A/HRC/30/39/Add.2 charged to those who are connected to pipes, the Special Rapporteur did not see those guidelines being followed. Twenty-litre jerrycans of water were sold for K Sh 5 in informal settlements in Nairobi. This is more than double the tariff of K Sh 2 per 20 litres approved by the responsible water service provider in Nairobi. In very remote areas in Kenya, 20 litres of water at water points were sometimes sold for K Sh 10. Still, the water price at water points is relatively low compared to other small-scale providers, such as pushcart vendors. 37. The prices charged by small-scale water providers are obviously unaffordable for many people in the country, where nearly half of the population lives below the poverty line. A study shows that approximately 63 per cent of households spend much more than 3 per cent of household income just on water. 8 This suggests that many people must either limit their water consumption to a level that threatens their health and hygiene practices, or compromise their access to other human rights, such as to sanitation, medicine and food. 38. In 2008, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recommended that the Government of Kenya should control prices charged by private water services and water kiosks (see E/C.12/KEN/CO/1, para. 30). It is urgent that the Government implements this recommendation and takes immediate measures to monitor and enforce the official tariffs for water kiosks. Generally people are prepared to pay a high price for water because it is essential for so many aspects of a person’s life, but this does not justify a high affordability threshold. Affordability standards must be considered together with standards of minimum quantity of water or quality of sanitation to ensure that they are realistic. The Special Rapporteur calls upon the Government to correct the situation wherein an unjustified burden is placed on the poorest of the poor, who have no choice but to pay unaffordable prices for water. Such situations reflect a pattern of social structure where those who are better off benefit from development, including a subsidized supply of piped water and sanitation network, while the poor continue to pay higher prices for their minimum daily needs. Where the minimum standard of service is not affordable, States must provide alternative financial resources, for example, subsidies or grants. 39. It is also necessary to identify the poorest of the poor who cannot even afford the regulated price of water at water kiosks. This is a particular challenge, given that there is no social security system in Kenya. The Ministry of Water and Irrigation included a special pro-poor implementation plan and tariff adjustment through cross-subsidization in the implementation plan for the National Water Services Strategy. The Water Services Trust Fund, established under the Water Act of 2002 as a State corporation in order to assist in financing the provision of water services to areas of Kenya that are without adequate water services, conducted mapping of the water supply with socioeconomic data for pro-poor planning.9 Collecting disaggregated data is an essential step in prioritizing those who have been marginalized. According to one assessment, however, despite the pro-poor policy, low-income households still do not enjoy affordable water and sanitation services, in particular because of the lack of financial and human capacities to monitor the compliance of licensed small-scale providers who often charge tariffs higher than the stipulated price. This is also owing to the fact that unregulated small-scale providers, who are the main suppliers for low-income households, fall outside of the regulatory framework, as stated above.10 40. The Special Rapporteur observed that, owing to such deficits in the policies, often the poor rely on community-based support systems; for instance, in Kibera, operators of 8 9 10 10 See UNDP, “Small-scale water providers”, p. 4. See the MajiData website (www.majidata.go.ke). See UNDP, “Small-scale water providers”, p. 29.