets | | | | | |
| |Joint Annual Reviews |especially for the hygiene | | | | | |
| |Sector Performance Report (SPR)|promotion function | | | | | |
| |Tracking and value for money |Funding for technical | | | | | |
| |studies |assistance and capacity | | | | | |
| | |building can be provided off | | | | | |
| | |budget but still integrated | | | | | |
| | |within government systems – | | | | | |
| | |gaining the advantages of | | | | | |
| | |harmonization and flexibility | | | | | |
Annex D Initial List of Stakeholders for consultations
|Organisation |Contact Person |Contact person |Contact phone no, e-mail |Topic/ relevance for SWAP |Interview by/ date |
| |Title |Name | | | |
|Government of Kenya |
|MWI |Permanent Secretary |Eng. Mahboub M. Maalim |2716103 |Commitment from GOK to SWAP – respect |FMK/ JV |
| | | | |for joint decision making etc. |28/02/2006 |
| |Director Water |Eng. Robert N. Gakubia |+254 20 2716103 ext 258 |Planning and coordination procedures |FMK, JN, JV |
| | | |+254 733703638 |for SWAP |28/02/2006 |
| | | |gakubia@maji.go.ke | |FMK. JV, EBN |
| | | |rngakubia@ | |Several |
| |Deputy Director, SWAP Secretariat |Eng. Peter O Mangiti |+254 20 27277938 |WSWG |FMK, JN, JV, EBN |
| | | |Pmangiti@yahoo.co.uk | | |
| |Planning |Eng. B. Kasabuli |+254 20 2716746 |Planning and coordination procedures |FMK |
| | | |Planning@maji.go.ke |for SWAP |15/03/2006 |
| | | | | |by NCN |
| |Coordinator KWSP, MWI |Eng. K. Kyengo, |2716103 |Relevant experiences from KWSP |FMK, |
| | | |plynnian@ |coordination for SWAP |2/03/2006 |
| | | | | |JV, EBN |
| |Sector Adviser, KWSP |Mr. Peter Jørgensen, |peter@ |Relevant experiences from KWSP |FMK |
| | | |2716103/0723960677 |coordination for SWAP |28/02/2006 |
| | | | | |EBN, JV |
| |Director Water Sector Reform |Eng. Daniel Barasa |+254 20 2716103 |SWAP development and the sector reforms|FMK/ JV |
| |Secretariat | |danbkke@ | |2/03/2006 |
| |The Chief Finance Officer, MWI |S.O Olala |2716103 |The of MWI FMS and the implications for|JN |
| | | | |SWAP | |
| |Chief Procurement Officer MWI |Mr. Ouma Ondara |2716103 |Functioning of MWI Procurement and |JN |
| | | | |implications for SWAP | |
| |Senior Economist |Mr. Peter Musuva | | |JV/ FMK |
| |The Deputy Chief Economist, MWI; |Miss Franscisca Owuor |2716103 |Policy implications |JN |
| |Irrigation and Drainage Department |Eng. Kelli | | |FMK/ JV |
| | | | | |2/03/2006 |
| |KWSP – Review Team |Anders Karlsson |+46 476 62000 | |FMK/ JV |
| | | |askab.konsult@swipnet.se | |3/03/2006 |
| | |Enos H.N. Njeru |+254 20 318262 | |FMK/ JV |
| | | |+254 20 0722 714248 | |3/03/2006 |
| | | |njeruenos@ | | |
| | |Mr. Nyaga | | |FMK/ JV |
| | | | | |3/03/2006 |
|Water Sector Institutions |
|Nairobi/ Athi WSB |Chief Executive Officer |Eng. Lawrence W. Mwangi |+254 20 226276 |Effects of SWAP on WSBs’ planning, |FMK/ JV |
| | | |+254 6750368 |monitoring and reporting |28/02/2006 |
| | | |lwmwangi@ | | |
| | | |nwsboard@ | | |
|National Water Conservation |Planning |Eng. J.K. Wainaina |+254 556601 |Effect of SWAP on NWCPC’s planning MOU |FMK |
|and Pipeline Corporation | | |nawaco@ |with WSBs |07/03/2006 |
|(NWCPC) | | | | | |
|WRM Authority |CEO WRMA |Patrick Oloo |+254 20 2732291 |Effect of SWAP on WRMA |FMK/JV |
| | | |info@ | |27/02/2006 |
| |IWRM Adviser KWSP |Jeremy Notley |+254 724 779804 | |FMK/JV |
| | | |Jeremy.notley@ | |27/02/2006 |
|Water Services Trust Fund |CEO WSTF |Eng. Simon G. Mwangi |+254 20 2720517 |Effect of SWAP on WSTF |FMK/ JV |
| | | |sgmwangi@ | |24/02/2006 |
|Water Services Regulatory |CEO WSRB |Eng. Kamau H. Maina |+254 20 2733559/61 |Effect of SWAP on WSRB |FMK/ JV |
|Board | | |+254 0722 736183 | |24/02/2006 |
| | | |wsrb_kenya@ | | |
| | | |khmaina@ | | |
| |WSRB, Technical Manager |Eng. Jacqueline Musyoki |+254 20 2733559/61 | |FMK/ JV |
| | | |+254 0722 722 386317 | |24/02/2006 |
| | | |wsrb_kenya@ | | |
| | | |jacquelinemusyoki@ | | |
| |WSRB, Finance and Administration |Stanley M. Amuti |+254 0722 736183 | |FMK/ JV |
| |Manager | |+254 0722 517826 | |24/02/2006 |
| | | |wsrb_kenya@ | | |
| | | |stanleymombo@ | | |
|KEWI |Human Resources Manager |Mr. John Gatiri |254 20 607425 |Role in capacity building for the water|FMK |
| | | | |sector |8/03/2006 |
|National Irrigation Board | |Eng. George Odede |+254 20 2720434 |Effect of SWAP on NIB |JN, FMK |
|(NIB) | | |Irrigationboard@ | |01/02/2006 |
| | |Hosea Wendot |+254 20 2720434 |Effect of SWAP on NIB |JN, FMK |
| | | |olumphie@wrma.or.ke | |01/02/2006 |
|GOK Ministries |
|Ministry of Finance |Director of External Resources |Mr Jackson Kinyanjui |252299 Ext. 33204 |Ministry of Finance as a leading |JN/ JV |
| |Department | | |partner in a W&S Sector SWAP |27/02/2006 |
| |Director of Budget |Paul B. M. Ngugi |252299 Ext 33232 |Ministry of Finance as a leading |JN/ JV |
| | | |pbmngugi@ |partner in a W&S Sector SWAP |27/02/2006 |
| |Planning Officer Budget Department |Ms Phylis Makau | | |JN/ JV |
| | | | | |27/02/2006 |
| |Desk Officer MWI Budget Department |Mr Martin Wamwea | | |JN/ JV |
| | | | | |27/02/2006 |
|Office of the President |PS Special programmes |Mrs. Rachel Arunga |227411 |WESCORD -coordination emergency/ |JN |
| | | | |disaster – list of NGO participants | |
| |Directorate of Personnel Management |Mr Mbera Orwoba | | |JN |
|Ministry of Planning and |Dir. Economic Planning |Stephan Wainaina |252299 ext 33293 |Ministry of Planning as a leading |JN/ JV |
|National Development | | |+254 20 343652 |partner in a W&S Sector SWAP |27/02/2006 |
| | | |swainaina@treasury.go.ke | | |
| | | |wainainasc@ | | |
| |Financial Management Reforms |Mr. Achim Blume |252299 | |JN/ EBN |
| |Team Leader/Advisor | | | |24/03/2006 |
|Ministry of Health |Permanent Secretary |Dr. Hezron O. Nyangito |2717077/ 2710003 |MoH as partner in the sector/ Lessons |JN/ JV |
| | | |Psmoh@africaonline.co.ke |learned from Health SWAP |28/02/2006 |
| |Public Heath Officer, Division of |Blanche Tumbo |2717077/2710003 |MOH links to MWI in sanitation and |FMK |
| |Environmental Health | |btumbo@ |hygiene |8/03/2006 |
|Ministry of Environment and |Economist |Charles Gachoki |+254 20 2730808/ 1213 |MoENR as partner in the sector |JN |
|Natural Resources | | |cgachoki@ |especially related to WRM | |
|Ministry of Livestock and |Senior Livestock development Officer |Richard Kyuma |+254 722637 |MoL&FD as partner in the sector |JN |
|Fisheries Development | | |kavilakyuma@ | | |
|Ministry of Local Government |Deputy Director Urban Development |Mr. J.A. Amaya |254 722222448 |Future Local Authorities role in W&S |FMK |
| | | |254 20 340972 |service provision |10/03/2006 |
| | | |254 20 2177475 | |by NCN |
|Governance, Justice and Order |Strategy, Planning and |Mr. Dennis Kabaara | | |JN |
|sector reform program (GJLOS) |budgeting/Deputy CTC | | | | |
|Cooperation Partners: |
|KFW |Director |Jorg Dux |+254 20 3872122/111 |Constraints in planning and |FMK, JN, JV, EBN |
| | | |+254 20 3868519 |implementation procedures, respect for | |
| | | |+254 722203603 |joint decision making | |
| | | |kfw@kfw.co.ke | | |
| | | |dux@kfw.co.ke | | |
|GTZ |TA MWI, WS Programme Coordinator |Mr. Roland Werchota |2719987 / 0721 737955 |Constraints in planning and |JN, FMK |
| | | |Roland.werchota@gtz.de |implementation procedures, respect for |27/01/2006 |
| | | | |joint decision making |JV, EBN |
|AFD |Deputy Director |F Gil |+254 20 2718452/7 |Constraints in planning and |FMK, JN |
| | | |Gilrjegroupe@ |implementation procedures, respect for |09/02/2006 |
| | | | |joint decision making | |
| |Programme officer |Anthea Manasseh |+254 20 2718452/7 |Constraints in planning and |FMK, JN |
| | | |manasseha@groupe- |implementation procedures, respect for |09/02/2006 |
| | | | |joint decision making | |
|Danida |Counsellor Development |Birgit Madsen |4451460-3 |Constraints in planning and |FMK/JN |
| | | |bimade@um.dk |implementation procedures, respect for |09/02/2006 |
| | | | |joint decision making | |
|Sida |Programme Officer |Ms. Ulrika Åkesson |4234067 |Constraints in planning and impl. |FMK, JN |
| | | |+254 733639321 |procedures, respect for joint decision |13/02/2006 |
| | | | |making |EBN/ JV 22/3/2006 |
|WB | |J Karuiru |+254 20 3226445 |Constraints in planning and impl. |JN |
| | | |jkaruiru@ |procedures, respect for joint decision | |
| | | | |making | |
|WSP-AF |WSS Specialist |Japheth Mbuvi |+254 20 3226321 |Experiences with W&S Sector SWAPs in |FMK |
| | | |jmbuvi@ |the region |13/02/2006 |
|EU | |Mr. Claus Darmstadt |2713020 |The functioning of the EU trust fund? |JN |
| | | | |Funding for W&S | |
|UNICEF |Project Officer |Fred Donde |+254 622192 |Constraints in planning and |FMK |
| | | |jdonde@ |implementation procedures, respect for |21/02/2006 |
| | | | |joint decision making | |
|UNICEF |Senior Programme Officer |Mr. Roger Pearson |+254 622088 |Constraints in planning and |FMK |
| | | |atifow@ |implementation procedures, respect for |21/02/2006 |
| | | | |joint decision making | |
|JICA |Assistant Resident Representative |Ms. Chie Ezaki |+254 20 2724121/4 |Constraints in planning and impl. |FMK, JN |
| | | |Esaki.Chie@jica.go.jp |procedures, respect for joint decision |21/02/2006 |
| | | | |making | |
|Japanese Embassy |Researcher/Adviser |Mr. Shin Honda |+254 20 2724121/4 |Constraints in planning and impl. |FMK, JN |
| | | |Shinichi.honda@mofa.go.jp |procedures, respect for joint decision |21/02/2006 |
| | | | |making | |
|DFID |Environmental Adviser |Mr. Andrew McCoubrey |+254 20 2717699 |DFID experiences with SWAP and budget |FMK, JN |
| | | |amccoubrey@ |support | |
|Netherlands |Environment advisor |Andre Vermeer |+254 20 4447412 |Constraints in planning and impl. |FMK, JN |
| | | |Andre.vermeen@minbuza.ul |procedures, respect for joint decision | |
| | | | |making | |
|NGOs |
|World Vision |Coordinator Millennium Water Alliance |Eng. Onywoki Mokenye |+254 20 883652-66, +254 722778151 |Constraints in planning and impl. |FMK |
| | | |Onywoki_mokenye@ |procedures for W&S to vulnerable groups|22/02/2006 - |
| | | |omokenye@ | |On phone by NCN |
|Amref |Programme Manager W&S |Gerald K. Rukunga |254 20 6993000 |Constraints in planning and |FMK |
| | | |254 20 733937715 |implementation procedures for W&S to |13/03/2006 |
| | | |rukungag@ |vulnerable groups | |
|Merlin International |Regional Country Director |Ms Gabrielle Appleford |3875530/3875487/3875517/3876475 |Constraints in planning and |JN |
| | | | |implementation procedures for W&S to | |
| | | | |vulnerable groups | |
| |Project Coordiantor |Ms Lionella Fieschi |3875530/3875487/3875517/3876475 | |JN |
|Private Sector | | | | | |
|Kenya Private Sector Alliance |Chief Executive Director |Samuel Mwaura Waweru |254-020-273371/2 |Relevant experiences for Private sector|FMK/ JV |
|(KEPSA) | | |254-0722705570 |Participants in W&S services provision |27/03/06 |
| | | |info@kepsa.or.ke | | |
| |Project Manager-Sector Development |Carole Kariuki |254-020-273371/2 | |FMK/ JV |
| | | |254-0722154742 | |27/03/06 |
| | | |ckariuki@kepsa.or.ke | | |
| |Finance and administration Officer |Christine Mwaka |254-020-273371/2 | |27/03/06 |
|Gath Consulting Engineers/ |Chairman Association of Consulting |K. N. Mbugua |+254 20 444 1473 | |FMK/ JV |
|Association of Consulting |Engineers | |knmbugua@ | |21/03/2006 |
|Engineers | | | | | |
|Civil Society | | | | | |
|National Council of Churches |General Secretary |Rev. Mutava Musyimi |2721249 |W&S services provision in view of the |JN |
|(NCCK) | | | |Institutional reforms in the water | |
| | | | |sector | |
|International Water and | |Fanuel Odhiambo |890553/55/56 |Netwas role in Kenya water sector – |FMK |
|Sanitation Centre (IRC) and | | | |info on SWAP experiences etc |09/03/2006 |
|Water Supply and Sanitation | | | | | |
|Collaborative Council (WSSCC) | | | | | |
|through their local partner | | | | | |
|NETWAS. | | | | | |
|NGO Council |Membership and Networking Officer |Mr. Luke Aketch Odoyo |+254 20 271 5259 | |FMK, JV |
| | | |+254 723 748048 | |24/03/2006 |
| | | |odoyo@ | | |
|NGO Coordination Bureau |Programme Coordinator |Henry Otido |214801/214044 | |FMK |
| | | | | |30/03/2006 On phone by NCN |
|Association of Local |Secretary General |Hamisi Mboga |+254 20 249695 |Relevant experiences in W&S services |24/03/2006 |
|Government Authorities of | | |algak@ |provision and implications of water |NCN/JV |
|Kenya (ALGAK) | | | |sector reforms | |
Annex E Document Review
|Ref no |Document Title |Date of document|Source of Document|Short narrative and main points relevant for SWAP design |Remarks |
|A01 |The National Water Services Strategy (NWSS) |December 2004 |MWI |The national water services strategy follows on from the Water Act 2002 and the national water resources | |
| |(2005 – 2007) | | |management strategy. The strategy gives a brief sector overview, indicating the sector performance and | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |challenges. A new institutional framework based on separating the regulatory and implementing functions and | |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 01 - NWSS Strategy MWI| | |enhancing the role of the private sector is presented. Plans are presented for capacity building, increasing | |
| |2004.doc | | |private sector participation, mobilizing finance for the sector, responding to poverty alleviation challenges| |
| | | | |and improving monitoring and information. Sector goals are defined as are the overall costs of meeting these | |
| | | | |goals based on outline per capita unit costs | |
|A02 |The First National Water Resources Management|April 2003 |MWRMD |This strategy builds on the national policy for water resources (1999). The strategy underscores the |Is there an update? |
| |Strategy, 84pp | | |importance of WRM in a country as arid and “water stressed” as Kenya. The strategy is placed in the | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |transition context of the sector and is well organized with a through problem analysis and a very useful | |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 02 - National WRM | | |assessment of the key water resource issues affecting Kenya. Each issue is accompanied by an outline action | |
| |Strategy MWI Draft Nov 2004.doc | | |plan. | |
|A03 |The National Irrigation And Drainage Draft |March 2004 |MWRMD |This policy paper gives a brief overview of the irrigation and drainage development in Kenya and the | |
| |Policy (March 2004), 22 pp | | |challenges faced in the sector. The policy paper proposes a framework for achieving sustainable development | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |and management of the irrigation and drainage sector. It outlines the strategies to guide the entire range of| |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 03 - National | | |actions and synchronise all irrigation and drainage related activities and actors within the sector covering:| |
| |Irrigation and Drainage Draft Policy MWRMD | | |planning and coordination, utilization, regulation and conservation of water for irrigation, capacity | |
| |Mar 2004.doc | | |building, research and extension, support services, funding and monitoring and evaluation | |
|A04 |Final Report Water Sector Investment Plan, |July 2003 |MWRMD |The sector investment plan attempts to put costs to the actions foreseen in the national water services |Get update on investment plan|
| |22pp + annexes | | |strategy and the national water resources management strategy. The plan is a 5 year plan separates water |if available |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |services and water resources management investments. The financial viability of the new institutions | |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 04 - Zero Draft | | |envisaged is examined and the required tariffs and service charges for sustainable operation are calculated. | |
| |Investment Plan MWRMD July 2003.doc | | | | |
|A05 |Water sector investment Plan, 2005 |December 2005 |MWI |This document the conceptual framework of the sector planning. It outlines the strategy to be adopted to | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |facilitate the achievement of sector investment planning goals by the provision of adequate information for | |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 05 - Water Sector | | |decision making purposes for investment options. It specifies guidelines for data collection, analysis and | |
| |Investment Plan Concept Presentation MWI Dec | | |validation and reporting procedures to be followed in developing databases that will aid in projects | |
| |2005.ppt | | |prioritisation. | |
| | | | |It is further guided by the Draft National Water Services Strategy May, 2005 on issues of overage of services| |
| | | | |to be provided. | |
|A06 |Operationalisation of the water act 2002 in |January 2005 |MWI |This document outlines the key themes which form the basis on which the strategy for the operationalisation | |
| |rural water supply and sanitation, Inception | | |process will be based. The discussed themes are: i) Sector status and linkages with the Water Act 2002 in | |
| |Report | | |RWSS, ii) Goals and targets in service delivery iii) RWSS management linkages with the overall sector | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |management, iv) financing v) Cross cutting issues | |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 06 - Operationalising | | | | |
| |WA-2002 in RWSS - Inception rep MWI Jan | | | | |
| |2005.doc | | | | |
|A07 |Operationalisation of the water act 2002 in |January 2005 |MWI |“Operationalising the Water Act 2002 with respect to Water Resource Management”, attempts to develop a clear | |
| |Water resource Management, Report | | |and concise set of recommendations and steps for implementation that can assist WSRS and WRMA to translate | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |the WA2002 into effective management of the water resources. | |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 07 - wrma study email | | |This report outlines the proposed activities to be undertaken to the achievement of the prescribed task. | |
| |version\WRM Inception Report 03.doc | | | | |
|A08 |Draft plan for the transfer of management and|December 2004 |MWI |This document specifies the strategy and underlying principles to facilitate the effective transfer of | |
| |operation of water devices to the water | | |management and operations of water services to the water services boards as per provisions of Section 113 of | |
| |services boards (Water Act 2002, section 113)| | |the Water Act 2002.The Act directs the Ministry responsible for water affairs to develop a plan of the | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |transfer of operations and management of water services to the Water Services Boards. The Draft plan | |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 08 - Transfer Plan to | | |elaborates on the transfer process detailing: i) the content of the transfer, ii) the processes of transfer | |
| |WSBs MWI Dec 2004.pdf | | |within a given time frame, iii) supportive activities to the transfer, iv) financial framework and | |
| | | | |arrangements for the transfer and v) institutions charged with the responsibility for the transfer. | |
|A09 |Public Consultation on the Draft Plan for the|May 2005 |MWI |This document gives the public opinion on the proposed strategy for the transfer of management and operations| |
| |transfer of management and operation of water| | |of water services to the water services boards. It details the pertinent issues raised which might hinder the| |
| |services tot the water services boards | | |effective transfer and gives recommendations of the participants at each water service board on some of the | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |proposed strategies. | |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 09 - Transfer Plan | | | | |
| |Consultation Report MWI May 2005.doc | | | | |
|A10 |Human resource management strategy and |November 2005 |MWI |The document outlines the proposed strategy for handling the exit of personnel from the MWI in line with the | |
| |capacity Building for ministry of water and | | |water sector reforms. This is expected to be carried out in line with the regulations, rules and procedures | |
| |irrigation, 54pp + II Annexes | | |of the Public service. It outlines the proposed strategy for i) handling of staff redundancies ii) expected | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |financial expenditure iii) means of financing, iv) the proposed institutional framework for the proposed and | |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 10 - MWI HRM Nov | | |v) implementation period. | |
| |2005.doc | | | | |
|A11 |Proposed Sector Wide Information System Set |December 2005 |MWI |This presentation highlights the existing situation as far as the sector information systems are concerned. | |
| |Up | | |It highlights the present situation and sector information needs. The proposed set up for the establishment | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |of a sector wide information system within the sector vision is presented. | |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 11- Sector Information| | | | |
| |System Presentation of approach MWI Nov | | | | |
| |2005.ppt | | | | |
|A12 |Matrix of donor activities in the water and |undated |Water and |A list of the ongoing donor supported projects, with programme title, purpose, implementing agency, status, | |
| |sanitation sector | |Sanitation |date of financing agreement, completion date and amount of funding provided. It is not complete as it does | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| |Technical Group |not include KWSP – Danida/ Sida | |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 12 Development Partner| | | | |
| |Matrix Jan 2006.doc | | | | |
|A13 |Donor Update of UNICEF’s activities in Kenya |October 2005 |UNICEF |The download provides an overview of the emergencies and child issues in Kenya, Unicef response in terms of | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |activities, achievements and constraints, appeals requirements, receipts and funding gaps to February 2006 in| |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 13 Kenya Donor Update | | |health and nutrition, water sanitation and education and protection | |
| |Unicef Oct 2005.doc | | | | |
|A14 |Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper | |Government of |The purpose of the IPRSP is to: i) facilitate sustained and rapid economic growth; ii) improve governance and|Is there a new Poverty |
| |2001-2003, 61pp | |Kenya |security; iii) increase the ability of the poor to raise their incomes; iv) improve the quality of life of |Reduction Strategy? |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |the poor; and v) improve equity and participation. | |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 14 Kenya IPRSP.pdf | | |The water and sanitation sector can potentially assist directly with the last 2 and indirectly with the | |
| | | | |others. Little is made of the millennium development goals. In the PRSP process some 60 districts identified | |
| | | | |water as a key contributor to their poverty. The water sector is undertaking a complicated series of reforms | |
| | | | |that will improve the governance of the sector. Water is mentioned in 2 of the 6 immediate priorities for | |
| | | | |improving the quality of life.: i) Increasing the provision of portable water in poor areas and working with | |
| | | | |all communities to enable them to assume responsibility for managing and maintaining water supplies; ii) | |
| | | | |Prepare enabling legislation for the privatisation of urban water supplies. | |
| | | | |Local Government will become an increasingly important focal point for poverty reducing activity. There are | |
| | | | |strong linkages between devolution, accountable local governance and the quality delivery of services at the | |
| | | | |local level. | |
|A15 |Draft Budget |May 2005 |MWI |The draft budget shows the allocations by the ministry to the recurrent and development activities in the |Get update on investment plan|
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |financial year 2005/2006 |if available |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 15 x Draft Budget MWI | | | | |
| |2005-06 May 2005.pdf | | | | |
|A 16 |Improving Water Supply in Kenya: Demand, User|December 2000 | |This document looks at the current water situation in the three towns in terms of the water supply system. It| |
| |perceptions and Preferences in Nairobi, | | |documents of a survey undertaken to determine the household preferences and priorities in terms of the | |
| |Mombasa and Kakamega | | |general development priorities and preferred options. The results of the survey form the basis on which | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |policies for water supply can be formulated for improvement of the water system | |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 16 Improving water | | | | |
| |supply in Kenya.pdf | | | | |
|A 17 |Operationalisation of the water act 2002 in |April 2005 |MWI- Sida- Danida |To determine the relationships and working relations between the new institutions in RWSS to be used in the | |
| |rural water supply and sanitation, Draft | | |drafting of the rural water supply strategy. It discusses the proposed organisation and management including | |
| |Final Report | | |the strategic and business plans of the institutions, coverage and implementation, RWSS management options, | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |financing and financing mechanisms and specific roles and responsibilities of the various institutions. These| |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 17 A Draft Final Study| | |form the basis of the proposed RWSS implementation strategy. | |
| |Report - Key findings & Recommendations April| | | | |
| |2005.pdf | | | | |
|A 18 |THE National water resources management |Dec 2005 |MWI |This document details the issues, challenges and policies of the water resource management in Kenya. It | |
| |strategy Summary (2006-2008) | | |details the water resources management strategy taking into consideration the issues of : i) water resources | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |assessment ii) equitable access iii) gender in resource management iv) integrated approach to land and water| |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 18 P 01 NWRMS MWI Dec | | |resource management v) availability of water of suitable quality and quantity vi) accurate data on water use | |
| |2005.doc | | |and demand viii) financing guidelines ix) pricing policies x) disaster management policies xi) integration of| |
| | | | |sector and regional water policies. It also defines the support mechanisms for the implementation of the | |
| | | | |strategy. | |
|A 19 |Kenya Water Supply And Sanitation Strategy: |December 2000 |wsp |The paper looks into the challenges of private sector participation in the water sector and provides an | |
| |Private Sector Participation | | |analysis of the possible private sector participation models. It details the proposed strategy and legal | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |framework for the private sector participation in the water sector. | |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 19 Review of the water| | | | |
| |supply & sanitation sector.pdf | | | | |
|A 20 |The Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 61, |August 2005 |Government of |This issue details the Subsidiary legislative provisions governing the transfer of the water services. It | |
| |Legislative Supplement No. 308: The Water Act| |Kenya |defines i) the rules governing the transfer of the water services, ii) the plan for transfer and operation of| |
| |of 2002 | | |water services, iii) Supportive activities to the transfer process iv ) Financial Framework and arrangements | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | | | |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 20 Special Issue Kenya| | | | |
| |Gazette Supplement No. 61.pdf | | | | |
|A 21 |Urban Water Supply and sanitation services in|May 2001 |wsp |This paper is based on the Sessional Paper on water policy which indicates government preference for water | |
| |Low Income Urban Settlements | | |programmes that have a direct impact on vulnerable sections of society. The proposed strategy proposes a | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |flexible, targeted and site specific approach that focuses on addressing specific local needs and | |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 21 Urban water supply | | |characteristics. It will aim at removing hindering legislation, regulations and standards that inhibit | |
| |& sanitation services in low income urban | | |service delivery to informal settlements. | |
| |settlements.pdf | | |It looks into the established framework for extending the provision of services to the urban poor. | |
| | | | |It looks at the current water delivery arrangements. Specific actions are proposed for: i) Water service | |
| | | | |delivery arrangements ii) Response to demand for water supply and sanitation iii) Pricing of water supply and| |
| | | | |sanitation services iv) Decentralisation of service provision v) Private sector participation vi) Financing | |
| | | | |of water supply and sanitation | |
|A 22 |Towards a Water - Secure Kenya, Draft Water |September 2003 |World Bank |This sector memorandum endeavours to capture the emerging water resources management priorities and to | |
| |Resources Sector Memorandum. | | |propose elements of a plan of action based on the water resources policy, legal and institutional reforms. | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\A - Sector Policies,| | |It outlines specific approaches to facilitate efficiency and effectiveness of water resources management | |
| |Strategies and Plans\A 22 Water Resources | | |namely: i) Appropriateness of water resource, economic and foreign response policies ii) A cross Sectoral | |
| |Sector Memorandum Sept. 2003.pdf | | |approach iii) A coordinated approach. The memorandum looks at four key issues that will be key in development| |
| | | | |of the Country Assistance Strategy: i) natural characteristic of kenya’s water resources ii) the linkages | |
| | | | |between water insecurity, economic performance, social well being and regional tensions iii) Investment in | |
| | | | |water resources infrastructure wrt. Population growth and increase in water demand iv) impacts of neglect of | |
| | | | |management of water resources. | |
|B01 |Concept Paper on Human Resources Management |December 2005 |MWI |This letter from the Royal Danish Embassy highlights the shortfalls of the recommended strategy. | |
| |for MWI: Comments from the Royal Danish | | | | |
| |Embassy | | | | |
| |Concept PSWAP Reference Documents\B - | | | | |
| |WSWG\HRD Strategy MWI\B 01 barasa 2.1.06.doc | | | | |
|B02 |Concept Paper on Human Resources Management | | |In this letter sida highlights its concerns on the proposed draft HR Strategy. Its major concerns being that | |
| |for MWI: Comments from the Sida | | |the proposed strategy is not clear, not properly calculated in terms of costs and lacks clear timeframes for | |
| |SWAP reference Documents\B - WSWG\HRD | | |implementing various activities which have not been disaggregated either. Further, the stakeholders and a | |
| |Strategy MWI\B 02 letterps14dec.doc | | |communication strategy have not been incorporated. | |
|B03 |Sida Comments on draft HR Strategy |December 2005 |MWI |This document gives the comments on the proposed Human resource management strategy and capacity Building for| |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\B - WSWG\HRD | | |ministry of water and irrigation. It highlights the shortfalls of the recommended strategy and gives | |
| |Strategy MWI\B 03 commentshrstrat14dec.doc | | |recommendations on ways of improving its efficacy. | |
|B03 |Sida Comments on draft HR Strategy |December 2005 |MWI |This document gives the comments on the proposed Human resource management strategy and capacity Building for| |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\B - WSWG\HRD | | |ministry of water and irrigation. It highlights the shortfalls of the recommended strategy and gives | |
| |Strategy MWI\B 03 commentshrstrat14dec.doc | | |recommendations on ways of improving its efficacy. | |
|B04 |Conceptual Framework Paper for the |November 2005 |MWI |This document provides the conceptual framework paper for the development of a Sector Wide approach to | |
| |Development of a Sector-Wide Approach to | | |planning. It provides the concept note and proposed scope, proposes a framework for delineation of boundaries| |
| |Planning (SWAP) in Kenya’s Water and | | |between core ministry functions and specifies the parameters for supervising and monitoring the process of | |
| |Sanitation Sector | | |the developing the SWAP. | |
| |Conceptual Framework Paper for the | | | | |
| |Development of a SecSWAP Reference | | | | |
| |Documents\B - WSWG\B 04 KWS SWAP Concept | | | | |
| |(Anders Karlson) Nov 2005.doc | | | | |
|B05 |Minutes of meeting held on 1st December, 2005|December 2005 |MWI |These minutes gives the progress on the sector programs Water Sector Reform Update – Staffing, SWAP, | |
| |at the Kenya college of communications | | |Investment Planning Project, Sector Information System. It also summarises the findings of the KWSP Joint | |
| |technology, Mbagathi | | |Program Review Report. It also provides the proposed plan for the achievement of set goals in the above | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\B - WSWG\B 05 WSWG | | |mentioned projects giving the proposed course of action, the persons responsible and time frame within which | |
| |Minutes of Meeting 1st Dec 2005.doc | | |it is to be accomplished. | |
|C 02 |Objectives of Economics and Financing Project|April 2005 |Zim Consult/ MWI |This document elaborates on the work plan for the study of the economics and financing of the water sector | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\C - Reform | | |with specific consideration to disadvantaged groups. | |
| |Secretariat\C 02 Economics & Financing Study | | | | |
| |Draft Final Report April 2005 | | | | |
|C 03 |Audit and verification of data collected in |July 2005 |MWI |The document elaborates on the process of review of the data collection and filling of data sheets processes | |
| |the rapid assessment of water services | | |in the rapid assessment exercise. It further gives the recommendations for accepting or rejecting the | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\C - Reform | | |information in the databases based on the evaluation of the procedures applied in the data collection | |
| |Secretariat\C 03 Rapid Assessment Audit | | |process. | |
| |Report MWI July 2005.pdf | | | | |
|C 04 |MWRMD/GTZ Water Sector Reform Program 2005-14|September 2004 |MWRMD/GTZ |In this document are outlined the strategies for the Kenyan German cooperation in the priority areas of water| |
| |Phase 2 (2005-2007): Detailed Presentation | | |and sanitation through an interlinked and parallel approach on macro, meso and micro levels. The main | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\C - Reform | | |components of the strategy that have been identified are; i) Institutional reform of WSS, ii) | |
| |Secretariat\C 04 WSRP detailed Presentation | | |Commercialisation of the WSPs iii) water resource management and iv) communication. The envisioned budgetary | |
| |Sep 2004.pdf | | |plan for the allocation of the project resources is also detailed. | |
|C 05 |MWRMD/GTZ Water Sector Reform Program 2005-14|October 2004 |MWRMD/GTZ |In this presentation the objectives aimed at by the program components with respect to the two focus areas, | |
| |Phase 2 (2005-2007: Overview | | |Western and Central Kenya, are elaborated on. | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\C - Reform | | | | |
| |Secretariat\C 05 WSRP Overview Presentation | | | | |
| |Sep 2004.pdf | | | | |
|C 06 |MWRMD/GTZ Water Sector Reform Program Status |November 2004 |MWRMD/GTZ |This report presents the status/progress made in the implementation of the proposed strategy for the Kenyan | |
| |Report | | |–German Cooperation. | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\C - Reform | | | | |
| |Secretariat\C 06 WSRP Status Report Sep | | | | |
| |2004.pdf | | | | |
|D 01 |Water Sector Reform Program: |June 2005 |GTZ |This document outlines strategies which will enhance the effectiveness of the wsrb. It identifies obstacles | |
| |Implementation of a regulatory framework for | | |in the responsibilities of the WSRB specified in the Act and proposes solutions to overcoming these obstacles| |
| |the water and sanitation sector in Kenya | | | | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\D - WSRB\D 01 | | | | |
| |Changes in Regulatory Framework MWI-GTZ June | | | | |
| |2005.pdf | | | | |
|D 02 |Implementation of a Regulatory Framework for |October 2005 |GTZ |The document sets out a framework of the rights and obligations of customers vis a vis the water supply and | |
| |the Water and Sanitation Sector in Kenya, | | |wastewater services provided to the customers and the framework within which the WSBs can guide the WSPs in | |
| |Recommendations on consumer Protection | | |collection and dissemination of information to customers. | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\D - WSRB\D 02 | | | | |
| |Customer Service Note and Guidelines Oct | | | | |
| |2005.pdf | | | | |
|D 03 |Implementation of a Regulatory Framework for |September 2005 |GTZ |This document outlines strategies for dispute resolution and appeal mechanisms as part of the regulatory | |
| |the Water and Sanitation Sector in Kenya, | | |processes. It outlines alternative methods for dispute resolution, processes by which disputes between | |
| |Dispute Resolution and Appeals procedures, | | |consumers and water services providers may be considered, processes for appeal to water services boards and | |
| |Consultation Paper | | |water services providers , processes by which disputes between water services providers and water services | |
| |SWAP Reference Document\D - WSRB\D03 Kenya | | |boards may be considered, mechanisms for resolution of disputes | |
| |Dispute Resolution Draft Sep 2005.doc | | | | |
|D 04 |Draft Customer service guidelines for Kenya |October 2005 |GTZ |This document gives the guidelines which will guide the provision of water and waste water collection | |
| |Water service regulatory Board | | |services to customers. It outlines guidelines to ensure customers (i) receive safe, affordable, and reliable | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\D - WSRB\D 04 Kenya | | |Water and Wastewater Services from WSPs, (ii) have access to information about the Water and Wastewater | |
| |Draft Customer Service Guidelines Oct | | |Services they receive and their rights and responsibilities under these Guidelines, and (iii) have recourse | |
| |2005.doc | | |for questions and Complaints against WSPs. | |
|E 01 |User requirements definition of financial | |MWI |This document attempts to provide the framework on which the establishment of the WSTF MIS system will be | |
| |management information systems (Core | | |established. | |
| |Accounting Modules) | | | | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\E - WSTF\E 01 | | | | |
| |Financial Man Inf System Spec WSTF Feb | | | | |
| |2005.pdf | | | | |
|E 02 |Financial Management Systems Manual_ Draft |February 2005 | |This document outlines the accounting and reporting procedures put in place to aid the WSTF in performing of | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\E - WSTF\E 02 | | |its function of management of funds set aside for the provision of water and sanitation services to | |
| |Financial Man Systems Manual WSTF Feb | | |inadequately served areas. | |
| |2005.pdf | | | | |
|E 03 |Water services Trust Fund Operational Manual |November 2004 |MWI |This manual outlines the guiding principles in the operationalizing the roles and mandates of the WSTF. It | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\E - WSTF\E 03 | | |specifies the procedures for access, application procedures and monitoring and evaluation. | |
| |Operations Manual WSTF Nov 2004.pdf | | | | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\E - WSTF\E 03 | | | | |
| |Operations Manual WSTF Nov 2004.pdf | | | | |
|F 01 |Strategic Plan of the board (2005-2015) |April 2005 |LVNWSB |This document outlines the strategies to be applied in the attainment of the Water board’s objectives of (i) | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\F - WSBs\F 01 LVNWSB| | |to strengthen the board’s capacity (ii) to enhance awareness on prudent water usage and sanitation (iii) to | |
| |Ammended Final Strategic Plan - April, | | |contract viable and effective WSPs (iv) to increase and improve access to water and sewerage services (v) to | |
| |2005.doc | | |improve sanitation practices (vi) to achieve financial sustainability (vii) To mainstream crosscutting issues| |
| | | | |in all water supply and sanitation activities | |
| F 02 |LVNWSB operational Plan | |MWI |This document enumerates on the specific plans involved in pursuance of the boards strategic plans for | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\F - WSBs\F 02 LVNWSB| | |attainment of its objectives | |
| |Final Operational Plan.doc | | | | |
| G 01 |Joint Financing Arrangement Relating To |November 2005 |MWI |An extensive agreement for a Joint Financing Arrangement in the Water and Sanitation Sector between the | |
| |Cooperation Between Ministry Of Water And | | |Ministry of Water and Irrigation, Danida, GTZ, the Netherlands, Sida and UNICEF to facilitate the | |
| |Irrigation, Danida, Gtz, The Netherlands, | | |implementation and harmonisation of the water sector reforms. | |
| |Sida And Unicef In The Water And Sanitation | | |The principles and procedures for the operation of the agreement are put forward. The main procedures | |
| |Sector | | |detailed appertain to : i) Framework and responsibilities, ii) contributions and specific agreements, iii) | |
| |SWAP Reference documents\G - KWSP\G 01 JFA | | |consultations , iv) Organisational structure, v) review and evaluation, vi) Audit, vii) Non compliance, viii)| |
| |Sida-Danida-GTZ 2005.doc | | |corruption and ix) entry into operation | |
|G 05 |Agreed Minutes of a Joint Programme Review of|October 2005 |MWI |This document presents the findings and recommendations of the Joint Programme Review Team for the Kenya | |
| |the Kenya Water and Sanitation Programme | | |water and sanitation and water sector reform programmes. It discusses two aspects of the programmes :i) | |
| |(KWSP) and the Water Sector Reform Programme | | |Sector Framework in Relation to KWSP/WSRP where it looks at the achievements and concerns of the general | |
| |(WSRP) | | |sector developments touching on Water and Sanitation Sector Reforms, Sector Institutions and sector | |
| | | | |Coordination and Collaboration and the move towards SWAP, ii) KWSP/WSRP in Relation to the Sector Framework.| |
| |SWAP Reference documents\G - KWSP\G 05 JPR | | |where it looks at the achievement of and recommendations to the operations of the JFA and provides an | |
| |2005 KWSP Agreed Minutes Oct 2005.doc | | |assessment and recommendations on the functioning of the KWSP and WSRP | |
|H 01 |MWRMD/GTZ Water Sector Reform Program: |Undated |MWRMD/GTZ |This brochure discusses the four components upon which the GTZ support for enhancing knowledge and skills in | |
| |Enhancing knowledge and skills in the water | | |the water sector for sustainable development. These are: i) Institutional reforms for water services and | |
| |sector for sustainable development | | |sanitation ii) commercializing water and sewerage services iii) water resources management iv) National | |
| |SWAP Reference documents\H - Kfw | | |communication to disseminate information | |
| |GTZ\040526_GTZ WSRP_brochure write V1.1.pdf | | | | |
|J 01 |Identification mission Environment and Water |November 2004 |UNICEF |This document details the criteria undertaken in the determination of the areas where the Netherlands | |
| |Programme Kenya | | |government can provide support to Kenya in the water- environment sector. It assesses the opportunities and | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\J - UNICEF-NL\J 01 | | |gaps in the water-environment and provides a justification for the Netherlands government to get involved in | |
| |Identification Mission Report Nov 2004.doc | | |the sector. It elaborates on the criteria for the selection of the priority projects to be considered for | |
| | | | |support. | |
|J 02 |Concept Terms Of Reference For A Follow-Up |April 2005 |UNICEF |This provides the terms of reference for formulation of the concept proposals for the proposed support | |
| |Mission Environment And Water Program, Kenya.| | |programmes defining objectives, main activities and strategic results. | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\J - UNICEF-NL\J 02 | | |It elaborates on the methodology to be adopted, experience required to undertake the study, the timing and | |
| |Env & Water programme formulationTOR Apr | | |budget for the study. | |
| |2005.doc | | | | |
|J 03 |Government of the Netherlands - UNICEF |May 2005 |UNICEF |This document details the approaches adopted for implementation of the project which will ensure a high | |
| |partnership for progress towards the MDG | | |degree of sustainability, both in terms of institutions and in terms of behavioural change. The revisions to | |
| |targets | | |UNICEF,s global strategy for water, sanitation and hygiene are detailed in this proposal. The proposed will | |
| |in water and sanitation in eight countries in| | |emphasize on a rights based approach while supporting government and civil societies to fulfil the rights to | |
| |Eastern and Southern Africa | | |safe water, sanitation and hygiene. It will focus on strengthening of the capacities of the intermediate | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\J - UNICEF-NL\J 03 | | |(district) level to facilitate effective and efficient planning, implementation and monitoring. | |
| |UNICEF-NL WES partnership proposal Unicef May| | | | |
| |2005.doc | | | | |
|J 05 |Acceleration Of Water Supply And Sanitation |October 2005 |UNICEF |This is a documentation of the findings of the appraisal of the economic and financial feasibility of the | |
| |Towards Reaching Kenya’s MDGs 2006-2011: | | |proposed strategy for the acceleration of water and sanitation supply. The proposed strategy under review is | |
| |Financial And Economic Appraisal | | |to partner with the organizations developed within the water reforms and facilitate demand driven supply. It | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\J - UNICEF-NL\J 05 | | |looks at the impact of the new policies on investment and financing, financial and operational risks and the | |
| |W&S Proposal Financial & Economic Analysis | | |financial and economic analysis. | |
| |Unicef Oct 2005.doc | | | | |
|J 06 |Acceleration of Water Supply and Sanitation |October 2005 |UNICEF |This document discusses the country WASH Programme strategies that will contribute to the national objective | |
| |towards Reaching Kenya’s MDGs 2006-2011 | | |of increasing access to safe water supply and sanitation coverage with specific focus on marginalized | |
| | | | |populations in arid and semi arid districts and informal settlements in urban areas. The strategies proposed | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\J - UNICEF-NL\J 05 | | |are; i) Development of new water and sanitation services and rehabilitation/improvement of dysfunctional | |
| |W&S Proposal Financial & Economic Analysis | | |systems ,ii) Capacity Development, Advocacy, iii) communication and social mobilization, iv) Partnerships, v)| |
| |Unicef Oct 2005.doc | | |WASH disaster preparedness and response | |
| | | | |It further gives the project approach Within the context of the sector strategies. | |
| | | | |The implementation strategy is also outlined and it elaborates on issues of i) management ii) timing iii) | |
| | | | |project timeline iv) project milestones v) inputs and the annual outputs and budget | |
|L 01 |Proposal for establishment of a sector wide |2005 |MEWD |The document briefly outlines the reforms undertaken in the sector, the achievements gained and then presents| |
| |approach to programming (swap) in the water | | |6 key challenges: i)conflicting roles, ii) insufficient cooperation between government bodies, iii) | |
| |sector, (9pp) | | |sustainability of WASHE committees at community level, iv) alignment of donor to sector objectives, v) | |
| | | | |sanitation, vi) integrating water better into the PRSP. SWAP is defined and its main characteristics | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\L - Zambia W&S | | |outlined. SWAP as instrument for resource mobilization is highlighted. The organizational arrangements are | |
| |Sector\L 01 Proposal for SWAP MEWD 2005.DOC | | |discussed and a list of functions of a national committee who could oversee SWAP development are presented. A| |
| | | | |6 step process is proposed: (i) review policy, ii) clarify roles, iii) review capacities, iv) develop costed | |
| | | | |action plan, v) develop donor coordination mechanisms, vi) create multi-stakeholder consultation. | |
|L 02 |Paper on SWAP in WSS, (5pp) |2005 |MLGH |A sector background is given with emphasis on the reforms undertaken and the roles and responsibilities of | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\L - Zambia W&S | | |different actors. SWAP is defined as being composed of: i) policy framework, ii) priorities and objectives, | |
| |Sector\L 02 Paper on SWAP in WSS MLGH | | |iii) expenditure programes, iv) institutional reform, v) jointly agreed management and reporting | |
| |2005.doc | | |arrangements, v) agreed procurement arrangements. Important process tenets are listed: i) SWAP to be led by | |
| | | | |MLGH but involving all relevant parties, ii) management at the lowest level, iii) private sector and civil | |
| | | | |society role crucial, iv) indicators to be set for SWAP progress, v) role of donors. | |
|L 03 |Draft Cabinet memorandum on establishment of |2005 |Government of the |The rationale, resources required and expected impact of a SWAP in the WSS sector are outlined in thi s | |
| |a SWAP in WSS sector, (5pp) | |Republic of Zambia|document , together with a 4 point action plan. | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\L - Zambia W&S | | | | |
| |Sector\L 03 Cabinet Memorandum WS SWAP.doc | | | | |
|L 04 |Aligning donor support with PRSP priorities, |2005 |MFNP |The discussion document outlines a transition arrangement for projects towards direct budget support. The | |
| |(13pp) | | |alignment of donor off-budget support to the MTEF and the role of sector advisory groups are highlighted. The| |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\L - Zambia W&S | | |improvement of the Donor Assistance Datebase is foreseen such that such data would be compatible with | |
| |Sector\L 04 Aligning Donor with PRSP MFNP | | |government budget lines and thus improve oversight and harmonization of off-budget aid. An action matrix to | |
| |2005.doc | | |achieve this is presented. | |
|L 05 |Working draft of the National RWSS plan, |2005 |MLGH |The plan includes discussion of the key sector issues, institutional roles, current service levels, targets | |
| |2006-2015, (53pp) | | |and backlogs and financial arrangements. A programme is put forward in a LFA format for addressing the sector| |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\L - Zambia W&S | | |institutional requirements as well achievement of MDGs. | |
| |Sector\L 05 Draft National RWSS Programme | | | | |
| |MLGH 2005.doc | | | | |
|L 06 |Discussion paper on the development of a |2005 |MLGH |An outline of discussions held on how to develop a SWAP in the RWSS sector – various components are proposed | |
| |national WSSS programme towards a SWAP, (5pp)| | |including the development of a national road map, framework for SWAP and implementation of revised | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\L - Zambia W&S | | |institutional set up. The newly formed Danida programme is seen as the vehicle for rolling out a SWAP | |
| |Sector\L 06 Discussion Paper on WSS programme| | | | |
| |towards SWAP MLGH 2005.doc | | | | |
|L 07 |HIP concept paper for Zambia (6pp) |September 2005 |Danida |The paper outlines the progress so far on the Joint Assistance strategy (JAS) for Zambia noting that so far | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\L - Zambia W&S | | |the following has been completed: i) donor mapping, ii) study of comparative advantages and iii) generic TOR | |
| |Sector\L 07 Concept Paper WSPS Danida May | | |for donor/partner roles. The government position on JAS is defined and the implications for donors is | |
| |2005.doc | | |outlined. | |
|L 08 |Joint application for training on SWAP, (8pp)|January 2005 |DCCD |An application form for a training event on SWAP – as a justification the following aspects are summarized: | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\L - Zambia W&S | | |i) current swap status, ii) milestones reached, iii) key issues encountered, iv) status of policy and | |
| |Sector\L 08 SWAp JLP Application Form for | | |expenditure framework, v)relations to PRS, vi) status of sector coordination, vii) donor modalities, viii) | |
| |Zambia.doc | | |government involvement in SWAP process ix) non government involvement, x) decentralization. | |
|L 09 |Harmonization in Practice MOU, (11pp) |April 2004 |Ministry of |An extensive agreement signed between the main donors and the government of Zambia about how to increase | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\L - Zambia W&S | |Finance and |harmonization. Principals, processes and procedures are put forward on. The main procedures for which there | |
| |Sector\L 09 Zambia swap case study peer | |National Planning |are detailed activity plans and indicators include : i) programming, ii) funding mechanisms, iii) capacity | |
| |reviewed draft final January 2006.doc | | |building, | |
|L10 |IWRM And Food Security Demonstration Project|November 2005 |Danida |This proposal is for the demonstration of the benefits of integrated water resources management through | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\L - Zambia W&S | | |efficient capture, storage and utilization of available resources to meet various socio-economic and | |
| |Sector\L 10 IWRM DANIDA-SADC Project | | |environmental needs. It specifies the project activities, responsibilities and implementation schedule to be | |
| |Proposal.doc | | |undertaken to achieve the mentioned goals | |
|L 11 |Sector wide approach (swap) in water supply | |MLGH |This paper discusses key issue components in the WSS SWAp including Governance and implementation issues, | |
| |and sanitation | | |Role of Donors , SWAp Implementation Policy context and Institutional Arrangement for Effective Delivery of | |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\L - Zambia W&S | | |the Sector Program | |
| |Sector\L 11 MLGH-SWAP.doc | | | | |
|L 12 |The zero draft of the national RWSS programme|August 2005 |MLGH |This draft document discusses the strategies for the successful implementation of National rural water supply| |
| |SWAP Reference Documents\L - Zambia W&S | | |and sanitation programme geared to achievement of the MDGs and meet the national vision for universal | |
| |Sector\L 12 THE ZERO Draft of NATIONAL RWSS | | |coverage. These strategies include: Demand-driven investments at district and provincial levels based on | |
| |PROGRAMME-PRODOC.doc | | |single investment plans developed with effective participation of communities and district and/or provincial | |
| | | | |authorities, Promote rural water supply and sanitation technologies appropriate to the specific local areas, | |
| | | | |Promote integrated development and management of water supply, sanitation and hygiene education based on the | |
| | | | |WASHE strategy, Community contributions that promote sustainability of services but also take into account | |
| | | | |social equity, Strengthen and promote the role of the private sector, especially in establishing spare parts | |
| | | | |supply chains, operation and maintenance systems at appropriate community, district and provincial levels, | |
| | | | |Strengthen capacity of various stakeholders (at district and community levels) through appropriate training | |
| | | | |and education programmes and Promote sector-wide financing of water supply, sanitation and hygiene education.| |
|L 13 |Water Supply and Sanitation Sector, Finance |June 2004 |MLGH |This document attempts to make a recommendation of sector financing strategies for improved sector finance. | |
| |and Resource flow Assessment | | |The document gives an assessment of the roles and responsibilities of sector players, level and adequacy of | |
| |SWAP Reference documents\L - Zambia W&S | | |funding, relative importance of different funding sources and the main channels of resource flows. It | |
| |Sector\L 13 Sector Finance Flow Zambia WSP | | |proposes five key finance strategies: i) Clarification of roles and responsibilities in the water sector ii) | |
| |2004.pdf | | |strengthening the status of the district level institutions iii) Utilisation of non public resources iv) | |
| | | | |Improving Information and M&E systems and v) adopting a water supply investment plan. | |
|N 01 |Strengthening budget mechanisms for |July 2004 |wsp |This paper sets out a three dimensional strategic approach for sanitation based on supply demand, demand and | |
| |Sanitation in Uganda | | |facilitation. This approach is developed from the current institutional arrangements and resource flows, | |
| |SWAP Reference documents\N - Uganda W&S | | |existing constraints and opportunities for better resource use, estimates of funding gaps and potentials and | |
| |Sector\N 01 Sanitation Budget Uganda WSP | | |strategic directions for budget mechanisms for sanitation. It gives the proposed action plan divided into | |
| |2004.pdf | | |responsibility for key stakeholders. | |
|M 01 |Development Partners’ Group Water Proposal | |wsp |This documents sets out the framework on which sector dialogue can be built. It gives suggestions on the | |
| |for Sector Dialogue | | |functions, participants and timing of the different components of the dialogue structure | |
| |SWAP Reference documents\M - Tanzania W&S | | | | |
| |Sector\M 01Tanzania Concept Paper WS Dialogue| | | | |
| |Oct 05.doc | | | | |
|P 01 |The Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 107, Water |October 2002 |Government of |This Water Act 2002 is an act enacted by the parliament of Kenya that provides for the management , | |
| |Act 2002, 118pp | |Kenya |conservation, use and control of water resources and fort he acquisition and regulation of rights for the | |
| | | | |regulation and management of water supply and sewerage services | |
|P 02 |Review of the Water Supply and Sanitation |May 2001 |World Bank, Kenya |The review comments on the water bill (noting that it requires harmonization with local government) and the | |
| |Sector, Report No. 22182, pp28 | | |proposed reforms, some of these comments are not overtaken by events. The review has an interesting survey on| |
| | | | |urban water use and also comments on the private sector options most applicable in Kenya. The review calls | |
| | | | |for an independent assessment of the best feasible options (p 23) which appears not to have been done yet. | |
| | | | |There is an annex on the community, self help approach. The review also includes a GOK report on the | |
| | | | |achievement of 7 key sector milestones. | |
|P 03 |The National Water Resources Management |December 2005 |wsp |This document discusses strategies fro Water Resources Management encompassing: improving of water resource | |
| |Strategy | | |assessment, promoting equal access, gender issues, integrated approach to land water resource planning and | |
| | | | |management, enhancing quality and quantity, data accuracy, financing mechanisms, water pricing policies and | |
| | | | |mechanisms and disaster management policies and mechanisms and the integration of sector and regional water | |
| | | | |policies | |
Annex F Lessons Learned in other SWAPs
Kenya Education Sector
The Kenya Education sector SWAP is based on the following Partnership Principles:
Responsibility
1. The Kenya Education Sector Support Programme (KESSP) sits within the broader framework of national policy set out in the Economic Recovery Strategy (ERS). The MoPND is responsible for overall coordination of the ERS, with the MOF responsible for managing the MTEF and national budget through which it is implemented.
2. External Resource Division in the MOF is responsible for overall aid coordination and for negotiating financing agreements with DPs in the context of the national budget.
3. The MOEST will be responsible for co-ordinating all the activities within the education sector from the headquarters to the district level. They are responsible for formulating education sector plans and budgets subject to MOF approval, and are accountable for their efficient implementation. The Policy Formulation and Projects (PF&P) division will coordinate the development partners’ support to the Ministry.
Alignment with Planning and Budget Processes
4. Support to the education sector should reflect the Ministry priorities as spelt out in the KESSP as the main/overarching document that relates to all other key education documents, and that is actualised in the Education Public Expenditure Review (EdPER), Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), and Annual Budget.
5. MOEST will develop sector expenditure proposals and work plans as part of the annual budget cycle and MTEF, consulting with DPs. Expenditure proposals, however financed, should be included in the budget and the published Estimates, as required by Government Financial Regulations and Procedures
6. DPs will ensure that proposed and current support to the education sector is aligned with the KESSP and the education MTEF. All new projects will be formulated to contribute to the sector wide programme and financing plans prepared by MOEST to implement KESSP.
7. GOK will not request donor assistance to the education sector which is outside the KESSP, or agree to projects derived from DP priorities which are not aligned with the KESSP.
Information Sharing – Development Partners
8. DPs will provide information on future levels of support to the education sector and likely financing modalities in order to facilitate GOK planning and to improve predictability and appropriateness of resource mobilization.
9. DPs will provide indicative commitments to KESSP for the coming fiscal year in October, in time to inform the Budget Outlook paper, and will confirm them in April, as the budget is being finalised.
10. DPs will communicate promptly to MOEST any significant changes in the level of their support to the sector.
11. As far as is possible, DPs should provide three year (or longer) rolling projections of all budget and project support.
12. DPs providing funding outside normal GOK disbursement channels will commit to ensuring that disbursements are reported in a form and with appropriate frequency to be reflected in GOK financial reporting, and captured in the expenditure returns as Appropriations in Aid.
13. DPs commit to circulating key documents to MOEST and other relevant GOK ministries/departments in a comprehensive and timely manner, and to ensuring that copies of such documents are made available to the Donor Group leader. This includes policy documents, programme/project memoranda, aide memoires, studies and evaluation reports.
14. Where financing and procurement is not provided through GOK systems, DPs will provide to MOEST, wherever possible, detailed information on the costs of implementing programmes/projects, to facilitate analysis and review of cost effectiveness and efficiency.
Information Sharing – GOK
15. MOEST will consult in advance with the Donor Partners Group on envisaged changes to policies, plans, management arrangements, or budget allocations that have significant implications for the KESSP or for donor support to it.
16. Consultations will be undertaken collectively through appropriate meetings with the donor group rather than through bilateral meeting with individual donors. In this context, ‘significant’ means changes that have policy, management or financial implications outside the project being supported, including requirements for counterpart funds or for additional recurrent costs that are not included in existing plans and budgets.
17. MOEST will ensure that all information on relevant interventions in the sector (training opportunities, consultancies, new project initiatives, request for assistance, project appraisals, progress reports, technical assistance reports, implementation reports and evaluation reports) is made available to the donors and staff within the sector.
18. MOEST will produce a quarterly news bulletin on ongoing projects detailing progress and achievements for dissemination to all stakeholders. The basic education and advocacy unit in PF&P will handle this function.
19. A national consensus building process and support of local coordination mechanisms in order to ensure local ownership, partnership and sustainability will be encouraged. In addition, this process will be used as a means of exploring further options and modalities of support.
Meetings, Missions, and Reports
20. MOEST will lead and chair all joint consultative mechanisms. The key mechanisms will comprise an annual Joint Review of the Education Sector (JRES), a follow up Budget Workshop in April, and quarterly consultative meetings with the donors.
21. MOEST in consultation with the Donor Group Leader will be responsible for setting agendas and for producing and circulating reports of the meetings.
22. DPs will appoint a Donor Group Leader. This lead agency will be mandated to represent the DPs in policy dialogue and consultative mechanisms. The DPs will aim to reach internal consensus positions on key education policy and strategic issues to be discussed with GOK. For this purpose, DPs will meet as a constituency as necessary.
23. DPs will be represented in consultative mechanisms by a legitimate agency representative, but not by donor-supported MOEST technical advisers. MOEST technical advisers may be invited to attend on a needs basis.
24. MOEST will be responsible for ensuring relevant and appropriate inter-ministerial coordination in education sector policy dialogue and service delivery, including participation in key fora as appropriate.
25. MOEST will be responsible for establishing any additional mechanisms for consultation on a needs basis, e.g. specialist ad hoc technical working groups, consultation with other stakeholders and constituencies (civil society, parents, private sector).
26. Appraisal, supervision, monitoring, auditing and evaluation missions will be carried out jointly whenever possible.
Harmonisation of Systems
27. Once appropriate mechanisms for reporting and financial management are in place and the draft KESSP is finalised, the education sector will move towards a holistic approach to planning, financial management, procurement, and monitoring, with agreed indicators of progress in meeting agreed goals, and with an increasing share of external support provided via pooled mechanisms in support of KESSP programs.
28. The various GOK and donor procedures and/or guidelines, for example, financial, procurement, reporting, monitoring and evaluation should, as far as possible, be harmonized. Subsequently, all the partners in the education sector should use these harmonized procedures and guidelines.
29. Those DPs for whom full harmonisation to GOK systems is not presently possible, will nevertheless harmonise their procedures to the maximum feasible extent in order to minimize multiple and parallel processes and to reduce transaction costs.
Capacity Building and Implementation
30. MOEST will establish mechanisms to provide adequate capacity for successful program implementation. DP programmes will work through the structures designated by the Ministry, in order to build capacity, improve sustainability, and ensure maximum integration with the Ministry’s policies and programmes.
31. No new project implementation units or similar parallel structures will be created for the specific purpose of managing external assistance projects. DPs disbursing their support via parallel structures will enter discussions with MOEST on the strategy for bringing functions currently undertaken by such parallel structures back within GOK.
32. Notwithstanding the above points, MOEST may choose to utilise external agents for implementation tasks in circumstances where it is cost-effective and sustainable to do so.
33. In order to avoid negative impacts on MOEST capacity, DP payments to Ministry staff should be by agreement, and normally based on rates advised by MOEST, although they may need adapting to recognise the additional costs to officers in specific circumstances (for example, when travelling with international staff on different terms).
34. Capacity building pertaining to in-serving of teachers will be co-ordinated by the Ministry through the inspectorate with chosen units and consultation with primary and secondary divisions and TSC.
Technical Assistance
35. The donor-funded technical assistance to the Ministry should be driven by the Ministry’s priorities and absorption capacity, should support the Ministry institutional capacity by focusing on skills transfer, should not be restricted to supporting individual donor programs or projects but rather programs within the Ministry, and should ensure that the expatriate assistance (when required) is complementary to and develops national and regional consultancy expertise.
36. For this purpose, MOEST will be responsible for preparing an annual capacity building plan, identifying programme implementation priorities with associated financing needs. This will include broad capacity development priorities (technical assistance, institutional strengthening, training, research and studies) for supporting the planning and implementation of KESSP.
37. It will be necessary to include a modest contingency provision to fund urgent tasks that were not anticipated. Unplanned and/or unsolicited TA will only be accepted if approved by a meeting of the KESSP steering committee.
38. DPs will ensure that their current and proposed support to capacity development is aligned with the plan.
39. The Ministry will establish a database of local, regional and international consultants with specialised skills and expertise that can be contracted to provide support to the Ministry as need arises. Local consultants will be identified on a competitive basis and will be given priority during selection. The Ministry will play the central role in the procurement process and selection of the consultants, but subject to financing development partners being satisfied as to the feasibility of the TORs, the competence of selected personnel, and the fairness of the procurement process.
40. Technical assistance advisers paid for from official development assistance owe their primary allegiance to GOK. They will communicate their advice and views via GOK management channels. Direct communication with development partners on matters pertaining to their work will respect GOK rules and practice on the disclosure of official information.
Performance Monitoring and Review, & Conditionality
41. MOEST will be responsible for sector performance monitoring and review, using indicators, reporting formats, and methodological approaches agreed with the partners. They will plan and lead annual Joint Reviews of the Education Sector, incorporating appropriate representation from other GOK ministries and institutions. They will be responsible for preparing a summary technical and financial performance report to feed into the Joint review of the Education Sector (JRES). The JRES will review performance for the previous year and discuss future action. Subject to need and agreement, DPs may provide support for an independent assessment of sector progress with the objective of identifying strategic issues to inform and focus discussion at the JRES.
42. DPs will actively and fully participate in the JRES and will accept the JRES as satisfying their own review requirements. They will not request separate reviews.
43. DPs will minimise their need for missions, reviews and reports beyond those prepared as part of the annual cycle of SWAP management, and will consult with Government and other partners to the sector in plenty of time on the need for, TORs, and timing of such missions.
44. Agreement will be reached on independent audit of expenditure and other fiduciary safeguards designed to ensure sound financial management. Partners providing pooled funding will rely upon the audit arrangements and other financial safeguards agreed between the GOK and pooling partners, and will not call for additional bilateral audits or financial checks.
45. DPs will harmonise monitoring (and conditionalities where appropriate) behind agreed GOK policy actions (ERS and KESSP) and sector performance indicators, and use these as the basis for review.
46. DPs will try to ensure that education sector disbursements are not interrupted for reasons that are external to the education sector or to the implementation of the KESSP.
47. Predictability of donor support will be improved by ensuring that all conditions are SMART , and have been negotiated and agreed with GOK in a participatory manner.
48. Unless there is a major breach of the fundamental principles underlying the programme, conditionality will be applied to the succeeding budget year, avoiding causing disruptions to the implementation of the current approved annual budget.
General Principles
49. The Ministry and DPs will work hand-in-hand with the communities in order to create ownership, partnership and ensure sustainability of the various programs/ interventions.
50. Affirmative action and other interventions that support provision of education to vulnerable groups including girls, disabled, urban slums and semi arid lands should be enhanced. Specifically, gender expertise integration should be ensured and enhanced in all missions, study tours or any other related activities. These programs should be geared to achieve gender parity.
51. HIV/AIDS should be mainstreamed in all the programming within the education sector.
52. Environmental issues should always and as appropriate be integrated into education related programs.
53. This Partnership Agreement is subject to joint Government – Development Partner review. If the need arises for revision of the agreement, this should be undertaken as part of the JRES.
The Status and the lessons learned are summarised in the matrix:
|Task 3: |Present status of the SWAP |Success in creating |Success in avoiding unnecessary |Success in promoting |Success in applying |Success in promoting |Success in enhancing |
|SWAP experiences |building process |conditions for increased |implementation delays and obstacles |cooperation, synergies and|priority setting |communication and |transparency and |
| | |sector resource mob. And div.| |available driving forces |concepts for efficiency|participation |anti-corruption |
| | |Funding arrangements | | |gains | |attitudes and behaviour|
|Kenya Education |(a) Establishment of the |(a) Assistance outside KESSP |(a) This is achieved through intensive |This is achieved through |(a) All KESSP |The Ministry produces |(a) MOEST to initiate |
|Sector |Kenya Education Sector |is encouraged and where so, |information sharing and consultations |EDCG objectives. These |investment programmes |and disseminates a |annual sector |
| |Support Programme (KESSP) |there are laid down |by both parties through the EDCG |are: supporting govt |are prioritised and |quarterly news bulletin|performance monitoring |
| |which has pooled funding |procedures that donors are |(ministry and development partners). |ownership of & leadership |costed over the five |on all on- going |& review mechanisms |
| |arrangement through GOK |encouraged to follow |The partners inform the govt of their |of KESSP, promotion of |year period (2005 – |projects. This is |together with |
| |financial systems | |commitment in time before finalisation |coordinated policy |2010) |availed to all |appropriate involvement|
| |(b) Aligning KESSP with the | |of the budget. The ministry also |dialogue & technical | |stakeholders. This is |of Development partners|
| |broader framework of Economic| |endeavours to make sure that the DPs |support on strategic | |in addition to the |other ministries & |
| |Recovery Strategy | |have all information on relevant plans |issues in education with | |meetings, joint |institutions. |
| |(c) Establishment of | |and activities which they require |all stakeholders and | |evaluations and reports|(b) When necessary DP |
| |Education Donor Coordination | |assistance for. |finally, ensuring that | |that are disseminated |may provide support for|
| |Group (EDCG) made up of | |(b) MOEST to ensure that there is no |support of Development | |to all stakeholders. |an independent |
| |donors- bilateral, | |breach of fundamental principles |Partners is increasingly | | |assessment. |
| |multilateral, development | |underlying the programme & DP will also|provided in a harmonised | | | |
| |banks & NGOs offering support| |ensure that education sector |and coordinated manner. | | | |
| |to MOE | |commitments are not interrupted for | | | | |
| | | |reasons external to the sector. | | | | |
Kenya – Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector
Joint Statement of Intent for the partners in the GJLOS SWAP
INTRODUCTION
The GoK has committed itself to a fundamental reform of the governance, justice, law and order sector. The development goal of the Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector Reform Programme (GJLOS) is improved quality of life for men, women, girls and boys in Kenya, especially those who are poor, marginalised and vulnerable. The GoK has requested the support of development partners to the GJLOS as defined in the Medium Term Strategy 2005/06 to 2008/09, approved by the Technical Co-ordination Committee on June 3, 2005 (GJLOS MTS).
The programme purpose of the GJLOS is to improve Governance, Justice, Law and Order.
The vision of the GJLOS reform is “a safe, secure, democratic, just, and corruption-free, human rights respecting and prosperous Kenya for all” and the mission is “to reform and strengthen sector institutions for enhanced protection of human rights, efficient, accountable and transparent governance and justice”.
The Partnership Principles between GoK and DPs are:
• Promotion of full participation of stakeholders in the policy and planning of GJLOS
• Promotion of a rights based approach
• Equal access to services, including promoting the rights of women and children, in particular those who are poor
• Adherence to the reform priorities and the reform agenda of GJLOS
• Focus of the reform on timely, specific, and achievable results
• Improved complaint mechanisms at the national and local level
• Improved coordination, while respecting independence of institutions, especially the judiciary and the statutory bodies
• Improved monitoring and evaluation and feedback mechanisms
• Anti-corruption measures enforced and opportunities for corruption minimised
• Increased integration of GJLOS in the MTEF and the budget reform
• Strong political leadership for the reform, including for anti-corruption
The financial contributions to the GJLOS Medium Term Strategy (MTS) will be decided on within the agreements or arrangements between the GoK (represented by the MoF) and the DPs.
The GoK and the development partners have jointly prepared this Joint Statement of Intent in line with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, 2 March 2005, (“Paris Declaration”)[26], and have reached an understanding on common procedures for consultation and decision-making, disbursement mechanisms, monitoring and reporting, review and evaluation, audit, financial management and the exchange of information and co-operation between the signatories as reflected herein. This understanding is intended to enhance effective implementation of the GJLOS MTS, reduce the administrative burden on the GoK and minimise transaction costs.
This Joint Statement of Intent has two parts:
Part 1 – Provides a framework of collaboration among the GoK and the development partners based upon the GoK’s adherence to principles of good governance, democracy and respect for human rights and the rule of law and to the development partners adherence to the Paris Declaration and the principles of harmonisation and co-ordination. It regulates the relationship among the development partners providing support to the GJLOS MTS. This Joint Statement of Intent allows for the inclusion of new development partners who choose to join in support of the programme.
Part 2 – Provides a specific framework for co-operation for development partners that will provide funds through a joint donor Basket Fund (B-Partners) managed by a Financial Management Agent, (FMA). Part 2 applies only to the development partners that are contributing to the joint donor basket fund (Basket Fund). Management by the FMA is to continue for a period of two years, during which the development partners will assess the financial management capacity and reform orientation of the GoK, with a view to potentially providing further support through a special account. (See further 9.1)
It is acknowledged by all Partners that this Joint Statement of Intent is not legally binding.
This Introduction forms part of the Joint Statement of Intent.
PART 1: FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATION BETWEEN GoK AND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS
PARAGRAPH 1 THE PARTNERS
1.1 The participants to this Joint Statement of Intent, (JSI), are the GoK and a group of DPs being: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, as well as the United States of America and international organisations being the European Commission, UNDP, UN-HABITAT, UNICEF, UNDESA, and UN-Office on Drugs and Crime and the International Development Association (World Bank). These participants will be collectively called the “Partners” and all Partners other than the GoK will be collectively called the “Development Partners”. This JSI regulates the relationship between the GoK and the Development Partners and the relationship between the development partners.
1.2 The Development Partners to this JSI are divided into three categories:
• Category 1
Development Partners that contribute to the Basket Fund for support to the GJLOS MTS (B-Partners)
• Category 2
Development Partners with specific arrangements with GoK for support to specific parts of the GJLOS MTS that fall within the mandate of such partners (S-Partners)
• Category 3
Development Partners that support the GJLOS MTS, with support channelled through multilateral donors, (M-Partners)
1.3 The Development Partners subscribe to the goal and purpose of the GJLOS MTS and the partnership principles underpinning the JSI (as outlined in the Introduction) and confirm that funding provided to the GoK in the sector will be in line with the support requested under the GJLOS MTS and the corresponding approved Thematic Work plans. S-Partners will support within the specific limitations of their agreements and arrangements. Development Partners commit to transparent funding of work plan activities and will include information on relevant consultancies. The Development Partners are entitled to participate in the GJLOS Donor Group, (GJLOS-DG). The B-Partners will have a sub-group for co-ordination called the Basket-GJLOS-DG.
1.4 The Partners encourage other development partners operating within the sector, but operating outside the program, to coordinate and align behind the GJLOS.
PARAGRAPH 2 GOALS OF THE PROGRAMME AND SCOPE OF THE JSI
1. The GJLOS MTS is the policy framework document for the reform of the governance, justice, law and order sector. The GJLOS reform is a results-based programme and the key results identified under the GJLOS MTS are:
▪ KR 1: Responsive and Enforceable Policy, Law and Regulation
▪ KR 2: More Effective GJLOS Institutions
KR 3: Reduced Corruption-Related Impunity
▪ KR 4: Improved Access to Justice, especially for the poor, marginalised and vulnerable
▪ KR 5: More informed and participative citizenry and Non State Actors
▪ KR 6: Effective management and coordination of the GJLOS Reform Programme
These key result areas have been assigned to seven Thematic Groups that will develop the Thematic Work plans. These Thematic Groups will assist the participating departments and institutions to co-ordinate and prioritise their work within the GJLOS MTS. The Thematic Groups are:
▪ TG 1: Ethics, Integrity and Anti-Corruption
▪ TG 2: Democracy, Human Rights and Rule of Law
▪ TG 3: Justice, Law and Order
▪ TG 4: Public Safety and Security
▪ TG 5: Constitutional Development
▪ TG 6: Quality Legal Services to Government and the Public
▪ TG 7: Capacity for Strategic Leadership and Change Management
2. The GOK will update the GJLOS MTS whenever it is desirable to do so, particularly taking into account the results and recommendations of independent reviews and ongoing monitoring and evaluation. Updates will be made in consultation with the Development Partners.
3. This JSI sets forth the jointly accepted provisions and procedures for support to the GJLOS MTS and the corresponding Thematic Work plans and serves as a co-ordinating framework for consultation with the GOK, joint reviews of performance, and common procedures on disbursement, reporting, evaluation and audits. The Development Partners will enter into arrangements or agreements with the GOK that are compatible with the spirit and provisions of this JSI and will refrain, as far as possible, from setting conditions in these agreements or arrangements that contradict or diverge from the spirit or the provisions of this JSI. However, if there is any inconsistency between the provisions of this JSI and any of the arrangements or agreements, the arrangements or agreements will prevail. The GOK will ensure that the Development Partners are informed of all support and development resources provided within the sector. All Development Partners will ensure that their specific agreements or arrangements are copied to the GJLOS-DG members and if specific provisions of the bilateral arrangements or agreements deviate from this JSI, the Development Partner or Partners entering into the arrangement or agreement will ensure that the GJLOS-DG is informed of the deviation.
2.4 Each Development Partner will, when preparing specific arrangements after the signing of the JSI for support to specific projects and for support to the Basket Fund, reference the relevant paragraphs from this JSI relating to reporting and monitoring, joint reviews and the Advisory Team in their arrangements with GOK. The B-Partners will in addition include the paragraphs from this JSI that relate to the FMA in their agreements or arrangements with GOK.
2.5 Development Partners will base their actual support on available funding for the sector and the progress attained in the implementation of the GJLOS MTS. Progress will be measured through the common accepted performance indicators in Annex 2 to the GJLOS MTS.
PARAGRAPH 3 OWNERSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY
1. The GOK and Development Partners subscribe to the Paris Declaration on ownership and results, alignment, harmonisation and mutual accountability. The GOK commits to the participatory development of a framework of collaboration among all of the ministries, departments and institutions involved in the GJLOS. The GOK will work toward a fully prioritised and results-oriented GJLOS and will ensure broad consultation with Kenyan women and men, civil society and the private sector in the selection of priorities and expected results.
2. Development Partners will base their support in this sector on the GJLOS MTS and will link sector funding to indicators derived from the ERSWEC (Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation) and the GJLOS MTS. The GoK as far as feasible will include the support in its national plans and budgets.
3. The GOK and the Development Partners will work together to develop frameworks for assessing the GOK’s systems for public financial management, accounting, auditing, procurement, results frameworks and monitoring, with a view to using these country systems to the extent possible. The GOK and the Development Partners will work to ensure that the Programme Coordination Office (PCO) and the Financial Management Agent (FMA) build capacity and strengthen GOK systems to enhance planning and budgeting, performance, accountability and transparency.
4. The Development Partners support the GOK’s ownership of the GJLOS. The GOK commits to take the lead in coordinating all aid and other development resources within the governance, justice, law and order sector. The Development Partners will support, promote and encourage the GOK in its efforts to coordinate all development partners.
PARAGRAPH 4 RESPONSIBILITIES, REPRESENTATION, ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE AND FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS
4.1 The GOK will be fully accountable and responsible for the implementation of the GJLOS and also by contributing their own funds in line with the MTEF. The Development Partners will assist GOK in funding outputs and results as specified in the GJLOS MTS and the approved Thematic Work plans to the extent of decided funding levels and within individual Development Partners established policies, priorities, approval processes and rules and regulations.
4.2 Funding may be provided through the following mechanisms:
Category 1
B-Partners will, until 30 June 2007, contribute to an account set up by a Financial Management Agent, (FMA), that will procure goods and services and disburse funds on a regular basis, based on requests for activities contained in the GJLOS MTS and the Thematic Work plans (the Basket Account). The Thematic Work plans will include specific details on the various ministries, departments and institutions involved in the reform activities. The arrangements for an FMA are described in Paragraph 14.
• Category 2
S-Partners will have separate bilateral and multilateral arrangements with GOK whereby bilateral and multilateral donors will meet the costs of specific inputs and activities as detailed in specific projects developed within the framework of the GJLOS MTS. Funding arrangements will be regulated under specific bilateral and multilateral arrangements with GOK.
• Category 3
M-Partners include bilateral donors whose funds are channelled through a multilateral donor. These funds will be regulated through an arrangement between the multilateral donor and the bilateral donor and a specific arrangement between the multilateral donor and the GOK.
4.3 The Development Partners will strive to ensure the predictability of their support by informing the GOK as soon as possible of the support that they anticipate providing for the GJLOS MTS, and will align the declaration of support, insofar as possible, with the annual budget process.
4.4 All Partners will immediately inform each other of any circumstance that may interfere or threaten to interfere with the successful implementation of the GJLOS MTS and will call a meeting to inform or consult with the other Partners on the remedial action to be taken.
4.5 The Partners will cooperate and communicate fully and in a timely manner with each other on all matters relevant to the implementation of the GJLOS MTS. Partners will share information on aid flows, research, reports and any other documentation or initiative related to the implementation of the GJLOS MTS.
4.6 The Development Partners will nominate representatives from the GJLOS-DG to the Technical Co-ordinating Committee, (TCC) set up by GOK to: 1) technically guide the implementation of the programme; 2) ensure effective co-ordination of programme implementation; 3) ensure that implementation is consistent with GOK policy objectives; and 4) liaise with Development Partners.
4.7 All partners or their representatives, as appropriate, will attend the Thematic Group meetings.
4.8 Each of the Development Partners contributing to the GJLOS MTS will nominate at least one representative and at least one alternative representative as members of GJLOS-DG which will be the focal point for consultation among and decision-making by Development Partners.
4.9 The GJLOS-DG will be led by a Lead Donor, who will be elected by the Development Partners from among the B-Partners, and will hold office for two years. The mandate of the lead donor can be renewed once. Bilateral arrangements may be concluded between the Lead Donor and any of the other Development Partners, if any Development Partner finds it necessary. Sweden will act as Lead Donor at the commencement of this JSI. Elections will be held every two years, commencing November 2005. The outgoing Lead Donor will continue to act for four months after the election to provide continuity and a smooth transition to the Lead Donor-Elect. The first transition under this JSI will be completed by the end of February 2006. An earlier election may be held in the case of earlier resignation of a Lead Donor. Two Deputy Lead Donors will be elected from the Development Partners, one for the group of the Development Partners giving funds under specific agreements, (S-Partners), and one from the Development Partners contributing to the Basket Fund, (B-Partners). The Deputy Lead Donors will provide back up to the Lead Donor and stand in for him or her, if and when required. The M-Partners will, based on their own preferences, join the S-Partners or B-Partners in sub-meetings or for the election of Lead and Deputy Lead Donors. The Lead Donor and the Deputy Lead Donors will act in accordance with the Terms of Reference for the Donor Group and the Lead Donor, issued/ approved by the Development partners, attached as Annex 3.
PARAGRAPH 5 CONSULTATION AND DECISION MAKING
5.1 Regular consultation among the Partners is considered critical for effective implementation of the GJLOS MTS. The GOK commits to regularly convene the Inter-Agency Steering Committee (IASC) and the TCC meetings. The Thematic Groups will meet regularly under their terms of reference. All Partners commit to participate in the Review Meetings described below in Paragraph 6. Additional consultation meetings may be requested by the GOK or the Lead Donor on behalf of the Development Partners on any subject relevant to the implementation of the GJLOS MTS.
5.2 The GJLOS-DG and the Basket-GJLOS-DG will meet as often as considered necessary. The Lead Donor will convene meetings. The GJLOS-DG will reach decisions among Development Partners present in its meetings based on consensus, with the minimum participation of representatives from 50% of the Partners to the JSI. An agenda will be sent out at least 5 working days prior to a meeting and draft minutes will be distributed within 5 days after each meeting. Each Development Partner representative is responsible to notify the Lead Donor of an alternate representative in case of an absence from office of more than 3 working days.
5.3 In discussions on changes in their level of support with GOK, the Lead Donor will assist the B-Partners and any other partner, when necessary. The S-Partners and M-Partners will discuss changes in their support through separate correspondence with GOK.
5.4 For information, or for response that requires urgent action, the Lead Donor may consult the Partners in writing (including via email, provided receipt notification is requested) rather than calling a meeting. If the Lead Donor does not receive objections within two working days of delivery of the written communication, the Lead Donor will act according to the proposal.
5.5 The arrangements and agreements described in sub-paragraph 2.3 will detail the timing and amount of each Development Partner’s intended support.
PARAGRAPH 6 REVIEW AND EVALUATION
6.1 The Development Partners will, to the extent possible, refrain from conducting unilateral reviews and evaluations of the GJLOS MTS. While the S-Partners and M-Partners may carry out monitoring and evaluation as specified in their specific arrangements, they will try to avoid placing any additional burden on the GOK and will coordinate insofar as possible the joint reviews. All Partners will participate in Semi-Annual Joint Review Meetings to follow up the progress of the GJLOS MTS. One of these meetings will constitute the Annual Review Meeting. The last review meeting within the MTS time period will be considered the end review of MTS. The minutes of the meetings will be drafted by GOK and sent to all Development Partners and other participants’ representatives (e.g., non state actors) within 15 working days after the meeting. The Development Partners will have 7 days after receipt of the draft to provide comments through the Lead Donor. Minutes will be available for final approval within 25 days after the conclusion of the Review Meeting. Approved Minutes for each meeting will be signed by The Secretary to the TCC and the Lead Donor. The cost of the semi-annual Review Meetings will be paid from the Basket Fund. Development Partners will pay their own expenses.
6.2 An Advisory Team consisting of local and international consultants has been recruited by the Development Partners until December 2007. They will interview stakeholders and beneficiaries of the GJLOS and provide a report to the TCC and the Development Partners on progress made in the implementation of the GJLOS MTS at least three weeks before each semi-annual Review Meeting.
6.3 By January 2007 an evaluation of the design, results achieved and the ability to progressively deliver on the results as specified in Annex 2 of the GJLOS MTS (the Log frame), will be carried out. The evaluation will include evaluation of the results of the GJLOS Short Term Priorities Programme (STPP), the precursor to the GJLOS MTS and an assessment of the degree of movement towards alignment and a full-fledged SWAP. The Partners will jointly decide on the terms of reference for this mid-term evaluation. The terms of reference will include an independent evaluation of the FMA and an evaluation of the financial management and procurement systems of the GOK (including accountability and transparency of these systems), to determine the feasibility of using a special account for Development Partner contributions to the programme. The GOK and the Lead Donor will, after obtaining consensus of the Partners on the terms of reference and the choice of the Partners’ representatives to participate on the selection panel, procure the evaluation team. The costs of the evaluation will be funded from the Basket Fund. A second evaluation will be done at the end of the period of the MTS, which will be discussed at the end review meeting of MTS.
PARAGRAPH 7 REPORTING
7.1 The GOK will provide the Development Partners with all information relevant to the implementation of the GJLOS MTS, including a draft narrative and financial progress report on the achieved outputs as specified in the MTS and the Thematic Work plans, within 10 days prior to each semi-annual Review Meeting. Development Partners will provide information on appropriation in aid expenditures (all aid not provided directly to GOK accounts) to the GOK at least one month before the Review Meeting to allow this information to be included in the GOK’s financial progress report. Each report will cover the period of the last 6 months of implementation. The first Review Meeting under this JSI will be held in March 2006 and this will cover implementation of the STPP until 30th September 2005, and the beginning of the MTS to December 31, 2005.
7.2 The draft reports will contain:
• an overview of the GJLOS Short Term Priority Program (STPP) and GJLOS MTS activities,
• information on the actual outputs compared to planned outputs,
• a financial statement showing allocation and use of GOK, B-Partners, S-Partners and M-Partners funds
• financial reporting including the comparison of costs for actual activities for the current reporting period with the budget for the same period (in the same currency)
• an analysis and assessment of the outputs and the implemented activities, time frame and actual cost in relation to the Thematic Work plans
• an analysis of the quality of the implementation and problems encountered, action planned and corrective action taken
• a review of the impact in the lives of people who are poor and the impact on the rights of women and children
The reports will be done on the basis of the decided objectively verifiable indicators included in the GJLOS MTS. The draft reports will be revised after the Review Meetings and the finalised Progress Reports will be distributed by GOK to all stakeholders within one month after each semi-annual Review Meeting.
7.3 The Final Report will be submitted by GOK not later than 31 December 2009 and will present a cumulative overview of all costs and inputs against all realised outputs and outcomes for the entire period covered by the support to the GJLOS MTS as specified in the Thematic Work plans. It will cover support by all Partners and account for any deviations and deficiencies from the Thematic Work plans. The report will also analyse to what extent the outputs and outcomes have been achieved, indicate any positive or negative unintended effects of the programme, and put forward any proposal for further prolongation of the support.
7.4 GOK will also provide the FMA and the GJLOS-DG with any other information regarding the MTS that either may reasonably request, and will enable representatives of the FMA and the GJLOS-DG to visit the programme and inspect goods, records and documents.
7.5 The GoK will promptly inform the Development Partners and the FMA if reports cannot be submitted as described in this paragraph.
6. Review meetings will not be held and new funds from the Basket Fund will not be disbursed until the required reports have been received and accepted under the provisions of this paragraph.
7.7 Reports of the Advisory Team will be sent to all Development Partners and the TCC as soon as they are available by the GOK.
7.8 The GOK agrees to give all Development Partners (through the Lead Donor) access to its internal audits and reports that relate to the GJLOS STPP or MTS.
PARAGRAPH 8 BILATERALLY FINANCED ACTIVITIES
8.1 S-Partners and M-Partners who, for legal, administrative or other reasons, are not participating in the Basket Fund arrangements, may choose to contribute to the GJLOS MTS by direct multilateral and bilateral funding (e.g. Technical co-operation projects as direct contribution) under specific agreements or arrangements that target outputs identified in the GJLOS MTS and the Thematic Work plans.
8.2 Certain activities may be designed outside the GJLOS MTS. However, any Development Partner who intends to embark on an individual grant initiative outside the framework of this JSI will share information on project proposals with the GJLOS-DG.
8.3 Any monitoring or evaluation reports and any other important information related to grants or loans within the governance, justice, law and order sector commissioned by any of the Partners will be shared with the GJLOS-DG.
PARAGRAPH 9 DISBURSEMENTS
9.1 Donor disbursements will be, insofar as possible, harmonized with GOK’s fiscal year and the MTS. Based on the financial years of each Development Partner and the needs of the GJLOS, a disbursement plan will be developed and shared with GOK. Funds will be disbursed provided Thematic Work plans are approved and implementation follows the Thematic Work plans. The B-Partners will, for the first two years, disburse the funds to a commercial bank account opened by the FMA. Depending upon the outcome of the evaluation described in sub-paragraph 6.3, the Basket Funds may thereafter be disbursed to a special GOK account or through other procedures agreed between the B-Partners and GOK.
9.2 At least 4 months before the beginning of each new GOK financial year, all Development Partners will provide indicative figures for support for the next financial year. Additional funds may be provided upon acceptance by GOK and the other Development Partners.
PARAGRAPH 10 SUSPENSION, NON COMPLIANCE AND FORCE MAJEURE
10.1 In the case of non-compliance with the provisions of this JSI or GOK’s violation of the partnership principles set out in this JSI, Development Partners may suspend further disbursements to the GJLOS MTS and reclaim funds already transferred in whole or in part.
Such non-compliance refers to:
a) serious lack of progress on implementation of program;
b) substantial deviations from agreed plans and budgets;
c) unsatisfactory management and misuse of funds; and
d) occurrence of a fundamental change in circumstances compared to those which existed at the start of the program.
2. If a Development Partner intends to suspend new disbursements, or terminate its support, the Development Partner will
a) give one month notice to the other Development Partners and call a meeting to discuss a possible joint position on the measures, remedial or otherwise, that are required; and
b) Consult with the GOK as far as possible in advance of the suspension and in cases where a suspension is imposed, lift the suspension as soon as these circumstances leading to the suspension have ceased to exist or when appropriate and successful remedial actions have been taken by the GOK.
3. The GOK may suspend or terminate its engagement with a particular Development Partner in the program if its continued engagement with that particular Development Partner undermines the public interest.
PARAGRAPH 11 CORRUPTION
11.1 The Partners will require that their staff and consultants implementing the activities in the Thematic Work plans will refrain from offering third parties, or seeking, accepting or being promised from or by third parties, for themselves or for any other party, any gift, remuneration, compensation or benefit of any kind whatsoever, which could be interpreted as an illegal or corrupt practice.
2. The Partners will promptly inform each other of any instances of corruption as referred to in this paragraph.
PARAGRAPH 12 MODIFICATION, DEVELOPMENT PARTNER ACCESSION AND WITHDRAWAL
12.1 The Partners will conduct an annual review of the implementation, application and effectiveness of the procedures outlined in the JSI.
12.2 Any amendment to this JSI must be in writing and signed by all Partners.
12.3 This JSI will be open to signature by additional Governments and agencies subject to the approval of the GJLOS-DG and the GOK. The approval will be based on coherence with the GJLOS MTS and acceptance of the principles of partnership as described in this JSI.
12.5 In case of conflict between Partners, resolution will be sought with mediation from the Lead Donor and the Deputy Lead Donors. Failing resolution, the PS Ministry of Finance or his/her authorized representative, the heads of the organisations or heads of the missions represented among the Development Partners will represent their mission and organisations in negotiations to find an amicable solution.
PARAGRAPH 13 COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION
13.1. This JSI commences upon signature of at least four (4) of the Partners.
13.2 The JSI will remain valid until three months after the finalisation of the Program.
13.3 The JSI will be signed in as many copies as the signatories, for each partner to keep an original copy.
PART 2: FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATION AMONG B-PARTNERS AND GOK
PARAGRAPH 14 JOINT DONOR BASKET FINANCING
14.1 ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE PROGRAMME COORDINATION OFFICE (PCO)
14.1.1 The Programme Coordination Office was established to support the GOK and is comprised of: i) A Chief Technical Coordinator - CTC, ii) A Strategy Planning and Budgeting Specialist and deputy to the CTC, iii) A Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, iv) An Information Education and Communication Specialist and v) An Office Administrator. The Partners may expand the human resource capacity of the PCO as necessary.
14.1.2 The PCO members are contracted by the GJLOS Financial Management Agent on behalf of the Partners for a fixed period of two years that may be extended or renewed by mutual agreement as foreseen in the employment contracts. The Performance of the PCO is monitored and assessed by the secretary to the TCC and the Lead Donor in coordination with all Development Partners. The continuation of the PCO as part of the programme will be dependent upon the results of the mid-term evaluation that will include an assessment of the need to extend the PCO.
14.1.3 The costs for the PCO will be shared by the B-Partners and the GOK. PCO staff costs will be funded from the Basket Fund, and running costs, including office space, fixed line telephone costs and limited support staff will be provided by the GOK.
14.1.4 The PCO will continually transfer skills and knowledge to GOK counterpart staff in the implementing departments in order to ensure long term sustainability of the PCO functions and in preparation of the exit from the programme of externally recruited staff.
14.1.5 The role of the PCO is to support the GOK, in particular the Technical Coordination Committee in the coordination of GJLOS. Specifically, the PCO acts a secretariat to the TCC Management Committee. To this end, the PCO’s mission is to assist GoK in the timely, effective and sustainable implementation of the GJLOS, including quality assurance, technical advice and operational support to implementation by sector institutions. The PCO mandate spans all Development Partner and GOK financial contributions and programme interventions.
14.1.6 The Partners accept that the PCO members are contracted to perform the tasks in accordance with agreed upon Terms of Reference as well as the TOR’S in the GJLOS MTS.
14.2 ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AGENT (FMA)
14.2.1 KPMG was awarded a contract as an FMA by virtue of a procurement process conducted under internationally accepted procurement rules. This contract has been extended for an additional 2 years with effect from July 2005 to June 2007 for funding of activities and for payment up to December 2007. All B-Partners[27] have signed one common contract with the FMA regulating disbursement amounts and procedures. The FMA will be supervised by the Lead Donor and funds for the costs and charges of the FMA have been set aside by the Lead Donor in an additional account. The FMA has presented a 'letter of credit' (surety) to the Lead Donor, which will be kept current throughout the course of the FMA’s contract. The B-Partners accept that the FMA is contracted to perform the services described in the terms of reference attached as Annex 4. During the implementation of the MTS the emphasis of the FMA’s work will be to build capacity within the implementing institutions in GJLOS on financial management and procurement.
14.2.2 Only costs for activities carried out from 1 October 2005 to 30 June 2009 may be financed from the Basket Fund contribution. The contributions made according to the agreement or arrangement between the Development Partners and the GOK may only be disbursed until 31 December 2009.
14.2.3 After consultation between GOK and the B Partners and receiving instructions from the Lead Donor, the FMA may, at any time, withhold disbursements if:
a) deviations from the approved Thematic Work plans and budgets occur, if the deviations contravene the approved guidelines;
b) misuse of funds or other resources takes place;
c) resources to be allocated by GOK are not provided as planned;
d) the objectives of the GJLOS MTS are endangered;
e) reports are not delivered as agreed; and
f) the financial management of the sub-programmes is not satisfactory.
14.2.4 The B-Partners accept that if the agreements and arrangements with the GOK on funding to the Basket Fund are terminated by the B-Partners earlier than stipulated, the B-Partners that are terminating will contribute to meeting reasonable costs incurred relating to the earlier termination, provided these do not exceed the total amount remaining in, or committed to, the Basket Fund by the respective B-Partners.
14.3 MONITORING AND ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY
14.3.1 The Lead Donor, unless given authority in writing by individual B-Partners, will consult all B-Partners before approval of payments, including the approval of payment requests from the FMA for payments of their own fees, and fees for the external auditor, evaluation team and the Advisory Team. Once consultation is complete, the Lead Donor will apply the systems and procedures normally applied in the administration of the Lead Donor’s bilateral assistance.
14.3.2 B-Partners accept that the FMA represents the B-Partners for the purpose of day-to-day liaison with the participating ministries, departments and institutions once agreements or arrangements have been signed with GOK, specifying the amounts to be disbursed to the Basket Fund.
14.4 DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTING MATERIAL
14.4.1 Reports and statements received from the recipients of grants from the Basket Fund as specified in the TOR for the FMA will be sent to all B-Partners, participating ministries, departments and institutions, the TCC and the Ministry of Finance.
14.4.2 The B-Partners will comment on the reports or statements within two weeks of receipt. If the Lead Donor does not receive any adverse comments within this time, it is authorised to approve on behalf of the B-Partners.
14.4.3 Reports of the FMA and the External Auditors will be sent to all B Partners and the TCC as soon as they are available.
14.5 AUDIT
14.5. 1. The Lead Donor will on annual basis, upon approval of the B-Partners, appoint an independent External Auditor to audit the GJLOS final accounts managed by the FMA. An audit of this kind may also be carried out at any time by a B-Partner (an “additional audit”); however, the B-Partners will to the extent possible try to avoid additional audits. The costs of additional audits must be covered over and above the Basket Fund contribution by the B-Partners commissioning the additional audit. Development Partners will coordinate additional audits with the GOK internal audits insofar as possible, to avoid extra transaction costs for the GOK.
14.6 CONTRIBUTIONS TO AND DISBURSEMENTS FROM THE JOINT FINANCING ACCOUNT
14.6.1 Each B-Partner contributing to the Basket Fund will deposit its contribution in Kenya shillings (Ksh) to the Basket Fund account (Basket Account). The Basket Account will be opened and administered by the FMA for the specific purpose of transferring instalments for support to the GJLOS MTS as specified in the Thematic Work plans. The equivalent amount in Ksh. on the day of the deposit of the contribution from the individual B-Partner will be the value of the contribution in any later calculations of the proportional contributions to the Basket Account.
14.6.2. A disbursement schedule shall be developed by the FMA to enable the B-Partners to deposit their funds into the account. The FMA will send request for release of funds to each B-Partner, according the disbursement plan described in sub-paragraph 9.1.
14.6.3. Any unspent funds and accumulated interest will be accounted for and it will be decided by the B-Partners whether these funds can be carried over to a new agreement or arrangement, or that they will be returned by the FMA to the B-Partners on a pro rata basis (based upon contributions to the Basket Account), immediately after external auditing of the accounts has taken place and not later than the termination of this JSI. If funds are returned to the FMA, it will return the funds on a pro-rata basis to the B-Partners.
14.7 MONITORING COSTS
14.7.1 Costs of the Advisory Team will be met from the Basket Fund. However, the costs of the FMA and the External Auditor will be taken from the contribution made by the Lead Donor. The External Auditor will be paid by the Lead Donor and the FMA will be paid from a special account managed by the Lead Donor. The Lead Donor will also set aside funds for technical assistance to GJLOS. These funds will be considered as part of the Lead Donor’s contribution to the Basket Account in any calculation under sub-paragraph 14.6.1 and 14.6.3.
14.7.2 The Lead Donor will pay the FMA and the External Auditor upon approval of payment requests as mentioned in sub-paragraph 14.3.1
PARAGRAPH 15
PROCUREMENT UNDER BASKET FUNDING
15.1 All procurement of goods or services under GJLOS MTS and the Thematic Work plans, based on requests from the different ministries, departments and institutions to the Basket Fund will be handled by the FMA until 30, June 2007. The TOR for procurement is included in the TOR for the FMA. The FMA will have another six (6) months to clear payments up to 31 December 2007.
15.2 The Partners accept that all equipment and capital items purchased from the Basket Account will be donated to the implementing department at the outset of the programme.
15.3 The GOK will approve a procurement plan at the beginning of each GOK financial year. The B-partners will give a no objection approval to the procurement plans.
15.4 All procurement of works, goods and services for the GJLOS will be performed in accordance with the GJLOS Procurement Guidelines, as regularly updated, and the GOK procurement rules, guidelines and regulations. The FMA will be responsible for procurement and will involve the GOK in the procurement processes including the development of the specifications.
Zambia SWAP mini case study
1 Key documents and information available
The key documents available are summarized in Annex E. They are mostly composed of government documents proposing a SWAP and preparations such as the development of a national programme many of these have not been officialised and in draft form.
2 Historical development and status of the WSS SWAP
Zambia has benefited since 2004 from the overarching Harmonization in Practice (HIP) initiative. All donors in the water sector are signatories to HIP and there are signs that it has started having positive effects on coordination of activities in the water sector although significant concrete benefits are yet to materialise. The HIP demands very close donor coordination and obliges sectors to find means of working towards SWAP type arrangements. The water sector is divided into 3 different sub-sectors that are institutionally separate: Urban WSS and Rural WSS (MLGH) and Water Resources Management (MEWD).
Following the HIP initiative of 2004, both MLGH and MEWD informally presented their ideas of how to establish SWAp in early 2005. These ideas are not immediately compatible and a dialogue process is required before structure and modalities for one SWAp for the water sector can be presented. Likewise on the donor side, there are different opinions on whether a whole sector SWAP or three Sub-sector SWAps are preferable. A stalemate has arrived and in an attempt to break the deadlock a special workshop training event is planned for involving external facilitation.
In the meantime, the plans for a SWAp for the rural sub-sector is progressing fast. A national RWSS programme has been drafted and could start by late 2006. Given the necessary preparations a RWSS sub-sector SWAp could in the best case be in place by mid 2007.
The Devolution Trust Fund (DTF) is a basket funding mechanism which is specifically targeted at the low income urban areas. There are controversies over whether or not the DTF should be turned into a broader funding mechanism in the framework of SWAp.
3 Lessons learnt and best practice
3.1 Funding
“Creating conditions for increased sector resource mobilisation and diversified funding arrangements relating to Water Resources Management as well as Water and Sanitation Service Provision”
a) The resource mobilization role of a SWAP can actually increase the difficulties of getting necessary institutional cooperation.
So far the institutional conflicts inherent in the water sector in Zambia which probably have as their base competition for resources have also been a hindrance to the process of developing a SWAP. In the Zambian institutional set-up, the implementation of a SWAP in the stricter sense would require to “competing ministries” to jointly mobilize resources and split them among themselves. This is very hard to implement in practical terms. Existing and potential funding arrangements are described in a number of documents.
b) Historical or even an ad hoc funding arrangement can potentially be used as channel for funds directed to a SWAP – the WSTF in Kenya could be considered.
The Devolution Trust Fund (DTF) which was originally established under the urban sector regulator for the peri-urban water sector is one of the possibilities for a SWAP funding mechanism. The main sector players are currently not in agreement on this option.
Implications for Kenya:
• Ensure that the SWAP strategy for resources mobilization in Kenya does not create conflicts as institutions and departments compete for resources.
• Consider the Kenyan WSTF as a potential funding vehicle. The control structures of the WSTF should be very clear before the decision is made. In Zambia, the disputes on the DTF began only after the first serious funds had been pledged.
3.2 Implementation
“Avoiding unnecessary implementation delays and obstacles”
a) The institutional conflict in Zambia has led to long delays and perhaps will even lead to a collapse of an attempt to introduce SWAP.
The institutional separation from Water Supply and Sanitation (responsibility MLGH) and Water Resources Management (responsibility MEWD) was one of the results of the comprehensive sector reform. While this has many advantages from a content point of view it has also brought about a more complex institutional set-up with increased need for cooperation. The transfer of responsibilities has not gone smoothly and is still the source of conflicts. The fact that two ministries have to work jointly towards establishing a SWAP is a serious obstacle which has proven very hard to overcome.
b) The creation of sub-sector SWAPs promises to be one way of overcoming obstacles as not all the problems in all the subsectors have to be solved at once.
The advantage of sub-SWAPs is that the two ministries can implement them independently of each other. Hence there is less friction. There is however always a number of overlaps which have to be dealt with in order to achieve similar efficiency gains as in a whole sector SWAP. Therefore, the sub-sector SWAPs will have to be accompanied by an adequate harmonisation framework which also basically requires to solve all underlying institutional conflicts.
c) Generic agreements on harmonisation of external assistance that cover all sectors is very helpful as the water sector cannot go alone and advance far beyond other areas of cooperation.
In Zambia the HIP initiative in particular has paved the way for improved conditions for SWAPs – although because of the institutional conflict in the water sector this has not yet resulted in progress. A Joint Assistance Strategy has been developed for all sectors that maps the donor involvement, outlines comparative advantages and provides generic TOR for donor involvement.
d) New institutions created by the reforms (in the case of Zambia, the Commercial Utilities, the regulator (NAWASCO), the Devolution Trust Fund etc) could be strong leaders in a SWAp process. They are less tied to the past and have been created to serve the new agendas of decentralisation and separation of provision from regulation.
Implications for Kenya:
• Consider the advantage and disadvantages of the use of sub-sector SWAPs to simplify the implementation arrangements. Sub-SWAPs are sub-optimal but in some cases may still be the most practical first step. If so, identify possibly areas of overlaps between the sub-SWAps and find solutions how to deal with them.
• Look to the presence of any generic donor- government harmonisation arrangements and work within these to legitimise the water SWAP efforts.
• Beware of institutional jealousy that a new SWAP initiative might inflame.
• Consider giving a leadership role to the new institutions that have been created to implement the water sector reforms (e.g. the WSTF, the WSBs etc)
3.3 Cooperation and incentives
“Promoting cooperation, synergies and available driving forces”
a) Those that lead the SWAP should not necessarily be financial gainers from SWAP if the sector has conflicts of interest.
The main problem has been that the perception from an individual agency basis is that there has been more to loose from not being the SWAP leader than there is to gain from SWAP if another organization obtains the leadership.
Implications for Kenya:
• Those that lead SWAP should not be seen to gain in detriment to other important stakeholders unless there are otherwise good reasons for doing this (otherwise it will undermine the good will needed to sustain a SWAP to completion).
• The sector leaders in the policy and regulatory sense (and therefore the initiators of a SWAP) should preferably not be money handlers it makes it very difficult for them to take a correct decision if that decision means less money for them
3.4 Priority setting
“Applying priority setting concepts for efficiency gains”
a) A national programme for RWSS is seen in Zambia as prerequisite for a SWAP since it provides the targets and prioritised plan that all agencies will work together for.
The plan includes both institutional and physical implementation interventions. Efficiency gains will be achieved by implementing first in areas of greatest demand/need. The institutional support is aimed at increasing the efficiency of the implementing agency. Further efficiency gains are expected from harmonising the mode of deliveries as well as from institutionalising a coherent system for O&M in order to enhance the sustainability of the interventions. Only on the basis of a well maintained information system is it possible to prioritise the allocation of funds, e.g. between O&M and new investments.
b) Decentralisation is a key issue – can SWAP lead to re-centralisation – to what extent are SWAPs decentralisation friendly?
In Zambia, the National Programme for RWSS has been designed on the basis of highly decentralised structures. Planning as well as implementation capacities on the decentralised level are still very weak. This risks to be the actual bottleneck for the implementation.
A SWAP that pays more than lip service to decentralisation is complicated. Not only in terms of consultation but also in terms of ensuring that national plans are bottom up and based on local plans. This is the ideal situation but local plans are not yet ready and likely to take a very long time before they are compatable with each other to the extent that a national plan can be derived from them.
c) The Urban sector can potentially be brought under a SWAP in Zambia as the investment needs and future financial sustainability are well worked out, the Commercial Utilities are in place and a powerful information system is in place at the regulator and the DTF started working.
Implications for Kenya:
• The issue of the relevance of SWAP in the context of decentralization should be very carefully thought out (does SWAP lead to re-centralisation?).
• The institutional set up of regional water boards and catchment management agencies may make SWAP more relevant and less complicated in Kenya than in many countries where the water function is devolved to local government.
• A national plan for the RWSS and UWSS is needed as the basis for a SWAp.
• There is a tendency to look to the RWSS sector as the leader of a SWAP but in some cases the clearer institutional set up of the Urban sector can also enable an early move towards SWAP.
5. Communication and participation
“Promoting communication and participation”
a) A water Sector Advisory Group has been set up to link the water sector better to the PRS. So far, it has not worked well – mainly due to the difficulty of two ministries having to join forces. It is not clear what role the SAG would play in the context of a SWAP.
Neither the government nor civil society has found it easy to handle the role of civil society within official forums such as the Sector Advisory Group (SAGs). Civil society has generally not played a strong advocacy role. The role of the SAGs versus the role of normal government bodies is not clear – who is responsible? of people attending the SAGs has been poor. The whole SAG concept appears to have been externally invented and driven. The line ministry attached little importance to it which reflected in the low-level participation in the meetings and an absence of resources allocated to the SAG.. A well working SAG, however, could be an efficient coordination forum within a SWAP
Implications for Kenya:
• The consultation mechanisms must be resourced and there must be reasons to believe that government officials see such consultation as necessary or helpful to their work (otherwise it is just seen as window dressing).
• Accountability for ensuring that the participation mechanisms works well has to be built into the process – i.e. an individual or department must be held accountable for the success of the consultation.
6. Transparency and good governance
“Enhancing transparency and anti-corruption attitudes and behaviour”
a) These issues go beyond the water sector especially when funds are increasingly channelled via local government. There is a need to link to wider processes between government and its external development partners.
Transparency can be considerably enhanced within the sector compared to the status quo if joint funding mechanisms as well as procurement procedures have adequate control structures in place. Increased transparency and better governance will probably be one of the main stimulations of increased resource flows to the sector in the framework of SWAP.
Implications for Kenya :
• Don’t try to solve all transparency and governance issues just within the water sector, search for what has already been done in other sectors and if not enough then link with whatever efforts there are to make more general advances on these issues.
• All SWAp mechanisms have to be designed with adequate control structures aiming at increased transparency and good governance. SWAP should not be governance neutral it should be governance improving.
30th January 2006
Prepared by Eric Buhl-Nielsen
Peer reviewed by Amelie D’Souza and Moffat Mwanza with comments by Roland Werchota
Tanzania SWAP mini case study
1 Key documents and information available
The key documents available are summarized in Annex E.
2 Historical development and status of the WSS SWAP
The revised National Water Policy launched in July 2002 and followed by the National Water Sector Development Strategy (NWSDS) in November 2004 which provides a coherent, holistic and integrated strategy for the Water Sector in order to implement the National Water Policy. A Water Sector Strategy Implementation Plan (WSSIP) is under preparation and sets out details of implementing the NWSDS.
Based on these policies and strategies, the Government has engaged in the process of establishing a new development partnership for the water sector. A first Draft Road Map to Sector Wide Approach to Planning (SWAp) was elaborated in 2003 and identified the key milestones for putting in place the foundations for the SWAp. Core elements of the Road Map included:
• Restructuring of the MoWLD,
• Finalization of the WSSIP,
• Approval of a National Water Law,
• Establishment of Joint Government/Donor Sector Reviews
• The development of a Water Sector Development Program (2006-2015) based on the sub-sector investment plans.
Over the last 2 years, progress has been achieved in some respects, in particular with regard to the elaboration of the NWSDS and its Implementation Plan, as well as the review of the Law.
The water sector SWAp in Tanzania is conceived to bring together the three sub-sectors (rural water supply; urban water supply and sewerage; and water resources management) under one comprehensive investment and regulatory regime that is integrated into the national budget. A three-year transition period is anticipated. The period will be used to put in place the foundations for the SWAP, prepare the necessary investment plan, build capacity at all levels for delivery and establish the necessary regulatory framework for sustained delivery of water supply services country-wide.
The key structures in a future water sector are foreseen as:
• A High-Level Forum that would debate policy choices and the effectiveness of spending, monitor performance, assess strategies, and facilitate funding decisions. It would meet semi-annually and comprise senior representatives from all key stakeholders. The High Level Forum would be convened by the Minister for Water together with the Minister for Local Government.
• A Water Sector Working Group, modeled on the case of Uganda, which would be in charge of monitoring progress, debating challenges to progress and consult on decisions. It would be co-chaired by the PS for Water and the PS for Local Government and bring together technical representatives of DPs and non-state actors on a monthly or bimonthly basis.
• Again, following the model of Uganda, Technical Working Groups (TWG) would be defined around core thematic issues such as Finance, PER/MTEF, Performance Monitoring, Operation and Maintenance, Sanitation, Water Resources Management, Capacity Building etc. Some working groups will have a more permanent character whereas others might be created for a limited time to address specific issues coming up during the reviews. The TWG will convene qualified representatives from all relevant stakeholders (Government, DPs, civil society) and define their meeting schedule depending on the respective needs. One important function of the TWG would be to elaborate action plans to respond to the recommendations of the Joint Sector Reviews, as well as to inform on priorities for forthcoming Reviews.
• Similar to the Uganda experience, Annual Joint Sector Reviews are envisaged that would ideally take place ahead of the budget preparation process (i.e. in the first quarter of the fiscal year). An MOU would be prepared.
• Sector performance assessment in the review will be the primary process linking the sector to the MKUKUTA ( PRSP) annual progress review (either directly or via a cluster review), and to the Poverty Reduction Budge Support annual review which will assess whether the review was satisfactory.
3 Lessons learnt and best practice
3.1 Funding
“Creating conditions for increased sector resource mobilisation and diversified funding arrangements relating to Water Resources Management as well as Water and Sanitation Service Provision”
a) A sector investment plan and model, inspired by similar efforts in Uganda, is being developed. The model and plan will allow policy based scenarios to be developed and enable the impact of available resources on achievement of targets to be predicted.
b) Predictability of external funding is one of the main benefits envisaged by the Tanzania government that will arise from a SWAp.
Implications for Kenya:
• A sector investment plan (preferably simple) is at the heart of a SWAP. The plan has to be linked to the MTEF and budgeting processes. A simple layout of an investment plan is given in reference 1.7 (see annex A).
3.2 Implementation
“Avoiding unnecessary implementation delays and obstacles”
a) A 3 year transition phase has been allowed for and events have shown that this is necessary.
b) Reform of MoWLD is a cornerstone of the approach to SWAP. The reform entails the separation of service provision and regulatory/facilitory roles as the key objective with an enhanced role for the private sector and local government.
Implications for Kenya:
• Should the SWAP processes by managed by the existing institutions or by purpose created committees and forums? If ownership is strong enough it would be better to have SWAP managed by existing management structures.
• SWAP can contribute to implementing reforms that have already started. These reforms can have as their outcome the development of a SWAp or at least SWAp friendly conditions. The momentum of the SWAp process and reform process can be joined but not so interlinked that one can delay or stop the other.
3.3 Cooperation and incentives
“Promoting cooperation, synergies and available driving forces”
a) Donors help by agreeing to a division of labour and delegation of cooperation to a lead donor.
b) Aid management reforms aimed at improving use of external assistance have been ongoing since the 1990s. The Technical Assistance Strategy of 2002 was a key step forward. This has now been expanded to the Joint TAS which aims to develop a single partnership framework. The TAS and JAS and serve as a multi-donor and multi sector platform for cooperation – similar to the HIP in Zambia.
Implications for Kenya:
• The Kenyan water SWAp should look to arrangements for donor cooperation and coordination that are defined generally for all sectors so that donors are able to develop consistent approaches across all their sectors of support.
• An analysis of incentives from both the donor and government side would help to bring greater understanding to the presence of political constraints and decision making processes – including the development of improved inter-government cooperation.
3.4 Priority setting
“Applying priority setting concepts for efficiency gains”
a) The process towards SWAP has led to a Sub sector allocation that has shifted priorities towards the rural areas where the majority of the unserved live.
b) The SWAP is linked to the PRSP and MTEF processes and hence the priorities are set by the poverty agenda.
Implications for Kenya:
• Allocation principals can be based on policy targets and will imply prioritisation of areas of greatest unmet need. There might be “losers” in this re-prioritisation who will resist.
• The SWAP should contribute to and inform the PRSP and MTEF processes for priority setting and budget allocation rather than set up separate systems or “SWAP”targets.
3.5 Communication and participation
“Promoting communication and participation”
a) The SWAP is not only about getting donors to work together but also getting different Tanzanian stakeholders together from the public sector, the private sector and civil society.
b) In response to GOT’s calls the development partners have organized themselves into a development partners group (DPG) where there is a special sub-group for water.
Implications for Kenya:
• The production of a DPG type position paper on SWAP is helpful as it can sum up a commonly held donor position and enable the government to know the view points of the donors. A shared vision can be is an important step in developing a SWAp.
3.6 Transparency and good governance
“Enhancing transparency and anti-corruption attitudes and behaviour”
a) Targets with measureable indicators for the transition plan have been developed for the Tanzanian water sector SWAP.
b) Capacity building to manage external resources is needed to increase tranparency
c) Performance Assessment Framework is a step in the direction accountability
d) The sector dialogue is foreseen as strengthening government accountability to citizens – information release can do this.
e) Tanzania used an Independent Monitoring Group (IMG) to review progress in government and external development partner relations.
Implications for Kenya:
• Capacity building targeted at good governance in the water sector with the goal of enhancing transparency could be considered.
• The SWAp transition plan should have indicators and responsibilities clearly marked for how the process is progressing.
• Setting up of a performance assessment framework that includes value for money and tracking studies is an important confidence building measure for SWAp. It can also help make such internal/external reviews a routine part of the sector.
January 2006
Prepared by Eric Buhl-Nielsen
Uganda SWAP mini case study
1 Key documents and information available
The key documents available are summarized in Annex E.
2 Historical development and status of the WS&S SWAP
In the past the Government of Uganda (GoU) development activities have been based on projects .This approach was perceived to have several weaknesses: planning was piecemeal; investments donor driven; little incentive to reduce costs; technical standardization compromised and, a gradual undermining of government systems especially at local level.
To address the above short coming, GoU conceptualized and then implemented a strategy for a radical shift from a project driven approach to development of . a SWAp. The key elements that have contributed towards a SWAp in Uganda in the WS&S sector are:
- Regulatory Framework review
- Sub-Sector Reforms
- Detailed Functional Analysis:
- Pro poor strategy
- Sector Investment Plans
- Water and Sanitation Sector Working Group (WSSWG)
- Donor Coordination Group
- NGO Coordination
- Joint Annual Reviews
- Sector Performance Report (SPR)
- Tracking and value for money studies
3 Lessons learnt and best practice
3.1 Funding
“Creating conditions for increased sector resource mobilisation and diversified funding arrangements relating to Water Resources Management as well as Water and Sanitation Service Provision”
a) Urban sector reforms were aimed at commercialization of small towns and especially large towns in order to create internal incentive structures for efficiency and make the water utilities more attractive to lenders so that loan finance could be raised. Old debts and maintenance backlog still hamper financial performance in the large towns. Poor economies of scale and low tariffs will prevent many small towns from reaching financial autonomy. The reforms took longer than imagined.
b) Targeted budget support was established as the sole means of supporting physical implementation of rural water supply and sanitation through official ODA - as a consequence of decision to decentralize (including funding) to the district level- the fiscal decentralization strategy.
c) Some important areas that were well funded by donor projects have suffered in the transition to targeted budget support for RWSS. The clearest example is the funding of sanitation and hygiene promotion. District health inspectors and their teams had far more funding under projects than under the new SWAP arrangements. The longer prospects for sanitation and hygiene promotion are probably better under SWAP.
d) SWAP across all sub sectors has led to greater transparency on fund allocation between the sub-sectors. As a result it became apparent that the urban sub-sectors were allocated much more than was implied by the overall policy targets since the majority of the unserved live in rural areas.
e) A joint partnership fund pools technical assistance and capacity building funds to the sector both for water and sanitation. Whilst this has not been without problems it has enabled a very high degree of flexibility.
Implications for Kenya: SWAP can complement urban reforms - but the main source of additional funding will arise from improved institutional and technical performance of the water utilities themselves. SWAP arrangements have to consider additionality concerns if they are to attract funding that is sector specific. SWAP related funding mechanisms should consider the impact on recurrent budgets especially for the hygiene promotion function. Funding for technical assistance and capacity building can be provided off budget but still integrated within government systems – gaining the advantages of harmonization and flexibility.
3.2 Implementation
“Avoiding unnecessary implementation delays and obstacles”
a) A special transition arrangement was put in place to ensure that the capacity built up in projects was gradually transferred to the districts. The temporary Technical Support Units each support 8 or 10 districts to undertake the work previously done by projects. Not only has this lead to capacity increase but it also ensured that there was not temporary lapse in implementation rate which would have discredited the whole initiative.
b) Once the fiscal decentralization strategy had been put in place, increases in funding to the sector can be arranged much quicker than the normal procedures of establishing new projects.
c) The key government units at central level under took a functional analysis as part of the process of converting from an implementation to a regulatory/ facilitating role. Transition plans were made and the strategy, staffing, systems, structure and inter relationships with other government and non-government institutions were re-orientated. A manpower analysis leading to updated job descriptions and re-training and later the introduction of results orientated accountability mechanisms were done. Implementing the recommendations resulted in institutions at central that were capable of implementing the new policy e.g. separation of service provision and regulation.
Implications for Kenya: Project modalities can be used as transition vehicles for building capacity to implement using new delivery mechanisms. New policies and roles must be accompanied by a re-engineering the institutional structure, systems, job descriptions and accountability mechanisms.
3.3 Cooperation and incentives
“Promoting cooperation, synergies and available driving forces”
a) Strong leadership on SWAp from GoU particularly the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED) was vital. The Fiscal Decentralisation Strategy was the key to the SWAP in the rural water supply and sanitation sector. All parties were forced to channel funds via the government system. Vested interests in the old arrangements were overpowered by the consistency of the drive from MoFPED and those that supported these new developments in the sector itself.
b) The Water Supply and Sanitation Working Group is chaired at permanent secretary level and a very inclusive composition. It was given the mandate to coordinate but also the ultimate power to approve and accept any new initiatives. With this development sector coordination suddenly became highly relevant, well attended and successful.
Implications for Kenya: If the Ministry of Finance becomes a champion for a SWAP the prospects for success are greater. Coordination works better when the mechanism goes beyond a debating forum and undertakes a decision making role.
3.4 Priority setting
“Applying priority setting concepts for efficiency gains”
a) Under the finance sector working group established by the SWAp, an initiative to develop a sector investment plan that brought together 7 sub-sectors of investment was launched. The resultant Sector Investment Plan (SIP) allows a policy based comparison of the allocation between: i) rural water, ii) urban water for large towns, iii) urban water for small towns, iv) sanitation, v) water resources management, vi) water for production and vii) regulatory and sector overheads. Priorities are thus linked with the allocation of funds by establishing preferred scenarios from examining alternatives. So far this has been achieved but the model might be too complex to be robust in the long-term.
Implications for Kenya: A sector investment model can help to make the policy impact of present allocation practices between sub-sectors explicit. It can reveal where the greatest sector inefficiencies are (large costs for little gain). It can provide a tool that enables the sector ministry to demonstrate the efficiency of the sector and the coverage impact of different levels of funding from the government.
3.5 Communication and participation
“Promoting communication and participation”
a) An annual sector review has been held since 2000. Involving nearly 300 stakeholders from all interest groups it has enabled the sector to gain from the participation of a very broad range of experience. The review has been linked to the preparation of undertakings where those responsible have been held to account for achievement and non-achievement year by year. The undertakings are used as a trigger for Poverty Reduction Strategy Credit releases
b) Uganda Water and Sanitation NGOs Network (UWASNET) was formed in 2001 as an umbrella association for improved NGO coordination, sharing of experiences and liaison with GOU and DPs. There are currently over 190 NGOs and CBOs members of UWASNET.
Implications for Kenya:An annual sector review process will foster improved communication and ensure that at least once a year all involved in the sector can participate in a review of progress and the setting of key priorities for the next year. NGOs coordination is possible and beneficial.
3.6 Transparency and good governance
“Enhancing transparency and anti-corruption attitudes and behaviour”
a) Value for money and tracking studies have been carried out but so far only sporadically. They promise, when made more regular, to bring in a greater degree of transparency and confidence in the sector. The value for money have in particular been found difficult to design.
b) Each year a Sector Performance is published (in time for the Annual Sector Review) and this has been instrumental in making an assessment of the sector as a whole rather than individual project or sub-sector parts. The SPR has developed “golden indicators” for the sector to provide an overview measurement of the sector.
Implications for Kenya : Regular tracking and value for money studies combined with annual performance measurement against key indicators should be used together with normal fiscal controls such as audits.
January 2006
Prepared by Eric Buhl-Nielsen
to be Peer reviewed by: Richard Cong; Sam Mutono, John Pinfold
Annex G List of Current Donor Supported Programmes
WATER & SANITATION TECHNICAL GROUP- KENYA
MATRIX OF DONOR ACTIVITIES IN THE WATER AND SANITATION SECTOR
|ONGOING PROGRAMME AND PROJECTS |
|Development Partner |
| |
|Agence Française de Développement |
| |
| |
|GTZ German Technical Cooperation |
| |
| |
| |
|Grant Aid |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Session 1: |8.00 - 9.00 |Arrival and registration | |
|Opening Session | | | |
|Chair: | | | |
| |9.00 – 9.50 |OPENING SESSION: | |
| |9.00 - 9.10 |Introduction to the Review Process |PCD, MOWR |
| |9.10 - 9.20 |Opening remarks |Minister, MOH |
| |9.20 - 9.30 |Opening remarks |Minister, MWI |
| |9.30 - 9.40 |Opening remarks |Lead donor? |
| |9.40 - 9.50 |Opening speech | |
| | |Information about Exhibition etc. | |
| |9.50 – 10.00 |Structure of the Review and outline of |MWI |
| | |the Kenyan WS&S Framework | |
|Session 2: |10.00 – 11.00 |SWAP framework and roadmap – elements and|Presenter : MWI |
|SWAP framework and roadmap | |pre-requisites – achievement of | |
|Chair: | |pre-requisites for the launch | |
| |11.00 - 11.30. |TEA/ COFFEE BREAK | |
| | | | |
| |11.30 -13.00 |Discussion and Response |Facilitator |
| |13.00 – 14.00 |LUNCH BREAK | |
|Session 3: |14.00 – 15.00 |Achievement of the reforms so far and |Presenter WRMA |
|Water Resources Reforms | |challenges still being faced within WRM | |
| |15.00 – 15.30. |TEA/ COFFEE BREAK | |
| | | | |
| |15.30- 17.00 |Discussion and Response |Facilitator |
|Reception |7.30-9.00 p.m. |Reception hosted by the Embassy of the lead donor |
|Day 2: |
|Session 4: |9.00 – 10.00 |Achievement of the reforms so far and |Presenter: WSTF/WSRA or a |
|Water supply and sanitation reforms | |challenges still being faced |particular WSB |
|Chair: | | | |
| |10.00 – 10.30. |TEA/ COFFEE BREAK | |
| | | | |
| |10.30 -12.00 |Discussion and Response |Facilitator |
| |12.00 – 13.00 |Explanation of Undertakings and break up |Facilitator |
| | |into groups | |
| |13.00-14.00 |LUNCH BREAK | |
|Session 6: |14.00 – 16.00 |Group work on undertakings based on a | |
|Group work on undertakings | |long list prepared by the working groups | |
| | | | |
|Chair: | | | |
| |15.00 – 15.30. |TEA/ COFFEE BREAK | |
| |16.00- 17.00 |Plenary presentation and Discussion and | |
| | |Response | |
| |17:00-1800 |Organising committee meet to discuss the results of the day and prepare |
| | |for day 3 |
|Day 3: |
|Session 6: |09.00 – 09.30 |Summary of day 2 and way forward |Facilitator |
|Plenary session to discuss outcomes | | | |
| | | | |
|Chair: | | | |
| |09.30 – 11.00 |Tentative : Plenary session to discuss | |
| | |and if relevant to narrow down the | |
| | |undertakings (or if appropriate group | |
| | |work) | |
| |11.00-11.30 |TEA/ COFFEE BREAK | |
| |11.30 – 13.00 |Tentative: continuation of previous |Facilitator |
| | |plenary session. | |
| |13.00-14.00 |LUNCH BREAK | |
|Session 7: |14.00 – 16.00 |Drafting team make agreed review aide |Drafting team |
|Drafting team and parallel sessions | |memoire and undertakings ready for | |
| | |signing | |
|Chair: | | | |
| | |Parallel sessions on: e.g. |Presenters for the parallel |
| | | |topics. |
| | |SIS Monitoring and evaluation systems | |
| | |SIP interim | |
| | |NBI | |
| | |MOH – Health SWAP | |
| | |MOF – budgeting cycle | |
| | |Experience in other countries | |
| |15.00 – 15.30. |TEA/ COFFEE BREAK | |
|Session 8: |16.00- 17.00 |Signing ceremony, SWAP launch and |MWI/MOH/lead development |
|Launch of SWAP | |closing speech |partner / lead NGO partner |
|Signing and closing | | | |
|Chair: | | | |
|Reception |7.30-9.00 p.m. |Reception hosted by the MWI |
[pic]
Annex K Draft TOR for Support to SWAP Process
Draft Terms of Reference for
Support to preparation activities for launching the SWAP in the
Kenya Water Sector
1 Background
Since 2000 MWI and its partners have introduced a number of sector reforms focusing on the separation of policy formulation and regulation from service provision and the separation of water resources management from water services. Several landmark documents such as the new water law have been launched and the main sector institutions are now established: WSTF, WSRB, WSBs, WRMA. At the same time the government, at local and central level, NGOs and development partners have worked actively to mobilize resources to meet the policy goals and achieve the aspirations of millions of ordinary Kenyans for equitable access to water and sanitation.
Following these processes and under the chairmanship of the SWAP committee the sector has developed a framework and roadmap for achieving a SWAP in the water sector. The roadmap presented at a stakeholders workshop in March 2006 and further endorsed at the Water Sector Working Group meeting in April 2006 foresees a SWAP being launched during the first annual sector review in October 2006. A number of pre-requisites for this launch have been identified as follows:
1. Government leadership
2. MOF involvement
3. Partnership Principals signed
4. MWI head office reorganisation
5. Interim SIP
6. Annual sector review
7. Funding Modalities pre-requisites defined
8. Review of FMS systems
9. Anti corruption, enforcement, accountability training
Most of these pre-requisites are under already ongoing implementation processes, however a few of them will need a special effort to ensure they are reached in time: especially # 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9.
The road map and the need to attain these pre-requisites has led to the development of a 15 point SWAP action plan that is given in annex 1. Whereas the SWAP committee, MWI, WSWG, WSTG and other bodies will be responsible for carrying out this work there are a number of areas where support from external consultants will be necessary. In particular the following (referring to the action points in annex 1):
|Action point |Justification for external support |
|# 6. Screening ongoing programmes and |The screening of major donor and GoK programmes against the criteria of the partnership |
|projects against the partnership |principles requires an independent external assessment and will be very reliant on an |
|principles |intensive and concentrated input that is beyond the mainstream sector actors to complete in |
| |time. |
|# 7. Definition of an interim SIP |The ongoing efforts in building up a long term database and logic for the sector SIPs need to |
|based on the work done so far |focus on the main task and not distracted by the need to gather together the existing |
| |information and present a simplified format for an interim SIP that is based on presently |
| |available data and takes into account the plans for a more extensive longer term SIP. |
|# 11. Review of the FMS systems being |The FMS systems are being put into place at the moment, an independent review of the |
|put in place in the WSBs, WRMA, WSRB, |appropriateness of these systems, their robustness and the presence of sufficient checks and |
|WSTFs etc |balances is a confidence building measure for sector financiers and for all that will depend |
| |on the new sector institutions working in a transparent and efficient manner. |
|# 11. Training in transparency/ |The training should be done by specialists in effective training in anti-corruption and |
|anti-corruption to key sector |transparency aspects. It will be done as part of the review of the FMS |
|stakeholders | |
|# 13 Agreement on TOR for value for |Experience of water sector VFM and tracking studies is available from other countries, this |
|money and tracking studies |experience needs to be gathered to avoid the mistakes commonly made by others in late |
| |launching of the studies and confusion caused by inconsistent data gathering and the absence |
| |of mechanisms for enforcing and making use of the findings. A VFM study of limited scope could|
| |be carried out in 2006 for example covering the RWSS funding through the WSTF |
2 Objectives
The objective of the assignment is to provide support to the SWAP committee to meet the expectations of the SWAP action plan so that the SWAP is ready to be launched by end of October 2006.
3 Outputs
The outputs are:
1. All major donor and GoK projects and programmes are screened against the partnership principles;
2. An interim SIP based on existing work and approaches is drafted ready for endorsement at the annual sector review;
3. The FMS of the new sector institutions are reviewed so that their appropriateness for ensuring financial transparency is documented;
4. Key sector players are trained in transparency and anti-corruption measures;
5. TOR for value for money and tracking studies agreed and ready for use in 2007/8 based on limited value for money study in 2006.
In addition ad hoc support will be provided to the SWAP committee as a draw down facility. There will be more detailed ToR elaborated for each f the interventions to be carried out by consultants.
4 Scope of Work
The activities will consist of but not necessarily be limited to the following:
Activities related to output 1: All major donor and GOK projects and programmes are screened against the partnership principles
• Development of formats for the screening based on the issues in the Partnership Principles
• Agreement with the WSWG on the projects and programmes that should be screened. Likely to concentrate on major ones that are ongoing and likely to continue until at least the end of 2007. They should in general be more than USD 1 million. It should be decided early on if NGOs should be included or not
• Carry out the screening based on interviews with stakeholders and available project/ programme documents, progress reports, evaluation and review reports etc
• Preparation of draft screening report and presentation to WSWG
• Collection of comments by the responsible agencies and incorporation of relevant comments in the final version of the screening report;
• Prepare final version of screening report containing suggested action in categories such as: i) do not alter any modalities; ii) make small changes to better mainstream the activities into the partnership principles; iii) make major changes to better mainstream the activities into the partnership principles; iv) stop the activities and re-programme the assistance.
Activities related to output 2: An interim sip based on existing work and approaches is drafted ready for endorsement at the annual sector review
• Analysis of the business plans and other planning documents from the water sector institutions;
• Preparation of the structure and content of the interim SIP;
• Agreement with the WSWG on the structure and content of the interim SIP and approval to prepare the interim SIP;
• Preparation of first draft interim SIP;
• Presentation to water sector institutions and collection of comments;
• Preparation of draft interim SIP.
Activities related to output 3: The FMS of the new sector institutions are reviewed so that their appropriateness for ensuring financial transparency is documented.
• Review of documentation on the financial management and procurement systems for the water sector institutions (WSTF, WSBs, WSRB, WRMA);
• Analysis of specifications and procedures for the financial management and procurement systems and evaluate to adequacy in relation to the GoK regulations and to best international practice;
• Preparation of brief report on the adequacy of the systems and recommendations for improvements and implementation of the systems
Activities related to output 4: Key sector players are trained in transparency and anti-corruption measures.
• Review of documentation on the anti-corruption and transparency work done in Kenya and interview with relevant key players e.g. the anti-corruption bureau;
• Discussion with MWI on list of participants and content of training;
• Brief training needs analysis to determine the starting point in relation to knowledge and attitude to anti-corruption measures;
• Identification of relevant training courses and amendment to curriculum advantageous ;
• Implementation of training workshops (third party);
• Review of the evaluation of training by participants and facilitators;
• Preparation of report on training and evaluation and recommendations for follow-up activities e.g. introduction of this type of training as part of induction courses.
Activities related to output 5: TOR for value for money and tracking studies agreed and ready for use in 2007/8 based on limited value for money study in 2006.
• Review of TORs and experiences with value for money studies and tracking studies in other countries
• Development of draft TOR for limited value for money study of WSTF projects in 2006
• Presentation to WSWG of draft TOR and agreement on 2006 study
• (Tendering, award of contract for 2006 study by MWI)
• Evaluation of result of 2006 study and preparation of draft TOR for future comprehensive value form money and tracking studies
• Presentation to WSWG of draft TOR
Activities related to: ad hoc support will be provided to the SWAP committee as a draw down facility. The activities will be carried out on a per-need/ demand basis. Initial list of possible actions could include:
• Development of indicators and format for monitoring progress on the achievement of pre-requisites for launching of the SWAP and agreement of responsibilities with the SWAP Steering Committee;
• Contribute to the development of a sector wide information system at MWI
• Assistance in documenting and monitoring the attainment of the launch pre-requisites
• Definition of funding modality pre-requisites;
• Recommendations on the constitution of strategic planning working groups and facilitation of the initial meetings (sanitation, irrigation, RWSS, WRM) for review of the MWI Strategic Plan for 2006/07;
• Facilitate capacity assessment of new Policy, Planning, M&E unit in MWI and preparation of capacity building plan for the unit to spearhead sector planning and lead developments towards a SWAP;
• Assistance in the planning and communication activities leading up to the launching of the SWAP;
• Any other activities that might be requested by the WSWG and the SWAP steering committee.
5 Inputs
The inputs that will be required will be:
Local consultant available during the period to provide draw down support on a “on demand basis”. This would best be provided by a senior water sector specialist supported by a junior professional. It is estimated that some 20 days of senior input and some 25 days of junior professional input will be required. In addition the input of a local auditor/ financial specialist of some 10 days will be required to undertake the review of the FMS.
Short inputs by international consultants on: i) providing the methodology and overview of the screening of programmes against the partnership principles; ii) the derivation of the interim SIP, iii) the drafting of TOR for the VFM and tracking studies and iv) providing support where needed to the local consultants on the review of the FMS systems. It is estimated that some 3 trips of 10 days each will be required (from either a single person or possibly involving 2 people for one of the trips). In total 35 to 50 days of input allowing for travel and reporting.
In addition funds will be needed to pay for anti-corruption and transparency training once the relevant courses have been identified.
6 Timing and reporting
A bi-monthly report will be submitted that can serve as input to the monthly report that the SWAP committee will provide the WSWG and others. In addition the following reports will be submitted:
• Partnership principles screening document: September 2006 (draft August 2006)
• Interim SIP (20 pages) (September 2006, draft August 2006)
• Report on anti-corruption transparency training (September 2006)
• FMS review: (early October 2006)
• Initial TOR for limited VFM (June 2006), TOR for VFM, tracking studies (October 2006, draft September 2006)
Annex 1 SWAP action plan
|Action |Responsibility |Timeframe |
|1. The WSWG and the SWAP Committee will use the draft final SWAP Report to discuss in |WSWG |April 2006 |
|detail the action plan and the road map and assign in detail the responsibilities for | | |
|implementation. The Consultant will facilitate a short workshop with WSWG members for | | |
|assessment of the action plan. | | |
|2. A draft TOR for support to the SWAP process in Annex K should be finalised and the SWAP|SWAP Committee |April 2006 |
|Committee procure a consultant to undertake the support tasks | | |
|3. The SWAP framework and road map contain prerequisites for moving towards a SWAP and the|SWAP Committee |Monthly |
|SWAP Committee should monitor the fulfilment of these and report to the WSWG on a regular | | |
|basis. | | |
|4. The reforms in irrigation are important to develop a consistent sector framework – a |PS MWI |Ongoing |
|programme for designing and implementing these and identification of funding is important | | |
|steps to move towards a SWAP. | | |
|5. Discussions will have to take place in the WSTG and the WSWG on the draft PPs and these|WSWG |May – June 2006 |
|amended to form a realistic compromise between the ideal and the possible in the present |WSTG | |
|context. | | |
|6. The ongoing programmes should be screened to identify how and where these do not comply|WSWG/ |July – August |
|with the PPs – this can guide the partners in the design of new programmes and amendment |Consultant for | |
|of ongoing programmes |independent screening| |
|7. The design of the interim SIP needs to be taken into account in the work that is |SIP Project |July – September |
|ongoing in developing Business Plans in the sector institutions | | |
|8. Agreement on the structure/design of the SIP and identification of the funding for the |WSWG |April 2006 |
|SIP Project must be done soonest to avoid further delays. | | |
|9. The sub-sector working groups should be constituted in July to assist MWI in the annual|WSWG |June 2006 |
|revision of the strategic plan | | |
|10. The MWI head office reorganisation is highest priority for improving the overall |PS MWI |July 2006 |
|sector performance – capacity building of the Planning Policy and M&E unit as anchor for | | |
|the SWAP is important to operationalise the SWAP | | |
|11. The FMS activities must include priority given by MWI PS and the CEOs to financial |PS MWI |May – August 2006|
|management, independent evaluation of the new FMS in the institutions and training in |CEOs | |
|transparency/ anti-corruption to key sector stakeholders. The key for implementing the |Consultants for FMS | |
|SWAP and mowing towards budget support is that confidence building is needed towards the |Review and training | |
|DPs in the adequacy of the sector financial management systems. | | |
|12. Audits for different DP activities should be coordinated and to the degree possible | | |
|combined in a common audit set-up | | |
|13. Value for money studies should be carried out to contribute to the Joint Annual Water |MWI Director Water |July 2006 |
|Sector Review and the Public Expenditure Review – initially the VFM could target specific |VFM Consultants | |
|sub-sectors e.g. the RWSS/ WSTF to gain experience – in later years combined VFM studies | | |
|can be carried out for the different projects and programmes. | | |
|14. The joint reviews that have previously been carried out under the KWSP should be |PS MWI/ KWSP |August – October |
|changed to Joint Annual Water Sector Reviews that are including all the sector | |2006 |
|stakeholders – this should be done for the first time in October – November 2006 to lead | | |
|up to the launching of the SWAP | | |
|15. The sector should take advantage of the launching of the SWAP to communicate the water|PS/ Unit responsible |August – October |
|sector programmes and achievements to the wider public – this can potentially contribute |for communication in |2006 |
|to better coordination of sector activities and increased attention to the sector |MWI | |
|programme from politicians. | | |
|16. The launching of the SWAP on a stakeholder workshop towards the end of 2006 to create |PS MWI |October – |
|awareness about the aspirations in the sector – not that the SWAP will be effective from | |November 2006 |
|that date. | | |
-----------------------
[1] There seems to be some overlap in the functions under land reclamation and the irrigation and water directorates.
[2] Human Resource Management Strategy and Capacity Building for Ministry Of Water And Irrigation, November 2005, Final Draft
[3] The National Water Resources Management Strategy 2006-08, first edition December 2005
[4] The exact allocation for WRM depends on the definition of the sub-sector e.g. the MWI budget includes a number of district level implementation activities e.g. for water harvesting structures
[5] Draft Plan for the Transfer of Management and Operation of Water Services to Water Service boards, December 2004, legislated in an addendum to the Water Act 2002 dated August 2005.
[6] Clarification letter from the Permanent Secretary of 20th February 2006 Ref: WD/4/269/Vol/10/(120)
[7] CAP 347 of the Laws of Kenya
[8] Based on data from National Irrigation and Drainage Policy, zero draft, March 2004
[9] Sector Finance and Resource Flows for Water Supply, a Pilot Application for Kenya, WSP May 2004
[10] The estimated GoK development budget figures assumes that GoK finance 60% of the total GoK + on-budget donor funding.
[11] A group of Development Partners and GoK established to improve Harmonisation, Alignment and Coordination (HAC)
[12] Information from:
[13] Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Canada and Germany.
[14] Physical Infrastructure Sector MTEF Report 2006/07 – 2008/09, Revised Draft, February 2006
[15] National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy, Final Draft MoH, Nairobi, March 18, 2005
[16] The Health Sector MTEF 2006/07 – 2008/09 Sector Working Group Report (Final Draft, February 2006)
[17] 2000 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey, figures in brackets from the World Bank 2004 Water and Sanitation Country Assessment
[18] Government of Kenya, 2005
[19] Sector Finance and Resource Flows for Water Supply, a Pilot Application for Kenya, WSP May 2004
[20] The current GJLOS DPs are CIDA, DANIDA, FINIDA, GTZ, Netherlands, SIDA, NORAD, DfID, USAID, EU, UNDP, UNICEF, UN-HABITAT, UNODC and the WB
[21] Information provided in this chapter is based on: Kenya Health SWAP, A Concept Paper, Principles for a Joint Start, First Draft, Nairobi, 26 October 2005.
[22] Experience from Zambia indicates that initial implementation of sub-sector SWAPs are less complicated and more likely to succeed. (ref Annex C)
[23] The glossary gives the definition of these forms of assistance. The draft partnership principles document defines which modalities are acceptable for the various sub-sectors against the attainment of certain pre-requisites and benchmarks.
[24] Annex E Reference A05: Water Sector Investment Plan, Concept Presentation MWI Dec 2005 and Reference A26 SIP Conceptual Framework Draft
[25] The stakeholders were divided into: public sector – water; other public sector; Donors and, NGOs/Private sector. The private sector and NGOs were put together in order to simplify the proceedings and it was noted that in reality they had different roles.
[26] Available at: dac/effectiveness and at:
[27] Finland has signed a separate contract with the FMA
[28] Regular Resources (RR)- Source of funds- Planned for 5 year period provided by UNICEF HQ
[29] Other Resources (OR) - Source of funds planned for one to three years provided directly to UNICEF KCO by other sources like Governments, though the respective AID agencies or embassies.
[30] MWI Organisational Structure according to ‘Human Resource Management Strategy and Capacity Building for Ministry of Water and Irrigation’, Final Draft, November 2005.
[31] Until an approved Water Sector Investment Plan exists, an interim SIP will form the basis for the support.
[32] Include the staff of the parastatal institutions in the water sector
[33] Specific, Monitorable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound.
-----------------------
Policy Objectives in the draft National Irrigation and Drainage Policy:
i. To fully develop the irrigation and drainage potential in the country for economic development;
ii. To effectively regulate, coordinate and manage all activities within the irrigation and drainage sector;
iii. To create an appropriate financing system that will attract investment into the sector;
iv. To create an enabling environment for effective participation of farmers’ organisations and other stakeholders in the provision of quality and cost-effective support services within the sector; and
v. To enhance a multi-sectoral approach to irrigation and drainage research and development involving government, private sector, civil society and communities.
Figure 2-J Overall sector funding
Figure 2-G GOK - Donor Funding
Figure 2-F GOK & Donor Funding
ACP-EU Water Facility - Approved proposals:
– Ref 318 “Sustainable Water Management and Governance for the Poor in Drought and Flood-prone areas” – Component A
– Ref 89 B “AMREF Water and Sanitation Umbrella Programme (WASUP) Kenya Project” - Component C
– Ref 185 B “Safe water provision and sustainable water management options in arid & semi-arid land of 3 districts in the greater Meru region-eastern province-Republic of Kenya” - Component C
– Ref 212 “Ecosan - an integrated approach for sustainable access to sanitation and market development” - Component C
– Ref 237 “Safe Water and Sanitation for Children in Primary Schools in Western Kenya” - Component C
– Ref 513 “Provision of hygiene education, water and sanitation facilities and capacity building for all partners in rural communities of 4 Divisions in Makueni District, Kenya” - Component C
– Ref 545 “Machakos District Rural Water & Sanitation Project” - Component C
Figure 2-D WSTF Funding and Expenditures
Lake Victoria South WSB
Coast WSB
Tana WSB
Athi WSB
Lake Victoria North WSB
Rift Valley WSB
Ewaso Nyiro WSB
Functions of NWCPC as defined in Water Act 2002:
22(4) Development works and management of asserts for the purpose of a state scheme for the provision of bulk water supplies for use by licenses and water service providers….
67(1) The Minister shall retain a residual power to provide water services to consumers with the assistance of the NWCPC ….. shall only be exercised in cases where:
a) no applicant has qualified to be licensed to provide water services in a particular area;
b) the licensee for an area has been declared to be in default;
c) there is an emergency leading to serious and widespread disruption of services; or
d) for some other reason
and the Regulatory Board has advised the Minister to provide water services in a specific area for a specific period.
Key W&S Sub-sector stakeholders as defined by MOF in Physical Infrastructure Sector:
1. The Ministry of Water and Irrigation
2. Water Services Regulatory Board
3. Water Resources Management Authority
4. Seven regional Water Services Boards
5. National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation
6. National Irrigation Board
7. Kenya Water Institute
8. Water Services Providers
9. Local Authorities
10. Ministry of Energy
11. Ministry of Agriculture
12. Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries
13. Ministry of Finance
14. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
15. Non Governmental Organisations (Oxfarm, World vision, Kwaho, Action Aid among others)
16. Community and Church Based Organisations
17. Water Users Associations
18. Development Partners (SIDA, DANIDA, World Bank, GTZ, KfW, AFD, ADF among others)
19. Water consumers
The WSPCC consists of:
– The Permanent Secretary, MWI (Chairperson);
– The Director of Water, MWI;
– KWSP Programme Coordinator, MWI, (Secretary);
– Head of the WSRS, (GTZ Programme Coord.);
– Representative of the Ministry of Finance;
– CEO of WRMA;
– Chairmen of 5 CAACs;
– CEO of the WSTF;
– CEOs of 7 WSBs;
– Representatives of Danida, GTZ and Sida.
– Technical Assistance staff can participate as observers
The WSPPFC is composed of:
– MWI Chief Financial Officer (Chairperson);
– KWSP Programme Coordinator, MWI (Secretary);
– Representatives from WRMA, WSTF and/or WSBs as needed;
– GTZ Programme Coordinator, MWI;
– Representative of the Auditor General’s Office for State Corporations;
– MWI Chief Procurement Officer;
– Designated Technical Assistance staff;
– Representatives of DPs where applicable.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- 10 year treasury swap rate today
- 5 year treasury swap rate
- constant maturity swap rate
- 30 year cms swap rate
- constant maturity swap rate history
- final cost report nysed
- project final report template
- project final summary report template
- final grant report sample
- final grant report example
- final evaluation report example
- project management final report example