nigeriawash.orgnigeriawash.org/...Bauchi_and_Kaduna_Urban_Sanitation_… · Web viewSubmission...
143
WASH Coordination Project Bauchi and Kaduna Urb Sanitation Baseline Survey Repor i
Transcript of nigeriawash.orgnigeriawash.org/...Bauchi_and_Kaduna_Urban_Sanitation_… · Web viewSubmission...
WASH Coordination ProjectBauchi and Kaduna Urban SanitationBaseline Survey Report
i
ACTIVITY INFORMATION Program Name: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Coordination Project
(WCP)
Activity Start Date and End Date:
November 1, 2016 to October 31, 2018
Name of Prime Implementing Partner:
Development Innovations Group (DIG)
Contract/Agreement Number:
AID-620-TO-16-00003
Name of Subcontractors/ Subawardees:
DAI
Geographic Coverage(cities and or countries):
Kaduna and Bauchi States, Nigeria
2
CONTENTS
Activity Information...............................................................2Contents................................................................................3Acronyms...............................................................................61. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................81.1 Status of Water and Sanitation in Nigeria.......................................81.2 Outline of Baseline Survey............................................................10
2. METHODOLOGY.............................................................113. HOUSEHOLD SURVEY.....................................................123.1 Summary and Methodology..........................................................123.2 Overall Findings............................................................................143.2.1.....................General Characteristics and Socioeconomic Information
......................................................................................................143.2.2......................................................Current Water and Sanitation Situation
......................................................................................................163.2.3..................................................................Hygiene Practices and Provisions
......................................................................................................193.2.4.................Opinions Regarding Sanitation and Willingness to Pay for
Sanitation Services........................................................................193.3 Regional Variations.......................................................................213.3.1..................................................General and Socio-Economic Information
......................................................................................................213.3.2............................................................................Current Sanitation Situation
......................................................................................................223.3.3....................................................................Hygiene Practices and Provision
......................................................................................................243.3.4.................Opinions Regarding Sanitation and Willingness to Pay for
Sanitation Services........................................................................253.4 Variations by Sex..........................................................................263.4.1..................................................General and Socio-Economic Information
......................................................................................................263.4.2............................................................................Current Sanitation Situation
......................................................................................................27
3
3.4.3....................................................................Hygiene Practices and Provision......................................................................................................27
3.4.4.................Opinions Regarding Sanitation and Willingness to Pay for Sanitation Services........................................................................27
4. INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS..............................................284.1 Service Users................................................................................284.2 Service Providers..........................................................................334.3 Policy Makers and Regulators.......................................................40
5. OVERVIEW OF SANITATION INVESTMENTS.....................435.1 Overview of Federal Investments and Finances for Urban Water
and Sanitation...............................................................................445.1.1Bauchi State: Overview of the Investments and Finances for Urban
Water and Sanitation....................................................................465.1.2..........Kaduna State: Overview of the Investments and Finances for
Urban Water and Sanitation..........................................................495.2 Financial Flows to Urban Sanitation from Development Partners
(Overview of Development Partner Investments for Urban Water and Sanitation in Nigeria)..............................................................52
5.3 Financial Flows to Urban Sanitation from Households (Household Sanitation Investments)................................................................56
5.3.1.................Overview of Household Investments for Urban Water and Sanitation in Bauchi and Kaduna..................................................56
5.3.2........................................Household Investments in Sanitation Facilities......................................................................................................57
5.3.3.........................................Household Investments in Sanitation Services......................................................................................................57
5.4 Overview of the Sanitation Service Chain and Role of the Private Sector............................................................................................58
6. GENDER CONSIDERATIONS............................................596.1 What is gender mainstreaming?...................................................606.2 Why Mainstream Gender in WASH Services?................................606.3 WASH, Gender and Opportunities for Women and Girls in Nigeria606.4 Overview of Sanitation and Hygiene Issues Faced by Women and
Girls in Kaduna and Bauchi...........................................................616.5 Gender Disparities in WASH Governance and Implications for
Education, Well-being and Empowerment in Kaduna and Bauchi.62
4
7. URBAN SANITATION DIAGNOSTICS TOOLS REVIEW.......637.1 Overview of Urban Sanitation Diagnostic Tools............................637.1.1...........................Table 7.1.1 Sanitation Diagnostic: Assessment Tools
......................................................................................................647.1.2.........................Table 7.1.2 Sanitation Diagnostic: Prioritization Tools
......................................................................................................647.1.3. Table 7.1.3 Sanitation Diagnostic: Planning and Decision-Making
Tools..............................................................................................657.2 Evaluation of Urban Sanitation Diagnostic Tools...........................657.2.1...Table 7.2.1 Evaluation of Sanitation Diagnostic: Assessment Tool
......................................................................................................657.2.2Table 7.2.2 Evaluation of Sanitation Diagnostic: Prioritization Tools
......................................................................................................667.2.3.........Table 7.2.3 Evaluation of Sanitation Diagnostic: Planning and
Decision-Making Tools...................................................................677.3 Recommendations on Appropriate Tools for USAID Urban
Programming in Nigeria................................................................68
8. SUMMARY AND SETTING THE STAGE FOR NEXT STEPS. 699. Annexes.........................................................................71
5
AcronymsADS Automated Data SystemAFD French Development AgencyAfDB African Development BankBASEPA Bauchi State Environmental Protection AgencyBSWB Bauchi State Water BoardBSWSC Bauchi State Water and Sewerage CorporationCARS Capacity, Accountability, Responsiveness, and Sector ExperienceCoP Community of PracticeCOP Chief of PartyCSO Civil Society OrganizationDIG Development Innovations Group DFID Department for International Development (United Kingdom)EOI Expression of Interest EU European UnionFMWR Federal Ministry of Water ResourcesIBNET International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation UtilitiesJMP Joint Monitoring ProjectKEPA Kaduna State Environmental Protection AgencyKSWC Kaduna State Water Corporation LGAs Local Government AreasLOP Life of ProjectMDG Millennium Development GoalsMWR Ministry of Water ResourcesM&E Monitoring and Evaluation₦ Naira (Nigerian national currency)NBS National Bureau of StatisticsNDHS National Demographic and Health SurveyNGO Non-governmental organizationNUWSRP National Urban Water Sector Reform ProjectNWSA Nigeria Water Supply AssociationOCA Organizational Capacity AssessmentOSDG Office of Sustainable Development GoalsPIP Performance Improvement ProgramSFD Shit Flow DiagramSPARC State Partnership for Accountability, Responsiveness and CapabilitySWA State Water AgencySWB State Water BoardSUBEB State Universal Basic Education BoardSUWASA Sustainable Water and Sanitation in AfricaUNDP United Nations Development ProgramUSAID United States Agency for International Development
6
USG United States GovernmentUWSS Urban Water Supply and SanitationUSSSIP Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Improvement ProjectWASH Water, Sanitation and HygieneWB World BankWCP Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Coordination ProjectWHO World Health OrganizationWSSSRP Water Supply Sanitation Sector Reform ProgramsWSP World Bank Water and Sanitation ProgramUN United NationsUNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund
7
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe purpose of this report is to present the Nigeria WASH Coordination Project’s (WCP) Urban Sanitation Baseline Survey Report. This report provides an overview of urban WASH sector in the cities of Kaduna and Bauchi in Nigeria. This report is intended to be shared with and serve as a basis for discussion among sanitation stakeholders in Nigeria through the upcoming WCP Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Community of Practice. The report incorporates the following sections: Methodology; Household Survey; Institutional Analysis; Overview of Sanitation Investments; Gender Considerations; Urban Sanitation Diagnostics Tools Review; and Summary and Setting the Stage for Next Steps.
The Development Innovations Group (DIG) is managing the WCP, a 24-month project financed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The purpose of the WCP is to achieve the dual benefits of improved health and well-being for Nigerians through increased and more financially sustainable access to WASH services, and to build the confidence of the public in the government’s ability to deliver basic services. The WCP focuses on the generation of sector data that is critical to the development of further programming in water and sanitation and on immediate service improvements that can be achieved in the short term. The Project builds on prior work accomplished under the Sustainable Water and Sanitation in Africa (SUWASA) program and existing partnerships with the World Bank and the African Development Bank (AfDB) in the water and sanitation sector.
The WCP primarily targets urban challenges in the States of Bauchi and Kaduna, where government officials have demonstrated firm commitments to sector improvement, and where WASH service gaps remain acute. These States have also benefited from large loans from the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the World Bank. The Project will accomplish the following three objectives:
(1) Improve WASH programming based on data and information gathered/provided;
(2) Sustain the momentum established under the USAID/Nigeria SUWASA activity until a new comprehensive USAID program is in place; and
(3) Provide support to new reform-minded State governments for the immediate term until full programs are in place.
To accomplish the stated Project objectives, the WCP Team is focusing on five core technical tasks:
(1) Baseline data, analysis and recommendations toward the improved contributions of civil society organizations (CSOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the urban WASH sector in Bauchi and Kaduna;
(2) Urban sanitation baseline survey and framework for improvement;(3) Targeted technical assistance and capacity building;(4) Development of criteria for inclusion in the USAID Urban WASH Program; and(5) Creation of a Community of Practice (CoP) for urban WASH.
8
The WCP carried out the research, interviews, and focus group discussions for the Urban Sanitation Baseline Survey Report from February 2017 to April 2017, under the WCP’s Task 2. This report summarizes the baseline data captured during that period, and provides recommendations for activities to be implemented to improve the urban sanitation situation in the Nigerian cities of Bauchi and Kaduna.
1.1Status of Water and Sanitation in NigeriaIn Nigeria, adequate water supply and sanitation are out of reach for large parts of the rising population. While about 57 million people (~30% of the population) lack access to improved water supply, over 130 million people (~70% of the population) lack access to adequate sanitation in Nigeria.1 This situation presents diverse challenges with about 45,000 children under five years old reported to die every year from diarrhea caused by unsafe water and poor sanitation.2
The near absence of sewerage services in Nigeria, coupled with weak regulation and institutional responsibility for on-site sanitation services, presents severe challenges. Access to improved sanitation in Nigeria is reported to be as low as 29% in urban areas.3 The prevalence of open defecation is also reported in urban areas, involving 14.6%4 of urban residents. Nigeria is also reported to have lost about ₦ (Naira) 450 billion per year (~ USD 1.4 billion) due to the socio-economic impacts linked to poor sanitation.5 The absence of centralized sewerage systems remains a challenge, as well. Only the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja, and a few housing and industrial estates and university campuses in Cross River (Tinapa), Ibadan, Lagos and Zaria, have in place central sewerage systems. Access to improved sanitation essentially relies on individual on-site sanitation such as individual pit latrines or septic tanks. Only 3% of the population is connected to flush/pour flush to piped sewerage systems.6
The institutional arrangements and governance roles of federal, state and local governments related to urban sanitation services remain unclear and ambiguous. At the federal level, sanitation remains a cross cutting issue among a number of Ministries such as Water Resources, Health, Niger Delta, Agriculture and Power, Works and Housing, and others, making it difficult to have clear lines of responsibility within the sector. In many states, the line of direct responsibility for sanitation is diffused among the Ministries of Environment, Survey and Physical Planning, Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture and other agencies. In many of the local governments, there is no clear or direct institutional structure for sanitation matters.
To advance the frontier of global water and sanitation, the United Nations has formulated new Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), to which Nigeria subscribes. Goal six of the 17 SDGs is to ensure availability and sustainable management of 1 Water Aid, 2016. http://www.wateraid.org/ng#sthash.7cjQuyJV.dpuf.2 Water Aid, 2016. http://www.wateraid.org/ng#sthash.7cjQuyJV.dpuf.3 UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) for Water and Sanitation, 2015 update.4 Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), 2013.5 Economic Impacts of Poor Sanitation in Africa, WSP, 2012.6 Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), 2013.
9
water and sanitation for all (United Nations, 20167) with the following targets focusing on sanitation:Target 6.2: By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and
hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations.
Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally.
Target 6.6: By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes.
Target 6.a: By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water and sanitation related activities and programs, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies.
Target 6.b: Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management.
In the quest for Nigeria to meet the SDG targets, various new sanitation programs are being launched while the existing programs are being strengthened, either as stand-alone government initiatives or in collaboration with stakeholders in the sector.
1.2Outline of Baseline SurveyThis report consolidates information captured from stakeholders in urban Kaduna and Bauchi WASH sectors. This survey report provides the necessary sanitation baseline information to understand and map the landscape of on-site services in urban areas such as Bauchi and Kaduna cities. It is intended to inform the development of a framework for urban sanitation improvement (a safe, viable and affordable city-wide sanitation plan) that will enable urban areas across Nigeria to make increased progress in meeting the country’s urban water, sanitation and hygiene goals.
Sections 1 and 2 of this report provides an overview of the project and methodologies employed to gather information. Section 3 of this report shares the findings of the household sanitation survey. This urban sanitation baseline survey at the household level provides the findings of direct surveys of Nigerians living in urban areas of Bauchi and Kaduna. The survey findings reveal that 94.8% of the households surveyed in Kaduna and Bauchi have access to a toilet inside or outside the home. Still, there is a strong demand for sanitation improvement interventions. Of the functioning toilets in both states, 42% are flush toilets, 35.3% are traditional pit latrines, and 17.1% are pour flush toilets. Access to flush toilets is higher in Kaduna than in Bauchi. The WCP Team further observed that many of these toilets are basic and unhygienic, failing to meet USAID’s criteria for an improved toilet. Some households use compound toilets (toilets shared by people living on the same compound). In these cases, only 15.4% have separate toilets for men and women. Only 9.7% of households have an accessible public or community toilet near the 7 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.
10
house and 40% of these households report that only men are allowed to use these toilets. Access to water is critical for good sanitation and hygiene practices. However, only 58% of the toilets used by the target households are equipped with a hand washing facility. Almost one-third (30.3%) of the toilet facilities do not have a bathing area.
Households indicated up to 17 sanitation challenges in their respective geographic areas, with a lack of waste collection, unavailable or unmaintained open drainage canals, inaccessibility to water in the toilet facilities, and shared or gender-insensitive toilets as the main four challenges. It is not a surprise then that 43% of households are not satisfied with their current sanitation situation. While only 26.1% of these households plan to improve or build a toilet in the home, 71.5% of all the households surveyed would like to connect their home to a sewer system. Furthermore, 83.6% of these households are willing to pay, on average, ₦ 1,350 (USD 4.328) monthly to connect their home to a sewer system.
Section 4 of this baseline survey presents an Institutional Analysis. This analysis included (i) a desk study literature review of the existing policies, plans and reports on sanitation; (ii) Focus Group Discussions (FGD); (iii) key informant interviews with state and non-state actors using structured questionnaires; (iv) detailed site investigation and transect walks;9 and (v) review of maps and photography. WCP organized the institutional assessment to include service users, service providers, policy makers, and regulators. Multiple organizations and actors have some level of responsibility to address urban sanitation issues, yet the sector is characterized by lack of focus and progress.
In Section 5, Overview of Sanitation Investments, we see that the multiplicity of actors is plagued by inadequate resources. There is a general lack of budget tracking activities (by researchers, CSOs, academics, etc.) which results in a dearth of meaningful data showing how the government spends money on sanitation vis-à-vis amounts budgeted for these activities. There is also a near absence of specific budget lines for sanitation and hygiene. And, at both the government and international development partner levels, funding for WASH has been and continues to be predominantly focused on water supply investments. As a result, there is an expanding gap between water supply investments and investments for sanitation and hygiene.
Section 6 of this baseline survey report is devoted to better understanding gender issues in Nigeria. Along with analyzing sex-disaggregated data collected during the urban sanitation household survey, the WCP Team conducted a gender study from April to June 2017. The purpose of the gender study was to better understand the broad context within which the WCP operates, as well as the socio-cultural, economic, and political dynamics limiting women’s access to and participation in the urban WASH sector.[1] To inform the study, the WCP team collected information and data through a literature review, key informant interviews, focus group 8 Based on exchange rate of USD 1 to ₦ 312.5 from Oanda.com on March 17, 2017.9 A transect walk is a systematic walk along a defined path across the community/project area together with the local people to explore the water and sanitation conditions by observing, asking, listening, looking and producing a transect diagram. (http://www.sswm.info/content/transect-walk).
11
discussions, case studies, and transect walks. The gender study revealed girls and women face significant disparities in access to urban WASH services compared to men in urban areas. Disproportionally, women lack access to WASH facilities, due to biological, social, economic, religious and cultural factors.
In Section 7, the WCP conducted a diagnostic study of sanitation tools as part of the assessment of governance and institutional frameworks. The assessment found that sanitation diagnostic tools can be broadly classified into three categories: diagnostic tools used in understanding the physical, political, environmental or biological situation of sanitation; prioritization tools used to determine the next step of action after completion of diagnosis; and, planning and decision-making tools which are useful in choosing appropriate technologies or financing options to meet a specific situation. Several tools are described, including examples of applications of these tools in other countries. Tools have also been evaluated for their relevant strengths and weaknesses.
The concluding section, Section 8, provides a synthesis of the key learnings from the baseline survey and discusses recommendations for successfully addressing urban sanitation needs.
2. METHODOLOGYThe WCP Team coordinated closely with the Federal Ministry of Water Resources (FMWR) sanitation department, state water boards and other state government sanitation teams to come to a consensus on approaches to developing a baseline survey of urban sanitation in Bauchi and Kaduna States. This collaboration informed discussions with USAID, the World Bank Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) and AfDB (active in Kaduna). These discussions led to agreement on the scope and scale of the baseline study; roles and responsibilities; as well as survey approaches and tools based on critical gaps in particular areas. The basic framework for the baseline survey included: common indicators; data collection methods; data sources; data collection locations; the means of analysis; and, the time and resources needed to complete designated survey activities. The framework was closely linked with the WCP monitoring and evaluation (M&E) Plan to allow data collection to be replicated as necessary during ongoing activity monitoring and any subsequent Project evaluations.
The WCP Team employed a combination of data collection methods to maximize the overall reliability of the survey. These included key informant interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), households/end-users and direct observations with SWAs, CSOs and NGOs as well as private sector sanitation service providers, relevant city and state government officials and local residents. The team worked with local stakeholders to define representative samples in the target communities. In addition, the team used participatory methods whenever appropriate and paid keen attention to the local cultural context (e.g., holding separate FGDs for women and men, using same gender interviewers/facilitators, etc.).
12
To gain a complete picture of on-site sanitation performance, in addition to the standard data collection tools and techniques described above, the team worked closely with World Bank Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) to agree on the use of the various diagnostic tools and approaches. Additionally, the WCP Team assessed the financial contributions made by the federal and state governments, NGOs, implementing partners and private sector actors in the urban WASH sector.
Specific methodologies related to each of the various data gathering approaches are described briefly in their relevant sections.
3. HOUSEHOLD SURVEY3.1Summary and MethodologyTo ensure a proper understanding of demand for improved sanitation services, the WCP Team undertook a quantitative market assessment in urban areas of the Nigerian States of Kaduna and Bauchi. To conduct the assessment, the WCP Team designed a survey instrument, drawing on its extensive experience conducting similar market assessments around the world and tailoring it to the Nigerian context in coordination with locally-based staff. The WCP Team relied on in-house expertise to lead this assessment, hiring local enumerators to implement the surveys. DIG’s Director of Global Technical Services oversaw the assessment. DAI’s Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), Surveying, and Institutional Capacity Specialist, working in close collaboration with DIG’s Director of Global Technical Services, acted as the local sanitation assessment field leader and provided ongoing field supervision and guidance to the enumerators.
Enumerator selection and training. The WCP Team identified a team of local enumerators. Selection criteria for these enumerators included: 1) an Ordinary National Diploma; 2) previous experience conducting public health surveys, particularly in northern Nigeria; 3) familiarity with the local environment; 4) fluency in Hausa, the dominant local language in the north; and 5) proficiency in the use of mobile technology for data collection. The Kaduna State Water Corporation and Bauchi State Water and Sewerage Corporation nominated a short-list of candidates who the WCP Team screened and interviewed before the final selection. The WCP Team selected a total of eight enumerators in Kaduna and six in Bauchi, ensuring, as best as possible, an equal representation of males and females. DIG conducted two training sessions for the survey enumerators (one in Kaduna and one in Bauchi).
Target household sampling selection. Personnel from the State Water Corporations in Bauchi and Kaduna supported the WCP Team in the identification of neighborhoods to take part in the survey. Under the guidance of the field leader, the WCP Team used a Systematic Random Sampling (SRS) to select households in
13
the pre-defined neighborhoods within the two states. SRS was suitable for this study because units were selected on a pre-determined interval called the sampling interval. The following formula was used to calculate the sampling intervals selection:
Sampling interval =
Total number of basic sampling units in the population (Total HH 10 ) per ward Number of sampling units needed for the sample (Sample Size) per ward
For Kaduna, the WCP Team used a household count of 12 as the interval between each household surveyed to ensure that every household had an equal opportunity to be included in the survey. In Bauchi, the WCP Team used a household count of eight. Survey development, pilot testing, and launch. DIG developed the survey instrument in January 2017. Once completed, the survey was field-tested in two phases, once in January 2017 and again in February 2017. The responses from this pilot testing allowed the survey team to finalize the survey instrument using a software
called EpiCollect5.11 The survey instrument consisted of the following sections: general and socio-economic information; current sanitation situation; hygiene practices and provisions; and opinions regarding sanitation and willingness to pay for sanitation services. Each questionnaire took around 30-45 minutes to complete. The enumerators were instructed to talk to the head of the household whenever possible and, if the head of the household was not available, to talk to another member of the households, provided that they had all of the necessary information to complete the survey.
To ensure a representative and statistically-valid sample, DIG surveyed a total of 621 respondents. The results are, thus, based on a statistically-robust and representative sample that accounts for key social and economic factors, such as sex, employment, education, and geographic location. The survey started on February 25, 2017 and lasted 10 days in Kaduna, before being rolled-out in Bauchi for another six days. The field work was completed on March 17, 2017. Data entry, quality control, and analysis. To ensure the highest quality of data collected throughout the fieldwork, DIG used iPads to collect data via the EpiCollect5 application. DAI’s M&E, Surveying, and Institutional Capacity Specialist checked each questionnaire daily. DIG’s program team at headquarters carried out a second tier of quality control, reviewing the survey findings for any inconsistent data. If at any step of the quality control process any data appeared inconsistent with other responses given by a particular respondent, or appeared to be outlier 10 HH stands for households. 11 Epicollect5 is a software developed by Imperial London University, https://five.epicollect.net/myprojects/kiwash-wash-enterprises-indicators.
14
information, the local team followed up with the respondents by telephone to cross-check the survey data.
Following the fieldwork, the DIG team reviewed, cleaned, and coded the data. Once the data was cleaned and coded, the team compiled the overall findings. DIG’s program team at headquarters used the SPSS statistical software to conduct an analysis of the data, disaggregating by state and by sex. DIG’s Director of Global Technical Services ran a parallel analysis on Excel as a third tier of quality control to verify the findings.
3.2Overall FindingsThe market survey report provides an overview of a total sample of 621 households selected from the two States of Kaduna and Bauchi. The WCP Team surveyed a total of 410 respondents in Kaduna and 211 in Bauchi. Overall, 95.8% of the respondents live in urban areas and 4.2% in peri-urban areas.
Figure 3.1: Geographical Distribution by State
Kaduna
Bauchi
410
211
3.2.1 General Characteristics and Socioeconomic InformationThe respondents were split almost equally between men (48.6%) and women (51.4%). Households averaged almost eight household members, approximately half being male and half female. Due to the common practice of polygamy in the northern parts of Nigeria, the average household size is higher than the national average for Nigeria. Almost half (49.1%) of the respondents are between 26 and 40 years old, 19.3% more than 50 years old, 15.9% between 19 and 25 years old, 14.3% between 41 and 49 years old, and 1.3% between 12 and 18 years old.12
The majority (71.3%) of respondents indicated they were married, 22.9% were single, 5.6% were widowed, and 0.2% were divorced. Education levels varied among the respondents. Approximately forty-one percent (41.1%) had obtained a tertiary education, while 34.3% of the respondents had reached senior secondary, 11.1% had no formal education, 10.1% attended only primary school, and 3.4% finished junior secondary.12 Please note that, due to rounding, percentages may not always add up to 100% exactly.
15
Figure 3.2: Education Level
11.1%
10.1%
3.4%
34.3%
41.1% No educationPrimaryJunior secondarySenior secondaryTertiary
When asked whether the respondent was the head of household, the answers were split, with 51.2% indicating they were the head of the household and 48.8% saying they were not. Men are reportedly the main decision-makers when it comes to household expenses. The main income earner was primarily the adult male (88.4%), while only for 9.7% of the households was the adult female the primary income earner, and 1.1% of the households had both the adult male and adult female as the primary income earners. Children comprised less than one percent (0.8%) of the main income earners. Approximately half (49%) of the respondents earn their income from a self- or family-owned business, while 36% work as full-time employees, 6% are dependent on a pension, 5% undertake casual work, and the remaining 4% either work in farming or in politics or have no income.
On average, the households earn a monthly income of ₦ 66,757 (USD 213.62), with a median of ₦ 45,000 (USD 144). Average monthly household expenses are ₦ 43,325 (USD 138.64), with a median of ₦ 30,000 (USD 96), leaving the household with an average of ₦ 23,432 (USD 74.98) of disposable income each month, with a median of ₦ 15,000 (USD 48).
16
Figure 3.3: Average Household Income vs. Expenses (₦)
I n c o m e E x p e n s e s
66,757.07
43,325.40
More than half (56%) of the households surveyed live in a single dwelling, while 44% live in a compound. The majority (61.5%) owns their dwelling, while 32.9% rent their home, and 5.6% live for free. Of these households, 78.6% have been living in the same dwelling for more than four years. The renters pay on average ₦ 11,107 (USD 35.54) per month in rent, with a median of ₦ 4,000 (USD 12.80).
3.2.2 Current Water and Sanitation Situation To better understand how the households manage their water and sanitation needs, enumerators asked the respondents about their primary sources of water. The responses were varied and included shallow wells (31.7%), piped connections (26.4%), boreholes (25.3%), water vendors (16.2%), and rivers or streams (0.3%).13 The majority (74.6%) collects their water from the water source or has the water delivered to them (24.5%). Only 0.9% either has a direct piped connection, hires an Almajiri,14 or uses a pumping machine. From the households that collect their own water, meaning that they do not have a piped connection and/or do not have water delivered, female adults and children (both female and male) are the main water collectors, with the female child representing 37.7%, the adult female representing 26.7%, and the male child representing 23.5%. In 12.1% of the households, the adult male is the primary collector of water.
13 Please note that, due to rounding, percentages may not always add up to 100% exactly.14 Almajiri is a word borrowed from Arabic for someone who leaves his home in search of knowledge in the Islamic religion. This group, in search of a livelihood, often begs on the streets or acts as water vendors, although their role as water vendors is not prominent in Nigeria.
17
Figure 3.4: Households’ Main Water Sources
Piped connection Water vendor Borehole Shallow well River/Stream
26.4%
16.2%
25.3%
31.7%
0.3%
The majority (94.8%) have toilets either inside or outside their homes. From the WCP Team’s observations during the data collection, however, the majority of the toilets were found to be unimproved, i.e., very basic and not hygienic. For the 5.2% who do not have a toilet, the families indicated several reasons for not having one, including the landlord not building one (59.4%), a lack of funds (21.9%), a lack of space to build a toilet (15.6%), and a lack of need for a toilet (3.1%). Based on the analysis, all household members, including women, men, and children, almost equally use the toilets.
In addition to questions pertaining to household toilets, the survey explored accessibility to shared toilets by households residing in compounds. When the enumerators asked the 29 households that lived in a compound (without a toilet in their dwelling) whether they have access to toilets, the majority (89.7%) indicated they have access to a toilet inside their compound. In the compounds with toilets, they can access, on average, two toilets, and none of them pay to use the toilets in
18
the compounds. The majority (84.6%) also indicated that there are no separate toilets for men and women.
In these single dwelling or compound households, the vast majority (42%) of the toilets are either flush toilets or traditional pit latrines (35%). Other types of functional toilets include pour flush toilets (17%), improved pit latrines15 (5%), and others (1%).
Figure 3.5: Types of Functional Toilets
Flush toilet42%
Traditional pit la-trine35%
Improved pit latrine5%
Pour flush toilet17%
Other1%
Flush toilet Traditional pit latrine Improved pit latrinePour flush toilet Other
Enumerators also asked the Bauchi and Kaduna household respondents an array of questions to better understand the physical and hygienic condition of the toilets they accessed. In terms of flying or crawling insects in the super structure, more than half (53.1%) reported no insects visible, 34.9% reported only a few insects visible, and 11.8% reported many insects visible.16 When asked about whether the toilet hygienically separates human excreta from human contact, 82.8% answered that the pit, tank, or soakaway is covered and sealed well, 11.6% said it is covered but not sealed well, and 4.8% said it is not covered.17 When asked whether the pit, tank, or soakaway is full or overflowing, the vast majority (91.9%) of respondents indicated that it was not full or leaking. In addition, 93.2% of the respondents indicated that the discharge from the pit latrine pan is contained and not visible.
More than two thirds (69.4%) did not know how long it will take for the pit to be full, but others noted that the pits can take anywhere from a few months to more than three years to fill. At the time of the survey, 86.6% of the households said the toilet they use is not full.
Form the whole sample of 621 households, 589 (94.8%) has its own toilet. Of the remaining 32 households, there are 26 with a shared compound toilet. Of the 621 households surveyed, there are 45 (7.2%) with a toilet that is full (2.4%) or overflowing or leaking (4.8%). The households that reported on how to manage toilets when they are full indicated using the following approaches, among others: a 15 An improved pit latrine is a pit latrine with a slab. 16 The remaining 0.2% of the respondents answered “not applicable”. 17 The remaining 0.8% of the respondents answered “not applicable”.
19
septic tank or truck comes and empties it (31.8%); manual emptier empties it (29.7%); chemicals are added to the toilet (5.9%); a new pit is dug next to the toilet (1.8%); and a new toilet is constructed (1.3%). The average costs to undertake any of the above-mentioned activities ranged from ₦ 5,986 (USD 18.87) to ₦ 23,000 (USD 73.60).
Figure 3.6: Average Cost to Manage Full Toilets according to Respondents’ Experience
₦ USDA new toilet is constructed
Mean 23,000 73.60Median 15,000 48.00
A new pit is dug next to the toilet
Mean 9,125 29.20Median 9,000 28.80
Chemicals are added to the toilet
Mean 5,896 18.87Median 1,250 4.00
Manual emptier empties toilet
Mean 11,986 38.36Median 10,000 32.00
A septic tank/truck empties toilet
Mean 13,478 43.13Median 10,000 32.00
In addition to access to toilets in the home or in the compound, only 9.7% of the total respondents indicated accessibility to a public or community toilet nearby. Generally, these public or community toilets are privately-owned (83.3%), are accessible to both men and women (60%), and have separate toilets for men and women (58.3%). Sixty-five percent (65%) of the respondents with access to a community toilet pay to use these toilets, paying, on average, ₦ 30.74 (USD 0.10) per use, with a median of ₦ 30 (USD 0.10).18
According to the survey findings, the vast majority (96.5%) of household members do not practice open defecation. The remaining 3.5% indicated that someone in the household does defecate in the open. The preferred places for open defecation of male members of the households are fields (40%), riversides (25%), nylon bags or containers inside the house (20%), open trenches (10%), and, lastly, urban parks (5%). Similarly, the preferred places for open defecation of female members of the households are fields (44.4%), riversides (33.3%), urban parks (5.6%), and nylon bags or containers inside the house (5.6%). Some of the respondents (11.1%) did not know where the preferred place for open defecation of female household members is or the question was
not applicable because there were no females in the household.
In terms of waste disposal, more than half (54.6%) have an open drainage canal in their neighborhoods. Wastewater other than fecal waste is primarily disposed of in gutters (67.3%), but some households also allow the waste to flow in the compound or backyard (24.8%) or in a pond within the premises (5.6%). The rest of the households dispose of wastewater in pit latrines, septic tanks, through the sink into a soakaway, or pour the waste in the back of the compound or on the road.
18 Due to rounding, the USD amounts appear to be equal.
20
3.2.3 Hygiene Practices and ProvisionsIn addition to obtaining quantitative data on the current sanitation situation, the survey was also designed to better understand household hygiene practices. The majority (98.4%) of respondents indicated that they wash their hands after using the toilet or handling children’s excreta and, for households that have animals, 87.5% of the respondents reported washing their hands after handling animals. The primary method of hand washing is with water and soap (81.1%). When asked whether the toilets they access are equipped with hand washing facilities, slightly more than half (58%) replied that they are. The types of hand washing facilities varied and included a kettle (34.7%), water sink (32.2%), basin and jar (10.6%), tap bucket (10%), basin (8.9%), and tap (3.6%). At the time of the survey, the majority (88.1%) of respondents using a toilet equipped with a hand washing facility also indicated that this facility had soap. Access to water in these toilet structures is particularly important, because 85.7% use water as the primary method of anal cleansing after excretion.
The toilet facilities are also generally equipped with bathing facilities (69.7%), and 95.6% report that both men and women use these bathing facilities. On the other hand, for those who do not have access to a bathing facility in conjunction with a toilet, the majority (83.3%) indicate they use a bathroom separate from the toilet, but in the same house.
Good hygiene practices, adequate sanitation facilities, and access to water are also all critical for girls and women to properly manage their menstruation. Therefore, enumerators asked respondents a series of questions related to menstrual hygiene management. Sanitary pads (77.3%) are the primary feminine hygiene product used by girls and women in the two states. However, disposal of these hygiene products varies. Almost half (48.6%) throw the products in a dust bin, 19.9% burn them, 12.1% throw them in a toilet pit, 4.2% wash and dry them for reuse, 2.3% flush them down the toilet, 1.8% bury them in the ground, and, additionally, 11.1% do not know the disposal method. On average, the households spend approximately ₦ 929.62 (USD 2.97), with a median of ₦ 500 (USD 1.60), per month to assist girls and women in managing their menstruation. Interestingly, 86.3% of the respondents indicate that the girls and women in their household do not skip school or work because of a lack of sanitation solutions during their menstrual cycle.
3.2.4Opinions Regarding Sanitation and Willingness to Pay for Sanitation Services
The survey further investigated if the households understand the proper definition of a sewer system. The majority (70.5%) said that they did not know what a sewer system is. Those surveyed who said they did know, thought it meant a soak away system (69.4%), an NGO emptied the septic tank (10.4%), or the municipal authority emptied the latrine pit (6%). Only 14.2% answered the question correctly and said that a sewer system meant that the toilet was connected directly to a wastewater pipe. Enumerators also asked the respondents for up to four of the main sanitation challenges they faced on a regular basis. The overall findings are
21
included in the figure below, which indicate that a lack of waste collection (18.8%) is the biggest challenge.
Figure 3.7: Main Sanitation Challenges in the AreaSanitation problem Responses
N PercentThere are no toilets or access to toilets 34 3.0Toilets are not sufficient to meet needs 61 5.4Toilets are shared or not gender-sensitive 76 6.7Toilets are dangerous 36 3.2Toilets/pits are full 34 3.0Toilets are not well-maintained 55 4.8Toilets are far 21 1.8Toilets overflow 25 2.2Toilets are expensive to use 14 1.2Toilets do not have access to water 105 9.2Fecal sludge is dumped in the area 73 6.4There is sandy soil and collapsing pits 8 0.7There are flies, termites, mosquitos, cockroaches, or rats. 65 5.7There is a lack of waste collection. 214 18.8Open drainage canals are unavailable or not well-maintained. 122 10.7People urinate or defecate in the open. 4 0.4Neighbors do not clean the vicinity 2 0.2No problems 132 11.6I don't know 58 5.1
To follow-up on the above-mentioned question, the survey asked respondents about their household’s interest in or future plans to improve their current sanitation situation. More than half (57%) of the respondents indicated that they are satisfied with their current situation and, in a separate question, 51% answered that they have no plans to improve or build a toilet in their home. Only 26.1% said they do plan to improve or build a toilet in their home, and 22.9% of the respondents, under the assumption that they were not the head of household, were unable to answer the question.
For the households with an interest in improving or building a toilet, almost half (48.1%) indicated a desire to rehabilitate or improve an existing toilet, suggesting that the average cost for this would be ₦ 141,732 (USD 454.54), with a median of ₦ 40,000 (USD 128). Other main responses included: upgrading from a latrine to flush toilet (25.9%) for an average cost of ₦ 121,000 (USD 387.20) and a median of ₦ 65,000 (USD 208); building new pit latrine toilet (13%) for an average cost of ₦ 35,750 (USD 114.40) and a median of ₦ 32,500 (USD 104); and ensuring the existing toilet remains clean and emptied (11.7%) for an average cost of ₦ 47,864 (USD 153.16) and a median of ₦ 50,000 (USD 160). The remaining 1.2% of the respondents either wanted to make the toilets gender-sensitive for an average cost (and median) of ₦ 180,000 (USD 576) or did not know what type of improvements
22
they wanted to make. The majority (71.6%) also indicated that they do not have the funds to carry out toilet improvements.
After the enumerators explained what a sewer system is, 71.5% said that they would like to have their household connected to a sewer system and 83.6% of these households are willing to pay an average of ₦ 1,350 (USD 4.32) monthly for this service, with a median of ₦ 1,000 (USD 3.20).
3.3 Regional VariationsRespondents in the survey were selected from two states in Nigeria: Kaduna (66% or 410 observations) and Bauchi (34% or 211 observations). The regional variations between the two states are highlighted in this section of the report.
3.3.1 General and Socio-Economic InformationFemales represented the highest portion (59%) of respondents in Kaduna, while males represented the highest portion (63.5%) in Bauchi. More than half (51.5%) of the respondents’ age in Kaduna was between the age of 26 and 40 while, in Bauchi, this was 44.5%. The majority of respondents in both states are married (Kaduna: 64%, Bauchi: 85.3%). The average family size was much larger in Bauchi at approximately 10 people versus almost seven in Kaduna. Education varied only a little between Kaduna and Bauchi, with slightly more respondents (43.9%) completing tertiary education in Kaduna versus Bauchi (35.5%).
Figure 3.8: Education Level by State
No education
Primary
Junior secondary
Senior secondary
Tertiary
14.7%
10%
1.9%
37.9%
35.5%
9.3%
10.2%
4.1%
32.4%
43.9%
Bauchi Kaduna
The main income earners are generally the adult male both in Kaduna (86.6%) and in Bauchi (91.9%). Similarly, the vast majority of household decisions are made by adult males (Kaduna: 83.7%, Bauchi: 91.9%). Close to half of the respondents earn their income from a self- or family-owned business in Kaduna (48.3%) and in Bauchi
23
(49.8%). In terms of household income and expenses, there were some differences noted between the two states. In Kaduna, households earn an average monthly income of ₦ 75,658 (USD 242.11), with a median of ₦ 40,000 (USD 128) and expend an average monthly amount of ₦ 46,766 (USD 149.65), with a median of ₦ 30,000 (USD 96). In Bauchi, households earn an average monthly income of ₦ 53,944 (USD 172.62), with a median of ₦ 50,000 (USD 160) and expend an average monthly amount of ₦ 38,359 (USD 122.75), with a median of ₦ 30,000 (USD 96).
Figure 3.9: Household Income vs. Expenses by State (₦)
Income Expenses
75658
46776
40000
30000
Kaduna
Mean Median
Income Expenses
53944
38359
50000
30000
Bauchi
Mean Median
The study reported some variations in the housing situations across the two states. In Kaduna, less than half (47.8%) live in a single dwelling while, in Bauchi, the majority (72%) live in a single dwelling. Conversely, more than half (52.2%) live in compound in Kaduna, while only 28% live in a compound in Bauchi. Despite the higher average income in Kaduna, the findings show that more people own their home in Bauchi (79.6%) versus in Kaduna (52.2%).
Figure 3.10: Type of Home Ownership by StateLiving Situation Kaduna Bauchi
Frequency Percent Frequency PercentOwn 214 52.2 168 79.6Rent 178 43.4 26 12.3Live for free 18 4.4 17 8.1Total 410 100.0 211 100.0
For those who rent a home, the average monthly rent varied significantly between the two states. In Kaduna, the average monthly rent is ₦ 8,172 (USD 26.15), with a median of ₦ 3,750 (USD 12) while, in Bauchi, it is much higher at ₦ 30,852 (USD 98.73), with a median of ₦ 8,333 (USD 26.67). The majority in both states (74.6% in Kaduna and 86.3% in Bauchi) have been living in their home for more than four years.
24
3.3.2Current Sanitation Situation When asked about the sources of water, the answers varied from one state to the other. A little less than one-third (32.3%) in Kaduna said they depend on boreholes as their main source of water while, in Bauchi, 39% depend on piped connections as their main source of water. In both states, the female child was generally the primary water collector (38.1% in Kaduna and 36.8% in Bauchi). However, the second most common answer was the adult female (29.9%) in Kaduna and the male child (28.9%) in Bauchi.
Figure 3.11: Water Sources by State
Piped connection
Water vendor
Borehole
Shallow well
River/Stream
39.0%
11.4%
12.9%
35.7%
0.9%
19%
19%
32%
30%
0%
Kaduna Bauchi
The majority of respondents reported owning a toilet in Kaduna (92.7%) and in Bauchi (99.1%). Similarly, in both states, men, women and children almost equally are able to access the toilet. From the total of 211 respondents surveyed in Bauchi, only one household did not have a household toilet but lived in a compound with two toilets. In Kaduna, where 410 individuals were surveyed, 30 did not have access to a toilet in their home, but 25 of those individuals did have access to a toilet in their compound, accessing an average of almost two toilets similar to Bauchi. None of the households in either state pay to use the compound toilet.
The survey further investigated the type of household toilets available. Almost half of the households in Kaduna (48.1%) own a flush toilet, while more than half in Bauchi (58.1%) own a traditional pit latrine. Similar to the overall findings, the vast majority of the households in both states uses toilets with a covered pit and sealed slap and where the discharge is contained and not visible. Most of the households in both states indicated that the toilet is not full currently. However, when it is full,
25
almost one-third (26.6%) of the respondents in Kaduna indicated that a septic tank or truck empties the pit. In Bauchi, almost one-third (30.3%) said a manual emptier empties it. The majority of households in both states indicated that they do not have access to public toilets (89.5% in Kaduna and 91.9% in Bauchi). As with the overall findings, the overwhelming majority in Kaduna (97.8%) and in Bauchi (93.8%) said they do not practice open defecation. For those that do, fields are the preferred defecation place of both male and female household members in Kaduna, while riversides are the preferred defecation place for both male and female household members in Bauchi.
More than two-thirds (67.8%) of the households in Bauchi reported having an open drainage canal in their neighborhood versus less than half (47.8%) in Kaduna. Additionally, in Bauchi, almost half (44.5%) of the respondents dispose of wastewater other than fecal waste in gutters, and the rest of the respondents either leave it to flow in the compound or on the premises (39.8%), in a pond within the compound (15.2%), or in pit latrines (0.5%). In Kaduna, the vast majority (79%) dispose of the wastewater in gutters.
3.3.3Hygiene Practices and Provision When examining hygiene behaviors, the majority in both states indicates washing their hands after using the toilet or handling child excreta (98% in Kaduna and 99.1% in Bauchi). While most of the households surveyed in Kaduna do not have animals, the 135 households that do, generally wash their hands after handling animals (85.9%). In Bauchi, this percentage stood at 89.3%. In terms of method for washing hands, 93.6% of the households surveyed in Kaduna wash their hands with water and soap; however, in Bauchi, the households were split, with 56.9% using water and soap and 41.1% using only water.19 The majority (62.4%) in Kaduna reported that the toilets they use have a hand washing facility, while in Bauchi, less than half (49.3%) reported that they do. The types of hand washing facility also varied from one state to another. In Bauchi, 43.3% of the households indicated that the kettle was the primary hand washing facility available while, in Kaduna, the water sink was the most common (40.2%).
19 The remaining respondents washed their hands with sand and soap (1%) or ashes (1%).
26
Figure 3.12: Hand Washing Facility Type by State
Basin Basin and jar Tap bucket Tap Kettle Water sink
12.5%14.4%
17.3%
0.0%
43.3%
12.5%
7.4% 9.0%7.0%
5.1%
31.3%
40.2%
Bauchi Kaduna
At the hand washing facilities, soap is generally available (91% in Kaduna and 80.8% in Bauchi). For anal cleansing, households in both states almost identically use only water (85.9% in Kaduna and 85.3% in Bauchi). There were almost no differences between the two states in terms of menstrual hygiene management, with the exception that households in Bauchi earmark slightly more money each month to help girls and women manage their menstruation. In Bauchi, the households earmark an average of ₦ 1,096 (USD 3.51), with a median of ₦ 500 (USD 1.60) while, in Kaduna, households earmark an average of ₦ 867 (USD 2.77), with a median of ₦ 500 (USD 1.60).
In Kaduna (65.6%) and in Bauchi (77.7%), households generally have bathing areas in their toilet facilities. In addition, almost all households in both states indicated that men and women equally have access to the bathing area and, for those who do not currently have a bathing area in their toilet facility, the majority use a bathing facility separate from the toilet but still inside the home. Similarly, in both states, the majority (70% in Kaduna and 71.6% in Bauchi) did not know what a sewer system was. For those that said they did know, only 13% in Kaduna and a slightly higher percentage in Bauchi (16.7%) said that a sewer system is when a toilet is connected to a wastewater pipe.
3.3.4 Opinions Regarding Sanitation and Willingness to Pay for Sanitation Services
In response to the main sanitation challenges they face, households in Kaduna noted the top four as: a lack of waste collection; unavailable or not well-maintained open drainage canals; inaccessibility to water at toilet facilities; and dumping of fecal sludge in the area. On the other hand, households in Bauchi mentioned that the top four challenges are: flies, termites, mosquitos, cockroaches, or rats in their toilet facility; a lack of waste collection; poorly maintained toilets; and a lack of individual toilets and/or gender-sensitive toilets.
27
Figure 3.13: Main Sanitation Challenges by State20
There are no toilets or access to toilets
Toilets are not sufficient to meet needs
Toilets are shared or not gender-sensitive
Toilets are dangerous
Toilets/pits are full
Toilets are not well-maintained
Toilets are far
Toilets overflow
Toilets are expensive to use
Toilets do not have access to water
Fecal sludge is dumped in the area
There is sandy soil and collapsing pits
There are flies, termites, mosquitos, cockroaches, or rats.
There is a lack of waste collection.
Open drainage canals are unavailable or not well-maintained.
People urinate or defecate in the open.
No problems
I don't know
4.70%
4.70%
4.70%
2.00%
1.00%
3.20%
0.10%
0.60%
13.30%
8.60%
0.40%
3.40%
23.70%
14.10%
0.40%
0.30%
12.20%
2.40%
KadunaBauchi
Most of the households are satisfied with their current sanitation situation. Only 20% in Kaduna have plans to improve or build sanitation infrastructure. This percentage is significantly higher at 37.9% in Bauchi. Of these households, more than half (59.8%) in Kaduna and slightly more than one-third (36.3%) in Bauchi would like to rehabilitate or improve an existing toilet. The expected average costs for undertaking this rehabilitation is significantly different in the two states. In Kaduna, the average cost is reported to be ₦ 213,418 (USD 682.94), with a median of ₦ 50,000 (USD 160). In Bauchi, the reported average cost is much less at ₦ 21,300 (USD 68.16), with a median of ₦ 15,000 (USD 48). Lastly, the vast majority (85.4%) of respondents in Kaduna, yet slightly more than half (57.5%) in Bauchi,
20 We did not include “No problems” or “I don’t know” answers in this chart, but these answers are included in statistical tables in the Annex.
28
reported not having the necessary funds to carry out any toilet improvements or construction.
In terms of a sewer system, households in Kaduna and Bauchi almost equally showed an interest in connecting their homes to a sewer system and a willingness to pay for this service. Willingness to pay varied slightly between the two states. In Kaduna, households are willing to pay an average of ₦ 1,434 (USD 4.59) per month, with a median of ₦ 750 (USD 2.40) while, in Bauchi, households are willing to pay an average of ₦ 1,192 (USD 3.81) per month, with a median of ₦ 1,000 (USD 3.20).
3.4Variations by SexDIG surveyed a total of 302 men (48.6%) and 319 women (51.4%) and observed some variations while examining the data by sex.
3.4.1 General and Socio-Economic InformationThe majority (74.8%) of the male respondents are the head of households, while less than one-third (28.8%) of the female respondents are. Female respondents also reported a lower average household monthly income of ₦ 52,939 (USD 169.40) compared to male respondents at ₦ 78,220 (USD 250.30). In addition, the female respondents are generally less educated than the male respondents. For example, 28.8% of the female respondents had completed tertiary school compared to the 54% of male respondents that had completed tertiary school.
Figure 14: Education Level by Sex
No education Primary Junior secondary Senior secondary Tertiary
6% 7%2%
31%
54%
16.00% 12.90%
5.00%
37.30%
28.80%
Male Female
When looking at the type of residence, the majority of the male respondents (70.2%) live in a single dwelling, while only 42.6% of the female respondents do. The majority of both the male respondents (66.9%) and female respondents (56.4%) own their home. For those who rent, there is a significant variation in the amount paid for monthly rent. Male respondents reported paying an average of ₦ 13,059 (USD 41.79) per month, with a median of ₦ 3,750 (USD 12), while female respondents reported paying an average of ₦ 9,673 (USD 30.95), with a median of
29
₦ 4,209 (USD 13.47). Additionally, while both male and female respondents overwhelmingly indicated that the male head of household takes the final decision on household expenses, 22.3% of the female respondents said that the female head of household makes these decisions compared to 3.0% of the male respondents.
3.4.2Current Sanitation Situation With regards to the type of toilets, the most common answer for male respondents was traditional pit latrine (41.6%), although flush toilet (40.4%) was a close second. On the other hand, the most common answer for female respondents was a flush toilet (43.7%). Male respondents also mentioned that, when toilets are full, a septic tank or truck usually empties it (24.8%), while female respondents said nothing happens or it has never been full (25.4%) or that a manual emptier empties it (22.9%). Projected costs to manage full pits also varied significantly between male and female respondents. Male respondents estimated a range of average costs from ₦ 3,990 (USD 12.77) for adding chemicals to ₦ 14,029 (USD 44.89) for a septic tank or truck to empty it. Female respondents estimated a range of average costs from ₦ 12,250 (USD 39.20) for adding chemicals to ₦ 37,500 (USD 120) for constructing a new toilet.
For those households who use a public or community toilet, the female respondents report a much higher percentage of male-only toilets (46.7%) compared to 33.3% of the male respondents. Additionally, only half (50%) of the female respondents indicated that there were separate public or community toilets for men and women, while 66.7% of male respondents said there were. Interestingly, the majority (56.7%) of male respondents also said they did not have to pay to use the toilet, although 86.7% of female respondents said they did pay. Of the adult males or male children who practice open defecation, male respondents report that they fairly equally prefer riversides, fields, nylon bags or containers inside the house, and urban parks or open trenches (25% for each). More than sixty percent of male respondents (61.6%) said there was an open drainage canal in the neighborhood, while only 48% of female respondents said there was one.
3.4.3Hygiene Practices and Provision There was a significant variation in the reported amount earmarked for girls’ and women’s menstrual hygiene management monthly. Male respondents estimated this amount at ₦ 1,142 (USD 3.65), while female respondents estimated it at ₦ 798 (USD 2.55).
3.4.4Opinions Regarding Sanitation and Willingness to Pay for Sanitation Services
Lastly, a smaller percentage of the female respondents (16.3%), compared to 43.4% of the male respondents, believed they knew what a sewer system was. Again, the projected costs for improving or building sanitation infrastructure varied between the male and female respondents. Male respondents had a range of ₦ 39,286 (USD 125.72) for building a new pit latrine toilet to ₦ 178,876 (USD 572.40) for rehabilitating and/or improving an existing toilet. Female respondents, on the
30
other hand, had a range of ₦ 30,800 (USD 98.56) for building a new pit latrine toilet to ₦ 86,704 (USD 277.45) for rehabilitating and/or improving an existing toilet. On average, female respondents also indicated that they are willing to pay slightly higher on a monthly basis for connecting their household to a sewer system than male respondents: ₦ 1400 (USD 4.48) versus ₦ 1,301 (USD 4.16), respectively.
4. INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSISThe project team adopted a multiple assessment methodology to understand the roles of the users, institutions, policymakers, and regulators. This included (i) a desk study which reviewed literature on the existing policies, plans and reports on sanitation; (ii) Focus Group Discussions (FGD); (iii) key informants’ interviews with state and non-state actors using structured questionnaires; (iv) detailed site investigation and transect walks; and (v) review of maps and photography.
4.1Service UsersDespite various action plans and policies, access to improved sanitation in Nigeria is low, both in rural and urban areas21. Access to improved drinking water increased between 1990 and 2012 from 45.6% of the population to 64%. However, only 6% of the urban populations obtain drinking water through in-house connections to piped networks.22 The 2013 National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) also estimates that 16% of urban households have no toilet facilities. Access to sanitation has declined with an estimated 39 million Nigerians (or over 20%) practicing open-defecation, compared to 23 million in 1999.23
In terms of sanitation, rural dwellers depend either on open defecation (bushes, rivers and gutters) or pit latrine. This sharply contrasts with urban dwellers whose system of defecation is marginally improved (improved pit latrines, pour flush toilet and water closets). However, instances of human excrements on urban roads, gutters and waste dumpsites reflect poor availability of urban sanitation and related infrastructure to cope with an expanding demographic reality, especially among the poor.
Wastewater management is also poor, as literature asserts that the majority of Nigeria’s discharge wastewater goes directly to the environment with little consideration for aesthetic and health consequences. Improving access to water supply and sanitation in Nigeria is hampered by geographic, socio‐economic, and institutional factors. There are huge regional and local disparities between the north and south as well as between urban and rural areas. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) (2015) records that access to improved water sources at the household level across Nigeria grew from 57% in 2004 to 62.2% in 2014, with significant differences at rural (57.6%) and urban (74.6%) scales, respectively. The 2015 WHO/UNICEF Monitoring Report also estimated 33% of urban households have improved sanitation facilities compared with 25% of rural households. (See Figures 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3).21 UNHABITAT, 2012; DFID, 2012.22 Africa Finance Corporation, 2015.23 Africa Finance Corporation, 2015.
31
Figure 4.1.1: Household Access to Sanitation in Nigeria: Total Urban
1990 2000 2010 201505
101520253035404550
38 36 34 33
43 41 39 38
12 13 13 14
710
14 15
Household Access to Sanitation in Nigeria Total Urban
Improved Shared Other Unimproved Open Defecation
Years
Tota
l Urb
an %
Source: WHO/UNICEF JMP, 2015
Figure 4.1.2: Household Access to Sanitation in Nigeria: Total Rural
1990 2000 2010 20150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40 38
33
2825
1614
12 1115
21
273031 32 33 34
Household Access to SanitationTotal Rural
Improved Shared Other Unimproved Open DefecationYears
Tota
l Ru
ral %
Source: WHO/UNICEF JMP, 2015
32
Figure 4.1.3: Household Access to Sanitation in Nigeria: Total National
1990 2000 2010 20150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40 3834
3128
24 23 23 24
1418
21 2224 25 25 25
Household Access to SanitationTotal National
Improved Shared Other Unimproved Open DefecationYears
Tota
l Nati
onal
%
Source: WHO/UNICEF JMP, 2015
While the statistics above provide a useful indication of the problem in Nigeria, it is difficult to estimate access to water supply and sanitation as official data have been inconsistent. The deeper questions to ask, based on these abismal access levels, is why do the low levels of service access persist? Are citizens organized in a way that enables them to hold service providers accountable and demand improvements in the level of infrastructure and services? To understand better the role of civil society organizations (CSOs) in the urban sanitation landscape in Bauchi and Kaduna States, the WCP mapped civil society organizations operating in urban areas of Bauchi and Kaduna cities.
WCP conducted a CSO Mapping study to determine baseline information on the breadth and nature of civil society organizations’ activity related to WASH in the two states, particularly for urban WASH services, including the approximate number and type of actors, the type of work undertaken in the urban WASH sector, the major capacity gaps and any evidence of effective advocacy, and governance contribution to urban WASH services.
A total of 32 CSOs were identified in Bauchi and 51 in Kaduna State. Very few CSOs focused on WASH activities based on these preliminary findings, which underscored the importance of starting with a wide scope to include CSOs focused on Health, Environment, Gender, Education and other community development in this first level of mapping. A total of 83 CSOs listed can be broadly reported with the chart below, Table 4.1.1. CSO Mapping Result. In both States, as can be seen, health focused CSOs make up the largest number followed by gender focused CSOs. The rather large number of “others” refers to CSOs that did not have a specific sector they support. Most of the CSOs focused on health, education or gender typically had a full department or some experienced personnel that carried out WASH activities.
33
Table 4.1.1: CSO Mapping ResultWASH13%
Health22%
Environment10%
Gender17%
Education7%
Others30%
Mix1%
WASH Health Environment Gender Education Others Mix TotalBauchi 2 8 3 6 2 10 1 32Kaduna 9 10 5 8 4 15 0 51Total 11 18 8 14 6 25 1 83
Twenty-two organizations identified through the first level mapping (above) participated in an Organizational Capacity Assessment (OCA) Workshop during which their capacities were assessed along four capacity domains using the CARS (Capacity, Accountability, Responsiveness and Sector Experience) Framework modified for this purpose. Four representatives per organization were invited cutting across different organizational functions to provide for a rich discussion around the CARS tool. Typically, the composition included a member of the Board of Directors, program staff, finance staff and administrative staff. The process was for CSOs to self-assess and then jointly, with consultant assistance, agree on a score based on evidential presentation. Verification of results was done on the second day to affirm scores that had been agreed to on the first day. The composite result of this exercise is visualized in Figure 4.1.4 CSO self-scoring on the Organizational Capacity Assessment.
Figure 4.1.4 CSO Self-scoring on the Organizational Capacity Assessment Bauchi and Kaduna State
34
Capability Accountability Responsiveness Sector Experience0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5
2.82.5
1.6
0.7
3.1 3.2
2.3
1.4
B auch i an d K ad un a S u mmar y
Bauchi Kaduna
Out of the 22 CSOs that participated in the Organizational Capacity Assessment, only four are working in Urban WASH in Kaduna, namely NEWSAN, SAHAWIC, Love and Compassion, and CWED. In Bauchi State, only one CSO, NEWSAN, was found to have Urban WASH sector experience. All the CSOs assessed carried out rural-based WASH interventions, such as provision of water points for communities, health centers, or education centers. More specific insights related to each dimension of Organizational Capacity Assessment were identified related to CSOs.
CapabilityMost of the selected CSOs in Bauchi demonstrated a good understanding of the need for a strong internal governance structure to become a thriving organization. This can be partially attributed to the presence of key international organizations in Bauchi State. However, the CSOs assessed showed little experience with the WASH sector in general and in Urban WASH in particular. Therefore, it is important to consider the following recommendations:
i. Develop a white paper on the role of CSOs in Urban WASH. There is a need to develop a process on how to engage with CSOs, how CSOs can engage with government and state water agencies (SWAs). This will give a basis for the role of CSOs in Urban WASH.
ii. Improve succession planning. The average highest score for “Capability” is four (4). Looking at the figure below, none of the CSOs has reached that mark. A critical dive into the data shows that the main issue is mostly around “Leadership and Stewardship: Succession Plan” across CSOs. This is very critical because CSOs should be seen championing democratic processes.
iii. Improve financial sustainability. Another element that most CSOs showed weakness in was financial sustainability. Capacity building should be carried out for CSOs on how to mobilize resources on Urban WASH issues.
Increase staff retention. High turnover in CSOs results in loss of trained staff. Strengthening CSOs and making them more competitive with international organizations can curtail this.
Accountability
35
At the core of any organization is the ability to be held responsible and ultimately accountable to its peers. At the center of the role of CSOs is their ability to hold government and its people accountable for its actions and inactions. Key recommendations include:
i. Increase organizational capacity;ii. Internalize international best practices on ways, means, modes, mediums,
financial mobilization, utilization and accountability, and facilitating public engagement to strengthen CSOs’ programmatic activities and effectiveness; and
iii. Build CSOs capacity in the use of technology to improve efficiencies and effectiveness.
ResponsivenessCSOs build bridges between government and communities. Therefore, it is important that both are engaged in a way that will foster peace and development. As important as building bridges is, there is also the important task of cooperation between similar CSOs to provide a platform to apply pressure to the government in demanding accountability, while at the same time being accountable to citizen networks, coalitions or groups. Recommendations include:
i. Develop a communication strategy to ensure that the right message has been developed and disseminated. Communication is key in engaging with different parties and actors. This is especially important when it comes to dealing with urban residents. For example, water is said to be free, but the process of getting water to the end user requires a payment. Developing the right message will be important in passing this to citizens who have long been known to expect “Free water from the government.”
ii. Develop an Urban WASH Community Mobilization strategy. In the WASH sector, the need for community mobilization at the rural and small-town level in Nigeria has been demonstrated. In the urban tier, mobilization strategies are not tailored to urban realities, so most actors seem to rely on the available rural and/or small-town community mobilization approaches.
Sector ExperienceMost CSOs showed weakness in this element because of the lack of experience in Urban WASH and other urban development experience. The following recommendations are suggested:
i. Build the capacity of the mapped CSOs in Urban WASH, with focus on building some technical expertise in urban sanitation to better prepare CSOs with knowledge and information that will enable them to better engage with government.
ii. Build the capacity of CSOs with rural and small-town WASH experience in urban issues. There are no CSOs with urban experience, but a lot of them have both rural and small-town WASH experience. These organizations like DEC in Bauchi State and CWED in Kaduna State can be engaged and their capacity built to transition to urban WASH projects.
4.2Service Providers Bauchi State
36
In Bauchi State, there are numerous government institutions involved in sanitation. While many of them have direct and substantial responsibilities in the sector, others have tangential roles. The WCP Team assessed and categorized the institutions based on their direct responsibility, supporting responsibility, and indirect responsibility in the sanitation sector as depicted in Figure 4.2.1 (Categorization of Institutions for Sanitation in Bauchi State). Table 4.2.1 (Sanitation Delivery Institutions in Bauchi Urban Areas and their Mandates) depicts the roles of and relationship among institutions involved in the delivery of sanitation services in urban areas of Bauchi State. The analysis revealed that four government institutions (listed further before) have statutory responsibilities across the sanitation value chain. Actual roles of these institutions are limited to capture and storage, with the exception of Bauchi State Environmental Protection Agency (BASEPA), which is engaged in evacuation and transportation of fecal sludge.
The four key institutions are: Ministry of Water Resources Bauchi State Water and Sewerage Corporation Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency Bauchi State Environmental Protection Agency
The WCP Team identified 16 government institutions involved in the sanitation sector (Figure 4.2.1), with a direct or supporting role in urban sanitation. Ten of these, such as the Bauchi State Ministry of the Environment and Bauchi State Water and Sewerage Corporation, perform direct functions in the sector ranging from policy, coordination, infrastructure to service delivery.
Similarly, the Bauchi State ministries of education and health, with policy and supervisory functions, as well as agencies such as the Bauchi State Universal Basic Education Board and Bauchi State Primary Healthcare Development Agency, provide direct, albeit auxiliary, services in the WASH sector. The Bauchi State Universal Basic Education Board and Bauchi State Primary Healthcare Development Agency play active roles in sanitation infrastructure delivery to public schools and primary healthcare facilities. The Bauchi Local Government carries out inspection and enforcement functions, and has the authority to order the arrest of those who do not clean their premises, mostly in the market place, in conjunction with BASEPA.
As previously mentioned, the actual roles of these institutions in the value chain are limited to capture and storage of fecal matter, with the exception of BASEPA, which engages in its evacuation, transportation, as well as disposal and treatment. The absence of the Ministry of Water Resources, and by extension, the Bauchi State Water and Sewerage Corporation, (through policy and strategies) and BASEPA (through regulation and coordination) in the disposal and treatment, as well as the reuse and recycling in fecal sludge management (FSM) has allowed informal operators to provide raw sludge to farmers and run informal operations. Informal sanitation workers (sludge evacuators) have arisen to fill the space, making them key influencers in any new initiative for the sector. Filling this absence in regulation and guidance could trigger formal investment opportunities in these stages of the sanitation chain.
37
In addition, the absence of substantive government leadership and coordination among institutions on urban sanitation infrastructure development has fostered a “self-help” sanitation system. This has created a disjointed sanitation system for urban areas. As a result, it will be more challenging and expensive to correct and align sanitation infrastructure in the long term.
Table 4.2.1 Bauchi Sanitation Delivery Institutions, Roles and BeneficiariesName of Institution Class
of Mandate
Roles as Related to Sanitation
Target Beneficiaries
1 Bauchi State Ministry of the Environment
Direct Environmental policies and sector coordination
All Residents
2 Bauchi State Environmental Protection Agency
Direct Sanitation regulation and sludge evacuation
All Residents
3 Bauchi State Ministry of Water Resources
Direct Sanitation policies, regulation and sector coordination
All Residents
4 Bauchi State Water and Sewerage Corporation
Direct Sanitation infrastructure & service provider
All Residents
5 Bauchi State Ministry of Education
Indirect
Budget and monitoring of SUBEB
Public and Private Schools
6 Bauchi State Universal Basic Education Board
Direct Sanitation infrastructure
Public Schools
7 Bauchi State Ministry of Health
Indirect
Budget and Monitoring of Healthcare Centers
Public Healthcare Facilities
8 Bauchi State Primary Healthcare Development Agency
Direct Sanitation infrastructure
Primary Healthcare Centers
38
9 Office of Sustainable Development Goals
Direct Sanitation infrastructure
Public Spaces & Facilities
10
Bauchi Local Government
Direct Inspection and enforcement
All Residents
Source: WCP Field Study, Arctic Infrastructure, 2017
39
Figure 4.2.1: Categorization of Institutions for Sanitation in Bauchi State
Source: WCP Field Study, Arctic Infrastructure 2017
40
Ministry of Water ResourcesBauchi State Water and Sewerage CorporationRural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency
Ministry of EnvironmentBauchi State Environmental Protection Agency
Ministry of HealthBauchi State Primary Healthcare Agency
Ministry of EducationBauchi State Universal Basic Education Board
Office of Sustainable Development GoalsWASH units/ Departments at the Local GovernmentsMinistry of Works, Lands & Housing
Bauchi State Development Board
Direct Responsibility (Field Operation, Delivery) Supporting Responsibility
(Finance, Funding and Reuse)
Ministry of Finance & Economic PlanningState Planning CommissionMinistry of Agriculture & Natural Resources
Ministry of Women AffairsMinistry of Local Government AffairsMinistry of Rural Development
Indirect Responsibility (Mainstreaming, Administration)
Kaduna StateIn Kaduna State, there are also numerous government institutions involved in sanitation. Table 4.2.2 (Kaduna Sanitation Delivery Institutions, Roles and Beneficiaries) depicts the roles of institutions involved in the delivery of sanitation services in urban areas of Kaduna State. While many of them have direct and substantial responsibilities in the sector, others have tangential roles. The WCP Team assessed and categorized the institutions based on their direct responsibility, supporting responsibility and indirect responsibility in the sanitation sector as depicted in Figure 4.2.2 (Categorization of Institutions for Sanitation in Kaduna State). The analysis revealed that while there are many institutions with direct responsibilities in the sanitation chain, the following six government institutions are primarily responsible for sanitation service delivery across the sanitation chain:
Ministry of Water Resources Kaduna State Water Corporation Kaduna State Water Services Regulatory Commission Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency Kaduna State Environmental Protection Agency Kaduna State Primary Healthcare Development Agency
Others with direct responsibilities include the Ministry of Environment and the local governments. The Ministry of Environment’s 2017 budget shows funding for public toilet construction. Also, the Kaduna North, Kaduna South, Chikun, and Igabi Local Governments have mandates for sanitation at the local level within the municipal area and environs administered by these local government councils.
The activities of the institutions involved in the sanitation chain are mostly concentrated on capture and storage save for Kaduna State Environmental Protection Agency (KEPA), which has been performing regulatory functions in evacuation, transportation, and disposal. Activities of other stakeholders in evacuation and transportation; disposal and treatment; and reuse and recycling are extremely limited, except for some farmers who occasionally receive sludge from the evacuators on an informal basis to use as fertilizer. The absence of the Ministry of Water Resources (through policy and strategies) and KEPA (through regulation and coordination) in the treatment and reuse and recycling aspects of fecal sludge management has meant that informal operators have a free hand to provide raw sludge to farmers to run informal operations.24 Filling this absence in regulation and guidance could trigger formal investment opportunities in these stages of the sanitation chain.
The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology indirectly provides support services through its oversight of the State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB), which is responsible for implementing sanitation in schools. Similarly, the Ministry of Health indirectly supports sanitation through its oversight of the Kaduna State Primary Healthcare Development Agency, which is responsible for sanitation services in healthcare facilities.
24 Most of the present service providers operate as members of the Sewage Evacuators Union of Kaduna State.
41
The absence of substantive government leadership and coordination among institutions on urban sanitation infrastructure delivery has resulted in a network of informal, entrenched self-help sanitation systems. These informal, disjointed sanitation systems for urban areas will make it more challenging and expensive for government agencies to correct and align sanitation infrastructure in the long term.
Table 4.2.2 Kaduna Sanitation Delivery Institutions, Roles and Beneficiaries
Name of Institution Class of Mandate
Roles as Related to Sanitation
Target Beneficiaries
1 Kaduna Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
Direct Environmental policies, standards and regulations
All Residents
2 Kaduna State Environmental Protection Authority
Direct Sanitation regulation, monitoring and enforcement
All Residents
3 Kaduna Ministry of Water Resources
Direct Sanitation policies, sector coordination and research
All Residents
4 Kaduna State Water Corporation
Direct Sanitation infrastructure & service provider
All Residents
5 Kaduna State Water Services Regulatory Commission
Direct Water regulation and market intervention
All Residents
6 Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
Indirect
Budget and monitoring of State Universal Basic
Education Board
Public and Private Schools
7 Kaduna Ministry of Health and Human Services
Indirect
Regulation and supervision of healthcare centers
Public Healthcare Facilities
8 Kaduna State Primary Healthcare Development Agency
Direct Sanitation infrastructure
Primary Healthcare Centers
9 Kaduna North, Kaduna South, Chikun and Igabi Local Governments
Direct Inspection and community coordination
All Residents
Source: WCP Field Study, Arctic Infrastructure, 2017
42
Figure 4.2.2: Categorization of Institutions for Sanitation in Kaduna State
Source: Kaduna State Government, 2016 and Field Study, 2017
43
Ministry of Water Resources
Kaduna State Water Corporation
Rural Water Supply and Sanitation AgencyKaduna State Water Services Regulatory Commission
Ministry of Environment and Natural ResourcesKaduna State Environmental Protection Authority
Ministry of Health and Human ServicesKaduna State Primary Healthcare Development Agency
Ministry of Education, Science and TechnologyWASH units/ Departments at the Local GovernmentsMinistry of Works, Lands & Housing
Direct Responsibility (Field Operation, Delivery) Support Responsibility
(Finance, Funding and
Reuse)
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Budget &
Planning
Ministry of Agriculture &
Forestry
Ministry of Women Affairs and
Social Development
Ministry of Local Government and
Chieftaincy Affairs
Ministry of Rural and Community
Development
Indirect Responsibility
(Mainstreaming, Administration)
4.3Policy Makers and Regulators Institutional challenges abound in the implementation of the water and sanitation policies and regulations. While policies and programs emphasize water and sanitation, provision of potable water dominates the implementation stage (Onabolu et.al, 2011; Sanusi, 2010; WHO, 2007; NBS, 2007; Nwankwoala, 2011). Implementing the sanitation aspects of these policies is usually fragmentary and ad-hoc, dictated by political exigencies, as well as emergencies and pressures from unfortunate incidents, such as the recent Ebola Fever epidemic.25 Another institutional challenge is the low operational capacity of state water and sanitation management agencies.
According to Macheve, Danilenko, Abdulla, Bove, and Moffitt (2015), state water agencies are poorly equipped with the technical and professional expertise to perform their services optimally. Additionally, the financial commitment to the water sector is low.
Three levels of government in Nigeria share responsibility for delivery and management of water supply and sanitation services. Their roles and responsibilities are defined through a series of laws and regulations at the national and state levels, listed in Table 4.3.1 (Summary List of Laws and Policies affecting Sanitation Delivery in Bauchi and Kaduna).
Table 4.3.1 Summary List of Laws and Policies affecting Sanitation Delivery in Bauchi and Kaduna
Policy/Law Focus Level of Formulation
1 Sustainable Development Goals, 2015
Human Development
Global
2 Ekurhuleni Declaration on Water and Sanitation for Cities 2017
Urban Water and Sanitation
Africa
3 National Water Supply and Sanitation Policy of 2000
Water and Sanitation
Federal Government
4 National Water Sanitation Policy 2004
Water Sanitation Federal Government
5 Nigerian National Urban Development Policy 2011
Physical Development
Federal Government
6 Nigerian National Housing Policy 2011
Housing Federal Government
7 National Integrated Infrastructure Master Plan 2013
General Infrastructure
Federal Government
8 Bauchi State Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Policy, 2011
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
Bauchi State Government
9 Bauchi Urban Water Sector Law of 2014
Urban Water and Sewerage
Bauchi State Government
10
Bauchi State Environmental Protection and Conservation Agency
Environmental Protection
Bauchi State Government
25 Mara, 2012; UNICEF, 2014.
Edict 199711
Bauchi State Land Use Decree 1988 Land Administration
Bauchi State Government
12
Bauchi State Urban Planning and Development Board Amendment Law 2012
Physical Development
Bauchi State Government
13
Kaduna State Water Supply and Sanitation Law, 2016
Water and Sanitation
Kaduna State Government
14
Kaduna State Development Plan 2014 – 2018 (2013)
General Development
Kaduna State Government
15
Kaduna State Development Plan 2016 – 2020 (2015)
General Development
Kaduna State Government
16
Kaduna State 2017 Water and Sanitation Sector Implementation Plan (2017 – 2019)
Urban Water and Sanitation
Kaduna State Government
Source: Arctic Infrastructure, 2017
At the federal level, the Federal Ministry of Water Resources (FMWR), created in 1976, is responsible for formulating and coordinating national water policies, management of water resources (including allocation among states), and approving development projects. The ministry is also responsible for research and development as well as providing technical support for the 12 River Basin Development Authorities, which were also created in 1976 for planning and developing water resources, irrigation work and the collection of hydrological, hydro-geological, and meteorological data. Their main involvement in potable water supply has been the provision of multi-purpose dams and the supply of water in bulk to urban water systems.
At the state level, responsibility for water and sanitation services was traditionally entrusted to departments of the state governments. By the 1970’s most of these departments had transformed into fully fledged autonomous state water agencies and/or State Water Boards (SWBs), and together with Small Towns Water and Sanitation Agencies, where they exist, are responsible for the establishment, operation, quality control, and maintenance of urban, and semi-urban water supply systems. They are also responsible for licensing and monitoring private water suppliers, and providing technical assistance to local governments. There are currently 37 state water agencies in Nigeria (one for each state and the Federal Capital territory) as well as 22 State Rural Water and Sanitation Agencies. The State Rural Water and Sanitation Agencies are key partners in the implementation of Federal Government/ UNICEF rural water projects.
At the local government level, the 774 Local Government Areas (LGAs) are responsible for provision of rural and community level water supply and sanitation facilities in their areas, as well as to establish, equip, and fund environmental sanitation departments. In many cases, the local governments lack the resources and skills to respond effectively; hence many of them have conceded the responsibilities to state government, private vendors, and non-governmental organizations. However, several LGAs have established Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Units (WASH Units) with the support of development partners.
45
While the responsibility for water supply rests emphatically with the Federal Ministry of Water Resources (FMWR) and the state water agencies, the mandate for developing sanitation policy is shared by federal and state ministries of health, agriculture, environment and, in some cases, water resources, resulting in overlap of functions, conflicting implementation strategies, and a lack of definition and organization in the delivery of services.26 With the exception of Abuja and Lagos, university campuses and industries in Ibadan, Lagos, and Zaria, as well as a sewage treatment plant in Port Harcourt, there are virtually no functioning sewer networks or treatment facilities in Nigeria. There is heavy dependence on on-site sanitation and no clarity as to which institutional authority is responsible for liquid waste disposal at the state and local government levels. However, state water agencies are responsible for wastewater disposal in urban areas that enjoy networked water access. Additionally, concerns about water pollution arise as the storm water drainage system is frequently a disposal point for sewage, septage, and solid waste, which results in water pollution either through the storm water drainage system or seepage into the groundwater27.
The WASH sector in Nigeria depends significantly on non-state actors. These are mostly international development partners, funding agencies, and civil society/non-governmental organizations. Examples include the African Development Bank Group which has been active since 1971, as well as the World Bank which has been funding urban water and sanitation projects in states like Lagos since 1981.28 WaterAid currently facilitates monitoring and evaluation of water and sanitation projects and included partnerships with local Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) offices and other relevant institutions to provide support for small towns and advocacy for the inclusion of water and sanitation targets in urban sector plans.29 WaterAid’s 2011-12 report recorded its role in monitoring the urban water reform project of FMWR, which is funded by the World Bank, African Development Bank, and other donor agencies.30 Other organizations that play active roles in policy formulation, implementation and monitoring include the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), UNICEF, and the World Health Organization (WHO), while several community-based organizations and an active media sector (WASH Journalists Network) play advocacy roles. Faith-based organizations are also involved in improving access to water, especially at the micro-community scale.
The institutional roles and relationships in the water supply and sanitation sector in Nigeria is summarized neatly in a report commissioned by the African Minister’s Council on Water and produced by the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program. It is presented here as Figure 4.3.2.
26 Akpabio, 2007; Amakom, 2009.27 AFDB, 2007.28 Leary and Mccarthy, 2013.29 WaterAid, 2010.30 WaterAid, 2012.
46
Figure 4.3.2: Institutional roles and relationships in the water supply and sanitation sector in Nigeria
Source: Water Supply and Sanitation in Nigeria Turning Finance into Services for 2015 and Beyond, World Bank Water and Sanitation Program 2011 in coordination with the African Minister’s Council on Water
5. OVERVIEW OF SANITATION INVESTMENTSThis section provides the Nigeria Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Coordination Project Team’s assessment of financial flows to the urban sanitation sector in Nigeria. For the purposes of this report, financial flows comprise two components. The first component includes financial contributions to the urban sanitation sector by the federal and State governments, international development partners, and households in both Bauchi and Kaduna States. The second component comprises of private sector actors in both States who provide critical
47
sanitation services, which result in financial flows from the users to the private sector actors. This report, therefore, outlines: findings; as well as investment flows separated into federal government, Bauchi and Kaduna State governments, international development partners, households, and the private sector flows.
It is important to note that it is difficult to track financial flows of government, international donors, households, or the private sector in the urban sanitation sector. This difficulty is primarily related to a general ambiguity on funding for sanitation, or, more generally, WASH because:
A general lack of budget tracking activities (by researchers, CSOs, academics, etc.) has resulted in a dearth of meaningful data showing how the government spends money on sanitation vis-à-vis amounts budgeted for these activities;
There is a near absence of specific budget lines for sanitation and hygiene; and
At both the government and international development partners level, funding for WASH has been and continues to be predominantly focused on water supply investments. As a result, there is an expanding gap between water supply investments and investments for sanitation and hygiene.
The WCP found that financial flows in the urban sanitation sector are complex and involve a variety of stakeholders, including government entities, international development partners, households, and the private sector. There is a lack of clarity in budgeting for sanitation, which is often subsumed under WASH (where water receives the predominant amount of funding over sanitation and hygiene), and a dearth of meaningful data showing how the government spends money on urban sanitation. At the government level, there is a lack of clarity in budgeting and prioritizing sanitation investments, and financial commitments to the WASH sector overall is poor. Additionally, much of the funding to the States from the Federal Ministry of Water Resources (FMWR) comes indirectly through donor programming that requires an FMWR match, rather than from direct support from the FMWR (though Kaduna is an exception to this). International development partners are working actively to engage the government and state water boards (SWBs) to contribute to WASH financing through required government counterpart contributions to WASH funding. Many international development partner programs are also applying filters for participation to ensure that any state or SWB recipient of funding is advancing the sector towards good governance, improved service delivery, and bettering commercial approaches to service delivery.
5.1 Overview of Federal Investments and Finances for Urban Water and Sanitation
While policies and programs emphasize water and sanitation, provision of potable water dominates the implementation stage. Implementing the sanitation aspects of these policies are usually fragmentary and ad-hoc, dictated by political exigencies as well as emergencies and pressures from unfortunate incidents. The Ebola Fever
48
epidemic is an example of these difficulties. Another institutional challenge is the low operational capacity of state water and sanitation management agencies.
Furthermore, the financial commitment to the water sector is poor. According to the Nigerian MDG Office (2010), approximately $2.5 billion annually is required to meet the nation's water and sanitation targets between 2011 and 2015; however, budgetary allocations to the sector have steadily declined. In 2010, the federal government budgeted ₦ 112 billion ($358.4 million) for water and sanitation, but by 2011, budgetary allocations had dropped to ₦ 62 billion ($198.4 million), ₦ 39 billion in 2012 ($125.8 million), and only ₦ 30.6 billion ($97.9 million) in 2014. This is due in large part to more funds being reallocated towards addressing current security and defense challenges.
State Water Agencies (SWAs) are not well equipped with the technical and professional expertise to perform their services optimally. Urban dwellers are left to resort to self-supply options such as bore-holes, wells, and traditional sources, or finding alternative service providers. Despite the poor quality of services from alternative sources, it is estimated that over $700 million goes to these providers, depriving the SWAs of valuable income. SWAs are reported to need only $600 million annually to finance operation and maintenance, build additional water treatment plants, and construct new pipe networks to provide water to new customers.
The challenge is to source the estimated $6 billion needed over the next ten years to achieve universal access to water supply. Equally important to attend to are the challenges of accountability in a system that lacks regulations and the leadership to take responsibility for sanitation services and the general absence of sewerage services in Nigeria.
To ensure a sustainable source of funding for infrastructure projects, the Federal Government of Nigeria developed an ambitious 30-year (2013 - 2043) draft integrated infrastructure master plan in 2013. The plan has several clear objectives: strengthen the linkages between components in the infrastructure sector and the national economy; promote private sector participation in infrastructure development; and strengthen the policy, legal, and institutional frameworks for effective infrastructure development.
The plan focuses on seven broad categories: transportation; energy; information and communication technology; agriculture, water and mining; housing; social infrastructure; and vital registration and security. In the plan, the water subsector covers the areas of water supply, water treatment, irrigation, and hydropower.
The goal is to achieve universal coverage/access to water supply and sanitation by 2043, from a base of 58% for water supply access and 40% for sanitation access as of 2013. Required investments for the water subsector amount to approximately $180 billion out of which approximately $105 billion will account for investments into water supply, water treatment, and sanitation infrastructure during the 30-year life span of the plan. In the first five years of envisaged implementation of the plan, however, sanitation is not included as a priority. Since 2013, the plan remains a draft without clarity on its future. The plan makes a significant financial forecast for
49
the sanitation sector, but its inability to recognize sanitation as a priority would exacerbate the existing crisis in the sector and make intervention more expensive in the long term.
With respect to the WCP focus states, the assessment found that at the Federal Ministry of Finance there is no certainty on who is in charge of budgets for the states, or who has specific responsibilities on sector projects between the Department of Home Finance and the Expenditure Office (Budget Office/Expenditure Tracking). Although there is no direct urban project implementation in Bauchi by the FMWR, Bauchi State is a beneficiary of several development partners’ projects under the coordination and project oversight of the FMWR. Some of these projects have counterpart funding arrangements with federal government commitments, including the ongoing Third National Urban Water Sector Reform Project. Kaduna, however, has benefited from both direct and donor supported interventions by the Federal Ministry of Water Resources. In fact, Kaduna was one of the early beneficiaries of the National Urban Water Sector Reform Project (NUWSRP), one of the first three states included in the First NUWSRP in 2004, under the coordination and oversight of the FMWR.
5.1.1Bauchi State: Overview of the Investments and Finances for Urban Water and Sanitation
An analysis of the Bauchi State budgets between 2013 and 2016 indicates that six institutions have a direct project implementation budget in the water and sanitation sector. The ability to identify WASH-related budget lines progressively improved. For example, the budget for water and sanitation for the State Primary Healthcare Development Agency in 2014 was embedded in the general renovation and repairs of healthcare centers; however, in 2015 and 2016, these were reflected as separate line items. Although the Office of Sustainable Development Goals (OSDG) was mentioned as an active agency in the water and sanitation sector, there are no substantive provisions for the agency in the budget.
The proportion of WASH allocation against the total annual state budget since 2013 has consistently been below the 5% mark until 2016 when it rose to 6.48% as shown in Table 5.1. Figures 5.1 to 5.4 that follow show the annual budget allocations to each WASH-related department and Table 5.2 provides details on budgets for the water and sanitation sector institutions receiving state allocations in Bauchi.
Table 5.1: Summary of Budgets History for Water and Sanitation in BauchiYear Total Budget (₦ Percentage for Water Indicat Stat
50
Bauchi State Institutions with a Budget for WASH
1. Ministry of Water Resources
2. Bauchi State Water and Sewerage Corporation
3. Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency
4. Bauchi State Environmental Protection Agency
5. Bauchi State Primary Healthcare Development Agency
Billion) and Sanitation or us2013 136.33 2.58% 15% Belo
w2014 133.73 4.11 15% Belo
w2015 102.86 2.59% 15% Belo
w2016 136.30 6.48% 15% Belo
wSource: Arctic Infrastructure, 2017
Figure 5.1: Percentage of Water and Sanitation Budget to the Total State Budget in 2013
Percentage to Total Budget0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.89
1.4
0.120.06 0.04 0.07
Ministry of Water Resources
Bauchi State Water Sewerage Cor-poration
Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency
Bauchi State Environmental Protection Agency
Bauchi State Primary Healthcare Development Agency
Bauchi State Universal Basic Educa-tion Board
Office of Sustainable Dvelopment Goals
Figure 5.2: Percentage of Water and Sanitation Budget to the Total State Budget in 2014
Percentage to Total Budget0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0.97
1.23
1.68
0.160.05 0.02
Ministry of Water Resources
Bauchi State Water Sewerage Cor-poration
Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency
Bauchi State Environmental Protec-tion Agency
Bauchi State Primary Healthcare Development Agency
Bauchi State Universal Basic Educa-tion Board
Office of Sustainable Dvelopment Goals
51
Figure 5.3: Percentage of Water and Sanitation Budget to the Total State Budget in 2015
Percentage to Total Budget0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.39
1.34
0.740000000000001
0.030.09
Ministry of Water Resources
Bauchi State Water Sewerage Cor-poration
Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency
Bauchi State Environmental Protec-tion Agency
Bauchi State Primary Healthcare Development Agency
Bauchi State Universal Basic Educa-tion Board
Office of Sustainable Dvelopment Goals
Figure 5.4: Percentage of Water and Sanitation Budget to the Total State Budget in 2016
Percentage to Total Budget0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0.59
3.52
2.22
0.08 0.07
Ministry of Water Resources
Bauchi State Water Sewerage Cor-poration
Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency
Bauchi State Environmental Protec-tion Agency
Bauchi State Primary Healthcare Development Agency
Bauchi State Universal Basic Educa-tion Board
Office of Sustainable Dvelopment Goals
Source: Arctic Infrastructure, 2017
52
Table 5.2: Budgets for Water and Sanitation in BauchiInstitution
2013 (₦ Billion) 2014 (₦ Billion) 2015 (₦ Billion) 2016 (₦ Billion)
Total Budget
Water & Sanitation Component
Percentage to Total Budget
Total Budget
Water & Sanitation Component
Percentage to Total Budget
Total Budget
Water & Sanitation Component
Percentage to Total Budget
Total Budget
Water & Sanitation Component
Percentage to Total Budget
136.33
133.73
102.86
136.30
MWR 1.22 1.22 0.89 1.3 1.3 0.97
0.40 0.40 0.39
0.80 0.80 0.59
BSWSC 1.91 1.91 1.40 1.6
5 1.65 1.231.3
8 1.38 1.34 4.8 4.8 3.52RUWASSA
0.16 0.16 0.12 2.2
5 2.25 1.680.7
6 0.76 0.743.0
2 3.02 2.22BASEPA
1.59 0.08 0.06 0.9
5 0.22 0.160.7
0 0.033 0.031.1
7 0.11 0.08BSPHDA
2.65 0.05 0.04 2.0
6 0.07 0.050.9
7 EMB -3.3
5 EMB -BSUBEB
1.75 0.097 0.07 1.8
7 0.03 0.023.2
1 0.09 0.092.8
9 0.10 0.07OSDG No estimated expenditure profile
Abbreviation
Institution
MWR Ministry of Water ResourcesBSWSC Bauchi State Water and Sewerage
CorporationRUWASSA Rural Water Supply and Sanitation
AgencyBASEPA Bauchi State Environmental Protection
AgencyBSPHDA Bauchi State Primary Healthcare
Development AgencyBSUBEB Bauchi State Universal Basic Education
BoardOSDG Office of Sustainable Development GoalsEMB. Embedded in other projects
Source: Bauchi State Government, 2014, 2015 & 2016, Arctic Infrastructure, 2017
5.1.2Kaduna State: Overview of the Investments and Finances for Urban Water and Sanitation
Analysis of the Kaduna State budget from 2013 reveals that three institutions, Ministry of Water Resources (MWR), Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency, and Kaduna State Environmental Protection Authority, have direct project implementation and substantial budget profiles in the water and sanitation sector. There is no appropriation for Kaduna State Water Services Regulatory Commission and the Kaduna State Water Corporation (KSWC). All the capital budgets for KSWC have been infused into MWR’s budgets.
The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, with a total capital budget of ₦ 4,274,251,002, is to receive ₦ 150,220,000 for construction of ten public toilets according to the 2017 budget. It is not clear how many of these toilets the ministry is expecting to build in Kaduna city.
A review of the proportion of the Kaduna State budget earmarked for water and sanitation between 2013 and 2017 shows a slight increase from 11% in 2013 to 12% in 2014, before a gradual decline to a low of 4% in 2017. (Please see Table 5.3-5.5 below for more details.)
Table 5.3: Summary of Budgets History for Water and Sanitation in Kaduna
Year Total Budget (₦ billion)
Percentage for Water and
Sanitation
Indicator Status
2013 179,053,904,185 11 15% Below2014 211,324,093,801 12 15% Below2015 200,728,155,312 9 15% Below2016 172,322,648,891 7 15% Below2017 214,921,110,176 4 15% Below
Source: Arctic Infrastructure, 2017
54
Table 5.4: Budget by Expenditure Type for Water and Sanitation in Kaduna
Year
Budget Description₦
Institutions
Total for the Sector
Ministry of Water
Resources
Rural Water Supply and Sanitation
Agency
Kaduna State Environmental
Protection Authority
2013
Total Budget
19,987,662,782
148,501,032 106,072,369 20,242,236,183
Recurrent 162,590,367 22,766,607 96,072,369 281,429,343Capital 19,825,072,415 125,734,425 10,000,000 19,960,806,8
40
2014
Total Budget
24,329,156,790
275,087,282 353,000,720 24,957,244,792
Recurrent 129,149,390 19,855,187 78,000,720 227,005,297Capital 24,200,007,400 255,232,095 275,000,000 24,730,239,4
95
2015
Total Budget
16,152,798,462
788,194,018 364,253,440 17,305,245,920
Recurrent 91,322,402 23,169,758 89,253,440 203,745,600Capital 16,061,476,060 765,024,260 275,000,000 17,101,500,3
20
2016
Total Budget
10,787,852,896
711,625,354 126,633,028 11,626,111,278
Recurrent 76,092,071 20,177,541 89,210,367 185,479,979
Capital 10,711,760,825 691,447,813 37,422,661 11,440,631,299
2017
Total Budget
7,806,432,869
888,860,382 400,434,600 9,095,727,851
Recurrent 68,709,733 23,700,525 93,167,071 185,577,329Capital 7,737,722,955.
73 865,159,856.8
0307,267,529.00 8,910,150,34
1Source: Kaduna State Government, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 & 2017, Arctic Infrastructure, 2017
56
Table 5.5: Percentage of Water and Sanitation Budget to the Total Kaduna State Budget from 2013 to 2017Year Budget Description Budget
2013
Total Budget (₦ ) 179,053,904,185.33WASH Sector Budget (₦ ) 20,242,236,183Percentage of WASH to Total Budget (%)
11
2014
Total Budget (₦ ) 211,324,093,801WASH Sector Budget (₦ ) 24,957,244,792Percentage of WASH to Total Budget (%)
12
2015
Total Budget (₦ ) 200,728,155,312WASH Sector Budget (₦ ) 17,305,245,920Percentage of WASH to Total Budget (%)
9
2016
Total Budget (₦ ) 172,322,648,891.57WASH Sector Budget (₦ ) 11,626,111,278Percentage of WASH to Total Budget (%)
7
2017
Total Budget (₦ ) 214,921,110,176.68WASH Sector Budget (₦ ) 9,095,727,851Percentage of WASH to Total Budget (%)
4
Source: Kaduna State Government, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 & 2017, Arctic Infrastructure, 2017
5.2 Financial Flows to Urban Sanitation from Development Partners (Overview of Development Partner Investments for Urban Water and Sanitation in Nigeria)
The Federal Government of Nigeria through the FMWR has been sourcing external development partners’ support for urban water supply since the early 1990s. In collaboration with the World Bank, the First and Second National Urban Water Sector Reform Projects (NUWSRP) began to focus attention onto SWAs in the early 2000s (See Table 5.6). NUWSRP I & II was implemented in five states – Kaduna, Ogun, Lagos, Cross River, and Enugu. The Third NUWSRP has extended the reform focus to three additional states – Bauchi, Ekiti, and Rivers – with a total of $750 million in International Development Association loans and grants. Varying levels of progress have been achieved by the project states.
The NUWSRP focuses on improving access to piped water supply networks in selected urban areas and improving the reliability and financial viability of the SWAs in the project states. It aims to address these central objectives through: (i) rehabilitation and network expansion to improve systems production efficiency and expansion to new customers, including poor and underserved areas; (ii) public private partnership development / performance improvement contracts to strengthen technical and commercial capacity, and assure adequate operation and maintenance systems; (iii) policy reform and institutional development to develop the relevant low income strategies, water regulatory competencies, and institutional arrangements; and (iv) capacity building and project management to coordinate and support reform, performance, and improvement. Both Kaduna and Bauchi are beneficiaries of the NUWSRP.
The African Development Bank (AfDB) plans to spend $388.3 million in urban WASH between 2015 and 2020 in four states – Taraba, Oyo, Rivers, and Kaduna. With AfDB’s support, Kaduna State is improving water supply and sanitation (solid waste) in the city of Zaria.
A major development partner in Nigeria is the European Union (EU), whose urban WASH investments have focused on improving services in small towns. The EU is implementing the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Reform Programs (WSSSRP) in 13 states – Anambra, Cross River, Jigawa, Kano, Osun, Yobe, Bayelsa, Delta, Edo, Rivers, Adamawa, Ekiti, and Plateau.
With a focus on three states - Lagos, Cross River, and Ogun – the French Development Agency (AFD) will be investing $110.9 million in urban WASH between 2013 and 2016.
The FMWR is the coordinating arm of the Federal Government for most of these investments, except for the more recent EU WSSSRP II and the Water Component of the Niger-Delta Support Program coordinated by the National Planning Commission.
Nigeria was one of the nine countries where the USAID-funded Sustainable Water and Sanitation in Africa (SUWASA) initiative was implemented from 2010 to 2015.
58
Thanks to USAID’s $9 million support in Nigeria, the transparency, efficiency, and capacity of water boards were strengthened in Bauchi, Rivers, and Ebonyi States to help them better deliver services and more effectively manage WASH investments.
Some key donor funding, including: WB/AfDB NUWSRP3, USAID SUWASA Nigeria program, DfID SPARC program, and FMWR/WB have developed and tested filters to assess performance or determine eligibility for participation. These filters aim to move the sector towards improved governance, improved service delivery, and commercialization of SWB operations. Table 5.6 (International Development Partner Activity and Participation Criteria), introduces the activity/document in the left-hand column and provides an overview of the criteria for participation / selection in the right-hand column. Table 5.7, on the following page, provides an overview of key WASH-related projects financed by development partners Nigeria over the last ten years.
59
Table 5.6 International Development Partner Activity and Participation CriteriaActivity/Document
Criteria for Participation/Selection
FMWR: Used for WB/AfDB NUWSRP3
Example: Sector and utility reform criteria
Two broad criteria include:
1. State water sector reform progress (60%)a. Written water policy (30%)b. Current establishment edict (30%)c. Whether the SWB has undertaken commercialization
recently (i.e., tariff reform, customer enumeration, metering policy, staff rationalization, etc.) (40%)
2. State cost recovery capabilities (40%)a. Billing efficiency (30%)b. Collection efficiency (20%)c. Non-revenue water (20%)d. Number of staff per 1,000 connections (10%)e. Capacity utilization (10%)f. Operating ratio (10%)
USAID SUWASA program (original)
Example: Sector and utility reform criteria (later adopted the NUWSRP3 criteria)
1. Policy objective (30 pts)a. Reform can demonstrably increase access to safe,
affordable, and reliable water and sanitation services by the poor and disadvantaged, including women (15 pts)
b. Reform can demonstrably improve long-run financial sustainability through commercial principles (15pts)
2. Added-value and impact (25 pts)a. Extent to which SUWASA can add value to on-going
reform (15 pts)b. Extent to which the initiative falls within the five
SUWASA reform areas of autonomy, accountability, incentives, cost-reflective pricing, and impact for the poor (10 pts)
3. Potential for the reform to be replicated within or relevant to the region (25 pts)
4. Support from reform partners (20 pts)a. Proponents are willing to commit resources and to
commit to a schedule for meeting milestones (10 pts)b. Potential to leverage other resources through the
SUWASA activity (10 pts)DfID SPARC program
Example: Governance criteria
DfID identified states for the SPARC program using its strategic priorities, but SPARC used a sustainability filter of seven criteria against each activity. Specifically, every SPARC activity had to demonstrate (through an assessment) that it has or is:
1. Accepted, routine, and undertaken regularly2. A legal framework3. Officially mandated and politically acceptable
60
Table 5.6 International Development Partner Activity and Participation CriteriaActivity/Document
Criteria for Participation/Selection
4. Resourced with skilled people and necessary finances5. Agreed processes and procedures6. Responsible owners and institutions7. Local government buy-in
SWBs in Nigeria: FMWR/WB Performance Assessment
Example: Sector governance and utility performance criteria
This 2015 study assessed SWB performance through four components:
1. the International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities (IBNET) tool
2. a tariff evaluation study3. an assessment of SWB governance 4. an economic assessment of how current service costs are
covered and the costs for providing services to all
To assess governance, SWBs responded to a questionnaire on: 1. the general institutional arrangement 2. financing and spending3. investments4. customer relations
Sample IBNET indicators include:1. Coverage with direct supply2. Coverage with standpipes, kiosks, etc.3. Consumption (total), liters per capita per day (lpcd)4. Consumption (residential), lpcd5. Hours of operations per day (average)6. Unaccounted losses per day, m3/km of the network 7. Production cost, USD/m3
8. Revenue billed, USD/m3
9. Collection rate10. Cost-recovery ratio11. Female staff salary vs. average salary
Table 5.7 Key WASH-related Projects Financed by Development Partners in the Country Over the Last Ten Years31
31 Please note that some of the information contained in this table has been extracted from the Urban Water Sector Reform and Port-Harcourt Water Supply and Sanitation Project Appraisal Report. Published by the African Development Bank Group in March 2014. Source: https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Project-and-Operations/Nigeria_-_Urban_Water_Sector_Reform_and_Port-Harcourt_Water_Supply_and_Sanitation_Project_-_Appraisal_Report.pdf.
61
Development Partner
Project title Sector/ Thematic area
Geographical area
Period covered
Project amount(USD / Euro million)
African Development Bank
Urban WSS Improvement project (UWSSIP)
Urban Water Supply and Sanitation (UWSS)
Oyo and Taraba States
2010-2015
$88.2
Zaria Water Supply Expansion and Sanitation Project
UWSS Kaduna State 2013-2016
$100
Rivers State /PHWC Reform
UWSS Rivers 2015-2020
$200
Reform Coordination & Performance Monitoring
UWSS FMWR 2013-2018
$0.176
French Development Agency
National Urban Water Reform Program 2
UWSS Lagos, Cross River and Ogun
2013-2016
$110.9
US Agency for International Development
Sustainable Water and Sanitation in Africa (SUWASA) - UWS Reform
Urban Water Supply
Bauchi & EbonyiRivers
2010-20152013-2015
$9 (of which 2.5 for Rivers)
WASH Coordination Project
UWSS Bauchi & Kaduna
2017-2018
$2.4
World Bank 1st National Urban Water Sector Reform Project
Urban Water
Enugu, Kaduna, Ogun & FMWR
2004-Sep 2013
$200
2nd National Urban Water Sector Reform Project
Urban Water
Cross River, Lagos & FMWR
2005-2016
$320
3rd National Urban Water Sector Reform Project
UWSS Rivers, Ekiti, Bauchi & FMWR
2015-2020
$230
European Union
Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Reform Program (WSSSRP)
UWSS(Small Towns)
Anambra, Cross River, Jigawa, Kano, Osun & Yobe
2005-2011
$133.4332
2nd Water Supply and Sanitation
UWSS(Small Towns)
Anambra, Cross River, Jigawa, Kano, Osun &
2013-2018
$104.8533
32 Per the following exchange rate on May 31, 2017: 1 EUR= 1.11539 USD https://www.oanda.com/currency/converter.
62
Sector Reform Program (WSSSRP II)
Yobe
Water Component of EU-Niger Delta Support Program (NDSP)
UWSS(Small Towns)
Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Delta, Edo, & Rivers
2013-2018
$72.4434
5.3 Financial Flows to Urban Sanitation from Households (Household Sanitation Investments)
5.3.1 Overview of Household Investments for Urban Water and Sanitation in Bauchi and Kaduna
According to the UN, in low-income countries, household contributions to WASH could be between 6% and 38% of total WASH funding.35 Household contributions to WASH services can be in the form of both tariff payments and self-supply investments. Data is often available for tariff payments, which may be a small percentage of household contributions in less developed areas; whereas, records of self-supply and other forms for daily expenditure on WASH activities are hidden from the formal service provision system.
The WCP conducted a household sanitation survey in Kaduna and Bauchi from January to March 2017. From a total sample of 621 households (410 respondents in Kaduna and 211 respondents in Bauchi), the survey illuminated some of the financial expenditures on sanitation at the household level. The survey captured the expected household costs for improvements to sanitation facilities and household costs for sanitation services, including the willingness of households to pay for service improvements.
5.3.2Household Investments in Sanitation FacilitiesThe sanitation survey revealed that 94.8% of the households surveyed have access to a toilet inside or outside the home, and none of them have to pay to use these toilets (including shared or compound toilets). In single dwellings or compound households, the vast majority of the toilets are either flush toilets (42%) or traditional pit latrines (35.3%). Other types of functional toilets include pour flush toilets (17.1%), improved pit latrines (4.6%), and others (0.8%). The WCP Team observed that many of these toilets are basic and unhygienic, failing to meet USAID’s criteria for an improved toilet.
33 Per the following exchange rate on May 31, 2017: 1 EUR= 1.11539 USD https://www.oanda.com/currency/converter.34 Per the following exchange rate on May 31, 2017: 1 EUR= 1.11539 USD https://www.oanda.com/currency/converter.35 WHO 2014: Investing in water and sanitation: increasing access, reducing inequalities: special report for the Sanitation and Water for All (SWA), high level meeting (HLM) 2014.
63
Despite these observations, most of the households surveyed are satisfied with their current sanitation situation. Only 26.1% of individuals surveyed have plans to improve or build a household toilet. For the households with an interest in improving or building a toilet, almost half (48.1%) indicated a desire to rehabilitate or improve an existing toilet, suggesting that the average cost for this would be ₦ 141,732 (USD 453.54). Other desired improvements expressed by the respondents included: upgrading from a latrine to flush toilet (25.9%) for an estimated average cost of ₦ 121,000 (USD 387.20); and building a new pit latrine toilet (13%) for an estimated average cost of ₦ 35,750 (USD 114.40). The remaining 1.2% either wanted to make the toilets gender-sensitive for an average cost of ₦ 180,000 (USD 576) or did not know what type of improvements they wanted to make. Overall, the majority (71.6%) of respondents indicated that they did not have the funds to carry out any toilet improvements.36
5.3.3Household Investments in Sanitation ServicesAlmost half of the households surveyed in Kaduna (48.1%) utilized a flush toilet, while more than half in Bauchi (58.1%) utilized a traditional pit latrine. The vast majority of the households surveyed in both states uses toilets with a well-sealed cover slab, where the discharge is contained and not visible. Most of the households indicated in their responses that when the toilet is full, either a septic tank or truck empties it (31.8%) or a manual emptier empties it (29.7%). Respondents indicated that the average cost for the services of a septic tank or truck was ₦ 13,478 (USD 43.13), while the average cost for a manual emptier was ₦ 11,986 (USD 38.36).
When the survey enumerators asked if the households understand the proper definition of a sewer system, the majority (70.5%) said that they did not know what a sewer system is. Only 14.2% were aware that a sewer system constitutes a toilet that is connected directly to a wastewater pipe. When informed of how a sewer system works, 71.5% of all the households surveyed indicated they would like to connect their home to a sewer system. Furthermore, 83.6% of these households are willing to pay, on average, ₦ 1,350 (USD 4.32) monthly to connect their home to a sewer system. This reveals a strong interest for sanitation improvement interventions in Kaduna and Bauchi.
5.4 Overview of the Sanitation Service Chain and Role of the Private Sector
The private sector plays an important role in the urban sanitation sector, providing sanitation services that result in financial flows (through user fees) from end-users to private sector service providers. The private sector provides critical sanitation services, and fills gaps where the government is unable to provide sanitation services. To better understand the role of the private sector, the WCP has reviewed private sector activities through the lens of the sanitation service chain. 36 The households surveyed average a monthly income of ₦ 66,757 (USD 213.62) and monthly household expenses of ₦ 43,325 (USD 138.64), leaving an average disposable income of ₦ 23,432 (USD 74.98) each month.
64
The sanitation service chain presents a framework to track private sector activities in sanitation. The links of the sanitation service chain—that is, current capture, storage, emptying and transportation, treatment, and safe reuse or disposal of human waste practices in Bauchi and Kaduna—remain rudimentary. Across the sanitation service chain (Figure 5.4.1), the WCP observed a litany of inadequate services and activities in four of the five components (capture, storage, emptying and transport and disposal). Furthermore, the reuse or treatment of waste matter is relatively non-existent in both states, albeit there were indications that some farmers use dried excreta mixed with agricultural waste as crop fertilizer.
Figure 5.4.1: Sanitation Service Chain developed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Activities of the private sector in the area of capture and storage of human excreta are restricted mainly to the construction and management of public toilets (pit latrines and pour flush squat toilets). Based on desk research, the WCP found that, on average, users pay between ₦ 20 and ₦ 40 per toilet use in Bauchi, and between ₦ 20 and ₦ 50 in Kaduna. While not a link in the sanitation service chain, but related to hygiene practices, the WCP found that many public toilets also provide shower room (bathing) services, where hot water is heated and provided for users. An example of such a facility is the Muda Lawal Central Motor Park in Bauchi – where BASEPA is the service provider – where the price list for each service is as follows: (i) Urinating – ₦ 20; (ii) Bathing – ₦ 40 to ₦ 50; and (iii) Defecating – ₦ 30. In Kaduna, at the Public Toilet in the Kasuwa Ya’Gwari Market, Dattawa Road, in Rigasa, the prices for each service are: (i) Urinating – ₦ 20; (ii) Bathing – ₦ 30 to ₦ 50; and (iii) Defecating – ₦ 20. The WCP found that these facilities, as most toilet and bath chambers, are open to only men. This mirrors findings from the WCP household sanitation survey. Private sector actors also engage in the emptying and transport of full pits and soak away pits. This is done through either manual extraction or motorized trucks. These trucks charge between ₦ 7,000 and ₦ 8,000 per truck, per load, in Kaduna. Commercial truck evacuation services in Bauchi cost ₦ 14,000 per truck, while those operated by the Bauchi State Environmental Protection Agency (BASEPA) cost ₦
65
7,000 per truck. Based on follow-up discussions with some private sector operators, the WCP understands that many of these truck operators are unregulated service providers.
In Bauchi, truck disposal takes place at four unapproved points at Na’tsira, Birshi, Kweto, and Dungulbe, all in and around Bauchi city. The regulator, BASEPA, also disposes at these points, underscoring the challenge of being both a regulator and a service provider. In Kaduna, loaded trucks are usually dispatched to three locations, two of which are approved by the Kaduna State Environment Protection Agency (KEPA). These are the Buruku disposal point in Igabi LG and the Gonungora disposal point in Kaduna South LG. The disposal point at Tirkan behind IBBI in Chikun LG, is an unapproved disposal site. None of these locations, either in Bauchi or Kaduna, are sanitary landfills or treatment facilities. Several of the disposal activities also occur in bushes and back streets. Disposal to farms is done on occasion at the request of farm owners; however, this practice is somewhat taboo, as society has not fully accepted human waste as a source of fertilizer.
6. GENDER CONSIDERATIONSThe United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy reflects that gender equality and female empowerment are core development objectives, fundamental for the realization of human rights and key to effective and sustainable development outcomes. For this reason, USAID investments are aimed at three overarching outcomes:
1. Reduce gender disparities in access to, control over and benefit from resources, wealth, opportunities and services economic, social, political, and cultural;
2. Reduction in gender-based violence and mitigate its harmful effects on individuals and communities; and
3. Increase capability of women and girls to realize their rights, determine their life outcomes, and influence decision-making in households, communities, and societies.
Various cultural and systemic factors continue to exacerbate the effect of inequalities in access and control over WASH resources. As is the case in most developing countries, women and girls in Nigeria often have the primary responsibility for the collection and management of household water supply, sanitation, and hygiene, but mostly do not have the power of decision-making regarding any household resources. Water is necessary not only for drinking, but also for food production and preparation, caring for domestic animals, personal hygiene, caring for the sick, cleaning, washing, and waste disposal, amongst other purposes.
The overall objective of the gender analysis conducted under WCP was to develop a common understanding of the underlying issues (demographic issues, cultural, social, political and economic) contributing to the prevalent gender inequalities and inequities in accessing urban water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services in
66
Bauchi and Kaduna State. The study adopted mixed methods methodology, which helped in gaining a generalized and in-depth understanding of the issues relating to gender disparities in demand and use of WASH services in Bauchi and Kaduna State.
6.1 What is gender mainstreaming?Gender mainstreaming refers to the process of 1) integrating gender equality into the mainstream of policies, programs, projects, institutional mechanisms and budgets, and 2) addressing gender inequalities through gender-sensitive measures for and with women and/or men. In the context of WASH, gender mainstreaming is the process of integrating the concerns and experiences of women and men in WASH services and decision-making processes so that women, men, and the disadvantaged benefit equally from WASH policies and programs. The ultimate goal of this approach is to achieve gender equality in WASH services.
6.2 Why Mainstream Gender in WASH Services?
A significant body of evidence has shown that the success of water and sanitation projects increases when the views and interests of both women and men are considered throughout design and implementation. Gender equality mainstreaming provides a lens through which to examine the social realities that govern access to and control over assets and decision-making processes, while promoting a better understanding of how gender is embedded in institutional policies, practices, and service delivery approaches. A well-designed gender approach leads to:
• A reduction of existing gender disparities in the sector; • A more accurate picture of the needs of women and men (which, in turn,
contributes to more effective initiatives that foster equal access and benefits for all stakeholders); and,
• Participation of men and women in project development, as well as in leadership and decision-making in water management.
Access to safe drinking water is a basic human right and essential for achieving sustainable development, poverty alleviation, and gender equality. Providing physically accessible, clean, and adequate water and sanitation services is fundamental to enabling women and girls to pursue productive and community activities. Mainstreaming gender in water and sanitation also enhances equity, efficiency, and sustainability of WASH services.37
37 Why Gender Matters – A Tutorial for Water Managers, UNDP/GWA/CAPNET (2006).
67
Gender Mainstreaming
Gender mainstreaming is the incorporation of gender issues throughout development programs so that at all levels, gender is automatically addressed. Considering gender means considering the needs, priorities and roles and responsibilities of women and men (many of which are socially constructed and can vary from area to area) when designing programs. Women are often mentioned specifically when referring to gender because they are more often left out of decision-making, including for WASH programs, but it is important to consider both women and men and how to strengthen gender equality and engagement in WASH programs.
6.3 WASH, Gender and Opportunities for Women and Girls in Nigeria
Along with analyzing sex-disaggregated data collected during the urban sanitation household survey, the WCP team conducted a gender study from April to June 2017. The purpose of the gender study was to better understand the broad context within which the WCP operates, as well as the socio-cultural, economic, and political dynamics limiting women’s access to and participation in the urban WASH sector.38 To inform the study, the WCP team collected information and data through: a literature review; key informant interviews; focus group discussions; case studies; and transect walks.
In Nigeria, women are typically not well represented in decision-making positions at all levels of government. This creates an environment where women are unable to voice their concerns or affect policy with regards to WASH activities. Current WASH policies in Nigeria often neglect practical WASH needs that are specific to women, such as menstrual hygiene and maternal/newborn health. Additionally, WASH facilities often do not take gender considerations into account, leaving women vulnerable to disease or physical violence. Women will need to have greater representation at the decision-making level in order to ensure that future WASH policies in Nigeria recognize the gender barriers to WASH access.
With women carrying the disproportionate burden of collecting water for domestic use in some areas, community outreach and education campaigns are an opportunity to help address cultural stereotypes regarding the roles of women and men in household water management. Furthermore, there is an opportunity to help State Water Agencies understand that adopting gender equality mainstreaming practices makes business sense.
6.4 Overview of Sanitation and Hygiene Issues Faced by Women and Girls in Kaduna and Bauchi
The gender study revealed girls and women face significant disparities in access to urban WASH services compared to men in urban areas. Disproportionally, women lack access to WASH facilities, due to biological,39 social, economic, religious, and cultural factors.
From a biological perspective, women were at greater risk of health issues linked to the most common type of sanitation facility used in urban areas of Bauchi – the pit latrine. Women respondents complained that using pit latrines for extended periods exposed them to “latrine gas” emanating directly from the pit, contributing to them contracting “toilet disease”. Further enquiry revealed that common symptoms
38 The findings of this study are captured in the Gender Analysis on Access to Urban Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Services in Bauchi and Kaduna States Report submitted to USAID on June 30, 2017.39 Social scientists and development experts use two separate terms to designate differences between men and women: (i) sex differences, which are biologically determined; and, (ii) gender differences, which are socially constructed. Gender is not synonymous with sex. Whereas sex refers to the permanent and immutable universal biological characteristics common to individuals in all societies and cultures, gender defines traits forged throughout the history of social relations.
68
women experienced were vaginal itching and mucus discharge, which caused them intense discomfort.
In urban areas of Kaduna, the inadequate access to sanitation and hygiene disproportionally affects poor women and girls, as they are often faced with additional challenges related to personal and menstrual hygiene, personal safety, sexual harassment and violence. Without access to latrines, many women and girls become “prisoners of daylight,” with the nighttime offering privacy. Nighttime trips to fields or roadsides expose them to the risk of physical attacks, snakebites, and sexual violence. To ignore their natural bodily functions out of fear causes them discomfort and increases their risk of being affected by health problems, such as urinary tract infections, chronic constipation, and mental stress.
From a social perspective, the importance attached to a person in the family and community is referred to as social status. Women’s status affects how a woman is perceived, her self-worth, and the kinds of activities she is expected to undertake. The WCP gender study revealed that the social status of women affected their access to WASH facilities/services in Kaduna. Women are responsible for collecting water and ensuring hygiene, notably washing toilets/latrines, dishes, cleaning the household, bathing, and cooking, among other household tasks.
From an economic perspective, most of the women consulted during the gender study complained of financial resources being a factor limiting their access to WASH services, including using sanitation facilities and purchasing potable water. In Kaduna, for example, 63 of the 72 (87.5%) individuals that participated in the focus group discussions said poverty limited women’s access to WASH services. The women participants noted that they could only manage to buy unsafe water from water vendors. In addition, their financial resources restricted their ability to buy hand washing soap, detergent, and the proper products to clean latrines. As a result, women reported often not washing their hands or, instead, using ash.
From a religious and cultural perspective, the study found that women are considered to be subordinate to men in Bauchi and Kaduna; they are not expected to speak in public or in the presence of men, let alone to oppose their views or argue with them. This was found to be one of the reasons women had not been effectively participating in water resources management or accessing WASH facilities.
6.5 Gender Disparities in WASH Governance and Implications for Education, Well-being and Empowerment in Kaduna and Bauchi
The study’s literary review revealed a weak enabling environment for gender mainstreaming. Nigeria has a National Gender Policy, as well as various policies and guidelines established by the Federal Ministries of Water Resources, Health and Environment, which include language on gender mainstreaming. While these policies and guidelines specify the roles of key stakeholders across various levels of government, they, however, lack a clear-cut strategy on how to mainstream gender. Furthermore, the policies are often gender neutral. They consider all individuals as
69
being equal and worthy of representation, using the terms “person/persons”, “she/he” or “him/her” without being gender specific or using specific sex appellations. It is critical for policies to recognize gender-related barriers to accessing WASH, as well as women’s and girls’ specific sexual and reproductive health needs, such as menstrual hygiene management.
Based on the policies noted above, the national government develops advisory notes for stakeholders, which are not enforceable and are not monitored for impact on the general citizenry. As a result, there are prevailing gender gaps in the design and implementation of urban WASH programs. The study’s research also revealed that many public facilities do not take gender needs into account and, in some cases, women have no access to these facilities. With unequal access to information and water resources, as well as under-representation in decision-making around WASH service delivery, women are often denied the opportunity to advocate for their concerns at the policy level. Thus, their practical needs are not always addressed.
The review of the Kaduna state policy on WASH revealed that the policy inadequately articulated gender issues. Instead, it outlines plans to eliminate all forms of discrimination and violence against children, women, persons with disabilities, and the elderly through the mobilization of human, financial, and material resources for a multi-sectoral response. The link between WASH and the various manifestations of poverty and disease, however, is clear, and the Kaduna WASH policy provides both a context and framework for interventions in the sector.
The Bauchi State WASH Policy of 2010, on the other hand, emphasizes that women and children are most affected by waterborne diseases. The policy devotes specific sections to addressing issues concerning women. For instance, under Water Supply Sub-Section (8.1) of the Key Components of the Policy, it notes “The State will commit to strategic consideration of how women can be involved in the process at both the community and professional level.” Under health and hygiene promotion (Section 10.0), there is an emphasis on “support for training and skills transfer, to women in particular, to lead to behavior change [and] building the capacity of community institutions, particularly women’s groups.”
According to the WCP gender study findings, women are not adequately represented in WASH leadership and the decision-making space. According to the study’s findings, this practice is attributed to religious and cultural constraints, with men being responsible for representing women in the decision-making process. This representation, according to participants in focus group discussions, is considered to be in the best interest of women. In terms of education, girls and women who lack a formal education may have less access to information and skills to manage menstrual hygiene, which in turn impacts health outcomes. Research has also shown that there are pervasive religious and cultural myths related to menstruation that limit access to resources and opportunities for women and girls.
70
7. URBAN SANITATION DIAGNOSTICS TOOLS REVIEW
Sanitation assessment tools are critical to helping stakeholders understand the dynamics of a sanitation system in a given area. Collectively, the tools show the extent of gap, need, demand and supply for sanitation. In addition, they present the processes for responding to and addressing sanitation challenges. Some of the conventional tools include Shit Flow Diagrams (SFD), SaniPath, and the Urban Sanitation Status Index (USSI), among others. This section provides an overview of available urban sanitation diagnostic tools and recommendations on appropriate tools for USAID urban sanitation programming in Nigeria.
7.1Overview of Urban Sanitation Diagnostic ToolsThe WCP conducted a diagnostic study of sanitation tools as part of the assessment of governance and institutional frameworks. The assessment found that sanitation diagnostic tools can be broadly classified into three categories:
Diagnostic tools used to assess the physical, political, environmental or biological conditions;
Prioritization tools used to determine the best course of action after completing the diagnosis; and,
Planning and decision-making tools which are ideal in selecting appropriate technologies or financing options to address a specific situation (WaterAid, 2016).
In light of the political, governance, social, economic and environmental circumstances surrounding sanitation in Nigeria, a mix of existing sanitation diagnostic tools are recommended for use in analyzing the state of urban sanitation in Bauchi and Kaduna States. The tables below outline sanitation diagnostic tools, including tools suited for assessment (Table 7.l.1), prioritization (Table 7.1.2), and planning and decision-making (Table 7.1.3). The tables provide the name of the tool, a brief description, and examples of global applications.
71
7.1.1Table 7.1.1 Sanitation Diagnostic: Assessment ToolsAssessment Tool
Description Global Application
1 City Service Delivery Assessment (CSDA)
Assesses the policies, laws, institutions, processes and budgets for Fecal Sludge Management (FSM) services, and the service gaps. It assesses the local enabling environment and quality of service delivery along the sanitation service chain, identifying areas for attention
Fecal Sludge Management – Diagnostics for Service Delivery in Urban Areas, Case Study of Balikpapan, Indonesia; World Bank Water, April 2016
2 Fecal Waste Rapid Assessment (FWRA)
This is an International Rescue Committee (IRC’s) alternative to the SFDs and CSDAs, designed to fit with IRC’s Whole System Approach
Being tested in Cambodia Siem Reap project by WaterAid
3 Prognosis for Change (PFC)
It probes into the reasons for existing situation, analyzes the influences of different stakeholders and identifies what factors could facilitate service improvement
Fecal Sludge Management – Diagnostics for Service Delivery in Urban Areas, Case Study of Dhaka, Bangladesh; World Bank Water, April 2016
4 Shit Flow Diagram (SFD)
SFD is a useful tool to inform urban sanitation programming by illustrating excreta physical flows through a city or town. It shows the transference of excreta as it moves from defecation to disposal or end-use.
SFD Promotion Initiative Kumasi, Ghana Status Final Report, 2015
Fecal sludge management in Faridpur, Bangladesh
Estimating Fecal Waste Flows: Lusaka, Zambia
Fecal Sludge Movement in Moshi, Tanzania
Sanitation Assessment of Hanoi, Vietnam
5 Urban Sanitation Status Index (USSI)
It uses composite indicators across the sanitation chain, and a mixture of household surveys and focus groups, to map scores in different neighborhoods of the city
Developing business models for fecal sludge management in Maputo, World Bank Water, June 2015
7.1.2Table 7.1.2 Sanitation Diagnostic: Prioritization ToolsPrioritization Tools
Description Global Application
1 SaniPath Exposure Assessment Tool
It is designed to assess risks related to poor sanitation and helps prioritize sanitation investments based on the exposures that have the
Maputo Sanitation Study, Maputo, Mozambique
Public Toilets and their Customers in Low-Income Accra, Ghana
72
greatest public health impact. Mapping Environmental Sanitation Data for Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Fecal Exposure Pathways in Low- Income Communities, Ghana
Quantification of Exposure to Fecal Contamination in Open Drains in Four Neighborhoods in Accra, Ghana
2 Sanitation Safety Plan (SSP)
SSP brings health and sanitation sectors to map contamination pathways, and to highlight risks and priority intervention areas (geographical and/or sectoral). It uses WHO guidelines for wastewater and excreta management as a starting point.
South Africa
3 Service Delivery Action Framework (SADF)
It is a guide for identifying action,s in relation to the enabling environment, necessary to deliver desired results. It reveals aspects of the enabling environment that require development next.
Dhaka, Bangladesh
7.1.3Table 7.1.3 Sanitation Diagnostic: Planning and Decision-Making Tools
Planning and Decision-Making Tools
Description Global Application
1 Cost Effectiveness and Options Assessment (CEOA)
A process to compare options for sanitation/ wastewater interventions based on cost-effectiveness and sustainability. It combines technical, financial and geographical analysis, to provide a ranking of options and inform investment.
Can Tho case study, Vietnam
2 Septage Management Decision Support (SMDS)
An Excel-based tool to determine the main elements of an FSM plan, such as quantities to collect, a collection plan, CapEx and OpEx of collection, transport and treatment, and suitable tariffs.
Philippines
73
7.2 Evaluation of Urban Sanitation Diagnostic ToolsEach of the sanitation diagnostic tools listed in the table above have been evaluated and their strengths and weaknesses identified. These are enumerated in the below tables (7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.2.3).
7.2.1Table 7.2.1 Evaluation of Sanitation Diagnostic: Assessment Tool
Assessment Tools
Strength Weakness
1 City Service Delivery Assessment (CSDA)
Diagnostic of the local enabling environment, distinguishes its complexities.It uses ranking and indicator approaches in its analysis which make it simpler and self-explanatory.Ideal in cities of developing countries where there are considerable policy gaps.
It identifies areas of action, but not what not to do.
It appears prescriptive in its categorization of assessment areas.
It requires a high-level of expertise to develop a basis for its ranking.
2 Fecal Waste Rapid Assessment (FWRA)
Ideal in Fecal Sludge Management (FSM) situation and ecosystem diagnosis.
Yet to be fully explored to understand its shortcomings.
3 Prognosis for Change (PFC)
It gives clear political, social and economic analysis around situation.
Its effectiveness as a stand-alone diagnostic tool may not produce the desired results; hence it is best if linked with the previous tool.
It is rarely used because of inadequate capacity for the tool.
4 Shit Flow Diagram (SFD)
It offers an innovative way to engage city stakeholders like political leaders, sanitation experts and civil society organizations in a coordinated dialogue about excreta management.
It gives a detailed description of the two major methods of data collection (field-based and desk based data collection).
The toolkit is comprehensive, it tells the users what a SFD is, what it looks like, how it can be created and what a report based on the SFD should look like. A stakeholder tracking tool is also provided to record information on different
It does not offer a scientific analysis of volumes.
It usually is not for direct planning as it misses causal factors such as geography or settlement pattern.
The SFD tool is not intuitive and can be confusing for users.
Its diagrammatic color could often be contradictory to the mathematical figure expressed on the diagram.
74
stakeholders and their interest and influence on the project.
It is a useful visual input in sanitation-based projects for cities as it highlights the flow of excreta for which there is no infrastructure as well as any gaps in the existing infrastructure.
There are considerable examples of SFD across the world created by the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA) which cities can learn from in developing new SFDs.
5 Urban Sanitation Status Index (USSI)
It gives comprehensive information across sanitation value chain.
Its methodology is not public.
It is location specific as it does not accommodate data acquired from other neighboring locations.
7.2.2Table 7.2.2 Evaluation of Sanitation Diagnostic: Prioritization Tools
Prioritization Tools
Strength Weakness
1 SaniPath Exposure Assessment Tool
Systematic, customizable method to collect relevant data on exposure to fecal contamination in low-income, urban neighborhoods.
Designed for use by community, government, and development partners to help guide decision-making, advocacy to prioritize sanitation needs and issues surrounding urban sanitation.
Synthesize data using open-source software package.
It is easy to use and understand in the collection of data, laboratory work and generates automated analysis.
The results from the tool’s analysis are straightforward and summarize the sanitation-related health risks in low-resource, urban settings.
It is localized in any high-density urban setting and can prevent city-wide thinking. The SaniPath Rapid Assessment Tool, however, has been designed to include a large amount of flexibility towards a variety of contexts.
It may not provide new information if a SFD exists.
It can be academic and theoretical.
It requires further steps of laboratory analysis to validate data.
Seasonality: Recommendations for the SaniPath Rapid Assessment Tool include conducting the surveys and environmental sampling during the rainy season. It is less reliable in the dry season.
The tool focuses on the broken sanitation chain in the public
75
domain. It does not capture household or individual level information about sanitation and underlying issues such as poor hygiene and water access that may affect at risk populations.
It is able to provide insight into areas of need with respect to sanitation and general ideas for action, but limited in its ability to provide recommendations.
2 Sanitation Safety Plan (SSP)
It brings the perspective of health professionals into the assessment of urban sanitation.
It focuses more on describing the system and monitoring risks than improving it.
3 Service Delivery Action Framework (SADF)
It is a decision support tool that prioritizes the next line of actions.
It presents a sequence of actions over a period of years among stakeholders.
Its outline could be unwieldy and discourages in-depth understanding of its contents.
7.2.3Table 7.2.3 Evaluation of Sanitation Diagnostic: Planning and Decision-Making Tools
Planning and Decision-Making Tools
Strength Weakness
1 Cost Effectiveness and Options Assessment (CEOA)
Technology choice, based on sound assessment and ranking.
Utilities are accustomed to the language it uses.
It requires more than conventional sanitation data (e.g. for wastewater flows).
2 Septage Management Decision Support (SMDS)
Planning, based on financial analysis.
Very numerical, to be used after agreement to proceed with a plan. Needs good input data.
Source: World Bank Water, 2015 Water Aid, 2016 and SuSanA, 2017
7.3 Recommendations on Appropriate Tools for USAID Urban Programming in Nigeria
Figure 7.3.1: Recommended Tools for Assessing Sanitation in Bauchi and Kaduna
76
Recommended Tool
JustificationCategory
Source: Arctic Infrastructure, 2017 and modified by WCP
77
City Service Delivery Assessment (CSDA)
Fits well with the current state of sanitation development where policy and enabling environment
for sanitation is still emerging.
Illustrates adequacy of budget provision for sanitation to the Ministry of Finance & Economic
Planning and other stakeholders.
Provides key monitoring and evaluation tool to gauge progress from planning to service delivery
Shit Flow Diagram (SFD) Diagnostic
Supported by access to best practices and examples of SFDs in other countries which can serve
as models for the Bauchi and Kaduna sanitation sector.
Engages city stakeholders, such as political leaders, sanitation experts and civil society
organizations in a coordinated dialogue about excreta management that aligns with the political
and social sanitation environment.
Service Delivery Action Framework (SADF)
Prioritization
Helps Bauchi and Kaduna State Governments and Bauchi Local Government and the four LGs in
Kaduna to prioritize policies, programs, projects and budgets in the sanitation sector both in the
short- and long-terms.
Assists development partners and prospective investors to understand the gap, when and where
to intervene.
Diagnostic
8. SUMMARY AND SETTING THE STAGE FOR NEXT STEPS
The need for increased access to improved sanitation services in urban areas is well documented. Through the preparation of this Baseline Survey Report, WCP has gained valuable insights into the state of urban sanitation in Nigeria, with particular focus on Bauchi State and Kaduna State.
The household study confirms that there is strong demand for improved sanitation services and, importantly, the urban poor are willing to pay for these services. Of the surveyed households, 83.6% are willing to pay, on average, ₦ 1,350 (USD 4.3240) monthly to connect their home to a sewer system.
The household survey found that 70% of respondents did not understand correctly the definition of a sewer system, meaning many are not aware of the eventual solution to most of their urban sanitation woes.
Civil society organizations (CSOs) are prevalent in the urban areas targeted for analysis, but there are very few that have sufficient capacity or experience in addressing urban sanitation issues. There is potential to build capacity of CSOs to build awareness of and advocacy for solutions.
Many CSOs work in health and education, which are both clearly needed to raise awareness, not only about the dangers of poor urban sanitation, but that solutions exist and can be deployed in their communities.
At the State and Federal levels of government, there are numerous agencies with some degree of responsibility for urban sanitation. Unfortunately, few of these agencies have sanitation as a focus of their work, resulting in urban sanitation issues lacking consistent attention from authorities.
In the urban WASH space in Nigeria, water dominates the attention and resources, relegating sanitation and hygiene to a lower priority.
The international community continues to recognize the importance of sanitation, but needs to focus more on the needs of urban areas and small towns.
Some international development partner programs are also applying filters for participation to ensure that any State recipient of donor funding is advancing the urban WASH sector towards good governance, improved service delivery, and commercial approaches to service delivery.
Women are more adversely affected by urban sanitation problems than men, exacerbating gender discrimination issues within society. For example, only 9.7% of households have an accessible public or community toilet near the house and 40% of these households report that only men are allowed to use these toilets.
40 Based on exchange rate of USD 1 to ₦ 312.5 from Oanda.com on March 17, 2017.
The private sector sees a need for services and there are examples where services are being provided. However, with lack of a clear regulatory framework and consistent investment by the public sector, private sector market-based solutions are less attractive for entrepreneurs.
Households bear the responsibility for and finance the bulk of the sanitation service chain, by paying for everything from toilet construction to toilet emptying and waste disposal. These services, however, are often inadequate, unsanctioned, and unregulated.
There are numerous tools, tested in other urban centers around the world, that are available to states and urban areas to diagnose their needs and identify potential solutions.
Ultimately, the WCP Team found that there is a huge untapped opportunity to improve sanitation infrastructure in Nigeria. While there are factors influencing demand for change, obstacles remain. Citizens want improved services and civil society can play a supportive role. The government, which has until now failed to meet the obligations it has set out for itself, is relying heavily on international development partners and taking for granted ad hoc household investments into private operator services along the sanitation service chain. There is a huge unmet demand within Nigeria, and the government—once it deems sanitation services as a priority and makes the required investments in the sector—will find that these services will largely pay for themselves.
79
9. ANNEXES
80
81
9.1 List of Survey Participants
SN NAMESEX
PHONE NO.
AGE RANGE
MARITAL STATUS
LATI- TUDE
LONGI- TUDE
STATE
1 Janet John F 99 26 - 40yrs. Single10.44855
4 7.423507Kaduna
2 Sarah kalabar F08101074509 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower
10.419226 7.4068
Kaduna
3 Mrs Comfort Ede F08086280956 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.423819 7.408367
Kaduna
4 Felicia Daniel F08064156833 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.422733 7.409313
Kaduna
5 Patience F08168500672 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.425003 7.413306
Kaduna
6 Alsabatu isaac F No Phone 26 - 40yrs. Married10.42501
8 7.414614Kaduna
7 Mrs OKwori F08146540710 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower
10.421421 7.407266
Kaduna
8 Sarah Daniel F09082995705 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.421748 7.409008
Kaduna
9 Jessica F09025215653 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.427499 7.407972
Kaduna
10 Esther F08061255104 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.424085 7.409111
Kaduna
11 Mrs Bayei F08062219457 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower 10.42247 7.407671
Kaduna
12 Okpe Jackson M08181477076 50+ yrs. Married
10.425227 7.414087
Kaduna
13 Vanya M08133254761 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.426795 7.40786
Kaduna
14 Jide M8035305800 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.424013 7.412568
Kaduna
15 Samuel Watchman M8036062503 50+ yrs. Married 10.43426 7.399956
Kaduna
16 Alice Moses F No Phone 41 - 49 yrs. Married10.43034
6 7.401454Kaduna
17 Chidera goodluck F No Phone 41 - 49 yrs. Married10.41824
6 7.401506Kaduna
18 Gimbiya Gimba F9038991780 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.434022 7.40272
Kaduna
19 Mrs Rehab M7039604558 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.431842 7.400336
Kaduna
20 Michael M7083345567 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.431265 7.399914
Kaduna
21 Jerry Audu M7031338327 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.451122 7.389589
Kaduna
22 James madaki M8036913153 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.432468 7.401419
Kaduna
23 Mek M8032107562 41 - 49 yrs. Single
10.429469 7.400117
Kaduna
24 Laurence madaki M No Phone 26 - 40yrs. Single10.43046
4 7.402193Kaduna
25 Peninah Buba F9053714201 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.432763 7.401398
Kaduna
26 Amaka F9074984282 12 - 18 yrs Single
10.432075 7.400641
Kaduna
27 Abigail Jacob F8162484075 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.432835 7.40109
Kaduna
28 Shedrach danladi M7068149787 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.432058 7.401657
Kaduna
29 Idoko M No Phone 26 - 40yrs. Single10.42938
8 7.398739Kaduna
30 Stephen francis M8033821008 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.432567 7.401269
Kaduna
31 Laraba idrissou F8052633416 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.459811 7.393023
Kaduna
32 Farouk laban M8091279272 26 - 40yrs. Single 10.45859 7.391362
Kaduna
83
33 Amina Abbas F8038668899 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.465851 7.397546
Kaduna
34 Radiatu Jamil F8065817488 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.464927 7.39793
Kaduna
35 Maryam Abdullahi F No Phone 19 - 25 yrs Married10.46327
7 7.397815Kaduna
36 Fatima a Abdullahi F8165177771 50+ yrs. Married
10.461643 7.397843
Kaduna
37 Amina mohammed F8157934646 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.463409 7.395833
Kaduna
38 Kuri apollos M8085902067 50+ yrs. Married
10.461374 7.395451
Kaduna
39 Mr Sunday Abayomi M8033118296 50+ yrs. Married
10.455521 7.393712
Kaduna
40 Olugbenga Akugbe F8065403534 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.454201 7.392888
Kaduna
41 Justina Ishaya F9032426003 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.454885 7.394156
Kaduna
42 Save Thomas M8032949870 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.458527 7.39412
Kaduna
43 Bunmi F8034267240 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.457967 7.393018
Kaduna
44 Abayomi M8035745613 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.458335 7.393558
Kaduna
45 Godiya Lukas F9023795243 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.454556 7.392611
Kaduna
46 Daniel ishaku magani M8035329679 50+ yrs. Married
10.454012 7.393273
Kaduna
47 Helen Joseph F7034729184 50+ yrs. Married
10.454651 7.392992
Kaduna
48 Deborah Uche F8169922311 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.454933 7.393356
Kaduna
49 Mama agatha Moses F8160432907 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower
10.458476 7.393072
Kaduna
50 Sunday Emmanuel M8179325973 50+ yrs. Married
10.458483 7.393112
Kaduna
84
51 Peter M No Phone 26 - 40yrs. Single10.45837
5 7.393284Kaduna
52 Abraham M8183391080 26 - 40yrs. Single 10.45707 7.393151
Kaduna
53 Peace yakusak F8036465639 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.454316 7.393159
Kaduna
54 Nancy F8088924010 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.456741 7.392216
Kaduna
55 Kefas onuche abraham M8123453782 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.430273 7.53051
Kaduna
56 Hajara b damina F8000000000 41 - 49 yrs. Married 10.42954 7.529973
Kaduna
57 Sara Dominic F8027948404 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.401205 7.41031
Kaduna
58 Daniel Zachariah F9075364533 41 - 49 yrs.
Widow/widower
10.431449 7.528897
Kaduna
59 Amina Ibrahim F No Phone 26 - 40yrs. Married10.43231
4 7.532548Kaduna
60 Rebecca Isreal F7085689400 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.432849 7.525823
Kaduna
61 Jolly Ishaya M No Phone 19 - 25 yrs Single10.43132
3 7.52056Kaduna
62 Patricia F7035107621 26 - 40yrs. Single 10.43011 7.522181
Kaduna
63 Jessica tanko F8188858063 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.429466 7.518053
Kaduna
64 Andrew Ishaya M8065446278 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.646727 7.49201
Kaduna
65 Joshua Jock M8185282778 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.433282 7.531193
Kaduna
66 Sarauniya Titus F7035312033 26 - 40yrs. Married 10.43204 7.525939
Kaduna
67 Josiah M No Phone 26 - 40yrs. Single10.43050
8 7.526061Kaduna
68 Salamatu F8033457849 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.428226 7.522065
Kaduna
85
69 Faith F No Phone 19 - 25 yrs Single10.42916
9 7.522427Kaduna
70 Jemimah F8036177282 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.430364 7.525197
Kaduna
71 Sunday hassan M7060486279 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.431734 7.51906
Kaduna
72 Emmanuel Duru M8124428070 50+ yrs. Married
10.409124 7.49877
Kaduna
73 Samuel Yerima M
8034993505 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.401474 7.496419
Kaduna
74 Dorcas Samuel F8062612287 26 - 40yrs. Single 10.40134 7.496804
Kaduna
75 Danjuma bawa M7086145474 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.402513 7.496565
Kaduna
76 Barde Max M8135058791 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.403975 7.496967
Kaduna
77 Amina irimiya F9000000000 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.400762 7.496648
Kaduna
78 Hope F8068507917 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.403916 7.496558
Kaduna
79 Jamila F8029223416 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.403618 7.496962
Kaduna
80 Amaka Mbanusi F8037921046 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.452886 7.471926
Kaduna
81 Mrs Alas Regina F8023791991 50+ yrs. Married
10.450346 7.464905
Kaduna
82 George M9093371125 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.449993 7.469384
Kaduna
83 Victor M8063727042 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.447635 7.471834
Kaduna
84 Lazarus Goffy M8092281335 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.451845 7.473634
Kaduna
85 Mrs Maria Anigbo F8033215957 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.446629 7.466782
Kaduna
86 Paul Felix M 81473036 19 - 25 yrs Single 10.45400 7.47127 Kadun
86
07 3 a
87 Chibueke Noah M8038903923 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.450456 7.456769
Kaduna
88 Lucy daraja F9007789757 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.446574 7.46431
Kaduna
89 Mrs Jummai I Gizo F8023341658 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower
10.447689 7.46721
Kaduna
90 Angela nduka F7038708535 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.447007 7.464314
Kaduna
91 Aisha Farouk F7068228164 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.453109 7.476233
Kaduna
92 Charity Joseph F8166166043 26 - 40yrs.
Widow/widower
10.453495 7.469047
Kaduna
93 Grace F7012306446 12 - 18 yrs Single
10.448479 7.458746
Kaduna
94 Isaac peter M8034234209 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.455326 7.457887
Kaduna
95 Jesse M7035237307 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.444947 7.458674
Kaduna
96 Agnes F7030383762 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.448944 7.458123
Kaduna
97 Yosi yusuf F8036567302 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.449133 7.463731
Kaduna
98 Samuel Illiya M No Phone 26 - 40yrs. Married10.45198
7 7.470291Kaduna
99 Ester F8031356078 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.444657 7.46394
Kaduna
100 Mrs Charity A Anthony F7032175493 26 - 40yrs.
Widow/widower 10.44877 7.467085
Kaduna
101 Andrew Achi M8065639168 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.446401 7.47168
Kaduna
102 Philip yohanna M8139359075 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.444938 7.458725
Kaduna
103 Emmanuel M8098389167 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.448645 7.458513
Kaduna
104 Ejiro Magnus F 81793984 19 - 25 yrs Single 10.45325 7.459292 Kadun
87
05 9 a
105 Samauel habila M8175578402 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.477703 7.448126
Kaduna
106 Eric teku M9080610686 26 - 40yrs. Married 10.47773 7.448185
Kaduna
107 Lydia Michael F8026324368 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.476208 7.445822
Kaduna
108 Pamela F8069165295 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.475599 7.447113
Kaduna
109 Mrs Pauline Agaba F7030435071 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.474909 7.448013
Kaduna
110 Ishaku Lazarus M8000000000 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower
10.474675 7.447208
Kaduna
111 Dorcas F8036205312 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.476523 7.448918
Kaduna
112 Tabat Peter M8174506006 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.480261 7.445122
Kaduna
113 Anika F8065776002 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.477272 7.447414
Kaduna
114 Mrs Jane okwori F8033058295 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.475386 7.44745
Kaduna
115 Martha Israel F8133106191 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.475909 7.448804
Kaduna
116 Jerry lekwot M7033779715 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.477428 7.444024
Kaduna
117 Mrs Djivera Sunday F8065252533 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.479198 7.446354
Kaduna
118 Abraham M8038693851 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.476151 7.446676
Kaduna
119 Mrs Christiana Sunday F8132326163 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.475578 7.447939
Kaduna
120 Mary F8185310991 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.476742 7.447726
Kaduna
121 Mariam F8035165985 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.475929 7.448799
Kaduna
122 Charity Francis F 70612951 19 - 25 yrs Single 10.47748 7.447743 Kadun
88
59 6 a
123 Kenneth kk M8052982444 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.469389 7.445713
Kaduna
124 Katakana bobai M8033359374 50+ yrs. Married 10.46927 7.445677
Kaduna
125 Philip M8097207297 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.469335 7.445646
Kaduna
126 Mrs Stella Adetun F8180603077 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.472004 7.450603
Kaduna
127 Mrs Ekwe F8029006170 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower
10.471987 7.447095
Kaduna
128 Helen F8036838991 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.469277 7.450176
Kaduna
129 George ehidiame M8028506922 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.469974 7.448431
Kaduna
130 Raymond dominic M8088762421 26 - 40yrs. Married 10.47172 7.444544
Kaduna
131 Cynthia Ani F8034143471 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.444427 7.418121
Kaduna
132 Mrs Blessing Usman F8103181677 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.437881 7.412717
Kaduna
133 Ladi Sunday F8062124043 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.438235 7.41421
Kaduna
134 Tina ayenajei bugaison F7081384389 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.437266 7.411483
Kaduna
135 Moses m mandaki M8066144785 19 - 25 yrs Single 10.43821 7.412393
Kaduna
136 Yohanna andrew M8035879232 50+ yrs. Married
10.441298 7.415896
Kaduna
137 Mary F8032840620 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.437932 7.412272
Kaduna
138 Christopher bated M8102635223 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.449127 7.429727
Kaduna
139 Japheth Iliya Makama M7067852615 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.449441 7.428206
Kaduna
140 Victoria Bitrus F 81364043 41 - 49 yrs. Married 10.44952 7.433756 Kadun
89
15 6 a
141 Precious luka F8061150401 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.450263 7.428125
Kaduna
142 Ruth Daniel F8067355550 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.448589 7.430908
Kaduna
143 Jeremiah Bako M9093025653 50+ yrs. Married
10.447833 7.428795
Kaduna
144 Ayuba yakubu M8176335974 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.449379 7.428396
Kaduna
145 Antonia Gabriel F8160662705 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.449156 7.430122
Kaduna
146 Yakubu Anthony M8087510758 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.449947 7.432604
Kaduna
147 Sarah F8165428146 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower
10.448875 7.427665
Kaduna
148 Dinatu F No Phone 26 - 40yrs. Married10.44865
6 7.430347Kaduna
149 Sandra makoshi F No Phone 19 - 25 yrs Single10.44897
8 7.431273Kaduna
150 Mrs Rhoda Barnabas F7014852598 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.448785 7.428843
Kaduna
151 Monica Alex F8037149907 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.449467 7.430886
Kaduna
152 Naomi F8034026340 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.449108 7.427404
Kaduna
153 Favour dele F8167186738 26 - 40yrs. Married 10.44863 7.430291
Kaduna
154 Salama duniya F8000000000 50+ yrs. Married
10.449449 7.426569
Kaduna
155 Queen maman F90860660625 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.449583 7.428038
Kaduna
156 Halima Abubakar F8066161721 26 - 40yrs.
Widow/widower 10.48217 7.411913
Kaduna
157 Nathaniel Mai gari M7067596828 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.466669 7.415887
Kaduna
158 Juliana D Ishaya F 80243311 41 - 49 yrs. Married 10.47327 7.406465 Kadun
90
26 5 a
159 Duniya baye M No Phone 50+ yrs.Widow/widower 10.47575 7.406737
Kaduna
160 Celina Elisha F7067698882 50+ yrs. Married
10.474799 7.405467
Kaduna
161 Habiba Ali yahaya F8106209199 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.482474 7.411135
Kaduna
162 Mrs Grace Aliu F No Phone 26 - 40yrs. Married10.48215
2 7.411871Kaduna
163 Mary philip F No Phone 19 - 25 yrs Single10.48238
5 7.411917Kaduna
164 Godwin M7037484093 50+ yrs. Married
10.482609 7.41153
Kaduna
165 Malama Fatima Suleiman F7069233717 41 - 49 yrs.
Widow/widower
10.472333 7.407878
Kaduna
166 Josephine F7060472392 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.470915 7.409296
Kaduna
167 Mrs Okara F7039622155 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower
10.473251 7.40777
Kaduna
168 F b olayiwon F7039371777 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.470593 7.409365
Kaduna
169 Rukayyat Olarinoye F8132140577 19 - 25 yrs Single 10.474 7.409436
Kaduna
170 Shehu usman M8132174046 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.471827 7.411082
Kaduna
171 Mohammed Nasir M7068503838 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.471178 7.409201
Kaduna
172 Hadiza shehu F No Phone 41 - 49 yrs. Married10.47179
5 7.40904Kaduna
173 Jamila Abdullahi F9085279770 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.473563 7.408838
Kaduna
174 Kikelomo Jolayemi F7061341885 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.471669 7.408256
Kaduna
175 Folake Ola F8029593653 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.472486 7.409595
Kaduna
176 Abdulkarim Isah A M 80646447 26 - 40yrs. Married 10.47093 7.410006 Kadun
91
49 6 a
177 Mr Thomos M8050802194 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.471521 7.409106
Kaduna
178 Amina saidu F No Phone 26 - 40yrs. Married10.47188
9 7.410792Kaduna
179 Mary john F8077741390 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower
10.470967 7.408428
Kaduna
180 Helen ovieria F7033927861 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.471599 7.409606
Kaduna
181 Balls Adams M No Phone 19 - 25 yrs Single10.47152
6 7.409698Kaduna
182 Hawau Ibrahim F8053632322 41 - 49 yrs.
Widow/widower 10.51343 7.417826
Kaduna
183 Amina waziri F8108405164 50+ yrs. Married
10.517689 7.414751
Kaduna
184 Attahiru muhammed M8062261675 50+ yrs. Married
10.519034 7.418638
Kaduna
185 Yusuf A Mohammed M8035894894 50+ yrs. Married
10.517795 7.417723
Kaduna
186 Amina Mohammed F7062400801 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.518111 7.414046
Kaduna
187 Hafsat Mohammed F8160094238 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.514814 7.416025
Kaduna
188 Maryam Saidu F9063463057 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.516699 7.417649
Kaduna
189 Zainab Mohammed Kabir F8034724165 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.517514 7.414152
Kaduna
190 Sahidu ibrahim M7083025990 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.516769 7.416926
Kaduna
191 Tayo M8169849902 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.520274 7.412837
Kaduna
192 Mariah Abdullahi F No Phone 19 - 25 yrs Married10.52003
3 7.412874Kaduna
193 Khadijah nurudeen F8061266160 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.518159 7.413299
Kaduna
194 Abdulraman salisu M 81250518 26 - 40yrs. Single 10.51751 7.417715 Kadun
92
88 9 a
195 Badiya F8091330550 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.516292 7.416868
Kaduna
196 Shamsiya F8166521981 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.518413 7.41387
Kaduna
197 Sadatu F8082968848 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.519856 7.412841
Kaduna
198 Farida yahaya F7064927166 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.517628 7.413489
Kaduna
199 Sadika F8147057097 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.519582 7.414002
Kaduna
200 Mrs Baruwa F8080636007 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower
10.517018 7.413883
Kaduna
201 Hajiya Ladi F9065177815 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.516918 7.415353
Kaduna
202 Rabiat ahmad F9038988130 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.517722 7.414033
Kaduna
203 Ahmed Kabir M9070744444 26 - 40yrs. Single 10.51868 7.413667
Kaduna
204 Nafisa yusuf F8132235539 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.520226 7.41382
Kaduna
205 Mariam F8081176442 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.519321 7.413403
Kaduna
206 Saliu yunusa M8022810015 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.518867 7.40197
Kaduna
207Hajia Halima Saadatu Shaibu F
8036528538 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.518497 7.401755
Kaduna
208 Hajiya Hafsat Adamu F9036498069 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.515001 7.402211
Kaduna
209 Nafisa Ibrahim F9067443659 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.518033 7.402409
Kaduna
210 Hajiya Fatima sani F8080150228 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower
10.519706 7.400437
Kaduna
211 Afan abdullahi paki M9034143583 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.517252 7.401386
Kaduna
212 Salisu ashiru M 80328442 26 - 40yrs. Single 10.51726 7.400998 Kadun
93
66 2 a
213 All baba M8039097597 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.518913 7.400646
Kaduna
214 Zuwaira surajo F7064682200 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.511793 7.407973
Kaduna
215 Samira umaru F No Phone 26 - 40yrs. Married10.51510
8 7.409088Kaduna
216 Hafsat Mohammed Lawal F9032346203 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.517534 7.405588
Kaduna
217Hajia Jummai Ramatu Lawal Husseini F
8166134177 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower
10.515902 7.404628
Kaduna
218 Usman M7069194501 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.512295 7.407712
Kaduna
219 Hajara F8033266529 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.514918 7.409176
Kaduna
220 Junaidu samaila M7030332218 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.513867 7.398594
Kaduna
221 Alidu yahaya M8037706774 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.513561 7.409703
Kaduna
222 Nasir Yusuf M8023731944 50+ yrs. Married
10.514263 7.407549
Kaduna
223 Umar M8133105999 19 - 25 yrs Single 10.51646 7.412891
Kaduna
224 Rukayya F8069617703 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.515043 7.409149
Kaduna
225 Aisha Alhassan F8101341356 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.515124 7.404905
Kaduna
226 Lamin Usman F7039126662 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.515045 7.405802
Kaduna
227 Ibrahim sani M8039506884 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.513096 7.409764
Kaduna
228 Suleiman Hussaini M8060347781 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.515243 7.407662
Kaduna
229 Ibrahim shuaibu M8026270919 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.514108 7.405059
Kaduna
230 Nafisat F No Phone 19 - 25 yrs Married 10.51497 7.429499 Kadun
94
6 a
231 Oga Mansur M8035365476 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.532255 7.377718
Kaduna
232 Firdausi F8033106252 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.531087 7.381115
Kaduna
233 Ahamad Isa M8039668182 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.532398 7.379667
Kaduna
234 Aisha Salisu F8036245528 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.532485 7.381238
Kaduna
235 Rashidat yusuf F7068127733 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.533751 7.38146
Kaduna
236 Usman Yahaya M8034013634 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.532258 7.380938
Kaduna
237 Nasir M7068329560 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.531133 7.381017
Kaduna
238 Badiya Sabiu F8167946810 19 - 25 yrs Married 10.53174 7.383729
Kaduna
239 Amina F7035401196 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.530673 7.379965
Kaduna
240 Inusa musa M8100561177 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.528593 7.38433
Kaduna
241 Alh mahamoud Habib M No Phone 41 - 49 yrs. Married10.52829
7 7.384414Kaduna
242 Abbas M8034892522 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.530842 7.38357
Kaduna
243 Saliu maiwada F8037671389 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.527119 7.386385
Kaduna
244 Abdullahi goma M8036854341 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.529968 7.383067
Kaduna
245 Halima Nasir F8033146320 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.528973 7.386602
Kaduna
246 Hajara F No Phone 41 - 49 yrs. Married10.53108
3 7.381008Kaduna
247 Aminatu Kazali Raji F8020976829 50+ yrs. Married
10.527005 7.387873
Kaduna
248 Talatu shehu F 80365961 26 - 40yrs. Married 10.52780 7.391998 Kadun
95
68 2 a
249 Abdullahi shuaib M7089985020 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.526725 7.392968
Kaduna
250 Mama Maikoko F No Phone 50+ yrs.Widow/widower
10.525586 7.393286
Kaduna
251 Alhamdu garba M8000000000 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.523882 7.398253
Kaduna
252 Fatima Muhammad F070338390 52 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.592486 7.438366
Kaduna
253 Abubakar M8035919251 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.525848 7.393503
Kaduna
254 Abdurasheed Isha M8039635269 26 - 40yrs. Single 10.52572 7.394667
Kaduna
255 Mrs Maryam Nuhu F8033556827 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.617712 7.465875
Kaduna
256 Hannatu Sani F No Phone 12 - 18 yrs Married10.62091
3 7.46627Kaduna
257 Haruna M8026260282 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.619653 7.463275
Kaduna
258 Joyce F8050366685 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.617108 7.464572
Kaduna
259 Aisha Suleiman F8023269338 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.619932 7.465512
Kaduna
260 Barr Fatima Mohammed F8036043040 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.655328 7.488402
Kaduna
261 Amina shuaibu F No Phone 26 - 40yrs. Married10.62313
8 7.464853Kaduna
262 Abdullarman M8033543123 12 - 18 yrs Single
10.623167 7.464922
Kaduna
263 Rahab Jonathan F7068209048 26 - 40yrs. Married 10.61851 7.464516
Kaduna
264 Fatima F No Phone 19 - 25 yrs Married10.61832
7 7.465737Kaduna
265 Amina F No Phone 26 - 40yrs. Married10.62145
1 7.46605Kaduna
266 Lukman M 80332515 19 - 25 yrs Single 10.62067 7.464026 Kadun
96
84 7 a
267 Ishaya joshua dangana M8179930601 50+ yrs. Married
10.619348 7.465473
Kaduna
268 Jamila Ahmed F8039372772 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.619071 7.465537
Kaduna
269 Amina salisu M8039103188 41 - 49 yrs. Married 10.62151 7.465677
Kaduna
270 Abdurashid Nuhu M7068290396 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.620281 7.465746
Kaduna
271 Monica F9029219125 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.621186 7.46666
Kaduna
272 Mohammed Hamisu M8069470506 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.600691 7.46322
Kaduna
273 Isa M9069571251 12 - 18 yrs Single
10.600131 7.459948
Kaduna
274 Taiba Abubakar F7032958116 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.598755 7.460545
Kaduna
275 Umar aliyu mariga M7035956806 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.601123 7.460563
Kaduna
276 Abdullahi Mohammed M8028562947 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.601778 7.459494
Kaduna
277 Hamza yusuf M8059887773 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.600818 7.459354
Kaduna
278 Abdulraman M8023002226 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.597609 7.461266
Kaduna
279 Sani M7068714255 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.601295 7.459496
Kaduna
280 Pricilla Zakaria F8168501229 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.588945 7.406518
Kaduna
281 Harira F8038906314 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.589742 7.408381
Kaduna
282 Nuhu dahiru M9037052859 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.591295 7.402946
Kaduna
283 Hassan sani M9067973040 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.600231 7.459367
Kaduna
284 Rukayya Suleiman F 81731085 26 - 40yrs. Married 10.59049 7.405562 Kadun
97
96 2 a
285 Nafiu muktar M8038207491 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.589332 7.403766
Kaduna
286 Khalid m isiya q M8067682985 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.593168 7.404809
Kaduna
287 Lydia F8134153560 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.587567 7.401124
Kaduna
288 Ibrahim M8023090468 50+ yrs. Married
10.591175 7.406942
Kaduna
289 Fatima Sani F8101009771 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.590681 7.406232
Kaduna
290 Abdullahi Idagi M8030420459 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.591347 7.403787
Kaduna
291 Abdul wasiu M8132062542 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.589663 7.403748
Kaduna
292 Halimatu abubakar F8033717758 50+ yrs. Married
10.591623 7.403945
Kaduna
293 Jamila A Mohammed F8036612165 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.590061 7.405067
Kaduna
294 Sadia F7034926706 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.589861 7.403083
Kaduna
295 Abbas umar M7036065934 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.593193 7.404837
Kaduna
296 Hassan Lawal M7069330665 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.596284 7.397855
Kaduna
297 Mohammad jamil M8133934996 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.591695 7.404541
Kaduna
298 Mrs Abimbola Abidemi F8028504257 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.593322 7.397751
Kaduna
299 Hanatu D Abdullahi F9072890651 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.594184 7.398925
Kaduna
300 Mrs Adeniyi F8023270962 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.592241 7.397411
Kaduna
301 Mary daniel F8032845206 26 - 40yrs. Married 10.594 7.39875
Kaduna
302 Amina alkali F 70690820 50+ yrs. Married 10.59398 7.399993 Kadun
98
73 1 a
303 Hawau F7033724981 26 - 40yrs. Married 10.59348 7.397123
Kaduna
304 Adamu abdullahi M8038041264 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.594506 7.397526
Kaduna
305 Hawau Ibrahim F8061250570 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.576543 7.442728
Kaduna
306 Simon tagwai M7068841197 50+ yrs. Married
10.579851 7.439819
Kaduna
307 Zahra Mohammed F8029938846 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.577604 7.44105
Kaduna
308 Innocent M8033831020 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.580319 7.437947
Kaduna
309 Adamu Shuaibu M8063180208 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.578922 7.440204
Kaduna
310 Mrs Audu F8093782220 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.580177 7.438646
Kaduna
311 Nana F8065299813 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.578908 7.439838
Kaduna
312 Hanifat Sani F7037559904 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.577332 7.442914
Kaduna
313 Hajia Indatu Shehu F7061665079 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower
10.578246 7.441127
Kaduna
314 Friday maigari M8032822378 26 - 40yrs. Single 10.58107 7.438444
Kaduna
315 Jamila Muhammad kabir F7036263326 26 - 40yrs. Married 10.5773 7.441792
Kaduna
316 John Jerry M7063324810 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.581335 7.439576
Kaduna
317 Fatima F No Phone 26 - 40yrs. Married10.57816
5 7.439291Kaduna
318 Ishaya Francis M8132727499 50+ yrs. Married
10.577918 7.442336
Kaduna
319 Faith F8023764528 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.579816 7.438986
Kaduna
320 Lubabatu Hassan F 81442691 26 - 40yrs. Married 10.57848 7.44106 Kadun
99
73 a
321 David musa M7036066930 50+ yrs. Married
10.579941 7.438772
Kaduna
322 Hauwa yusuf F7037736379 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.577962 7.441207
Kaduna
323 Hajiya Maryam F7037789675 26 - 40yrs. Married
Kaduna
324 Ayuba didam M7036810938 50+ yrs. Married
10.580492 7.440824
Kaduna
325 Salamatu F7039139473 50+ yrs. Married 10.57855 7.440272
Kaduna
326 Lucy Zachariah F8131280250 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.580252 7.439204
Kaduna
327 Swathet F8122618345 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.579188 7.43926
Kaduna
328 Felicia Ibidun F8067734789 26 - 40yrs. Married 10.581 7.440293
Kaduna
329 Saadatu mahamud F8038906696 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.579887 7.440907
Kaduna
330Mr suleiman wasiu olayinka M
8069202235 41 - 49 yrs. Married 10.57917 7.439454
Kaduna
331 Balkisu F7068723280 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.578659 7.440776
Kaduna
332 Lydia F8099005109 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.579496 7.43972
Kaduna
333 Junaidu lawal M7039784057 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.578179 7.441373
Kaduna
334 Christiana David F80656244936 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.579357 7.440938
Kaduna
335 Mubarak Mohammed M8038315456 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.560006 7.464276
Kaduna
336 Kisabo M8080338659 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.563923 7.466484
Kaduna
337 Rabiu danmarke M8098972013 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.560812 7.466539
Kaduna
338 Halima Adekule F 80659540 12 - 18 yrs Single 10.56444 7.46451 Kadun
100
17 8 a
339 Deborah F8029002532 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.563267 7.466191
Kaduna
340 Shola Olatunji M7065601199 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.559202 7.466046
Kaduna
341 Safina F81381502027 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.561851 7.46611
Kaduna
342 Tijjani A bayero M8036001014 50+ yrs. Married 10.56125 7.46429
Kaduna
343 Salisu garba M8169811418 50+ yrs. Married
10.562671 7.466123
Kaduna
344 Alh Aminu M No Phone 26 - 40yrs. Married10.56363
3 7.46453Kaduna
345 Nura magaji M8035527051 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.562122 7.464358
Kaduna
346 Abubakar M8036833663 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.561523 7.465048
Kaduna
347 Jacob M8066172423 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.562942 7.465479
Kaduna
348 Hajia Rabi Aliyu Abdullahi F8065590488 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.558998 7.465457
Kaduna
349 Khalid musa M8038661067 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.560298 7.465103
Kaduna
350 HB Alkali M8067515486 50+ yrs. Married
10.559025 7.464748
Kaduna
351 Nazipi keti M8103232600 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.562548 7.465749
Kaduna
352 Farida Kabir F8055787116 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.557457 7.453596
Kaduna
353 Aisha F8179171770 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.557811 7.450779
Kaduna
354 Shehu soba M8077248424 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.556484 7.455024
Kaduna
355 Samira Mustapha F9033533375 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.557048 7.455091
Kaduna
356 Muhammad shuaibu M 80359307 41 - 49 yrs. Married 10.55791 7.453051 Kadun
101
87 3 a
357 Mrs h farouk M8090806633 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.557113 7.454586
Kaduna
358 Aisha Mohammed F8037053100 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.557597 7.451727
Kaduna
359 Usman M8068977292 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.556325 7.453586
Kaduna
360 Hajia Hussaina Abubakar F8039681957 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower 10.54996 7.437949
Kaduna
361 Hajiya hafsat F8037256599 50+ yrs. Married 10.5496 7.437799
Kaduna
362 Aisha Abubakar F8030883922 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.548987 7.439892
Kaduna
363 Aisha abbas F8036057643 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.547917 7.437719
Kaduna
364 Yaharsu mohammed F9060571172 26 - 40yrs. Married 10.54968 7.438632
Kaduna
365 Muhammad Sabiu M7068040327 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.549681 7.438559
Kaduna
366 Alhaji Aminu Mohammed M8024331873 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.548959 7.438175
Kaduna
367 Abubakar Muhammad M8032840543 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.550761 7.437556
Kaduna
368 Binta F8029125557 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.547908 7.437596
Kaduna
369 Muhammad Bello M8100551517 50+ yrs. Married
10.548636 7.439624
Kaduna
370 Rukayya F8163544271 12 - 18 yrs Single 10.54882 7.438781
Kaduna
371 Aisha ahamed F8030724993 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.547656 7.43798
Kaduna
372 Salisu isah gote M8147970202 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.549652 7.438941
Kaduna
373 Hajaya Lami F8021212022 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower 10.54921 7.438568
Kaduna
374 Sani lawal M 81213875 19 - 25 yrs Married 10.55048 7.437606 Kadun
102
33 6 a
375 Zuaira F9036869102 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.548021 7.438041
Kaduna
376Hajia Rakiya Bello Mohammed F
8109844863 50+ yrs. Married
10.548244 7.438243
Kaduna
377 Yusuf haladu M9065120999 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.548204 7.438925
Kaduna
378 Fatima Mohammad F8145533106 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.548437 7.439328
Kaduna
379 Kadija Ibrahim F8130735220 50+ yrs. Married
10.548262 7.438727
Kaduna
380 Zainab Suleiman F8035900748 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.548486 7.438737
Kaduna
381 Muhammad nura haladu M7033170544 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.547962 7.43823
Kaduna
382 Barira abubakar F9094463528 50+ yrs. Married 10.54884 7.439169
Kaduna
383 Mahmud M8062556233 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.548414 7.438987
Kaduna
384 Fatima abdullahi F8130599420 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.548552 7.437972
Kaduna
385 Hajiya Basira F7061577798 26 - 40yrs. Married 10.49863 7.439918
Kaduna
386 Mrs Suleiman F8094650395 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.497232 7.442815
Kaduna
387 Mohammed M8022602048 50+ yrs. Married
10.498109 7.441325
Kaduna
388 Abdulwahab suleman M8137763253 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.498562 7.442115
Kaduna
389 Maimuna yahaya F9056441420 50+ yrs. Married
10.497578 7.439966
Kaduna
390 Ahmed Alkali M8069510394 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.496157 7.442872
Kaduna
391 Hadiza F8167773324 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.497923 7.441659
Kaduna
392 Rukaya shitu F 80374097 26 - 40yrs. Single 10.49817 7.442645 Kadun
103
98 1 a
393 Hawau Alamin F8163541412 19 - 25 yrs Married
10.498183 7.440133
Kaduna
394 Hassana F8033074657 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.497074 7.442746
Kaduna
395 Obaje M7063140292 50+ yrs. Married 10.49988 7.43986
Kaduna
396 Umar farok M7036800354 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.499324 7.440581
Kaduna
397 Aisha Usman F8036654426 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.500377 7.444179
Kaduna
398 Happiness Kenneth F7030670545 19 - 25 yrs Married 10.49951 7.440087
Kaduna
399 Ramatu F8161274360 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.500908 7.442499
Kaduna
400 Abdulahi abubakar M8037145057 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.499218 7.441897
Kaduna
401 Tina Garba F8065802845 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.500478 7.444061
Kaduna
402 Halima Musa Mukhtar F8065650464 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.500418 7.44244
Kaduna
403 Md issah M7033775596 26 - 40yrs. Single
10.499324 7.440602
Kaduna
404 Abdulahi Mohammed M8063111148 26 - 40yrs. Married 10.4989 7.442054
Kaduna
405 Joy sunday F8174525779 12 - 18 yrs Single
10.500294 7.441631
Kaduna
406 Fayzeh Adam F7068859638 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.500672 7.44207
Kaduna
407 Salina umar F8062261520 26 - 40yrs. Married
10.498985 7.441692
Kaduna
408 Auwal Musa M8103328108 19 - 25 yrs Single
10.499707 7.44164
Kaduna
409 Mercy Kambai F8061205193 19 - 25 yrs Single 10.50071 7.442475
Kaduna
410 Binta abubakar F 80236380 26 - 40yrs. Married 10.50056 7.442789 Kadun
104
16 9 a
411 Anas Mohammed M8035054364 50+ yrs. Married
10.317328 9.833282
Bauchi
412 Umaru Muhammad M 99 50+ yrs. Married10.32157
5 9.842728Bauchi
413 Muhammad Sani Usman M8067503277
1 9 - 25 yrs. Single
10.318175 9.844149
Bauchi
414 Sunusi Aminu M8038884849 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.318857 9.842236
Bauchi
415 Nasiru Dan gombe M8039362503 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.320726 9.844252
Bauchi
416 Ahmed M7036624904
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.326669 9.846245
Bauchi
417 Jamila F8022234221
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.323942 9.842995
Bauchi
418 Hafsat Ibrahim F8183749199
1 9 - 25 yrs. Married
10.316705 9.844087
Bauchi
419 Shehu Bello M8138418590 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.318938 9.84267
Bauchi
420 Hauwau F 9926 - 40 yrs. Married
10.324672 9.84437
Bauchi
421 Hassan Ibrahim M 99 50+ yrs. Married10.32062
9 9.845767Bauchi
422 Isa M8067652983 50+ yrs. Married
10.323549 9.846081
Bauchi
423 Rashida F 9926 - 40 yrs. Married
10.325018 9.84518
Bauchi
424 Adamu M 99 50+ yrs. Married10.32703
1 9.844119Bauchi
425 Mohammed Dan anty M8067759873 50+ yrs. Married
10.319279 9.843534
Bauchi
426 Asamau F 991 9 - 25 yrs. Married
10.322999 9.845356
Bauchi
427 Saleh Adamu Aliyu M7069057066
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.321507 9.844653
Bauchi
428 Abdullmumini M 99 50+ yrs. Married 10.32675 9.845238 Bauch
105
9 i
429 Jaafar d sulaiman M7056543005
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.315512 9.844449
Bauchi
430 Balkisu F 9926 - 40 yrs. Married
10.325354 9.845361
Bauchi
431 Nasuru M 9926 - 40 yrs. Married
10.323173 9.845665
Bauchi
432 Abubakar Inuwa M8039660040 50+ yrs. Married
10.321805 9.845735
Bauchi
433 Alhaji Isah M8032066461 50+ yrs. Married 10.31911 9.844279
Bauchi
434 Mai Dawa Hassan M8056955836 50+ yrs. Married
10.314752 9.845477
Bauchi
435 Rukayya F 99 50+ yrs. Married 10.32593 9.846135Bauchi
436 Hadiza F 991 9 - 25 yrs. Married
10.323457 9.845641
Bauchi
437 Aliyu M8032585158
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.327136 9.845849
Bauchi
438 Mohammed umar M8093869666 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.351018 9.857618
Bauchi
439 Jamila Hassan F8034818693
26 - 40 yrs. Married 10.36359 9.868705
Bauchi
440 Dauda M8035674107
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.353604 9.84439
Bauchi
441 Murjanatu F8038931491
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.355174 9.842606
Bauchi
442 Babangida Muhammad M 9926 - 40 yrs. Married
10.353012 9.849871
Bauchi
443 Zainab F 9926 - 40 yrs. Married
10.352424 9.841751
Bauchi
444 Sabuwa F9063346645
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.354918 9.842654
Bauchi
445Muhammad saminu Abdullahi M
7030297474 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.362472 9.866035
Bauchi
446 Ibrahim Mohammed Alti M 80396174 41 - 49 yrs. Married 10.35093 9.853894 Bauch
106
90 i
447 Muhammad M8050841639
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.354431 9.843742
Bauchi
448 Jamila F9039005876
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.353254 9.841213
Bauchi
449 Yahaya Aminu M7036084998
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.353802 9.849451
Bauchi
450 Balkisu F8160918429
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.354553 9.842957
Bauchi
451 Muhammad Rabiu M8031311888
1 9 - 25 yrs. Single
10.360858 9.864879
Bauchi
452 Abdullwahab M 9926 - 40 yrs. Married 10.35388 9.843672
Bauchi
453 Ibrahim Dada M8162905257 50+ yrs. Married
10.350415 9.852566
Bauchi
454 Ibrahim B umar M7067044101
26 - 40 yrs. Single
10.359699 9.865941
Bauchi
455 Alhaji Abbakar M8028785904 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.351609 9.85015
Bauchi
456 Aminu M8086646175
26 - 40 yrs. Married 10.3537 9.84291
Bauchi
457 Safiya F8109954215
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.352619 9.841851
Bauchi
458 Adamu M8081448870
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.354965 9.841556
Bauchi
459 Rabiu Idris M7065682817
26 - 40 yrs. Single
10.360305 9.864283
Bauchi
460 Ishaq Musa M8022853045 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.351304 9.850784
Bauchi
461 Yakubu M8056572294 50+ yrs. Married
10.353943 9.842249
Bauchi
462 Abdukarim Garba M8080319053
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.350287 9.851298
Bauchi
463 Abba M8140877677
1 9 - 25 yrs. Single
10.354782 9.84163
Bauchi
464 Rukayya F 99 26 - 40 Married 10.35243 9.841016 Bauch
107
yrs. i
465 Alhji Aminu Umar M8038871288 50+ yrs. Married
10.280311 9.805001
Bauchi
466 Abdullahi Usman M 99 41 - 49 yrs. Married10.27957
5 9.805686Bauchi
467 Hafsat F 99 41 - 49 yrs. Married10.28092
8 9.802508Bauchi
468 Isah Usman M8067435858
26 - 40 yrs. Single
10.272061 9.793377
Bauchi
469 Baballiya Adamu M8036361541
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.279382 9.804327
Bauchi
470 Yakubu M 99 50+ yrs. Married10.26750
7 9.807212Bauchi
471 Adama F8170183293
26 - 40 yrs.
Widow/widower
10.289949 9.78846
Bauchi
472 Edward kayu M8030625331
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.268814 9.801048
Bauchi
473 Babaji Adamu ex service M7013360147 50+ yrs. Married
10.271477 9.793336
Bauchi
474 Habiba F8026554282
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.281532 9.801474
Bauchi
475 Haruna M 99 50+ yrs. Married10.26761
7 9.807482Bauchi
476 Isah Muhammad M8028507841 50+ yrs. Married
10.279493 9.803704
Bauchi
477 Zarka M 9926 - 40 yrs. Married
10.290218 9.790217
Bauchi
478 Samson ganbar M8149735544 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.269082 9.799695
Bauchi
479 Zainap F 9926 - 40 yrs. Married
10.267658 9.807659
Bauchi
480 Hafsat hassan F860746662
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.271137 9.79402
Bauchi
481 Aisha F9069340525
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.282327 9.800824
Bauchi
482 Lami baliri F 99 41 - 49 yrs. Married 10.26890 9.798574 Bauch
108
7 i
483 Samuel M 99 50+ yrs. Married10.28926
6 9.789663Bauchi
484 Hajara F 99 41 - 49 yrs. Married10.28176
2 9.801094Bauchi
485 Suwaiba F 9926 - 40 yrs. Married
10.019438 9.184447
Bauchi
486 Saidu Abubakar M9033994290
1 9 - 25 yrs. Single 10.27087 9.794881
Bauchi
487 Patience Riks F8149012379
26 - 40 yrs. Single
10.269959 9.798339
Bauchi
488 Idris Muhammad M8113775769 50+ yrs. Married
10.279809 9.803256
Bauchi
489 Shehu M8076647426
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.288205 9.789441
Bauchi
490 Rabi F 99 41 - 49 yrs.Widow/widower
10.282337 9.800153
Bauchi
491 Adamu Maaji M8081909214 50+ yrs. Married
10.300809 9.847634
Bauchi
492 Nura M8103827714
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.298338 9.850363
Bauchi
493 Abubakar bello M8056268111
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.297009 9.850434
Bauchi
494 Idris Adamu M7030976911 50+ yrs. Married
10.302037 9.847815
Bauchi
495 Mohammed M8062624894 50+ yrs. Married
10.299464 9.850682
Bauchi
496 Umaru mai jalingo M7035071654 50+ yrs. Married
10.302026 9.847817
Bauchi
497 Hajara F 9926 - 40 yrs. Married
10.299674 9.850376
Bauchi
498 Maimuna F8109151175
26 - 40 yrs. Married 10.30438 9.845814
Bauchi
499 Aliya Ahmed M7030522232
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.297864 9.8502
Bauchi
500 Yusuf umar M 90382246 1 9 - 25 Single 10.29563 9.847792 Bauch
109
04 yrs. 7 i
501 Abdullahi M 99 50+ yrs. Married10.29994
8 9.850108Bauchi
502 Fatima F8109720277 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower
10.307738 9.846565
Bauchi
503 Usman Ahmed malam M7037714226 50+ yrs. Married
10.298658 9.849907
Bauchi
504 Abdulhamid musa M7035112550
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.302208 9.847729
Bauchi
505 Hauwa F 99 50+ yrs. Married10.30467
9 9.846159Bauchi
506 Muhammad Tahir M7055409066
26 - 40 yrs. Married 10.29635 9.848779
Bauchi
507 Yusuf Dahiru Ismail M8066666125
1 9 - 25 yrs. Single
10.296604 9.849383
Bauchi
508 Hadiza F7030340768
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.304869 9.846916
Bauchi
509 Ahmed Abdullah M8031154232 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.299156 9.849753
Bauchi
510 Nafisa F 991 9 - 25 yrs. Married
10.307537 9.846793
Bauchi
511 Maimunatu F7031808500 41 - 49 yrs.
Widow/widower
10.299817 9.849695
Bauchi
512 Aliyu Yusuf M7054087006
26 - 40 yrs. Married 10.29717 9.849909
Bauchi
513 Maryam F7038303350 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower
10.307829 9.846817
Bauchi
514 Hussaini Abdulhamid M8036805463
26 - 40 yrs. Single
10.302472 9.84802
Bauchi
515 Amina F8032646559 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.304763 9.847457
Bauchi
516 Zaharadeen Adamu M8037528959
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.299515 9.849596
Bauchi
517 Walado F 99 50+ yrs.Widow/widower
10.307941 9.846521
Bauchi
518 Maimuna F 99 41 - 49 yrs. Married 10.31294 9.847088 Bauch
110
5 i
519 Samaila D rabiu M8064756170
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.310551 9.854558
Bauchi
520 Hamza Aliyu M8032598895
1 9 - 25 yrs. Single
10.310668 9.854163
Bauchi
521 Garba M8104306735
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.310239 9.851093
Bauchi
522 Raihanatu Abdullahi F 991 9 - 25 yrs. Single
10.310635 9.854256
Bauchi
523 Abbakar Adamu M8136025364
26 - 40 yrs. Single
10.311193 9.852611
Bauchi
524 Maawuya M8123004673
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.311286 9.847525
Bauchi
525 Adamu Abdullah M8037559922 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.310545 9.857051
Bauchi
526 Haseena F8111173068
1 9 - 25 yrs. Married
10.309134 9.848175
Bauchi
527 Zuwairiyatu F8138096019
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.310289 9.851034
Bauchi
528 Hussaini Hassan M8033305256 50+ yrs. Married
10.311004 9.853397
Bauchi
529 Abdullahi Garba M7034604367 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.311269 9.856795
Bauchi
530 Salmanu M813778368
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.310794 9.84693
Bauchi
531 Kadija F 9926 - 40 yrs. Married
10.309973 9.850781
Bauchi
532 Saratu F 99 41 - 49 yrs. Married10.30907
7 9.848206Bauchi
533 Muhammad M 99 50+ yrs. Married10.31237
8 9.849284Bauchi
534 Aisha gogo F 99 41 - 49 yrs. MarriedBauchi
535 Ahmad Rufai Adam dala M8063584921
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.314411 9.850853
Bauchi
536 Danlami tela M 70804132 50+ yrs. Married 10.31560 9.854672 Bauch
111
90 6 i
537 Ibrahim M806524868
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.313479 9.847436
Bauchi
538 Kasuwa Awal M8023545255 50+ yrs. Married
10.313592 9.84838
Bauchi
539 Zainab F7037155846
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.312398 9.849593
Bauchi
540 Alh ishaka Babandoki M8066166573 50+ yrs. Married
10.315151 9.85136
Bauchi
541 Malam dan azumi M7067257850 50+ yrs. Married
Bauchi
542 Faruk Hussaini M8036832156 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.315943 9.855025
Bauchi
543 Aishatu F 9926 - 40 yrs. Married
10.314048 9.847811
Bauchi
544 Maimuna F 99 50+ yrs. Married10.31433
8 9.847241Bauchi
545 Asmau F 99 41 - 49 yrs. Married10.32081
1 9.84915Bauchi
546 Sani musa M 99 41 - 49 yrs. Married10.32567
9 9.852565Bauchi
547 Muhammad Auwal M8034842694 50+ yrs. Married 10.3252 9.852848
Bauchi
548 Rashida F8108107093
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.320413 9.848656
Bauchi
549 Ismail M8063740807
26 - 40 yrs. Married 10.31713 9.846033
Bauchi
550 Ibrahim Yusuf M8036297651 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.324639 9.856342
Bauchi
551 Sagri Yusuf M8073003920
26 - 40 yrs. Married
Bauchi
552 Sanusi M7030203313
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.321757 9.851615
Bauchi
553 Hauwa F7062202397
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.320117 9.848018
Bauchi
554 Umar Ali M 80369012 26 - 40 Married 10.32548 9.855952 Bauch
112
78 yrs. 3 i
555 Muhammad muhammed M8144326324 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.324904 9.853062
Bauchi
556 Bashir M7035372059
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.316995 9.846744
Bauchi
557 Alhaji Rabiu M7088162443 41 - 49 yrs. Married
Bauchi
558 Najibu salihu M8143442839
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.324467 9.853313
Bauchi
559 Raliya F7038822643
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.322657 9.850529
Bauchi
560 Mujahid Babayo M8068492646
1 9 - 25 yrs. Single
10.325059 9.854973
Bauchi
561 Shetu Hassan M8067046934
26 - 40 yrs. Married
Bauchi
562 Shuaibu M8069156608 50+ yrs. Married
10.316832 9.847126
Bauchi
563 Alh Rabiu sale M8033495844 50+ yrs. Married
10.323952 9.853677
Bauchi
564 Aishatu F 9926 - 40 yrs. Married
10.321798 9.851488
Bauchi
565 Umar Muhammad M7083515193 41 - 49 yrs. Married
Bauchi
566 Khadijah Adam F 991 9 - 25 yrs. Married
10.325254 9.854718
Bauchi
567 Murtala M8164236023
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.318823 9.848404
Bauchi
568 Muhammad M8153288903
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.316832 9.847126
Bauchi
569 Sulaiman zubairu M7033442139 50+ yrs. Married
Bauchi
570 Zainabu F8195979510
1 9 - 25 yrs. Married
10.321639 9.851442
Bauchi
571 Bala Usman M8034991323 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.289332 9.83934
Bauchi
572 Alhaji Ibrahim M 80383328 50+ yrs. Married Bauch
113
10 i
573 Mohammed M8065868906 50+ yrs. Married
10.287677 9.832907
Bauchi
574 Nasiru maigari M8023541647 50+ yrs. Married
10.287771 9.839594
Bauchi
575 Asmau F9031681057
26 - 40 yrs.
Widow/widower
10.287581 9.831275
Bauchi
576 Hafsat F 99 50+ yrs. Married10.31625
8 9.82751Bauchi
577 Mercy ijoma F8026912770
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.284291 9.834179
Bauchi
578 Sabo Mato Misau M8023747831 50+ yrs. Married
10.288406 9.839651
Bauchi
579 Umar Ibrahim jaja M7067973323 41 - 49 yrs. Married
Bauchi
580 Jamima F9038751888
26 - 40 yrs.
Widow/widower 10.2879 9.829937
Bauchi
581 Mrs Helen F8058612576 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower
10.314855 9.828012
Bauchi
582 Habiba F9034923750 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.287756 9.832749
Bauchi
583 Ibrahim mahamood M7056135993
26 - 40 yrs. Married
Bauchi
584 Muhammad M8022734801 50+ yrs. Married
10.289304 9.839311
Bauchi
585 Usman Abdullahi M8137915934 50+ yrs. Married 10.28431 9.832225
Bauchi
586 Aisha F 99 50+ yrs. Married10.30262
6 9.817305Bauchi
587 Faiz Mohammed kobi M8034649479
26 - 40 yrs. Single
Bauchi
588 Mama F 99 41 - 49 yrs. Married10.30409
2 9.816778Bauchi
589 Nanah baba mai F8092739502
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.284633 9.833221
Bauchi
590 Hauwa F 80332662 26 - 40 Married 10.31390 9.829585 Bauch
114
24 yrs. 2 i
591 Maryam F8029433181
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.304079 9.818188
Bauchi
592 Hauwa F9036524804
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.313769 9.828459
Bauchi
593 Husaina F8058620965 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.303894 9.818709
Bauchi
594 Dan azumi M8098391651 50+ yrs. Married
10.313294 9.841753
Bauchi
595 Hassana Abdullahi F8063759655
1 9 - 25 yrs. Single
10.317963 9.840934
Bauchi
596 Sani M7054595834
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.310426 9.837521
Bauchi
597 Habibu Adamu M8022199106 50+ yrs. Married
10.312959 9.841354
Bauchi
598 Murjanatu sulaiman F8022364249
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.317734 9.839535
Bauchi
599 Umar Aminu M7031183463 41 - 49 yrs. Married
Bauchi
600 MamanAbba F9068167890
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.311767 9.845274
Bauchi
601 Sulaiman bala shuaibu M7037497209 50+ yrs. Married
10.317109 9.837927
Bauchi
602 Yalwa ladan M8028688487 50+ yrs. Married
10.312612 9.841201
Bauchi
603 Alhaji Danlami M7069596054 50+ yrs. Married
Bauchi
604 Hajia Hadiza F8033527068 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower
10.311992 9.839845
Bauchi
605 Muhammadu M8135562195 50+ yrs. Married
10.310478 9.839022
Bauchi
606 Kaduja F 991 9 - 25 yrs. Married
10.312112 9.844369
Bauchi
607 Abubakar Umar M8060744240 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.315666 9.843033
Bauchi
608 Hadi M 80538044 50+ yrs. Married 10.31037 9.839457 Bauch
115
78 5 i
609 Hajara Abubakar F8037988041
26 - 40 yrs. Divorced
10.311249 9.841114
Bauchi
610 Alhaji shuaibu isah M8026588062 50+ yrs. Married
10.317492 9.837251
Bauchi
611 Aisha F8051354295 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.310451 9.840844
Bauchi
612 Zuwaira F8146479174
26 - 40 yrs. Married 10.31194 9.844271
Bauchi
613 Saidu Abdullahi M 9926 - 40 yrs. Married
10.317449 9.836335
Bauchi
614 Ummi F7083565869
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.311072 9.842235
Bauchi
615 Dahiru garba M8065075670
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.315978 9.842288
Bauchi
616 Muslim banan Ya M8062113839
26 - 40 yrs. Single
10.317431 9.835876
Bauchi
617Abdullahi Adamu wakilin Doka M
8164982627 41 - 49 yrs. Married
10.313554 9.840091
Bauchi
618 zainab F8109572808 50+ yrs.
Widow/widower 10.3105 9.842726
Bauchi
619 Samaila M9034902267
26 - 40 yrs. Married
10.310366 9.841332
Bauchi
620 Usman maibauchi ilila M8063356035 50+ yrs. Married
10.311364 9.844551
Bauchi
116
![ceafrancoachat.caConsecutiveNegotiations).… · Web viewSubmission Deadline: [**Insert Date and Time**] local time. Table of Contents: Part 1 – Invitation and Submission Instructions3](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/5ced809388c993350f8c7de9/consecutivenegotiations-web-viewsubmission-deadline-insert-date-and-time.jpg)
