Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Implementing the Right to Water – Water Policy Choices with Decentralised Politics in Kenya
Johanna Koehler, University of Oxford
Human Right to Water &
Constitutional Obligation
273m rural
Africans lack
improved
water access
Kenya’s Constitution of 2010 states in Article 43(1) (d) that every person has the right to clean and safe water in adequate quantities.
The Constitution defines the contract between the duty-bearers and the rights-holders.
Criteria for evaluating water service policy choices
1. Sufficient quantity
2. Potable quality
3. Affordability
4. Physical access
5. Non-discrimination
Objectives
Which factors influence decision-makers’
interpretations of their constitutional mandate?
Do close elections drive water service
responsibility levels?
How is the ‘affordability’ criterion translated into
‘fair tariffs’?
Does decentralisation lead to improved water
services for the poor?
Methodology
Survey of 47 County Water Ministries (100%) in October to December 2015.
27 semi-structured interviews with national and county stakeholders in April to May 2015.
Other sources:
General election results from 4 March 2013 (IEBC 2013),
2015 Afrobarometer survey,
Global Aridity Index (CGIAR-CSI 2009),
2011/12 WASREB data on water coverage,
2005/06 Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey (KNBS 2012),
2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census (KNBS 2010).
Socio-Political Risk Framework
High
Low
Socio-Climatic Risks
ignored
recognised
monitored
mitigated
Political Risk
Low High
Public
Choice
Koehler, forthcoming
Do County Water Ministries’ policy choices align with their
constitutional obligation?
§
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
sufficient quantity potable quality affordability physical access non-discrimination
Responsibility for Urban Service Provision
Yes No
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
sufficient quantity potable quality affordability physical access non-discrimination
Responsibility for Rural Service Provision
Yes No
Constitutional mandate:
• Water Service Responsibility
Index
Political and socio-climatic
risks:
• Election Margin
• Aridity
• Baseline Water Coverage
• County Water Budget
• Poverty Level
• Urbanisation Level
• Citizen satisfaction
Factors influencing
water policy choices
High <10%
margin
Low >10%
margin
Electoral
Pressure
Low High
Poverty
n=9 Urban Rural
Sufficient Quantity 78% 50%
Potable Quality 89% 50%
Affordability 56% 33%
Physical access 89% 78%
Non-Discrimination 89% 78%
n=5 Urban Rural
Sufficient Quantity 80% 80%
Potable Quality 100% 80%
Affordability 60% 100%
Physical access 100% 100%
Non-Discrimination 100% 100%
n=13 Urban Rural
Sufficient Quantity 64% 46%
Potable Quality 64% 30%
Affordability 62% 46%
Physical access 77% 46%
Non-Discrimination 75% 64%
n=19 Urban Rural
Sufficient Quantity 63% 63%
Potable Quality 74% 74%
Affordability 53% 58%
Physical access 68% 79%
Non-Discrimination 68% 79%
Responsibilities across the
risk zones
Koehler, forthcoming
High <10%
margin
Low >10%
margin
Electoral
Pressure
Low High Poverty
n=9 Urban Rural
Fair Tariff (SD)
(USD/m3)
0.71
(0.50)
0.99
(0.42)
Fair provision of
Drinking Water
(l/capita/day)
49
(3)
31
(14)
n=5 Urban Rural
Fair Tariff (SD)
(USD/m3)
1.09
(0.54)
1.28
(0.66)
Fair provision of
Drinking Water
(l/capita/day)
44
(13)
30
(14)
n=14 Urban Rural
Fair Tariff (SD)
(USD/m3)
1.03
(0.65)
1.41
(1.22)
Fair provision of
Drinking Water
(l/capita/day)
42
(13)
32
(16)
n=19 Urban Rural
Fair Tariff (SD)
(USD/m3)
1.48
(1.47)
1.69
(1.25)
Fair provision of
Drinking Water
(l/capita/day)
39
(13)
29
(13)
Measure Urban (n=46) Rural (n=47)
Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max
Fair Tariff (USD/m3)* 1.15 1.05 0.49 >4.93 1.43 1.08 0.49 >4.93
Fair Drinking Water Provision Level (l/c/day)
43 12 10 >50 31 14 10 >50
Fair Tariffs & Provision Levels
Service provision arrangements
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
public
provision
PPP private
companies
community
Who would be best placed to maintain
DW supply infrastructure in your County?
urban rural
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
one utility two utilities several
utilities
Which of the following
options would best work
for your County?
72% of
Counties opt
for 2 utilities
or more
One of the dangers of decentralisation
is reinforcing regional disparities.
On the one hand, those counties that have
a closer election margin tend to have a
higher sense of responsibility for serving
their electorate.
Relevance
• For Kenya’s upcoming election: Does a higher level of democratic
competition in the gubernatorial elections drive the water service
agenda and the fulfilment of constitutional obligations?
• For the SDG agenda: Countries do not respond uniformly, especially
with a devolved system of governance. If we want to achieve fast
progress, then adapting strategies to the socio-political realities of
countries and their sub-national institutions is important.
On the other hand, those counties that
face higher socio-climatic risks, and have
a lower baseline, tend to also respond with
a higher sense of responsibility as they
acknowledge the need for catching up.
Further Information
Email: [email protected]
@JohannaKoehler
Related publications:
Koehler, J. (2017) Tapping the Vote: Elections, Decentralisation and Water Services in Kenya. Political Geography,
Under Review.
Koehler, J., Thomson, P. & Hope, R. (2015) Pump-Priming Payments for Sustainable Water Services in Rural Africa.
World Development, Vol. 74, 397–411.
Koehler, J., Thomson, P. & Hope, R. (2016) Mobilizing Payments for Water Service Sustainability. In E. Thomas, ed.,
Broken Pumps and Promises: Incentivizing Impact in Environmental Health. Springer International Publishing,
Switzerland, pp. 57-76.
Thomson, P. & Koehler, J. (2016) Monitoring the water SDG – challenges, tensions and opportunities. Aquatic Procedia, Vol. 6, 87–95.
Koehler, J. (2015) Devolution in the Kenyan Water Sector – Rural Water User Preferences to Institutional
Transformations in Water Services and Water Resources Management. ICLD Conference Proceedings.
Thank
you!