Reaching the Millennium Development Goals for Water - NWASCO

Reaching the Millennium

Development Goals for Water Supply

and Sanitation in Zambia

- The Urban Perspective -

January 2005

DEVOLUTION

TRUST

FUND

Foreword

The Zambian water sector is now set to addressthe problems of poor service delivery, havingreorganised the sector, putting in place a moreeffective and efficient institutional framework.The government, since adopting the sevensector principles in the National Water Policy,1994, has steadily been implementing thereforms without diverting from the guidingprinciples. The reform is still ongoing, withmilestones achieved so far being:

• The new legislative and institutionalframework,

• The water supply and sanitation act, 1997• Establishment of 8 water Commercial

Utilities (CUs) in addition to the twoexisting at the start of reforms,

• A government Department forInfrastructure and Support Services(DISS) to coordinate and facilitate supportfor improved water supply and sanitationservice delivery,

• A water sector regulator, the NationalWater Supply and Sanitation Council(NWASCO) and

• A Devolution Trust Fund (DTF).

Significant improvements have been achievedin the quality of service and management ofWSS during the recent years. Many of the goalsset by the Water Policy became reality, leadingto improved services for the customers, as wellas, to improved cost coverage and thereforesustainability at the CUs. Nevertheless, so far,the service provision to the urban poor has notimproved to the same extent as for the wealthierurban population due to lack of investments.The internal revenue generated, is justadequate for operation and maintenance costsand not yet any capital investments. Thenumber of people living in low-income urbanareas without adequate access to safe waterand sanitation remains very high.

The Government of Zambia in the reformprocess has always had a strong emphasis onthe need to improve service delivery to the un-served urban poor. The declaration of the UN

MDGs, has thus only served to strengthen thisemphasis and effort. To this end, thegovernment in its reorganisation of the sector,without having to compromise serviceimprovements to the peri-urban areas, decidedto set up a special purpose vehicle that wouldbe effective and efficient. Thus, being able torealise objectives of improved services withoutthe encumbrances of the long processes ofresource mobilisation and implementation forgeneral infrastructure development. Thegovernment, therefore, instituted the DTF underthe water regulator NWASCO, to ensure thatCUs use this fund to accelerate improvementof service provision to the peri-urban areas. Thefund was set-up in 2002 and demonstrationprojects to consolidate the approach used havebeen carried out in four separate CUs, underwhich 80,000 people in the low-income urbanareas have been served with affordable andadequate safe water. The approach has beenelaborated and the understanding of theimplementation process enhanced among theCUs. All the stakeholders now have a betterunderstanding and picture of the needs of thelow-income urban areas. The factual figureson the situation and required interventions willbe compiled in a baseline study report currentlybeing undertaken by GKW, who have providedvaluable information in arriving at some of thefigures presented in this paper.

It is the authors’ belief that the strategies andguiding principles outlined in this paper will helpto realise the reduction of the proportion ofpeople without sustainable access to safedrinking water and basic sanitation in the urbanareas in the year 2015 most effectively andefficiently. It needs to be realised that thegovernment’s approach to service provision isincremental service level improvements. Thosewithout, should be allowed to have access tothe basic services and as they improve,upgrade to better service levels.

The input and support of GTZ in the elaborationand publication of this paper is appreciated.

Table of Contents

Foreword

1 Millennium Development Goals and the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment Targets for Water and Sanitation-the most urgent needsin Zambia ................................................................................................................. 1

2 Sector reform and present situation in the low-income urban areas ................ 22.1 Sector reform ...................................................................................................... 22.2 Institutional set-up ............................................................................................... 22.3 Socio economic situation .................................................................................... 3

2.3.1 Definition and development of peri-urabn areas .......................................... 32.3.2 Definition and development of low-cost areas .............................................. 42.3.3 Population residing in peri-urban and low-cost areas .................................. 4

2.4 Existing WSS systems ........................................................................................ 52.4.1 General situation........................................................................................... 52.4.2 Different types of public outlets ..................................................................... 62.4.3 Sanitation situation in low-cost and peri-urban areas ................................... 8

2.5 WSS coverage and per capita consumption levels ............................................ 82.5.1 Water supply coverage ................................................................................. 82.5.2 Sanitation coverage .................................................................................... 10

3 Reaching the MDGs .............................................................................................. 11

4 Closing the gap for water ..................................................................................... 124.1 Strategy ............................................................................................................. 124.2 Choice of technology-the kiosk as most appropriate system ........................... 134.3 Institutional aspects of kiosk systems ............................................................... 144.4 Financial aspects of kiosk systems................................................................... 154.5 Required investments for water in order to reach the MDGS ........................... 16

5 Closing the gap for sanitation.............................................................................. 175.1 Strategy ............................................................................................................. 175.2 Choice of technology for on-site sanitation ....................................................... 185.3 Institutional aspects .......................................................................................... 195.4 Financial aspects .............................................................................................. 205.5 Required investments ....................................................................................... 21

6 Required investments per province, existing commitments and agencies .... 22

List of Abrreviations ............................................................................................. 24

Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 25

1 Millennium Development Goals and the World Summit onSustainable Development Targets for Water and Sanitation –the most urgent needs in Zambia

At the United Nations Millennium Summit inSeptember 2000, 189 heads-of-stateadopted the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs), which set clear and time boundtargets for making progress, by 2015, intackling the most pressing issues developingcountries face.

Goal 7 of the MDGs is to ensureenvironmental sustainability. Target 10 undergoal 7 is the subject of this paper: “Halve, by2015, the proportion of people withoutsustainable access to safe drinking waterand basic sanitation”. The target forsanitation was established at the 2002 WorldSummit on Sustainable Development inJohannesburg. Although the MDGs wereformulated in 2000, the baseline for most ofthe MDG targets, including that on water andsanitation, has been set as 1990.

Since the declaration on the MDGs, policymakers and development agenciesrecognise that the ultimate goal of all effortsto improve water supply and sanitation(WSS) is poverty reduction.

Achieving the MDGs requires WSSinterventions in both the rural and urbanareas. The focus of this document, however,is upon the urban areas and in particular thelow-cost and peri-urban areas.1 Rural areasshould not be ignored, though several goodreasons indicate that concentrating on theurban poor has significant strategicadvantages:

• The water supply situation in the ruralareas is often better than in the peri-urban areas. High population densitiesin urban areas lead to smaller plots. Thedistance between latrines and open yardwells or hand pumps is very short andtherefore, the risk of subterranean andsurface pollution of water is considerably

1 Paragraph 2.3 contains a definition of “peri-urban” and of “low-cost area”.

Although the water supply andsanitation situation in many ruralareas is far from ideal the biggerchallenge to improve living conditionsthrough WSS is in the overcrowdedfringe areas of towns. Subterraneanpollution and dilapidated WSSsystems communicating with eachother lead to a public health risk whichis worse in towns than in thecountryside.

higher than in rural areas. This is onereason why in peri-urban areas the handpump has ceased to be a sustainablewater supply solution. In many low-costareas the existing WSS systems aredilapidated or no longer functional.Residents often complain about thesubterranean communication betweensewer lines and the water distributionnetwork which is rightly considered to bea serious public health risk. Although thewater supply situation in many ruralareas is far from ideal, one has toconclude that WSS infrastructure suchas windlass wells, hand pumps, springsand other water outlets are usually bettermaintained than in urban settings wheresocial cohesion and social control levelsare lower and vandalism significantlyhigher.

• The sanitation situation in many urbanareas, as a result of high populationdensities and low investment levels, iscritical and a serious threat to publichealth. This therefore requires moreurgent attention than sanitation in therural areas. In recent years a number ofcholera outbreaks have occurred inseveral cities and towns, even in areaswhere residents have access to cleanwater.

1

2 Sector Reform and present situation in the low-incomeurban areas

2.1 Sector reform

Increasingly aware of the constantdegradation of WSS, as well as, the growingweaknesses of water resource management,the Zambian Government embarked on anambitious sector reform with the adoption ofa new water policy in 1994. The policyincluded seven sector principles whichguided the reform process until today.Milestones of the reform so far have beenthe new WSS Act, 1997, establishment of10 Commercial Utilities (CUs), an urbanWSS sector regulator, National Water Supplyand Sanitation Council (NWASCO) and theDevolution Trust Fund (DTF, poverty fund /basket). Presently, a baseline study for allperi-urban areas in Zambia is being carriedout.

It is noteworthy, that since 10 years thereform progressed steadily without divertingfrom the guiding principles. The continuityof this process has ensured theachievements of key milestones and ananchorage of the key elements to such adegree that many achievements can beregarded as irreversible (see Brochure:“Water Sector Reform in Zambia” publishedby NWASCO, 2004).

2.2 Institutional Set-Up

The implementation of the sector reform inZambia led to a new institutional frameworkwhich is shaped according to severalprinciples:

• With the separation of Water ResourcesManagement (WRM) from WSS twoMinistries have become the key playersin the sector, responsible for policy

making: The Ministry of Energy andWater Development (MEWD) as leadministry for the entire water sector andresponsible for WRM / Department ofWater Affairs (DWA). The Ministry ofLocal Government and Housing (MLGH)is responsible for WSS / Department ofInfrastructure and Support Services(DISS).

• Decentralisation was implemented bydevolving WSS functions to the LocalAuthorities (LA), bringing serviceprovision closer to the consumers.

• Separation of policy making and serviceprovision on national and provincial levelwhich protects the day-to-day operationsof the service providers and the regulatoragainst political interference.

• Zambia has opted for commercialisationof the service provision by encouragingthe LA to form CUs (shareholdercompanies) which are large enough togenerate the benefits of economies ofscale. Presently, more than 90% of theurban and peri-urban population live inthe service area of one of the 10 CUsand projects are ongoing or beingdiscussed which aim at establishing CUsfor the remaining towns. Since the year2000, therefore, one is able to observea rapid increase in the involvement ofspecialised professionals in WSS serviceprovision.

• Separating policy making from regulationled to the establishment of anautonomous regulator in 2000.NWASCO has since developed andimplemented all major regulatory toolsand guidelines such as on service

2

provision to the urban poor, tariffnegotiations, yearly reporting. The latterenables NWASCO to publish sectorreports in order to inform the public/politicians about progress in the sectorand promote comparative competitionbetween service providers. The regulatorhas also established Water WatchGroups (WWGs) in order to resolvedisputes between consumers andproviders and to receive a feedback fromthe consumers on issues concerning theeffectiveness of regulation. NWASCO, inaccordance with the Water Supply andSanitation Act of 1997, established theDTF (poverty fund) as a financing tool(basket) in order to assist the providersto extend their provision of services tothe urban poor.

The management of NWASCO and the DTFis strictly separated (separate accounts,separate yearly financial audits, etc.). Bothinstitutions recruit their personnel from thelabour market and pay competitive salariesin order to attract skilled and motivatedprofessionals. Additionally, both institutionsenjoy financial autonomy with financingcoming from licence fees (NWASCO) or apercentage of project funding (DTF) and toa limited extent from government. Thepersonnel of both institutions have a trackrecord of successful handling of fundsprovided by development agencies. Therecent low-cost water supply technologydemonstration projects on the Copperbelt,implemented by CUs and monitored by theDTF, are a very successful example of howgovernment institutions that have theappropriate operating environment can ownand control development initiatives from theplanning stage through to successfulimplementation.

Commercialisation and regulationhelped to stop the decades longdegradation of WSS systems and toimprove service provision in most ofthe towns. Service provision for theurban poor has started to beeffectively promoted with thecollaboration between the DTF(poverty fund for urban areas) and theCUs (commercial providers).

2.3 Socio economic situation

In almost all Zambian cities and towns theresidential areas can be categorised asfollows: planned areas of high-, medium- andlow-cost housing and peri-urban areas. Byfar, the biggest share of the urban populationresides in the low-cost (20%) and peri-urbanareas (60%), both covered under theexpression “low-income areas”.

2.3.1 Definition and development of peri-urban areas

A peri-urban area can be defined as aninitially unplanned informal or formalsettlement within the area of jurisdiction of aLA. Most peri-urban areas in Zambia arefound on the outskirts of municipalities andcities. These areas are now referred to asperi-urban areas in preference to the earlierterms of “squatter” or “shanty” compounds.Many peri-urban areas are characterised bya high incidence of poverty, high populationdensities, their unplanned appearance andinadequate or non-existent basic services(such as water supply, sewerage, roads,storm water drainage and solid wastedisposal). According to the Peri-Urban WaterSupply and Sanitation Strategy (1999,bibliography) the lack of adequate or evenbasic services provided by the municipalitytends to make “the living environmentessentially unhealthy.”

3

Sector reform and present situation in the low-income urban areas

In the last three decades the peri-urban areashave absorbed, by far, the largest proportionof Zambia’s population growth because thenew formal residential (high, medium andlow-cost) areas have been unable to keepup with demand. The 1990 censusconcluded that the formal housing stock hadonly increased by about 10% between 1973and 1987 whereas that of informal housingareas or unplanned settlements hadincreased by 65%. According to the CentralStatistical Office (CSO), in 1996 over 28%of the national population and 60% of theurban population resided in these unplannedsettlements. At present an estimated 45% ofthe total Zambian population reside in anurban area and an estimated 60% of the totalurban population reside in peri-urban areas.The Peri-Urban Water Supply and SanitationStrategy of MLGH concludes that thepercentage of peri-urban population inrelation to formal urban areas is estimatedto range from about 40 in the smaller townsto 80 in the big cities. Lusaka, for example,has 33 peri-urban areas, which account forwell over 60% of the city’s population. InKapiri Mposhi more than 80% of thepopulation live in one of the peri-urban areas.

Economic development, social stability anddevelopment as well as public health aretherefore largely determined by the changesthat are taking place in these parts of urbanZambia. It is in the peri-urban areas wherethe majority of the population will continueto reside and where most population growthwill take place.

New housing areas with peri-urbancharacteristics are developing from villageson “Chief’s land” particularly where someform of industry exists or in cases where thetown lacks extension areas within the Councilboundary.

2.3.2 Definition and development oflow-cost areas

A low-cost area is a planned residential area.Most low-cost areas were built just before orafter Independence (October 1964). Theywere planned as housing areas for juniorcouncil staff (messengers, etc.), governmentworkers and miners. Nevertheless, theeconomic decline pushed residents to rentout rooms on a large scale which led tomushrooming of informal structures, oftenbuilt on reserved space between premises(service lanes). This, and the lackingmaintenance of the systems, had, in general,devastating effects on existing WSSinfrastructure and often led to communicationbetween water and sewer networks. Housesor yards are usually connected to the waterdistribution network and to the sewer line or,individual or communal septic tanks. In mostcases the water supply and sanitationinfrastructure is in a very poor state of repairand often non-functioning. Although originallywell planned, the low-cost areas increasinglyacquire the same or at least very similarcharacteristics to peri-urban areas.

2.3.3 Population residing in peri-urbanand low-cost areas

According to the CSO, urban low-incomehousing areas accounted for 53% of theurban population in 1991 and 77% in 1996.This means that in 1996, at least 2.9 millionpeople lived in urban low-income housingareas. Since construction of planned orformal low-cost housing has been virtuallyat a standstill over this period, the vastmajority of the population growth is absorbedby peri-urban areas.

Based on previous growth rates publishedby CSO for the period 1990-2000, the

4


current total population in Zambia can beestimated at about 11 Million people.Analysing the data compiled in table 1 andthe figures concerning the populationgrowth, it is estimated that currently 4,9Million people (45% of the total population)in Zambia live in urban areas. From these,about 80% (or 3,9 Million) reside in low-cost(1 Million) and peri-urban areas (2,9 Million).

2.4 Existing WSS systems

2.4.1 General situation

Piped water supply systems are operationalin almost all 87 towns. This is not the casefor piped sewerage systems. Many off-sitesanitation systems, are either in poorcondition or even non-functional. It shouldbe noted, however, that these functional andnon-functional systems only serve or aresupposed to serve a minority of the totalurban population.

It is estimated that currently3,9 Million people live in low-income (low-cost and peri-urban ) areas.

Sources: 1) GKW Consult (Household count)(2002) (1996) 2) GKW Consult (Household count)(1998), 3) Peri-Urban Water Supply andSanitation Strategy, (2000: v), 4) GKW Consult (House-hold count) (2003), 5) GKW Consult (Household count)(1996), 6) GKW Consult (Household count) (1998), 7)LC + PU = Low-cost and peri-urban

Table 1: Percentage of population accordingto housing category

A precise picture of the WSS situation of theurban poor will emerge with the results ofthe currently ongoing Baseline Study, whichwill be completed in July 2005. TheBaseline Study, financed by KfW and Danidaand carried out by the DTF will help tocreate a detailed database on technical andsocio-economic data. Furthermore, it willallow extension of the NWASCO InformationSystem to obtain detailed information on alllow-cost and peri-urban areas in Zambia.Nevertheless, the data presented in table 1can be considered accurate even if they arebased on fragmented and to some extentoutdated data. Next to this information, datafrom the Baseline Study (for Mansa, LuapulaProvince and Kasama, Northern Province)collected in September and October 2004 isalready available. Estimations are nowbased on 15% of the total urban populationof Zambia.

5


Water supply services in peri-urban areasvary widely from one settlement to anothereven within the same town. Residents haveaccess to a variety of water sources butmainly to public standpipes and traditional,unprotected shallow wells. Existing watersupply systems in peri-urban settlements arein most cases inadequate for the level ofdemand and systems were poorlymaintained during the last 20 years becauseLAs and Ministry departments as providershave lacked capacity and professionalism tooperate and sustain these services. Highincidence of vandalism from frustratedpotential consumers further contributes topoor functioning systems. Furthermore, theproviders derive little or no income fromwater charges due to poor management and/or because consumers are unwilling to payfor poor services. (Information derived fromPeri-Urban Water Supply and SanitationStrategy, GRZ, 1999)

Almost all low-cost areas in the past wereserviced through yard or house connectionsand through sewer lines or septic tanks.When many low-cost houses where sold bythe Council in the mid 1990’s to sittingtenants, the deterioration of infrastructureaccelerated further. Rapid population growthand the uncontrolled construction of “cabins”within the yards which are rented out alsocontributed to this. Consequently, in manylow-cost areas the WSS infrastructure is nolonger functional and residents increasinglydepend on open wells and pit latrines (e.g.in Kabwe or in Luapula Province).

Although commercialisation in the last 4years has resulted in improved maintenance,large investments are needed in order toupgrade the systems to satisfactory levels.Substantial initiatives are at various stages

of being implemented or have been plannedwith funds from the World Bank and Norad(Copperbelt, Lusaka, etc.), KfW (Southern,Eastern and North-Western Province),Danida (Southern, Western and LuapulaProvince), AfDB (Central Province) and DCI(Northern Province).

2.4.2 Different types of public outlets

In Zambian peri-urban areas, a variety ofpublic outlets for water can be found anddifferent names and definitions are given tothese systems. In the context of the presentdocument distinction is made mainly among:

• Communal taps, managed by thecommunity. At communal taps, access isusually restricted to a specific user groupand water is paid for. Communal taps canbe metered or unmetered.

• Public taps providing water to everyonewho comes to fetch. Water at public tapsis often provided free of charge. Publictaps are mostly unmetered.

• Water kiosks managed by a kioskoperator, usually working on acommission basis. The kiosks are linkedto the main network and the kioskoperator signs a contract with the CUresponsible for supervision andmaintenance of the system. In order toensure a reasonable income for the kioskoperator, provision is made for the saleof other goods at the kiosk. Kiosks aremetered and customers have to payaccording to consumption.

Experience with community managedsystems (Copperbelt, Lusaka, Livingstone,etc.) serving the urban poor shows thatinvolving local communities or theirrepresentatives in the operation of the

6


systems often results in the diversion ofcollected water fees, as well as, neglect ofwater quality and necessary maintenanceand repair works. At the same time waterprices at community managed systems areoften higher than in areas where the CUsprovide the services (prices often varybetween 2,000 and 5,000 ZMK perhousehold per month) because the CUscontrol tariffs at kiosks which have beenapproved by the regulator. Economies ofscale also enable the CUs to produce waterat lower costs and therefore to sell it at alower price.

Increasingly, community operated systemsare handed over to the CUs or seek supportfrom the CUs to provide maintenance andcontrol water quality. For the CUs asprofessional providers this is often adisadvantage as such services are notsufficiently or not at all paid for by thecommunity. Additionally, the operation ofsuch systems was set up without theparticipation of the CUs and therefore, doesnot fit the management principles ofcommercialisation. Therefore, the CUs areoften called in as “fire fighters” to maintain asystem which is not to their convenience andwhich does not adhere to technical standardselsewhere applied by the CU. NGOsupported community managed systems insuch areas should always be in closecooperation with the licensed provider.

Today, the trend is to involve professionalssuch as the CUs because it has beenrecognised that they can offer a betterservice to the poor (particularly water quality).In order to ensure sustainability, WSSsystems should be maintained and managedon a commercial basis. Experience with pilotschemes on the Copperbelt show clearly that

CUs, with the financial and technical supportprovided by the DTF, are able to plan, design,construct and manage peri-urban waterschemes (evaluation report DTF/EM).

Currently an increasing number of peri-urbanareas in Zambian towns are served throughwater kiosks (Chipata, Lusaka, Monze,Ndola, Kitwe, Livingstone), where the CUshave been involved right from the beginningof the establishment. Although the variouskiosks differ in design and are managed indifferent ways, a large majority of residentsin these areas appreciate the kiosk system.Their introduction has in all cases resultedin improved accessibility to treated water andin almost all cases in lower tariffs for the poor.Studies* document that, a large majority ofthe peri-urban population consider the kiosksystem to be the most feasible peri-urbanWS solution.

Water service provision to theurban poor deteriorated over thelast 20 years and was onlyimproved where public outlets hadbeen introduced. The issue ofservice quality, sustainability andjustified tariffs for the poor canbest be tackled where a CU hasaccepted responsibility for thesystem.

*Carried out by GKW Consult in Southern Province(1996, 1998) and Central Province (2001-2)

7


2.4.3 Sanitation situation in low-costand peri-urban areas

On-site sanitation is the most common formof excreta disposal and considering theconstraints it will remain the most appropriatelevel of service for the urban poor in themedium term.

Most peri-urban residents depend on simplepit latrines. Only a few ventilated pit latrineswere built at schools and public places.Usually pits are not lined nor coveredproperly. In some few areas with a high watertable or with rocky ground, pits are raisedabove ground often using termite mounds.

As low-cost residential areas are plannedresidential areas, most of the houses areconnected to either the sewer line or toindividual or communal septic tanks. In someareas the houses are equipped with flushingtoilets but in most low-cost areas, residentshave access to ablution blocks with 2-4compartments serving 2-4 households.Because of erratic water supply, people oftenflush their toilets using a bucket. However,due to lack of maintenance over severaldecades, much of this infrastructure is nolonger operational and pit latrines are now acommon feature in these residential areas.

Currently, households in Zambia do notconsider improvements to sanitation asmuch a priority as access to safe drinkingwater.

Most residents in low-incomeareas depend on pit latrines, some ofthem shared by 2-4 households.

2.5 WSS coverage and per capitaconsumption levels

2.5.1 Water supply coverage

Data available on water service coverage in1990 (the baseline for the MDGs) is

8


unreliable and does not give a realisticpicture of the supply situation at that time.Some reports state that 86 - 88 % of theurban population had sustainable access toan improved water source. These figureshowever only refer to existing installationsbut do not take into account that many watersupply systems had already ceasedoperation at that time. The high andpersistent incidences of water bornediseases, especially in the rainy season andin high-density, low-cost and peri-urbansettlements document the gap between thereported coverage and reality.

The water supply situation had furtherdeteriorated during the early and mid 1990sbut significant improvements have beenachieved during the recent years.

Currently, coverage data are reliablyobtained only through projects and not by“official” publications. This is particularly truefor sanitation and per capita consumption.Nevertheless, project data documents thatin some peri-urban areas the situationcontinues to deteriorate, whereas in otherareas (e.g. in Kitwe, Monze, Ndola andLivingstone), which have benefited from theimplementation of kiosk systems, thedeterioration has been stopped and realimprovements for the poor have beenregistered.

Therefore, it is estimated that the proportionof the urban population without sustainableaccess to an improved water source in 2004with 40%, is the same as it was in 1990. Thismeans that from the total of around4,9 Million urban residents, almost 2 Millionpeople have no access to safe water today.Precise data will be available after thecompletion of the Baseline Study in July2005.

The patterns observed in towns such as Kitwe, Ndola, Mansa, Kasama, Livingstone, Chomaindicate that the situation in most towns and cities is similar to Kabwe (table 2), with 179,000inhabitants (2001) the largest town in Central Province and the 4th largest town in Zambia.

Table 2: Most important source of drinking water (Kabwe, Central Province 2001)

Source: GKW Consult, Household survey

9


Table 3: Daily per capita consumption at kiosks and public taps

Source: GKW Consult, water consumption measurements (1995 – 2003)

From the 3,9 Million urban peopleliving in low-cost and peri-urbanareas about 50 % (almost 2 Million)have to use water for primary use fromopen wells and other un-safe orexpensive sources although for manythe main water pipes are nearby.

2.5.2 Sanitation coverage

It is more difficult to estimate sanitationcoverage levels in low-cost and peri-urbanareas not only because of insufficient databut also because of a missing commonunderstanding of standards (What isacceptable?). Most residents in peri-urbanareas depend on on-site sanitation facilities

10


With regard to per capita consumption,surveys have been carried out in varioustowns where some or all (Chipata) peri-urban areas are supplied through kiosks.Consumption at water kiosks and otherpublic outlets varies primarily as a result of

seasonal influences, availability ofalternative sources, walking distance andwater tariffs. table 3 shows the averageconsumption level at kiosks and public tapsfor a number of towns and peri-urban areas.

such as pit latrines which, unlike sewers, areusually the responsibility of the households.The majority of the households use sharedpit latrines, although few people still use the“bush facility” or the “kavela” (plastic bag)system.

However, available data indicate that 90%of residents in low-cost areas and 50% inperi-urban areas, have access to sanitation.Therefore, presently about 32% (about 1,6Million people) of the urban population donot have access to adequate sanitationfacilities. The baseline study will provide amore accurate picture on sanitationcoverage.

3 Reaching the MDGs

In the peri-urban and low-cost areas, whereresidents are no longer supplied through theold distribution network and their house oryard connections, the MDGs can beachieved with the expected amount of fundsif an appropriate low-cost technology ischosen for the urban poor.

Existing and planned projects tend toconcentrate on the upgrading of existingwater supply systems. This approach shouldbe supported if it allows for easy extensionof the distribution network into the areas wereservices are currently not available. Someof the funds made available for theimprovement of water supply are alreadyearmarked for the introduction of affordablewater supply technologies in peri-urban andlow-cost areas. Despite this encouragingdevelopment the currently available andpledged funds are insufficient and do notallow for the achievement of the MDGs. Sofar hardly any funds have been madeavailable for the improvement of thesanitation situation in low-income areas.

The nation-wide implementation ofimprovement of water service provision tothe urban poor is ready to go ahead.NWASCO and the DTF have built capacityin terms of qualified human resources andin most towns sufficient water can be madeavailable in order to serve the low-incomeareas. Additionally, standards have beendeveloped, data on all peri-urban areas arein the process of being collected and thefinancing and implementation procedureshave been defined by the DTF. Many CUshave established the required structure suchas Peri-Urban Units or Community RelationsSections. Consequently, improving serviceprovision to the poor through kiosk systems

with the existing institutional structure canbe carried out without time consumingpreparations to ensure obtaining immediateresults.

With the capacity of the newinstitutions in implementing low-costtechnology Zambia is ready for alarge scale implementation to meetthe MDGs for water supply in theurban areas.

Unfortunately, this can not be said withregard to sanitation. Currently there is noclear pro-poor sanitation concept on nationallevel. The development of such a concept isstill in its infancy but within the existingconstructive institutional environment it willbe relatively easy to accelerate this process.

11

4 Closing the gap for water

4.1 Strategy

The MDGs will only be reached in the urbansetting if the service provision to the urbanpoor is substantially improved and if thefunds raised are invested in areas with thegreatest leverage (i.e. lowest costs percapita). Additionally, low-cost technologyneeds to meet minimum standards. Thus, thebest strategy is as follows:

• Focus on the urban poor: Investmentsfor water should concentrate on peri-urban and low-cost areas where themajority of the urban population livesand a very high number of residents canbe reached with a single installation(1000-1800 with one kiosk).

• Services offered must be affordablefor the urban poor. This eliminates thepossibility of introducing houseconnections and sewer lines for all inperi-urban and low-cost areas. Thesolution is low-cost technologies suchas water kiosks and improved onsitesanitation. Thereby, the poor should beable to profit from economies of scalewhich implies that the systems for thepoor are linked to the main networkwherever possible. Additionally, themoney paid by the poor for the servicesshould flow entirely to the serviceproviders and kiosk operators. Anyadditional payments to others wouldunjustifiably increase the tariffs for thepoor.

• Low-cost technology must meetminimum standards: Water supply tolow-income areas must meet a numberof important criteria linked to social,public health, commercial, technical andoperational objectives. The social

objective can be translated inaccessibility and affordability. The poorshould receive value for money such asa good water quality, continuity ofservice etc.

• Professionals can best ensureservice provision to the poor. Watershould be sold in the peri-urban areasby a provider which has the capacity toensure proper maintenance and tocontrol water quality. The retail tariff mustbe approved by the regulator. The wateroutlet should be operated by a welltrained water vendor who is supervisedby the professional service provider.Community managed systems shouldonly be considered where noprofessional water provider can takeover.

• Sustainability is crucial: The providershould be able to cover its operation,maintenance and basic replacementscosts. Community operated systemswhich rely on subsidised services fromprofessionals such as repair, control ofwater quality etc. are not a permanent/sustainable solution.

12

The new institutional set-up and the legalframework with CUs and regulation havecreated an environment where supplysystems for the poor meeting these criteriacan easily be established. Interim solutionssuch as community operation of WSSsystems can now phase out. Systems for thepoor can be linked to the main network andoperated by professional providers. Whilecommunities and LAs will always have animportant role to play (e.g. in thepreparation of WSS projects), theircomparative advantage is not the operationof the WSS systems. With the currentconducive environment, the poor can getvalue for money and the MDGs can beachieved with sustainable systems.

Shift focus on service provision to thepoor and optimise the potentialoffered by the new institutional andlegal frame work (CUs, poverty fundand regulation). Additionally, makebest use of the experience gainedwith low-cost technologies in Zambia.

4.2 Choice of technology – the kioskas most appropriate system

Experience in towns like Chipata (wherecommercially operated water kiosks wereintroduced in 1994) and Monze, as well as,in 4 towns on the Copperbelt and in WesternProvince demonstrate that well designed andoperated kiosk systems implemented in peri-urban and low-cost areas are mostappropriate. Kiosk systems are a sustainableand acceptable water supply solution from asocial, technical and commercial point ofview compared to other tested solutions forthe poor such as communal taps, public taps,hand pumps and house connections.

Water has to be affordable and at the sametime sale of water has to cover operation andmaintenance costs. Therefore, the design ofthe kiosk is not only crucial for theacceptance by the residents in the servicearea, but also for the successful andsustainable operation of the kiosk by itsvendor/operator. Since the incomegenerated from the sale of water can covercosts of the provider but is often not sufficientto keep kiosk operators motivated,provisions (e.g. shelves, sufficient space) forthe use of kiosks for other income generatingactivities such as the sale of other goodsshould be made. The design of the kioskshould be customer friendly (women inparticular) which means that it has to reflectergonomic considerations as well asconcerns of vendors.

The placement of kiosks must take thepreferences of the water vendors and offuture customers into account, as well as thetechnical and commercial constraints andobjectives identified by the CU. In otherwords, a kiosk should be placed in a waythat it can serve a maximum number ofcustomers in an efficient and customerfriendly manner. Involving the community infinding proper sites for the kiosk has provento be an efficient way to improvepsychological ownership, prevent vandalismand make treated water accessible.

In order to avoid repetition of mistakes indesign of kiosks and its managementNWASCO has issued guidelines for theservice provision to the poor and the DTFset minimum standards (communityparticipation, design, management etc.) onnational level for kiosk systems. Kiosk wateris considered to be affordable and theprofessional input of the CUs, the DTF and

13

Closing the gap for water

NWASCO guarantees a minimum servicelevel and the sustainability of the systems.(refer to Evaluation report DTF/EM, 2005).

Water kiosks are the most economicand effective way to reach the MDGsregarding access to water.

Decayed water distribution systems, withunprotected outlets, erratic supply and oftenclose to broken sewer lines should bereplaced by kiosk systems if an upgradingof the old system is not feasible as a mediumterm solution while resources are beingmobilised to maintain the service standardin the long run. Promoting kiosks, however,does not exclude the introduction of mixedsystems, especially in low-cost but also inperi-urban areas where there is a substantialmarket for individual house connections.

4.3 Institutional aspects of kiosksystems

Community participation is important duringthe planning stages of a kiosk system(placement, sensitisation, recruitment ofvendors) and during the operation of thekiosks (prevention of vandalism, expressingcustomer complaints). The management ofthe kiosks and the supervision of the watervendors, however, are the responsibility of aprofessional team of the CUs. The day-to-day operation of the kiosk is the responsibilityof a water vendor, preferably a woman, whohas been recruited with the consent of thecommunity. The vendor is not an employeeof the CU but works on a commission basisand signs a contract with the CU whichstipulates the rights and responsibilities ofall parties. This institutional set-up allows theCUs to keep the costs low and to assure anacceptable service level.

Customers at water kiosks require a differentapproach and attention by the provider.Consequently, a water company needs anumber of specialised professionals for theservice provision to the poor. If the serviceprovision for the poor becomes a strategicfocus of the providers it must be reflected inthe structure (“structure follows strategy”).Such a person or team within the CU (theCommunity Relations Officers or the Peri-Urban Unit) must take care of data collectionin peri-urban areas, the extension of serviceprovision (planning and sensitisation) andthereafter the management of the kiosksystems. Experience from Chipata, wherekiosks are managed by the CustomerRelations Section of the CU since 10 years,proves that CUs are able and willing to dealsuccessfully with peri-urban areas and arewell placed to address the needs of specialcustomer groups like the poor, prisons,hospitals etc.

14


During tariff negotiations, NWASCO canoffer incentives for the providers such asadjustments of tariff levels in certainbrackets to allow for cross-subsidisationwhich will help to extend service provisionto the poor. Thereby, the provider can coveroverall costs and NWASCO ensures thatthe tariff for the poor will be set accordingto the willingness and ability of kioskcustomers to pay.

Additionally, the DTF is an appropriatefinancing instrument to help the CUs toextend their system to the poor by providingthe funds for the low-cost technologyinvestment as well as for the support toimplementation and strengthening of thecapacities in managing low-cost systems.The DTF also ensures compliance withnational standards (adequate accountability,design, implementation and operation) andclosely monitors the progress and qualityof the work carried out.

4.4 Financial aspects of kiosk systems

The kiosk projects implemented in Monze(2003), Western Province and on theCopperbelt (Kitwe and Chingola, 2004)indicate that approximately € 5,00 - € 8,00per resident are needed in order to establisha kiosk system which gives all residents ofthe area easy access to clean water. Thisamount will in most cases have to beincreased to about € 10,00 per resident ifan upgrading of the distribution system isrequired to ensure continuous supply andsufficient pressure.

The cost recovering tariff at the kiosk (whichdoes not include the replacement cost of theentire system, a burden which should beborne through cross subsidies by consumerswith household connections) is estimated at€ 0,15 per m3. Considering an estimatedaverage daily per capita consumption of10 litres per day2 a household of 6 persons3

will spend approximately € 0,30/month onclean water, which is the price of a bottle oflocal lager beer (Mosi 0,35 litres).

It has been proven that introducing kiosks inareas with dilapidated water supply systems,which are beyond justifiable repair, has notonly a positive effect on the residents but alsoupon the performance of the service providerand upon the sustainability of the serviceprovision to the urban poor. In areas suppliedthrough new kiosk distribution networks,unaccounted for water (UFW) is reduced dueto elimination of leakages, il legalconnections, unprotected public outlets(where water can be fetched free of charge)and non-paying connected households,resulting in considerable savings for the CU.

Kiosk systems are cheap to establish(€ 5 – 10 per resident) if implementedby the CUs and financed through theDTF. Kiosks not only offer advantagesto the urban poor such as easy accessand controlled social tariffs but alsoto the providers which can reduceUFW and increase collection rates.

2 Based upon surveys of consumptions carried out in Monze, Chipata, Kitwe and Lusaka.3 In many peri-urban areas in Southern Province, Central Province, North-Western Province the average

household size is 6 persons. Nevertheless, there are important local and regional variations in averagehousehold size.

15


4.5 Required investments for water inorder to reach the MDGs

For the achievement of the MDGs, theproportion of people in urban areas withoutsustainable access to safe water has to bereduced from 40% to 20 %. Assuming apopulation growth rate of 2% per annum theurban population in 2015 will be about6,1 Million. Achieving the MDGs means thatthe number of urban dwellers with access towater has to be increased by about 2 Millionby 2015. As population densities, particularlyin areas with functioning infrastructure willincrease, it can be assumed that 10% - 15%of the new residents can be supplied byexisting infrastructure. Hence, supplysystems for an additional 1,75 Million peoplewill have to be provided by 2015.

Table 4: Required improvement ofaccess to water by 2015

For the implementation of the required kiosksystems, an estimated € 17,5 Mill ion(€ 10 per capita) is needed to provide accessto 1,75 Million additional people until 2015.

In addition, management fees for the DTFand funds to procure limited, but essentialactivities such as technical assistance,capacity building, sensitisation, training andshort term consultancies will be required.

Therefore, funds in the order of € 20 Millionwill have to be mobilised in order to meetthe MDGs for water in urban areas.

16


The estimated investmentrequirements to meet the MDGs forwater in urban areas in Zambia withkiosk systems established throughthe CUs and the DTF are € 20 Millionover 11 years (€ 1,8 Million annually).The total expenditure will be€ 12 per capita. This will leave1,2 Million urban poor withoutaccess to safe water in 2015compared to currently 2 Millionpeople.

5 Closing the gap for sanitation

The indicator for monitoring progress whenit comes to sanitation is “Proportion ofpopulation with access to improvedsanitation”. The Joint Monitoring Program4

(JMP) classifies sanitation facilities as either“improved” or “unimproved”. In doing so, itmakes the assumption that those classifiedas “improved” are more likely to be sanitarythan “unimproved” ones.

According to the mid-term assessment ofprogress towards the MDGs, improvedsanitation facilities are defined by the JMPas:• Connection to a public sewer• Connection to a septic tank• Pour-flush latrine• Simple pit latrine• Ventilated improved pit latrine.

In general, sanitation technologies need tobe locally appropriate and based on whatpeople want and are willing to use andmaintain. Nonetheless, professional andpolitical pressures do sometimes resist theuse of “alternative” or “low-cost” options.There is a body of evidence to suggest thatrigid adherence to “higher” definitions oflevels of service, constrains access in manycountries. This restraint has been noticed inZambia with a degree of reluctance in low-cost housing areas to accept solutions otherthan rehabilitation of sewers and piped watersupply which are perceived as ‘down-grading’. There is also evidence, however,that these constraints can be overcome.

5.1 Strategy

The high population densities that arecommon in the peri-urban areas suggest thatsewer systems would be the option of choice.Nevertheless, for the poor, off-site

(net-borne) systems are out of reach asdeveloping, connecting to and using/maintaining sewer systems is very costly. Inaddition, the practicalities of installing sewersystems would probably require therebuilding of large parts of peri-urban areasdue to the unplanned and haphazard layoutsof the settlements. On-site sanitation willtherefore remain the only viable option in theperi-urban settlements and probably also inmany low-cost residential areas in theforeseeable future. As the risk of pollution ofgroundwater is high in densely populatedareas, environmentally friendly on-sitesystems have to be promoted even if thecultural background might sometimeshamper the progress of such systems.

Sanitation investment is ahousehold decisionInvestments for on-site sanitationshould focus on affordability andmust be environmentally friendly.As sanitation investment is ahousehold decision the emphasisshould be on sensitisation as wellas hygiene and health education.

Decisions on sanitation are made at thehousehold level and behaviour changesrequire time. It will be very difficult tointroduce new, revolutionary or unknownsanitation concepts on a large scale withinthe MDG target period. Thus, new conceptsshould be part of, but should not dominateactions at the beginning of a coherent andcarefully planned programme to improve thesanitation situation in low-income areas.

Nevertheless, new concepts should bepromoted wherever a household shows

17

4 The Joint Monitoring Programme is generally seen as the main mechanism for monitoringprogress towards the MDGs in this sector.

interest and where multiplying effects can beeasily obtained (schools with gardens, openair penitentiary facilities etc.).

Sustainable sanitation solutions have to meetcriteria such as affordability, acceptability,sustainability, replicability and environmentalfriendliness. Therefore, focus of the strategyto reach the MDG must be on:

• Upgrading of existing on-site sanitation.

• Introduction and promotion of newsanitation concepts such as ecosan etc.

• Promotion of sanitation facilities at publicinstitutions and places such as schools,prisons, markets, bus stations etc.

• Upgrading of existing small diametersewer systems wherever funds areavailable and customers can pay for suchservices.

Replicability will only be achieved if thetechnology is readily understood andinstallation and maintenance is affordable.

To be sustained, any sanitation facility needsto be ‘owned’ by the household so thatmaintenance is performed. This means thatthe installation of sanitation facilities needsto be achieved as a result of householddemand. The cultural background andfinancial capacity (willingness to pay) of ahousehold will determine which technicalsolution is chosen. Nevertheless, solutionsshould fulfil minimum requirements.

To reach a large number of households,options offered must include a range oftechnical solutions to choose from, and thesesolutions need to be affordable. However, atpresent demand for improved sanitationfacilities with higher standards and costs issuppressed due to:

• an under-estimation of the impact onhealth of poor facilities (people knowabout the connection between poorsanitation facilities and poor health butthey are not aware of the large potentialimpact that can arise);

• an inability to afford the installation ofadequately robust and hygienic facilities.

This implies the need for sensitisationactivities and use of subsidies in order tostimulate the necessary demand.

Contrary to the water supply where theframework is ready to move to large scaleimplementation, sanitation needs morepreparation on national level (policy andstrategy) and demonstration on theimplementation level to design, implementand learn from pilot projects.

Improvement of access tosanitation through environmentallyfriendly onsite sanitation is the wayforward. A sanitation policy andstrategy should help to give moreimportance to sanitation. Pilotprojects should be used to induceparadigm changes on all levels inorder to open the way for newsolutions.

5.2 Choice of technology for on-sitesanitation

Following the strategy the possible optionsfor on-site sanitation technologies are:

• Simple pit latrines (with improvedsubstructure)

• Ventilated improved pit latrines (VIP)

• Double VIP

• Urine diversion dry box toilet

18

Closing the gap for sanitation

In a reasonable proportion of cases it isanticipated that existing sub-standard or oldlatrines can be upgraded to meet minimumstandards.

As sanitation facilities must take cultural andreligious constraints into account in order tobe accepted, water flushed installations witha possible combination of shower facilitieshave to be part of the range offered by aprogram to meet the MDGs.

5.3 Institutional aspects

The implementation concept must take theinstitutional framework of Zambia and itscapacity into consideration. The involvementof professionals can be on several levels.

Local craftsman (bricklayers etc.) could beinvolved in the construction of the chosensanitation facilities. These craftsmen shouldbe trained and licensed for subsidisedinstallation within a given area.

The service providers (CUs) can play acrucial role without being over-burdened inplanning, facilitating and supervising theimplementation.

NGOs could support the Peri-Urban Units atthe CUs by offering services such as trainingfor the craftsmen and sensitisation of thetarget population.

On national level NWASCO can setstandards and promote sanitation throughthe regulatory instruments such as tariffnegotiations, comparative competition etc. Tochannel funds into the sub-sector for the poorthe DTF is also an appropriate financing toolfor low-cost sanitation. Thus, the DTF canensure that standards (software andhardware) are observed and transparencyof implementation is guaranteed includingthe accountability of funds.

Pilot projects should be used to graduallybuild capacity on all of these levels andplayers. NWASCO as regulator in closecollaboration with the policy makers and theDTF, must ensure that experience obtainedis shared and the national concept isadapted.

Given the complexity to deal with on-sitesanitation it cannot be left to Ministries or LAstructures alone or to projects piloted fromoutside to promote improvement on a largescale. Professionals from governmentinstitutions such as NWASCO and DTF, aswell as, CUs and the private sector areneeded. The role of these professionals insanitation, however, does not have to be tothe same extent as in water supply. NGOscan play a major role in the implementationfollowing national concepts and standards.

Low-cost sanitation can bepromoted by the key players of thenew institutional frameworkincluding professionals fromgovernment institutions, providers(to some extent) and the privatesector.

19


5.4 Financial aspects

Demonstration projects in Zambia indicated that costs for some of the options are as follows:

Table 5: Sanitation technologies, unit costs and expected coverage

It is important to emphasise that the aboveestimate may require adjustment when moreexperience from pilot projects is available.

In order to foster sustainability the sanitationapproach should be demand driven andsubsidies for sanitation facilities shouldtherefore be limited. Subsidies should be usedas an incentive whereby the differenttechnologies can have different subsidy levelsand components. In order to avoid misuse anddistortion of competition, subsidies should focuson specific technology related componentssuch as slabs, mesh wire, ventilation pipes etc.and not on material such as cement.

It is assumed that subsidies will not exceed atotal of 30% of the entire average unit costs.The subsidy structure should be determined bythe policy makers on the basis of the experiencefrom pilot projects. The pilot projects will alsogive an indication of the willingness and abilityto pay for the different technologies by the urbanpoor. The household will be able to reducespending by contributing in labour for e.g.digging pit, moulding bricks.

If skilled labour is needed, licensed localcraftsmen should be paid directly by thehousehold. Subsidies, if and where provided,would be paid to suppliers by the WSS servicesprovider for instance.

20


5Soak-aways are anticipated to be necessary to remove sullage (grey-water) from kitchens and bathrooms in orderto avoid the accumulation of waste water pools and therefore to achieve overall acceptable hygienic livingconditions.

The costs of the CUs can be kept to aminimum by restricting their responsibilitiesto planning, facilitation and maintaining aninformation system. Being a commercialutility, the service provider should be able tocover the costs through the tariffs for watersupply and sewerage services on thegrounds that a key objective is to improvethe health status of the entire urbanpopulation.

Initially, contributions by NGOs can becovered by funds made available through theDTF but should be gradually replaced byincome generated by the CUs through thetariffs. Utilities will need to design relevanttariff policies and obtain NWASCO’sconcurrence. NWASCO may wish to offersome guidance in this respect.

5.5 Required investments

As indicated under chapter 2.5.2, about 32%of the urban population do not have accessto basic sanitation (0,1 Million in low-cost +1,45 Million in peri-urban areas). Followingthe assumptions on the population growthunder chapter 4.5 the MDG for sanitation willbe achieved if only 0,98 Million (16% of6,1 Mill ion) lack adequate access tosanitation in 2015. Assuming that about 15%(or 180,000) of the 1,2 Million new urbanresidents to be provided with access will useexisting infrastructure, new infrastructure willbe required for 1,62 Million.

Table 6: Required improvement of accessto sanitation by 2015

On the basis of an average household sizeof 6 people, this implies a need for nearly270,000 additional sanitation facilities.

Based on table 5, the total investment coststo meet the MDGs in the urban-poor areas,using fully contracted prices, would be about€31 million including soak-aways.

However, it is proposed that donorinvestment costs should be limited tosubsidies of 30% which would bring theneeded investment to €9,3 Million. Funds willalso be required for demonstration projects(€1 Million).

In addition, management fees for the DTFand funds to procure limited, but essentialactivities such as technical assistance,capacity building, sensitisation, training andshort term consultancies will be required.Therefore, total funds in the order of€15 Million will be needed to halve theproportion of people without access to basicsanitation in urban areas.

The investment requirements tomeet the MDG for sanitation inurban areas in Zambia with on-sitesystems established through theCUs and the DTF is €15 Million over11 years (1,4 Million annually), if 70%of the costs are borne by thehouseholds. The average subsidywill be €9-10 per capita. This willincrease the number of people inurban areas with access to basicsanitation from 3,3 Million to5,1 Million.

21


The following tables (7 and 8) are based on information currently available. The figuresregarding investment requirements will be adjusted once the results of the Baseline Studyare available (July 2005). The tables will have to be completed and regularly updated followingthe commitments of funding agencies and GRZ. To some extent the improvement of watersupply in these areas will involve the upgrading of existing WS systems.

Table 7: Required funding and planned interventions for water supply

22

6 Required investments per province, existing commitmentsand agencies

As a comprehensive pro-poor sanitation approach is currently lacking it will be necessary totest appropriate approaches with demonstration projects. This should also provide theopportunity to adapt and ameliorate the approaches and to build capacity at the national andCU level. The demonstration phase should last 2 – 3 years and be followed by a large-scaleimplementation phase coherent with DTF procedures and standards. Parallel to this a nationalstrategy on sanitation should be elaborated and agreed upon.

23

Required investments per province, existing commitments and agencies

*including pilot projects

24

List of Abbreviations

AfDB: African Development Bank

CSO: Central Statistical Office

CU: Commercial Utility

DANIDA: Danish International Development Agency

DCI: Development Cooperation of Ireland

DTF: Devolution Trust Fund

DWA: Department of Water Affairs

EM: Eigenmaßnahme

GTZ: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit

KfW: Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau

LA: Local Authority

MDGs: Millennium Development Goals

MLGH: Ministry of Local Government and Housing

NORAD: Norwegian development agency

NWASCO: National Water Supply and Sanitation Council

PSP: Private Sector Participation

RDC: Residents Development Committee

UFW: Unaccounted for water

WS: Water supply

WSS: Water supply and sanitation

WSSD: World Summit on Sustainable Development

WWG: Water Watch Group

25

Bibliography

Central Statistical Office (1996) The Evolution of Poverty in Zambia, 1991-1996, In: LivingConditions Monitoring Survey Report, 1996, Lusaka, Zambia.

Central Statistical Office (1999) Living Conditions in Zambia, 1998, CSO, Lusaka, Zambia.

Chipata Water and Sewerage Company (1993) CWSC file 31-11-93, In: Improvement Programmefor Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation in Chipata Town and District, September 1993, Volume1: 6/7, Appendix 32: 21), Chipata, Zambia.

GKW Consult (2003) WaterAid, Urban and Peri-Urban Water and Sanitation Review, Topics,Methodology and Research Tools, Prepared by GKW Consult, Lusaka, Zambia.

Government of the Republic of Zambia (1997) Water Supply and Sanitation Act No.28 of1997 Laws of Zambia, Date of Assent: 11th November, 1997, Government Printer, Lusaka,Zambia. See for the full text of the Water Supply and Sanitation Act of 1997:http://www.zambia-water.org.zm/wssBill.html).

NWASCO (August 2004), Water Sector Reform in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia

Ministry of Local Government and Housing (1999 and 2000) Peri-Urban Water Supply andSanitation Strategy, Lusaka, Zambia.

Ministry of Local Government and Housing, African Development Bank (January 2002)Sanitation Study for Seven Centres in Central Province, Development Plan Report, MainReport, GKW Consult, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, BCHOD, Lusaka, Zambia.

Ministry of Local Government and Housing, Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (January 1999)Feasibility Study for Water Supply and Sanitation for Livingstone Town, GKW Consult, PWC,Lusaka and Choma, Zambia.

Reaching the Millennium

Development Goals for Water

Supply and Sanitation in Zambia

- The Urban Perspective -

Nwasco & DTF164 Mulombwa Close, FairviewP.O. Box 34358, Lusaka-Zambia

Tel: (+260) 1 226941-2Fax: (+260) 1 226904

E-mail: [email protected]: www.nwasco.org.zm

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische

Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Supported by:

Documents

Reaching the Millennium Development Goals for Water - NWASCO