**4. Conclusion**

This paper has demonstrated that Public Private Partnerships are crucial in enhancing water service delivery in Kenya. It is also noted that it is part of the privatization and/or liberalization of water services. However, it is more of a response to the strict sense of privatization. In the water sector in Kenya, Small Scale Water Service Providers have emerged as alternative means to water service provision to areas where residents either find water from the major Water Service Providers inaccessible or more expensive. This has manifested itself in the form of water kiosks, water vendors and reseller, water stand pipes, community water, truckers and even cart pushers. It is important to note that small scale water service providers have been appreciated not only in Africa and Latin America but also in Asia.

Despite the proliferation of small scale water providers in Kenya, the process has not been smooth. The institutional regulatory mechanisms has made it difficult for them to effectively

between local authorities and private water companies. Section 51 of the Act creates Water Service Boards (WSBs)whose main role is to ensure efficient and economic provision of water services. To do this, they are to enter into agency agreements with water providers,

The Water Act 2002 requires stakeholder participation around; 1. Public and stakeholder consultation in developing the NWRMS, CMS and Protected Areas; and 2.Public consultations in matters of water resource allocation. In all the WSBs in Kenya, there are various mechanisms for stakeholder consultation. These include formal institutional arrangements (CAAC) public notification, through newspapers and public announcements. However, the interaction with the WRUAs goes beyond just public consultation, but seeks to enhance participation of primary beneficiaries, the water users. Section 5.7 of the Water Act 2002 states that "WRMA shall endeavour to support WRUAs". In this respect provision shall be made to enable them to access the funds provided by the WSTF for management

Essentially the CAAC is one way in which stakeholders can participate and influence water resource management within catchment areas. However, The Water Act 2002 states that the role of CAACs should be *advisory*. This implies that WRMA is not bound by decisions of the CAACs, and that authority and responsibility of decisions remains squarely with WRMA. This therefore contradicts the presumed purpose of popular participation. CAAC is also not mandated to abide by the resolutions of WRUA. Furthermore WRUA is not a representative association of the people in a catchment but a club of interested stakeholders. It is worth noting that CAACs are not intended to be representative of individual water users of a particular area but rather of stakeholder groups. Essentially there is no direct relationship between a water user and a CAAC member. CAAC members are appointed by WRMA, so it is up to WRMA to make sure that CAAC members are genuinely *representative* of the respective stakeholder groups. It is worth noting that WRUAs are not specifically mentioned as one of the stakeholder groups to be included in the CAAC, although Section 16(3)(f) provides a clause that can be used to include competent WRM individuals who could arguably be drawn from the WRUAs. The official interaction from WRMA down to WRUA

This paper has demonstrated that Public Private Partnerships are crucial in enhancing water service delivery in Kenya. It is also noted that it is part of the privatization and/or liberalization of water services. However, it is more of a response to the strict sense of privatization. In the water sector in Kenya, Small Scale Water Service Providers have emerged as alternative means to water service provision to areas where residents either find water from the major Water Service Providers inaccessible or more expensive. This has manifested itself in the form of water kiosks, water vendors and reseller, water stand pipes, community water, truckers and even cart pushers. It is important to note that small scale water service providers have been appreciated not only in Africa and Latin America but also

Despite the proliferation of small scale water providers in Kenya, the process has not been smooth. The institutional regulatory mechanisms has made it difficult for them to effectively

mainly private water companies and community Project Water Cycles.

and development within their areas of jurisdiction".

appears non binding.

**4. Conclusion** 

in Asia.

participate in the market. The procedures of Water Reforms Act 2002 despite making attempts to enhance popular participation in the water governance, resource management and development, have been discouraging to small entrepreneurs. The process to be recognized as a WSP is lengthy and expensive for small scale water suppliers. Before a permit is issued, a water user submits application to WRMA, go through the technical assessment and public notification processes. It is after then that authorization for construction is issued and a certificate of completion thereafter. It is then that a permit for water provision is issued.

The effort to enhance public participation in the governance of water service provision and management of water resources is merely impressionistic and not easy to sequence practically. WRMA is not bound by decisions of CAAC which equally is not bound by recommendations of WRUA. None of the institutions are representative of the other's interest. Secondly, WRUA as is presently constituted, is a club and not a representative of water users in any particular Zone. Membership is through individual interests implying that there are so many stakeholders who could be left out because they have not indicated interest to join the WRUA.

Several small scale water service providers would therefore be easily blocked from accessing permits due to conflict of interest with WRUA members.

Another area of concern is the role overlap between WRMA and WSRB since both have powers under the Water Act 2002 to determine water charges. Section 73 of the same Act also allows licensees including WSBs to determine water service tariffs hence the argument by Asingo (2007) that it is WSP which knows the cost to be recovered and hence should be the one to fix water tariffs in consultation with WSBs and WSRB. Ministry of local governments' role in provision of Water services has been reduced to obscurity as private water companies are expected to work very closely with the Ministry of Water Development, yet in practice they control the provision of services by virtue of being the largest shareholders in the Public Limited Companies.

It can therefore be deduced that the results of any water supply service provision will depend on the interrelationships between the state, regulators, citizens as consumers of the services taking into account multi-dimensional interactions amongst the parties. In this respect the government's regulatory framework should be facilitative rather than controlling of small scale water service providers. For example, it is against market principles to place one player (Large Scale Water Service Providers) at an advantaged position so as to be not only a supervisor of a competitor (Small Scale Water Service Providers) at a cost, but also be the one to recommend its registration.
