Category Archives: Water Issues: Institutions

Are some of the clauses of the new ‘Water Resources Bill’ a back door to resurrect the Grazing Bill?

Many Nigerian news outlets, including The Punch, Nigeria Business News and The Nation have commented on the new Nigerian “Executive Water Resources Bill”. Their comments have focused on three contentious Clauses of the Bill:  Three, Four and Five:

“The right to the use, management and control of all surface water and groundwater affecting more than one State pursuant to Item 64 of the Exclusive Legislative list in Part l of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, and as set out in the First Schedule to this Act, together with the beds and banks, is vested in the Government of the Federation to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

“As the public trustee of the nation’s water resources, the Federal Government, acting through the Minister and the institutions created in this Act or pursuant to this Act, shall ensure that the water resources of the nation are protected, used, developed, conserved, managed and controlled in a sustainable and equitable manner, for the benefit of all persons and in accordance with its constitutional mandate.

“States may make provisions for the management, use and control of water sources occurring solely within the boundaries of the state but shall be guided by the policy and principles of the Federal Government in relation to Integrated Water Resources Management, and this Act.”

One can understand the concerns of those who have written against these clauses because of the political situation in the country. An earlier Bill to provide for grazing reserves for herdsmen all over the country, including far South where cattle is not generally owned, was defeated. There, however, have continued to be confrontations between herdsmen and farmers which have led to killings by herdsmen in several communities.

In an ideal situation, a Water Resources Bill should not contain contentious clauses that look ordinary when the background political history of the country for which the Bill is being proposed is not rigged or something out of the ordinary.

The Federal Government, an amalgamation of diverse nationalities may have finally got rid of military regimes but the years of military’s “command-and-control” system has rendered it a pseudo- presidential system.  This was how the Abacha regime created 774 Local Government Authorities (LGAs) by fiat without rational basis for doing so. The orphan of the Abacha regime has been the basis on which subsequent governments have operated.

The military also tinkered with the creation of River Basin Development Authorities (RBDAs) without proper consideration of their functions and responsibilities vis-à-vis those other water resources institutions in the country.

These RBDAs should ideally be facilitators of the activities of other water resources institutions rather than project-executing institutions. In their bid to be project executors, the RBDAs have, in a number of cases, duplicated the activities of other institutions without coordination. This has led to a lot of waste in resources with many projects wasting away in several states without the states being aware of them.

Ideally, in the literature of integrated water resources management, water resources should be managed on the basis of a ‘unit river basin,’ which, at the smallest level, can  mean the basin of a small river common to two neighbouring settlements,  going up all the way to mean a river that could be common to multiple states in Nigeria. [Internationally, a ‘unit river basin’ could be common to multiple countries.]

However, this has not been the case in Nigeria. In the unwholesome pseudo presidential system the country operates, any bill that gives the central Government outright control without clear limiting conditions will cause a lot of conflicts.

Rather than the centrall Government  assuming management and control of interstate rivers and aquifers, it should facilitate the joint management of such resources by the states blessed with such resources.

In the USA’s government system after which the Nigerian governance system is supposedly patterned, there are water rights and water laws which form the basis for the management of the country’s water resources. The Federal Government of the USA is not structured like Nigeria’s Federal Government, and it does not practice a unitary system.

For example, the water of the Colorado River Basin is managed on the basis of a Compact negotiated between the “basin states”, not dictated by Washington. The Compact apportioned Colorado River water between Upper and Lower Basin states and, as a result, is considered a defining document in Colorado River management. In this example the USA Federal Government does not control and manage the waters of this huge river basin.

Nigeria should borrow a leaf from how this is done. In other words Nigeria’s central government should serve as a facilitator in developing compacts between states that share interstate rivers just as international bodies such as the UN or the World Bank serve as facilitators in the management of international Rivers/waters such as the River Niger and Lake Chad. They do not manage such water bodies for the riparian Nations.

 

Interstate River Banks and Interstate Aquifers

There is the need to avoid glossing over this new Bill for at least two contentious issues: interstate river banks and interstate aquifers.

Interstate river banks:  The waters of a river can be classified as interstate because the river flows through several states. The river bank DOES NOT flow. It is physically fixed where it is located and cannot be interstate. For example, the banks of the River Niger inside Nigeria cannot be claimed by any upstream riparian. Furthermore, the management of the shores of Lake Chad inside Nigeria cannot be managed by the Lake Chad Basin Commission (LCBC) although the LCBC could advice the government of Nigeria on proper management of the lake shores if the quality of the water resources of Lake chad will be impacted through improper use of the lake shores.

The second issue of interstate aquifers requires a high degree of mapping of aquifers that are common to more than one state especially in the sedimentary rock areas of the country.  This will require that aquifer boundaries be properly defined. Detailed hydrogeologic mapping of the degree required for this kind of exercise is yet to be carried out in Nigeria which makes it impossible to determine the riparian states for such aquifers. Furthermore, the government should also merely serve as facilitator and technical advisory body in managing interstate aquifers.

As river banks are fixed physically throughout the course of any river, any idea of the river and the land forming the bank in the river’s journey is therefore absurd but considering the enthusiasm of the central government to acquire grazing reserves, critics of this Bill are justified to cry out because we cannot be sure that the clause(s) that vest management and control of river banks – though an impossibility in this case – will not be a back door to resurrect the “Grazing Reserve Bill.”

3rd June 2018.

DEPO ADENLE, PH.D. (HYDROGEOLOGY) is a retired Water Resources expert, and sends this from Ibadan.

Advertisements

Threats of underground water pollution imminent in Nigeria?

The title of the article below which was published in the Daily Trust of August 26, 2015 and written by Alex Abutu based on what Mr. Michael Ale, AWDROP National President told Daily Trust, sounds alarmist as its scope is very limited compared to its content.
Groundwater pollution in Nigeria cannot and should not be mainly ascribed to the activities of foreign borehole drilling companies. It is due to a number of causes – poor borehole design by incompetent drilling companies, point-source and non-point-source pollution, unregulated waste disposal practices, unscientific design and siting of sanitary landfills, improper decommissioning of non-productive or failed boreholes, unsupervised drilling activities of oil prospecting companies, etc. to mention A few. fairly detailed summary is contained in the table provided by Canter(1981) which lists 3 major sources of groundwater pollution – Waste disposal sources, Nondisposal sources and Depletion. Please click below for the  table on major sources of Groundwater Pollution.

Major Sources of Groundwater Pollution
Major Sources of Groundwater Pollution
The article focuses on the following:
• “large format equipment which is inimical to our environment”;
• Drilling of large number of boreholes;
• Poor design of boreholes that allow infiltration of overburden water into the aquifer through the screening of the overburden casing without appropriate grouting;
• Foreign drillers operating without license;
• Too many boreholes and well interference.
These are sweeping statements which are difficult to substantiate, for example, that using large equipment is unfavorable, detrimental or adverse to our environment in Nigeria. Furthermore, drilling many boreholes per day, if scientifically located and properly designed and supervised should not cause any problem with respect to well interference or pollution.
Currently, the National Water Law has not been enacted. However, in Part X of the draft National Water Resources Act of 2011, reference is made to the Code of the Regulation of Domestic Boreholes which was developed by the National Water Resources Institute (NWRI) and the Ministry. This Code’s section 4 is on Legal Consideration.
Section 4.1 is on Drilling Permit which states “No well shall be constructed unless the owner is in possession of a valid permit to do so … Permit shall be given by relevant Agencies designated by the Minister of Water Resources.” This is fine but has no legal backing until the Water Resources Act is enacted.
Section 4.2 of the Code is on Water Well Driller’s License: Section 4.2a states “A water well driller’s license shall be obtained from NWRI on application. Section 4.2b states “No person shall construct a well for the abstraction or monitoring of groundwater or for research if the person does not have a driller’s license granted in accordance with the provisions of this code. The requirements of the driller’s license shall be applicable to any person, company, corporation, or other entity engaged in the business or occupation that involves construction of water wells that may penetrate water-bearing strata (including constructing water wells, geothermal systems and environmental monitoring wells.”
Section 4.2.1.1.1 gives an exemption to the stipulation of the Code as stated above. As mentioned earlier, the National Water Resources Act is yet to be enacted, the Code is part of the Act, consequently the alarm raised by the article concerning foreign companies using unlicensed drillers cannot be resolved at this point in time.
Comments by DEPO ADENLE.
=======================================================
Threats of underground water pollution imminent
By Alex Abutu , Daily Trust, Aug 26 2015

FemaleDriller
A lady driller supervising a borehole drilling recently.
Nigeria is facing an imminent danger of underground water pollution if the activities of foreigners drilling companies are left unchecked, the Association of Water Well Drilling Rig Owners and Practitioners has alerted.
The association said at the rate the foreign companies, mostly from Asia, are operating, the nation may run out of clean drinking water in the nearest future. “Asians have infiltrated our environment with large format equipment which is inimical to our environment.”
Mr. Michael Ale, AWDROP National President, told Daily Trust that: “An average Asian drilling company operating in the country drills close to three boreholes in a day and we have about 50 of such drilling companies scattered around Nigeria with each having at least four rigs. With this calculation, an average of 400 boreholes are drilled daily and this is enormous.”
“Another major issue is the fact that the underground water is gradually being polluted by the design of drilling embarked by the Asians as most of their designs allow infiltration of overburden water into the underground aquifer through the screening of the overburden casing without appropriate grouting. We are not talking of the cheap materials used during their installation. This is sad,” Ale added.
Investigation by Daily Trust in Abuja and environs showed that there is an upsurge in the number of foreigners in the borehole drilling business.
In Masaka, a suburb near Abuja, numerous signposts advertising the foreign drilling companies abound with some engaging in promos to woo customers.
Ale noted that most of the foreign drillers are not licensed to drill, wondering who allowed them to operate in Nigeria. “Our trained drillers and experts are jobless. So the environmental, social and economic importance is being maligned by these foreigners.”
According to him, many Nigerians who drill boreholes have adequate knowledge of the terrain but the foreigners do not. “Borehole needs to last for a lifetime but conduct a search on many boreholes drilled now, it is glaring that they are affecting one another because of the approach of the drillers, many of whom are quacks that have infiltrated the industry.”
“Some people have argued that the Asians made borehole affordable to most Nigerians but is it affordability or sustainability that we should be talking about? Yes their borehole can be affordable for 2-3 years but will pack up with time. It may be affordable but the client gets contaminated water because of the drill design,” he added.
=======================================================
Threats of underground water pollution imminent
By Alex Abutu , Daily Trust, Aug 26 2015
A lady driller supervising a borehole drilling recently.
Nigeria is facing an imminent danger of underground water pollution if the activities of foreigners drilling companies are left unchecked, the Association of Water Well Drilling Rig Owners and Practitioners has alerted.
The association said at the rate the foreign companies, mostly from Asia, are operating, the nation may run out of clean drinking water in the nearest future. “Asians have infiltrated our environment with large format equipment which is inimical to our environment.”
Mr. Michael Ale, AWDROP National President, told Daily Trust that: “An average Asian drilling company operating in the country drills close to three boreholes in a day and we have about 50 of such drilling companies scattered around Nigeria with each having at least four rigs. With this calculation, an average of 400 boreholes are drilled daily and this is enormous.”
“Another major issue is the fact that the underground water is gradually being polluted by the design of drilling embarked by the Asians as most of their designs allow infiltration of overburden water into the underground aquifer through the screening of the overburden casing without appropriate grouting. We are not talking of the cheap materials used during their installation. This is sad,” Ale added.
Investigation by Daily Trust in Abuja and environs showed that there is an upsurge in the number of foreigners in the borehole drilling business.
In Masaka, a suburb near Abuja, numerous signposts advertising the foreign drilling companies abound with some engaging in promos to woo customers.
Ale noted that most of the foreign drillers are not licensed to drill, wondering who allowed them to operate in Nigeria. “Our trained drillers and experts are jobless. So the environmental, social and economic importance is being maligned by these foreigners.”
According to him, many Nigerians who drill boreholes have adequate knowledge of the terrain but the foreigners do not. “Borehole needs to last for a lifetime but conduct a search on many boreholes drilled now, it is glaring that they are affecting one another because of the approach of the drillers, many of whom are quacks that have infiltrated the industry.”
“Some people have argued that the Asians made borehole affordable to most Nigerians but is it affordability or sustainability that we should be talking about? Yes their borehole can be affordable for 2-3 years but will pack up with time. It may be affordable but the client gets contaminated water because of the drill design,” he added.

Probing the Federal Ministry of Water Resources and the River Basin Development Authorities Over Misuse of Public Funds: A Welcome Decision

About a month ago the report shown below was filed by Premium Times. The reasons adduced for the probe by the House of Representatives Committee on Public Accounts are two:

1. Refusal of the agencies to answer queries raised by the Auditor General of the Federation.

2.The Committee’s displeasure over “the manner the basin authorities were administered over the years.”

The probe is supposed to be in form of public hearing. If one considers the above first reason which is on the Auditor’s queries and the fact that the Ministry has refused to honor invitations from the House Committee it is difficult to see what a public hearing will achieve. It will be in the interest of the public if an insight can be given on the number and nature of queries so far given. Many thanks to Premium Times for shining its probing lights on the activities of the Federal Ministry of Water Resources. It did so about a year ago, July 27, 2012 when it wrote on “INVESTIGATION] The Massive MDG Fraud (2): How Nigeria’s water ministry steals billions, then leave the taps dry.” (http://premiumtimesng.com/news/93667-investigation-the-massive-mdg-fraud-2-how-nigerias-water-ministry-steals-billions-then-keep-the-taps-dry.html).  I doubt if there was any official response to this 2012 article. Apparently the Federal Ministry of Water Resources is becoming another ‘untouchable ministry.’ The second reason for the probe is on the displeasure of the House Committee “over the manner the basin authorities were administered over the years.”

A reader of the current Premium Times report may be suspecting that the concern of the House Committee is about only how funds are being used in the RBDAs. The reader’s suspicion may not be unfounded but may miss a more profound reason. Our RBDAs have lost focus. This becomes glaring if one considers what they are currently engaged in (production of sachet water ‘pure water’ and bottled water) comparison with the articles of the edict that established them.

The following summarizes the functions of the RBDAs:

• To undertake comprehensive development of both surface and groundwater resources for multipurpose use, with particular emphasis on the provision of irrigation infrastructure and the control of flood and erosion for watershed management.

• To construct, operate and maintain reservoir dams, dykes, polders, wells, boreholes, irrigation and drainage systems and other works necessary for the achievement of the RBDAs functions and to hand over all lands to be cultivated under irrigation schemes to the farmers.

• To supply water from RBDAs completed storage schemes to all users for a fee to be determined by RBDA concerned, with the approval of the Minister of Water Resources and Rural Development

• To construct, operate and maintain infrastructure services such as roads and bridges linking projects sites, provided that such services are included forming an integral part of the approved projects.

• To develop and keep up to date comprehensive water resources master plan, identifying all water resources requirements in the RBDAs area of operation through adequate collection and collation of water resources, water use, socio-economic and environmental data of the river basin.

DEPO ADENLE ============================================================ Nigerian lawmakers to probe water resources ministry, agencies Premium Times, July 17, 2013 The lawmakers will also probe the River Basin Development Authorities. The House of Representatives Committee on Public Accounts said it would probe the Federal Ministry of Water Resources and the River Basin Development Authorities over alleged misuse of public funds. The Chairman of the committee, Solomon Adeola, announced this in Abuja on Wednesday at a meeting with the officials of the ministry of and managing directors of the river basins. He said the ministry and its agencies had refused to appear before the committee to answer queries raised against them by the Office of the Auditor General of the Federation. Mr. Adeola expressed displeasure over the manner the basin authorities were administered over the years. He said the probe, which would be in form of a public hearing, would be transmitted live on television stations across the country. “It will give the managing directors the opportunity to speak to Nigerians on how funds allocated to them were administered’’, he said. Mr. Adeola explained that the action became necessary following the refusal of the agencies to honour several invitations of the committee.

Water Scarcity Protest: Soldiers shot Four Nassarawa students dead

Water Scarcity Protest: Soldiers shot Four Nassarawa students dead

soldiers

Picures of soldiers used to quell students’ protest that resulted in the death of four of their colleagues.  [Credit:  saharareporters.com]

 INTRODUCTION

There are well over a hundred universities in Nigeria today and going by information as well as what one sees around on the few universities in urban centers where students can be found carrying buckets of water or empty ones around, it seems time that approvals for setting up universities in Nigeria should not just be based on the strength of academic staff, adequate provision of building facilities for staff and students, etc. but that  adequate provision of water for immediate and projected population of a proposed university must be an important item to be check-marked for approval to be granted.

Most government institutions are often built without adequate provision of water. This usually leads to poor sanitation on campus. This is not limited to institutions of higher learning but also secondary schools, etc

https://weircentreforafrica.com/2013/02/22/governments-at-federal-state-and-local-government-levels-encourage-open-defecation/

For example, the failure to provide students with adequate water has now resulted in the deaths of four students who had joined others in protesting scarcity of water at Nassarawa State  University, a protest that was met with undue force by soldiers.

 Using soldiers to maintain peace in any community in a democracy is not the right thing to do. Soldiers are trained to fight wars, while the police is used for maintaining law and order. I sympathize with the parents of the students whose lives were cut short as a result of this. Water should be part of the basic human rights of any civilized community and protest to access  it should not lead to death.

 The story below is from Premium Times and Sahara Reporters.

 DEPO ADENLE

=======================================================

(PHOTOS) Soldiers Shoot Four University Students Dead In Nassarawa-PREMIUM TIMES

By Nnenna Ibeh

Four students of Nassarawa State University were on Monday shot by security operatives during a protest over water scarcity in the institution.

The victims were among the hundreds of students who protested against the scarcity of electricity and water in the school. During the protest, some soldiers invaded the school and started firing shots which left four students dead, a witness said.

Nassarawa State Police Command spokesperson, Michael Ada, confirmed the killing of the students but denied that they were shot by police officers.
He said the commissioner of police in the state was already at the scene.

Updated Paper on Institutional Issues in Water Supply & Sanitation and their role in the Attainment of MDGs in Nigeria

By Depo Adenle

depo_adenle@yahoo.com

(1st NATIONAL WATER & SANITATION FORUM, 29 August  – 1st September, 2006)

Outline

  • Introduction – Background statement on WSS institutions (definitions), the linkages between WSS Stds. & economic development vis-à-vis MDGs.
  • Institutional Aspects in WSS in Nigeria.
  • Critical review of WSS institutional issues in relation to attainment of MDGs in Nigeria in terms of coverage, access, policy, framework and strategies
  • key institutional issues in WSS service delivery vis-à-vis attainment of the MDGs:
  • How do they affect coverage and access?
  • How are these institutional issues reflected/addressed in policies and policy reforms on WSS and in the institutional framework?
  • How are they reflected/addressed in strategies to improve WSS delivery & Attainment of MDGs? And
  • How are they considered in the requirements for the attainment of MDGs?
  • What are being done:  What initiatives are being taken by all actors.
  • What needs to be done:The Way forward.

Background Statement (Institutions & MDGs)

  • Definition of institutions – Webster’s New World Collegiate Dictionary – organisations, working rules or establishments founded for a specific purpose of public interest based on an accepted custom, law or relationship in a society or community.
  • Laws upon which the governmental organisations are based – FG Laws or Decrees; State Laws/Edicts; LG Bye-Laws, etc.

Paper will therefore focus on organisations, their mandates as stipulated by laws or customs, etc.

WSS Linkages to economic development –

  • Direct correlation between poor WSS Stds. & decline in indicators in health, education & productivity (low enrollment in schools, especially of girls, etc.); Hence link between poor WSS stds. and poverty.
  • MDG Goal 7 target: Reduce by half the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation.

Institutional Aspects of WSS

  • Three levels of govt. share responsibility for delivery of WSS services – Federal Govt.; State Govt.; Local Govt. + a fourth level – the community
  • Three levels of govt. are responsible for delivery of sanitation services – Federal, State and LG.

Among other issues the paper will focus on the following:

  • Which are the institutional issues that are essential to improving WSS service delivery with respect to coverage and access that need to be addressed, that need to be considered in WSS Policy, institutional framework and strategies for the attainment of MDGs?
  • What are the current policy issues on institutions in the FMWR’s NWSSP of 2000, the National Water Policy, the proposed National Water Sanitation Policy; FMENV’s National Environmental Sanitation Policy of 2005; States’ WSS Policies?

REVIEW OF CURRENT INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN WSS

General Issues

  • Lack of clear and coherent regulation –
  • Uncoordinated approach to water laws administration
  • Decree 101 and Minerals Act, Cap 226 FMWR minister and Solid Minerals minister have same power to issue water license, to remove hydraulic work, to impose license fee, pollution control, and to impose other fees & charges.
  • NIWA Decree 13 and Water Resources Decree 101 grants similar powers to NIWA and FMWR.
  • RBDA Act, Cap 396 at conflict with NIWA decree.
  • Laws inadequate – the flaws identified in the water laws.
  • Virtually all the laws on WR (Fed. & State ) are rule-oriented and fail to recognize the role of the private sector and communities as important stakeholders.
  • Present laws lack proper provisions & mechanisms of interest with respect to tariff setting and conflict resolution.
  • Institutional responsibility not backed with enforceable authority – RBDAs/SWAs relationship.
  • Accompanying Rules & Regulations (1997) for Water Resources Decree 101, 1993 outdated with respect to the current realities and not yet implementable;
  • Fourth draft of the National Water Resources Bill prepared in July 2011.
  • the Sub-Committee of the Inter-Ministrerial Committee on the review of the National Water Resources Bill made observations on this Bill in July 2011.

REVIEW OF CURRENT INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN WSS

  • Institutional constraints: Two types of institutional impediments stand in the way of expanding access to water supply and sanitation services Lenton, R. &Wright, A. (2004):
  • Lack of appropriate institutions at all levels, and
  • Chronic dysfunction of existing institutional arrangements. (At the community level, potential users of services are often constrained by the absence or underutilization of institutions to facilitate collective and/or individual action. Currently in six EU focal states an attempt to respond to this is the formation of Water Consummer Associations (WCA). However, the ability of these WCAs to fullfil their mandates is a function of the leadership ability of the chairman of each WAC). At the national and State levels, sanitation often has several institutional homes creating a policy chaos and a corresponding lack of prioritization in budgetary decision-making).
  • For example at the National level the Ministries of Environment and that of Water Resources are often fighting a sort of turf war with respect to which of the two should be responsible for sanitation.
  • RBDAs set up as development agencies not management agencies & are thus not managing WR within basins.
  • Recently, new institutions were established at the Federal level – Nigeria Integrated Water Resources Management Commission (NIWRMC) was set up to assume the FMWR’s regulatory role in order to ensure that the resource is properly managed; Nigeria Hydological Services Agency (NIHSA); Gurara Water Management Agency – providing water for Fed. Captal Teritory, for irrigation and power  to Kaduna City.
  • This creation of several agencies from previous departments of the Ministry of Water Resources  have further muddled the ‘institutional water’ in such a way that the Ministry’s  mandates clash with such agencies’.
  • FMWR encroaching on the functions of RBDAs – construction and management of Gurara Dams (which was formerly part of Upper Niger RBDA), borehole drilling; RBDAs engaging in bottled water business, real estate business, hospitability services, etc.
  • Lack of clear definitions of the functions and relationship of sector institutions –
  • Mandates of institutions as stipulated by laws and edicts that establish them create overlaps, etc;
  • Multiplicity of organisations and other bodies involved in WR sector which has led to a situation of conflicting mandates and responsibilities, giving rise to inefficient and ineffective water resources development and management.
  • Conflict created as a result of Water resources not managed on unit basin basis – e.g. the KYB case & Ogun River Basin that is located in two states (Lagos and Ogun) resulting in conflict between downstream and upstream users.
  • Conflict between agencies – little cooperation between federal & federal agencies – FMWR and FMENV, and between federal and state agencies
  • Involvement of the three tiers of govt. in rural water supply without collaboration results in weak coordination & inconsistent & conflicting mandates & responsibility.
  • Too many agencies claiming ownership for sanitation but not its responsibility (NWSSP of 2000).
  • Water supply and regulatory functions are often combined in a single institution. This is especially true of all RBDAs, as well as all SWAs.
  • Poor consultation and coordination – sectoral management of water and sanitation; duplication of schemes (small water supply schemes); planning, development and management.
  • Lack of integration of WSS sector activities & initiatives – FMENV National Environmental Sanitation Policy/ FMWR draft National Water Sanitation Policy.
  • Over-centralization – WSS development and management not yet at the lowest possible appropriate level. (Examples worthy of studying/fine-tuning and replicating – UNICEF assisted and WaterAid programmes). The formation of WCAs in the self-selected small towns is worthy of interest.
  • Widespread interference in affairs of water agencies – tariff setting, programme activities such as planning, prioritization of projects, etc. (Politics & its implications).
  • Shortage of qualified, honest & transparent manpower;
  • Lack of stakeholder participation –Schemes not demand driven; top down approach. Several boreholes drilled by FGN & at times by State governments not properly handed over to communities breakdown shortly after completion.
  • National Council on Water Resources – not functioning effectively – Meetings of the Tech. Committee too close to the annual meetings & not meeting as many times as may be necessary.
  • No role for women – There is an inadequate involvement of communities, especially women, in all aspects of project work, which has resulted in low community ownership and poor service sustainability
  • Lack of technical and managerial capacity in the WSS sector especially at the LG and community levels.

Specific sub-sector issues:

Urban WSS institutional  issues–

  • Very low operational efficiency (UfW very high, up to 63% in 1998) due partly to unmotivated staff, highly politicized tariff setting and poor maintenance culture.
  • Weak commitment of state govts. to institutional reforms – David Henley (2000) “… Trained people go elsewhere where they can earn more; experienced managers get moved, system fails as soon as Bank finance dries up; …We find that promises made by Government  to improve operations and revenue generation are not and cannot be kept; … We find autonomy is given and taken away;…”
  • World Bank WSS Interim strategy Note of 2000 “ … there is the problem of agency responsibility for sanitation, poorly developed sanitation policies.”
  • SWA staff from GM down are civil servants and operate as such
  • Lack of autonomy of water supply agencies; Edicts that established SWAs provide that they operate as autonomous entities, in practice they operate like govt. depts. closely integrated into the civil service. They depend on subvention.
  • Have a decentralized organizational structure down to district zonal offices, which is a positive development.
  • Usually overstaffed. Staff to customer ratio ~ 70, compared to the average best practice of 3.5 in efficient utilities.
  • There is poor definition and assignment of responsibilities for regulation and effective control of the various aspects of the water and sanitation business.
  • Lack of technical & financial capacity at SWAs to efficiently monitor distribution systems;

Small Town WSS institutional issues

  • Responsibility for Small Town WSS lies with the three tiers of govt. – federal, state and local with overlapping & uncoordinated roles and functions.
  • Services introduced with little or no community participation.
  • No single policy enforced to coordinate & lend focus to the various efforts & inputs, although the FMWR-STWSSP started addressing the issue feebly, but the Water Supply And Sanitation Sector Reform Programme (WSSSRP) is now addressing the issue.
  • Most of the institutional issues identified for urban utilities are also relevant in Small Towns.
  • Because the small towns have been largely ignored by SWAs WS has been virtually left to informal arrangements – tankers, privately-owned wells, and hand-carried water containers.

Rural WSS institutional issues –

  • World Bank WSS Interim strategy Note of 2000 – “Nigeria has a policy of requiring community ownership and operation of rural water supply and sanitation.” However, it is difficult to see this in practice.
  • “Uncoordinated, conflicting programs have been adopted by various agencies, not in line with the stated policy.
  • Many communities have been served by multiple programs, many served by none, and a majority of facilities that have been provided are not operational.”
  • Lack of technical & financial capacity at LGAs to efficiently monitor mini water schemes – boreholes, etc “Federal government with the collaboration of international agencies, especially UNICEF, is helping states to build capacity of state, local and community levels before moving the responsibility for rural water supply to the LGAs in accordance with national policy.”
  • The Activities of WaterAid also – partnering with NGOs in 2 states Bauchi and Plateau, but in Benue partnering with the State govt.
  • Treatment of WSS institutional issues in policies, WSS institutional framework & strategies:

National Water Policy (2004); National Water Supply and Sanitation Policy (2000); National Water Sanitation Policy (Draft, 2003); National Environmental Sanitation Policy (2005) National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme: A Strategic Framework (2004).; State WSS Policies where available.; State Draft Water Bills

National Water Policy:

It states with respect to capacity & manpower development that the policy aims at developing competence and skilled manpower, training of middle and lower manpower and strengthening of NWRI.

The institutional arrangement suggested similar to existing ones. The objectives of the institutional arrangement are aimed at addressing the above issues and are:

To ensure proper co-ordination and collaboration among stakeholders and harmonization of activities in water resources development management.

To ensure a multi-disciplinary and inter-sectoral approach to water resources development and management.

To define clearly the functions and responsibilities of each tier of governments and Institutions set up to implement various activities in the water resources sector.

National Water Supply and Sanitation Policy (2000):

Offers reform agenda for the WSS sector that will be developed based on the following guiding principles:

Autonomy of WSS services providers;

Management at the lowest appropriate level “appropriate being key and a function of the specific conditions in the concerned areas and communities”;

Participation – “… involvement of important segments of the society that have been traditionally excluded”.

Policy making and regulatory role of government – “… as a facilitator, setting macroeconomic and sector policies that create an enabling environment. …precludes its intervention in the actual delivery of services, Which are more efficiently accomplished by autonomous entities,”

It defines institutional responsibilities of the FMWR,RBDAs, NWRI, SWAs and LGs and describes inter agency relationship.

National Water Sanitation Policy (Draft, 2003):

Provides an institutional framework for sanitation which gives a list of all institutions that should be involved at all levels with the FMWR & states MWR taking the lead in sanitation.

The creation of a sanitation division in the WS&QC Department of the FMWR and a water sanitation division in the department of water supply at state ministries.

National Environmental Sanitation Policy (NESP, 2005);

Institutional arrangements –  Technical Committees at all levels – National Technical Committees, State Technical Committees, and Local Government Technical Committees.

National level TC includes FMWR, Health and other relevant Ministries; same for the state TCs and LG TCs.

It defines the institutional roles of the members of the technical committees; E.G. The FMWR is responsible for 2 things:

Collaborate with FMENV on water sanitation activities including sewerage, storm water control and quality control of water supply;

Ensure access to adequate potable water supply for all Nigerians.

WHAT ARE BEING DONE

Initiatives towards addressing WSS institutional issues necessary for the attainment of MDGs:

Governments

Federal level – NEEDS

State Level – SEEDS

ESAs

World Bank:

Through the FMWR PMO – Assistance in:

Broad sector reform – to finalize policy & completion of institutional reform

urban water supply sector reform

Review of WSSP review

Regulation – estb. Of regulatory agency at the state level

Capacity development framework through the help of NWRI

African Development Bank (AfDB)

Several involvements in WSS.

Study on rural water supply & sanitation

EU

WSSSRP I & II

WHAT ARE BEING DONE

EU assistance:

Water Supply & sanitation Sector Reform Programme (WSSSRP) – PMU now Abuja Coordinating Unit (Federal level), STU (State level)

Six States (Anambra, Cross River, Kano, Jigawa, Osun & Yobe) now have WSS Policy and draft bills;

DFID-JWL program in KYB Basin

Institutional reforms & IWRM in the KYB basin;

Promotion of new institutional arrangements that will encourage & ensure good water governance in line with IWRM;

Estb. of State IWRM committees to facilitate consultation & awareness raising; encouragement of NGOs & CBOs involvement

DFID – working through UNICEF & WaterAid

UNICEFs’ Assistance:

Preparation of the National RWSS Programme Strategic Framework.

Involvement in capacity building though WATSANs

WaterAid – Develops the capacity of local partner organisations to implement water, sanitation & hygiene projects. For sustainability of its projects its partners train & supports local communities to plan, construct, manage and maintain their own projects (WaterAid Corporate Strategy 2005 –2010).

UN-Habitat WAC programme – WAC II Jos Programme, Nigeria –aims to develop a pro-poor WSS intervention through piloting & demonstration of activities of WAC so as to accelerate meeting the MDGs for WSS.

THE WAY FOWARD

Government should:

Adopt IWRM principles in all WR programmes.

Review available institutional structures and develop one that helps in minimizing fragmentation & overlap of functions between different institutions (This will involve a careful consideration of the laws/statutes/decrees, etc. that establish these institutions). Complex institutional arrangements will not improve institutional performance. Instead, institutions have to be fully authorized and their formal position should be compatible with assigned responsibilities.

Provide the existing regulatory systems and coordination structures with the authority and appropriate resources they lack.

Create appropriate institutions at all levels. e.g. for proper management of river basins – e.g. River Basin Management Committee.

All water and sanitation projects should have capacity building component.

All water and sanitation agencies should have budgetary provisions for human resources development.

When allocating resources to national-level initiatives or decentralizing water supply and sanitation services delivery to local authorities, ensure that funds for both infrastructure and capacity building (e.g., for planning, operation, and maintenance) are provided in one package.

Fund NWRI and other related institutions to operate extension services with respect to carrying out refresher training at the state and LG levels.

Develop courses that are suited to the training needs of the local governments and communities.

Take measures to increase accountability of service providers to consumers, such as the reform of civil-service legislation and limiting political interference in planning, construction, and O&M.

Establish and provide resources for credible regulatory institutions.

Establish minimum national standards for water and sanitation services that focus on end goals (e.g., safe removal of excreta) rather than on specific technologies.

Create a national-level and state-level “institutional home” for the issue of sanitation, be it the FMWR or FMENV. This sanitation institution should set national standards, support implementing bodies, and hold local governments accountable for results. It should also create a national-level plan to guide policy-making and goal-setting for sanitation. (It may be necessary to hold an inter-ministerial summit between FMWR and FMENV, facilitated by an international expert that will once and for all assigning a home to sanitation

Engage WaterAid or any similar donor agency as a partner on a nationwide basis where WATSAN is absent to assist in capacity development at local government and community levels.

Develop drinking water quality standards. This has now been developed.

Put in place drinking water quality and surveillance policy guidelines, develop the capacity of the relevant government institutions to establish an effective water quality surveillance programme and implement the guidelines. The establishment of an effective water quality and surveillance programme especially at the community level could be the type of innovative action recommended by Wright (2005) in order to fast track attainment of MDGs’ water and sanitation target in Nigeria.

Address any gender biases within all institutions.

Service providers (SWAs etc). Should:

Improve pay scales and incentive structures to attract and retain qualified technical and managerial staff.

Restructure professional incentives to reward good performance in operations and maintenance, as well as service extensions to low-income communities.

Involve both women and men in water supply and sanitation services provision and integrated water resources management initiatives.

Restructure professional incentives to reward good performance in operations and maintenance, as well as service extensions to low-income communities.

Civic organizations such as schools, local NGOs, and community associations should:

Partner with service providers in projects to provide or improve services to poor communities.

Participate in public meetings, hearings, and other events related to public-service delivery to advocate for policies and programs that will improve water supply and sanitation services to the poor.

Include hygiene education in school curricula.This has now been done in Anambra state.

Use the issue of water supply and sanitation services as an entry point for promoting women’s empowerment. Promote women’s involvement in community management of water supplies. This is already being achieved through the WCAs and voluntary Hygiene Promoters during the implementation of WSSSRP.

Uncoordinated investment in the Water Sector in Nigeria: An Example from Imo state

 

When investments are made in the water sector without planning and without consultation with the beneficiaries, the benefits derivable usually fall short of intended impact. Little wonder our country has been considered to be one of the African countries where the Millennium Development Goals will not be met by 2015.Sometimes last year, this blog had an article on this same topic concerning Kogi State.

While Governor Okorocha’s intention may be laudable, he has gone about it wrongly just like the Senator from Kogi (https://weircentreforafrica.com/2012/02/29/uncoordinated-investments-in-water-supply-rep-to-sink-60-boreholes-in-kogi-state/).

I wonder what instructed the Governor of Imo state to use the State Transport Company for water project and was the Water Ministry involved? How much funds is allocated to water in Imo’s 2012 budget, and under what heading will the Governor’s “do-gooder” gesture be entered?

 

It is high time Nigerian rulers paid more attention to the needs of the masses rather than playing politics with what affects the well-being of their citizens, especially the poor and vulnerable.

DEPO ADENLE

==================================================

Okorocha targets 2,000 new jobs in water project

By Emma Mgbeahurike, Owerri, The Nation, April 4, 2012

Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha has inaugurated a water project built by the new management of Imo Transport Company (ITC).

The governor hopes the project, christened Imo Rescue Mission Free Water, will generate no fewer than 2,000 jobs.

Okorocha who was represented  by the new Managing Director of ITC, Mr. Emeka Duru, admitted that the gesture would go a long way in alleviating the water challenges in the company and the entire neighbourhood.

He applauded the magnanimity of Global Ginikana Services Ltd, the new managers of the state-owned transport company and its commitment to make ITC the best road transport company in the country, adding that the team has deeply implemented the rescue mission agenda in its management style.

Meanwhile, Mr. Duru who later spoke to reporters on his capacity as Managing Director of ITC, disclosed that his company has been in control of ITC management for over four months and that their agreement to manage the company with the state government was for the period of 10 years with the payment of N250m yearly.

He added that the concession is aimed at ensuring sound management of the company, comfort of passengers and creation of employment for Imo people.

The ITC management boss pointed out that his company has paid the total sum of N210m to the  state government and will be paying N50m.

He stressed that in line with  Okorocha’s directive, the company has not sacked anybody and does not even intend doing so, stating that it rather recalled some workers who were illegally disengaged before they took over the management of the company.

According to Duru, the major problem in the transport company has been the issue of workers not ready to work, and a situation where ITC staff see their job as civil service structured job, maintaining that they have come to revive the company for the good of Imo people.

He noted that his company has set up a fuel dump for ITC buses and plans to establish car wash centre in the premises as another way to save money and time, maintaining that in the next six months, Imo  state will have an investment of N2.5 Billion in ITC, which according to him, will create more employment opportunities and revenue for the state.

Duru noted that his company is targeted at creating 2000 jobs for Imo graduates, adding that 170 employment opportunities had been created so far for graduates, 72 for new drivers with another 50 more opportunities for graduates and 100 for drivers that would be created soon for Imo citizens.

While stating that his company has spent N1.2 Billion since it take over the ITC management, especially in procuring new buses, Duru stressed that they inherited the sum of N134 million debts which it had called upon the state government for a possible assistance.

The transport manager however assured Imo people that ITC will be restored as the most safest, cheapest and comfortable transport company in the country under the new management.

 

INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION AND THEIR ROLE IN THE ATTAINMENT OF MDGs IN NIGERIA

by Depo Adenle, Ph.D. (Hydrogeology)

depo_adenle@yahoo.com

[Being Lead Paper on Institutional Issues at the First National Water & Sanitation Forum, 29 August – 1st September, 2006.]

This was a Power Point Presentation changed to a word document without alterations to the content.

Since this paper was presented, there have been changes in the Water Supply and Sanitation Institutional Landscape.  For example, some of the departments in the Federal Ministry of Water Resources have become Agencies.  The Nigerian Integrated Management Commission was nonexistent, and there have been progress in reforming the Sector through the assistance of Donor Agencies.

 

 

Outline of Presentation:

•          Introduction – Background statement on WSS institutions (definitions), the linkages between WSS Stds. & economic development vis-à-vis MDGs.

•          Institutional Aspects in WSS in Nigeria.

•          Critical review of WSS institutional issues in relation to attainment of MDGs in Nigeria in terms of coverage, access, policy, framework and strategies

•          key institutional issues in WSS service delivery vis-à-vis attainment of the MDGs:

–        How do they affect coverage and access?

–        How are these institutional issues reflected/addressed in policies and policy reforms on WSS and in the institutional framework?

–        How are they reflected/addressed in strategies to improve WSS delivery & Attainment of MDGs? And

–        How are they considered in the requirements for the attainment of MDGs?

•          What are being done:  What initiatives are being taken by all actors.

•          What needs to be done : The Way forward

Background Statement (Institutions & MDGs):

•          Definition of institutionsWebster’s New World Collegiate Dictionary – organisations, working rules or establishments founded for a specific purpose of public interest based on an accepted custom, law or relationship in a society or community.

•          Laws upon which the governmental organisations are based – FG Laws or Decrees; State Laws/Edicts; LG Bye-Laws, etc.

•          Paper will therefore focus on organisations, their mandates as stipulated by laws or customs, etc.

•          WSS Linkages to economic development – Direct correlation between poor WSS Stds. & decline in indicators in health, education & productivity (low enrollment in schools, especially of girls, etc.); Hence link between poor WSS stds. and poverty.

•          MDG Goal 7 target: Reduce by half the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation.

Institutional Aspects of WSS:

•          Three levels of govt. share responsibility for delivery of WSS services – Federal Govt.; State Govt.; Local Govt. + a fourth level – the community

•          Three levels of govt. are responsible for delivery of sanitation services – Federal, State and LG.

•          Among other issues the paper will focus on the following:

–        Which are the institutional issues that are essential to improving WSS service delivery with respect to coverage and access that need to be addressed, that need to be considered in WSS Policy, institutional framework and strategies for the attainment of MDGs?

–        What are the current policy issues on institutions in the FMWR’s NWSSP of 2000, the National Water Policy, the proposed National Water Sanitation Policy; FMENV’s National Environmental Sanitation Policy of 2005?

Review Of Current Institutional Issues In WSS:

•          General Issues

–        Lack of clear and coherent regulation –

–        Uncoordinated approach to water laws administration

•          Decree 101 and Minerals Act, Cap 226 FMWR minister and Solid Minerals minister have same power to issue water license, to remove hydraulic work, to impose license fee, pollution control, and to impose other fess & charges.

•          NIWA Decree 13 and Water Resources Decree 101 grants similar powers to NIWA and FMWR.

•          RBDA Act, Cap 396 at conflict with NIWA decree.

–        Laws inadequate – the flaws identified in the water laws.

•          Virtually all the laws on WR (Fed. & State ) are rule-oriented and fail to recognize the role of the private sector and communities as important stakeholders.

•          Present laws lack proper provisions & mechanisms of intersect oral coordination, tariff setting and conflict resolution.

•          Institutional responsibility not backed with enforceable authority – RBDAs/SWAs relationship

–        Accompanying Rules & Regulations (1997) for Water Resources Decree 101, 1993 outdated with respect to the current realities and not yet implementable;

•          Institutional constraints: Two types of institutional impediments stand in the way of expanding access to water supply and sanitation services Lenton, R. &Wright, A. (2004):

–        Lack of appropriate institutions at all levels, and

–        Chronic dysfunction of existing institutional arrangements. (At the community level, potential users of services are often constrained by the absence or underutilization of institutions to facilitate collective and/or individual action. At the national and sub-national level, sanitation often has no institutional ‘home’ at all, creating a policy vacuum and a corresponding lack of prioritization in budgetary decision-making).

–        RBDAs set up as development agencies not management agencies & are thus not managing WR within basins.

•          FMWR encroaching on the functions of RBDAs – Gurara Dams, borehole drilling; RBDAs engaging in bottled water business, real estate business, hospitability services, etc.

•          Lack of clear definitions of the functions and relationship of sector institutions –

•          Mandates of institutions as stipulated by laws and edicts that establish them create overlaps, etc;

–        Multiplicity of organisations and other bodies involved in WR sector which has led to a situation of conflicting mandates and responsibilities, giving rise to inefficient and ineffective water resources development and management.

•          Conflict created as a result of Water resources not managed on unit basin basis – e.g. the KYB case – conflict between downstream and upstream users.

•          Conflict between agencies – little cooperation between federal & federal agencies – FMWR and FMENV, and between federal and state agencies.

–        Involvement of the three tiers of govt. in rural water supply without collaboration results in weak coordination & inconsistent & conflicting mandates & responsibility.

–        Too many agencies claiming ownership for sanitation but not its responsibility (NWSSP of 2000).

–        Water supply and regulatory functions are often combined in a single institution. This is especially true of all RBDAs, as well as all SWAs.

–        Poor consultation and coordination – sectoral management of water and sanitation; duplication of schemes (small water supply schemes); Planning, development and management.

–        Lack of integration of WSS sector activities & initiatives – FMENV National Environmental Sanitation Policy/ FMWR draft National Water Sanitation Policy.

–        Over-centralization – WSS development and management not yet at the lowest possible appropriate level. (Examples worthy of studying/fine-tuning and replicating – UNICEF assisted and WaterAid programmes).

•          Widespread interference in affairs of water agencies – tariff setting, programme activities such as planning, prioritization of projects, etc. (Politics & its implications).

•          Shortage of qualified, honest & transparent manpower;

•          Lack of stakeholder participation –Schemes not demand driven; top down approach. Several boreholes drilled by FGN & at times by State governments not properly handed over to communities breakdown shortly after completion.

•          National Council on Water Resources – not functioning effectively – Meeting of the Tech. Committee too close to the annual meeting & not meeting as many times as may be necessary.

•          No role for women – There is an inadequate involvement of communities, especially women, in all aspects of project work, which has resulted in low community ownership and poor service sustainability

•          Lack of technical and managerial capacity in the WSS sector especially at the LG and community levels.

Specific sub-sector issues:

•          Urban WSS institutional  issues

•          Very low operational efficiency (UfW very high, up to 63% in 1998) due partly to unmotivated staff, highly politicized tariff setting and poor maintenance culture.

•          Weak commitment of state govts. to institutional reforms – David Henley (2000) “… Trained people go elsewhere where they can earn more; experienced managers get moved, system fails as soon as Bank finance dries up; …We find that promises made by Government  to improve operations and revenue generation are not and cannot be kept; … We find autonomy is given and taken away;…”

•          World Bank WSS Interim strategy Note of 2000 “ … there is the problem of agency responsibility for sanitation, poorly developed sanitation policies.”

•          SWA staff from GM down are civil servants and operate as such.

•          Lack of autonomy of water supply agencies; Edicts that established SWAs provide that they operate as autonomous entities, in practice they operate like govt. depts. closely integrated into the civil service. They depend on subvention.

•          Have a decentralized organizational structure down to district zonal offices, which is a positive development.

•          Usually overstaffed. Staff to customer ratio ~ 70, compared to the average best practice of 3.5 in efficient utilities.

•          There is poor definition and assignment of responsibilities for regulation and effective control of the various aspects of the water and sanitation business.

•          Lack of technical & financial capacity at SWAs to efficiently monitor distribution systems;

 Small Town WSS institutional Issues –

•          Responsibility for Small Town WSS lies with the three tiers of govt. – federal, state and local with overlapping & uncoordinated roles and functions.

•          Services introduced with little or no community participation.

•          No single policy enforced to coordinate & lend focus to the various efforts & inputs, although the FMWR-STWSSP is now addressing the issue.

•          Most of the institutional issues identified for urban utilities are also relevant.

•          Because the small towns have been largely ignored by SWAs WS has been virtually left to informal arrangements – tankers, privately-owned wells, and hand-carried water containers.

Rural WSS institutional issues –

•          World Bank WSS Interim strategy Note of 2000 – “Nigeria has a policy of requiring community ownership and operation of rural water supply and sanitation.” However, it is difficult to see this in practice.

•          “Uncoordinated, conflicting programs have been adopted by various agencies, not in line with the stated policy.

•          Many communities have been served by multiple programs, many served by none, and a majority of facilities that have been provided are not operational.”

•          Lack of technical & financial capacity at LGAs to efficiently monitor mini water schemes – boreholes, etc “Federal government with the collaboration of international agencies, especially UNICEF, is helping states to build capacity of state, local and community levels before moving the responsibility for rural water supply to the LGAs in accordance with national policy.”

•          The Activities of WaterAid also – partnering with NGOs in 2 states Bauchi and Plateau, but in Benue partnering with the State govt. .

•          Treatment of WSS institutional issues in policies, WSS institutional framework & strategies:

–        National Water Policy (2004)

–        National Water Supply and Sanitation Policy (2000)

–        National Water Sanitation Policy (Draft, 2003)

–        National Environmental Sanitation Policy (2005) National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programme: A Strategic Framework (2004).

National Water Policy:

–        It states with respect to capacity & manpower development that the policy aims at developing competence and skilled manpower, training of middle and lower manpower and strengthening of NWRI.

–        The institutional arrangement suggested similar to existing ones. The objectives of the institutional arrangement are aimed at addressing the above issues and are:

•          To ensure proper co-ordination and collaboration among stakeholders and harmonization of activities in water resources development management.

•          To ensure a multi-disciplinary and inter-sectoral approach to water resources development and management.

•          To define clearly the functions and responsibilities of each tier of governments and Institutions set up to implement various activities in the water resources sector.

–        National Water Supply and Sanitation Policy (2000):

–        Offers reform agenda for the WSS sector that will be developed based on the following guiding principles:

•          Autonomy of WSS services providers;

•          Management at the lowest appropriate level “appropriate being key and a function of the specific conditions in the concerned areas and communities”;

•          Participation – “… involvement of important segments of the society that have been traditionally excluded”.

•          Policy making and regulatory role of government – “… as a facilitator, setting macroeconomic and sector policies that create an enabling environment. …precludes its intervention in the actual delivery of services, Which are more efficiently accomplished by autonomous entities,”

–        It defines institutional responsibilities of the FMWR,RBDAs, NWRI, SWAs and LGs and describes inter agency relationship.

–        National Water Sanitation Policy (Draft, 2003):

–        Provides an institutional framework for sanitation which gives a list of all institutions that should be involved at all levels with the FMWR & states MWR taking the lead in sanitation.

–        The creation of a sanitation division in the WS&QC Department of the FMWR and a water sanitation division in the department of water supply at state ministries.

–        National Environmental Sanitation Policy (NESP, 2005);

–        Institutional arrangements –  Technical Committees at all levels – National Technical Committees, State Technical Committees, and Local Government Technical Committees.

–        National level TC includes FMWR, Health and other relevant Ministries; same for the state TCs and LG TCs.

–        It defines the institutional roles of the members of the technical committees; E.G. The FMWR is responsible for 2 things:

•          Collaborate with FMENV on water sanitation activities including sewerage, storm water control and quality control of water supply;

•          Ensure access to adequate potable water supply for all Nigerians.

What Are Being Done

•          Initiatives towards addressing WSS institutional issues necessary for the attainment of MDGs:

•          Governments

–        Federal level – NEEDS

–        State Level – SEEDS

•          ESAs

•          World Bank:

–        Through the FMWR PMO – Assistance in:

•          Broad sector reform – to finalize policy & completion of institutional reform

•           urban water supply sector reform

•          Review of WSSP review

•          Regulation – estb. Of regulatory agency at the state level

•          Capacity development framework through the help of NWRI

•          African Development Bank (AfDB)

–        Several involvements in WSS.

–        Study on rural water supply & sanitation.

•          EU assistance:

–        PMU (Federal level), STU (State level)

–        DFID-JWL program in KYB Basin

–        Institutional reforms & IWRM in the KYB basin;

–        Promotion of new institutional arrangements that will encourage & ensure good water governance in line with IWRM;

•          Estb. of State IWRM committees to facilitate consultation & awareness raising; encouragement of NGOs & CBOs involvement

•          DFID – working through UNICEF & WaterAid

•          UNICEFs’ Assistance: 

–        Preparation of the National RWSS Programme Strategic Framework.

–        Involvement in capacity building though WATSANs

•          WaterAid – Develops the capacity of local partner organisations to implement water, sanitation & hygiene projects. For sustainability of its projects its partners train & supports local communities to plan, construct, manage and maintain their own projects (WaterAid Corporate Strategy 2005 –2010).

•          UN-Habitat WAC programme – WAC II Jos Programme, Nigeria –aims to develop a pro-poor WSS intervention through piloting & demonstration of activities of WAC so as to accelerate meeting the MDGs for WSS.

The Way Forward

•          Government should:

•          Adopt IWRM principles in all WR programmes.

•          Review available institutional structures and develop one that helps in minimizing fragmentation & overlap of functions between different institutions and (This will involve a careful consideration of the laws/statutes/decrees, etc. that establish these institutions). Complex institutional arrangements will not improve institutional performance. Instead, institutions have to be fully authorized and their formal position should be compatible with assigned responsibilities.

•          Provide the existing regulatory systems and coordination structures with the authority and appropriate resources they lack.

•          Create appropriate institutions at all levels. e.g. for proper management of river basins – River Basin Management Committee.

•          All water and sanitation projects should have capacity building component.

•          All water and sanitation agencies should have budgetary provisions for human resources development.

•          When allocating resources to national-level initiatives or decentralizing water supply and sanitation services delivery to local authorities, ensure that funds for both infrastructure and capacity building (e.g., for planning, operation, and maintenance) are provided in one package.

•          Fund NWRI and other related institutions to operate extension services with respect to carrying out refresher training at the state and LG levels.

•          Develop courses that are suited to the training needs of the local governments and communities.

•          Take measures to increase accountability of service providers to consumers, such as the reform of civil-service legislation and limiting political interference in planning, construction, and O&M.

•          Establish and provide resources for credible regulatory institutions.

•          Establish minimum national standards for water and sanitation services that focus on end goals (e.g., safe removal of excreta) rather than on specific technologies.

•          Create a national-level and state-level “institutional home” for the issue of sanitation, be it the FMWR or FMENV. This sanitation institution should set national standards, support implementing bodies, and hold local governments accountable for results. It should also create a national-level plan to guide policy-making and goal-setting for sanitation. (It may be necessary to hold an inter-ministerial summit between FMWR and FMENV, facilitated by an international expert that will once and for all assigning a home to sanitation  

•          Engage WaterAid as a partner on a nationwide basis where WATSAN is absent to assist in capacity development at local government and community levels.

•          Develop drinking water quality standards.

•          Put in place drinking water quality and surveillance policy guidelines, develop the capacity of the relevant government institutions to establish an effective water quality surveillance programme and implement the guidelines. The establishment of an effective water quality and surveillance programme especially at the community level could be the type of innovative action recommended by Wright (2005) in order to fast track attainment of MDGs’ water and sanitation target in Nigeria.

•          Address any gender biases within their institutions.

•          Service providers (SWAs etc). Should:

•          Improve pay scales and incentive structures to attract and retain qualified technical and managerial staff.

•          Restructure professional incentives to reward good performance in operations and maintenance, as well as service extensions to low-income communities.

•          Involve both women and men in water supply and sanitation services provision and integrated water resources management initiatives.

•          Restructure professional incentives to reward good performance in operations and maintenance, as well as service extensions to low-income communities.

•          Civic organizations such as schools, local NGOs, and community associations should:

•          Partner with service providers in projects to provide or improve services to poor communities.

•          Participate in public meetings, hearings, and other events related to public-service delivery to advocate for policies and programs that will improve water supply and sanitation services to the poor.

•          Include hygiene education in school curricula.

•          Use the issue of water supply and sanitation services as an entry point for promoting women’s empowerment. Promote women’s involvement in community management of water supplies.