1

EVALUATION AND REVIEW OFWESCOORD STRUCTURES

Final Report (Draft 1)

December 2010

By Pierre Bwale

Scarcity of Water in Arid areas (Turkana)

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I

Part II

Part III

List of Abbreviations 3Acknowledgments 4Executive Summary 5INTRODUCTION 8

GENERAL CONTEXT1.1 Background 81.2 WESCOORD goals and Objectives 81.3 The current evaluation 9 1.3.1 Methodology

a. Literature review 10b. Main interviews 11c. Attendance to meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11d. Limitation and constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

FINDINGS2.1 WESCOORD response to recent emergencies in Kenya . . . . 112.2 Review of reformed institutional structures in the WASH sector and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.3 Field visits to emergency prone areas where the WESCOORD managed to deliver effective results . . . . . . . 13

2.4 Review of preparedness plans and pre- positioning options/sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.5 Linkages between WESCOORD and other sectoral emergency response structures position . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 14

2.6 Evaluation of both GoK & NGOs emergency interventions for sustainability & reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.7 Operational strategies to reduce community vulnerability to climate variability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.8 Review of existing GoK emergency coordination structures including communication structures . . . . . . . . . 16

2.9 Note of the findings and recom. of the 2007 KFSSG review and 2002 & 2007 WESCOORD reviews. . . . . . . . . . 16

2.10 Overview of WESCOORD strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

ANNEXES

Annex 1: TORs for evaluation and review of WESCOORD structures October – November 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Annex 2: List of persons met for interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Annex 3: Questionnaire for the interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ASAL Arid and Semi Arid LandsCAP Consolidated Appeal ProcessCHW Community Health WorkersDSG District Steering GroupDSDDC District Social Dimension Development CommitteeDWC District Water CoordinatorsEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEMOP Emergency Operation ProgrammesGAA German Agro-ActionGOK Government of KenyaICRC International Committee of the Red CrossIRC International Rescue CommitteeKFSM Kenya Food Security MeetingKFSSG Kenya Food Security Steering GroupM&E Monitoring and EvaluationMWI Ministry of Water and IrrigationNADIMA National Disaster Management AuthorityNETWAS Network for Water and Sanitation InternationalNGO Non Governmental OrganizationSIS Sector Information SystemSNV Netherlands Development OrganizationSWAP Sector Wide ApproachSWG Sector Working GroupTOR Terms of referenceUNICEF KCO United Nations Children’s Education Fund Kenya Country OfficeUNOCHA United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian AssistanceWES Water and Environmental Sanitation SectorWESCOORD Water and Environmental Sanitation CoordinationWRMA Water Resources Management AuthorityWSB Water Service BoardWSWG Water Sector Working GroupWSTG Water Sector Technical Group

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude to the people who made possible this review.Particular gratitude to Elfatih Mohamed (UNICEF KCO) for his advices and orientation, Hagos Tadesse (UNICEF KCO) for facilitating the connection to WESCOORD members; Eliud Wamwangi (WESCOORD) for a briefing on the Kenya Food Security structure and the choice of sites to visit.Dear UNICEF field Officers, thank you for making easy my meetings with the actors in the field. My appreciation goes also to all provincial and district officers in charge of water services and health for their availability. All the NGOs and WESCOORD members in Nairobi, Nakuru, Turkana, Garissa, Kisumu, Kakamega and Busia, my gratitude is for you. Martin Worth (UNICEF KCO), my thanks for sharing his view about this review.

The KCO WASH administrative body for facilitating my work, gracia!

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. STRENGTHS

B. WEAKNESSES

This evaluation of the Water and Environmental Sanitation Coordination(WESCOORD) was conducted by Dr Pierre K. Bwale between October and November 2010. The methodology used includes literature review, interviews of active actors in Water and Environmental Sanitation sector in Nairobi, Turkana, Garissa, Kisumu, Kakamega and Busia. The key findings of the review are summarized below.

WESCOORD is recognized by all members as the ideal forum to discuss all matter related to water and sanitation;WESCOORD has a Secretariat although its activities need to be consolidated. The secretariat is co-chaired by the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI) and UNICEF;Terms of reference are defined for both national and district WESCOORDs; Participation in the forum is open for both governmental and non governmental actors;Good coordination with information sharing especially during emergency situations;Meetings are held regularly (weekly, bimonthly) during crisis situations; WESCOORD is seen as an add value to members at district level;First steps have been taken to improve information flow between national and district WESCOORDs.

Linkage between national, provincial and district WESCOORDS is weak;At the district level the new water structures, the National Water Corporation and private sector are not represented.Attendance of WESCOORD meetings at national and district levels is low. At provincial levels very few meetings have been held. There is a lack of standardization of guidelines or harmonization of procedures both at national and district levels.There is weak technical expertise at the national level.The national level is biased towards emergencies and not development interventions.Cross cutting issues (such as gender, protection issues and HIV/AIDs) are not emphasized on in WESCOORD meetings.Very few districts have an emergency preparedness plan or a contingency plan.There is no Monitoring & Evaluation system though some partners are reluctant to it.Meetings at the national level are limited to general issues. Technical topics are barely discussed at this level which may be one of the reasons for low attendance.

•

•

••

•

•••

••

•

•

••

•

•

•

•

6

C. OPPORTUNITIES

D. THREATS

E. RECOMMENDATIONS

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Reinforcing links with districts by establishing a good information system –from national to district and vice versa. A full time dedicated staff could eventually play the role for a limited time until an information management system is operational.The national WESCOORD can serve as a lobbying and advocacy body for issues that the districts are unable to address (frame work, guidelines, gapsidentification, etc.)The national WESCOORD can be an entry point to fund projects at district level from donors.

Provincial and district Water Service officers, Public Health Officers do not have WESCOORD as element of their TOR. Therefore, WESCOORD is seen as a secondary activity for they are not evaluated for it. WESCOORD remains an emergency structure generally on the go during crisis situations. Out of crisis, actors trend to loose their interest in the structure to the detriment of other existing forums;There is a general misperception of WESCOORD in many districts. The most spread out being a UNICEF structure to likely provide financial support. Low attendance to meetings at national as well as at district level, will negatively impact on WESCOORD functioning.

1. The Secretariat to ensure that the WESCOORD TORs are circulated to members and well understood. TORs should be reviewed and revised periodically with the participation of members. (Illustration is from the training workshop related to WESCOORD in Nakuru last month, where some actors in water sector heard about the TORs for the first time)

2. WESCOORD Secretariat to establish an effective information system and set up a database - collect information from districts, collate and disseminate information from all actors, and follow-up on specific actions. Additional resources may be required!

3. Meetings at the national level should be thematic oriented rather than being generalist in nature. Members who have more experience in a subject of common interest could be asked to make a presentation and share what is considered to be best practices. Among other topics are:new technologies, capacity building, cross cutting issues (HIV/AIDS, gender, child protection), Water in Slums, etc.

4. At least once a year the national WESCOORD should organize an experience sharing and lessons learning forum for all districts WESCOORD. In addition members of the national WESCOORD should be

7

encouraged to attend district WESCOORD meetings in order to assess what is on the ground.

5. Consider a rotation around membership in chairing WESCOORD meetings so that members are more involved and WESCOORD is not regarded as a UNICEF structure.

6. Develop or update a comprehensive mapping of potential emergencies, current actors, identify gaps/needs and possible interventions to be carried out.

7. WESCOORD can play an advocacy and representation role for districts: i.e. fundraising role from donors following gaps/needs identified in each district.

8. Facilitate the development of emergency preparedness and response plans/contingency plans – Can be planned during a sharing forum

9. The national WESCOORD can design curriculum for capacity building to be adapted at district levels following their characteristics.

10. WESCOORD in collaboration with members helps develop common standards and common strategies to respond to emergencies (flood, drought, cholera, etc.) based on best practices;

11. In agreement with partners, develop a framework for monitoring and evaluation mechanisms

12. WESCOORD to play a role in development interventions considering that water sector is crucial for communities even out of emergency.

8

INTRODUCTION

Part I

1. GENERAL CONTEXT

1.1 Background

1.2 WESCOORD Goals and Objectives

main objectives

The current review has been carried out by Dr Pierre Bwale as a consultantbetween October and November 2010. The work includes interviews withdifferent WESCOORD members both at the national and district levelsspecifically Turkana, Garissa, Kisumu, Kakamega and Busia. Otherstakeholders involved in the water sector have also been contacted.The main findings (part 2 of this report) and key recommendations (part 3)have been compiled from the above interviewees and form the core of thisreport. A conclusion followed by some annexes mark the end of this report.

WESCOORD is a national multi-agency emergency co-ordination body on waterand environmental sanitation focusing on multiple interventions duringemergencies and establishing preparedness for emergencies.It was formed as a result of the La Nina related drought of 2000/2001 whichinflicted severe difficulties on the Kenyan population, making an already difficultsituation worse particularly in 12 mostly northern arid and semi-arid districts.(Ref. TOR WESCORD).

WESCOORD was to be a water and sanitation sectoral specialist group of theKenya Food Security Steering Group (KFSSG), itself a technical arm of KenyaFood Security Meeting (KFSM), which oversees the Emergency OperationProgramme (EMOP).

WESCOORD brings together agencies both governmental and non-governmentalthat are active in responding to water and sanitation needs of communities indistricts affected by droughts or floods. It aims to achieve a more coordinatedand integrated approach in implementing WES emergency interventions.

The of WESCOORD are:

1. Ensure co-ordination and best support to Water and Environmental Sanitation (WES) interventions during emergencies.2. Develop adequate preparedness measures for water and environmental sanitation in recovery periods.3. Maintain a comprehensive database of WES operations in the country for effective co-ordination in emergencies.4. Co-ordinate mobilization and utilization of resources

9

Specific functions:

1.3 The current Evaluation

1. Acting as a WES technical resources arm for KFSSG/KFSM and other interested actors;

2. Channeling information to actors in the WES sector at both national and district levels;

3. Develop and disseminate methodologies and approaches;

4. Support and improve WES coordination in the districts;

5. Evaluating WES linkages and networks;

6. Identify priorities for WES coordination at national and district level;

7. Facilitate rapid needs assessments of situation and needs, with an emphasis on prioritizing critical areas and developing protocols for these.

8. Develop and implement resources mobilization and utilization strategies.

9. Development of clear written plans (management and contingency) in coordination with district actors.

10. Document progress of emergency interventions from the agencies and districts.

11. Development and implementation of effective monitoring and evaluation tools.

12. Production of guidelines (both technical and managerial) from above.

13. Conducting assessments of broader perspective, longer term issues, including environmental issues (balance with political ones)

14. Assessment of implementation of WES programmes overall and/or specific ones

The purpose of this evaluation was to analyze the WESCOORD structure both at the national and district levels and propose recommendations that could improve coordination at these two levels.

The specific tasks were the following:

Review WESCOORD response to recent emergencies in Kenya & comment on effectiveness of response taking into account UNICEF’s Core Commitments

o

10

for Children in Emergencies (CCCs) and the Government’s response structures.

Review reformed institutional structures in the WASH sector and make recommendations as to how existing emergency response structures including WESCOORD can be strengthened and institutionalized within the existing structures. Examine possible linkages to the long term development agenda, for example cooperation in planning, reporting, policy development & uptake, sourcing requirements etc.

Undertake field visits to emergency prone areas where the WESCOORD managed to deliver effective results in response to emergencies.

Review preparedness plans and pre-positioning options/sites.

Review linkages between WESCOORD and other sectoral emergency response structures position at national & district level and identify capacity gaps, recommend strategies to address these gaps with an emphasis on improved quality and accessibility of WASH infrastructure data and the need for improved horizontal & vertical communication.

Review linkages between WESCOORD and UN emergency coordination/disaster response structures, identify capacity gaps and recommend strategies to address them

Evaluate both GoK & NGO emergency interventions for sustainability & reliability and recommend minimum capacity building requirements to provide sustainable operation & maintenance of WASH emergency developed infrastructure.

Recommend a set of operational strategies to reduce community vulnerability to climate variability through preparedness and response whilemaintaining environmental sustainability. (see

The methodology used for the review includes:- Literature review;- Interviews with a wide range of government Officials, NGOs

representatives at both the national and district levels, donor representatives and UN actors;

- Attendance to meetings including WESCOORD monthly (October 2010)meeting and a training workshop in Nakuru (4 to 5 November 2010);

- Field visits: the following areas were visited: Turkana, Garissa, Kisumu,Kakamega and Busia.

In order to better understand the structure of WESCOORD, a number of documents were reviewed by the consultant. Among those documents, the following have been examined:

WESCOORD Terms of reference;

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Full TORs in Annex1)

a) Literature review

1.3.1 Methodology

◊

11

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

District WESCOORD terms of reference;Minutes of WESCORD meeting WESCOORD review reports 2002 & 2007Review of Coordination structures (draft report);Kenya Water Act 2002Arid and Semi Arid Lands (ASAL) PolicyA handbook on Water Sector Indicators;Kenya’s successes and challenges in the SWAP processWash annual Work plan 2010Acceleration of Water Supply and Sanitation towards reaching Kenya MDG (2008-2013)

A series of interviews was carried out by the consultant at national, provincial and district levels. The complete list is annexed (Annex 2) at the end of this document. Among the organizations contacted are: Ministry of Water and Irrigation personnel both at national and district levels, personnel from Water Service Board; Ministries of Public Health and Medical Services, Kenya Red Cross (KRC), OXFAM/UK, World Vision International, Action Aid, Medical Emergency Relief International (MERLIN), International Rescue Committee (IRC), Action Against Hunger (AAH), Christian Aid, CONCERN, German Agro Action (GAA), Health and Water Foundation.

Their views constitute the principal findings and recommendations in this report.

The October monthly meeting was an opportunity to meet not only with the Chairperson and his Secretariat but also with many stakeholders in WESCOORD. Moreover, it was an occasion to find out about the contents of the meeting. Furthermore, the training workshop in Nakuru gave me a wide prospect of WESCOORD and put me in touch with the field actors prior to my visits to various districts.

Is expected with WESCOORD members

Due to short time, the consultant couldn’t visit some important areas such as Isiolo and Pokot initially planned. Moreover, some stakeholders and donors couldn’t be met with as their agendas were conflicting with the timetable of the consultant.

b) Main interviews

c) Attendance to meetings

d) Debriefing meeting

e) Limitation and Constraints of the review

12

Part II

2. MAIN FINDINGS

2.1 WESCOORD response to recent emergencies in Kenya & comment on effectiveness of response taking into account UNICEF’s Core Commitments for Children in Emergencies (CCCs) and the Government’s response structures

2.2 Review of reformed institutional structures in the WASH sector and recommendations on how existing emergency response structures including WESCOORD can be strengthened and institutionalized

Information collected was different from one geographical location to another and subsequent to the nature of emergency. Cholera, floods and drought were the most emergencies dealt with. It must be noted down that some respondents were newly appointed and were not much aware about the past emergencies.

In Turkana whereas few actors found the response to floods successful, most of contributors found that the planning took too long and therefore interventions were minimal and untimely.However, there has been a joint assessment and all members were involved as a result of information sharing.For the cholera outbreak, the response was not found appropriate as it took a long time to detect the disease due to lack of laboratory, lack of technical staff and a weak coordination. Additionally, the situation was high jacked by politicians

In Garissa, for both cholera and flood, a special WES Committee was established under WESCOORD and it proved to be effective regardless of the lack of contingency planning and prepositioning of materiel and drugs. Information sharing was good, roles were well allocated and complementary leading to no duplication of tasks.

In Kisumu, despite the flimsy coordination, the response to cholera in 2010 was found successful. However, there was a gap between sanitation/hygiene and water facilities implementation.

In brief, while there is still a need to improve the emergency response in terms of timeliness, information sharing, emergency preparedness plans and contingency plans, most WESCOORD members were of the view that the coordination of the recent emergencies was good.

within the existing structures. Possible linkages to the long term development agenda, including cooperation in planning, reporting, policy development & uptake, sourcing requirements etc.

To date and to our knowledge not much has been achieved since the establishment of “Arid and Semi-Arid Lands Policy” in 2004 and the “Review of

13

coordination structures in Kenya” in May 2007. In this policy, a development forum for arid and semi-arid lands was to be established with the view of forming a focal point at national level that that will liaise with the districts in overseeing the implementation of the programmes. Members are issued from the Kenya Food Security Meeting (KFSM) where relevant ministries, UN agencies, NGOs and donors are represented.

In the reforms, the water sector has a working group that specifically focuses on the sector and provides technical support and advice to implementing agencies and communities. This working group is comprised of members from GoK departments, civil society organizations and key community and religious representatives. The sectoral working groups are technical advisory groups to the District Steering Groups (DSGs). Where appropriate, integrated or multi-sectoral approach to programming will need to be undertaken.”

WESCOORD falls under the Food Security Meeting (KFSM) which the status is still under a legalization process. There are other working groups in the sector and unfortunately there is no coordination between them. Other new groups are emerging and their roles are not shared.

To strengthen the emergency structures, there is a need to organize a coordination forum of all working groups in the WASH sector under the SWAP process in order to understand the roles played by each group and to agree on a coordination mechanism. That forum could also be a platform to evaluate the long term development agenda, the planning, the reporting and the sourcing requirements.

Field visits were carried out in various areas including Turkana, Garissa, Kisumu, Kakamega and Busia. Interviews were conducted and meetings were held with various WES partners especially the WESCOORD members. A series of questions related to WESCOORD activities was posed and answers were recorded for analysis. (See annex 3 for details on questionnaire). So far the following actors were interviewed: Water and Health Foundation (WHF), OXFAM/UK, Action Against Hunger, Christian Aid, Ministry of Water and Irrigation Staff, Ministries of Public Health and Medical Services, Kenya Red Cross, International Rescue Committee, MERLIN, CARE International, World Vision International, International Child Support (ICS), Innovation for Poverty Action (IPA). (See annex 2: list of persons interviewed). Their views constitute the core of this report.

WESCOORD has not come up with emergency plans both at national and district levels. Nevertheless few agencies members of WESCOORD have internal emergency plans but these plans are not shared with other actors or with WESCOORD Secretariat.

2.3 Undertake field visits to emergency prone areas where the WESCOORD managed to deliver effective results in response to emergencies.

2.4 Review of preparedness plans and pre-positioning options/sites.

14

Prepositioning of some materiel and drugs for cholera outbreaks have been mentioned by the provincial Public Health Office in Kisumu.

recommend strategies to address these gaps with an emphasis on improved quality and accessibility of WASH infrastructure data and the need for improved horizontal & vertical communication.

As in point 2.2 above, few have been brought about in this regard at the national level. The National Disaster Management structure could play a role in gathering all actors involved in emergency. Furthermore, invitations to the WESCOOD monthly meeting could be expanded to other key players. It is expected that with the WESCOORD permanent Secretariat, linkages with other sectoral emergencies will augment.

At district level WESCOORD linkages with other emergency actors are more developed. Meetings are attended by almost all sectors. The explanation may be due to the small number of actors and an easy interconnection between them. All WESCOORD members at district level wish to see the Ministries of Health, Education, Social welfare and Finance more involved in the water sector to develop more facilities and to maximize the accessibility of communities to further WES services.

To improve communication, district WESCOORD actors urge national WESCOORD to initiate an information system and set up a database to which they can easily access. While there is still a lot of works to achieve into creating efficient linkages between the two levels, national WESCOORD emphasized on this matter during the last training workshops carried out in Nakuru, Garissa and Mombasa in November 2010.

Asked about the way of sustaining the programmes they were implementing, a range of answers were provided by the WESCORD members. The views below reflect what have been put forward by them.

1. Programmes or projects should respond to needs identified by the community. Communities should participate in the implementation of projects since the very beginning. The nature of contributions is decided by a consensus. Communities are mobilized through local committees (Management Committee) in which all the layers of the community are represented and mainly women.

2. Local capacity building: there is a need to train communities. It is not enough to organize a seminar or a workshop without a follow up. Capacity building is continuous and done step by step including a monitoring,

2.5 Linkages between WESCOORD and other sectoral emergency response structures position at national & district level and identify capacity gaps

2.6 Evaluation of both GoK & NGOs emergency interventions for sustainability & reliability and recommendation on minimum capacity building requirements to provide sustainable operation & maintenance of WASH emergency developed infrastructure.

,

15

supervision and evaluation. Trained folks are accountable to the community they come from, that’s why they should be selected and recommended by that community. Training toolkits are provided during the exercise.

3. Prefer local or easily accessible materiel. The community is aware of cost and origin of materiel and spares.

4. Integration of projects/programmes in existing structures. As regards hygiene and sanitation, most facilitators are from the public health sector and the follow up of activities is done by the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH). Therefore, all projects in that sector should be implemented in collaboration with the MoPH. Take advantage on the Community Health Workers (CHW).

5. Invest in solid infrastructures that could last 20 to 30 years.6. Finality of all programme/project at community level should be towards the

ownership by that community. “Avoid lift in and out”. Hand over project to the community after training and identification of resources. Follow up the project for at least six months after the handing over to the community.

7. Allocation of trained engineers to support the community and to supervise the functioning of projects on a regular basis.

8. Replace fuel pumps by “Solar pumps”. Solar pumps are costly (approx. KSh 600,000 per Unit). The maintenance is easy and doesn’t require extra moneyin the immediate future. However, a strong commitment from the community is required to protect the pumps.

9. Work with the government (local or national) and engage the government to take the lead of projects/programmes.

10. Use of sustainable and appropriate technologies.11. Individual members of community to contribute with a small payment to be able to replace the damaged spare parts

In our view, WESCOORD could take advantage on these suggestions to set up standards for development and sustainability of projects

Actors were asked if they had strategic plans to mitigate consequences of climate change on vulnerable population mainly in arid and semi-arid areas. Although climate change seems to be a concern, very few have strategic plans. Thus, answers collected were shallow and unspecific. Following are some of the answers:

Reduce dependence on fuel and promote manual pumps to lessen pollution;Water and food security projects should be extended to livestock as some communities especially in arid and semi-arid areas are dependent on cattle;Liaise with Disaster Risk Reduction for update and guidance;Have emergency preparedness plans;Participate in planting trees in schools – Free seeds are provided from the Ministry of Environment. Efficient use of charcoal.

2.7 Recommend a set of operational strategies to reduce community vulnerability to climate variability through preparedness and response while maintaining environmental sustainability.

oo

ooo

16

These views are indicative of the way climate change is understood and dealt with by WESCOORD members. This is an opportunity for WESCOORD to raise awareness, develop strategies and disseminate them to all actors in the WASH sector in order to alleviate the upshot of climate change on the vulnerable population.

The Government of Kenya (Gok) emergency coordination structures are discussed in point 2.10 below. Thus, the focus will be more on information, data sharing policies and procedures.

Till recently, WESCOORD has not had an effective systematic method of collecting, collating or disseminating information from national members or from the districts.Gathering of sector information was through the monthly meetings where agencies were meant to provide updates. There was a limitation as meetings are not attended by all water sector agencies. At central level, information provided is related to agencies’ activities and is redistributed to them as monthly minutes. At district level, activities reports are send to related ministries at provincial and central levels but not to national WESCOORD.There is no information flow from national to district levels and vice versa.

A system of information and a database are fundamentals for follow up and improvement of any programme. This has been a concern for the national WESCOORD that is focusing on the issue since the Secretariat was set up. Data collection was emphasized during the last WESCOORD training workshops held in November 2010 and funded by UNICEF. Forms for monthly data collection were given out to all participants from different districts. Each district is meant to fill in the form, send it back to national WESCOORD for compilation and feed back.

All disaster management structures operate under the National Authority Disaster Management Authority (NADIMA) which is the overall disaster management structure. Relief, response, information mitigation and recovery are coordinated by the department of Disaster Response. Partner agencies are represented in Disaster Management Committees constituted at national, district and community levels.

The “Review of coordination structures in Kenya”, that took place in May 2007 was meant to clarify roles of different emergency structures or Sector Working Groups (SWG) under the “Kenya Food Security Steering Groups” (KFSSG) in which falls WESCOORD and all under the Kenya Food Security Meeting (KFSM)

2.8 Review of existing GoK emergency coordination structures including communication structures, information & data sharing policies & procedures.

2.9 Note of the findings and recommendations of the 2007 KFSSG review and 2002 & 2007 WESCOORD reviews.

17

The suggestion was that these SWGs should not be involved in the direct management of sectoral matter and should conform to the established structures within and between sectors. Quote: “The

.”

Nonetheless, functions of the SWGs are defined as follows:Developing standards and guidelines for use by line ministries;Developing common methodologies;Informing and enforcing protocols;Sharing proposals for peer review;Sharing successes and failures including the results of evaluations.Lead discussions on the analysis of implementation and Provide technical support to the Kenya Food Security Meeting (KFSM) that happens to be the Inter-Agency Emergency Response.

To date, the KFSM under which a number of disaster coordination structures are operating including WESCOORD is not legalized. Additionally, a clarification is still needed with regards to roles and interactions of these structures during emergencies.

As regards the reviews of 2002 and 2007, recommendations have been issued on the way to go for WESCOORD. The Secretariat which is now established was seen as a key component to support WESCOORD in achieving its objectives. Besides, an action plan with various activities was proposed by stakeholders in March 2008, where again, the secretariat had to be the foundation for carrying out those activities.

For memory, the following TORs have been assigned to the Secretariat:

Coordination of all meetings,Dissemination of minutes and materials from other sectoral working groups,Focal point for receiving information from members,Monitoring and Evaluation,Create and manage a database,Liaising with districts,Attending other sector working group meetings,Attending and representation of WESCOORD in SWAP,Writing the annual report,Development and implementation of a WESCOORD strategic plan.Assist in mobilization of resources apart from the Flash Appeals.

To be efficient, and to fulfill its role, the Secretariat needs to be enhanced in terms of resources both materiel and human.

SWGs should not be involved in sector operations and it is proposed that a staff member who is the focal person for the sector represents them in the Disaster Management andResponse Secretariat

ooooooo

ooooooooooo

18

Analysis of main recommendations from the 2007 review

Recommendations Current status

Recommendations Current status

1

WESCOORD should establish a permanent secretariat that can collect information from districts, collate and disseminate information from all actors, develop action plans and follow-up on specific actions, which can feed into the sector informationsystem under the SWAP process.

The permanent Secretariat has been established. However it needs to be reinforced in order to fully operate.

2WESCOORD should be represented as a structure in the water sector working group under the SWAP process.

WESCOORD is represented as an emergency structure

3WESCOORD can play a representation role for district WESCOORDs at national level in planning structures such as the SWAP process and disseminate changes to districts

Although WESCOORD represents districts, no concrete actions have been undertaken

4 WESCOORD can also play a public awareness role on the new Water Act and SWAP process especially at district level.

WESCOORD status not yet legalized

5

Meetings at the national level should be issue based and cease to be generalist in nature. Thematic meetings (e.g. on cross cutting issues, urban water, capacity building in WES) where only members in that group are invited and other interested parties can be explored.

Meetings continue to be generalist though very few themes have been discussed

6 The WESCOORD terms of reference should be circulated to members and reviewed and revised periodically.

Majority of districts are aware about WESCOORD TORs even if some individuals do not.

7

Since there are two co-chairs (the Ministry and UNICEF) at the national level, members have suggested that the role played by UNICEF be rotated around the membership so that ownership is enhanced. However during the stakeholder’s workshop the agreement was that UNICEF and MOWI continue chairingWESCOORD.

This status remains the same

8

At least once a year the national WESCOORD should organize an experience sharing and lesson learning forum for all district WESCOORDs. In addition members of the national WESCOORD should attend district WESCOORD meetings in order to be intouch with what is on the ground.

This has not taken place

9 The national WESCOORD can play a fundraising role for district WESCOORDs especially for rapid response and contingency plans. This has not taken place

10 The national WESCOORD can play a capacity building role that is demand driven from the districts.

3 Training workshops have been carried out in that respect

11 Emphasis should be on preparedness and emergency measures as development coordination is being handled under SWAP

In LVS area and Turkana, some preparedness measures are in place.

12Some district WESCOORDs have began developing standards and guidelines for various interventions (Turkana), others should emulate this. Follow-up of this should be done by the national WESCOORD in other districts

This has not taken place

1

WESCOORD should establish a permanent secretariat that can collect information from districts, collate and disseminate information from all actors, develop action plans and follow-up on specific actions, which can feed into the sector informationsystem under the SWAP process.

The permanent Secretariat has been established. However it needs to be reinforced in order to fully operate.

2WESCOORD should be represented as a structure in the water sector working group under the SWAP process.

WESCOORD is represented as an emergency structure

3WESCOORD can play a representation role for district WESCOORDs at national level in planning structures such as the SWAP process and disseminate changes to districts

Although WESCOORD represents districts, no concrete actions have been undertaken

4 WESCOORD can also play a public awareness role on the new Water Act and SWAP process especially at district level.

WESCOORD status not yet legalized

19

5

Meetings at the national level should be issue based and cease to be generalist in nature. Thematic meetings (e.g. on cross cutting issues, urban water, capacity building in WES) where only members in that group are invited and other interested parties can be explored.

Meetings continue to be generalist though very few themes have been discussed

6 The WESCOORD terms of reference should be circulated to members and reviewed and revised periodically.

Majority of districts are aware about WESCOORD TORs even if some individuals do not.

7

Since there are two co-chairs (the Ministry and UNICEF) at the national level, members have suggested that the role played by UNICEF be rotated around the membership so that ownership is enhanced. However during the stakeholder’s workshop the agreement was that UNICEF and MOWI continue chairingWESCOORD.

This status remains the same

8

At least once a year the national WESCOORD should organize an experience sharing and lesson learning forum for all district WESCOORDs. In addition members of the national WESCOORD should attend district WESCOORD meetings in order to be intouch with what is on the ground.

This has not taken place

9 The national WESCOORD can play a fundraising role for district WESCOORDs especially for rapid response and contingency plans. This has not taken place

10 The national WESCOORD can play a capacity building role that is demand driven from the districts.

3 Training workshops have been carried out in that respect

11 Emphasis should be on preparedness and emergency measures as development coordination is being handled under SWAP

In LVS area and Turkana, some preparedness measures are in place.

12Some district WESCOORDs have began developing standards and guidelines for various interventions (Turkana), others should emulate this. Follow-up of this should be done by the national WESCOORD in other districts

This has not taken place

WESCOORD is recognized by all members as the ideal forum to discuss all matter related to water and sanitation;WESCOORD has a Secretariat although its activities need to be consolidated. The secretariat is co-chaired by the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI) and UNICEF;Terms of reference are defined for both national and district WESCOORDs; Participation in the forum is open for both governmental and non governmental actors;Good coordination with information sharing especially during emergency situations;Meetings are held regularly (weekly, bimonthly) during crisis situations; WESCOORD is seen as an add value to members at district level;First steps have been taken to improve information flow between national and district WESCOORDs.

Linkage between national, provincial and district WESCOORDS is weak;At the district level the new water structures, the National Water Corporation and private sector are not represented.Attendance of WESCOORD meetings at national and district levels is low. At provincial levels very few meetings have been held. There is a lack of standardization of guidelines or harmonization of procedures both at national and district levels.There is weak technical expertise at the national level.The national level is biased towards emergencies and not development interventions.Cross cutting issues (such as gender, protection issues and HIV/AIDs) are not emphasized on in WESCOORD meetings.Very few districts have an emergency preparedness plan or a contingency plan.There is no Monitoring & Evaluation system

2.10. Overview of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

A. STRENGTHS B. WEAKNESSES

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

20

though some partners are reluctant to it.Meetings at the national level are limited to general issues. Technical topics are barely discussed at this level which may be one of the reasons for low attendance.

Reinforcing links with districts by establishing a good information system –from national to district and vice versa. A full time dedicated staff could eventually play the role for a limited time until an information management system is operational.The national WESCOORD can serve as a lobbying and advocacy body for issues that the districts are unable to address (frame work, guidelines, gaps identification, etc.)The national WESCOORD can be an entry point to fund projects at district level from donors.

Provincial and district Water Service officers, Public Health Officers do not have WESCOORD as element of their TOR. Therefore, WESCOORD is seen as a secondary activity for they are not evaluated for it. WESCOORD remains an emergency structure generally on the go during crisis situations. Out of crisis, actors trend to loose their interest in the structure to the detriment of other existing forums;There is a general misperception of WESCOORD in many districts. The most spread out being a UNICEF structure to likely provide financial support. Low attendance to meetings at national as well as at district level, will negatively impact on WESCOORD functioning.

Among the recommendations issued by the WES actors and WESCOORD members, the following have retained our attention:

1. The Secretariat to ensure that the WESCOORD TORs are circulated to members and understood. TORs should be reviewed and revised periodically with the participation of members.

2. WESCOORD Secretariat to establish an effective information system and set up a database - collect information from districts, collate and disseminate information from all actors, and follow-up on specific actions. A permanent or half-time dedicated staff may be needed!

3. Meetings at the national level should be thematic oriented rather than being generalist in nature. Members who have more experience in a subject of common interest could be asked to make a presentation and share what is considered to be best practices. Among other topics; new technology, cross cutting issues (HIV/AIDS, gender, child protection), Water in Slams, capacity building, etc.

4. At least once a year the national WESCOORD should organize an experience sharing and lesson learning forum for all district WESCOORDs. In addition

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

C. Opportunities D. THREATS

Part III

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

21

members of the national WESCOORD should be encouraged to attend district WESCOORD meetings in order to assess what is on the ground.

5. Consider a rotation around membership in chairing WESCOORD meetings so that members are more involved and WESCOORD is not regarded as a UNICEF structure.

6. Develop or update a comprehensive mapping of potential emergencies, current actors, identify gaps/needs and possible interventions to be carried out.

7. WESCOORD can play an advocacy and representation role for districts: i.e. Fundraising role from donors following gaps/needs identified in each district

8. Facilitate the development of emergency preparedness and response plans/ Contingency plans – Can be planned during a sharing forum session.

9. The national WESCOORD can design curriculum for capacity building to be adapted at district levels following their characteristics.

10. WESCOORD in collaboration with partners, helps develop common standards and common strategies for emergencies (flood, drought, cholera etc.) based on best practices;

11. In agreement with partners, develop a framework for interventions and establish norms for monitoring and evaluation of all WES projects.

12. WESCOORD to play a role in mid-term and long-term development of WES for the sector is crucial even out of emergency.

WESCOORD within its mandate of bringing together agencies (governmental and non-governmental) to respond to water and sanitation needs of communities affected by droughts and floods, is seen by all members as theideal platform to share information and to discuss matter related to the WES sector. A permanent Secretariat to facilitate the achievement of its objectives is currently operational. This secretariat however needs to be strengthened to fully play its role of coordination and integration of emergency interventions. Based on literature review, meetings and field visits at provincial and district levels, the review was mostly centered on the following topics: Response to recent emergencies in Kenya – The long term development of WASH interventions – Preparedness plans – Links with others emergency structures –Sustainability of WASH programmes – WESCOOD itself and likely Strategies on Climate change. Views were collected from actors in the WES sector and recommendations issued. In a general way, if WESCOORD has been successful in some interventions and especially in response to emergencies, few have been completed taking into

4. CONCLUSION

22

account its objectives. It is expected that the permanent Secretariat if reinforced, will be essential to boost WESCOOD activities.

Kenya is a country suffers from cyclic, seasonal natural emergencies such as floods and droughts, periodic outbreaks of water borne diseases associated with such emergencies as well as general poor water and sanitation provision, conflicts and political violence causing internal displacement. The WASH Sector emergency coordination structure is known as WESCOORD (Water & Environmental Sanitation Coordination)

WESCOORD is a national multi-agency emergency co-ordination body on water and environmental sanitation focusing on multiple interventions during emergencies and establishing preparedness for emergencies. It was formed as a result of the La Nina related drought of 2000/2001 which inflicted severe difficulties on the Kenyan population, making an already difficult situation worse particularly in 12 mostly northern arid and semi-arid districts. WESCOORD was to be a water and sanitation sector specialist group of the Kenya Food Security Steering Group (KFSSG), itself a technical arm of Kenya Food Security Meeting (KFSM), which oversees the Emergency Operation Programme (EMOP).WESCOORD brings together agencies both governmental and non-governmental that are active in responding to water and sanitation needs of communities in districts affected by droughts or floods. It aims to achieve a more coordinated and integrated approach in implementing WASH emergency interventions. WESCOORD is chaired by the MoWI & co-chaired by UNICEF

UNICEF is the global WASH Cluster lead agency and has used the existing WESCOORD structure to conduct cluster functions. A review of WESCOORD conducted in late 2007 recommended that the WESCOORD secretariat be made permanent and strengthened to support sector coordination and the MoWI with UNICEF’s support have moved to ensure that this happens.

UNICEF as part of their 2010 AWP will conduct a further review of WESCOORD to support proper integration of the Secretariat into the operations of the MoWI, to develop closer links with the NGO community regarding longer term development in addition to its emergency mandate. The review will also look at the sustainability of emergency WASH interventions in Kenya and make

Annex 1:

TORs for evaluation and review of WESCOORD structuresOctober – November 2010

Justification

23

recommendations on minimum software requirements to ensure sustainable operation and maintenance of WASH infrastructure and how these may be enforced during emergency interventions.

In a participatory approach and focus group discussions coupled with field visits, the consultancy will cover the following scope of works:-

Review WESCOORD response to recent emergencies in Kenya & comment on effectiveness of response taking into account UNICEF’s Core Commitments for Children in Emergencies (CCCs) and the Government’s response structures.

Review reformed institutional structures in the WASH sector and make recommendations as to how existing emergency response structures including WESCOORD can be strengthened and institutionalized within the existing structures. The consultant will examine possible linkages to the long term development agenda, for example cooperation in planning, reporting, policy development & uptake, sourcing requirements etc.

Undertake field visits to emergency prone areas where the WESCOORD managed to deliver effective results in response to emergencies...

Review preparedness plans and pre-positioning options/sites.

Review linkages between WESCOORD and other sectoral emergency response structures position at national & district level and identify capacity gaps, recommend strategies to address these gaps with an emphasis on improved quality and accessibility of WASH infrastructure data and the need for improved horizontal & vertical communication.

Review linkages between WESCOORD and UN emergency coordination/disaster response structures, identify capacity gaps and recommend strategies to address them

Evaluate both GoK & NGO emergency interventions for sustainability & reliability and recommend minimum capacity building requirements to provide sustainable operation & maintenance of WASH emergency developed infrastructure.

Recommend a set of operational strategies to reduce community vulnerability to climate variability through preparedness and response while maintaining environmental sustainability.

The consultant will submit a report detailing the methodology to be used to fulfill the requirements – these will include but are not limited to:-

Conduct a wide range of interviews with Government officials, donor representatives, UN managers, NGO representatives at both the national and district level.

Attend relevant sectoral or inter-sector meetings.

Scope of Work

Methodology

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

24

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Conduct dialogues with communities & stakeholders.

Previous assessment and evaluation reports and agency reports will be examined in analyzing current coordination effectiveness.

Examine Government policy initiatives & long term development plans and their relevance to WESCOORD.

Review existing GoK emergency coordination structures including communication structures, information & data sharing policies & procedures

Take note of the findings and recommendations of the 2007 KFSSG review and 2002 & 2008 WESCOORD reviews.

Field visits to evaluate the impact of emergency interventions and sustainability of O&M structures of such interventions.

2010 AWP IR6

Final evaluation/review report of WASH Sector Emergency Coordination functions with recommendations.

Presentation of report to WESCOORD & CRC (Crisis Response Centre) meetings.

The candidate will have a wide experience in humanitarian and recovery interventions.

The candidate will have at least 10 years experience in working with Government/UN and NGOs in humanitarian and development assistance and policy.

The candidate will have a substantial understanding of humanitarian coordination in practice and knowledge of the UN’s Humanitarian Reform Programme.

The candidate will, ideally, have worked in Kenya and be fully conversant with the issues of vulnerability in the country especially with regards to food security.

The candidate will have a good record of undertaking assignments with short deadlines and has an excellent track record in producing clear and concise reports.

AWP areas covered

Expected Deliverables

Desired background and experience

25

LIST OF PERSONS MET FOR INTERVIEWS

1 Evans Misati James Health and Water Foundation evansmisati@healthandwater.org2 Bryan McSorley Oxfam UK Nairobi bmcsorley@oxfam.org3 Charles Action Against Hunger4 Maurice Onyango Christian Aid monyango@christian-aid.org5 James Kahia IRC Nairobi James.Kahia@theIRC.org6 Innocent Sifuna DPHO Turkana Central7 Kenneth Omondi DWO Turkana Central KennethOmondi2005@yahoo.com8 David Iloshi DWO Turkana North Koskewas@gmail.com9 Sammy Rono DWO Turkana Loima

10 Mutuku Mwema Oxfam Turkana Mmwema@oxfam.org.UK11 Edward Ethuro Kenya Red Cross - Turkana Calirunde@yahoo.com12 Peter Mutanda IRC - Turkana13 Lucas Edete MERLIN Kenya.lodwar.wm@merlin-

eastafrica.org14 Dr Sareer MERLIN Kenya.lodwar.phc@merlin-

eastafrica.org15 Francis Asuna UNICEF - Garisa fasunah@unicef.org16 Zeinab A. Ahmed UNICEF - Garisa zeahmed@unicef.org17 Ahmed Adam DWO Garissa Ahmed.dwo10@yahoo.com18 Jack Otieno Odongo CARE International - Garissa jack@gar.care.or.ke19 Ahmed A. Arab DPHO - Garissa Ahmedarab22@yahoo.com20 Diana Mulatya UNICEF - Kisumu21 Elisha Jack Oraro Water Service Board - LVS Jackelisha.oraro@yahoo.com22 Alfred Okeyo Adongo SANA Kisumu okeyoadongo@yahoo.com23 Charles Kamole World Vision International Kis24 Charles Ngetich PPHO Kisumu Province terenge@yahoo.com25 James Onsongo PPHO Kisumu Province OnsongoJames80@yahoo.com26 Timothy Olubero PPHO Kakamega oluberotim@yahoo.com27 Nelly Mkoko Water Service Board - LVN nmkoko@lvnwsb.go.ke28 William Akumu DWO - Busia29 Fambwa Ambrose District Med. Officer - Busia30 Eliud K. Wamwangi WESCOORD Secretariat ekagema@yahoo.com31 Nicholas Cox USAID/OFDA ncox@usaid.gov/ncox@ofda.gov32 Yoichiro Yamada Minister - Japan Embassy Yoichiro.yamada@mofa.go.jp33 Hiroshi Matsuura 2nd Secretary – Japan Embassy Hiroshi.matsuura-2@mofa.go.jp

Annexe 2

N0 Name Organization E-mail

26

Annex 3

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE INTERVIEW

1) In line with the recent emergencies in Kenya: floods (Bunyala area/Busia, Kilifi, Bandera/N-E Province); drought (Turkana, Pokot); post electoral crisis; etc. How do you appreciate the emergency response and what would you like to see improved?

2) How do you see this program in 5-10 years? Do you have a plan for a long term development? Is there a link between this programme and other existing structures where it can be integrated?

3) In an emergency situation, which are the other sectors you collaborate/ or would like to collaborate with in order to improve the accessibility to water and sanitation. How do you exchange information with other partners active in WASH?

4) How do you link the Wash programme to the emergency coordination, is there anything that should be improved between this programme and the emergency coordination?

5) How do you evaluate the level of collaboration between your organization and the Government of Kenya during an emergency? What do you think should be done and how, to sustain the program at peripheral level (provincial, district, community)?

6) Climate change is more and more perceptible and the communities in rural areas (mainly in arid and semi arid vicinity) are the most exposed; are there any strategies that you have established to reduce their vulnerability?

SPECIFIC FOR DISTRICT

7) Are you aware of a comprehensive WESCOORD database used by WASH partners in the country for effective coordination?

8) Resource mobilization: How do you mobilize resources? Have you received any resources from WESCOORD?

9) Have you received any technical advice/assistance/training from WESCOORD (capacity building, quality of water, maintenance/standards of manual pumps, etc.)

10) How do you classify the level of WESCOORD data collection and dissemination? How do you think the flow of information on WESCOORD should be upheld between the national and district levels?

11) How do you think the linkage between national and district WESCOORD could be ameliorated?

27

12) Are there any guidelines from the national level that are used by WESCOORDs actors country wide? If yes, from which structure (of Kenya Food Security) are they issued?

13) In the best scenario, what would be the add value of WESCOORD in your district?

14) Have defined priorities related to WESCOORD in your district?

15) Have you conducted any specific assessment in line with the WESCOORD ongoing activities in your district?

16) Are the WESCOORD partners/actors open for an M&E of their programmes/projects in your district/province?

17) Have you developed any emergency preparedness plans and response in your district? If not, why?

18) Have you undertaken long term investments in line with WESCOORD?

19) Are there any other issues such as gender, HIV/Aids, Child Protection, etc., that are taken into account when developing WESCOORD programmes?