Water
Organisation

Date

Reporting Period

Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nairobi (Kenya)

17th August 2015

2014

Activity

2014

Implemented by

Rio marker

Gender marker

Number

Name

Actual expenditure

Name Organisation

channel

mitigation/adaptation

significant/principal

significant/principal

23716

NAI ACC Sustainable nature
management

623.401

African Conservation Center

NGO

Mitigation and Adaptation

Significant

Significant

23856

NAI AWF Biodiversity & livelihoods in
Samburu, Amboseli & Mau

2.338.158

African Wildlife Foundation

NGO

Mitigation and Adaptation

Significant

Significant

24214

NAI LWF Conservation & livelihoods in
Laikipia

931.567

Laikipia Wildlife Forum

NGO

Mitigation and Adaptation

Significant

Significant

24401

NAI NRT Resilient Conservancies in
Northern Kenya

748.524

Northern Rangeland Trust

NGO

Adaptation

Significant

Significant

24981

NAI WWF Integrated Water Resources
Action Plan

767.058

WWF - Kenya

NGO

Adaptation

Significant

Significant

Activity

2014

Implemented by

Rio marker

Number

Name

Actual expenditure

Name Organisation

channel

25451

NAI UNESCO IHE Sustainable Water
Management Mara River

1.816.540

UNESCO IHE

16967

NAI UNICEF Kenya WASH programme

3.691.529

UNICEF

24048

NAI VEI Water Operator Partnership
Naivasha

583.837

Vitens Evides International

24816

NAI GOAL Sanitation Improvements
through Market Strategies

542.601

GOAL

25657

NAI VEI Water Operator Partnership
Mombasa

826.928

Vitens Evides International

26579

KIFFWA

104.800

WASTE (at that time)

mitigation/adaptation

Gender marker
significant/principal

significant/principal

Research institute and companies
Adaptation

Significant

Significant

Multilateral organization

Adaptation

Significant

Significant

Research institute and companies
Adaptation

Significant

Significant

NGO

Significant

Significant

Research institute and companies
Adaptation

Significant

Significant

NGO

Adaptation

Significant

Significant

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Not applicable

Result Area 2

Improved river basin management and safe delta’s

Result Question 2.1a: To what extent has there been progress in the
development and implementation of plans for sustainable growth and water
safety (incl. good governance) in the target area of your programme?

In Kenya, major sector reforms have been implemented in the last decade, based on the Water Act, 2002. The coming into force of the new Constitution in 2013
required a revision of the existing Water Act and the National Water Policy. The revision process started in 2011 and is ongoing. Important progress was made: in
2014 further consultations between key sector stakeholders and lobbying of parliamentarians took place; additional input into the draft Water Bill and the National
Water Policy were given. Subsequently the Water Bill and Draft Water policy went through the 2nd reading in parliament. Pending enactment, the sector continues
to operate under the old Water Act 2002 and Policy.
The delay in enacting the Act and Policy, however, did not affect the creation and empowerment of 1200 Water Resources User Associations (WRUAs), which has
been ongoing since 2008. These Associations fit in very well in the devolution process. In 2014, progress was made at local level as new WRUAs were created
and sub-catchment management plans of such Associations were approved and funded. Ongoing is also the revision of all the approved river basin plans.

Baseline

Target 2017

Result 2012

Result 2013

Result 2014

Source

Indicator 1: Number of river basin plans approved and operational.

0 (2005)

6

6

6

6

Ministry of Environment, Water and Nat Res: Annual
Water Sector Review Reports 2013/2014

Indicator 2: Number of sub-catchment management plans approved
and operational.

0 (2008)

1271

107

234

320

WRMA Performance Report 2014

Indicator 3: Number of Water Resources User Associations
operational.

0 (2008)

1271

450

499

571

WRMA Performance Report 2014

Indicator 4: Water storage in m3 per capita .

8 (2008)

16

5

no data available
for 2013

data not available

Ministry of Environment, Water and Nat Res: Annual
Water Sector Review Reports 2013/2014

Result Question 2.1b: To what extent has your programme contributed to
this result?

Indicator 1: Water Allocation Plan Lake Naivasha gazetted or
amendment(s) gazetted.
Indicator 2: Number of people targeted in the Dutch water management
projects.
Indicator 3: Number of farmers in Lake Naivasha basin involved in
downstream - upstream payment for environmental services that are
implementing sustainable land use practices
Indicator 4: Area under conservation management in semi-arid project
area (in ha)

More indicators

The interventions of the Embassy in Nairobi focused on four geographical areas: (i) two catchments emanating from the Mau Forest (Lake Naivasha catchment
and Mara River catchment) and (ii) two landscapes in the so-called Semi-Arid Lands (the Laikipia-Samburu-Marsabit landscape and the South Rift Valley
landscape). Activities under (i) were initiated and formulated in 2012 and started for Lake Naivasha in 2013 and for the Mara River in 2014. Results in 2014 are
limited to the Lake Naivasha area. Activities under (ii) started around mid 2012, after which a baseline was established. Activities are leading to improved
management of water and other natural resources (including biodiversity) and improved resilience of pastoralist communities. In the Mau Forest catchments we
see continued economic development while biodiversity and ecological values in the catchments are protected. In the semi-arid areas the activities lead to
reduced wildlife crime and increased income to pastoralist communities from a range of alternative income sources. In doing so, programmes increase resilience
and provide local population with adaptation strategies for the effects of climate change.
In 2014, in the Lake Naivasha area, the local office of the water resources management authority and the Water Resources User Assocoiations (WRUAs)
developed robust structures to collect water abstraction fees and data analysis. Data collection commenced and is ongoing. Training of WRUAs on the water rules
and
the provisions in Target
the Water
Act was undertaken
for 12 WRUAs
that had
a male to Result
female ration
water stewardship standard for the flower industry
Baseline
2017
Result 2012
Result
2013
2014 of 3:2. ASource
was drafted and 8 of the 16 targeted farmers were trained on the new standards. The number of farmers in the PES programme by end of 2014 were just shy of
the half way mark for IWRAP which is 1500 by end of 2 years.
0 (2011)
IWRAP 2014 progress report
2
0
1
Amendment of
plan not available
Despite the fact that the development of the allocation plans were still underway, the expected
number of beneficiaries in the Mara and Naivasha catchments are
yet.
about 1,397,500.

747,500
0 (2011)
2014
progress report
747,500
747,500
With
regards to gender,
the IWRAP project0around lake Naivasha
basin observes through
its interventions atIWRAP
least 30%
representation
of either gender, as
(Naivasha)
provided for in the Kenyan
Constitution. Among the stakeholders engaged in this project, key is, the sub regional Water Resources Management Authority
(WRMA) and the Water Resources Users Associations (WRUAs). In 2014 12 men and 11 women, staff memembers of WRMA were involved in training and
capacity building activities. In the WRUAs involved in this project, the male to female ratio of the members is 2:3. However leadership positions tend to be held by
men.
As a result during
organised meetings785
and training workshops,
3 representatives, one
of whom
should
be progress
a woman report
- otherwise only men in
3000
IWRAP
2014
Project
565 (2011)
1285WRMA insists on1438
the leadership position attend.
In the semi-arid areas in 2014, project partners proceeded with implementation according to schedule. Positive trends on all four indicators, including a remarkable
reduction
the number
of poached elephants
in the intervention2,819,885
areas.
Project progress reports
3,300,000
3,253,863
3,253,863in(2012)
3,306,020

Result Area 2
Result Question 2.2a: To what extent has transboundary and collective river
basin management been improved in the target area of your programme?

Improved river basin management and safe delta’s
Kenya has 5 international trans-boundary river basins. The government has over the past years been developing its Transboundary Water Policy. By the end of
2014 the policy was approved by the Attorney General (AG) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (MFA). Kenya is presently finalising the
signing of bilateral MoUs with the neighbouring counries (Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Uganda). Kenya has been taking part in negotiations around the Nile basin, and
is the process of ratifying the Nile Corporative Framework Agreement. Kenya and Ethiopia in collaboration with UNEP have initiated a regional project on the
sustainable management of Lake Turkana and its River Basins. The project document has been signed by the two countries (and by UNEP in 2015). The Embassy
actively lobbied for the involvement of the Netherlands Commission on Impact Assessment in this project.
The two remaining MoUs (indicator 1) are between Kenya and Uganda and Kenya and Tanzania.

Baseline

Target 2017

Result 2012

Result 2013

Result 2014

Source

Indicators 1: No of bilateral transboundary MoUs

0(2008)

3

drafting ongoing

1 MoU signed
(Between Kenya
and Tanzania

Remaining 2 MoUs
awaiting Ministerial
signature

Ministry of Environment, Water & Natural
Resources-Annual Water Sector Review Report
(2013/2014)

Indicators 2: Kenyan Transboundary Waters Policy in place

0(2008)

1

Drafting

Final draft
prepared after
consultations

Final draft
approved by AG
and MFA end 2014

Ministry of Environment, Water & Natural
Resources-Annual Water Sector Review Report
(2013/2014)

Indicators...

Indicators...

Result Question 2.2b: To what extent has your programme contributed to
this result?

In June 2014, the Embassy-funded Mau Mara Serengeti (MaMaSe) Sustainable Water Initiative by UNESCO-IHE commenced its implementation after a 6 months
inception phase. The aim of this project is to improve water safety and security in the Mara River Basin (MRB) in support of structural poverty reduction,
sustainable economic growth, and conservation of the basin, forest and rangeland ecosystems. The benefits from this project will inevitably spill over to
neighbouring Tanzania, which shares the Mara river. So far, 3 WRUAs were capacity built on development of Sub-catchment management plans; all 3 are
currently in draft, awaiting input from stakeholders, 3 farmer cooperatives were trained to improve agronomics and enviromental performance of farmers and 314
small scale farmers (ecosystem services sellers) and 3 ecosystem services buyers have been enrolled to the pilot PES scheme in the sub‐catchment. The scheme
which is still in the initial stages was launched in October 2014 with great support from the Bomet County Government.

Baseline

Target 2017

Result 2012

Result 2013

Result 2014

Source

Indicator 1: Number of farmers in Mara River basin involved in
downstream - upstream payment for environmental services that are
implementing sustainable land use practices

150 (2013)

300

150

150

314

Project reports

Indicator 2: Water Allocation Plan Mara River Basin gazetted or
amendment(s) / updat(s) gazetted

0 (2013)

1

0

0

development
ongoing

Project reports

Indicator 3: Number of people (male/female) targeted in the Dutch
water management projects.

0 (2013)

650.000 (Mara
river basin)

0

0

0

Project reports

Assessment of results achieved by NL across the entire Result area 2

Improved river basin management and safe delta’s:

B.

The current phase of the Lake Naivasha Integrated Water Resource Management project commenced in 2013. In 2014 the implementation of activities went on
well albeit with afew delays of which fast tracking measures were identified. Also in 2014 the project experienced unexpected staff transfer at the local water
resources management authority,however based on the past experience a back-up strategy had been developed to prevent activity disruptions from occuring.

Results achieved as planned

Reasons for result achieved:

The Mara River Basin project commenced its implementation phase in June 2014 and the progress is picking up slowly but steadily.

Implications for planning:

Project implementation is generally on track. Where there has been reported delays the project implementing partners have indicated clear fast-tracking actions to
be undertaken in 2015.

Result Area 3
Result Question 3.1a: How many people (male/female) have gained
sustainable access an improved water source or improved sanitairy facility
and to what extent has governance been imporved on this topic in the target
area of your programme?

Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH)
The Constitution devolved water supply and sanitation services provision to the county level. In the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, all Kenyans are guaranteed
the right to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation. By end of 2014 the new revised Water Bill and draft Water Policy had not yet been enacted and gazetted.
The delay in the enactment/gazetment of the Water Bill and draft policy created unclarity regarding the future of the institutional set-up for service provision at the
county level. This delay also has the risk of the water services sub-sector losing the gains realized from the reforms of 2002 (such as ring-fencing water financing
for Operation and Maintenance). The Water Bill and draft Water policy have undergone 2nd reading in parliament in 2014; enactment is envisaged in the second
half of 2015. In the meantime the county government has 100% ownership of the water utilities. Despite the uncertainties, the government and donors continued
investment in providing access to safe drinking water and sanitation in 2014 by investing in rural and urban areas.
Progress on the indicators in 2014 was limited, especially in urban areas where the numbers of households is increasing more rapidly than the number of
households with access to safe drinking water and sanitation. The progress on sanitation - especially sewerage - has been poor over the last 25 years, due to
high costs of urban sewerage and large urban slum populations. This has resulted to on-site sanitation for urban sanitation. Initiatives to involve private sector in
urban and rural sanitation
are
piloted by an Result
activity 2012
in Mukuru slum
and by
FDW proposal
in rural
Target
Baseline
2017
Result
2013
Result
2014areas.
Source

Indicator 1: Proportion of the urban population using improved drinking
water sources

92% (1990)

98%

83% (2011)

82% (2012)

65.4%

Previous; WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Programme
Current; Annual water sector review report 2013/2014

Indicator 2: Proportion of the rural population using improved drinking
water sources

33% (1990)

66%

54% (2011)

55% (2011)

48.8%

Previous; WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Programme
Current; Annual water sector review report 2013/2014

Indicator 3: Proportion of the urban population using an improved
sanitation faciltiy

26% (1990)

63%

31% (2011)

31% (2012)

72.2%

Previous; WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Programme
Current; Annual water sector review report 2013/2014

Indicator 4: Proportion of the rural population using an improved
sanitation faciltiy

24% (1990)

62%

29% (2011)

29% (2012)

66%

Previous; WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Programme
Current; Annual water sector review report 2013/2014

Result Question 3.1b: To what extent has your programme contributed to
this result?

The interventions of the Embassy in Nairobi focus on three areas: (i) rural water and sanitation through the UNICEF Kenya WASH programme in 22 counties
(since 2008); (ii) support to two Water Operator Partnership Programmes (WOPs) between Dutch drinking water companies and Kenyan urban water service
providers in Naivasha and Mombasa; (iii) support to the development of private sector solutions for sanitation in slums through implementation of the sanitation
improvement through market strategies project. For areas (ii) and (iii), 2014 was the 2nd full year of operation. Private sector involvement is strongly supported,
also in sanitation.

Indicator 1 : Number of people with access to sustainable and safe
drinking water in rural areas

(i) In the rural UNICEF programme, 2014 was the phasing out year. Implementation was therefore mainly focused on completing already started projects. A
verification and sustainability check study was also undertaken in 2014. As a result 97% of the 1236 projects were confirmed to exist in the officially documented
locations. The rest of the projects were not visited due to various reasons including; projects not implemented, projects abandoned, duplication/errors in
documentation and security issues. With regards to sustainability, 23% of the completed and visited projects were not operational.
(ii) For both Water Operator Partnerships (Naivasha and (Mombasa), 2014 was spent on implementing interventions both on technical and management aspects.
In both Naivasha andTarget
Mombasa,
improving
access
and sanitation
low income areas - in Naivasha 10 low income
Baseline
2017the interventions
Result involved
2012
Result
2013 to water Result
2014 in the urban
Source
areas and in Mombasa 7 low income areas. In both WOPs 312,000 additional people in the slums/low income areas were reached with access to water and
improved sanitation facilities. In Naivasha Fluoride and Hygiene awareness trainings were conducted (in a 3 months campaign) around
833.450 additional UNICEF project progress report 2014
430.000 additional 1.600.000
960.000 additional 963.000 additional
2000 household where visited and around 45 schools have been exposed)
(2011)
additional
iii) In 2014 the project on Sanitation Improved through Market Strategies, which focus on one of the slums in Nairobi, installed 57 new toilets

Indicator 2 : Number of people with access to acceptable sanitation in
rural areas

480.000 additional
(2010)

2.800.000
additional

1.210.000
additional

1.867.310
additional

1.974.850
additional

UNICEF project progress report 2014.

Indicator 3 : additional number of people with access to sustainable
and safe drinking water in urban areas of Naivasha and Mombasa

0 (2010)

144.000

0

37,108
(Naivasha. May
2014)

44.000
(Naivasha)

Naiv WOP; 2014 project progress reports

Indicator 4 : additional number of people with access to acceptable
sanitation in urban areas of Naivasha and Mombasa

0 (2010)

38.000 (2016)

0

15,634
(Naivasha, May,
2014)

128.000
(Naivasha)

Naiv WOP; 2014 project progress reports

Result Area 3

Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH)

Result Question 3.2a: To what extent have water management aspects
and a more business oriented way of working been applied in your WASH
programmes.

Since the enactment of the Water Act 2002, the Kenyan water services adopted provision of urban water supply and sewerage by independent, commercially
operating Water Service Providers. Water companies are registered under the Company Act and use water tariffs to finance their Operation and Maintenance. A
number of water service providers have succeeded in becoming more professional, but many, especially the small companies are still ineffective, and not
commercially viable. Non Revenue Water (water that is produced but is not generating revenue) and service hours are still below the standards set by the
regulator, the Kenya Water Service Regulatory Board. WASREB is considered to be effective and a key player in the (success of the) water sector reform. It sets,
monitors and enforces service provision standards for improved governance in the sector. WASREB collects information on the commercialized approaches of
Water Service Providers and publishes annual reports with information on the effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of all urban and some rural Water Service
Providers. For two indicators, notable %-age of Non Revenue Water and Hours of water provision / day, the national trend has been stagnant or marginally
positive according to the last available data (2013).
In rural areas, water supply and sanitation are mostly community-led. In rural sanitation, the so-called Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach, targeting
stakeholders at community level to take responsibility for sanitation in the village, has been adopted by the Ministry of Public Health and is implemented
successfully in almost the entire country. Regarding sanitation, the Community Led Total Sanitation approach is implemented without subsidies to infrastructure.
Target 2017
Baseline
Result 2012
Result 2013
Result 2014
Source
Rural households are now participating in financing their own sanitation facilities on site.

Indicator 1 : Percentage of water produced by water utilities that does
not generate revenu (Non Revenue Water)

43%
(2009)
25% areas (with small
45%
(2011) and in rural
57%areas
(2012)
55%water supply doesWater
Services
Regulator
annualproblems.
IMPACT report
In small
and medium urban
networks)
(hand pumps),
not lead
to water
management
In large
towns and cities it may. Focus is mainly on improving management and reducing non-revenue water, as improvement of efficiency by providers will reduce the
footprint of the water provision services and make them more economically sustainable.

Indicator 2 : Average number of hours / day of water provision in urban
service areas (national average)

15 (2009)

20

13 (2011)

15 (2012)

17(2013)

Water Services Regulator annual IMPACT report

Indicator 3 : # of Open Defecation Free villages country-wide

0 (2009)

6.600

1.838

3.886

16.817

Ministry of Public Health / UNICEF

Indicator 4: % of water revenues used for Operation and Maintenance
by urban Water Service Providers

133% (2010)

150%

118% (2011) revised figure

105% (2012):

104% (2013)

Water Services Regulator annual IMPACT report

Result Question 3.2b: To what extent has your programme contributed to
this result?

In the UNICEF programme the Embassy has actively lobbied UNICEF to incorporate mechanismes that improve the sustainability of the interventions, i.a. by
involving the private sector. This includes training of local (private) mechanics that may provide services to communities when pumps break down. In partnerhsip
with SNV there has been continuous modelling of various Public Private Partnerships for enhancing sustainability of rural water supplies as a result 7 Private Public
Community Partnerships piloted. 7county governments adopted PPP in their water sector strategic plans, and 3 drafted policies that allow private sector
participation.
Under the sanitation and hygiene component in the UNICEF project, 1,270 villages attained Open Defecation Free (ODF) status with 381,000 new users of
household latrines. The total number of school children with safe water and sanitation, separate for boys and girls is 278,101(59%) out of the 473,000 planned.
In the Water Operator Partnerships the main attention is towards improving the financial, institutional,environmental, technical and social aspects of the water
services (water supply and sanitation). For the purpose of managing and monitoring non revenue water, Mombasa established 8 district metering areas and
Naivasha establishedTarget
1. In 2014
Mombasa WOP
entered
with2013
Mombasa county
and
the World Bank,
which will see the scaling up of the establishment
Baseline
2017
Result
2012 into a MoU
Result
Result
2014
Source
of district metering areas.

Indicator 1 : Non Revenue Water in Naivasha town

50% (2011)

33%

50% (2011)

No data (2012)

44%

Previous; Water Services Regulator annual IMPACT
report
Current; 2014 project progress report

Indicator 2 : Non Revenue Water (NRW) in Mombasa town

42% (2011)

15%

42% (2011)

47% (2012)

50%

Previous; Water Services Regulator annual IMPACT
report
Current; 2014 project progress report

Indicator 3 : Average number of hours / day of water provision in
Naivasha

2 hrs/ day (2011)

12 hrs/ day (2016)

2 hrs/ day (2011)

6 hrs/day (2012)

6hrs/day

Previous;Water Services Regulator annual IMPACT
report
Current; 2014 project progress report

Indicator 4 : Average number of hours / day of water provision in
Mombasa

8 hrs / day (2010)

16 hrs / day (2016)

8 hrs / day (2011)

6 hrs/day (2012)

6hrs/ 3-4 days per
week

Previous; Water Services Regulator annual IMPACT
report
Current; 2014 project progress report

Assessment of results achieved by NL across the entire Result area 3

Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH).

C.

Results for rural WaSH are behind schedule as UNICEF had various challenges in the implementation of the project. Initial targets were revised downwards in a
phase-out plan. And a project evaluation will be carried out in July to ascertain the impacts so far.

Results achieved poorer than planned

Reasons for result achieved:

Implications for planning:

The WOP partnerships carried on with implementation of interventions. Naivasha experienced a change in the water utility’s management, a management that is
eager to bring about a change in the company. Mombasa similarly had a change in the water utility’s management, but the interim management ineffective. The
non-revenue water for Mombasa increased which was mainly due to not only old meters and illegal connections/water theft, but also due to commercial losses.
There has been closer involvement of the Mombasa county government (charged with the mandate to ensure adequate water provision in its jurisdiction) which is
keen to see reforms and the establishment of a revamped water utility.

Rural WaSH: the Dutch contribution came to an end by close of 2014. A sustainability and verification census was done in 2014 to evaluate the level of
sustainability of the programme. A project evaluation will be carried out in 2015 to acertain the level of impact.
For the Water Partnerships it is expected that in 2015 more progress will be realised. The NRW is one of the main focus areas of the WOP. Interventions on NRW
are therefore expected to be upscaled. Especially in Mombasa, where the WOP project has entered into an MoU with World Bank and the County government to
expand the NRW interventions, and due to this the Embassy offered the project an extension. Counties Governments are keen to see that water service provision
is improved in their county - this has been the case in Mombasa county. In the case of Naivasha, the Managing Director has been replaced in order to improve
management of the company.

Result Area 4

Trade and Development Cooperation

Result Question 4.1a: How has the added value (knowledge, expertise,
products and services) of the Dutch water sector been deployed in the
preparation and implementation of programmes in the water sector?

Increasingly, many of the Dutch funding instruments, including the embassy funding, are moving towards a more trade driven collaboration in development
cooperation, and less of aid driven collaboration. Much of the Dutch funding is now meant for Public-Private Partnership (PPP). The Kenyan water sector now
benefits from the added value, from several of these Dutch PPPs, in the areas of non-revenue water, financial management, technologies for efficient waste
management, among other areas.

Indicator 1: Number of Dutch water sector actors active in the water
sector in Kenya (by Companies, NGO’s, Knowledge Institutes and
Drinking water companies + Water Authorities.

Baseline

Target 2017

Result 2012

Result 2013

Result 2014

Source

10 (2010)

50

not measured,
approximately 30

51

54

Netherlands Embassy Nairobi

Indicator...

Indicator...

Indicator...

Result Question 4.1b: To what extent has your programme contributed to
this result?

The embassy is supporting projects in water services provision and water resources management where Dutch added value through knowledge transfer is being
realised. The Lake Naivasha integrated water resources management project, The Mau Mara Sustainable Water Initiative, the WOPs in the Naivasha and
Mombasa water companies are such projects. The Water Operator Partnerships (WOPs) in particular significantly contribute towards improving the financial,
institutional,environmental, technical and social aspects of the water services (water supply and sanitation). The same applies to the IWRM projects, which
facilitate the transfer of knowledge and expertise through capacity building interventions with the local stakeholders.
In 2014 12 Dutch partners were actively involved in the water program: 3 Private Sector (Mara Farming, Aquanet, HSBC bank), 2 NGO’s (SNV, WGC), 3
Knowledge Institutes (WUR, ITC, UNESCO-IHE, 1 Water Company (Vitens) and 3 Water Authorities (Stichtse Rijnlanden, Noorderzijlvest, Waterschap Brabantse
Delta)

Indicator 1: Number of Dutch water sector actors directly involved in
preparation and implementation of Dutch funded programs (by
Companies, NGO’s, Knowledge Institutes and Drinking water
companies + Water Authorities).
Indicator...

Indicator...

Indicator...

Baseline

Target 2017

Result 2012

Result 2013

Result 2014

Source

0 (2010)

10

4

7

12 (3 PS, 2 NGO,
3 KI, 1 WC, 3 WA)

Netherlands Embassy Nairobi

Result Area 4
Result Question 4.2a: What are the results of the transition to a more trade
related relationship in the water sector?

Trade and Development Cooperation
It should be noted that the transition to more trade related relationship in the water sector is not a Kenyan policy priority. Being a Dutch priority, the information
contained here is linked only to Dutch aid and trade.
In 2013, at least 51 Dutch water actors were active in Kenya. Only 13 of these actors (25%) did not receive any contribution from the Dutch Government via the
Dutch Financing Instruments (ORIO, PSI, PvW), centrally funded water projects, MFS, NUFFIC NICHE, the Sustainable Water Fund (FDW) or WOTRO/ Ministry
of Education. Of the 13 non-subsidized actors, 5 are NGOs and 8 are private companies.
For 2014 a comprehensive overview is lacking.

Ratio between active Dutch water sector actors with / without Dutch
Government funding

Baseline

Target 2017

Result 2012

Result 2013

Result 2014

Source

unknown

40%

unknown

25% (13/51)

no data available

NWP/ MoFA/ Netherlands Embassy Nairobi

Indicator...

Indicator...

Indicator...

Result Question 4.2b: To what extent has your programme contributed to
this result?

The Embassy programme identified in its MASP 2014-2017 the need to promote innovative financing for the water sector in Kenya. A facility for innovative water
financing will be developed in 2014 and will be launched in 2015. It will facilitate water financing but not provide finance itself. In combination with the availability
of Dutch financing instruments (PSI, ORIO, DRIVE and DGGF) this should lead to strategic Dutch investments in the water sector in Kenya.
In 2014 the so called ’water box’ was introduced in Mara Farming by Land Life as part of the MaMaSe project.
Maji Milele (water forever) got registered as a private pre paid water system provider.

Indicator 1: Number of existing strategic Dutch investments in the water
sector in which the embassy has had a brokerage, advisory or
programmatic role.

Indicator...

Indicator...

Indicator...

Baseline

Target 2017

Result 2012

Result 2013

Result 2014

Source

0 (2012)

5 (annually)

1

3

5

Netherlands Embassy Nairobi

Assessment of results achieved by NL across the entire Result area 4

Trade and Development Cooperation

B.

The joint agenda of Trade and Development Cooperation was initiated in the MASP 2012-2015 in Kenya and has led to an increased number of Dutch actors
active in Kenya . However, most of these actors depend on Dutch Government funding.

Results achieved as planned

Reasons for result achieved:

Implications for planning:
In the next years, the Embassy programme for water will further focus on facilitating the use of Dutch expertise. New and upcoming Embassy funded programs,
which are Kenya Innovative Financing Facility for Water and the Smart Water for Agriculture, will facilitate blending of private sector funding and funding from
international financial institutions, also with the aim to replace donor funding in the coming years.

Back

Result Area 2 (remaining indicators)

Improved river basin management and safe delta’s

Result Question 2.1a: To what extent has there been progress in the development and implementation of plans for sustainable growth and water safety. (incl. good governance) in the target area of your programme?

Baseline

Target

Result

Result

Result

Source

6.5% (1990)

10% (constitution)

6.1% (2010)

6.1% (2010)

6.1% (2010)

UNSTAT MDG indicators

Baseline

Target

Result

Result

Result

Source

Indiactor 5: Number of elephants killed by poaching in the semi-arid
project area.

385 (2012)

0

385

118

76

Project progress reports.

Indicator 6: Number of officially recorded incidents as a consequence
of natural resource conflicts in the semi-arid project area.

254 (2012)

50

254

143

1140

Partners reports. Strong increase mainly due to ethnic
strife in the North (as well as improved monitoring
capacity by NRT).

Indicator 7: Amount of income generated in non-livestock livelihoods in
the semi-arid project area (in Kenya shillings).

324.045.000
(2012)

600.000.000

324.045.000

571.165.908

1.136.638.045

Partners reports.

Indicator 5 : Forest cover (in % of total area)

Extra indicator...

Extra indicator...

Extra indicator...

Result Question 2.1b: To what extent has your programme contributed to this result?

Extra indicator...

Back to result area 2