part 4 musoma report final final v4

7/16/2019 Part 4 Musoma Report Final Final v4

1/89

PROJECT FORMULATION REPORT

PART 4 - MUSOMA

FINAL

TA2009019 R0 PPF

Project Formulation for scaling up the Lake Victoria Water and

Sanitation Initiative

The technical assistance operation is financed under the EU ACP Water Project

Preparation Facility

August 2012

WS Atkins International Ltd in association with Matrix Development Consultants

M

A

T

R

IX

M

A

T

R

I

A

T

R

IX

M

A

T

R

IX

TR

IX

M

A

TR

IX

M

R

IX

M

A

T

R

IX

M

A

IXM

AT

R

IXM

A

T

X

M

A

T

R

IX

M

A

TR

M

A

T

R

IX

M

A

T

R

I

A

T

R

IX

M

A

TR

IX

D

E

V

E

LO

PM

E

N

T

C

O

N

S

U

L

T

A

N

T

S


2/89


3/89

European Investment BankProject Formulation for scaling up the Lake Victoria Water and Sanitation InitiativeProject Formulation Report - Musoma

5099279/70/Musoma Report - Final

Notice

This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for the European Investment

Bank solely for the purpose of presenting our Initial Findings Report to the Project Formulation Study forScaling up the Lake Victoria Water and Sanitation Initiative. It may not be used by any person for any other

purpose other than that specified without the express written permission of WS Atkins International Limited

(Atkins) and Matrix Development Consultants Ltd. Any liability arising out of use by a third party of this

document for purposes not wholly connected with the above shall be the responsibility of that party who shall

indemnify WS Atkins International Limited (Atkins) and Matrix Development Consultants Ltd against all

claims costs damages and losses arising out of such use.

The authors take full responsibility for the contents of this report. The opinions expressed do not necessarilyreflect the view of the European Union or the European Investment Bank.

Document History

JOB NUMBER: 5099279 DOCUMENT REF: 5099279/70/Musoma Report v4

Revision Purpose Descript ion Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

0 Draft / Unreviewed forinformation only

RS

1 Draft for client review CH DH MW PS 27.05.11

2 Separate Volume

3Draft for issue to EIBfor joint mission

RS CH MK PS 15.09.11

4 Final Draft RS CH MK PS 24.02.12

5 Final RS CH MK PS 17.08.12


4/89

European Investment Bank

Project Formulation for scaling up the Lake Victoria Water and Sanitation Initiative

Project Formulation Report - Musoma


Table of Contents

Musoma 1

4.1. Introduction 1

4.2. Social Assessment 44.2.1. Introduction 44.2.2. Socio-economic and Environmental Context 74.2.3. Water Supply Context 114.2.4. Health and Sanitation Context 13

4.3. Urban Development Context 164.3.1. Introduction 164.3.2. 2002 Baseline Population 164.3.3. Population Projections 164.3.4. Urban Structure 18

4.4. Water Demand Projection 244.4.1. Development Scenario for Water & Sanitation Planning 244.4.2. Water Demand based on Feasibility Study projections (NBS) 244.4.3. Water Demand based on UN GRHS population projections 25

4.5. Water Supply 264.5.1. Background 264.5.2. Institutional Structure 264.5.3. System Performance 264.5.4. Water Resources 284.5.5. Treatment 294.5.6. Transmission 294.5.7. Storage Facilities 304.5.8. Distribution Network 304.5.9. Operations and Maintenance 304.5.10. Planned Developments 314.5.11. Further Development Needs 34

4.6. Wastewater and Sanitation 364.6.1. Introduction 36

4.6.2. General 364.6.3. Existing Situation 374.6.4. Future Developments Needs 39

4.7. Urban Drainage 464.7.1. Introduction 464.7.2. Existing Infrastructure 464.7.3. Planned Developments 464.7.4. Further Development Needs 47

4.8. Solid Waste Management 484.8.1. Introduction 484.8.2. Existing Situation 484.8.3. Planned Developments 50

4.8.4. Further Development Needs 514.9. Institutional Arrangements 55

4.9.1. Background 55


5/89



4.9.2. Vision, Mission and Strategic Goals 564.9.3. Objectives 574.9.4. Recommendations 584.10. Financial Assessment 594.10.1. Introduction 594.10.2. Cost of Providing Watsan Services 594.10.3. Non Revenue Water (NRW) 604.10.4. Financial Performance Indicators 614.11. Environmental Policy and Legislation 634.11.1. Policy and Legal Framework in the Water and Sanitation Sector 634.11.2. Provision for Compensation and Resettlement 644.11.3. Institutional Framework in the Water and Sanitation Sector 654.12. Environmental and Social Impact Analysis 664.12.1. Introduction 664.12.2. Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 674.12.3. Potential Social Impacts and Mitigation Measures 70

4.12.4. Enhancing Environmental and Social Outcomes of Interventions 72


6/89



Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADF African Development Fund

AFDAgence Franaise de

DveloppementAfDB African Development Bank

AGR Annual Growth Rate

AWF Africa Water Facility

BoQ Bill of Quantities

CBD Central Business District

CBO Community Based Organisation

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

COWSOCommunity Owned Water SupplyOrganisation

CP Collection Period

CR Current Ratio

CSP Country Strategy Paper

CTIPercentage Contribution toInvestment

DEWATDecentralised Wastewater

Treatment Tank

DER Debt Equity Ratio

DMM Delegated Management Model

DP Development Partners

DSC Debt Service Coverage Ratio

DWF Dry Weather Flow

EAC East African Community

EACACEast African Community AuditCommission

EACCCPEast African Community ClimateChange Policy

EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return

EIB European Investment Bank

ESMPEnvironmental and SocialManagement Plan

ETA Extraordinary Tariff Adjustment

EWURA /EUWRA

Energy and Water UtilitiesRegulatory Authority

FOs Field Offices

ha hectare

IA Implementing Agency

GoB Government of Burundi

GEF Global Environment Facility

GoK Government of Kenya

GoT Government of TanzaniaGIZ (GTZ) German Technical Cooperation

GWA Gender and Womens Alliance

ILO International Labour Organisation

J ICAJ apan International Cooperation

AgencyKfW

German GovernmentDevelopment Bank

KISWAMPKisumu Integrated SustainableWaste Management Programme

KIWASCOKisumu Water and SewerageCompany

KMC Kisumu Municipal Council

KP Is Key Performance Indicators

KWFT Kenya Women Finance Trust

KWSDPKenya Water Sector DevelopmentProgramme

Lcd Litres per capita per day

LGA Local Government Authority

LTAP Long Term Action Plan

LVB Lake Victoria Basin

LVBC Lake Victoria Basin Commission

LVEMPLake Victoria EnvironmentalManagement Programme

LVSWSBLake Victoria South WaterServices Board

LVWATSANLake Victoria Water andSanitation Initiative

MCC Mwanza City Council

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MIG Medium Income Group

MTP Medium Term Programme

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MSF Multi Stakeholder Forum

NBS National Bureau of Statistics

NSGRPNational Strategy for Growth and

Poverty ReductionmASL Metres above sea level

MoPH&SMin. of Public Health andSanitation

MWAUWASAMwanza Urban Water andSewerage Authority

MWI / MoWI Ministry of Water and Irrigation

NA Not Applicable

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

Partner States

The 5 member states of the EastAfrican Community, namelyBurundi, Kenya, Rwanda,

Tanzania & Uganda

PEDPPrimary Education DevelopmentProgramme


7/89



O&M Operation & Maintenance

OR Operating Ratio

PAP Project Affected Person

RoT The United Republic of Tanzania

RE Return On Equity

RPG Regional Public Good

RPSCRegional Policy SteeringCommittee

RR Return On Net Fixed Assets

RRTA Regular Tariff Adjustment

RSF Rapid Sand Filter

SME Small and Medium Enterprise

SIDASwedish InternationalDevelopment Cooperation Agency

SANA Sustainable Aid in Africa

SP I Staff Productivity Index

STAP Short Term Action Plan

STI Short Term Interventions

SWAP Sector Wide Approach to Planning

ToR Terms of Reference

UFW Unaccounted for Water

UA Unit of Account

UNEPUnited Nations EnvironmentProgram

UNFCCCUN Framework Convention onClimate Change

UNHABITAT United Nations HumanSettlements Programme

UOC Unit Operational Cost

USAIDThe United States Agency forInternational Development

USD United States Dollar

WASREB Water Services Regulatory Board

WASSIPWater Supply and SanitationService Improvement Project

WATSAN Water and Sanitation

WB World Bank

WHO World Health Organisation

WR Working Ratio

WSB Water Service Boards

WSDPWater Sector DevelopmentProgramme

WSP Water and Sanitation Programme

WSTF Water Services Trust Fund

WTW Water Treatment Works


8/89



References

1. The United Republic of Tanzania (2010) - Water Sector Status Report 2010, Ministry of Water andIrrigation

2. The United Republic Of Tanzania (2006) - Ministry of Water Mkukuta Based MDG Costing For TheWater And Sanitation Sector - Final Report - Dar Es Salaam April 2006

3. The United Republic Of Tanzania (2006) - National Water Sector Development Strategy 2006 to 2015

4. WASREB (2010) - IMPACT: A performance Report of Kenyas Water Services Sub-Sector, Issue No.3, October 2010.

5. GoK (2007) - Kenya Vision 2030, the Popular Version, J uly 2007

6. GoK (2010) - Medium Term Expenditure Framework 2011/12 - 2013/14

7. Environment, Water And Irrigation Sector Report 2010, J anuary 2011

8. MWAUASA (2010) - Business Plan, July 2010 - J une 2013, J uly, 2010

9. KIWASCO (2010) - KIWASCO, Water Demand Management Policy and Strategy, 26 April 2010

10. WASREB (undated) - Tariff Guidelines

11. World Bank (2010) - Tanzania: Public Expenditure Review (PER) of the Water Sector, J une 2010


9/89


5099279/70/Musoma Report - Final Page 1

Musoma

4.1. Introduction

The initial studies and investigation for Musoma Water and Sewerage Improvementshave been undertaken under three programmes; an EU/KfW project under the SevenTowns Upgrading Programme, a subsequent AFD funded water supply projectfollowed by a detailed design project for Musoma Sewerage (and water supplyschemes in 6 smaller towns) funded through the WSDP.

The proposed water supply project construction works described herein are to beundertaken under the AFD project. The studies and designs for all of the projectshave been carried out by consultants Pyry Environment GMBH (Germany) and DonConsult Ltd (Tanzania), and this study utilises much of the work prepared previously.Atkins acknowledges the indirect contribution of Pyry and Donconsult to this study.

The report details the findings of the mission to Musoma and discussions withMUWASA and Musoma Municipal Council. The following documents were reviewed:

Draft Feasibility Study Report for Musoma dated March 2011, prepared byPyry Environment GMBH and Don Consult Ltd under a joint venture (J V)consultancy service. This was financed by the European Union and part ofthe Ministry of Water and Irrigations 7 Towns Urban Upgrading Programme.

Design Report for Musoma by Pyry Environment and Don Consult J V underproject titled Detailed Engineering Design and Preparation of TenderDocuments, Supervision and Performance Management Support for WaterSupply and Sewerage/Sanitation in Bukoba and Musoma.

Final Engineering Design Report Sewerage for Musoma by PyryEnvironment and Don Consult J V under project titled Consultancy Servicesfor Detailed Engineering Design and Preparation of Tender Documents forSewerage in Musoma Municipality and Detailed Engineering Design andPreparation of Tender Documents for Water Supply for Mugumu, Bunda andTarime Townships and Mugango / Kiabakari National Project

The project area is within the current urban municipal boundary of Musoma, whichincludes wards classified as urban, rural and/or mixed. The consultant liaised with themunicipal council when defining this boundary. The project area boundary was alsopartly influenced by the existing water service coverage as well as the intendeddevelopment spread of the municipality.

Musoma consists of 13 wards. It is the headquarters of Mara region in the North of

Tanzania which borders Lake Victoria to the north-west and the Republic of Kenya.The town consists mostly of residential developments and a number of institutions.The main economic activities in the town are fishing, fish processing and textiles.

Musoma has a topography that is fairly flat with a few rock outcrops. The landgenerally falls towards the lake. The altitude ranges from 1,320 to 1,140 m above sealevel.The geology in the project area consists of granite, granodiorite, foliatedgneisses and magnetite rock formations. The temperature varies between 20C and35C. The area experiences two rainy seasons. The long rainy season starts inFebruary and ends in May, while the short rainy season starts in September and endsin November.

Musoma is 320 km from Mwanza, connected to by an all-weather road. Musoma isalso linked to Kenya by an all-weather road. The town has a gravel airstrip from

which commercial and non-commercial passenger and cargo flights operate. Charterflights for tourists going to the nearby Serengeti National Park also use the airport.


10/89



Postal and courier services are provided by the Tanzania Postal Corporation. Thetown is well connected with telecommunication networks.


11/89

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE NUMBER & TITLE CLIENT

DATE FIGURE CREATED

Woodcote GroveAshley R oadEpsomSurreyKT185BWENGLAND

Fax + 44 (0) 01372 740055Tel. + 44 (01372) 726140

EuropeanInvestmentBank

Project formulation for scalingup the Lake Victoria Waterand Sanitation Initiative

Figure 4.1Country Overview

LEGEND

September2011

BUKOBAMUSOMA

Lake Victoria

Kigali

Kigoma

Mtwara

Dodoma

Kampala

Nairobi

Mombasa

Bujumbura

Dar es Salaam

GULU

MUEDA

TANGA

MBALA

MOSHI

KITUI

NYERI

WAJIR

BUNIA

MTWARA

MBINGA

IRINGA

DODOMA

ARUS HA

MWANZA

KIGALI

KISUMU

MULIKAISIOLO

LODWAR

WEBUYE

SOROTI

KARONGA

KALEMIE

MALINDI

MUSIARA

GARISSA

NANYUKI

KAMEMBE

GISENYI

ELDORET

ZANZIBAR

NAIVASHA

BARCLAYS

MARSABIT

KAKAMEGA

GOMA INTL

NGERENGERE

LAMU/MANDA

MARA SERENA

LOYENGALANI

MOYALE LOWER

DAR ES SALAAM

NAIROBI/WILSON

BUJUMBURA INTL

MOCIMBOA DA PRAIA

MOI INTERNATIONAL

LAIKIPIA AIR BASEENTEBBE INTERNATIONAL

KILIMANJARO INTERNATIONAL

Major water bodies

Major watercourses

River Nile Basin

National Borders

KENYA

UGANDA

ZAMBIA

TANZANIA


12/89


13/89



4.2. Social Assessment

4.2.1. Introduction

4.2.1.1. Social context

Musoma is situated on the eastern shore of Lake Victoria (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2)and is the administrative headquarters of the Mara region in the north of Tanzania.

The estimated population of Musoma is 143,000. More than 50% of the population isunder the age of 20.

At present, 7% of the population live in low density housing areas, 10% in mediumdensity housing areas, 33% in high density planned areas and 50% in high densityunplanned areas or peri-urban homesteads on the outskirts of the municipality.

There is significant gender disparity; women are not allowed to own property forcultural and religious reasons and along with children are also the primary domesticwater collectors.

Approximately half of all households belong to some type of association; theseassociations may be useful channels to promote, advertise and gather support forsome of the proposed project interventions.

Health facilities are limited. Waterborne or water-related diseases are likely toaccount for a significant proportion of the workload of existing health facilities.

Figure 4.2 Musoma Town overview


14/89



4.2.1.2. Water Supply Context

The main water source for Musoma is Lake Victoria; there are currently three waterintakes managed by Musoma UWASA. Treatment of abstracted water is limited tooccasional disinfection. Direct abstraction from streams by individuals is alsocommon; other sources include boreholes, springs and water purchased from

vendors. The majority of residents perceive water as neither clear nor safe to drink;despite this, many people do not boil the water or use other treatment methods toimprove its quality.

4.2.1.3. Sanitat ion Context

Sanitation services and wastewater disposal in Musoma are currently provided by theMunicipal Council. Musoma Town does not have a waterborne sewerage system.On-site methods are used by local residents for the disposal of wastewater andexcreta, including traditional pit latrines, VIP latrines and septic tanks with soakaways.Existing services for sludge removal are limited and considered too expensive bydomestic users, who use traditional hand emptying methods instead.

Public sanitation facilities are available at markets and bus stands; these are invariable condition ranging from good to poor. Facilities at higher education centresare in good condition. Facilities in the regional hospital and schools are more limitedand generally in poor condition. Facilities at Musoma District Prison are alsoinadequate for the current inmate and staff population.

At present the Municipal Council disposes of sludge into six poorly engineered andmaintained lagoons at Nyamitwebiri.

4.2.1.4. Posit ive and Negative Impacts of the Proposed Project Interventions

It is anticipated that the large towns phase of the LVWATSAN Initiative will have atangible impact on public health (including improving maternal health and reducing

under-five mortality), through the provision of increased access to clean water,improvement of wastewater treatment facilities, provision of adequate sanitationfacilities, improved urban drainage and solid waste collection and treatment.Improving sewage treatment facilities and sewage coverage will prevent furtherpollution of the Lake, and have a direct impact on the quality of its water andecosystems. Improved drainage would contribute to reduced incidence of malaria (byeliminating breeding habitats for malaria-carrying mosquitoes), as well as otherwaterborne diseases, while efficient solid waste disposal systems would also have apositive impact on public health by discouraging disease-spreading vermin andpreventing entry of toxic leachates into soils and water sources. The combinedbeneficial effects of these interventions are associated with greater productivity andoutput, and therefore with alleviation of poverty and hunger. Given that poverty andenvironmental well-being are inversely linked, the implication is that overall

environmental conservation and protection will be enhanced.It is a reasonable assumption that with the correct preventative and mitigationmeasures in place the negative environmental and social impacts associated withconstruction and operational activities will be limited in terms of duration and spatialextent and that they will be outweighed by the positive impacts arising from theproject interventions. To facilitate this:

A full ESIA should be completed for those components deemed to requireone i.e. the wastewater treatment plant; in order to ensure that environmentaland social aspects are properly considered in the selection of project options(where more than one alternative exists for a specific intervention) and thatappropriate preventative and mitigation measures are defined andimplemented through an Environmental and Social Management Plan for the

project.


15/89



Clearance of land should be preceded by appropriate baseline studies todefine the fauna, flora and habitats that are present and assess landcapability and use.

Any resettlement (physical and economic) should be planned and executed inconsultation with affected persons according to national laws andinternational standards as appropriate (none currently anticipated).Compensation and replacement of lost or reduced livelihoods should beconsidered.

In addition to the general positive impacts noted above, specific positive socialimpacts are expected to include:

Decreased incidence of waterborne diseases;

Reduced cost and time wastage in search of water. This may enable womenand children to devote more time to educational opportunities. Given the highproportion of young people in Musoma, increasing time for school andattendance may bring significant benefits, particularly given the current lowlevel of educational attainment.

Improvement in health conditions and decreased cost of treatment forwaterborne diseases by the consumer as well as decreased travel frequencyto health facilities;

Reduction in household expenditure on water;

Improved hygiene standards, which should reduce pressure on healthfacilities (a significant proportion of diseases are related to poor water supplyand sanitation services);

Increased access to sanitation facilities;

Reduction in hand emptying of latrines and septic tanks;

Increased access to clean water; Year round access to water for households;

Increased employment opportunities during construction phase;

Community involvement in provision and management of water and sanitationservices; and

Increased number of women working for water sector institutions andinvolved in decision making.

To address gender inequities, project interventions should focus on womens andmens involvement in the planning, construction, operation, maintenance andmanagement of domestic water supply, irrigation, sanitation or environmental

protection. Project interventions should also give due consideration to internal cultureand staffing issues, for example recruitment, promotion and training opportunities forfemale and male staff, sexual discrimination and harassment, and issues such aschild care, paternity or maternity leave, and safe travel arrangements. Given thesignificant percentage of households that belong to an association it may beappropriate to consider the involvement of selected associations in gendermainstreaming for project interventions.

4.2.1.5. Objectives of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA)

An ESIA scoping study was undertaken for the wastewater project by Poyry; this wasundertaken to:

Define the baseline conditions based on a desktop review of available dataand information (this section);


16/89



Identify the potential positive and negative impacts related to the projectcomponents and the risks relevant to each component during constructionand operation (Section 4.12);

Identify and propose potential mitigation and enhancement measures(Section 4.12).

The ESIA is built on existing data and information, in particular the draft FeasibilityReport for Musoma prepared by Pyry Environment GMBH (Germany) and DonConsult Ltd (Tanzania) in March 2011. This report was part of the Ministry of Waterand Irrigations 7 Towns Urban Upgrading Programme.

Where possible, social aspects were given a particular focus, including theassessment of project impacts on the poor and women. General recommendationsfor mainstreaming gender considerations into project planning and implementationare also presented.

4.2.1.6. Project Area

Musoma covers an area of 63 km2 and is the administrative headquarters of the Mararegion in the north of Tanzania.

4.2.2. Socio-economic and Environmental Context

4.2.2.1. Population

The population of Musoma was measured as 108,242 during the 2002 census (ofwhich 51,847 were men and 56,395 were women). Based on a population growthrate of 4.2% the population in 2011 is estimated to be 143,000. The populationdensity is estimated at 120 people per km2. Table 4.1 shows the age distribution ofhouseholds; more than 50% of the population is under the age of 20.

Table 4.1 - Distribution of household by five-year age groups (2007 data)

Age Male Female Total


17/89



4.2.2.2. Settlements and Housing

There is no clear trend in housing densities in the wards. Most wards have mixedhousing densities (and a mixture of plot sizes). At present, 7% of the population livein low density housing areas, 10% live in medium density housing areas, 33% live inhigh density planned areas and 50% live in high density unplanned areas or peri-

urban homesteads on the outskirts of the municipality. It is anticipated that thepopulation distribution in the wards will gradually change (improve) with time ashousehold income levels increase. With improved housing it is likely that the demandfor improved water services will also increase.

It is predicted that an increasing proportion of the population will live in low andmedium density housing areas. There will be a corresponding decline the number ofpeople living in unplanned settlements and homesteads.

The number of households is estimated at approximately 22,000 and the averagehousehold size is between approximately 7 and 7.5 people. As might be expectedthere is a link between the level of poverty and the number of people per household;the higher the number of persons per household the poorer the household members.

In the town centre, most houses are built with cement walls and roofs of galvanisedsteel sheeting. Further away from the town centre houses are built with mud wallsand roofs of galvanised steel sheeting; a few buildings with mud walls and grass roofsare also present. In villages, most houses are used for residential purposes whilethose in the town centre are used for both commercial and residential purposes.

Women are unable to own houses for cultural reasons. The majority of housesappear to be occupied by their owners (often with one or more relative). Privaterenting of property is uncommon.

4.2.2.3. Land Use

The major land use is residential (planned and unplanned settlements). Over 60% of

built up land is residential. The majority of unplanned residential areas are found inKigera, Nyamatare, Mwisenge, Buhare and Nyakato. The majority of plannedsettlements are found in Mukendo, Mwigombero, Kitaji, Makoko and Kamunyonge.Low and medium density plots are situated along the Lake Victoria shore in Mwisengeand Makoko areas.

Other significant land uses in the municipality include institutional, commercial,industrial, open space and urban farming:

Major institutional areas are found in Makoko, Buhare and areas around theMukendo hills. About 17% of the built up area is used by institutions (publicand private).

A further 3% is used for commercial purposes; commercial areas are largelyfound at the CBD and along Mukendo Street, other commercial activities

also take place within residential areas (commercial residential) throughoutthe municipality. There are also informal income generating activities suchas food vendors and small retail shops that are concentrated along majorroads, in market places and at the bus terminal.

Most industrial areas are located along the Mwanza road. Other industrialareas are found in Makoko, Mwisenge and along the shore of Lake Victoria.Most of the areas that were zoned for industrial development by the MusomaMaster Plan (1993) have been encroached by squatter settlements andinformal income generating activities.

Urban farming takes place within residential plots and valleys in urban andperi-urban areas.


18/89



4.2.2.4. Education

According to the Musoma Municipal Council, there are 41 nursery schools (35 public,6 private with an overall enrolment rate of 96%), 41 primary schools (35 public, 6private), 24 secondary schools (18 public, 6 private) and 8 tertiary educationinstitutions with a total of 34,860 students (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2 - School-related data

Education institution Number Students per school Number of students

Pre-primary (nursery) 41 60 2,460

Primary 41 500 20,500

Secondary 24 400 9,600

Colleges / Institutes 7 300 2,100

University (Open University) 1 200 200

Total 114 - 34,860

Generally more girls are enrolled in schools than boys. Although the majority of thepopulation has attended primary school, only a limited number continue to secondaryand higher learning institutions, as can be seen from the numbers above.

4.2.2.5. Economy

The main economic activities in the town are fishing, fish processing, and textiles.Due to its proximity to both Kenya and Uganda the town is well positioned to serviceneighbouring markets.

4.2.2.6. Household Incomes

The main contributors to household budgets are men. Very rarely, women alsocontribute (the number of women with no source of income is higher than that formen). A significant proportion of people earn less than US$1 (TSh 500-1,500) perday. Men and women earn income from farming, business activities, the raising oflivestock, fishing and paid employment in both government and the private sector.

4.2.2.7. Gender Disparit y

Women (and also children) are the primary water collectors for domestic use (Table4.3). The average distance covered to get water is approximately 1.5 km. Collectedwater is often stored in buckets rather than larger storage containers, necessitatingregular journeys.

Table 4.3 - Responsib ili ty for water collection (2007 data)

Adultwoman

Adultman

Femalechild

(under15)

Malechild

(under15)

Nospecificperson

Nospecific

child

Did notknow

TotalNo ofhouseholds

Water sourcesafe for

women andchildren

Type ofresidence

Informal 66.9 6.1 1.9 1.3 16.4 7.4 100 537 77.7

Formal 62.1 11.3 1.3 1.3 16.0 7.8 0.3 100 319 89.2

Improvedwater sour cePublictap/standpipe

63.9 8.7 1.6 1.2 16.3 8.0 0.1 100 735 89.1

Protected well 25.0 50.0 25.0 100 4 33.3

Unprotectedwell

84.4 6.3 6.3 3.1 100 32 65.6


19/89



Adultwoman

Adultman

Femalechild

(under15)

Malechild

(under15)

Nospecificperson

Nospecific

child

Did notknow

TotalNo ofhouseholds

Water sourcesafe for

women andchildren

Protectedspring

60.0 40.0 100 5 0.0

Unprotectedspring

91.7 8.3 100 12 75.0

Water vendors 100.0 100 1 0.0

Surface water 64.2 5.7 3.8 20.8 5.7 100 53 34.0

Other sources 71.4 14.3 7.1 7.1 100 14 100.0

Improvedwater

Not improved 74.1 4.5 1.8 1.8 13.4 4.5 100 112 48.4

Improved water 63.7 8.6 1.6 1.2 16.7 8.1 0.1 100 744 87.6

Total 65.1 8.1 1.6 1.3 16.2 7.6 0.1 100 856 82.0

In the informal areas, approximately 24% of households have water on the premises.

A little over 42% have to travel less than 15 minutes for water, while for approximately12% of households the duration is 30 60 minutes. For approximately 10% ofinformal households the time reportedly exceeds 60 minutes. The situation in formalareas is very different, with approximately 60% of households having water at thepremises and a further 25% having a water collection duration of 15 minutes or less;on 4% of households that require 30 60 minutes to collect water and a further 3%where the duration exceeds 60 minutes.

4.2.2.8. Membership of Associations

Approximately half of the households belong to some type of association (46.5% ininformal areas and 53.5% in formal areas) (see Table 4.4).

Table 4.4 - Percent distribut ion of households belonging to association (2007 data)

Type of residenceInformal Formal Total

Farmer/fisherman group or cooperative 1.7 2.0 1.9

Other production group 1.0 1.3 1.1

Traders or business association 1.7 3.0 2.4

Professional Association 0.7 4.8 2.9

Trade union or labour union 2.7 9.7 6.4

Neighbourhood / village committee 7.1 10.0 8.6

Religious or spiritual group 22.3 27.4 25.0

Political group or movement 7.2 7.3 7.3

Cultural group or association 0.7 1.3 1.0Burial society or festival society 15.8 24.6 20.5

Finance, credit or savings groups 8.2 13.9 11.2

Education group 1.0 3.4 2.3

Health group 0.3 1.9 1.1

Water management group 0.1 0.3 0.2

Waste management group 1.3 1.1 1.2

Sports group 0.6 1.1 0.9

Youth group 2.5 3.2 2.9

Women's group 20.8 20.5 20.6

NGO or civic group 1.1 2.4 1.8

Ethnic-based community group 6.2 8.7 7.5


20/89



Other groups 0.8 2.0 1.5

Any association 46.5 53.5 50.2

Number of households 708 792 1,500

4.2.2.9. Health Facil it ies

Health facility data are summarised in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 - Health facility types and patient numbers

Facility type Number Patients per day Patients

Dispensary 23 50 1,150

Health centre 4 50 200

Hospital 2 120 240

Total 29 - 1,590

4.2.2.10. Waterborne or Water Related Diseases

A significant proportion of cases reported among the top ten diseases in MusomaMunicipality were related to poor water supply and sanitation services (Table 4.6),particularly for those older than 5 years.

Table 4.6 - Annual Incidence of diseases in residents under and over 5 years of age

DiseaseUnder 5 years Older than 5 years

TotalMale Female Male Female

Malaria 7,929 15,007 8,797 12,917 44,650

ARI 2,313 2,658 3,048 3,531 11,550

Diarrhoea 2,256 2,759 187 2,589 7,791

Intestinal worms 1,157 1,412 5,522 5,921 14,012

Pneumonia 974 1,213 1,180 1,577 4,944

Eye infections 459 484 815 1,017 2,775

Ear infections 452 273 288 398 1,411

Skin diseases 610 816 803 845 3,074

Cardio vasculardiseases

426 417 846 1,094 5,783

HIV & AIDS 20 30 60 132 242

Source: Comprehensive Health Plan Report, July 2010

4.2.3. Water Supply Context

4.2.3.1. Water Sources and Supply

The main water source for Musoma is Lake Victoria. There are three water intakesmanaged by the water authority: Mwisenge, Mutex and Bweri, which have acombined capacity of between 9,700 m3/day and 15,300 m3/day. The water from theintakes is supplied to customers without any treatment, except for occasionaldisinfection. Direct abstraction from streams by individuals is also common.


21/89



The current water supply service covers approximately 90% of the municipalitypopulation. The remainder obtain water from other sources which include boreholes,springs and vendors (Table 4.7).

Table 4.7 - Water sources (2007 data)

Water source Informal FormalPiped into dwelling 0.1 6.2

Piped into yard or plot 21.0 51.9

Public tap or standpipe 50.7 34.6

Protected well 1.8 1.6

Unprotected well 5.9 0.5

Protected spring 0.6 -

Unprotected spring 1.4 0.1

Rain water - 0.3

Water vendors 1.4 -Surface water 15.4 4.6

Bottled water - 0.1

Other sources 1.6 -

Dont know - 0.1

Total 100 100

Number of households 706 790

Approximately 17% of the population lives in low and medium density areas withhouse connections. The remaining 83% live in planned and unplanned high densityareas and peri-urban homesteads using yard taps, public stand posts and water

kiosks. As noted in 4.2.2.2 the proportion of people in high density housing ispredicted to reduce as the economic situation of the people improves.

4.2.3.2. Water Quality in Lake Victoria

The analysis of historical raw water quality data indicates that for the majority ofphysico-chemical water parameters the quality is within guideline values for drinkingwater established by the World Health Organization. However, some parameters(such as colour and turbidity) are occasionally increased. Increased values forbacteriological indicators such as total and faecal coliforms indicate the need forwater treatment prior to supply to water consumers.

As the existing Mwisenge Intake site is surrounded by domestic and industrial

developments, it is reasonable to assume that water quality at this water intake will benegatively impacted by proximity to potentially polluting developments and that analternative (undeveloped) intake site would be beneficial.

4.2.3.3. Access to Safe Water

A majority of residents perceived that the water they used was neither clean nor safe.Although most are aware of boiling as a potential treatment method, the majority ofpeople do not practice this. Where treatment is applied, boiling is by far the mostcommon method used (Table 4.8). Although the link between the quality of water andwaterborne diseases is generally recognised, this does not appear to trigger theimplementation of treatment options for many people.


22/89



Table 4.8 Percent dist ribu tion of households by water treatment (2007 data)

Boil

Addbleach

or

chlorine

Sievethrough

cloth

Usewaterfilter

Letstandand

settle

Others

Percentthat treatwater tomake it

safe todrink

Type of residence

Informal 76.3 2.1 8.0 0.5 10.8 2.3 81.2

Formal 85.4 2.2 2.7 0.3 6.2 3.2 93.7

Improved watersource

Piped into dwelling 94.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 100.0

Piped into yard/plot 87.4 1.9 2.1 0.6 5.6 2.3 92.0

Public tap/standpipe 76.2 2.5 6.7 0.3 10.8 3.4 86.7

Protected well 100.0 91.7

Unprotected Well 63.2 21.1 15.8 59.4

Protected Spring 60.0 40.0 100.0

Unprotected Spring 37.5 25.0 25.0 12.5 66.7

Rain water 80.0 20.0 100.0

Water vendors 100.0 88.2

Surface water 80.6 11.1 8.3 67.9

Bottled water 0.0

Other sources 83.3 8.3 8.3 85.7

Improved water

Not improved 76.7 1.1 11.1 8.9 2.2 70.3

Improved water 81.8 2.2 4.6 0.4 8.2 2.9 89.4

Total 81.5 2.1 5.0 0.4 8.2 2.8 87.8

4.2.3.4. Willingness to Pay for Water Supply

The majority of non-domestic consumers (institutions) were willing to pay a price setby the water authority and to pay for improved services.

4.2.4. Health and Sanitation Context

4.2.4.1. Introduction

Sanitation services and wastewater disposal in Musoma are currently provided by the

Municipal Council. Musoma Town does not have a waterborne sewerage system.

4.2.4.2. Domestic Sanitation Facili ties

On-site methods are used for the disposal of wastewater and excreta by localresidents, including traditional pit latrines, VIP latrines and septic tanks withsoakaways:

The use of shallow (1 m to 2 m depth) pit latrines dominates as these are theonly option for low income earners that cannot afford to construct septictanks with soakaway pits or VIP latrines. In addition, water supply servicesfor the majority of residents are from water points and it is not possible tocarry enough water by hand for toilet flushing. Due to their shallow depth

and the high water table in lower lying areas near the lake, latrine pits maypose a contamination risk to shallow water wells in some areas. Pit latrines


23/89



are used in the rural and peri-urban wards of the municipality: Bweri,Nyamatare, Kigera, Buhare, Mwisenye and Nyamatare.

VIP latrines are partially used in the semi-urban wards of Bweri, Nyamatare,Kigera, Nyakato and Makoko. VIPs are used in areas not well served with apiped water supply from Musoma UWSA.

Septic tanks with soakaways are commonly used in the peri urban and urbanwards of Mukendo, Kitaji, Mwigobero, Mwisenge, Nyasho, Makoko and someparts of Bweri. Households in these areas have installed water closets andpour flush toilet systems that are connected to the septic tanks. In somemedium and high-density areas, households have constructed pour flushtoilets connected to offsite pits due to either lack of space or finances forconstruction of systematic septic tanks with soakaways.

Of these three options, only those people with VIP latrines and septic tanks areconsidered to have acceptable toilet facilities.

4.2.4.3. Sludge Removal

Four exhauster trucks are available to empty septic tanks and latrines; two trucks (9.2m3 and 5.5 m3 capacity) are owned by the Municipal Council while two (each with 3.5m3 capacity) are owned by private entrepreneurs. The trucks belonging to theMunicipal Council are old and suffer from frequent mechanical breakdowns. Thosebelonging to the private entrepreneurs are relatively new and in good runningcondition.

4.2.4.4. Sludge Disposal

Sludge is disposed of in six lagoons (dug, with limited engineering) each measuringapproximately15 m x10 m. These are located at Nyamitwebiri, 9.5 km from the edgeof Bweri ward. The six lagoons are not connected and when one is full, the trucks

empty into the next. The lagoons are poorly maintained and as they are not fenced,livestock from the neighbouring rural community is able to graze around them anddrink from them.

4.2.4.5. Sanitation Facil ities in Public Areas

There are several public pay toilets and bathrooms in public areas. The public toiletsare owned by the Municipal Council and operated by individuals contracted by theMunicipal Council.

i) Markets

There are five markets: Soko Kuu, Mwigobero, Nyasho, Kamunyonge, and Nyakato.With the exception of Nyakato, each has pour flush toilets connected to septic tanks.

Charges for visiting are Tsh 200; bathing facilities are also available for Tsh 300.Nyakato market has a pit latrine, which is temporary, and generally not in goodcondition. The toilet facility at Soko Kuu market has only three stalls; two for thefemales and one for males (plus a urinal). These facilities are not sufficient to servicethe market population and the septic tank is reported to fill quickly due to the highpopulation it serves. Mwigobero market toilet facility is situated at the Mwigobero fish-landing site, which also serves as a departure and arrival port for small passengerboats to and from Kinesi, Busweta, Rukuba, Sumbatu, Kiamawi, Ruhu and Sonjovillages. The facility, with four toilet stalls, is insufficient to service the market andpassenger population. Although the toilets are in fairly good operating condition theyare not clean. The toilet facilities at Kamunyonge and Nyasho markets are adequateand in fairly good operating condition; however these toilets are also not maintained ina clean state.


24/89



ii) Bus stands

There are two bus stands, the regional bus stand at Bweri and the local bus stand atKitaji. The Bweri bus stand has two toilet and shower facilities consisting of waterclosets and urinals connected to septic tanks with soakaway. The toilet facilities havebeen commissioned recently and are still in adequate, clean and good operating

condition. The toilet facilities are owned by the Municipal Council and operated byindividuals contracted by the Council. Charges for visiting the toilet and bathing areTsh 200 and Tsh 300 respectively. Kitaji bus stand also has its own toilet facilityconsisting of water closets and pour flush toilets connected to septic tanks withsoakaways. The facility also serves the neighbouring recreational garden areabehind the bus stand. The toilet facility, owned by the Municipal Council andoperated by an individual contracted by the Council is quite adequate and in goodoperating condition.

4.2.4.6. Sanitation Facilities in Schools

Sanitation in primary schools in the municipality is generally inadequate. The toiletfacilities consist of pour-flush toilets connected to off-site pits or deep trench pitlatrines. On average, 85 pupils share one toilet, which significantly exceedsUNICEFs recommendation of 20-30 pupils per toilet. Some schools do not havetoilet facilities at all (Bweri, Kigera B and Nyarigamba). Section 4.6 provides moredetail.

4.2.4.7. Sanitation in Major Instit utions

i) Musoma District Prison

Sanitation facilities in Musoma prison (with 600 inmates, 100 staff and about 300household members) are poor. The prison together with the staff housing has 12septic tanks connected to 19 soakaway pits, some of which are poorly maintained, inbad condition and a potential source of health risks.

ii) Education and training centres

Most education and training centres in Musoma town use septic tanks to dispose oftheir wastewater. They also have pit latrines that are used when no running water isavailable. The septic tanks and the soakaways were assessed to be in goodcondition.

iii) Regional hospital

The regional government hospital uses septic tanks with soakaways to dispose ofwastewater. Almost every building block (offices, wards, mortuary and the kitchen)has its own septic tank and soakaway pit. However, due to the poor soil conditionand high water table in the hospital area, the septic tanks and soakaways collapsebefore completion of their planned life. There is also poor access to the tanks where

they are located between buildings (e.g. for emptying by exhauster). To addressthese issues, one large centralised septic tank and soakaway is being constructed toservice the entire hospital.


25/89



4.3. Urban Development Context

4.3.1. Introduction

It was not possible to obtain much definitive data or information for Musoma. Thepost of Municipal Town Planning Officer is currently vacant, with the Lands Officer (asurveyor) acting in charge. The Musoma Master Plan was prepared almost 20 yearsago by the Ministry of Lands Housing & Urban Development, covering the period1983-2011 no copy was available, but in any case it would be of little value for thisexercise, a view echoed by the Feasibility Study consultants.

4.3.2. 2002 Baseline Population

Table 4.9 shows the 2002 Census population of 108,242 for Musoma municipalitybroken down into the 13 wards, and classified as urban, rural or mixed.

The definition of urban and rural wards presumably relates to the dominant character

of development in each ward. This indicates an urban population of about 61,000(57%), and a rural or peri-urban population of about 47,000 (43%).

Table 4.9 - Musoma Municipali ty 2002 census population

Wards Status 2002

1 Mukendo Urban 3,295

2 Mwigobero Urban 3,051

3 Iringo Urban 5,966

4 Kitaji Urban 6,847

5 Nyasho Urban 7,793

6 Bweri Mixed 13,4857 Nyakato Urban 16,512

8 Kigera Rural 15,146

9 Kamunyonge Urban 5,581

10 Nyamatare Mixed 6,387

11 Mwisenge Urban 12,280

12 Buhare Mixed 4,791

13 Makoko Rural 7,108

Total 108,242

Source: Feasibility Study Table 4-1

4.3.3. Population Project ions

4.3.3.1. Feasibi lity Study

The Feasibility Study1 considers low/medium/high annual growth rates (AGRs) for thethree categories of ward (see Table 4.10) to generate three population growthscenarios through to 2030 (see Table 4.11). It selects the medium AGR (6.2%) asthe basis for the water demand estimates.

The use of a constant AGR over a 28-year period is questionable methodology as theAGR will typically fall over a long period (Don Consult did the same in their Mwanza

1Seven Towns Urban Upgrading Programme Draft Feasibility Report, Pyry Environment GMBH & Don

Consult Ltd, March 2011


26/89



study). Moreover, the selected AGR is considered to be rather high no evidence orjustification is provided to support the implied high level of in-migration that would beneeded to support this AGR.

Table 4.10 - Feasibility Study population growth rates

Ward classification Low Medium High

Urban 3.3 % 6.6 % 7.0 %

Mixed 6.6 % 7.0 % 8.0 %

Rural 2.5 % 3.0 % 6.6 %

Overal l 3.5 % 6.2 % 7.0 %

Source: Feasibility Study Table 4.2

Table 4.11 - Feasibility Study population projections

Low AGR

3.5 %

Medium

AGR6.2 %

High AGR

7.0 %

2002 108,242 108,242 108,242

2010 142,534 173,487 185,980

2020 201,058 317,043 365,851

2030 283,613 586,362 719,684

Source: Feasibility Study Table 4-3

4.3.3.2. National Bureau of Statist ics

No separate NBS projections were available for Musoma. The Feasibility Study

(4.1.4) refers to comparison between the consultants projections and those of NBS,and says that NBS assumed an annual average growth rate of 6.65%. This AGRapplied over the period 2002-31 generates a 2031 population in excess of 700,000.

4.3.3.3. UN Global Report on Human Settlements

The UN Global Report on Human Settlements(GRHS) Table B.2 (p.238) givescountry-specific estimates of urban population AGRs for 10-years bands: 2000-10,2010-20 and 2010-30. The respective figures for Tanzania are 4.20%, 4.10% and3.80%, which are significantly lower than those suggested by NBS and the FeasibilityStudy.

Table 4.12 compares projections from the Feasibility Study (extrapolated to 2031)with the GRHS (the shaded column), based on the 2002 census figure. This

highlights the impact of a lower AGR on the population growth. The GRSH-basedprojection results in a 2031 population 46% lower than the Feasibility Study figure,with commensurate implications for the delivery of infrastructure and other urbanservices.


27/89



Table 4.12 - Comparison of population p rojections

FeasibilityStudy

GRHS1

Difference %

2002 Census 108,242 108,242 -

AGR 2002-11 6.2% 4.20%2011 184,243 156,749 - 27,494 -15%

AGR 2011-21 6.2% 4.10%

2020 317,043 225,041 - 92,002 -29%

AGR 2020-31 6.2% 3.80%

2031 622,716 339,182 - 283,534 -46%1

GRHS = UN Global Report on Human Settlements 2009.

Feasibility Study 2011 & 2031 figures obtained by extrapolating 2010 & 2031 figures from F/Study Table4-3.

4.3.4. Urban Struc tureFigure 4.3 is a diagrammatic illustration of the broad structure of the municipality.This shows three zones:

Central urban zone development with a predominantly urban character.This comprises the central commercial areas and associated residentialdevelopment (both planned and unplanned). This covers about 22% of thetotal area of the municipality.

Suburban zone low-density housing development, much of itinformal/unplanned, mixed with small-scale cultivation. This covers about 30%of the total area of the municipality.

Peri-urban zone comprising cultivated or vacant land with scattered

settlement. This covers about 48% of the total area of the municipality.

4.3.4.1. Municipal boundary

Figure 4.4 shows the existing municipal boundary and the proposed extension. Thecurrent boundary encloses an area of 63km which the MMC considers to be toosmall. The submission for the extension was prepared for Central Government in1993 but has still not been approved.

It is not entirely clear why such a large extension is required and why it is consideredto be of such importance, since large areas of the peri-urban zone remainundeveloped and could accommodate significant additional population in urbansettlement.

4.3.4.2. New plot development

Figure 4.5 shows the areas which have been developed for new residentialdevelopment within the past 20 years (these were sketched out by hand by the ActingTown Planning Officer). No precise figures were available for the total number ofplots set out, but it is likely that the total falls some way short of the demandgenerated by population growth. This will have contributed to the growth ofinformal/unplanned settlements in the peri-urban zone.

The process for land development appears to follow the national town planning modeland standards used in all towns (see Mwanza Urban Context section for moredetailed explanation).

Examination of these identified areas on Google Earth indicates that many are notcurrently developed. This means either that areas have been planned but


28/89



development has not yet been carried out, or that the areas were drawn in the wronglocation. More detailed investigation is required to establish which is the case.

It appears that little spatial planning logic has been applied to the selection of newresidential development areas. These seem to be scattered in areas where suitableland is available, rather than following a systematic phasing of development in a

geographical area that would permit more logical and cost-effective delivery of publicutilities.

4.3.4.3. Regularisation of info rmal settlements

No figures were available for the population living in informal settlements. In line withthe 1995 national land policy, it is assumed that MMC intends to grant secure landtenure to residents of informal areas, both squatter settlements within the urban zoneand traditional villages in the peri-urban zone.

4.3.4.4. Land requirements 2011-31

Table 4.13 gives the distribution of Feasibility Study population increase 2011-31,which will be accommodated in three ways:

Absorption into the existing urban area through densification of urbandevelopment (sub-division of plots, infill development, regularisation ofinformal settlements etc) it is assumed that the existing urban populationwill increase by 25% in this manner.

Developments in progress: this assumes a notional 500 plots @ 5 personsper household, giving a population of 2,500.

Balance to be accommodated in additional new development areas.

Table 4.13 - Distr ibution of Feasibilit y Study population increase 2011-31

Table 4.14 converts the balance to be accommodated in new development areas intophysical land requirements.

It shows three demand categories (high, medium and low density) in the ratio6:3:1 (in line with national planning standards).

It uses use the minimum area for each category of plot (450-600m, 600-1,000m, >1,000m) this promotes the concept of the compact city, so as toensure efficient use of land and cost-effective delivery of infrastructurenetworks. It is noted that medium and low density plots are currently set outat 1,500m and 3,000m respectively.

The average household size is 5 p/hh. This needs to be kept under regularreview as any variation will increase or reduce the demand for plots/land.

The last two columns give net and gross residential areas. Net residentialarea is the land required for housing plots alone. Gross residential areaallows for local roads, shops, community facilities, open space, schools,clinics etc. The efficiency factor varies from 0.5 for high density housing to

0.58 for low density. This excludes major infrastructure (e.g. trunk/mainroads) and large-scale institutional and employment development.

2011 population 184,243

2031 population 622,716

Pop increase 2011-31 438,473

Absorption in existing urban area (+25%) 46,061

Development in progress 2,500

Balance of popu lation increase in peri-urban areas 389,912


29/89

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE NUMBER & TITLE

CLIENT

DATE

Woodcote GroveAshley RoadEpsomSurreyKT185BWENGLAND

Fax + 44 (0) 01372 740055Tel. + 44 (01372) 726140

0 1 2 30.5

Kilometers


September 2011

Project formulation for scaling up the LakeVictoria Water and Sanitation Initiative

LEGEND

Figure 4.3 - Urban Structure

SCALE BAR

Central urban zone

Suburban zone

Peri-urban zone

Municipal boundary


30/89


31/89

PROJECT TITLE


CLIENT

DATE


Fax + 44 (0) 01372 740055Tel. + 44 (01372) 726140

0 1 2 3

Kilometers


September 2011


LEGEND

Figure 4.4 - Existing Council Boundaryand Proposed Extension

SCALE BAR

Proposed Extension

Municipal Boundary


32/89


33/89

PROJECT TITLE


CLIENT

DATE


Fax + 44 (0) 01372 740055Tel. + 44 (01372) 726140

0 1 2 30.5

Kilometers


September 2011


LEGEND

Figure 4.5 - Development Areas1990-2011

SCALE BAR

Development Areas1990-2011


34/89


35/89



Table 4.14 - Additi onal Land Requirements 2031 for population in peri -urban areas

Plot categoryPlot size

mShare

Peri-urbanareas

2011-31

Hholds =plots

(@ 5 pph)

Net resarea (ha)

Grossres area

(ha)

- High density 450 60% 233,947 46,789 2,106 4,211

- Medium density 600 30% 116,974 23,395 1,404 2,599

- Low density 1,000 10% 38,991 7,798 780 1,345

389,912 77,982 4,289 8,155

- High density 450 60% 84,447 16,889 760 1,520

- Medium density 600 30% 42,224 8,445 507 938

- Low density 1,000 10% 14,075 2,815 281 485

140,745 28,149 1,548 2,944

The total demand for new plots generated by population increase is 2,000-4,000 plotsper year (depending on the actual population growth rate) so the 500 plots assumedto be in the process of being made available represent much less than one yearssupply. This highlights the urgent need for the MMC to speed up the planning anddesign of new residential areas. Failure to do so will inevitably result in an increase inunplanned development and expansion of informal settlements.

The shaded rows in Table 4.14 illustrate the impact of using the lower GRHSpopulation growth rates to predict land requirements. The demand for land toaccommodate population in peri-urban areas over the period 2011-31 would reduceby over 60%, with a commensurate reduced demand for infrastructure and otherurban services.

This would have significant implications for the cost of urban expansion and thephasing of implementation. It is therefore essential that actual population growth is

monitored closely to ensure that the planning and delivery of urban facilities matchesactual growth, so as to avoid significant over or under-supply.


36/89



4.4. Water Demand Projection

4.4.1. Development Scenario for Water & Sanitation Planning

It is not possible to state with any certainty which particular estimated AGR orresulting population projections will be correct. This study therefore uses both theFeasibility Study high projection (an AGR of 6.1%) and the UN GRHS projection(AGR varying from 4.2% to 3.8%) as the basis for the subsequent review and analysisof proposed WATSAN facilities, but the GRHS data is considered more realistic.

It is therefore essential that population growth is monitored regularly over the comingyears and the true rate of population increase ascertained, so that the planning anddelivery of urban facilities matches actual population growth and avoids significantover or under-supply.

The development scenario assumes:

A 25% increase in population absorbed in the existing urban area.

Development of the notional 500 plots which is in progress.

Regularisation of informal/unplanned settlements, leading to demand forimproved water & sanitation facilities.

These projects will tend to encourage a scattered development pattern theMMC should be encouraged to phase projects in a particular geographicalsector so as to facilitate planning and delivery of utilities infrastructure.

4.4.2. Water Demand based on Feasibili ty Study projections (NBS)

Table 4.15 sets out estimated domestic water demand, based on Feasibility Studyprojected populations for 2031. Three customer categories are given (low, mediumand high income) in the same 6:3:1 proportions used to calculate land requirements,with corresponding average daily consumption rates, defined in terms of litres percapita per day (lcd). This indicates a total 2031 demand of about 55,000 m per day,or an additional 39,000 m per day to meet population growth 2011-31.

The shaded rows illustrate the impact of the lower GHRS population growth rates onwater demand. Total demand would reduce by about 46%, and demand generatedby population increase 2011-31 would reduce by about 58%.

Table 4.15 - Domestic Water Demand 2031

Total pop @ 2031 Pop inc rease 2011-31

Customercategory

Share Consumption(lcd)

PopulationWater

demand(m/day)

PopulationWater

demand(m/day)

- Low income 60% 60 373,630 22,418 263,084 15,785

- Medium income 30% 110 186,815 20,550 131,542 14,470

- High income 10% 200 62,272 12,454 43,847 8,769

622,716 55,422 438,473 39,024

- Low income 60% 60 203,509 12,211 109,460 6,568

- Medium income 30% 110 101,755 11,193 54,730 6,020

- High income 10% 200 33,918 6,784 18,243 3,649

339,182 30,187 182,433 16,237


37/89



4.4.3. Water Demand based on UN GRHS population pro jections

Table 4.16 sets out the estimated 2031 urban water demand, based on a projectedpopulation of 339,182 using the figures from the UN GRHS. Three customercategories are given (low, medium and high income) in the same 6:3:1 proportionsused to calculate land requirements, with corresponding average daily consumptionrates, defined in terms of litres per capita per day (lcd). This indicates a total 2031supply requirement of 41,507 m per day.

Table 4.16 - Water Demand Projection 2031 (UN GRHS projection)

Total pop @ 2031

Customer category ShareConsumption*

(lcd)Population

Waterdemand(m/day)

- Low income 60% 60 203,509 12,211

- Medium income 30% 110 101,755 11,193

- High income 10% 200 33,918 6,784

89 339,182 30,187

Commercial 10% 3,019

Institutional 10% 3,019

Industrial 5% 1,509

37,734

Supply Requirement 1.1 41,507

The demands shown here (UN projection) are significantly lower than those used inthe Feasibility Study. The principal difference is the use of the lower AGR but otherdifferences include the adoption of different unit consumptions (for consistency acrossthis Study) and because of higher allowances made for non-domestic consumption.

Figure 4.6 Demand Projection and Plant Capacity, Musoma

The proposed capacity of the new Phase 1 source development (34,500 m3/day) willbe adequate to meet the full water demands of the city until around 2018 (NBSprojection) or more realistically 2024 (UN GRHS Projection) ; thereafter Phase 2 willneed to have been developed. These projections assume 100% customer coveragewhich is unlikely to be achieved in the near future and take no account of leakage,factors which will tend to balance out.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

2011 2016 2021 2026 2031

m3/d

Phase2CapPhase1CapUNProjNBSProj


38/89



4.5. Water Supply

4.5.1. Background

Musoma Town receives its water through a number of intakes on Lake Victoria.

Mwisenge is the most significant intake with a current production capacity of about9,000 m/day. Mutex and Bweri are other intakes under the management of the waterauthority. The combined capacity of the three intakes varies between 9,700 and15,300 m/day. The water from the intakes is supplied to the customers with minimaltreatment; just disinfection, which is not always provided.

The water from Misenge intake is pumped both to Mukendo tanks and directly into thenetwork, while the water from Mutex and Bweri intakes is only supplied through directpumping. There is one booster station at Kamunyonge that pumps water to Mara andBuhare tanks. The water supply system has a number of tanks sited around the town;the total storage capacity of the tanks is just over 2,500 m.

The distribution network uses an assortment of pipe materials with the total networklength of around 65 km. The development of the distribution network over the yearshas not kept pace with the housing developments. The current network only coversan estimated 60% of the population (MUWASA). Most of the pipes were laid morethan 40 years ago and are generally considered to be in bad condition.

4.5.2. Institut ional Structure

Water and sewerage services within Musoma town are provided by MUWASA, one oftwenty urban water and sewerage authorities within Tanzania. MUWASA is a semi-autonomous body reporting to the Ministry of Water and Irrigation in Dar es Salaam.Provision of water and sanitation services outside the formal networks lies with theMunicipal Council and their Water Engineer.

4.5.3. System Performance

4.5.3.1. General

The data in this section is taken from MUWASAs 2009 -10 Annual Report.

The main challenges facing MUWASA revolve around the following issues:

The water demand is higher than supply capacity;

Inadequate water quality due to lack of treatment;

Unaccounted for water is high;

Limited coverage of the distribution network;

Low billing efficiency and metering ratio;

Frequent failures of the old pumps and pipelines;

Increasing cost of electricity; and

Limited access to financing for investment requirements.


39/89



Table 4.17 - Capacities of Existing Intakes

Mwisenge Mutex Bweri Total

Design capacity (m/d) 20,352 3,552 192 24,096

Present capacity (m/d) 15,048 2,220 110 17,378

Production - previous period (m) 3,832,562 11,684 28,044 3,872,290

Production - this year (m) 3,799,547 13,373 32,499 3,845,419

1,300 domestic water meters were received through WSDP last year all have beeninstalled. An additional 285 meters were procured and installed through internalresources. This brought the total metered customers to 4,798 by the year end.

During the year MUWASA attempted to procure a further 2,000 meters throughWSDP. However, this procurement was not approved as WSDP did not providefunding.

The unaccounted for water for the year 2009/2010 was given as 43%. Metering ofactive customers is now 72%.

4.5.3.2. Water Availabil ity and Consumption

i. Average hours of service per day 22 hrs

ii. Proportion of consumers with 24 hrs Service 85%

4.5.3.3. Supply and Demand

MUWASA provided the following estimates:

i. Estimated water demand 8,640,000 m3/year (23,671 m3/day)

ii. Quantity of water produced 3,845,419 m3/year (10,535 m3/day)

The estimated demand is for the whole town including areas not currently served.Table 4.18 - Number and Percentage of Population Served

Category Institutional Household Yard Tap Kiosk Total

Total pop. - - - - 160,200

Pop. Served 5,767 40,050 56,070 2,243 104,130

Percentage 3.5% 25% 35% 1.4% 65%

NB: It has not been possible to fill the fields for total population by category as such data is notpredictable for those areas that are yet to be supplied. The population figures are based onMunicipal statistics.

The tariff in use was approved by EWURA through order No. 10.001 of 25th J anuary,2010 for effectiveness beginning of February 2010. The following table summarizesthe Tariffs.


40/89



Table 4.19 - Current Approved Tariffs - MUWASA

Customercategory

WATER SALES New waterConnection

charges

Servicecharges

permonth

Reconnectioncharges

Metered Unmetered

Range

(m

3

)

TZS/m3 TZS/month/m3

Domestic 0 - 5 450

7,500 25,000 2,000 7,5005 - 10 550

Above 10 600

Institution 1 30 55021,000 30,000 2,500 15,000

Above 30 700

Commercial 1 10 65021,000 35,000 2,500 15,000

Above 10 750

Industrial 1 50 65030,000 50,000 3,000 17,500

Above 50 750Kiosk - 300 - - 1,000 -

4.5.4. Water Resources

All of the water needs for Musoma are drawn from three intakes on the lake. Theseare shown in Figure 4.7.

Mwisenge Intake

The Mwisenge intake is located on the northern side of the town. It abstracts waterfrom Lake Victoria via submersible pumps at the end of a pipe bridge. There are two

submersible pumps (one duty, one standby). The pumps supply water through a 300mm steel pipe via a small tank where disinfection is carried out to the high lift pumps,pumping directly into the network and to Mukendo Hill tanks. There are 5 pumps, oneis out of operation. Pump Nos. 1, 4 and 5, supply water to the Mukendo Hill reservoirthrough two raising mains. Pump no. 3 supplies water to the ground level reservoirat Kamunyonge booster pump station and directly to some parts of Mwisenge.

Mwisenge Intake Pump Station

Bweri Intake

Bweri intake and pump station is located on the eastern shore of the lake. The pumpstation comprises three pump sets - two horizontal centrifugal pumps belonging toMUWASA and one vertical pump which belongs to the Bweri Secondary school anddelivers water to the schools storage facility.


41/89



Figure 4.7 Water Supply System Overview - MusomaSource: Pyry 2010

Mutex Intake

The Mutex intake is also located on the eastern shore line. It was constructed in 1978.

It consists of a 150 mm GS suction pipe equipped with a foot valve and strainer. Thepump house is made from corrugated steel as a temporary structure.

Only one pump is installed. It operates 8 hours per day. The pump delivers water toRwamulimi reservoir (a private tank), with a storage capacity of 90 m, and suppliesthe Rwamulimi area.

4.5.5. Treatment

The only treatment carried out is chlorination through a gravity feed from manualmixing tanks at Mwisenge. The other sources are untreated.

4.5.6. Transmission

The transmission system consists of rising mains to Mukendo Hill reservoir andKamunyonge booster station including the transmission mains from Kamunyongebooster station to Mara tank and Buhare tank.


42/89



4.5.6.1. Rising Main from Mwisenge Intake to Mukendo Hill Reservoir

The Mwisenge Mukendo Hill transmission system consists of two pipelines; a 300mm diameter Ductile Iron pipe 735 m long which ends at a 680 m tank on MukendoHill constructed in 1983; and a 200 mm diameter Cast Iron pipe 820m long laid in1952 which delivers water to the old reservoir, which has a storage capacity of 500 m.

4.5.6.2. Kamunyonge Booster Station

Kamunyonge booster station is located along Mjita road. It is served by a 200 mmdiameter PVC gravity line from Mukendo reservoir and by pump No. 3 at Mwisengehigh lift pump station via a 350 mm Glassfibre pipe. The booster pump stationcomprises two horizontal centrifugal pumps. The booster station supplies Marasecondary school ground reservoir (capacity of 225 m) via a 150 mm PVC pipe, andBuhare ground reservoir (Buhare area) via a 150 mm GI pipe.

4.5.7. Storage Facilit ies

Musoma water supply system has a number of small storage facilities sited aroundthe city; 14 tanks were identified during the recent Feasibility Study with a totalstorage volume of 2,700m. 10 of these are operated by MUWASA and the remaining4 are privately operated. Original (main) tanks for the supply to the centre of the townare situated on the rocky hill above the city centre called Mukendo Hill.

4.5.8. Distribut ion Network

The distribution network is divided into 4 operational zones; Zone A-D. The oldestpart of the existing distribution network is located in Zones A and B. It was laidbetween 1950 and 1970 and comprises mainly cast iron pipes. According to theoperator, this part of the town experiences frequent bursts and high leakage becauseof its poor condition. The pipes have exceeded their economic life. Many branch and

section valves were disturbed during the construction of roads in the towns. Somewere actually buried under the tarmac. Consequently, there are difficulties operatingthe network. The network within Zone C is newer since the pipes were laid betweenthe 1970s and 1990s.

Zone D was created to supply the extension of the townships eastwards. It is partlyserved from Mukendo Hill reservoir and by Bweri and Mutex pumping stations. Mostof the distribution mains in this zone were laid in the 1970s and 1990s.

The poor condition of the distribution network generally results in very high waterlosses. MUWASA have expressed concerns that the envisaged water supplyimprovement measures and the extension of the distribution network, if not coupledwith much needed rehabilitation of the existing distribution network, will increase theoperating pressures in the existing network system which in return will create

additional uncontrollable water losses.

4.5.9. Operations and Maintenance

Many problems in the existing water supply system are exacerbated by inadequateoperations and maintenance. For instance, comprehensive water quality analysesshould be carried out at least twice per year, but results indicate only basic wateranalyses were done in 2007 and 2008. These sampling periods are inadequate tomonitor existing water sources;

Pyry as part of their studies estimated the level of non-revenue water to be about44%; clearly this figure is too high and concerted efforts are needed to bring it downto more acceptable levels.


43/89



Table 4.20 - Pyry Water Balance for Musoma (2010) m3/day

SystemInputVolume

10,417

AuthorisedConsumption

6,011

BilledAuthorisedConsumption

5,865RevenueWater

5.865 56.3%

UnbilledAuthorisedConsumption

145

Non-RevenueWater

4,552 43.7%

WaterLosses

4,408

ApparentLosses

2,291

Real Losses 2,114

4.5.10. Planned Developments

4.5.10.1. Proposals under AFD Project

The design flows used are based on the water demand calculations given in theFeasibility Study and the facilities proposed under the AFD project have been sizedaccordingly. A new treatment plant with half the planned 2030 capacity is to beconstructed (Phase 1). The plant will have a treated water capacity of 34,450 m/day.

A new intake with an abstraction capacity of 36,300 m/day is also planned to supplyraw water to the new treatment plant. Demand projections prepared for this studyindicate that the capacity of the Phase 1 plant will be adequate until around 2026(based on the UN GRHS projection), provided that leakage rates can be reduced toacceptable levels and assuming that full coverage of the population is not achieved.

The treated water will be transmitted to four reservoir sites namely; Mukendo,Nyamiongo, Buhare and Kwangwa. These reservoirs will serve each distinct

distribution zones. At present, only the Mukendo reservoir is in existence.Nyamiongo Reservoir is to be built under this Phase 1 project, but Kwangwa andBuhare reservoirs are proposed to be built under a Phase 2 project. The principaldesign parameters for the facilities are based on the configuration for the ultimatephase. Table 4.21 shows the design flows for abstraction facilities, treatment facilities,and transmission facilities. Figure 4.8 shows the schematic configuration of thedesign flows.

Table 4.21 - Design Capacities - Pyry

Item Unit Value

Peak season water demand and Phase 2 capacity m3/d 68,819

Phase 1 production as % of gross demand % 50

Treated water production - Phase 1 m3/d 34,450

Treatment losses as a % of raw water % 5

Raw water production requirements m3/d 36,221

Raw water pumping hours hrs 22

Raw water production requirements m3/h 1646

Raw water design flow m3/h 1650

Actual treated water production m3/d 34,450

Transmission from Bukanga to Nyamiongo & Mukendo m3/d 34,450

4.5.10.2. Raw Water Abstract ion Facilities

The proposed raw water pumping station has been designed as an on shoreinstallation. The raw water abstraction facilities will consist of a gravity main


44/89



conveying lake water into a pump sump located on the shore. From there, the waterwill be pumped to the inlet chamber of the new water treatment plant.

The key details of the proposed intake, gravity main, intake pumping station and risingmain are shown schematically below.

Figure 4.8 Proposed Water Supply System upgrade - Musoma

Source: Pyry 2010

4.5.10.3. Intake

The selection of the intake site was influenced by water quality considerations andland availability. The old intake at Mwisenge is now surrounded by developmentcausing deterioration in the water quality. The new site at Bukanga is situated awayfrom heavy human settlement and should therefore offer improved raw water quality.

The lake shore at the intake is generally rocky with one pocket of sandy beach. Thisis where the low lift pump house is proposed. The intake area is an open shore withcontinuous movement of water, which discourages the algae blooms that thrive inshallow stagnant waters.

Raw water will be extracted from 150 m off-shore, where the water depth is about 4 m.The water abstraction depth will be located at 1 m above lake bed level. The waterabstraction depth was selected to be deep enough to minimize any possibleabstraction of algae, whilst at the same time, high enough above the lake bed to avoidthe abstraction of disturbed silt from the lake bottom. We note that lake levels do varybut that the design consultant is confident that the intake pipe level is 2m below thelowest level ever recorded for the lake, which should ensure that supplies aremaintained at times of low lake level.

The intake will consist of a 600 mm abstraction pipe laid with a uniform invert level upto the pump sump. The sump will have two compartments. The first compartmentwill act as a debris trap; the second chamber where the submersible pumps will be


45/89



installed. The wall separating the two compartments will have openings fitted withpenstocks and appropriate sieves.

The pumps are designed to operate for 22 hours per day. There will be four pumps,corresponding to the number of water treatment modules in the treatment plant. Eachpump shall deliver 412 m3/h and will lift the water through a static head of 22.5 m.

4.5.10.4. Treatment

The plant proposed is a conventional treatment plant with a Phase 1 design output of34,500 m3/day. The Feasibility Study anticipated expansion of the works in 2025 todouble capacity to meet 2030 demands (Phase 2).

Limited water quality data was collected during the various study phases although jartesting was done to confirm coagulant dosages.

The treatment process proposed is aeration, chemical dosing, flocculation,clarification and rapid gravity filtration together with both pre-chlorination and postchlorination. Sludge and filter wash water is to be settled with the supernatantdischarged to the Lake and the soli

part 4 musoma report final final v4

Documents

musoma report final

water resources

water sanitation planning

water supply context

water demand projection

final rs ch mk ps

sanitation context

final draft rs ch mk