Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report Final

Catalysing Green Technologies
for Sustainable Water Service Delivery
D2: Report on Feasibility Study Framework

Study Framework Report
Table of Contents
Terms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................... 3

1. Overview ......................................................................................................... 4
1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4
1.2. Objective of Pre-Feasibility Study ................................................................................ 5
1.3. Structure of the report ................................................................................................. 6
1.4. Scope ............................................................................................................................ 6
2. Context and Description of Study Area ............................................................. 8
2.1. The challenge of Technology in Water and Sanitation ............................................... 8
2.2. Description of study area ........................................................................................... 10
2.3. Selected Study Areas .................................................................................................. 11
3. Technology Alternatives Outline .....................................................................17
3.1. Prioritization and selection priority green water technologies ................................. 17
3.2. Outline of Selected Technology ................................................................................ 22
4. Approach and Methododology of study ..........................................................32
4.1. Approach .................................................................................................................... 32
4.2. Overall study proces ................................................................................................... 33
4.3. Research Questions .................................................................................................... 34
4.4. Description of Methodology ...................................................................................... 37
4.5. Key Stakeholder Selection ......................................................................................... 41
4.6. Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................ 42
4.7. Preparation of tools and ‘training’ ............................................................................. 42
4.8. Sampling Plan - Cluster Selection and Sample Size .................................................... 43
4.9. Risks in the field ......................................................................................................... 44
4.10. Analysing of data and information ........................................................................... 44
4.11. Summary of the research design ............................................................................. 46
4.11. Reporting .................................................................................................................. 48
5. Bibliography ...................................................................................................49
Appendix ............................................................................................................51
I. FINAL REPORT OUTLINE.................................................................................. 51
II. LIST ALL KEY PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS .................................................. 53
III. TIMEFRAMES ................................................................................................. 59
IV. SURVEY TOOLS ............................................................................................... 60
V. TARGET SURVEY AREAS .................................................................................. 75
VI. MAPS............................................................................................................. 77
Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 2 of 81

Terms and Abbreviations
Term/Abbreviation Meaning
ASALs Arid and semi-arid areas
CTCN Climate Technology Centre and Network
GoK Government of Kenya
LAPSSET Lamu Port Southern Sudan-Ethiopia Transport
MTP Medium Term Plan of Vision 2030
RETs Renewable Energy Technologies
RE Renewable Energy
UDP UNEP DTU Partnership
WAGs Water Action Groups
WASH Water supply and sanitation
WRUAs Water resource users associations
WSTF Water Services Trust Fund
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
INDCs National Determined Contributions
COP Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
SWTs Small Wind Turbines
VIP Ventilated Improved Latrines
WASREB Water Services Regulatory Board
1. Overview
1.1. Introduction
Water Services Trust Fund (WSTF), is a State Corporation established with a mandate to
mobilise finance for the provision of water services to the underserved areas in Kenya. Despite
the progress achieved, water coverage has been relatively slow increasing at an approximate
rate of 1% between 2012 and 2015. Access to improved water services in urban and urbanizing
areas stood at 55% and 49% for rural population by 2015 compared to the average national
target of 80%. (Water Services Regulatory Board (WSRB) 2016)(WASREB 2014)
Water has variety of uses; agriculture, industry, livestock, hygiene etc. where most technological
nexus are developed and applied. However, variety of technology applications are at their
infancy and several barriers prevent solutions from reaching scale, including high cost of
investments, limited awareness of benefits and technology supply chain. Moreover, the group
experiencing lowest access to water services also have low access to basic services, they rely on
unskilled jobs, have insecure income that is vulnerable to environmental shocks, low
infrastructure coverage such as sanitation and transport and limited access to market for their
produce and products. Being isolated and with little access to resources and important
information, such people miss many opportunities to improve their lives.
These challenges cannot be addressed by a single entity but joining forces through new
collaborative efforts in which motivated parties from different societal sectors pool to provide
solutions to (perceived) common problems. Capacity development for sustainable and efficient
water management need to focus on strategies to catalyse development of water–energy and
food nexus including enhancing awareness on its benefits, access to affordable finance,
management capabilities for delivery, policy incentives and improved codes and standards for
the deployment of the green technologies.
Over the years, WSTF has financed a number of rehabilitation or non-functional water projects,
which by itself is indication of need for designs requiring less operation and maintenance, and
thereby release available finance to focus on new/undeveloped areas. WSTF is in the forefront
of ensuring sustainable water sector investment which informs the need for this study.
Investment in green solutions for water can drive sustainable water management and multiples
other benefits such as improved agricultural production, improved livestock production and
improved livelihoods. In this context, green technologies for water apply broadly to
technologies which enhance the use of renewable energy and efficiency, reduce reliance on
fossil fuels, prevent pollution, increase climate resilience, and facilitate recycling of wastewater
and its constituents’ and/or raise productivity of freshwater.
Low cost green technologies investments are intended to provide services through the
integration of either new or renewed facilities into already existing infrastructures. Partnership
with the various stakeholders intervening in the system is thus a necessity. Also, sound
economic policy, quality institutions and strong political commitment can help the
implementation and management of the low cost green technology investments, and therefore
resulting in achievement of larger benefits. In short, investments are easier to carry out where

the context is more favourable. For this reason, the specific context characteristics need to be
taken into due consideration starting with feasibility phase. In some cases, improvements in the
institutional set up might be needed to ensure an adequacy in low cost technologies
performance.
The foregoing in mind, WSTF requested for technical assistance from the Climate Technology
Centre and Network (CTCN) to catalyse low cost green technologies1 for sustainable water
service delivery in Northern Kenya and peri-urban areas. UNEP-DTU Partnership (UDP) was
contracted by CTCN to provide technical assistance to (a) analyse the feasibility and
sustainability of the deployment 3-specific low-cost green technologies for improved water
services for household consumption, farming and/or irrigation, in underserviced arid and semi-
arid areas (ASALs) in Northern Kenya and in peri-urban areas and (b) to analyse private sector
engagement potential in their deployment.
The main objectives of the CTCN technical assistance are:
i. To determine the technical, economic and social feasibility of three water technologies
for the targeted areas, through a pre-feasibility study entailing in-depth primary and
secondary data collection and analysis.
ii. To identify potential private sector actors and Public Private Partnerships (PPP) within
the water sector for the deployment of green water technologies.
iii. To develop a PPP business model in collaboration with relevant stakeholders model and
build their capacity to engage in PPP.
iv. To develop a concept note to trigger future funding i.e. to enable piloting of
technologies, supporting implementation of PPP etc.).
1.2. Objective of Pre-Feasibility Study
The pre-feasibility study considers identifying the contextual features that allow use or limit the
viability of selected technologies in areas (counties) with less developed infrastructure within
the wider view of sustainable water supply. This includes people's attitudes and preferences,
institutional and financial opportunities and barriers, as well as relevance of technologies in
enhancing sustainable water supply. In addition, the study captures management issues such as
operation and maintenance needs and infrastructure resilience against frequent climate impacts
such as droughts, flooding, high infiltration and evapo-transpiration rates leading to high water
losses from rain water harvesting systems.
The objective of the pre-feasibility study is thus to assess the technical, economic and social
feasibility of three water technologies for the targeted areas, through an in-depth primary and
secondary data collection and analysis.
Specifically, the pre-feasibility will include an analysis of:
1
Green technology encompasses a continuously evolving group of methods, materials and systems for generating
services while conserving the natural environment and resources and/or mitigate or reverses the effects of human
activity on the environment:

i. Technical feasibility (types of technologies, durability, viability and materials required,

skills and knowledge, potential providers).
ii. Economic Feasibility (cost effectiveness, price of materials, operation and maintenance
costs, current demand and supply, cost recovery, financing)
iii. Social feasibility of the chosen technologies ( potential to create employment, social
acceptability, awareness attitude and perception of the technology, land use
patterns, gender and governance issues)
iv. Risks, sustainability and reliability potential of these green technologies.
The pre-feasibility study and subsequent implementation of the CTCN technical assistance
contributes to WSTF’s strategic objective of “financing sustainable water and sanitation services
in underserved rural and urban areas” (WSTF 2014) and contributes to national priorities and
planned development programs in the water and environment sector in Kenya.
1.3. Structure of the report
This report presents the study framework applied for conducting the pre-feasibility study of
selected low-cost technologies in the context of water supply. It describes how the feasibility
study goes about to identify both good design features and any shortcomings or disadvantages
of the selected technology with a view to developing a modified and improved solutions with
better performance and which better meet end-user requirements and deployment.
This document is organized in four (4) sections;

Section 1: Introduction
Brief introduction to the study, definition of scope and objectives, project genesis and
statement of constraints within which it will be conducted
Section 2: Description of Study areas

This section outlines the areas where the study will be carried out
Section 3: Description of technology alternatives and selection

Here the types of technologies addressed are listed, including salient features for the study
areas and selected technology
Section 4: Description of the methodology

The section presents an overview of the data collection and analysis, including study approach,
study parameters and indicators, timeframe and main stakeholders. This section describes in
greater detail particular activities that are critical in delivering outcomes.
1.4. Scope
The focus of the pre-feasibility study framework outlined in this document is specific three (3)
selected technologies namely water pans, solar and wind powered pumping system. The focus
is on the extent to which they are employed to address challenges of water accessibility and
availability (system capacity and reliability), affordability and acceptability, particularly in rural
and peri-urban areas. The study will also include other types of water and energy sources for

control and comparison of costs, benefits and challenges that relate to the application of the
identified technologies
1.4.1. Inclusions
The study depicts existing structures and conditions through primary and secondary data
collection and identifies and analyses opportunities and gaps that can be addressed to achieve
improved water services in target areas in Kenya.
1.4.2. Exclusions
The study is primarily intended to assess potential single technology to improve water supply
services in specific contexts (county and/or ecological zone) and not as a selection tool which
selects between various technologies, or to assess complex systems such as a piped supply with
tanks, pipes and taps. The field visits will be used to verify the context and boundaries of study
application.
1.4.3. Constraints
The following are some of the constraints identified in the feasibility study:
 Limited time for the data collection process
 Limited resources to conduct data collection process
1.4.4. Assumptions
i. The data obtained shall be a true representation of the real time scenario in the field,
meaning that the respondents are truthful and reveal the entire information about the
situation on the ground
ii. Technology performance, preferences and experience in particular locations is
generally representative of what happens in the specific agro-ecological zone and
lessons on its application can be generalised irrespective of social circumstances

2. Context and Description of Study Area
2.1. The challenge of Technology in Water and

Sanitation
Water supply and sanitation in Kenya is
characterised by low levels of access, particular in
urban slums and in rural areas, as well as poor
service quality in the form of
intermittent water supply. Despite the
technological leaps and enhanced financial
investment to the water sector in the last decade,
progress towards improved access to water and
sanitation services is at a staggering low,
particularly in many rural and peri-urban areas in
Kenya.2
Figure 1: ASAL Counties in Kenya

The ASALs in Kenya make up 89% of the land surface and 36% of its population (14 million
people by 2009), supports 70% of the livestock and generate 90% of the country tourism
revenue. Yet, scarcity and poor management of water sources, environmental degradation and
land pressure, insecurity, recurring cyclical droughts, unpredictable weather patterns and
population growth remain some of the key challenges to livelihoods. These challenges have
continued to mask the vast development potential in these areas over the past years. Despite
the water sector reforms that were initiated in 2002, access to safe water, sanitation and
hygiene for people and livestock still remains low.
It is estimated that 18.5 million or 41% of Kenyan population still lack access to improved water
services. Seasonal and regional water scarcity exacerbates the difficulty to
improved water supply and climate change and variability will generate more extreme events,
such as floods and droughts. These phenomena are expected to have significant effects on
water safety and security, altering patterns of availability and distribution, and increasing the
risks of water contamination. Kenya has therefore, prioritized the water sector as a critical area
of focus for climate change adaptation, alongside other sectors and highlights the crucial role of
the technologies employed to ensure the effectiveness of adaptation (TEC 2014).
Ironically, regions that are characterised by low water service levels also have poor provision of
structures and limited management skills to support water services (1). Functionality as well as
the sustainability of rural and peri-urban water supplies is still a challenge because of high cost
2
The average access to improved water in five ASAL counties of Garrisa, Isiolo, Marsabit, Wajir and Turkana is 37%
compared to national average of 59% (Global et al. 2015)

of operations and maintenance. In particular, the cost of energy supply has a direct implication
on the quality and prices of water services (2). Many experts have suggested that technologies
such as solar, wind, and small-scale hydropower are not only economically viable source of
energy for water supplies but also ideal for water supply in disadvantaged areas (Kamp &
Vanheule 2015).
However, investments in water and energy technologies are often more than just cost-
recovering over their lifetime cycle. Investment in technology makes up high proportion of the
initial implementation costs, and subsequently that of operation and maintenance. While the
standard model of economic theory would suggest that any cost-effective measure should be
automatically implemented, investments in water and energy technology is often more than
just cost-recovering over the project lifetime cycle.
Innovation and
development of water
supply and sanitation
(WASH) technologies have
the potential to facilitate a
more dignified and
humane way of life for all
and especially for the
poorest in the Kenya.
However, many
technologies which once
showed promise for
tackling the water supply

Figure 2: Technological Valley of Death (18)
problems faced in a
particular region have often failed when the expectations of the users are not met and
determining factors to sustain the technology are lacking (Hostettler & Hazboun 2015). Many
great ideas fail to get to their full scale potential and disappear in the ‘valley of death’ between
their piloting and full deployment. Typically, two main barriers hinder progress of innovation to
full commercialisation: pervasive market barriers and unavailability of private sector financing to
propel ideas to prototype and onwards to full commercial scale (Jenkins & Mansur 2011).
The lessons learned from Kenya relating to technologies such as the VIP latrine3, the India Mark
II4 and Afridev hand pumps5, kijito wind pumps6 indicate that successful uptake needs an
3
The ventilated improved pit (VIP) is a pit latrine provided with vent pipe and squat hole cover to control the problem of flies and
unpleasant odours. http://wedc.lboro.ac.uk/resources/booklets/G027-VIP-latrines-on-line.pdf
4
The India Mark II Pump is a robust human-powered, lever action hand pump designed to lift water from a depth of 50m or less.
Typically intended for, serving communities of less than 300 persons. http://www.rural-water-
supply.net/en/implementation/public-domain-handpumps/india-mark-ii
5
The Afridev Pump is reciprocating type hand pump designed to lift water at less than depths 45m and meet the requirements for
Village Level Operation and Maintenance. https://www.dayliff.com/hand-pumps/category/289-afridev
6
A kijito is a multi-bladed rotor (3.65m - 7.9m) wind pump designed to operate in low wind speed regimes (from 2.5 m/s)
http://www.wot.utwente.nl/en/demonstration-site/wind/the-kijito

introduction process based on a strong partnership with dynamic governance (WASHTech

2011). Furthermore, various aspects such as the acceptance of technologies, the ability of users
to purchase the infrastructure and pay recurrent costs for operation and maintenance, the
knowhow and skills available to operate and maintain the system, and the resources and
capacity of local governments to support user communities all influence successful uptake and
the provision of lasting services for sustainable water supply.
2.2. Description of study area
2.2.1. Country Profile
Kenya has climatic and ecological

extremes with altitude varying from sea
level to over 5000 m in the highlands. The
mean annual rainfall ranges from < 250
mm in semi-arid and arid areas to > 2000
mm in high potential areas. Agriculture is
the most important economic activity in
Kenya and represents more than 26% of
gross domestic product, with 75% of the
country's population depending on
agriculture for food and income
generation. Approximately 1/3 of the
country’s land area is agriculturally
productive which includes the lake,
coastal and highland regions. The other
2/3 of the land area is semi-arid to arid Figure 3: Target counties on the agro-ecological
which are largely characterized by low, map of Kenya
unreliable and poorly distributed rainfall. The ASALs areas are normally used for livestock
7
production with livestock production contributing to 26% of Kenya’s agricultural production .
Kenya is divided into seven agro-climatic zones using moisture index (Sombroek et al. 1982)
based on annual rainfall, which is expressed as a percentage of the potential evaporation. Areas
that are categorised as zones I, II and II have a greater index than 50% and are considered to be
good for cropping, accounting for 12% of the country land. Zones V, VI and VII are considered to
be ASALS region which have an average rainfall of < 900mm, accounting for 83% of the land.
Table 1: Classification of Agro-climatic zones, (3)

Agro - Climatic Zone Classification Moisture Index Annual Rainfall (mm) Land Area
7
http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/Kenya.htm

(%) (%)
I Humid >80 1100-2700 12
II Sub-humid 65 - 80 1000-1600
III Semi-humid 50 - 65 800-1400
Semi-humid to
IV 40 - 50 600-1100 5
semi-arid
V Semi-arid 25 - 40 450-900 15
VI Arid 15 - 25 300-550 22
VII Very arid <15 150-350 46
The population growth in Kenya is

relatively high and continues to impact
on access to safe water. Population
increase in Kenya has been a great
contributor to water scarcity with the
increased population mounting demand
and competition for water for domestic,
agricultural, industrial and municipal
uses. Rapid urbanization continues to
expose more people to water shortages
with negative implications to health, Figure 4: Kenya Population Growth 1948-2040, (Kenya
livelihoods and security. National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) 2012)
2.3. Selected Study Areas
The study will be carried out in four (4) counties out of 47 counties in Kenya, namely Baringo,
Embu, Homabay and Isiolo.

Baringo
Isiolo
Homabay
Embu
Figure 5: Study Areas
The counties are selected to represent the different agro-ecological zones in Kenya, with priority
given to counties identified for WSTF investment programmes funded by the EU and Danida, as
these are likely to benefit directly from the results of this study. The table below represents the
target counties based on the various ecological zones, the technologies available and WSTF
interventions.
Table 2: Selected Counties for the field Survey

Select Zones covered
County Semi semi - WSTF
Humid humid Arid Arid Available technologies Interventions
3 Technologies (Solar,
Baringo Wind& Water pans) European Union
3 Technologies (Solar,
Isiolo Wind& Water pans) Green growth
3 Technologies (Solar, Peri urban
Embu Wind& Water pans) experience
2 Technologies( Water Peri urban &
Homa bay pans & Solar) PPP experience

2.3.1. Baringo County Profile

Baringo county is situated in the Rift valley and covers an area of 11, 015 Km2. The county’s
climate varies from humid in the highlands to arid in the lowlands areas. (County Government of
Baringo, 2013). According to the 2009
Kenya Population and Housing Census
(GoK, 2010) the county’s population
is 555,561 (279,081 males and
276,480 females). The county’s inter-
censual growth rate is 3.3% per
annum, which is above the national
average of 3%. The major sources of
employment are: agriculture, rural
self-employed, urban self-employed
and wage employment. Wage
employment is the main source of
employment in the county,
generating about 34 per cent of the
total employment. Out of the county
total labour force 68% are
unemployed.
Figure 6: percentage of households with improved and
24% of the county population uses unimproved water (KNBS, 2013)
improved sources of water with the
rest largely relying on unimproved water sources. There is no significant gender differential as
24% of the male headed households and 23% of the female headed households use improved
sources (KNBS, 2013)
Through the rural electrification programme by the GoK, the county has increase its electricity
connectivity with 2,346 new connections observed between 2010 and 2011. The county has
great potential of geothermal energy around Lake Bogoria and Silale.
Most of the land in the county is under trust and is largely owned by the community. About 30%
of the land is demarcated with title deeds being used as land ownership document. There are
few cases of landlessness in the county. Environmental degradation in the Baringo County is
widespread with some areas lined up with deep gullies and without any vegetation making
these areas unfit for development activities. Further, development of settlements in the County
fragile ecosystem continues to impact on water resources therefore reducing the county
potential for livestock and agricultural output. Climate change is largely characterised by
increased warming and recurrent droughts. Effects of climate change continue to impact on the
county ability to provide sustainable water supply to its urban and rural populations.
2.3.2. Embu County Profile

Embu County covers an area of 2,818 Km2 with a population of 516,212, according to the 2009
population census. Embu County depicts the typical agro-ecological profile of the windward side
of Mt. Kenya of cold and wet to hot and dry lower zones in the Tana River Basin. The average
rainfall in the upper areas is 2000 mm and 600 mm in the lower areas.

The largest proportion of arable land in

the county is used for agriculture with
farms averaging 1.98 acres following
land fragmentation over the years;
large-scale farms average 7.4 acres.
According to the KNBS (2005/06), 59.6%
of land parcels in the county have title
deeds. High population pressure in the
upper region and lack of land
adjudication in the lower region of the
county has caused landlessness. The
county plays a major role in the national
energy sectors as it host the seven-folk
project that contributes 80.2% of the
country’s electricity. Electricity coverage
in the county is mostly confined in the
urban as compared to the rural areas.
The recent government rural
electrification programme has
Figure 7: percentage of households with improved
contributed to increased rural electricity and unimproved water (KNBS, 2013)
coverage in the recent past.
Embu County is predominantly characterised by a rural settlement pattern in the upper part and
a more scattered settlement pattern in the lower parts. Deforestation, logging and wet land
encroachment are the main contributors to environmental degradation in the county. The
county has experienced its share of climate change through increased drought periods, erratic
weather patterns and increased temperature, especially on the lower areas of the county.
In Embu County, 49% of residents use improved sources of water, with the rest relying on
unimproved sources. Use of improved sources is slightly higher in male headed households at
50% as compared with female headed households at 46%.
2.3.3. Homabay County Profile

Homabay County covers 3,183 km2 with a
population of 963,794 persons (462,454
males and 501,340 females) according to
the 2009 population census. The county is
divided into two ecological zones, namely
the upper and lower midland with an
equatorial type of climate. There are two
rainy season namely long rainy season from
250-1000mm and short rains ranging from
500-700mm. The county average annual
rainfall ranges from 700 t0 8000 mm.
In Homabay County, 28% of residents use
improved sources of water, with the rest
Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Figure 8: percentage of Page

households
14 of 81 with
improved and unimproved water (KNBS, 2013)
relying on unimproved sources. There is no gender differential in use of improved sources with
both male and female headed households at 28% each.
In Homabay County, the mean land holding stand at 6 acres with 2 acres used for settlement
and the rest is used for agriculture and rural development purposes. 48% of the land in
Homabay has title deeds. Climate change in Homabay County is evident with it being observed
from declined stock of fish, drying up of water sources and erratic rainfalls. Further,
environmental degradation across the county has resulted in loss of productivity of land
affecting crop production, income levels and food insecurity within the county.
2.3.4. Isiolo County profile

Isiolo County has an area of 25,700 Km2 with a population 143,294 (73,694 males, 69,600
females), according to the 2009 census There are three main ecological zones in the county:
semi-arid, arid and the very arid. The semi-arid zone makes 5% of the county and is
characterised by an annual rainfall of between 400 – 650 mm. This relatively high rainfall is due
to the influence of Mount Kenya and Nyambene Hills in the neighbouring Meru County. The arid
zone is 30% of the county area with an annual rainfall of 300 to 350 mm. The very arid zone
covers the largest county area (65%) and is characterised by annual rainfall of 150 to 250 mm,
hot and dry weather and barren soils throughout the year.
Over 80% of the land in Isiolo County is non-arable (22,000 km2) and is used for grazing by the
pastoralists but in some wards such as Kinna, agro-pastoralism is practised. Only 1,497 hectares
are under food crops production. Land
is communally owned and held in trust
by the county government.
In Isiolo County, 59% of residents use
improved sources of water, with the
rest relying on unimproved sources.
There is no significant gender
differential in use of improved sources
with male headed households at 59% in
comparison with 60% in female headed
households (KNBS, 2013).
70% of the county population uses

wood fuel which has resulted to
extensive land degradation due to over
harvesting of tree primarily for
charcoal. Of the 31, 326 households
across the county, only 2500 have
access to grid electricity. Figure 9: percentage of households with improved
and unimproved water (KNBS, 2013)
Isiolo is one of the counties considered
to be most vulnerable to climate change in Kenya. Some of the vulnerabilities resulting from

climate change are unpredictable rainfalls, floods, recurrent droughts, loss of forest and wetland
ecosystems and scarcity of portable water.

3. Technology Alternatives Outline
The interrelationship between the water sector and other key sectors such as agriculture, public
health, energy and animal husbandry presents the sector as a complex sector. The effects of
climate change further increases the complexity of the water sector, as various measures for
climate adaptation and mitigation linked to these sectors are required. Therefore, it is
imperative that technologies that enhance sustainable water supply are adopted to reduce
vulnerability to climate change and enhance climate resilience.
The term adaptation technology has become common with the rise of climate change talk
across the globe. Adaptation technology is defined as the application of technology to reduce
vulnerability or enhance resilience of human or natural system to the impacts of climate change
(UNFCCC, 2005). In the water sector, it is important that site specific solutions are considered
within the integrated water management context8. Poor planning, over-emphasis on short term
outcomes and failure to account for possible climate consequences have been attributed to
maladaptation or adopting technologies that do not effectively vulnerability of climate change
(TEC 2014).
3.1. Prioritization and selection priority green water technologies

The green water technologies were selected from list of five (5) technologies identified by WSTF
when submitting request for assistance.
(1) Solar water pumping system
(2) Wind powered pumping systems,
(3) Sand dams ( sub surface rainwater water storage technology),
(4) Djabias (Semi-underground tanks with water catchment systems),
(5) Water pans (small surface rainwater storage)
In common, the technologies are all low-cost simple technologies involving either renewable
energy or enhancing water storage and generally appropriate for underserved communities.
The five technologies were evaluated and prioritised through a multi-criteria analysis using a
combination weighted criteria based on the following criteria and which will be subject to an in-
depth analysis:
i. Cost of technology (initial investment, operations and Maintenance)
ii. PPP potential for the selected technologies
iii. Potential to improve livelihood and grow local economy
iv. Availability of requisite skills for installation, operations and maintenance
v. Potential deployment across the country, and
8
A process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, un
order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the
sustainability of vital ecosystem (GWP, 2000).

vi. Capacity to enhance water quality and quantity

vii. Potential to reduce emission and increased resilience to climate change and variability

Table 3: Relative technology score for the identified ranking factors
Costs Benefits
O&M Capital PPP Livelihood Availability Potential Capacity Capacity Potential Potential
costs costs Potential improvement, skills to deployment to to to reduce to
employment supply across enhance enhance GHG increase
and economic installation, country water water emissions resilience
empowerment running and quality quantity to climate
maintenance change
Technology 1: Solar
water pumping system 8 6 9 9 4 8.5 8 9 10 7
Technology 2: Wind
powered pumping
systems or wind mill 8 5 8 8.5 2 8 8 9 10 7
Technology 3: Sand
dams (run off water
harvesting technology) 9.5 8 4 7 8 5 8 5 5 8.5
Technology 4: Djabias
(Semi-underground
tanks with water
catchment systems) 8.5 8 2 4.5 8 9 3 3 5 6
Technology 5: Water
pans (run off water
harvesting technology) 6 4 6 8 7 7 2 5 5 7
Table 4: Weighted Score and Prioritised Technology
Costs Benefits
O& M Capital PPP Livelihood Availability skills Potential Capacity to Capacity Potential Potential to
costs costs Potential improvement, to supply deployment enhance to to reduce increase
Total Score
employment, installation, across water enhance GHG resilience
economic running and country quality water emissions to climate
empowerment maintenance quantity change
Technology 1: Solar
602
water pumping
system 64 48 72 117 52 34 32 117 130 91
Technology 2: Wind
551.5
powered pumping
systems or wind mill 64 40 64 110.5 26 32 32 117 130 91
Technology 3: Sand
dams (run off water
473
harvesting
technology) 76 64 32 91 104 20 32 65 65 110.5
Technology 4: Djabias
(Semi-underground
394.5
tanks with water
catchment systems) 68 64 16 58.5 104 36 12 39 65 78
Technology 5: Water
pans (run off water
441
harvesting
technology) 48 32 48 104 91 28 8 65 65 91

Criterion weight 13 8 8 13 13 4 4 13 13 13

3.2. Outline of Selected Technology
3.2.1. Water Pan
Water storage pans are excavated surface water storage facilities of limited capacity (generally
not exceeding 20,000 m3) which are mainly constructed in locations where the topography does
not allow the construction of a small dam and instead favours excavation. Excavation of larger
pans (up to 150,000 m3) is possible and can be done, especially near populated centres, but the
construction cost is generally high due to the 1 to 1 excavation to storage ratio.
Pans are excavated
below the natural
ground level, and
with the exception of
pans constructed on
inclined locations,
the volume of earth
excavated will be
equal to the storage
capacity of the pan
and therefore when
compared to a small
dam, the water to
earth ratio (water
storage volume /
earth excavated
volume is low.
However, when a
Figure 10: Typical plan and section drawing of a water pan, suitable inclined
(Government of Kenya 2015) location can be
identified for the construction of the pan a somewhat more favourable ratio can be obtained.
Storage pans tend to be relatively expensive constructions when compared to small earth dams;
where possible natural depressions can be enlarged to produce water pans with a slightly better
storage to earthworks ratio. (Government of Kenya 2015)
Pans for the purpose of surface water storage can be constructed wherever a sufficient quantity
of water can be intercepted to create a small reservoir. Pans are basically used in such locations
where no topographically suitable site can be found for the construction of a small dam, or
where no suitable construction materials for the construction of a dam can be found.
Water storage pans are subject to the same limitations regarding sedimentation and
evaporation as small dams. Due to their shallow depths (usually 2.50 m to 5.00 m) water storage
pans are usually not suitable as permanent water sources for high evaporation areas, while for
catchment areas subject to erosion, silt traps will have to be included in the design
(Government of Kenya 2015).
Apart from the two factors mentioned above (topography and availability of construction
materials), basic principles for selection of appropriate locations include;
i. The water-tightness of the reservoir in sandy areas but since pan dimensions are
limited, lining of the reservoir with an impervious clay blanket can often present a
solution for pans,
ii. The natural drainage and flow pattern of the intercepted water and an overflow
structure for any excess water towards the natural drainage
iii. Silt trap which is often combined with the overflow structure.
iv. Sedimentation, evaporation and ecological impact
v. Specific alignment of the pan to minimize earthworks
vi. Storage sizes considering the expected inflows, Length of the dry period, reliability level
to be maintained during a given dry period and the expected water use and relative
importance of the evaporation losses9.
Strength Weaknesses
Easy to construct and maintain Low, erratic rainfall and droughts may result
to water pans drying
No energy is required to draw water Elevation often restricts conveyance by
gravity
Less susceptible to damage when Seepage losses from the reservoir

overtopping and weak structural foundation
Reduces impact of floods by storing initial Poor water quality owing to high turbidity
floodwaters, controlling erosion. and contamination of water in open
reservoirs
Can be constructed on any soil type High rate siltation by sediment during severe
storms, and especially at the end of dry
season
It has potential of raising water table The risk of people and livestock drowning in
downstream and in nearby wells. the pool
High evaporation losses
Expensive to construct relative to water
volume stored
3.2.2. Solar energy

Solar energy is the best-known renewable energy technology in Kenya. Direct solar energy can
be broadly categorized into solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies (converting the sun’s energy
into electrical energy) and solar thermal technologies (using the sun’s energy directly for
9
Generally pans in arid areas should be sized with emphasis on availability of grazing (i.e. the pan
should dry out just as the available grazing is finished). Large pans may result in overgrazing in the
area around the pan.

heating, cooking and drying, etc.)

(Kiplagat et al. 2011)(Philippa
Marshall, Phil Wallace n.d.)
The building block of a PV system
is a PV cell. Many PV cells are
encapsulated together to form a
PV panel or module. A PV array,
which is the complete power
generating unit, consists of any
number of PV modules/panels.
PV cells typically have a capacity
between 5 and 300 W but
systems may have a total
installed capacity ranging from
10 W to 100 MW. The very
Figure 11: Typical Solar water pumping system (20)
modular nature of PV panels as
building blocks to a PV system
gives the sizing of systems an important flexibility. The sizing of the solar water pumping system
depends on the maximum flow rate (m3/hour), the head, the power requirements and the solar
radiation of the area. Typical solar water pumping system is shown in Figure 14 and includes:-
 Source of energy-solar Photovoltaic system (panels, inverter)
 Pumps (submersible)
 Source of water
 Water storage facility
 Water level detector
Table 5: Example of solar application and system type, (UNIDO 2010)

The amount of energy that can be produced is directly dependent on the sunshine intensity.
Thus, for example, PV devices are capable of producing electricity even in cloudy weather albeit
at a reduced rate. Natural cycles in the context of PV systems thus have three dimensions; a
seasonal variation in potential electricity production with the peak in hot season although in
principle PV devices operating along the equator has an almost constant exploitable potential
throughout the year. Secondly, electricity production varies on a diurnal basis from dawn to
dusk peaking during mid-day. Finally, short-term fluctuation of weather conditions, including
clouds and rainfall, impact on the inter-hourly amount of electricity that can be harvested. The
strengths and weaknesses of this technology are presented in Table 6.
Table 6: Strengths and weaknesses of PV energy systems, (UNIDO 2010)
Challenges for solar PV on in rural and peri-urban Areas

The installed solar PV capacity in Kenya and Africa is low considering the solar radiation levels. It
was initially speculated that the low uptake of solar technology was associated with
unaffordability low awareness of and limitations in technical capacity. The limited diffusion of
solar technology can be attributed to a wide range of factors associated with players on every
level of the value chain from the end user through to the investors (6). Various factors affect
choice and the penetration of PV lighting systems in rural Africa including access to finance,
distribution challenges, consumer education, market spoilage due to substandard products,
government policies and after sale support. The challenges affecting the growth of the solar
energy industry in Africa can be grouped into the following four categories (6):

a. Enabling environment: Kenya’s applies the Least Cost Power Development Plan (LCPDP) i.e.
lowest overall economic cost options - for development of new energy generation. On this
basis solar energy sources are often relegated on previous assumptions that solar energy is
too expensive. This policy stance and presumption limits growth of solar home solutions
and other off-grid uses in rural areas. This standpoint is changing because of active donor
support for solar energy.
b. Access to finance/affordability: Access to finance is considered as the major challenge to the

penetration of solar energy technology. The impacts of limited financing are felt on all
levels of the supply value chain from the manufacturer through to the importers,
distributors, dealers and finally the consumer. Lack of concrete information about the solar
industry is a major barrier to investment. Further, limited awareness of market trends and
rates of return alongside fears of political instability continue to raise the risk elements for
investors. . Over reliance to foreign skills combined with high interest rates similarly affects
the viability of solar energy projects.. With strategic negotiation between the various actors
and well-structured financial models, solar projects can attract lower capital cost.
c. Awareness: Lack of awareness by consumer has been considered as among the top three
challenges facing the penetration of PV systems in Kenya and the rest of Africa (6). When
there is high presence of products that are sub-standards in the market spoilage occurs.
Cheap products that have poor quality results make market penetration difficulty since the
consumers no longer trust the technology. Therefore the target market awareness levels of
the energy generation options available, quality and their benefits is important to overcome
market spoilage. In a study carried out by the Lumina Project on LED torches in East Africa, it
was found that 90% of the users experienced quality-related problems during the six-month
study period (Tracy et al. 2010) In 2009, Lighting Africa undertook the quality testing of solar
10
products in the African market; the study revealed that 13 out of the 14 Pico PV products
in circulation did not pass quality tests. A follow-up round of tests in 2012 returned results
where 46 of the 120 products available in the market passed the quality tests.
Consumer education is considered as an expensive hurdle that needs to be overcome for
the solar products to develop a client base especially in the rural settings.
d. Access to technical support services: Ensuring that there is technical assistance in the
proximity of the technology consumer plays a major role in overcoming market spoilage.
The availability of trusted technicians with the knowhow of trouble shooting, repair and
maintenance of solar systems within the end user locality increases their trust. With the
uniqueness of the most of the solar energy products, it is necessary to localise their
maintenance capacity especially where these technologies are being marketed. However,
due to the scattered nature of end-users in rural areas linked to their limited buying
10
A Pico PV system is defined as a small PV-system with a power output of 1 to 10W, mainly used for lighting and thus
able to replace unhealthy and inefficient sources such as kerosene lamps and candles

capability makes the concept of setting up maintenance centres in the distribution regions
unattractive.

3.2.3. Wind energy

Wind turbines generating electricity several turbine types exist but presently the most common
configuration has become the horizontal axis
three bladed turbines (Figure 15).The rotor
may be positioned up or downwind (although
the former is probably the most common).
Wind turbine produces power by converting
the force of the wind (kinetic energy) acting
on the rotor blades (rotational energy) into
torque (turning force or mechanical energy).
This rotational energy is used either within a
generator to produce electricity or, perhaps
less common only, it is used directly for
driving equipment such as milling machines or
water pumps (often via conversion to linear
motion for piston pumps). Water pumping
applications are more common in developing
countries.
Modern wind turbines vary in size with two
Figure 12: Horizontal axis three bladed market ranges: small units rated at just a few
wind turbine, (19) hundred watts up to 50-80 kW in capacity,
used mainly for rural and stand-alone power
systems; and large units, from 150 kW up to 5 MW in capacity, used for large-scale, grid-
connected systems. The dissemination of wind pumps in selected African countries by 2008 is
shown in Table 7 (2). Preliminary wind power potential (density) in the country is estimated to
be around 350 W/m2 in several isolated regions and would therefore considered to be suitable
for wind power development. (AHK 2013)

Table 7: Average wind speed potentials and number of wind pumps for selected
countries in Africa, (Karekezi et al. 2003)
Table 8: Strengths and weaknesses of wind energy systems, (UNIDO 2010)
Grid-connected wind turbines are mainly through large-scale installations either on land (on-
shore) or in the sea on the continental shelf (off-shore). In addition, smaller machines are now
being grid-connected. This principle can be used to contribute to a more decentralized grid
network and/or to support a weak grid. Wind turbines do, however, generate electricity

intermittently in correlation to the underlying fluctuation of the wind. Because wind turbines do
not produce power constantly and at their rated power (which is only achieved at higher wind
speeds) capacity
factors (i.e. actual
annual energy output
divided by the
theoretical maximum
output) are typically
between 20 per cent
and 30 per cent. One of
the principal areas of
concerns of wind
energy is its variable
power output, which
can create network
problems as the share Figure 13: Power curve of small wind turbines, (Anon n.d.)
of intermittent
generation on the grid rises.
The most common stand-alone wind turbines involve the use of a wind generator to maintain
an adequate level of charge in an electrical storage battery. The battery in turn can provide
electricity on demand for electrical applications such as lights, radios, refrigeration,
telecommunications, etc., irrespective of whether or not the wind is blowing. A controller is also
used to ensure that the batteries are not damaged by overcharging (when surplus energy is
dissipated through a dump load) or excessive discharge, usually by sensing low voltage. Loads
connected to the battery can either be DC or AC (via an inverter).
Small wind battery charging systems are most commonly rated at between 25-100 W for a
10m/s wind speed, and are quite small with a rotor diameter of 50 cm to 1 m. These systems
are suitable for remote settlements. Larger stand-alone systems, incorporating larger wind
electricity generators and correspondingly larger battery banks (at an increased cost) are also
available, these may include other renewable energy technologies, such as PV, as well as diesel
generators to ensure that the batteries are always charged and that power availability is high.
Less common is the stand-alone system which does not incorporate a battery back. This involves
the use of a wind turbine with, at least, a diesel generator, which will automatically supply
power when required. This has the advantage of not requiring a battery bank but the required
control systems are complex.
Wind turbines for water pumping most common type is the wind pump which uses the wind’s
kinetic energy to lift water. Wind pumps are typically used for water supply (livestock or human
settlements) or small-scale irrigation.

3.1.3 Challenges for small wind turbine in rural and peri-urban areas
Cost of technology: Cost remains to be the most influential factor for the deployment of small
wind turbines (SWTs.) In Europe, the installed cost of a SWT ranges from 2.100 to 7.400 € per
kW and the electricity production cost between 0,15 to 0,30 € per kWh. Within this spot,
competitiveness of the sector is linked to the possibility of reducing the technology costs and be
in such parity with the energy trading, so that the SWT technology is attractive to the targeted
market. (7)
Site selection: Wind resource assessment stands a delicate drawback for SWT. Accurate
prediction of the wind speed is essential to calculate the electricity output of a wind turbine,
representing the basis for economic performance. Wind evaluation currently presents
challenges for the small wind industry owing to the fact that assessments are site specific and
time consuming. This means that wind energy development requires some initial investment for
careful wind prospecting. Good equipment and quality work is needed, both being cost-
intensive.
In urban areas, the shading and turbulence effect of surrounding obstacles produces
inconsistent and unpredictable wind patterns below 30 m. As a result, the vast demand for
inexpensive and efficient methods of predicting and collecting local wind data is another key
driving factor that requires further innovation and cost reduction in the technology.
Wind resource database: The Ministry of Energy (MoE) has made some progress in this area but
suppliers of wind turbines often rely on meteorological data and customers’ observations to
determine whether particular site is viable. Such information may not be available or misleading
and could lead to installation of poorly performing or non-performing systems.
Aesthetic, noise and vibration: Noise emission is one of the major concerns of SWTs one, which
are mostly erected into the urban areas. Tonal noise emitted from the wind turbine
installations, such as gearboxes or electrical power transmission parts, vibration excitation
mechanism is resonance of the dominant whirling mode of the turbine, aesthetic issues are key
enablers for the social acceptance of these systems poses an environmental and social
acceptance problem especially in urban environment.
Low awareness: Majority of people in the target areas have no previous experience or
knowledge of wind system. There is generally low public awareness for wind energy.
Local capacities: Areas in the Northern Kenya that have the highest potential for wind energy
generation have poorly developed local technical capacities for grid integration and system
management due to the early stage of the market development for grid-connected systems.
Activities for capacity development are necessary

4. Approach and Methododology of study
4.1. Approach
The present study is based on the hypothesis that low-cost green technologies have potential to
sustainably improve access to safe drinking water and sanitation services in Kenya.
The study follows a stepwise process on the applicability, scalability and sustainability of each selected
technology to provide lasting services in a specific context and on the readiness for its introduction
(Washtech and Skat Foundation 2013). The process entails the application of various methodologies to
access (a) the technical (types of technologies and materials required, skills and knowledge required and
potential technology providers), (b) the economic (cost effectiveness, price of materials, operation and
maintenance costs, current demand and supply) and (c) the social feasibilities (potential to create
employment, attitude and perception, land use patterns, gender and governance issues) of the selected
low cost technologies.
The data and information needed will be collected through secondary data collection (e.g. extensive
desk studies including scientific articles, reports etc.) and primary data collection through field visit in
the target counties described in 2.3 and Annex V. The field visit will be conducted by the consultant who
will be assisted by field assistants for the purposes of maximizing responses and translating the designed
survey tools (users’ questionnaire, water manager questionnaire, focus group discussion, observations
and key informant semi-structured interviews). The use of the various survey tools will ensure
triangulation of data, so as to allow validation of the data collected from different sources. All relevant
actors will be involved in the collection of data and in the generation and discussion of results. This
allows a wide range of actors to bring in their perspectives and views, including representatives from
national and county government, private sector and technology users such as communities.
The study will use mixed-method and experimental design that creates a representative sample for the
data collection. The team will ensure in-person site visits and data collection at all of the sample
locations, and maximize the use of existing valid data resources to help assess the reality of the
hypothesis.
Appreciation will be given to the following when undertaking the data collection and analysis:
 Integrity – being true to oneself is a personal core value of each of the consultants as well as
being true to the assignment as a research ethic.
 Flexibility – maintaining a reflective review process is a crucial component of developing and
implementing any consultancy assignment in order to capture unexpected risks or results.
 Informed – implying a thorough understanding of the principles of performance assessment and
development of water supply sector in Kenya and differing enabling environments.
 Insightful – to ensure the approach is insightful the consultants have drawn on known
methodologies for undertaking such an assignment.
 Objectivity – in order to minimise the risk of subjectivity a mixed method design is proposed
where qualitative data will be used to triangulate quantitative data analysis.

4.2. Overall study proces
The different stages followed in the study process are outlined in Table 9 below.
Stage 1: the objective is to understand fully the precise objectives of the technology assessment
and to tailor the survey and reporting against these. The background situation and stakeholder
involvement will help to gain a fuller understanding of the context and background.
Stage 2: aims to prepare and agree on well-defined research questions that need to be addressed
and which will affect the choice of data collection tools to be used. Different quantitative and
qualitative analysis methods will be used to provide strong evidence of achievement against the key
research questions.
Stage 3: aims at collecting data that will enable to answer the identified research questions.
Stage 4 & 5: stage 4 and 5 involve data analysis and elaboration of report, based on the date
gathered in stage 3.
Table 9: Study Process
1. Planning for 2. Design Study 3. Collecting 4. Analysing

Research information information 5. Finalisation
Baselines and
damage control Reporting
What do we Indicators Purpose
want to know?
Dissemination
Different kinds of Key research Methods
information questions
(quantitative and
qualitative)
Methodology
How will we get

the information?
Who should be
involved?

4.3. Research Questions
To provide a better understanding of the study and its main objectives, it is necessary to set up the
study result areas based on the key areas of assessments (technical, economic and social) and develop
research question around these result areas. As mentioned, the main objective of the study is to analyse
the technological viabilities of solar, wind pumping systems and water pans in term of their availability,
accessibility, affordability and acceptability, as these factors are known to have influence on the
successful uptake and sustainability of low cost technologies for sustainable water supply. A technology
is therefore technically viable if it is durable, reliable at all times during various climate extremes and has
the capacity to address users' needs. Based on the economic aspects, a technology is deemed viable if it
is cost effective in terms of its' capital cost, operation and maintenance and whether these costs are
sustainable. Finally, a technology is deemed viable if it is socially acceptable, transformative in term of
job creation and improved livelihoods, and if it is inclusive in the sense that it allows an equitable access
to water by both men and women. As a result the three key research questions that will be addressed in
the feasibility study are the following:
1. Do the identified green technologies provide functional mechanism for climate proofed water
supply?
2. Do the identified green technology cost effectively and sustainably increase water supply in the
target areas.
3. What are the community's attitudes and perceptions of the specific technologies for water
supply?’
The figure below summaries the rationale behind the study's key research questions;


KEY AREAS RESULT AREA RESEARCH QUESTIONS OUTCOME
Do the identified technologies

provide functional mechanism for
climate proofed water supply?
Do the identified green An assessment of the

technology cost-effectively and suitability of specific low-cost
sustainably increase water supply technologies to improve water
in target areas services in the target areas
What are the community attitudes

and perceptions of the specific
technology for water supply?
Figure 14: Key areas and Research Questions

Based on the research questions outlined above, in depth analysis will focus on sustainability
indicators considering the functional conditions of the identified technologies, including the
financial, social, institutional, legal, environmental, technical, and capacity-related aspects, from
the perspectives of three key actor groups: (i) users/buyers, (ii) producers/providers, and (iii)
regulators/investors/facilitators. For each match of dimension and perspective an indicator is
selected. For each of the 18 indicators, questions are developed and answers will be collected
from the identified key actors during the field visits.
Perspectives of Key Actors

User/buyer Producer/Provider Regulator/ investor/ facilitator
Social 1) Demand and preference 2) Technology uptake 3) social marketing and

of the technology equitability
Sustainability Dimensions
Economics 4) Affordability / Price 5) Cost recovery/ 6) Public Benefit (priorities)

Profitability
Environmental 7) Water quality 8) Resilience of water su 9) Reduce vulnerability,
pply impact on health
Legal and 10) Responsiveness, friendly 11) Model of delivery, 12) Alignment
Institutions access level laws/policy/strategies
Skill and 13) Ease to use and manage 14) Skills for operation 15) Capacity for monitoring,
Knowledge and maintenance evaluation and technology
validation
Technological 16) Capacity, reliability to 17) durability , 18) Deployment/ up-scaling
meet demand serviceability technology
Table 10: Technology adaptation indicators from the perspectives of different actors (adapted
Hostettler & Hazboun 2015)
4.4. Description of Methodology
The linkages between research questions and the choice of data collection tools and methods
applied in the present study are presented in table 11 below. A detailed description of the
specific data collection tools applied is presented below.
4.4.1. Document Review/ Secondary research

This will include a comprehensive document and data archive review in order to establish an
analytical base from which to conduct the data collection and analysis. The review will seek
data from literature to provide background on issues where information cannot be collected
verbally with key informant interviews or through questionnaires. The secondary data collection
is based on the review of:
 Strategy documents
 Project and study reports
 County/district development plan
 GOK line ministry/department reports
 Scientific articles
 Other relevant reports or documents
4.4.2. Key Informants Interviews (KII), semi-structured interviews (SSI): and Focus Group
Discussions (FGD)
A mix of semi-structured interviews for the key informants and focus group discussions will be
used to guide the qualitative data collection process. Interviews will be conducted with the line
ministries staff, Implementation agencies staff, key community leaders, technology providers
and other individuals deemed resourceful to gain more in depth understanding of the identified
technologies, their technical economic and social aspects based on their experiences. Key
guiding questions will be adapted for the different types of stakeholders. The flexibility of semi-
structured interview for the key informants and focus group discussions bring a richness of
discussion and allows the participants to talk freely around the subject, allowing also new
insights on issues that were not necessarily expected beforehand. Interviews will be held
through face-to-face interaction, telephone or Skype, or a combination. The focus group
discussions will compose of a minimum of five people so as to allow the facilitator to coordinate
the discussion and avoid biases of responses from one individual.
4.4.3. Technology Survey Questionnaires

Survey questionnaires (60) have been developed with inputs from WSTF and will be used to
gather relevant information on the
selected technologies. Both quantitative
and qualitative data will be collected
using ODK mobile application Android
smartphones and displayed online.
This enables a more accurate collection
of data, which is also easier to gather
and share. Data can be collected in areas
where there is no mobile connection, as
it is automatically transmitted once a
connection is detected. Results are
made available in real time, leading to
better decisions.
A minimum of 80 technology points will be sampled and distributed across four counties. Field
survey will identify points by snowball sampling based on referral by stakeholders at the county
level, field guides and community members in target areas. The field study will take 24 days in
the targeted areas.
4.4.4. Observation
It will be important to observe progress being made and adoption of technologies being
promoted so as to get a picture of the situation on the ground.
Observations will be undertaken in the field by enumerators and summarised in the daily
summary tool (74). This will be used to inform on the technology context, especially with
regards to issues that may not be adequately captured in the questionnaires and interviews.
Observations will be very useful especially in explaining the performance of a given technology
point and will examine among others:
 Size, capacity and quality of technology and nonconformity

 State of technology e.g. the state of water pan, solar and wind installation
 Physical environment of the site e.g. the environmental hygiene and sanitation
which will be captured through the use of photographs.
 Protection systems e.g. the fencing among others
 Other aspects that may be of interest to the team
The table below describes the type of respondent for each survey tool and the factor influencing
the choice of the respondent.
Table 11: Summary of the data collection tools
Survey Tool Respondent Choice of respondent Research question answered

Water Caretaker or a The choice of respondent was  Do the identified
Manager member of the greatly influenced by the direct technologies provide
survey tool community contact with the technology in functional mechanism for
technology terms of its; climate proofed water
management - Technical operation supply?
committee - Cost of operation and  Do the identified green
maintenance, technology cost-
- Revenue collected, effectively and
- Challenges in operation and sustainably increase
maintenance of the water supply in target
technology areas
- Skills and know-how of  What are the community
technology operation of a attitudes and perceptions
respondent. of the specific technology
for water supply project?
Water user The water user The choice of respondent was  What are the community
survey tool influenced by: attitudes and perceptions
- A person daily interaction of the specific technology
with the technology during for water supply project?
obtaining water.
Semi In line ministries in The choice of respondent was;  Do the identified green
Structured national and local - The ability to obtain first- technology cost-
interview government, Water hand knowledge on low cost effectively and
form/ Focus Resources technologies that enhances sustainably increase
group Management sustainable water supply in water supply in target
Discussions Authority, Water the study area areas
services boards,
water services  Do the identified green
providers, civil society technology cost-
organizations and effectively and
community sustainably increase
management water supply in target
committee areas
Field The field assistants observation and examination on  Observation will
Observation the technology sites to capture complement:
the technology condition  Do the identified
technologies provide
functional mechanism for
climate proofed water

supply?
Case study Field Assistants Unique observations on the  Do the identified

tool holistic operation of a technology technologies provide
based on its operation and functional mechanism for
maintenance, its development, climate proofed water
its management and on its supply?
interaction with the larger
community were captured
through the use of the case study
survey tool.
Daily Report Field Assistant The tool will give a summary of Complement all the research
Tool the day’s activity questions
4.4.5. Methodological limitations and Mitigation of risks

The methodological limitations and risk mitigation measures of each of the tools used as part of
this study are summarised in the table below.
Table 12: Methodological Limitation and Mitigation measures

Category Methodological limitations Risk mitigation measures
Literature Large number of documents to be - Conduct broad literature review
review collected from various sources and informative interviews and
discussions with WSTF and
relevant stakeholders to ensure
access to relevant documents.
- Researcher will focus on
documents that specifically
discuss selected of green
technologies and climate
change risk in water supply to
low-income population segment
Semi- - Large number of people are involved - Make careful selection of
structured with technology therefore making it respondents taking to account
interviews difficult to select the key informant the study objectives and WSTF
selection based on their extensive projects mandate.
undertaken - Develop different templates for
- Same template may not work for all different groups of stakeholders
interviews and conversation guidelines (Policy makers, implementers
need adapted to the respondent’s and management committee)
background / specific area of expertise - The evaluation team takes only
which make analysis more complex recurrent topics into account in

the report.
Mobile - Someone has to go through the - Recruit and train enumerators

Tools questionnaire with respondent, which to support principal researcher
is time-consuming and may result in a - Complement with significant
limited number of respondents that change stories and case
can be reached studies in which the
- With questionnaire mobile tool it is respondents tell the situation in
not possible to explore what people their own words
are saying any further
Focus - Risks of not capturing important Focus groups interviews should be
groups information being discussed. recorded and then transcribed.
Participant - It may be difficult to observe and Survey undertaken by team or 2 or

observation participate. The process is very time- 3 enumerators
consuming.
4.5. Key Stakeholder Selection
The main partners for this study are the Water Services Trust Fund being the primary
beneficiary institution and originator of request for the CTCN technical assistance, Kenya
Industrial Research and Development Institute (KIRDI) as the National Designated Entity (NDE),
Ministry of Environment & Natural Resources, Ministry of Water and Irrigation and the Danish
Embassy in Kenya who are supporting green growth water investment programme 2016-2020
Key stakeholders have been identified by purposive sampling in discussion with WSTF. These
include the Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA), Water Services Regulatory Board
(WASREB), Water Services Board, National Environment Management Authority (NEMA),
Ministry of Energy Renewable Energy companies Local and International institutions of higher
learning and County authorities and water services providers. The latter two carry legal
mandate and investment in water supply. Other stakeholders involved in the study include
communities and implementing partners, technology providers (e.g. Davis and Shirtliff11,
Gosolar12, and Kenital13), practitioner associations (Kenya Renewable Energy Association14 and
Kenya Water Industry Association15, Institution of Engineers of Kenya16) and NGOs implementing
water solutions (53).
11
https://www.davisandshirtliff.com/
12
http://www.gosolarltd.com/
13
http://www.kenital.com/
14
http://kerea.org/
15
http://www.kwia.org/
16
http://www.iekenya.org/

Pre-field stakeholder meetings will be held with WSTF and county official before starting field
activities in each target area. The objective of the meetings is to get a wider understanding of
the water supply and technology status in each county, refine research questions and data
collection instruments and review available data sources from related project by other players.
The meetings will also be used to discuss study logistics and the study processes.
Other key stakeholders will also be consulted throughout the data collection process to ensure
inclusivity, focus and alignment with the broader study objectives. Participating in obtaining
divergent data from various sources will also provide a means to test and gather ideas, fill in
possible data gaps and allow feedback by key stakeholders for the dual purpose of validating
key assumptions and findings and to trigger discussion around previously un-captured ideas.
4.6. Ethical Considerations
The study will be undertaken with a strong understanding of ethical considerations. Focus will
be placed on establishing good relations between the enumerator and the respondents on the
one hand, and between the team and the community on the other hand. Informed consent of
the respondent will be sought, and the source of information collected during this study will not
be disclosed without the consent of the respondents. Unrealistic promises are avoided in the
entire study period by properly explaining to the consenting respondents that participation in
the research is voluntary and that they should not expect any reward in return. The time for
FGD administration will be negotiated with the participants to guarantee their active
participation without compromising their major daily livelihood activities.
4.7. Preparation of tools and ‘training’

Before embarking on the field study various preparation on the survey tool and field assistant
training will take place to ensure that all the assistants has a complete understanding of the
purpose and procedures of the feasibility study. The consultant will conduct a familiarisation
session to review the research questions and the data collection instruments. By the end of the
training it is expected that there will be a good common understanding of the study indicators
and how to respond to the questionnaires.
During the training, the following areas will be highlighted:
 Explanation of the survey justification and objectives
 Courtesy and ethical aspects of research
 Taking participants through the questionnaire and explaining how they should fill it.
 Simulation on questionnaire administration.

4.8. Sampling Plan - Cluster Selection and Sample Size
In designing this study, the four selected counties were drawn upon the nationally
representative sample within the seven ecological zones in Kenya mainly humid, sub-humid,
semi-humid, semi-humid to semi-arid, semi-arid, arid and very arid and the peri-urban areas in
these counties. Further, study areas within these counties will be identified through cluster
sampling through the use of electoral administrative and electoral boundaries. The electoral
wards within each county will be listed and used as the basic clusters. The study clusters will
then be randomly selected from the list of electoral wards. Exact technology points will be
identified by snowball or referral sampling by stakeholders and community members at the
county level, field guides and survey participants in target areas.
Table 13: Sampling process template

County District Location Technology
Sub-County Total Ward Population size Sampled Ward Sampled Total nos (if
Technology known)
County A1 xx xx A11 A xx
A B xx
C
A12 D xx
E xx
F xx
G xx
Sub Total
Sub-County A1 Subtotal xx
A2 xx xx A21 H xx
J xx
K xx
Sub Total
Sub-County A2 Subtotal xx
County A Total xx xx (xx %)
County B1 xx xx B11 L xx
B M xx
N xx
Sub Total
Sub-County B1 Sub Total xx
B2 xx xx B21 O xx
P xx
Q
B3 xx xx B31 R xx
S xx
T xx
Sub Total
GRAND TOTAL XX XX (XX %)
(National)

4.9. Risks in the field
a. Security
The security situation in Isiolo and Baringo is very unpredictable due to presence of various
groups of bandits, hence a contingency plan to revise planned study area as determined by
security situation on the ground.
b. Language
Language barriers will be managed by recruiting enumerators from the area. While translation
of the tools into local language may not be necessary, the tools will be thoroughly discussed and
a common understanding of the questions developed. Pre-testing of the questionnaire during
the training of the enumerators will help clarity potential language difficulties.
c. Sites Accessibility
Long distance to sites constitutes a challenge to access the sites and start field work early, both
for research team and respondents. This challenge will be tackled by enumerators working late
to complete the day-to-day's assignments.
The data collection will take place during the rainy season in Kenya and it is therefore possible
that some parts of the target areas will be inaccessible or difficult to access. It is anticipated that
the use of four wheeled vehicles will minimise this risk.
4.10. Analysing of data and information
The analysis will turn the detailed

Determine key indicators for the assessment
information into an understanding
process
of patterns, spatial distribution of
technology, trends and
interpretations. Collect information around the indicators
The starting point for the analysis

will be the intuitive understanding of Develop a structure for analysis, based on intuitive
qualitative data coming out of understanding of emerging themes and concerns,
and suspected variations from the expected.
information gathering process, and
in this way establish links between
the study objectives and the
summary findings derived from the Organising data under the themes and concerns
raw data.
Analytical or methodical treatment
Identify patterns, trends, possible interpretations.
of data combining graphical
analysis17, contigency tables or cross
tabulation18 and statistical Write up findings and conclusions. Work out
summaries will be adopted for all possible ways forward (recommendations).
Figure 15: The process of data and information analysis

17
Graphical depiction of data using charts, figures and graphs
18
Matrix format table that displays frequency distribution of variables

collected data types.
4.10.1. Data processing, reduction and cleaning

Data reduction19 will be incorporated before analysis of data. Data reduction entails
transforming responses into a clustered and simplified form around key variables. Data
reduction will allow reduction of multitudinous amounts of data into simpler and meaningful
form.
4.10.2. Data analysis and presentation

SPSS DE version 13 will be used to analyse quantitative data obtained from the field activity
whereas qualitative data will be analysed through the inductive approach which will entail
grouping the data and looking for relationships.
The results will be presented in tabulations, charts and blending of narratives collected from the
semi structured interviews from key informants and focus group discussions with the statistical
findings. Notes generated from the Focus Group Discussions, key informants interviews and
documents reviews will be summarized to key points.
The Key points are then be used to validate the statistics and information generated from the
water manager survey tool. To ensure data security, passwords for computers and databases,
lockable cabinets and other security measures will be employed.
4.10.3. Data quality

Data quality will be assured by way of triangulating the data. This will be achieved by collection
of data from various methods described above as well as the use of divergent methodologies.
Triangulation of data is expected to strengthen the feasibility report due to increased credibility
and validity of the data collected through:
a. Data source triangulation— Achieved through using evidence from different types of data
sources, such as primary and
secondary research or
interviews, documents, ,
photographs and
observations
b. Methodology
triangulation—achieved by
way of combining multiple
methods to gather data,
such as documents,
interviews, observations,
questionnaires or surveys.
19
Miles, M. B and Huberman, A. M (1994), qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd ed, Sage
Figure 16: Aspects of data quality

The following data quality dimensions defined the threshold for the weighting and ensuring the
obtained data is an accurate measure.
The aspects are defined below on how their significantly contributed to the data quality as
whole.
 Validity: Are all the data values within the value domains specified by the research
questions?
 Accuracy: Does the data reflect the real world observations?
 Consistency: is data consistence between the various survey tools?
 Integrity: are the relations between entities and attributes consistent?
 Timeliness: is the data available in the time needed
 Completeness: is all necessary data present
4.11. Summary of the research design
The table below outlines the various sources of data to be obtained to answer the outlined
research questions, the best suited data collection method for each identified source and the
type of analysis suited for each collected type of data.

Table 14: Summary of Research design
Research question Specific Result Area Source of Data Data collection Data Analysis Interviewees
techniques/tools
Assessing Technology - Water sector stakeholders (MoWI, county - Frequencies for quantitative data
Durability Governments, WSPs)/partners(NGOs, CBOs,
donors)/ beneficiaries
Do the identified - WSTF and other Water sector institutions Literature review, Survey
technologies provide - Documents questionnaire, Key Informant
functional mechanism for Assessing Technology - Water sector stakeholders/partners/ Interviews (KIIs), SSI, Focus - thematically for qualitative data Selected stakeholders
climate proofed water reliability beneficiaries Group Discussions (FGDs), (County Government,
supply? - WSTF and other Water sector institutions observation WSPS, MoWI, MENR, NGOS,
country programs document CBOs, WRMA, WASREB,
Assessing Technology - Water sector stakeholders/partners/ - graphical and contingency table for WRUAs)
capacity beneficiaries Categorical, ordinal and interval data
- WSTF and other Water sector institutions
country programs document
Do the identified green Assessing Technology cost - Water sector stakeholders (technology Literature review, survey - SPSS for quantitative data
technology cost effectively effectiveness supplies for waterpans, wind and solar questionnaire, KIIs, SSI, FGDs - graphical and contingency table for
and sustainably increase pumps/partners/ beneficiaries Categorical, ordinal and interval data Water Committee and
water supply in the target - Capital cost O&M plans (if available) services technology caretakers,
areas? Assessing Technology - Water sector stakeholders/partners/ Literature review, survey - chi-square and t-test for quantitative technology suppliers,
sustainability beneficiaries questionnaire, KIIs, SSI, FGDs data technology financiers
- graphical and contingency table for
Categorical, ordinal and interval data
Assessing Technology - Community water committees, beneficiary - Graphical and contingency table for
acceptability community User survey questionnaire, Categorical, ordinal and interval data
What are the community KIIs, FGDs, observation, - thematically for qualitative data Technology beneficiaries,
attitudes and perceptions Assessing Technology - Community water committees, KIIs, FGDs, observation - chi-square and t-test for quantitative technology user
of specific technology for outcomes and emerging beneficiary community data
water supply? impact (transformative) - graphical and contingency table for
Categorical, ordinal and interval data
Assessing the technology - Community water committees, beneficiary - thematically for qualitative data
ability to influence community
community inclusiveness
4.10.4. Gender Factor in Anlalysis
The data collected will be sex-disaggregated data to allow for the measurement of gender
differences on various social and economic dimensions related to the identified technologies.
Including a gender analysis in this assessment is essential, since both women and men are
affected by the technology and their impacts on sustainable water supply in various different
ways.
Enumerators shall include men and women, and deliberate effort to encourage gender diversity
and excluded groups will be made.
4.11. Reporting
The table tabulates different reporting and communication mechanisms appropriate for
different stakeholders and at different times during the study.
Target group Appropriate format
Study Team, WSTF, Written Draft and Final reports, presented verbally at the Inception,
NDE and Key after field mission and Feasibility study
stakeholders
Donors, CTCN Full written report with executive summary or a special version,
focused on donor/financier concerns and interests.
Wider development Journal articles, dissemination workshop websites.

community
4.11.1. Writing and quality assurance

The writing of the reports (draft and final) will be subject to review by UNEP DTU Partnership,
WSTF contact person(s) and NDE focal person before submission as draft and final reports.
5. Bibliography
1. AHK, 2013. Target Market Study Kenya Solar PV & Wind Power. , (July), pp.1–77.
2. Alberto Lemma, Marie-Agnes Jouanjean, Emily Darko. Climate change, private sector
and value chains: Constraints and adaptation strategies. s.l. : Pathways to Resilience in
Semi-arid Economies (PRISE), 2015.
3. Anon, Domestic Wind Turbines - 1 - 6 kW.pdf.
4. APEC, Batiment Engineering & Associates /. Muranga County Water Services
Management Rationalization and Master Plan. 2015.
5. Buildings End-Use Energy Efficiency Technology Demonstrations. [Online] [Cited: 16
January 2017.] http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/buildings/demonstrations.html.
6. Central Bureau of Statistics. Republic of Kenya Economic Survey. Nairobi, Kenya. :
Ministry of Planning and National Development, 1991.
7. Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles (Kenya). FAO. [Online] [Cited: 17 January
2017.] http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/Kenya.htm.
8. Global, R. et al., 2015. Kenya Resilient Arid Lands Partnership for Integrated
Development ( KENYA RAPID ). , (202).
9. Government of Kenya, M. of W. and I., 2015. Practice Manual for Small Dams , Pans and
Other Water Conservation Structures. , p.371. Available at:
http://smalldamsguidelines.water.go.ke/useful_downloads/pdf/PRACTICE_MANUAL_F
OR_SMALL_DAMS_PANS_AND_OTHER_WATER_CONSERVATION_STRUCTURES_IN_KEN
YA.pdf.
10. Hostettler, S. & Hazboun, E., 2015. Technologies for Development. Technologies for
Development. What is Essential?, pp.55–69.
11. Jenkins, J. & Mansur, S., 2011. Bridging the Clean Energy Valleys of Death. Breakthrough
institute, (November), p.22.
12. Kamp, L.M. & Vanheule, L.F.I., 2015. Review of the small wind turbine sector in Kenya:
Status and bottlenecks for growth. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 49,
pp.470–480. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.082.
13. Karekezi, S., Kithyoma, W. & Initiative, E., 2003. Renewable energy development.
workshop on African Energy Experts on Operationalizing the NEPAD Energy Initiative,
June, pp.2–4.
14. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS), 2012. 2009 Kenya Population and Housing
Census Analytical Report on Population Projections Volume XIV. , XIV(March), pp.1–13.
15. Kernaghan, Sam. 2012 : ISET-International.
16. KERNAGHAN, SAM. Technical Feasibility Assessments. s.l. : ISET-International , 2012.
17. Kiplagat, J.K., Wang, R.Z. & Li, T.X., 2011. Renewable energy in Kenya: Resource
potential and status of exploitation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(6),
pp.2960–2973.
18. Light by Solar. [Online] [Cited: 16 January 2017.] http://lightbysolar.co.uk/solar-water-
pumps-irrigation-water-purifier/.
19. Mateche, Damaris E. The Cycle of Drought in Kenya a Looming Humanitarian Crisis.
[Online] Environmental Security Programme. [Cited: 13 11 2016.]
https://www.issafrica.org/iss-today/the-cycle-of-drought-in-kenya-a-looming-
humanitarian-crisis.
20. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Kenya . World Water celebrations Day
2015. [Online] [Cited: 09 November 2016.] http://www.environment.go.ke/?p=869.
21. Murphy, Andrew C. Learning Hub - IT Options Summary. [Spreadsheet] 2010.

22. Murphy, Andrew C. Learning Hub, Information TEchnology (IT) - Solutions Options
Document. 20 December 2010.
23. Orodho, Apollo Bwonya. Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles. FAO. [Online] 2006.
[Cited: 10 November 2016.]
http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/counprof/kenya/Kenya.htm#2..
24. Philippa Marshall, Phil Wallace, M.B., Module 2: The energy sector in Africa. Sustainable
Energy Regulation and Policymaking for Africa, The Energy Sector in Africa, pp.8–9.
25. Silva, Izael P. Da. The four barriers for the diffusion of solar energy technologies in
Africa: Trends in Kenya. Africa Policy Review. [Online] [Cited: 04 January 2017.]
http://africapolicyreview.com/analysis/four-barriers-diffusion-solar-energy-
technologies-africa-trends-kenya/.
26. Sombroek, W.G., Braun, H.M.H. & van der Pouw, B.J. a, 1982. Exploratory soil map and
agro-climatic zone map of Kenya, 1980. , p.60.
27. TEC, 2014. Technologies for Adaptation in the Water Sector. , p.12.
28. The challenges. SWIP website. [Online] [Cited: 04 January 2017.]
http://swipproject.eu/?page_id=12073.
29. Threapleton, Noel. Learning Hub Information Technology (IT )Program, Business
Requirements Document. Adelaide, SA, Australia : s.n., 28 September 2010.
30. Tracy, J., Jacobson, A. & Mills, E., 2010. Assessing the Performance of LED-Based
Flashlights Available in the Kenyan Off-Grid Lighting Market. , pp.1–20.
31. UNIDO, 2010. Module 7: Renewable Energy Technologies. Sustainable energy regulation
and policymaking for Africa, p.473.
32. UNIDO/REEEP. Sustainable energy regulation and policymaking training manual
(Module 7). December, 2008.
33. University of Adelaide. Learning Hub Aspirational Brief. Adelaide, South Australia,
Australia : s.n., 26 February 2010.
34. US Energy Information and Adminstration . Types of Wind Turbines. [Online] [Cited: 16
January 2017.]
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=wind_types_of_turbines.
35. Washtech and Skat Foundation, 2013. Technology Applicability Framework ( TAF )
Manual,
36. WASHTech, 2011. Africa wide water, sanitation and hygiene technology review. Irc,
(November).
37. WASHtech. The challenge of technology in WASH. Technology Applicability Framework .
[Online] [Cited: 29 October 2016.] http://washtechnologies.net/en/taf/background.
38. WASREB, 2014. IMPACT: A Performance Review of Kenya’s Water Services Sector 2011 -
2012. , (7), p.92. Available at: http://wasreb.go.ke/impact-reports.
39. Water Services Regulatory Board (WSRB), 2016. A Performance Review of Kenya’s
Water Services Sector 2014 - 2015. , (9).
40. WSTF, 2014. WATER SECTOR TRUST FUND STRATEGIC PLAN, 2014-2019. , (June).

Appendix
I. FINAL REPORT OUTLINE
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
2. Approach to study
2.1. Objectives
2.2. Selection of technologies – Technical, social, economic and environmental
parameters
2.3. Potential of Selected low-cost technologies for water services
2.4. Description of assessment methods
3. Green infrastructure and Renewable Energy Developments Potential for
adaptation and resilience in Kenya
Context Analysis
3.1. Institutional and Policy Framework for water, energy and climate
3.1.1. International
3.1.2. National
3.2. Demographic studies (Target Counties)
3.3. Water resources availability and services coverage
Technology Analysis
3.4. Solar Energy Resources Potential
3.5. Wind Energy Resources Potential
3.6. Water Storage potential
4. Embedding Low cost green technology in water services for climate adaptation
and resilience
4.1. Existing infrastructure
4.2. New infrastructure
5. Analysis of Findings
5.1. Governance, organizational, and enabling environment
5.2. Technical Analysis (capacity, reliability, durability)
5.3. Social Assessment (acceptability, inclusion, transformative)
5.4. Economics Analysis (cost effectiveness, benefits)
5.5. Environmental and climate risk assessment (risk mitigation, resilience,
adaptation capacity)
5.6. Financial Mechanisms and financing opportunities
5.7. Technology risk and sustainability analysis
5.8. Suitability, replicability and up-scaling

5.9. Potential for Private sector engagement (PPPs)
6. Key messages/recommendations
Annexes
 County profile
 List of Participants and consultation
 Survey tools
 Drawings

II. LIST ALL KEY PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS
CATEGORY ORGANIZATIONS ROLE STUDY RESPONSIBILITY CONTACT

Ministry of Water and Irrigation Policy formulator Provide insight on the country water Prof. Fred H. K. Segor P.O.BOX
(MoWI) status 49720-00100, Maji House, 6th Floor,
Ngong Road,
Tel: (25420) 271-6103
fksegor@yahoo.com
Eng. Lawrence N. Simitu,

watersecretary@water.go.ke
Eng. Kimathi Kyengo
Water Services Trust Fund Assist in financing the provision Assists in provision of data on the Ismail Fahmy M. Shaiye
NATIONAL (WSTF) of water services to areas of various project it has handled in the P.O.BOX 49699-00100, CIC Plaza,
Kenya which are without study areas Mara Road
GOVERNMENT
adequate water services Offer guidance and support during the Tel : (25420) 272-0696
study
ismail.shaiye@waterfund.go.ke
Willis Ombai
willis.ombai@waterfund.go.ke
Water Resources Management Lead agency in the management Provision of water points data
Authority (WRMA) of water resources in the country. Provision of information on ground
water table in the selected area
Water Services Regulatory Board Oversee the implementation of Advise of water tariffs which is critical
(WASREB) policies and strategies relating to in the study economic feasibility
provision of water and sewerage
services
Energy Regulatory Commission Regulate the electrical energy, Provide information on the renewable
(ERC) petroleum and related products, energy potential in the country
renewable energy and other forms
of energy.
Dr Pacifica F. Achieng Ogola |
Director Climate Change

Programmes Coordination
Directorate of Climate Change| State
Department of Environment
Ministry of Environment and Natural
Resources
NHIF Building, 12th Floor, Ragati
Road
P. O. Box 30126 -00100
NAIROBI
Cell Phone:+254 722 296396

Email: pacie04@yahoo.co.uk
Skype: pacie03
National Environmental Oversee the implementation of all Currently working on the Green Prof. Geoffrey M. Wahungu
Management Authority (NEMA) policies relating to environment Climate Fund an will assist in provision P.O.BOX 67839-00200, Eland House,
of information and guidance to the Pepo Road off Mombasa Road
technical aspects of the identified
Tel: (254206) 000-5522
technology in respect to the study
gwahungu@nema.go.ke
National Drought Management Establish mechanisms which Water plays a critical role in Paul Kimeu
Authority (NDMA) ensure that drought does not management of drought. NDMA will paul.kimeu@ndma.go.ke
result in emergencies and that the provide information on how
impacts of climate change are accessibility of water can cushion
sufficiently mitigated against negative impacts of drought.
Share on some of the projects is
working on
Kenya Industrial Research and Mandated to Carry out research Play a critical role in research and Dr. Arthur S. Onyuka
Development Institute (KIRDI) and development in various development in the energy sector and P.O.BOX 30650-00100, Popo Road off
fields therefore provide insight on renewable Mombasa Road, South C
energy in regards to this study
Tel: (25471) 930-0962
RESEARCH (25420) 600-3884
ENTITIES arthuronyuka@hotmail.com
Africa Centre for Technological Pioneering in development Provide insights on the various Joan Kariuki
Studies (ACTs) research think tank on harnessing technology and innovation for +254 711 494832

applications of science, sustainable water services

technology and innovation
policies for sustainable
development in Africa
COUNTY County Department for Water County oversight on water Provision of insight on county water
GOVERNMENT services status
Water Services Providers Provide clean water and sewerage Provide information on water tariff and
services coverage especially in peri-urban
setting
Water Service Providers WASPA is an association of Maji House
Association (WASPA) Water Services Providers in the 5th Floor, Room 561
country and it provide to provide
PROFESSIONAL P.O. Box 25642-00100, Nairobi,
a forum for the various companies
ASSOCIATIONS WASPA & KWIA will provide Kenya
to learn from each other.
relevant information regarding water
services coverage in the country
Kenya Water Industry Kenya Water Industry kwiawater@gmail.com
Association (KWIA) Association (KWIA) is a private info@kwia.co.ke
sector Business Member
Organization aimed at improving
access to water in order to spur
socio-economic development and
impact lives and livelihoods
positively.
Kenya Association of Kenya Association of Manufacturer are the biggest 15 Mwanzi Road opp Westgate
Manufacturers (KAM) Manufacturers is the consumers of water, there are a main P.O Box 30225 – 00100 Nairobi
representative organisation for stakeholder in this study
Mobile: +254(0)722201368,
manufacturing value-add
+254(0)734646004/5
industries in Kenya
Tel: +254 (020) 232481
Davis and Shirtliff Supplier of water related Provision of information on available Industrial Area, Dundori Road
equipment/ technology in East low cost green technology to assist in Nairobi
African Region answering up the technical and
P.O. Box: 41762-00100 Kenya
economic questions
PRIVATE SECTOR Tel : +254-733 610085

Epi-Centre Africa Supply and Installation of Water Timothy Mutwii

Pumps, Power Generator sets, Sales engineer
Solar Power Systems, Water
Tel;+254 729 851 106
Treatment Equipment’s and
associated items. sales@epicenterafrica.com
Kenya Climate and Innovation Provides holistic, country-driven KCIC will provide useful information Edwards Mungai
Centre (KCIC) support to accelerate the on the deployment capability of the CEO
development, deployment and identified technologies based on its
Tel +254 722 733 324
transfer of locally relevant previous experiences
climate and clean energy
technologies.
SNV Provide advisory services, SNV has been keen in WASH services
promote the development and in Kenya and therefore its programmes
brokering of knowledge, and will provide insights on the possibility
support policy dialogue at the of deployment of the identified
national level technologies
Millennium Water Alliance Offering sustainable solutions MWA is engaged in various
(MWA) through advocacy, shared programme in the water sector
knowledge, and collaborative
DEVELOPNENT programming
ORGANIZATIONS
Agile Harmonized Assistance for USAID programme aimed at AHADI is a key stakeholder in this Waceke Wachira, Chief of Party
Devolved Institutions (AHADI) Strengthen the capacity of study as it has engaged in developing a AHADI Project
counties through training, water policy for Isiolo county which is
Email: waceke@ahadi-devolution.org
mentoring and technical one county in this study
assistance for key leaders –
building skills and accountability
in governance and service
delivery
Cordiad Drought risk reduction Have various projects on drought risk Mohamed Dida
reduction and therefore plays an P.O.BOX 40278-00100 , 5th Floor,
important role in sharing lessons learnt New Rehama House Rhapta Road,

Westlands
Tel: (25472) 188-4397
(25472) 220-3095
mohamed.dida@cordaid.net
DANIDA It has a thematic Programme on Provision of insight on its various Anne N. Angwenyi
Green Growth and Employment project under green growth in relation P.O.BOX 40412 - 00100 Embassy of
to sustainable water provision Denmark 13 Runda Drive
Tel: (25420) 425-3000
annean@um.dk
Adaptation Consortium The consortium has worked closely Yazan A. Elhadi
Strengthening Adaptation and with county governments on climate P.O.BOX 74247 - 00200, Bazaar
Resilience to Climate Change finance fund and therefore it will give Plaza, Biashara Strret, 2nd Floor
critical information on climate
Tel: (254737) 777-6276
adaptation through sustainable water
services yelhadi@adaconsortium.org

III. TIMEFRAMES
Months
Activities
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
1. Technology Prioritization
1.1 Prioritization and selection of
technology
1.2 Inception workshop
2. Feasibility Study of the selected
technologies
2.1 Preparation phase
2.1.1 Development of questionnaires
2.1.2 Desk study
2.1.3 Study framework and
methodology
2.1.4 Mobile Application development
2.1.5 Mobile App Pre-Test
2.1.6 Training of Enumerators
2.2 Data Collection
2.2.1 Homabay County
2.2.2 Baringo County
2.2.3 Embu County
2.2.4 Isiolo County
2.3 Data analysis and submission of final
feasibility study report
IV. SURVEY TOOLS
Technology point manager/caretaker survey questionnaire

Section 1: General Information
1. Collect GPS coordinates (automatic using mobile application)
2. Name of the interviewer
3. County:
4. Sub-county:
5. Administrative Location, Ecological Zone:
6. Photograph of the technology:
7. Year of installation /construction:
8. Weather conditions during survey
9. Period since last rainfall
Section 2: Administrative Information

10. Specific technology point
a. Water Point (go to 11)
b. Others (specify) (go to 13)
11. Type of water sources of water? (select all which applies)

a. Borehole, depth (if known)
b. Shallow wells, depth (if known)
c. Water Pan
d. Small dam
e. River
f. Others………
12. How many months in the year is water available

a. Never
b. 1 month
c. 2 months
d. 3 months
e. 3-6 months
f. 6-9 months
g. 9-12 months
h. Throughout
If not available throughout the year, why
13. Please specify energy source and application:

c. Solar powered (go to 14)
d. Wind powered (go to 15)
e. Diesel
f. Hand pump (go to 1817)
g. Grid electricity (go to 1817)

h. Gravity (go to 1817)
14. How many cells are used for the solar system?
15. Specify the wind energy?

a. Wind-electrical
b. Wind- mechanical
16. What is the height of the installed windmill? (metres)
17. Is water placed in a storage tank before distribution?

a. Yes
b. No
c. If yes, what is the size of storage, (m3)
18. Who owns the technology?

a. Community
b. Government
c. CSO
d. Private Company
e. Individual
f. Others……………..
19. Who owns the land on which the technology stands?

i. Community
ii. Individual
iii. Private Institution………….
iv. Public institution…………..
v. Others………….
20. Type of uses (Select all that applies)

a. Domestic (go to 21)
b. Institutional (go to 21 [ii] )
c. Livestock ( go to 22 23)
d. Farming (go to 24)
e. Industries
f. Others………..
21.
i. How many households are served by this technology point?
a. 0-50
b. 50-100
c. 100-150
d. 150-200

e. > 200; specify
ii. How many users are there in the institution?
22. What is the average number of individuals in a household? …….
23. How many animal are served by this technology point?

a. Cattle………..
b. Sheep & Goat………..
c. Donkey………
d. Camel……….
24. How many farmers are serviced by this technology point?

a. 0-50
b. 50-100
c. 100-150
d. 150-200
e. > 200; specify
25. What is the average size of irrigated land for each farmer?
Section 2: Financial Analysis

26. What is the source of construction finance? (Select all that applies and percentage
Contributed)
a. Donor
b. Government
c. Community
d. Private
e. Others………
27. What is the approximate construction cost?
28. What is the source of operating and maintenance finance? (Select all that applies and
percentage Contributed)
a. Donor
b. Government
c. Community
d. Private
e. Revenue
f. Others………
29. What are the main challenges experienced while using this technology? (Select all
that applies)
a. Equipment breakdown
b. Complex/difficult to operate

c. Lack of spare parts

d. Low revenues collection
e. others (specify)
30. Who operates the technology?
31. Is the caretaker/ operator skilled?

a. Yes
b. No
c. If Yes, What is his qualification?
32. Is there anyone who provides training to caretaker/ operator?

a. Government
b. technology supplier
c. NGO
d. Others (specify)
33. What are the normal operation costs of the technology?

a. Fuel cost…….
b. Operator salary…..
c. Others (specify)….
34. How often is does the system undergo maintenance?

i. Bi yearly
ii. Quarterly
iii. Yearly
iv. > Year (specify)…………
35. How long does it take for repairs to be addressed?

i. 1-3 days
ii. 4-6 days
iii. 1 week
iv. 2 Month
v. > 2 month specify………..
36. Which components of the technology fails most often?
37. What is the approximate cost of maintenance per month………
38. is any improvement that’s needed to improve performance of technology
39. Who does the maintenance?

a. County government
b. Local technician
c. External technician

d. Technology supplier
e. Others……..
40. Does the technology have

a. Operation plan (Y/N)
b. Maintenance plan (Y/N)
41. How much is charged for the water?

e. Domestic (per m3)…………
f. Cattle………..
g. Sheep & Goat………..
h. Donkey………
i. Camel……….
42. What is average amount collected in a month……….
Section 3: Technical Analysis

43. Does the technology have the capacity to handle the water needs in the community?
a. Yes
b. No
If no, what is the problem?
44. What is the capacity / size of the technology

a. If water storage…….m3
b. if borehole, yield …….m3/hour
c. If powered ………. □ watts □ kVA
45. On average, how many hours does it work in a day?.....
46. Does it work differently during different times of the day ?

a. Yes
b. No
If yes, explain………
47. Does it work differently during different times/seasons of the year?
c. Yes
d. No
48. Do you think the technology is reliable?
a. Yes
b. No
If no, why………….
49. Consumer distance to this water technology point?

a. What is the distance covered by the furthest consumer of this water

Technology? (km)
b. How much time does it take the furthest user to reach this technology point
(Minutes)
50. Average distance to alternative water sources?

c. How far is the alternative water sources from the nearest source (km)
d. How much time does it take to reach the alternative water source (minutes)
Section 4: Social Analysis

51. Which technology do you think is best to enhance water supply in the area? (max
three)
52. Are the users satisfied with the technology?

a) Very satisfied b) Satisfied c) Not satisfied d) Very Dissatisfied (if not, why?)
53. What are some of the benefits accrued by the users of this technology
54. In your perception, what are the most important water related issues in this area?
55. Are you aware if there are water uses constrained by the amount of water available
from this technology?
Section 5: Water Quality

56. Is the water good for purposes (drinking, livestock, irrigation)
57. Related to 56, what is the impact of the water quality on users?

User interview questionnaire

Instructions to participants:
The Water Services Trust Fund is undertaking field survey on the potential of water pan, solar
and wind energy to improve water service level in the underserved urban and rural areas across
the country.
The survey will determine among others;
i. Prevalence of selected technology in different parts of the country,
ii. If technologies currently in use provide adequate water supply in different climate zones
and seasons, otherwise the potential of the selected technology to overcome critical
challenges facing water supply
iii. Arrangement that’s best placed to make selected technology easily available and
minimise operation failures.
Feedback from this study will greatly contribute to the social aspect of this assessment. Your
participation will be appreciated and confidentiality will be observed with respect to your
feedback.
Part I Personal and General Data

1. Date and time interview (automatic)
2. GPS coordinate (Automatic)
3. County, Ward and administrative location, Ecological zone
4. Name of the interviewer
5. What is your name? (Optional)______________
6. What is your telephone number and email address (if available)? …………………………….
7. What is your gender? M F
8. What is your occupation?
9. How many members are there in your household?
Part II Existence of water sources and functionality
10. Which is the common source(s) of your water supply:

i. Wet season
ii. Dry season
(Provide selection list - tick more than one source where necessary)
a) Piped network
b) Borehole
c) Water Pan
d) Sand Dams

e) Shallow well
f) Rivers
g) Private rainwater tank , specfy construction material
h) Others (Specify)……………………………….)
11. From the answer above, what method is used for abstracting water in your nearest source
of water supply?
a. Solar water pumping system
b. wind pumping system
c. Diesel pump
d. Hand Pump
e. Grid electricity
f. Gravity
g. None
h. Others…………….(specify)
12. How is water obtained from this technology used? (Select all that applies)
g. Domestic
h. Livestock
i. Poultry and fishing rearing
j. Farming
k. Commercial (specify)
l. Others………..
13. What is the current status of your main water sources in terms of functionality?
a.) Functional (go to 19)
b.) Non functional
c.) Temporarily down
d.) Don’t know
If not functional or temporarily down, explain
14. How many months in the year is water available at the nearest water technology point
a. Never
b. 1 month
c. 2 months
d. 3 months
e. 3-6 months
f. 6-9 months
g. 9-12 months
h. Throughout
15. On average, how many hours in a day is technology at your nearest water source working?
16. Does the technology at your nearest point work differently in different time of day?
e. Yes
f. No

17. Does the technology work differently in different times/seasons of the year?
g. Yes
h. No
18. Do you think the technology is use at your nearest water source is reliable?
 Yes
 No
If no, why………….
19. In your own opinion, what are the main challenges observed in provision of water using this
technology……………………..
Part III Technology Point Operation and Management

20. Who is responsible for managing this technology?
a) County Government
b) NGOs/CBOs
c) Individual
d) private
e) None
f) Others………… (Specify)
21. If yes, how many times in a week are they present at the water sources?
a) Once a week b) Twice a week c) Three times and above
d) Never present e) Do not know
22. Is there water manager/caretaker resident in this community?
a) Yes
b) No
23. Usually, what is the gender of the water manager/caretaker?
a) Mostly males
b) Mostly females
24. Have conflicts over water arisen within the community since the technology was
implemented?
If yes which ones and how was it resolved?
25. From the above mentioned technologies, in your opinion what improvement should be
introduced to ensure water supply?
Part IV Level Community Contribution towards O&M

26. How much do you pay for the water fetched?
27. Do people in your community contribute towards the following water services?
You may tick more than one where necessary

a) Initial investment cost Yes No
b) Operation and maintenance Yes No
c) Do not contribute at all
d) Do not know
28. Are you satisfied with how the caretakers respond to water and technology problems?
Please indicate by ticking, whether you are; 1 = extremely satisfied, 2 = satisfied, 3 = dissatisfied
or 4 = extremely dissatisfied, using a scale given between 1-4, with 4 being the highest score
1□ 2□ 3□ 4□
If not satisfied, why
Part V Level of support by government/NGO agencies

29. Is there any kind of support offered to your community or water managment committee by
the following agencies?
a) National Goverement agencies Yes No
b) County government Yes No
c) CDF Yes No
d) NGO Yes No
e) Private contractors Yes No
f) Others (Specify)……………
30. Do you know what kind of support is provided by the above organizations?
31. If yes, how satisfied are you with the level of support to ensure provision and sustainability
of water supply by these agencies?
Please indicate by ticking, whether you are; 1 = extremely satisfied, 2 = satisfied, 3 = dissatisfied
or 4 = extremely dissatisfied, using a scale given between 1-4, with 4 being the highest score
a). County government 1□ 2□ 3□ 4□
b). Sub County Local government 1□ 2□ 3□ 4□
c). NGOs 1□ 2□ 3□ 4□
d). Private contractors 1□ 2□ 3□ 4□
e). Others (Specify)…………………………... 1 □ 2□ 3□ 4□
Part Vi Impact of Technology To the user

32. Are you satisfied with the technology being used
Yes No
33. If no, why?..............................................................

34. How can you rate the water technology easiness in use?
Please indicate by ticking, whether you are; 1 = extremely satisfied, 2 = satisfied, 3 =
dissatisfied or 4 = extremely dissatisfied, using a scale given between 1-4, with 4 being the
highest score
1□ 2□ 3□ 4□
35. Average distance/time to the nearest water point?
e. How far is nearest water source from your home (km)
f. How much time does it take to reach the nearest water source (minutes)
36. Average distance/time to the alternative water sources?

g. How far is the nearest alternative water sources (km)
h. How much time does it take to reach the nearest alternative water source (minutes)
37. How much time do you spend daily to fetch water?

38. Who in your household is typically responsible for fetching water.
What is the distance between the water technology from your home?.......
39. Has the technology assisted you to obtain water easily?
Yes No
If no, how so?....................................................
40. In your opinion, what could be done to improve water supply in this area?
a)…………………………………………………………………………………
b)…………………………………………………………………………………
c)…………………………………………………………………………………
41. Is the water good for consumption?
a. Yes
b. No
42. Is the water obtained from this technology enough for your needs?
a. Yes
b. No
43.
a. How much water do you collect everyday?
b. How much water do you require for all your daily needs?
Part VI: Interviewer Observation Remarks
1. The technology point e.g. the state of water pan. solar and wind installation (please allow
for space to type in)
2. The physical environment of the site e.g. the environmental hygiene and sanitation (please
allow for space to type in)
3. The protection systems e.g. the fencing among others (please allow for space to type in)
4. Any other thing that will be of interest to the team (please allow for space to type in)

Questions guide for semi-structured interview
(Key Informants & Focus Group Discussions)

Organization:
Name of interviewee or group:
Level of responsibility: Place of interview
Date:
A. Policy and Top Management

(Line ministries, County Executives, National Agencies)
1. Which technologies are commonly used for storage and pumping water
supplies and which factors mostly influence technology choice?
(Guide to interviewer: How important are these factors, are
water pan, solar and wind energy ranked among the most
prevalent technologies? How many have been constructed in
the last 1-year and by who?)
2. Do the common technologies adequately address water demand and

development priorities
(Guide to interviewer: Which are the priority water needs, are
benefits equitably distributed, what quality is required for
priority water uses, what is the pattern of water demand)
3. What is the performance of common water technologies (and water pans,

solar and small wind turbines, if any) in different seasons and climate
extremes
(Guide to interviewer: do the current technologies [and selected
low-cost technologies, if available] adequately meet water
demand, throughout the year, is the quality adequate for
priority water uses, what is the pattern of water demand vis-à-
vis the technology capacity)
4. What is the potential contribution of green technologies, specifically water

pans, solar and wind energy in addressing water supply challenges
(Guide to interviewer: Is there a systematic effort to
incorporate green technologies in water supplies or it happens
at random, who are the key actors; suppliers, standard and
regulation, capacity building, O&M)
5. How do you engage private sector in the improvement of water supply?

(Guide to interviewer: Is there a strategy to engage private

sector participation in development and management of water
supplies?)
B. Implementation and Middle Level Management

(Project and Water Service Managers, Technology suppliers, civil society)
1. Which are the main challenges towards ensuring water supply is

adequate, reliable and affordable across the year in the county/country?
(Guide to interviewer: Are efficiency gap known and

articulated in the management plans? is there potential
for water pans, solar and wind energy to address these
challenges?)
2. What is the main source finances for construction, operation and

maintenance of water supply?
(Guide to interviewer: How is the cost infrastructure
development met? Is cost recovery mechanism in place? Is
revenue collected sufficient to maintain water supplies? Is
the cost affordable to the users?
3. What is the potential contribution of water pans, solar and wind energy in
addressing cost and technical challenges
(Guide to interviewer: Is there a strategy for greening

water supply? if green technology has been implemented
what is the experience, are water pan, solar and wind
energy sources among the preferred technologies)
4. Which management model and capacity will support adoption and

deployment of water pans, solar and small wind energy technologies for
sustainable water supplies?
(Guide to interviewer: What knowledge, technology

management and capacity gaps require attention for
deployment of water pans, wind and solar energy?)
5. Do the current beneficiaries match up the initial plan?
(Guide to interviewer: in cases where water pan, solar and
wind technology is implemented, what were the envisaged
ben3fits at the beginning, were the target benefits achieved,
if exceed or less than expected, why?)
Focus Group Discussion Guide

1. Has this technology improved the amount and quality of water available
round the year?

(Guide to interviewer: How is water availability situation

before the technology and now?)
2. What are the impacts brought about by the implementation of this

technology? Who has benefited the most?
(Guide to interviewer: What difference has the technology

made in the way people relate, derive income, spend time
and money and educate, is there change in priorities
activities, are there any businesses that have emerged since
the technology was installed?, does the project benefits men
and women in different ways? if yes how, are benefits the
same for different income and age group if yes how and why?
)
3. Is the technology easy to manage and do you think the benefits will
continue for long time? If no, why not?
(Guide to interviewer: Who operates the technology, has any

modification been made to ease operations, what happens
when technology breakdown? Do the beneficiaries consider
this is best technology for the situation?)
4. Have conflicts arisen in the community over water since the technology
was implemented? If yes which one and how are they being resolved?
(Guide to interviewer: is there section of community

dissatisfied with the technology? could this be as result
siting, cost of water, exclusion of important water needs,
inadequate water supplied by the technology or management
model?)

Daily Field Survey Report

i. Short description what you observed today, your general impressions of the
water situation, technologies and deployed and in particular target
technologies of this study i.e. water pans, solar and wind energy?
ii. Provide background information that help contextualize the observation,

description specific areas where the observation was made. Example –
organization of water supply, on-going or recent projects, significant historical
happening etc.
iii. Demographic information about people who responded to survey. Example;

age, gender, ethnicity, occupation, prevalent behaviors or belief, social
harmony, exclusion and/or any other variables you consider relevant to this
study - Who is doing what and saying what, as well as, who is not doing or
saying what.
iv. Any incidence, event or situation when observation, that (potentially)

interfered with record of factual data. Example, time of day, ability engage
respondents, weather, in ability to access technology site, demonstration etc.
v. Did you make unique observation – an aspect of technology or water supply

and/or their management that is particularly remarkable or
overlooked/missing? Any possible explanation for this observation?

V. TARGET SURVEY AREAS
Figure 17: Target Survey areas in Embu County

Figure 18: Target Survey areas in Baringo County
Figure 19: Target Survey areas in Homabay County

Figure 20: Target Survey area in Isiolo County
VI. MAPS

Figure 21: Agro climatic Zone map of Kenya

Figure 22: Annual Mean wind speed at 50m

Figure 23: Three years daily mean Radiation

The Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) fosters technology transfer and
deployment at the request of developing countries through three core services: technical
assistance, capacity building and scaling up international collaboration. The Centre is the
operational arm of the UNFCCC Technology Mechanism, it is hosted and managed by the United
Nations Environment and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), and
supported by more than 260 network partners around the world.
Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN)

UN City, Marmorvej 51,
DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
+45 4533 5372
www.ctc-n.org
ctcn@unep.org

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Catalysing Green Technologies

for Sustainable Water Service Delivery

D2: Report on Feasibility Study Framework

Terms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................... 3

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 2 of 81

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 4 of 81

1.2. Objective of Pre-Feasibility Study

Specifically, the pre-feasibility will include an analysis of:

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 5 of 81

i. Technical feasibility (types of technologies, durability, viability and materials required,

1.3. Structure of the report

This document is organized in four (4) sections;

Section 2: Description of Study areas

Section 3: Description of technology alternatives and selection

Section 4: Description of the methodology

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 6 of 81

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 7 of 81

2. Context and Description of Study Area

2.1. The challenge of Technology in Water and

Figure 1: ASAL Counties in Kenya

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 8 of 81

tackling the water supply

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 9 of 81

introduction process based on a strong partnership with dynamic governance (WASHTech

2.2. Description of study area

2.2.1. Country Profile

Kenya has climatic and ecological

Table 1: Classification of Agro-climatic zones, (3)

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 10 of 81

The population growth in Kenya is

2.3. Selected Study Areas

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 11 of 81

Figure 5: Study Areas

Table 2: Selected Counties for the field Survey

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 12 of 81

2.3.1. Baringo County Profile

2.3.2. Embu County Profile

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 13 of 81

The largest proportion of arable land in

2.3.3. Homabay County Profile

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Figure 8: percentage of Page

2.3.4. Isiolo County profile

70% of the county population uses

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 15 of 81

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 16 of 81

3. Technology Alternatives Outline

3.1. Prioritization and selection priority green water technologies

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 17 of 81

vi. Capacity to enhance water quality and quantity

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 18 of 81

Table 4: Weighted Score and Prioritised Technology

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 20 of 81

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 21 of 81

Less susceptible to damage when Seepage losses from the reservoir

3.2.2. Solar energy

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 23 of 81

heating, cooking and drying, etc.)

Table 5: Example of solar application and system type, (UNIDO 2010)

Pre-Feasibility Study Framework Report, version 2.0 Page 24 of 81