814705114935SANITATION AND WATER SUPPLY REPORT

814705114935SANITATION AND WATER SUPPLY REPORT
(NIGERIA)
Course: SANITATION AND WATER TREATMENT
Lecturer: PROF. J. KARTHIKEYAN
PREPARED BY
BAYERO, Muhammad Tukur
MAY, 2018
00SANITATION AND WATER SUPPLY REPORT
(NIGERIA)
Course: SANITATION AND WATER TREATMENT
Lecturer: PROF. J. KARTHIKEYAN
PREPARED BY
BAYERO, Muhammad Tukur
MAY, 2018

CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.0INTRODUCTION
3.0PRESENT SITUATION
3.1A Glimpse at the Water and Sanitation Sector in Nigeria
3.2Poverty in Nigeria
3.3Sector Overview
3.3.1Preamble
3.3.2Overview of Nigeria vision and targets for the SDGs
3.4Sanitation
3.5Water Supply, Availability and Accessibility
3.5.1Water Supply
3.5.2Water Availability
3.5.3Water accessibility
3.6Open Defecation
3.7Community- Led-Total-Sanitation (CLTS)
4.0TECHNOLOGY ADOPTED AND MANAGEMENT
5.0INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
5.1Relevant Water and Sanitation Policies
6.0FINANCING AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION
6.1Financing
6.2Implementation
7.0SECTOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION
8.0SUB SECTOR
8.1Rural Water Supply
8.2Urban Water Supply
8.3Rural Sanitation and Hygiene
8.4Urban Sanitation and Hygiene
9.0DATA ANALYSIS
10.0CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1CONCLUSION
10.2RECOMMENDATIONS
11.0REFERENCE
1.0EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Globally, 844 million people (1 in 9) lack access water, 2.3 billion people (1 in 3) lack access to toilet and $260 billion is lost globally each year due to lack of basic water and sanitation. More than 300 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa do not have access to improved water, and close to 700 million lack access to improved sanitation facilities. In Nigeria alone, 71 million people continue to live without access to improved water, while 130 million people do not meet the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) standards for sanitation. A large body of evidence suggests that limited or no access to water supply, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services adversely affects individuals’ health, hinders their access to educational and economic opportunities, and affects their work efficiency and labor productivity. As the global community moves toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it is necessary to assess the current state of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria so policy makers and key stakeholders can develop effective policies and interventions to address shortcomings in access to WASH. Such efforts should be targeted at the most vulnerable in society, specifically those who experience the greatest burdens of poverty.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

This report offers an overview of the state of WASH services in the country. It draws from a number of national data sources, desk reviews, and original research to analyze service delivery in the country and assess the sector’s performance. It offers an overview of poverty in Nigeria, considers the relationship between poverty and WASH and explores demographic patterns influencing access to WASH. Further, it evaluates the performance of water agencies and some relevant policies, examines and identifies institutional frameworks, offers insights on how to make the sector more efficient and sustainable, financing and its implementation, sector monitoring and evaluation and sub sectors. The report concludes with recommendations for tackling the current crisis of WASH services in Nigeria.

2.0INTRODUCTION
Nigeria is one of the West African countries and is located on the gulf of Guinea. With a total area of 923,768 square kms. It is world’s 32nd largest country, after Tanzania. However, in terms of population, Nigeria is the most populous country of Africa. The population of Nigeria, as per the National Population Commission, is around 183 million (2015 projection) spread over its 36 States and Federal Capital Territory (FCT), 774 Local Government Areas (LGAs), 9522 wards and around 123,240 communities. It also has one of the fastest-growing economies in Sub-Saharan Africa: its gross domestic product (GDP) quadrupled between 2005 and 2015. However, Nigeria has been unable to translate its rapid growth into fast poverty reduction.

The population growth rate is a little over 3% per annum. The country’s most expansive topographical region is that of the valleys of the Niger and Benue River. These two rivers converge and empty into the Niger Delta which is one of the world’s largest river deltas and the location of a large area of Central African Mangroves. While on the south-west of Niger is a “rugged” highland, on the south-west of Benue are hills and mountains; the latter forms the Mambila Plateau. Nigeria is a heterogeneous country of more than 250 ethnic groups. The country is divided into six geo-political zones viz., North West, North East, North Central, South East, South South and South West. The States falling under each of these regions are given below. Their location can be seen from Map below.

North-East: Yobe, Borno, Bauchi, Gombe, Adamawa and TarabaNorth-West: Kebbi, Sokoto, Zamfara, Katsina, Kaduna, Kano and JigawaNorth-Central: Niger, Kwara, Kogi, Nasarawa, Benue, Plateau and FCT-Abuja
South-East: Enugu, Imo, Anambra, Abia and EbonyiSouth-West: Oyo, Osun, Ekiti, Ogun, Ondo and Lagos
South-South: Edo, Delta, Bayelsa, Akwa Ibom, Rivers and Cross-River

Figure 1: Map of Nigeria Showing the Geo-Political zone
3.0PRESENT SITUATION
3.1A Glimpse at the Water and Sanitation Sector in Nigeria
Nigeria’s sanitation sector is in critical condition. Only 29 percent of Nigerians have access to improved sanitation. 130 million Nigerians do not meet the MDG standards for sanitation.

Nigeria’s water sector faces significant challenges. 61 percent of Nigerians have access to improved water, but only 31 percent have access to improved water on premises. Access to piped water on premises in urban areas declined from 32 percent in 1990 to 7 percent in 2015.

Poor households are deeply affected by inadequate access to WASH. 71 percent of households in the lowest wealth quintile lack access to improved water. Poor children are about four times more likely to get diarrheal disease than rich children due to poor access to WASH.

Public expenditure in water and sanitation is limited and of poor quality. Nigeria needs to invest at least three times more than what it does today to achieve the SDGs in WASH. 15 percent of completed works on public water infrastructure are considered of unsatisfactory quality.

Water agencies are performing poorly. Across most water-utility indicators,
Nigeria underperformed in comparison to African and global averages. Nearly 30 percent of water points and water schemes fail within their first year of operation.

3.2Poverty in Nigeria
In recent years, Nigeria has successfully reduced its poverty rate by approximately
10 percentage points. Poverty rates fell from 46.4 percent in 2004 to 36.2 percent in 2013.

However, this reduction in the poverty rate has not translated into a reduction in the total number of poor citizens. The country has experienced rapid population growth nearly 3 percent per year hampering the reduction of the absolute number of poor.
Three key factors have likely contributed to this low responsiveness:
(a) Economic growth has been accompanied by high rates of population growth;
(b) Economic growth has not led to expanded jobs and other opportunities for all citizens; and (c) There is evidence that inequality has been rapidly increasing.

3.3 Sector Overview
3.3.1Preamble
Data from the Water Supply and Sanitation Baseline Survey (WSSBS), gathered in 2007, reported a national access figure of 54.3 percent for water supply and 65.6 percent for improved sanitation. That survey also found that 18.8 percent of the population resorts to open defecation (22 percent of the rural and 5.7 percent of the urban population). Nigeria has a vision of achieving 100% access to basic water supply and sanitation services by 2030 with primary focus on rural areas through the Partnership for Expanded Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (PEWASH) programme. To achieve these targets, Nigeria will require US$2.74 billion annually, with significantly higher investments in the medium term. Currently, the financing gap per year is estimated at $106 million. The ambition is highest for rural sanitation where coverage for basic services is 27% and significant household participation is needed to eliminate open defecation and achieve universal basic sanitation services. In addition, access to basic water and sanitation services is significantly lower in poorer communities and among vulnerable groups. The people in the lowest wealth quintile are 16 times more likely to defecate in the open compared to those in the richest wealth quintile (Nigeria MICS Report, 2011). Across rural and urban areas, the WASH deprivation is about 1.5 times more in rural areas than urban areas (Nigeria DHS, 2013). Across geopolitical zones, South-West has the highest rate of Open Defecation.
3.3.2Overview of Nigeria vision and targets for the SDGs
The Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) sector in Nigeria is guided by the National Water Resources Policy, PEWASH Strategy (2016-2030) and National ODF Roadmap. The strategy prioritizes the elimination of open defecation by 2025 and achieving universal access to basic water services and sanitation in rural areas by 2030.
In 2015, Nigeria achieved basic service coverage of 69% for water and 29% for sanitation. This was near sufficient to achieve the MDG target for water, but insufficient for sanitation. The more ambitious WASH targets and standards under the SDGs significantly raises the bar for what is required. Nigeria will aim to achieve 100% access to basic water supply and basic sanitation by the year 2030. The main challenges are lack of services or poor quality services for the poor in urban and rural areas, mainly in the sanitation and hygiene subsector. Coverage and quality of services vary across the geopolitical zones with water-related deprivations greater in the North, while open defecation is rampant in the Southwest. Furthermore, WASH services insufficiently address the needs of the disabled.

3.4Sanitation
In terms of sanitation, two systems of defecation are very prominent namely, ‘controlled’ and ‘open’ defecation. In the rural areas, most people depend either on open defecation (bushes, rivers and gutters) or pit latrine. This sharply contrasts with urban dwellers whose system of defecation is becoming increasingly circumscribed (pits, flush toilet) because of the absence of open bushes and other conditions that prevailed in the rural areas. Even with the tendency for ‘controlled’ defecation, instances of human excrements on urban roads, gutters and waste dumpsites reflect inadequacy of available sanitation system and infrastructures to cope with an expanding demographic reality. Although statistics of access to water supply and sanitation vary between places and cities (Nyong and Kanaroglou, 1999; Stoveland and Bassey, 2000; Sanusi, 2010), a report from Water Suppy and Sanitation Interim Strategy note (2000) observed that no urban community in Nigeria has a sewerage system except for Abuja and limited areas of Lagos. This means that sewage in urban areas either lie stagnant or are disposed through the storm water drainage system and in nearby roadside gutters. Sanitation and water coverage in public institutions are equally very low in Nigeria. A UNICEF? sponsored study in 2003 (cited in Amakom, 2009) indicates that, on average, there is only one toilet for every 500 students in schools. Most other public places such as market square, worship centers, local health care centers, etc. do not have public water supplies and sanitation. The implication, according to Akpabio (2012) is that individuals are left to make their own choices of where to fall back on when they are pressed at such places.

3.5Water Supply, Availability and Accessibility
3.5.1Water Supply
A greater majority of the Nigerian population depends on self?efforts in meeting their daily water and sanitation needs. Daily water supplies either come from the natural sources (rivers/streams, ponds, rain and hand?dug wells) or modern supply sources (public sector supplies or private and commercial borehole businesses). While relatively over 80% of the rural population depends on the natural sources of supplies, the urban residents are mostly served with supplies whose regularity vary depending on residential areas and other socio?economic characteristics, mostly related with ability to pay as well as the relative influence of certain individuals and groups.

Consequently, a combination of high cost of accessing public supply network, service irregularity of public supplies and discriminatory service practices in favour of the influential members of the society has led to the rise and popularity of commercial water operators as well as a preference for private borehole in individual compounds by the rich.

3.5.2Water Availability
Nigeria has six main hydrological basins covering the far low?lying swamp forest south, the flat dense rainforest, hilly shrub lands in the middle belt, relatively flat savannah grasslands in the north, and semi?arid areas in the far north. Average rainfall for the country varies between about 250mm per year in the north and could be as high as 4000mm per year in the south depending on location. Many rivers in the north are intermittent, having water in them only in the rainy season while the greatest number of the rivers in the south are perennial, flowing all year round, and are important sources of drinking and irrigation water.

Nigeria’s surface water resources is estimated to be about 267 billion m3/annum while its groundwater resource is estimated at about 52 billion m3 of groundwater potential. While only 15% of the surface water has been utilized (ADB, 2007), statistics on the actual amount of groundwater utilization is, however, not available.

3.5.3Water accessibility
Water access means, for the most fortunate, turning on a household tap at any time for a glass of clean, safe water. An estimated 89% of the world has clean water in or near home an increase from just 81% in 2000. That leaves 844 million at the bottom of the ladder with long journeys for clean water, or dependent upon contaminated wells, rivers or ponds. In Nigeria, 67% of people have access to clean water close to home, 30% of the poorest people have clean water and 89% of the richest people have clean water according to the UN Human Development.

Table 1: Evaluation of Regional Indicators and Access to Water and Sanitation Related Services

3.6Open Defecation
The Government of Nigeria is committed to end open defecation in the country by 2025 which is in line with the revised global target set by the United Nations. Towards this end, Federal Ministry of Water Resources (FMWR) requested UNICEF, Nigeria to undertake the development of a road map for making Nigeria open-defecation free by 2025.The present exercise is the outcome of this resolve.

Presently (2015) around 46 million people in Nigeria defecate in the open. Another 56 million people are estimated to be added during the next ten years. This means a total of 102 million people or 20 million households should have access to a toilet and use it. Besides, sanitation facilities have to be provided to numerous institutions such as schools, health centers, market centers, motor parks, highway eateries, jetties and religious places so as not to have any open defecation around these places.

3.7Community- Led-Total-Sanitation (CLTS)
In order to accelerate sanitation coverage to meet the MDG, Nigeria was one of the first few countries in Africa to have resorted to the Community-Led-Total- Sanitation (CLTS) Approach in 2005-2006. However wider application of this approach was adopted from 2008 onwards as a prelude to the International Year of Sanitation (IYS). The main objective of the CLTS approach was to empower the community, through a triggering exercise, to realize the extent and magnitude of the problems associated with open defecation and take necessary action collectively towards solving the problems for improved health and well-being of the people. It focuses on igniting a change in sanitation behavior rather than constructing toilets. This is done through a process of social awakening that is stimulated by facilitators from within or outside the community. It concentrates on the whole community rather than on individual behavior where the community resolves to make it open-defecation-free. Unlike the earlier subsidized sanitation program, CLTS is fully nonsubsidized. In Nigeria initially a scattered approach involving triggering communities all over the State was adopted. But soon it was realized that such an approach was not effective and hence an LGA-wide approach was introduced with encouraging results. As of July, 2014 CLTS has been initiated in all 36 States and FCT. Triggering has taken place in 19,467 communities of which 9,728 (around 50%) were declared ODF. Of this 3,276 (close to 34%) have been certified.

4.0TECHNOLOGY ADOPTED AND MANAGEMENT
The full range of technical options for providing adequate basic sanitation is still not widely known nor are the characteristics of the different options well understood. In particular, there is little appreciation of the long-term financial, environmental and institutional implications of operating and maintaining the various sanitation systems. As a result, in many cases communities and local governments are choosing technical options that, in the long term, are unaffordable and/or unsustainable.
The three broad categories of the sanitation systems are:
Conservancy system or Dry system
Semi-wet (or semi-dry) system
Water carriage system
The following are some of the technology adopted for sanitation in Nigeria.
Open defecation
This is the practice of relieving oneself in an open field. This widely practiced in Nigeria especially in rural areas. However, this is not a good sanitation practice and should be discouraged as much as possible.
Unimproved Pit Toilet
Consists of a top- structure around and /or over a pit, generally unlined where soil conditions allow, with a pedestal or squat-plate. There is no ventilation pipe.

Figure 2: Unimproved Pit Toilet
Bucket Latrine
Consists of a top-structure with the seat positioned above a bucket or other container located in a small compartment beneath.

Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) toilet.

Waste drops into the pit where the organic material decomposes and excess liquids percolate into the surrounding soil. Natural airflow through the top-structure and moving across the top of the vent pipe removes smells and vents gases from the pit to the atmosphere. A darkened interior is maintained causing insects entering the pit to be attracted towards the light at the top of the vent pipe and trapped by the fly screen. A separate hand washing facility is required.

Figure 3: Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) toilet
Ventilated Improved Double Pit (VIDP) toilet
The principles of operation are the same as for the VIP toilet. One pit is used until filled to within about half a meter of the top. The pedestal and vent pipe holes are to be completely sealed before the other pit is used. The contents of the first pit are dug out after a period of at least two years, once the contents have become less harmful. The first pit can then be reused when the second pit is full, while the second pit is allowed to stand and be emptied after 2 to 3 years.

Composting or desiccating (e.g. urine diversion system – UDS)
Toilets waste is deposited in the chamber below the pedestal. For composting toilets, dry absorbent organic material, such as wood ash, straw or vegetable matter is added after each use to absorb odors, control moisture and facilitate biological breakdown (composting). In desiccating toilets, the solid wastes dry out rapidly through enhanced airflow or with the help of additional dry material like wood or coal ash. In these cases the urine may be separated from the solids to improve the rate of drying of the faeces. The urine is separated or diverted through the use of specially adapted pedestals. The urine may be collected and used as a fertilizer, or drained to a soak pit where it will seep into the soil. In desiccation systems, ventilation systems are often enhanced to facilitate the rapid evaporation of moisture.

Aqua privy toilet with soak away
After use, the toilet pan or pedestal may be flushed with one to two litres of water. Some pans have a tipping flap at the bottom of the pan that holds a small amount of water, opening when flushed. This flap acts as a seal between the pedestal and the digester. The wastes from the pan drop into a digester directly underneath the toilet, or just offset from the toilet structure.
An aqua-privy requires an initial filling of the digester with water for the effective digestion of wastes and to keep the end of the pedestal chute submerged, and thus forms a “rough water seal” between the pan and the digester contents. The solid portion of the waste partly decomposes within the digester, while the liquids are displaced with each use. The displaced liquids flow to a soak-away. The digester requires dislodging from time to time (usually between one and three years, depending on the volume of the digester).

Septic tank and soak away
Human wastes from the toilet is flushed into a septic tank that acts as a settling chamber for the solids. The liquid is retained in the septic tank for at least 24 hours, but may be up to 10 days.
Domestic wastewater may also be drained into the septic tank, or alternatively directly into the soak-away. In the septic tank solids settle out to the bottom where they undergo biological digestion. The liquids pass out of the tank and into a subsoil drainage system (soak-away). Digested sludge gradually builds up in the tank and requires eventual removal by tanker.

Figure 4: Septic tank and soak away
Small Bore Solids-Free Sewer
The principles of operation are the same as for the septic tank and soak-away, except that the liquid effluent is conveyed by a system of small-diameter pipes to a wastewater treatment system (which may be located close to the community, or linked to the municipal works via existing sewerage pipelines).

Full or conventional waterborne sewerage
Waste from the toilet is flushed, using between 6 and 13 liters of water per flush, into the sewer system for removal to a central treatment facility. A clean water seal is maintained in the toilet pan after each flush. Domestic wastewater is also drained into the sewers.
The sewer system may require pump stations if the topography is not suitable for gravity transport of all the sewerage within the communities. There are several types of wastewater treatment facilities that treat the wastes to a suitable quality prior to discharge into a stream or for re-use in municipal parks and gardens.

5.0INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Priority actions for institutional framework
Support the completion of the preparation of state water policies.

Clearly identify an institutional home for sanitation.

Promote the private sector to provide goods and services as government exits service provision.

Undertake phased establishment of regulatory commissions in all states.

Figure 5: Institutional roles and relationships in the water supply and sanitation sector
FMoWR, Federal Ministry of Water Resources: Has overall responsibility for the management of water resources and is the custodian and implementer of the National Water Policy and water related sanitation.
Functions relating to WSS are carried out through the Directorate of Water Supply and Quality Control (WS&QC, not shown).

Other ministries: The Ministry of Environment (MoEnv) is largely responsible for urban sanitation, mostly sewerage. At state level State Ministries of Environment oversee environmental sanitation. The Ministry of Health (MoH) and Ministry of Education (MoE) have roles in formulating community sanitation and hygiene, and school hygiene programs, respectively.

NWRI, National Water Resources Institute: Provides training and education, data collection, and dissemination services in the field of water resources development (not shown).

RBDAs, River Basin Development Authorities/Boards: Charged with the development, operation, and management of reservoirs within their catchment area and provide bulk water supply for water utilities and for irrigation. In the past some RBDAs provided borehole water to communities.

SMoWRs, State Ministries responsible for water resources:
Responsible for drinking water supply at the state level. In some states these ministries have been engaged in actual implementation of projects contrary to the policy intentions to keep ministries to policy, regulation, and monitoring.

SWAs, State Water Agencies or Boards: Responsible mainly for urban and semi-urban water supply. In many states separate agencies exist for rural water supply.

RWSSAs, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agencies (State Rural Water and Sanitation Agencies): Provision of potable water to rural communities and improving sanitation and hygiene (latrine construction, hygiene education). Intended roles are facilitation and support to LGAs to implement WSS programs.

WES Depts, Water and Environmental Sanitation Departments: Established within local governments to oversee the delivery of water and sanitation services, and provide support to communities in the facilities’ management, sanitation promotion, and hygiene education.

International and local NGOs: Most NGOs work at the level of the state and local governments. The most visible in water and sanitation is WaterAid, which has partnered some states/local governments to build capacity of the WES Departments and to deliver water, sanitation and hygiene to rural communities (not shown).

LGAs (Local Government Areas): There are 774 LGAs. These are responsible for the establishment, operation, and maintenance of rural water supply schemes and sanitation facilities.

WESCOMS, Water and Environmental Sanitation Committees:
Responsible for the management of water and sanitation activities in the LGAs.

Private sector: There are three categories of involvement: (a) construction and drilling works; (b) supplying goods and services, and (c) water service provision. In many states there are a number of small-scale water and sanitation services providers. Not shown.

5.1Relevant Water and Sanitation Policies
Table 2: Some Relevant Water and Sanitation Policies
Policy Title Key Provision
National Policy on
Environment, 1989 Focuses on water quality regulation and standard as well as pollution control.

National Rural Water
Supply and Sanitation
Policy, 2000 Focuses specifically on rural water and sanitation through community participation. The programme targets were to increase water coverage from 43% to 80% by 2010 and 100% by 2015. The sanitation coverage was to be increased from 32% to 60% by 2010 and 90% by 2015.

National Water Resources
Management Policy, 2003 This recognizes water as an economic good, opted for integrated and demand?driven services.

National Water and
Sanitation Policy, 2004 This operated strictly in line with the demand?driven approach of the National Water Resources Policy.

National Environmental
Sanitation Policy NESP),
2005 A bit comprehensive as it touched on a range of issues including solid waste, medical waste, excreta waste, sewage management, food sanitation and hygiene, sanitation at public places, adequate potable water supply, urban drainage management and hygiene education etc.

National Economic
Empowerment and
Development Strategy?
NEEDS (2003?2007) This attempted to address water and sanitation issues in clearly defined spatial units namely, urban areas, small towns, rural areas. NEEDS placed high priority on the development of safe and adequate water supply and sanitation services as a key instrument for fighting poverty and accelerating socio?economic development.

National Development
Plan (NDP), 2007 As one of the seven point development agenda of the Late Yaradua’s administration, targeted subsidies on water and sanitation facilities were planned for the poor.

6.0FINANCING AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION
Priority actions for financing and its implementation
Agree on achievable national and state Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS) targets (with MDG requirements as a minimum).

Prepare Strategic Investment Plans to meet state targets, and develop a financing plan.

Implement Water Investment Mobilization and Application Guidelines (WIMAG) to facilitate state-level policy and plan development as well as leverage matching finance for WSS.

Clearly indicate budget lines for sanitation for greater visibility and improve financial reporting to track sector investments.

6.1Financing
The true extent of funding for WSS nationally is difficult to obtain. Preliminary findings from a Sector Investment Profile Study undertaken on behalf of the Nigerian Water and Sanitation Monitoring Platform covering the period 2000 to 2007 estimated that an average of US$154 million (Naira 20 billion) is allocated to the states annually by the federal government for WSS. There were, however, considerable disparities in the allocation made by the federal government to the states, ranging from US$67 million to US$1,827 million (0.21 percent to 5.7 percent of total allocated funds) between the years 2003 to 2007. As far as could be discerned, no formula is used for the allocation of water supply and sanitation funds to the states.

6.2Implementation
Actual disbursements from allocated budgets varied considerably among the states, and also from year to year, and in general were below 60 percent. In some cases no more than 10 percent of funds allocated were disbursed. Some states, however, showed consistently high levels of disbursements, notably Cross River State (above 90 percent in some years).

7.0SECTOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Priority actions for sector monitoring and evaluation (M&E)
Implement the framework for M&E which remains on the drawing board.

Institutionalize an Annual Sector Review dedicated to drinking water and sanitation.

Prepare annual consolidated sector output.

As a federation with 36 states, one federal territory and 774 local government areas (LGAs), each with considerable fiscal authority and autonomy in service delivery, M&E in Nigeria’s water supply and sanitation sector has been a major challenge. A common framework for M;E has been designed and sector actors have met to agree indicators and definitions in 2008, but it is yet to be rolled out. The framework envisages gathering data on assets, planning, operational performance of service providers, and possibly capturing impact (for example, health outcomes) using the various agencies at local, state, and federal levels. Figure 6 shows the intended flow of information in the framework. User surveys (both by the national statistical authority and the FMWR) have provided outcome data that are used for planning purposes.

Figure 6: The Intended Flow of Information in the Framework
8.0SUB SECTOR
8.1Rural Water Supply
Priority actions for rural water supply
Establish Rural Water and Sanitation Agencies in states where this has not been done and limit their roles to facilitation and capacity building of LGAs.

Increase the pace of implementation of the Framework for Rural Water and Sanitation Delivery, emphasizing community ownership and management.

Figure 7: Rural Water Supply Scorecard
8.2Urban Water Supply
Priority actions for urban water supply
Review edicts of water agencies to make them consistent with the National Water Policy.

Wean urban water utilities off state subsidies for O;M and increase the pace of utility commercialization.

Undertake regular review of tariffs to permit O;M cost recovery at a minimum.

Figure 8: Urban Water Supply Scorecard
8.3Rural Sanitation and Hygiene
Priority actions for rural sanitation and hygiene
State governments to prioritize sanitation—putting in place policies, plans, and budgets for sanitation.

Scale up implementation of CLTS and regularly review its contribution to improving access.

Improve awareness through advocacy to mobilize the public and private stakeholders on good sanitation and hygiene practices.

Figure 9: Rural Sanitation and Hygiene Scorecard
8.4Urban Sanitation and Hygiene
Priority actions for urban sanitation and hygiene
Identify clear leader for sanitation service delivery in urban areas.

Develop and implement appropriate sanitation approaches in peri-urban and low income communities.

Figure 10: Urban Sanitation and Hygiene Scorecard
9.0DATA ANALYSIS
There is a common trend in the literature that seems to demonstrate that public efforts at addressing water supply and sanitation services in developing countries are not based on a holistic approach, which implies that water supply services are not planned in a way that integrates or incorporates sanitation concerns. This situation is not different in Nigeria as this review has shown. The Nigerian water and sanitation sector remains poorly represented at policy, political and practice domains over the last ten decades. While a little effort is noticeable in the drinking water section of the sector, same cannot be said about the sanitation sub?section. The reason for this is not far?fetched: water is the first entry point in the hierarchy of citizens’ needs and failure to guarantee its supplies where it matters most can lead to serious political setback. Past and present governments in Nigeria often overemphasize on the primacy of drinking water supply over sanitation services. From the various discussions and analyses, the policy and practice spaces have witnessed relatively little attention and action in the early 1990s but then, such actions were mostly ad hoc, short?lived, disjointed, highly uncoordinated and lacked clear focus and approaches of intervention. Virtually all the available national policies were framed in response to global policy directives and pressures such as the United Nations International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade (Water Decade, 1981?1990); the New Delhi Statement (some for all rather than more for some, 1990); the Dublin Principles (Water as economic good, 1992); and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (reducing the proportion of the population without access, 2000); and the most recent namely, the United Nations declaration of water and sanitation as a right in 2010.

While acknowledging the role of global policy directives in shaping local policies and priorities in the water and sanitation sector, the democratization efforts in the late 1990s was equally important in creating space for policy initiatives and implementation practices.

Consequently, most policy practices and implementation often narrows down to technical solution at the expense of appropriate and locally?led intervention. Creating hardware sanitary systems and infrastructures often dominate the policy space while an important factor such as citizen?led initiatives as well as changing the behaviors of the citizens is ignored.

10.0CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1CONCLUSION
To properly situate the Nigerian institutional environment to be able to respond to the numerous challenges in the water and sanitation sector, many barriers need to be addressed. The most important of the barriers to overcome relate to improvement in the institutional capacity in the water and sanitation service sector. There is urgent need for manpower training and organizational learning. Going by the review, Nigeria has a short and highly underdeveloped institutional history in the water and sanitation sector largely due to long years of military rule. Developing effective capacity at various scales of policy and implementation practices, through massive manpower training, is important in guaranteeing adaptive utilization, translation and implementation of relevant international water and sanitation policies at the national and local country levels. Beyond this macro?perspective, other useful and practical national and local level initiatives toward solving the water and sanitation problems in Nigeria border basically on:
Sustaining massive public investment in water and sanitation infrastructures;
Less politicization of relevant water and sanitation programmes;
Less excessive attention to technological approaches and more attention to adequate local level participation and involvement;
Maintenance of comprehensive data on need areas as well as sustaining a culture of post?project evaluation to determine programme success levels.

10.2RECOMMENDATIONS
Support the completion of the preparation of states’ water policies.

Increase level of funding for water and sanitation.

Implement the Water Investments Mobilization and Application Guidelines (WIMAG) to facilitate state-level policy and plan development as well as leverage matching finance for WSS.

Clearly identify an institutional home for sanitation.

Promote private sector participation in the provision of goods and services.

Undertake phased establishment of regulatory commissions in all states (as proposed by the National Water Policy).

Agree achievable national and state WSS targets (with MDG requirements as a minimum).

Prepare Strategic Investment Plans to meet state targets.

Clearly indicate budget lines for sanitation for greater visibility and improve financial reporting to be able to track sector investments.

Implement the framework for monitoring and evaluation which remains on the drawing board.

Institutionalize an Annual Sector Review dedicated to drinking water and sanitation.

Prepare annual consolidated reports on sector output.

Agreed priority actions to tackle these challenges, and ensure finance is effectively turned into services, are:
Rural water supply
Rural Water and Sanitation Agencies should be established in states where this has not been done and their roles substantially limited to facilitation and capacity building of local government areas.

Increase the pace of implementation of the framework for rural water and sanitation delivery, emphasizing community ownership and management.

Urban water supply
Review edicts of water agencies to make them consistent with the National Water Policy.

Wean urban water utilities off state subsidies for operation and maintenance (O;M) and increase the pace of utility commercialization.

Undertake regular review of tariffs to permit recovery of O;M costs at a minimum.

Rural sanitation and hygiene
State governments to prioritize sanitation—putting in place policies, plans, and budgets for sanitation.

Scale up implementation of community-led total sanitation and regularly review its contribution to improving access.

Improve awareness through advocacy to mobilize public and private stakeholders on good sanitation and hygiene practices.

Urban sanitation and hygiene
Identify clear leader for sanitation service delivery in urban areas.

Develop and implement appropriate sanitation approaches in peri-urban and low income communities.

Community-Led-Total-Sanitation CLTS
Develop formal guidelines on community units
Introduce follow-up interventions to review and improve outcomes
Encourage, capture and disseminate local innovation
Separate water supply from sanitation interventions
OPEN DEFECATION
Political will
A supportive legal framework
Policy on Sanitation
A long-term vision with an investment plan
Need based budgeting
A well-defined organizational structure
Proper programming and investment plan
A robust review and monitoring system
Effective coordination among stake holders
A responsive private sector
11.0REFERENCES
ADB (2007). Nigeria: Rural water supply and sanitation sub?programmes in Yobe and Osun States, appraisal report. Water and Sanitation Department (OWAS). May 2007.

Akpabio, E. M. (2012). Water meanings, sanitation practices and hygiene behaviours in the cultural mirror: a perspective from Nigeria. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development. 02 (3): 168?181.

Amakom, U. (2009). Sanitation sector status and gap analysis: Nigeria, a report. September, 2009.

Assessment of Progress. UNICEF/WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.

Bureau of Statitics, Abuja, Nigeria.

Corral, P., V. Molini, and G. Oseni. 2015. “No Condition is Permanent: Middle Class in Nigeria in the Last Decade.” Policy Research Working Paper 7214, World Bank, Washington, DC.

DC: World Bank.

Gething, P., and V. Molini. 2015. Developing an Updated Poverty Map for Nigeria. Washington,
Hygiene Poverty Diagnostic. WASH Poverty Diagnostic. World Bank, Washington, DC.

National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) (2007). The multiple indicator cluster survey 2007. National
Nigeria. Presented at the Donor Conference in Abuja. 2?4 February
Nigeria. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 8, 17: 14?29.

NPC (2006). Census. National Population Commission, Nigeria.

Nyong, A. O. and P. S. Kanaroglou (1999). Domestic Water Use in Rural Semi?Arid Africa: A Case Study of Katarko Village in Northeastern Nigeria. Human Ecology 27, 4: 537? 555.

Sanusi, Y. A. (2010). Water, Sanitation and Human Development in Urban Fringe Settlements in
Nigeria. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 8, 17: 14?29.

Stoveland, S. and B. U. Bassey (2000). Status of Water Supply and Sanitation in 37 Small Towns in Nigeria. Presented at the Donor Conference in Abuja. 2?4 February.

UNICEF (2010). At a glance: Nigeria. http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/nigeria_statistics.htmlWorld Bank. 2017. A Wake Up Call: Nigeria Water Supply, Sanitation, and Hygiene Poverty Diagnostic. WASH Poverty Diagnostic. World Bank, Washington, DC.

x

Hi!
I'm Erick!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out