Tag Archives: Integrated Water Resources Management

Indian Farmers, Coca-Cola vie for Scarce Water supply – Is the Same thing happening in Nigeria?

I was reading the in-flight magazine of Delta Air Line (SKY) early this month and found Beyond Bottling in a section titled “Green Watch”.  It contains some statistical information on what the Coca-Cola Company is doing in its Water Stewardship programs in Third World  countries such as promoting conservation and access to safe drinking water and sanitation. The list of the good deeds of Coca-Cola  also includes an investment of $247 million over 5 years in more than 380 water-stewardship programs which range from watershed restoration programs to those that increase access to safe water and improve health and hygiene around the world. It has been working with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for about seven years to launch the Water and Development alliance (WADA) to address community water needs in developing countries, etc.

About the same period when I came across information on the PBS News Hour information on the activities of Coca-Cola in India, I found it difficult to reconcile the two conflicting ideas that both information present.

I find the Draft accompanying Regulations to Nigeria’s Decree 101 of 1993 that proposed pittance in terms of fees for groundwater abstraction for commercial use troubling in this regard because huge corporations seem to get away with using scarce resources without having to pay commensurate fees with respeect to the magnitude of the extracted resource.

The new draft bill on water has not been passed and its content with respect to abstraction fees need to be fully discussed to ensure that appropriate charges are paid by commercial users.

Today, Coca-Cola is, perhaps, the leading producer of bottled water in Nigeria. It would be interesting to know how much of the water used by the company comes from surface water and how much comes from groundwater where this water is being abstracted  and how much it pays for this water compared to how much it makes.

It is a well-known fact that Coca-Cola uses surface water in some of its factories, e.g. Oyo State at Asejire Dam. However, does it use groundwater in the arid north as well as in Lagos? A final question:  Has any assessment on Coca-Cola’s water use in its factories across Nigeria been done?

These are legitimate concerns since Coca-Cola, a multi-billion dollar giant is trying to present the face of a responsible corporate entity that is a do-gooder!

 And, while $247 million is a lot of money, it is not much of community giving-back by a company that must rake in multiples of that in profit from a country like Nigeria, and by the way, how much of that amount does Nigeria get of the hand-out?




 REPORT    AIR DATE: Nov. 17, 2008

Indian Farmers, Coca-Cola Vie for Scarce Water Supply


In the Indian state of Rajasthsan, farmers have accused Coca-Cola factories of drawing too heavily on the area’s water supplies and contributing to pollution. Fred de Sam Lazaro reports on the controversy and the claims of both the company and its critics.


GWEN IFILL: Next, the battle between Coca-Cola and farmers over the shrinking supply of available water in India. NewsHour special correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro has our report from the state of Rajasthan.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO, NewsHour Correspondent: This is one of 49 factories that make Coca-Cola drinks across India. The company has invested over $1 billion dollars building a market for its products in this country, but Coca-Cola’s welcome has been less than effervescent, particularly around this factory in Kala Dera, in the arid and recently drought-stricken state of Rajasthan.

The plant used about 900,000 liters of water last year, about a third of it for the soft drinks, the rest to clean bottles and machinery. It is drawn from wells at the plant but also from aquifers Coca-Cola shares with neighboring farmers. The water is virtually free to all users.

These farmers say their problems began after the Coca-Cola factory arrived in 1999.

RAMESHWAR PRASAD, Farmer (through translator): Before, the water level was descending by about one foot per year. Now it’s 10 feet every year. We have a 3.5-horsepower motor. We cannot cope. They have a 50-horsepower pump.

RAM SAPAT, Farmer (through translator): Every day, a thousand vehicles come out of that factory taking away our water. What is left for our kids?

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: To irrigate their fields of barley, millet and peanuts, these growers complain they must now drill deeper and use heftier pumps to water their fields.

MANGAL CHAND YADAV, Farmer (through translator): I’ve had to drill three times. It’s down to 260 feet. Five years ago, it was 180 feet.

HARI MICHAN YOGI, Farmer (through translator): It’s because everyone has a submersible pump now, the Coca-Cola factory. There’s not enough rain. These are the reasons.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Their cause was picked up by activists, like Rajendra Singh. He has worked across the region helping villagers conserve and collect rainwater through traditional methods.

RAJENDRA SINGH, Water Activist (through translator): Exploitation, pollution, encroachment, Coca-Cola is doing all three. That’s why I say that no company has the right to steal the common water resource. No company has the right to pollute water that is our life. No company has the right to encroach on our land that is our livelihood. Coca-Cola is doing all three.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The farmers also got the attention of international activists, according to Siddharth Varadarajan, an editor with the newspaper The Hindu.

SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN, Newspaper Editor: Activist groups have been quite effective and have managed to tap into anti-globalization and environmental and green groups across the world and have, you know, therefore, I think, managed to put Coke on the defensive internationally, to a much greater extent than has happened within India.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: In 2005, when the University of Michigan banned Coke products, the company responded, and the ban was then lifted.

Coca-Cola agreed to an independent third-party assessment of some of its operations in India. That report determined that this plant in Rajasthan is contributing to a worsening water situation. It recommended that the company bring water in from outside the area or shut the factory down. Coca-Cola rejected that recommendation.

Already in 2004, Coca-Cola shut down one factory in south India amid a similar controversy. Its response now doesn’t surprise Varadarajan.

SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN: Clearly, if Coke were to give in one factory, as other communities essentially look at the experience of Rajasthan, it’s quite likely that there would be a cascading effect. So I suspect Coke will dig its heels in.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: For his part, Coca-Cola’s India head, Atul Singh, says it would be irresponsible to leave.

ATUL SINGH, President, Coca-Cola India: You know, walking away is the easiest thing we can do. That’s not going to help that community build sustainability.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: So Coca-Cola, while insisting its impact on the water supply was minimal, said it would stay and help.

The company has agreed to subsidize one-third of the cost of water-efficient drip irrigation systems for 15 neighboring farmers. The government pays most of the rest; growers themselves must chip in 10 percent.

Coca-Cola has also set up concrete collection systems for rainwater. Typically about 70 percent of rainfall evaporates before it can seep into the ground. Water collected from rooftops is piped into shafts up to 150 feet deep. Despite drought conditions, the system has been a success, according to company spokesman Kalyan Ranjan.

KALYAN RANJAN, Coca-Cola Spokesman: We have still managed to recharge banks than what we withdraw, so what we see ourselves is we are part of a problem-solving mechanism rather than a problem in ourselves.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Are you saying you’re putting back more water than you’re taking?

KALYAN RANJAN: In Kala Dera, yes. In Kala Dera, yes.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The scientist who conducted the independent study of Coca-Cola’s operations is not ready to accept that claim. Dr. Leena Srivastava is with the Delhi-based Energy and Resources Institute.

LEENA SRIVASTAVA, Scientist: We haven’t been able to prove that. And it’s too short a timeframe to start talking about whether groundwater aquifers have been recharged in six months. I think we really have to wait and watch and see what the impact is.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: And farmers and activists, like Rajendra Singh, remain skeptical.

RAJENDRA SINGH (through translator): They have an arrogance that says, “We have money; we can buy what we want.”

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: They also are critical of the government locally for attracting Coca-Cola to a water-scarce region and nationally for ignoring water policy in a rush to attract industry and foreign investment. Editor Varadarajan says they have a point.

SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN: India has a completely irrational groundwater management policy, where, if you have the means and the resources, you can extract as much groundwater as you like and you can use this water which you essentially pump up for free — it’s unmetered — to manufacture products which you can sell for a high price, whether it’s bottled water, whether it’s a beverage, whether it’s industry.

And, you know, this is something which the Indian policymakers have simply not bothered to formulate a cohesive strategy to deal with.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: At stake is the nation’s food supply, says scientist Leena Srivastava.

LEENA SRIVASTAVA: We are heading very rapidly towards the situation of absolute scarcity. Without even adding on the problems that might come up because of climate change issues, we just don’t have enough. And food security in the future can become a major problem for the country.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Food security?

LEENA SRIVASTAVA: Food security, yes.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Based on the water scarcity?

LEENA SRIVASTAVA: Based on water scarcity.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: In June, India’s prime minister proposed a series of measures to address broader climate change issues, including water. As for Coca-Cola, CEO Singh says, by the end of 2009, the company will become, quote, “water-neutral,” returning at least as much groundwater as it withdraws in India overall, though not necessarily at individual plants like Kala Dera.

He says it’s part of an emerging sense of corporate social responsibility.

ATUL SINGH: You know, I think the world has changed. If you’d asked me this question 10, 15, 20 years ago, I would give you a different answer.

Today, what I have seen — and this is globally, as well as in India — corporates have moved from philanthropy — you know, cutting a check for the art, you know, some art museum or some religious temple or, you know, helping a particular foundation — into real sustainability.

Are we building sustainable communities? And if we are not, consumers will choose products and services from companies who do behave in that manner.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: He says Coca-Cola plans to invest several hundred million more dollars in the years ahead in what may soon become its largest market.

How Yobe fights eco challenges as EU, FG end funding of NEAZDP

by Hamza Idris & Hamisu Kabiru Matazu, Damaturu

Daily Trust, Thursday, April 5 2012

It is no longer news that states in the far north eastern part of Nigeria, especially Yobe and Borno, are facing serious ecological challenges as a result of dwindling rainfall, a development which exposes the people, who are mostly farmers to great dangers.

This is manifested in perennial food shortages, occasioned by desert encroachment, sand dunes manifestation among other environmental challenges which have remained a source of concern to affected communities in the Sahel region.

Between 1968 and 1973, many northern states of Nigeria including Borno and Yobe suffered the Great Draught which affected food supply, a development which prompted the formation of many initiatives to surmount the threat.

In 1990, the European Union (EU), the federal government of Nigeria and the then Borno state government established the North East Arid Zone Development Programme (NEAZDP) with headquarters in Garin Alkali, Bade local government area of Yobe state.

The programme was aimed at promoting and assisting the rural populace in the proper use of their natural resources which covers an area of 22,860 sq km.

After recording significant progress in the areas of small irrigation packages, animal fattening programmes, small ruminant breeding, sand dunes fixation, shelterbelt, village protection, conservation of rain water at strategic places for livestock rearing and distribution of seedlings in the affected communities, the EU withdrew its support in 1995 and the federal government followed suit in 2006.

Before they left, the Mid Term Review Report of 1994 had rated NEAZDP activities as the most successful rural development programme in Nigeria while the ESPO Evaluation by the EU in 2006 equally revealed that NEAZDP was the only programme that had structures and sound extension system after the departure of its initiators. Though the EU and the FG had established a solid base for enduring development, their withdrawal had posed a great challenge towards the sustenance of the programme because only skeletal services were being offered. The use of skeletal services for the continuation of NEAZDP after the exit of EU and FGN leaves one to feel that there was no proper exit strategy.

It was indeed a terrible experience because shortly thereafter, the Yobe River’s recession began to hit hard on the riverine communities. This was coupled with typher grass manifestation and poor harvest of food and cash crops as a fall out of low rainfall.

However, in 2009, the Yobe state government reviewed the activities of NEAZDP and intervened, with a view to empowering the people by reclaiming the land that was devastated by ecological factors following the withdrawal of EU and FG.

Since then, the state government, in collaboration with affected local government areas (LGAs) have pumped in over N315 million.

Governor Ibrahim Gaidam, after considering the importance of NEAZDP in rural emancipation equally gave a standing order of continuous release of N9 million monthly to fund the programme.

During a recent visit by Kanem Trust, the programme manager of NEAZDP Dr Hussaini Hassan revealed under the present arrangement, N1 billion is being deducted from each of the nine local government areas of NEAZDP operation area for community impacting projects through partnership arrangement. “NEAZDP,  being  an integrated rural development projects has over the years utilized these fund to complement state government efforts in water supply, health, education, agriculture/food security and rehabilitation of programme headquarters’ infrastructures and procurement of monitoring/supervision vehicles/motorcycles to sustain the programme”. The manager said.

He said the agency has so far constructed 32 hand pumps, rehabilitate 93 hand pumps and 18 cement wells in various communities that have impacted positively in the provision of portable drinking water to over 71,500 people.

“We have also reclaimed lands  for flora and fauna (plants and animals) which have been taken away by deserts,” he said.

NEAZDP he revealed, has in the area of health installed Emex generator and hospital equipment to 18 centres for provision of light to female and theater wards as well as trained traditional birth attendants and village health workers and equipped them with practicing kits all with the aim of reducing infant and maternal mortality rate in the state,

In the education sector Dr Hussaini Hassan revealed that NEAZDP has rehabilitated 72 primary/junior secondary schools, supplied furniture to 27 schools and instructional materials to 27 schools, which according to him have provided good learning environment to over 3,200 pupils.

When Kanem Trust visited  some of the communities under the intervention of NEAZDP,  it was discovered that the agency has supported several vulnerable groups such as lepers, cripples and the blind with food items clothing etc to reduce street begging.

Dr Hassan said in the 2012 fiscal year, about 450 people, including widows and children would be taken care of.

He however said despite the intervention of NEAZDP, a lot needed to be done for the affected communities.

“This year, we have carried out a survey of about 20 villages that are being threatened by ecological challenges.  We have also identified some oasis and assessed the magnitude of the problems that require urgent attention.

“We have done a video documentary of the affected areas and have submitted it to the government for attention,” he said.

Mallam Musa Mohammed, a community leader in Garin Alkali said the intervention of NEAZDP has reduced poverty in the area through what he described as “Trade by Barter” arrangement.

“The agency gave us a package consisting of a cultivator, a ridger and ox-cart and then we were given N80, 000 to purchase two work bulls,” the community leader said.

He said after the harvest of the produce, the farmers paid back the loan in kind by taking 10 bags of millet annually for the period of three years at the cost of N4, 000 per bag.

“We feel this is a convenient poverty alleviation thing and many communities are now benefitting from the gesture,” he said.

So far, some of the LGAs that are benefiting from the project include: Bade (Gashua), Nguru, Karasuwa, Geidam, Machina, Yusufari and Yunusari.



 As shown in the above article the Daily Trust reporter laments the exit of the European Union (EU) and Federal government of Nigeria (FGN) from funding the North East Arid Zone Development Programme (NEAZDP). He notes that “Though the EU and the FG had established a solid base for enduring development, their withdrawal had posed a great challenge towards the sustenance of the programme because only skeletal services were being offered.”

 The use of skeletal services for the continuation of NEAZDP after the exit of the EU and FGN makes one feel that there was no proper exit strategy and that the issue of sustainability of the essentials of the programme was not properly dealt with.

  The Daily Trust reporter notes that shortly after the withdrawal of funding by the EU and FGN, Yobe River experienced a period of low flow as a result of the drought in the Sahel Savanna part of Nigeria. This low flow compounded the issue of food security in the Yobe Basin. The food security problem is further exacerbated by the spread of invasive Typha grass  that took over flood rice and cassava fields, blocking river channels, and undermining fisheries.

It should be noted that apart from drought, proper integrated water resources management was not practiced in the Komadugu-Yobe River Basin because there was no proper coordination of releases from the dams in the upstream part of this basin.

Governor Ibrahim Gaidam of Yobe State should be praised for finding alternative funding for the continuation of the programme.

communities that have impacted positively on the provision of potable drinking water to over 71,500 people.  These add up to 143 water points for about 72,000 people or a water point for about 500 people.

This is laudable as it satisfies what the National Water and Sanitation policy of January 2000 stipulates, i.e. Rural water supply guaranteed minimum level of service 30 liters per capita per day within 250 meters of the community of 150 to 5,000 people, serving about 250-500 persons per water point. …”




by Depo Adenle, Ph.D. (Hydrogeology)


[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.