COHRE Right To Sanitation Wate Kenya Kibera 2007

The Right to Water and Sanitation In Kibera, Nairobi, Kenya An Action Research Report Umande Trust Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) Hakijamii

December 2007

1

List of Abbreviations CBO CDF CESCR DC ICESCR KENSUP KUESP LASPAD MDGs MWI NCC NEMA NGO NWSC WAB WASREB WRMA WSB WSP WSP WSTF

Community based organisation Constituency Development Fund Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights District Commissioner International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme Kibera Urban Environment and Sanitation Project Local Authorities Service Delivery Action Plans Millennium Development Goals Ministry of Water and Irrigation Nairobi City Council National Environmental Management Authority Non-governmental organisation Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company Water Appeals Board Water Services Regulatory Board Water Resources Management Authority Water Services Board Water and Sanitation Programme Water Service Providers Water Sanitation Trust Fund

2

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................6 REPORT METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................7 ACTION RESEARCH OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................7 TOOLS AND METHODS ......................................................................................................................7 SECONDARY DATA REVIEW...............................................................................................................7 PARTICIPATORY MAPPING SESSIONS OF BASIC SERVICES ................................................................8 TECHNICAL APPRAISAL .....................................................................................................................8 1. OVERVIEW OF WATER, SANITATION, DRAINAGE AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN KIBERA ........................................................................................................9 1.1 KEY CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................................9 1.2. WATER SUPPLY .......................................................................................................................... 10 1.2.1 SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................10 1.2.2 PARTICIPATORY MAPPING .....................................................................................................11 i) Availability and Physical Accessibility ................................................................................11 ii) Affordability............................................................................................................................11 iii) Quality of Water Supply ......................................................................................................12 1.2.3 TECHNICAL APPRAISAL ..........................................................................................................12 1.3. SANITATION .............................................................................................................................. 13 1.3.1 SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................13 1.3.2 PARTICIPATORY MAPPING ...................................................................................................14 i) Availability and Physical Accessibility ................................................................................14 ii) Affordability............................................................................................................................14 iii) Quality of sanitation facilities .............................................................................................14 1.3.3 TECHNICAL APPRAISAL ........................................................................................................15 1.3 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................... 15 1.3.1 SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................15 1.3.2 PARTICIPATORY MAPPING ...................................................................................................16 i) Availability and Physical Accessibility ................................................................................16 ii) Quality of Garbage Disposal ..............................................................................................16 iii) Affordability of Garbage Disposal ....................................................................................16 1.4 WASTE WATER COLLECTION AND DRAINAGE .......................................................................... 17 1.4.1 SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................17 1.4.2 PARTICIPATORY MAPPING .....................................................................................................17 i) Availability and Proximity .....................................................................................................17 ii) Quality of Drainage Facilities ..............................................................................................17 1.5 HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE ON BASIC SERVICES .................................................................... 18 1.6 ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION ....................................................................... 18 1.7 IMPACTS OF INADEQUATE BASIC SERVICES ............................................................................... 19 2.

LEGAL BASIS FOR RIGHT TO WATER AND SANITATION ..........................................20

2.1 INTERNATIONAL LAW: TREATIES AND THEIR INTERPRETATION.............................................20 2.2 UNITED NATIONS EXPERT REPORTS .....................................................................................22 2.3 DUTIES OF GOVERNMENT ......................................................................................................24 2.4 KENYAN LAW AND POLICIES ..................................................................................................25

3

3. INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, ACTION AND INACTION ON WATER AND SANITATION SERVICES.............................................................................................................28 3.1 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.

WATER ....................................................................................................................................28 THE WATER SERVICES REGULATORY BOARD (WASREB) ........................................................28 THE ATHI WATER SERVICES BOARD ........................................................................................29 THE WATER SERVICES TRUST FUND (WSTF).............................................................................29 NAIROBI WATER AND SEWERAGE COMPANY (NWSC).........................................................29 WATER QUALITY.....................................................................................................................30 TOILETS, SEWERAGE AND LATRINE EXHAUSTION................................................................32 GARBAGE DISPOSAL ................................................................................................................32 DRAINAGE............................................................................................................................... 34 HOUSING AND LAND TENURE ...............................................................................................35

TECHNICAL OPTIONS FOR EXTENDING ACCESS TO WATER AND SANITATION 36

4.1 WATER SUPPLY .......................................................................................................................36 4.1.1 IMPROVEMENTS TO KIOSK SYSTEMS AND PUBLIC STANDPIPES (SHORT-TERM) ...........................36 4.1.2 WATER MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................38 4.1.3 ALTERNATIVE SUPPLY OPTIONS .............................................................................................38 4.1.3.1 Rainwater harvesting .................................................................................................38 4.1.3.2 Bore holes.....................................................................................................................39 4.1.3.3 Water tankers ..............................................................................................................39 4.1.4 LONG – TERM OPTIONS FOR WATER SUPPLY .........................................................................39 4.1.5 WAY FORWARD ON WATER SUPPLY .....................................................................................39 4.2 SANITATION............................................................................................................................39 4.2.1 IMPROVEMENTS TO PUBLIC LATRINES (SHORT-TERM) ................................................................39 4.2.2 CONSTRUCTION OF PIT LATRINES ..........................................................................................39 4.2.3 Ecological Sanitation: Installation of Biogas Latrines ..............................................40 4.2.4 Increasing Connections of Public Toilet facilities to existing main sewer lines....40 4.2.5 LONG-TERM OPTIONS FOR SANITATION ................................................................................41 4.2.6 WAY FORWARD ON SANITATION ..........................................................................................41 4.3 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................. 41 4.3.1 DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY SYSTEMS WITH NAIROBI CITY COUNCIL (NCC) SUPPORT (SHORT-TERM) ................................................................................................................................41 4.3.2 LONG-TERM OPTIONS FOR GARBAGE COLLECTION ..............................................................42 4.3.3 WAY FORWARD ON GARBAGE COLLECTION .......................................................................42 4.4 DRAINAGE............................................................................................................................... 42 CONSTRUCTION OF DRAINAGE (SHORT-MEDIUM TERM) ....................................................................42 LONG-TERM OPTIONS FOR DRAINAGE .............................................................................................43 WAY FORWARD ON DRAINAGE ......................................................................................................43 4.5 ENSURING HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AFTER BASIC SERVICES ARE EXTENDED ..................43 5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENSURING ACCESS TO WATER AND SANITATION ....44 5.1 GOVERNMENT OF KENYA ..........................................................................................................44 5.2 SPECIFIC GOVERNMENT ACTORS ..............................................................................................45 5.2.1 MINISTRY OF HEALTH ...........................................................................................................45 5.2.2 MINISTRY OF LANDS...............................................................................................................45 5.2.3 MINISTRY OF HOUSING ..........................................................................................................46

4

5.2.4 MINISTRY OF WATER AND IRRIGATION ....................................................................................46 5.2.5 ATHI WATER SERVICES BOARD AND WATER SERVICES REGULATORY BOARD ............................46 5.2.6 NAIROBI WATER AND SEWERAGE COMPANY (NWSC) ........................................................47 5.2.7 NAIROBI CITY COUNCIL (NCC)..........................................................................................47 5.2.8 PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION .............................................................................................47 5.2.9 NAIROBI CITY COUNCIL (NCC)..........................................................................................48 5.2.10 THE KENYA NATIONAL COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (KNHCR) ...................................48 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................................................................49

5

Introduction Basic services contribute to human dignity, quality of living and sustainable livelihoods. Access to services requires that central and local government, communities, civil society organizations and the private sector progressively invest energy and resources in a sustained and lasting endeavour.

Over the past decades, central and local governments across Kenya have adopted a laissez faire approach to the rapid growth of urban settlements. To-date, they have been unable to effectively deliver basic services to peoples’ settlements due to the complex socio-political factors combined with corruption, policy discrimination against the poor and a general inability to understand and effectively respond to citizen-articulated service needs. The development of peoples’ settlements characterised by a lack of basic services and infrastructure such as adequate access to water, sanitation, solid waste management, roads and footpaths, storm drainage is a manifestation of increasing poverty levels in Kenya and an indication of the historical lack of political will by government to respond to the needs of the poor.

From a rights-based approach the denial of basic services constitutes a denial of human rights. By utilizing a rights-based approach, the process and purpose of development is centred on the overall achievement and contribution to the realization of basic rights, based on international human rights standards directed to promoting and protecting human rights. A rights-based approach to human development would therefore lay emphasis on the value of principles including non discrimination and attention to vulnerable groups, participation and access to information, empowerment, transparency and accountability and the express linkage to all rights.

The improvement of basic services and infrastructure is central to slum upgrading in Kibera.

Infamously recognized as the largest informal settlement in Kenya, there have been various attempts to improve basic infrastructure in Kibera. Over the years, a significant portion of human and financial resources has been allocated to this end. Despite well meaning interventions, there has been very little impact.

With regard to the provision of water and sanitation, the water sector reforms which led to the passing of the Water Act in 2002, recognised the inequities in the access to water and sanitation by the poor. The Water Act introduced new water management institutions to govern water and sanitation. While water resources remained vested in the state, the water reforms saw the introduction of the commercialisation of water resources as part of the decentralization process and the participation of stakeholders in the management of national water resources. Developed policies under the water sector reforms affirmed that all Kenyan’s are entitled to sustainable access to safe water and basic sanitation.

With the passing of the Water Act and the incorporation in 2003 of the Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company (NWSC), the NWSC has made very little gains in extending access to water and sanitation to residents of Kibera. Similarly, services of the Nairobi City Council (NCC) whose primary functions include provision of solid waste disposal and maintenance and repair of urban roads have remained largely uncoordinated and sporadic. There is little indication that sufficient focus, beyond policy declarations, has been given to ensuring that the poor are truly entitled to the provision of basic services.

The Kenyan government has indicated its commitment to utilizing a rights based approach to development (National Resource Management Strategy 2006-2008). As such the political-legal framework of government on which human rights will be implemented must recognise the poor as equal and necessary partners in development and not merely beneficiaries of charitable 6

initiatives. Public resource allocation and development of capacity within the peoples’ settlement ought to reflect the governments’ commitment to the overall commitment to prioritize the access to basic services to all households in the peoples’ settlements.

Report Methodology Between 23 December 2005 and 2 January 2006, representatives from 8 peoples’ settlements convened at various venues in Kibera to address issues pertinent to the availability, access, affordability and acceptability of basic services. Whilst acknowledging that energy, transport, communication and education are important basic services, this project paid particular attention to sanitation, water, solid waste management and wastewater disposal. These meetings were the start of an action-research project that is based on research collected by residents of Kibera, detailed consideration by community representatives of what actions need to be taken to ensure basic services, secondary research and interviews with government officials and other key actors.

Action Research Objectives • To collect baseline data on availability, adequacy, affordability and accessibility of basic services (with special emphasis on sanitation, water and waste management); • To assess the extent of the implementation by central and local government of their duties under human rights law to the people of Kibera; • To identify priorities for litigation advocacy on the human rights to basic services; • To generate actions research/elaboration.

for

community-led

advocacy,

movements

and

further

Tools and Methods Secondary Data Review This captured recent information from studies conducted by public and civil society organizations. Key amongst others, the team benefited from the following documents:• The Kibera Urban Environment and Sanitation Project (KUESP) study; • Household enumerations along the railway line (Pamoja Trust, 2005-06); • COHRE, Listening to the Poor: Housing Rights in Nairobi, Kenya, Final Report (Geneva: Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, 2006); • COHRE, Manual on the www.cohre.org/manualrtws;

Right

to

Water

and

Sanitation,

available

• Small-scale water and sanitation providers (Water and Sanitation Programme, 2004); • The Kenya Slums Upgrading Stakeholder and Infrastructure Mapping (2003-04); The bibliography makes reference to these and complementary publications.

7

at

Participatory Mapping Sessions of Basic Services The residents’ groups paid particular attention to analyzing and generating action plans on sanitation, water, solid waste management and wastewater disposal services in their neighbourhoods. In each of the sessions, the research team adapted the following tools: a) b) c) d)

Sketch maps on water, sanitation services; Institutional diagrams; Pie charts/household expenditure analysis on basic services; Action planning.

These mapping sessions captured valuable data and insights on the perceptions by the people regarding access to water and sanitation and the actions taken by civil society, private and public sector organizations.

The research team produced and circulated a separate report (`Community Dialogues’) to the respective community groups for comment and feedback. The sessions attracted a total of 60 persons representing the youth, women and men in 8 villages of Kibera. The table below summarizes the villages and number of persons engaged: Sub-activity Kianda/Gatwikera

Date 23 Dec. 2005

Venue Samaritan School

Number of persons 11

Mashimoni/Makina

29 Dec. 2005

Dove Church

12

Laini Saba/Soweto

30 Dec. 2005

Ushirika Hall

11

Kisumu Ndogo/Kambi Muru

2 Jan. 2006

Reform Church

16

Laini Saba

26 July 2006

Ushirika Hall

55

At a session on 26 July 2006, the participants from each village sent 55 representatives to a meeting involving all eight villages at Ushirika Hall in Laini Saba and feedback was given on the Community Dialogues report.

Technical Appraisal Umande Trust’s water and sanitation officer made follow up visits to four villages: Gatwikera, Kianda, Laini Saba, Mashimoni, Makina and Soweto. The purpose was to validate the mapping sessions and to make a technical assessment of the water and sanitation facilities. He took measurements on the water supplies, distances to latrines and the state of the existing water and sanitation facilities. A separate report was produced and shared with the community representatives.

On the 14 December 2007 the draft report was shared with representatives of each village at the “Kibera Right to Water and Sanitation Workshop” held at Christ the King Catholic Church, Laini Saba.

8

1. OVERVIEW OF WATER, SANITATION, DRAINAGE AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN KIBERA 1.1 Key Characteristics Covering 250 hectares and with a population estimated at 700,000, Kibera is home to about 50% of the population living in Nairobi’s peoples’ settlements.1 Kibera is extremely densely populated with about 1,250 persons per hectare with an average 5 persons per household. Lack of secure land tenure is one of the major constraints in improving conditions in the area.

Kibera is divided into 11 villages.2 The villages, of varying sizes and populations, are all located upstream of the Nairobi dam and trapped between the Nairobi-Kisumu railway and the Ngong’ river. Vehicle accessibility in major parts is unavailable. Many residents have to walk for over three kilometres from public transport termini to their places of residence3 Between 40 and 49% of the residents live below the poverty line (i.e. Kshs 2 000 per month).4 The villages are the smallest administrative unit with populations ranging from 70,000 to 80,000.

As in many other peoples’ settlements in Nairobi, the communities are not homogenous and vary in their social, economic, cultural and political make up. Interest groups aggregate around structure ownership and tenancy, religion, welfare groups, business and occupation, education, political interest, age and gender. In addition to specific interest groups present in the communities, during the past decade a number of civil society organisations,5 government authorities and utilities and international organizations have been identified as key stakeholders in Kibera.

Kibera, like many other peoples’ settlements in Nairobi, is characterized by lack of basic services and infrastructure such as adequate access to water, sanitation, solid waste management, roads and footpaths, storm drainage, electricity and public lighting etc. Housing units are semi permanent in nature, and often reflective of the high population densities. Security of tenure is not guaranteed and the threat of forced eviction remains real. Social amenities are inadequate, with facilities such as schools and hospitals unable to cope with the population demand.

The unsanitary conditions in Kibera contribute to unmitigated increases in HIV and TB related illnesses. It is estimated that 14% of Kibera’s residents are infected with HIV, a rate more than double the national average. The lack of adequate basic healthcare facilities, access to clean water and sanitary means of human excreta disposal has serious repercussions for the affected and infected populations in the settlement. A number of initiatives led by organisations such as Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF-Belgium) and Amref have been instrumental in the provision of basic health care, comprehensive care for HIV/AIDS, with programmes including out-patient People’s settlement is the term that is used in preference to “informal settlement” or “slum” by community based organisations.

2 Kianda, Gatwikera, Silanga, Lindi, Kisumu Ndogo, Kambi Muru, Makina, Mashimoni, Soweto–Highrise, Soweto and Laini Saba.

3 For over 75% of the residents, the 3 kilometres stretch is in addition to an average 7 to 12 kilometres residents have to walk to their respective places of work.

4 Ministry of Planning and National Development, Geographical Dimensions of Well-Being in Kenya, Nairobi, Central Bureau of Statistics, (2003).

5 The term includes Community Based Organisations, Non Governmental Organisations and Faith Based Organisations.

1

9

consultations, Mother and Child Healthcare (MCH), care for victims of sexual and gender based violence, access to HIV/AIDS treatment.

The United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) estimates that 64% of sub Saharan Africa’s population is living with HIV/AIDS, the majority of whom are women. In settlements like Kibera the threat of infection as a result of sexual and gender based violence is very real particularly for women and children. The social and health impact of HIV/AIDS is also felt among marginalized and vulnerable groups such as women, children and the extremely

poor. The cost of accessing clean water and sanitary toilets, which facilities are needed more urgently and regularly, further reduces the ability of the infected and affected populations from affording much needed health care and nutritious food.

1.2. Water Supply 1.2.1 Secondary Data Analysis It is estimated that Kibera receives 20,000m3 of water per day. 40% of it is unaccounted for water lost through leakage and the rest is sold at water kiosks. Thus, there is 12,000m3 per day against a requirement of 17,000m3 per day. This translates to a shortfall of 5,000m3/d (WSP, 1999). Due to the unsatisfactory delivery of services, the residents have no option but to rely on small-scale water providers mostly absentee structure owners who not only own and control housing units but also yard taps, in-house connections of electricity and water and many of the sanitation facilities.

With a population of over 500,000 people, there are still only approximately 25 kilometres of piped network in the entire settlement, and much of this network receives little or no water.

Kibera gets less water than other settlements in proportion to its size for two main reasons. One is the limited capacity of the pumping station on the mains feeding this part of the city, and the other is the tendency to divert available water to neighbouring high income areas where both political influence and revenue are greater.

Most households do not have direct connections to the city council’s service pipelines. Four percent have in-house water connections, 15 percent rely on yard taps and 68 percent rely on water kiosks managed by private individuals, NGOs or CBOs. Kiosk users buy water by the jerry can and pay a high average unit price resulting in low water use levels. According to surveys conducted by the Water and Sanitation Programme (WSP), up to 85% of the households draw water from private and community owned water kiosks. The studies by the WSP reveal that the informal private sector plays an important role in water delivery. This sector includes structure owners and service providers (rental housing, businesses and water kiosks). The average distance to the nearest water kiosk is about 40 metres and consumption ranges from 16 – 20 litres per capita per day.

The majority of the residents pay Kshs 2-3 per a 20 litre container (i.e. Kshs 100-150 per cubic metre) as presently charged by the water kiosks and handcart vendors. In the absence of any alternative water supply or the ability to purchase water from alternative sources, residents are forced to utilize existing water kiosks.6 The prices arbitrarily increase to between Kshs 10-20 in times of shortages, which on average occur four times a month.

6

Sumila Gulyani et al, Water for the Urban Poor: Water Markets, Household Demand and Services Preferences in Kenya, (2005) Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Board Discussion, Paper Series No. 5, p. 34.

10

The Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company (NWSC) was contracted as the sole water services provider by the Athi Water Services Board to be responsible for the supply of water and sewerage facilities in Nairobi and its environs. The NWSC has established a flat rate of Kshs 10 per cubic metre for bulk supply to water kiosks serving informal settlements. Even with this low rate, kiosk operators charge as much as 10 times the price charged by the utility company instead of recommended Kshs 15-20 per cubic meter if the supply were improved.

The high cost charged by water kiosks is partially due to the high costs of operation: first, construction of a kiosk (Kshs 75,000 approximately), second, bribes to utility officials to ‘speed up’ connections (which can come to up to a quarter of the cost) and third, the fact that vendors often choose the option of registering for domestic connections where they are charged higher rates due to many requirements for registering as bulk consumers.7

1.2.2 Participatory Mapping8 i) Availability and Physical Accessibility Relative to other settlements, the water supply is regular in the three villages of Kianda, Gatwikera and Makina. In these villages, it takes between ten and 30 minutes to access water. In Makina, there is a relatively reliable supply of water from piped water, a borehole and wells. The latter services are predominantly run by individual private water vendors. Given the high population density and the lack of regulated prices, this supply remains inadequate. Kibera’s remaining villages experience frequent water shortages and often it takes about 40 minutes to access water. Community members attribute the scarcity of water to drought, vandalism of pipes, leakages and the need for frequent repairs.

The participatory mapping session in Mashimoni revealed that about 300 households share one water point. The World Bank supported distribution network in this village is more often than not dry. The same situation applies in Kisumu Ndogo where households have to wake up by 6a.m to access water. Here, approximately 200 households share one water point. There are only five main water points in the village with an average distance of 200 metres from each other.

Residents in Kambi Muru report acute water shortages. Water collected in the seven storage tanks available in the village is accessible once a week. Due to the acute scarcity of water in this village, some household members complained that they were unable to bathe on a daily basis.

During the dry periods, residents of Soweto and Laini Saba have to walk long distances outside the village to the Kenya Medical and Research Institute and Kianda to access water.

ii) Affordability In all the villages, residents pay an average of Kshs 2 per jerry can of 20 litres. The price increases to between Kshs 5 and Kshs 10 during recurring water shortages and during the Nairobi International Trade Fair (the Nairobi Show) when water supply is reportedly diverted to support the Nairobi Show.

Ministry of Water and Irrigation and WSP-Africa, The Cost of Providing Water Services to the Urban Poor (2006) p.2.

8 This section, as well as sections titled ‘Participatory Mapping’ are based on a series of focus group dialogues with representatives of each of the eight villages. See the ‘Introduction’ chapter for a description of the consultations.

7

11

Village

Average No. of jerry cans Litres per day Cost per jerry cans per day per household (1 jerry can=20 litres)

Gatwikera Kianda Mashimoni Kisumu Ndogo Kambi Muru Makina

6 10 15 5 5 10

120 200 300 100 100 200

Kshs 2 Kshs 2 Kshs 3 Kshs 2 Kshs 3 Kshs 3

iii) Quality of Water Supply The major problem articulated by the residents is the uncoordinated plastic water pipe connections (spaghetti networks) in all the villages in Kibera. Most water operators rely on low quality plastic pipes for water supply infrastructure. The uncoordinated networks follow the winding and irregular paths of Kibera mostly along existing channels. Available channels include footpaths and open sewers full of solid and liquid waste and contaminated water. These pipes often burst, exposing residents to the risk of contamination. In Kambi Muru, stakeholders in the focus group dialogues rhetorically asked whether it is water they were buying or cholera.

Representatives from Gatwikera indicated that water pipe connections were routinely damaged or destroyed in Bombolulu by tractors and vehicles running over the network and by persons connecting electricity wires running adjacent to or underneath the water pipe connections. In Kisumu Ndogo, residents indicated that water is often contaminated as a result of leakages in the brittle plastic water supply network.

1.2.3 Technical Appraisal9 Most of the connections in Kibera are done by 1 inch diameter type pipes. The discharging pipe and taps are ½ inch in diameter and most have only one tap per drawing point. This contributes to long queues. The table below summarizes the number and amounts of water stored in six villages.

9

Village

Estimated Population

No. of storage tanks litres /water drawing points - 4 x 10,000 litres storage tanks

Supply pipe/source

Gatwikera

120,000

Kianda

80,000

-7 x 10,000 storage tanks

Mashimoni

120,000

- 11 x 10,000 litres NWSC storage tanks Bank

World Bank (4 inch diameter)

litres

&

World

This section, as well as sections titled ‘Technical Appraisals’ are based on fieldwork assessment. See the ‘Introduction’ chapter for further details.

12

Mashimoni

120,000

Makina

130,000

Laini Saba

60,000

Soweto

70,000

- 11 water drawing - 11 x 10,000 litres NWSC & World storage tanks Bank - 11 water drawing - 20 x 10,000 litres NWSC World bank & Borehole – private wells - 9 x 10,000 litres NWSC storage tanks - 19 x 5000 litres storage tanks -14 water drawing points -11 x 10,000 litres storage tanks NWSC

In Mashimoni, the main water supply line is approximately 2.8 kilometres away. This has inhibited plans by NGOs to improve water supply in this village. The storage capacity in Gatwikera is significantly lower than other villages, comprising only 40,000 litres of water per day, which is inadequate for the approximately 24,000 households in the village.

1.3. Sanitation 1.3.1 Secondary data analysis A report by the Water and Sanitation Programme (1995) illustrates that of the 2,300 pit latrines constructed in Kibera, 1,500 (65%) were not in use.10 The report reveals that on average, 150 people shared one facility.11 Between 50-90% of the households do not have access to adequate sanitation due to the lack of adequate space to construct new facilities and the failure to exhaust pit latrines that get full. The same applies to garbage disposal and drainage infrastructure.

Subsequent assessments have not provided sufficient indicators of progressive improvement.

About 68 percent of households rely on shared facilities with a high loading factor (average of 71 people per facility). About 70 percent have neither a formal or informal connection to a sewer and rely on pit latrines that are not always emptied when necessary.

A few pit latrines and ablution blocks (in Laini Saba, Makina and Mashimoni) are connected to a sewerage facility (the Otiende Trunk Sewer). Pit latrines remain the primary sanitary facility (KUESP). They also double up as showers. Given this ‘sanitation-stress’ many residents defecate in open spaces near the river and the railway line. Because of insecurity and fear of mugging, the latrines are often not used at night, especially by women who are particularly vulnerable to attack.

The open grounds and alleys become, particularly for children, the logical options for disposing human waste.

Water and Sanitation Programme (WSP), Small-Scale Independent Providers of Water and Sanitation to the Urban Poor, (1999) p.13.

11 This compared to the optimum 10-20 person per unit.

10

13

1.3.2

Participatory Mapping

i) Availability and Physical Accessibility The mapping sessions in Gatwikera estimated that every 50 households share one sanitation facility, many of which are poorly constructed and maintained. At most, 200 persons use one such facility. The village is not connected to a sewer line and human waste is manually exhausted or drained off into the Ngong’ river In Kianda, the reduction in rent has had the unintended consequence of worsening the sanitation conditions in the village. As a result of the rent decrease, structure owners and landlords are not investing in the construction and maintenance of latrines. The three UNEP/ITDG ablution blocks have provided an ideal excuse for inaction and significantly reduced sanitation coverage.

Many facilities have been locked up. The focus group dialogues disclosed that between 700 and 1,000 people have to share the three six-door facilities, with 120 households competing for single facility. The lack of adequate facilities results in long queues particularly in the morning. For those residents that enjoy sanitation facilities in their places of work this proves to be a more suitable option.

On average, 50 households share one latrine in Makina. A significant proportion of community members, both households and traders, are increasingly resulting to using flying toilets.

Participants at the focus group dialogues stated that this option is not free as is often assumed.

There are financial and social costs incurred in seeking privacy, disposing the waste and procuring a polythene paper.

In Kisumu Ndogo, the sanitation facilities are quite few and open disposal is the main option.

There are a few pit latrines put up by structure owners. On average, 150 households share one facility. Most of these are dilapidated and do not provide the required privacy. With limited alternatives, residents are forced to deposit human waste along the rail line.

The same situations characterize all the other villages in Kibera. The majority of the households do not have access to decent and dignified sanitation facilities.

The choice of which toilets residents will use is also dependant on the level of personal security and safety. Kibera records high levels of crime and opportunistic violence. For residents, particularly women and children, some toilets despite proximity will not be utilised where the residents feel that their personal safety is at risk.

ii) Affordability With the exception of Makina and Kambi Muru, the participants during the mapping sessions stated that they pay a fee of Kshs 100 per month for use of communal/plot-based latrines. This fee is usually factored into the negotiated monthly rent. Alternative facilities cost Kshs 3 for every use. In Makina and Kambi Muru, tenants pay Kshs 50 per month for the latrines.

iii) Quality of sanitation facilities Most of the pit latrines are shallow and poorly constructed with no vents and offer very little privacy to the user. They are characteristically poorly maintained as evidenced by rusting roofs and pungent smells. Households use the latrines for bathing, washing and in many instances,

14

disposing solid waste. This multiple use reduces the sanitary conditions as stagnant water forms around the facilities.

1.3.3

Technical Appraisal

Village Gatwikera

Estimated Population 120,000

Kianda

80,000

Number and Type of Sanitation Facilities - 1 block with 8 doors (Ushirika wa Usafi CBO) - 3 blocks with 2 doors (Private) - 8 blocks (Ushirika CBO) - 2 blocks (CDF)

Mashimoni

120,000

- 1 block (CDF) - 3 blocks (Amref) - 2 blocks (Private)

Makina

130,000

- 1 block (CDF) - 6 block s(MUUMUNICEF) - 10 blocks(Private)

Laini Saba

Soweto

60,000

70,000

- 2 blocks (L. Saba Usafi group) - 16 blocks (AMREF) -6 blocks (Private)

Drainage

Area covered

1 Drain

14 m

Natural 2 Drains

1300 m 30 m

Natural 2 Drains

1200 m 350 m

Natural 1 Drain Several [?]

1480 m 30 m

Natural drain

1500 m

8 drain

2800m [?]

1000 m

4 Natural

- 1 blocks (Soweto Usafi 3 drains group) - 10 blocks (Private) Several Natural

–2.8

600 m App. 2000m

In each of the villages, residents result to the use of flying toilets in open areas.

1.3 Solid Waste Management 1.3.1 Secondary Data Analysis An estimated 2,400 tons of waste is generated per day in Nairobi. Results of a survey conducted

by JICA (1997) indicate that both the NCC and private companies collect approximately 200 tons of solid waste. This is only ten per cent of the total generated solid waste in the city.12 The JICA study noted that although residents were cooperative in cleansing waste along the roadsides and open spaces, risks associated with public health and environmental sanitation remain very high.

12

Nairobi City Council, Ministry of Local Government and JICA, The Study on Solid Waste Management in Nairobi City: Progress Report (1), CTI Engineering (June 1997).

15

1.3.2

Participatory Mapping

i) Availability and Physical Accessibility There are no clearly demarcated sites for dumping solid waste or designated transfer stations.

Most residents dispose of solid waste by dumping along the murram roads or tracks, in open drains, along the railway line, in the rivers and in the latrines. Along the road and the railway, some places gather a bigger amount of solid waste in what could be seen as informal collection points The situation is particularly critical in Kisumu Ndogo where organized solid waste management services are non-existent. Polythene bags are scattered throughout the village. Many households either burn their waste or in majority, dump waste along the railway line. Here, residents only interact with the NCC when enforcement agents come into the village demanding license fees.

A number of community groups collect some garbage (see Section 3.3 below). However, most residents do not take part in these schemes due to poor organisation, the costs of the service and limited service coverage.

ii) Quality of Garbage Disposal Less than one in a 100 households (0.9 percent) is served by a public garbage collection system.

As a result, most households (78 percent) dispose of their waste by dumping it in their own neighbourhoods. Another 10 percent burn or bury their waste in their own compound. Only about 10 percent employ an organized private collection system and of these, the majority (78 percent pay for the service).

The solid waste situation in Soweto is particularly bad as most of the garbage in Kibera is deposited at the Nairobi dam next to the village. The garbage in Laini Saba includes plastics, nylon polythene, iron sheet litter and common dirt. In the words of the community representatives, the situation is filthy. The situation is likely to improve to some extent with the commencement of garbage collection services by Ushirika Wa Usafi groups for a fee of Kshs 10 per household.

In Kianda, Ushirika wa Maendeleo are collecting garbage from households for Kshs 10 a week.

KYSP I the ‘Taka Ni Pato’ project funded by an NGO, Maji Na Ufanisi run a similar initiative. In Mashimoni, Mashimoni Youth Group has also begun garbage collection services as an income generating activity for the group. Most of the groups dispose off the waste into the river and illegal dumpsites.

There is no private garbage collection in Gatwikera. Garbage, particularly plastics are scattered throughout the village. Participants in the focus group dialogues expressed concern that the burning and haphazard disposal of garbage leads to health hazards for children playing in the dumps.

iii) Affordability of Garbage Disposal Most private garbage collection groups charge a minimum of Kshs 10 per collection with the maximum being Kshs 100 per calendar month with bi-weekly collection. Polythene bags are provided. No separation of garbage is done at the household level to ease sorting for recycling purposes. However, groups supported by Carolina for Kibera and Maji Na Ufanisi under the 16

‘Taka Ni Pato’ project have been creating the necessary levels of awareness in their areas of operation.

1.4 Waste Water Collection and Drainage 1.4.1 Secondary Data Analysis According to Kibera Urban Environment and Sanitation Project (KUESP) report, “the wastewater and drainage systems in place are woefully inadequate, poorly maintained and operated. This has resulted in extensive environmental pollution, health risks and danger to the inhabitants.”13 The drains are used as dumping points for solid waste and grey water. They also serve as open channels for emptying wastewater from latrines.

The existing footpaths are narrow corridors between structures and generally lead to the stream banks. They also act as open drainage channels and in many instances carry open sewage to the rivers. It is estimated that 54% of the households do not have bathing facilities. Many bathe within their rooms or compound and dispose of the grey water in the nearest drain (if any).

1.4.2 Participatory Mapping i) Availability and Proximity It is estimated that 71 % of households dispose of ‘grey water’, which includes bath water and dish water, by pouring it into a drain. Almost one-fifth of households 19 % simply dump their grey water onto the road or pavement, while the remaining 10 % find some other means of disposal.14 There are some drainage channels in 77 percent of the settlement. At the household level, however, only half of all households (58 percent) have a drain outside their home, and only one quarter have drains that function regularly. In other words, in Kibera there are primary drainage facilities but secondary and tertiary drains are less common. When they do exist, drains do not function on a regular or reliable basis.

ii) Quality of Drainage Facilities Where there are drainage facilities, they are generally wide enough and adequate. Most of the drains existing currently are of concrete paved open type which makes them susceptible to misuse i.e. as dumping sites for solid waste and in even some extreme cases as exhauster channels for latrines. Quite frequently, households dump their solid wastes into the drainage facilities.

These are then left for the rains to wash them into the river. However, with uncollected garbage blocking them, water becomes stagnant and forms breeding grounds for mosquitoes and contaminates the river downstream. There are also a few earth secondary and tertiary drains that are used to empty dirty water in case it floods.

13 14

P. 43, 80.

World Bank, Inside Informality: Poverty, Jobs, Housing and Services in Nairobi Slums, Report No. 36347-KE pp.

51-52.

17

1.5 Household Expenditure on Basic Services The representatives from the eight villages provided vital information on the monthly family expenditure patterns on essential goods and services in Kibera. Each group worked on the basis of a household size of five, with the exception of Soweto which provided the expenditure incurred by one family member. Kambi Muru produced the expenses relating to a typical resident structure owner household.

Food Water Education Health (treatment) Rent Sanitation Garbage Total Percentage on water, sanitation, garbage

Gatwikera

Kianda

Makina 7,350/900/4,500/1,000/-

Mashi moni 3,020/1,500/3,000/500/-

Kisumu Ndogo 7,860/300/1,500/200/-

Kambi Muru 14,550/450/15,000/2000/-

Laini Saba 6,120/450/3,000/1,000

6,000/560/2,500/3,500/-

6,000/1,200/3,000/3,000/-

600/350/150/13,660/-

1,000/100/660/13,360/-

1,000/200/80 14,080

800/100/80/9,000/-

500/50 0 10,410

1000 50 80 33,130

500/900/50/11,120/-

8%

15%

8%

19%

3%

2%

13%

Soweto 7,500/1,500/3,000/1,500/2,500/1,500/250/13,750/ 24%

Stakeholders made a number of inferences from their respective pie charts: • Monthly expenditure on essential goods and services severely drains family incomes • Members of the household have to combine their incomes and heavily borrow in order to pay for essential goods and services • Many families living in Kibera are highly indebted • In each of the villages, the three costly essential goods and services are food, health and education • Relatively smaller amounts are spent on garbage collection, sanitation and water services.

1.6 Access to Information and Participation Most residents in Kibera are unaware of the key provisions and implications of the water sector reforms strategy. They know about the new Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company (NWSC).

However, many cannot distinguish the difference between its functions and those of the NCC. The mandate of the Athi Water Services Board and the regulatory role of the Water Services Regulatory Board are rather unclear to the community. The majority of the community is excluded from information on emerging policy, legal and budgetary reforms. This contributes to lack of concerted pressure by civil society organizations on local and central government for improved services. Local politicians very rarely visit Kibera, and the rare visits that do occur are carried out mainly in order to mobilise support, rather than to listen and to act on the concerns of residents. The interests of the residents are therefore generally not represented and protected.

Although many residents of Kibera have heard about the reforms in the water sector and the existence of the various bodies, there is confusion on the real roles and how they affect their 18

livelihoods. The NWSC and the Athi Water Services Board have expressed their interest in partnering with local communities living in informal settlements in the provision of water and sanitation but lack the capacity to develop such partnerships. As such, the flow of information from these institutions to the community has been sporadic and characterised with a lot of distortions.

1.7 Impacts of Inadequate Basic Services Inadequate access to basic services is at the same time the result and cause of poverty. Without access to basic services, households are “exposed to severe environmental health risks that critically affect their ability to play a full economic role in the life of the city.”15 A survey conducted by the African Population and Health Research Centre (APHRC) reveals that infant, child and under 5 mortality rates were found to be 20, 65 and 35 per cent higher, respectively in informal settlements in Nairobi compared to rural areas.16 To summarise the basic services situation, only four percent have in-house water connections, 15 percent rely on yard taps and 68 percent rely on water kiosks. Kiosk users buy water by the jerry can and pay a high average unit price resulting in low water use levels. The sanitation situation raises serious health concerns. About 68 percent of households rely on shared pit latrines with a high loading factor (average of 71 people per facility). About 70 percent have neither a formal nor informal connection to a sewer and rely on pit latrines that are not always emptied when necessary. About 88 per cent of Kibera residents either dump garbage in their neighbourhood or burn/bury it in their own compound. Only 0.9 per cent of households are served by a public garbage collection system.

Residents recognize the adverse effects of the lack of adequate sanitation, solid waste management and clean water. The participatory mapping sessions listed the following debilitating effects: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

15 16

Increased water-borne diseases such as amoeba, cholera and typhoid Garbage mountains, pollution and poor drainage breeding mosquitoes which transmit malaria; Environmental degradation – esp. from plastic wastes; air pollution High mortality rate Blocked drains and dirty surroundings Relocation of people to other settlements Malnutrition Low productivity and underdevelopment which affects the economy Foul smell due to environmental pollution Pollution of the river by pit latrines during rainfall Environmental pollution, particularly when pit latrines are drained off during rainfall Lack of privacy when accessing sanitation facilities.

Accidents and injuries as most of the pit latrines are poorly constructed and therefore unsafe

Government of Kenya, A Development Strategy for Nairobi’s Informal Settlements, (Oct 1997) p.1.

APHRC, (2002) p. xiv.

19

2. LEGAL BASIS FOR RIGHT TO WATER AND SANITATION17 2.1 International law: Treaties and their interpretation The right to water and sanitation is implicitly included in a range of international and regional human rights treaties of which Kenya is a signatory.18 These include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which for example, obliges States parties in article 14 (2) (h) on the specific needs of rural women to ensure “the right to enjoy adequate living conditions, particularly in relation to housing, sanitation, electricity and water supply, …”. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”) requires States parties in art. 24 (2) (e) to ensure that all segments of society “are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of … hygiene and environmental sanitation.” Furthermore, article 27 (1) recognizing the right of every child to an adequate standard of living has consistently been interpreted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the treaty body in charge of monitoring and interpreting the CRC, to include access to clean drinking water and latrines.19 The African (Banjul) Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 1980. The African Charter recognises that every individual shall have the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health and that all peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development.20 The principal legal basis for the right to water and sanitation is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The ICESCR was adopted on 16 December 1966 and came into force on 3 January 1976.

Article 11(1) of the ICESCR, regarding the right to an adequate standard of living, provides: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international cooperation based on free consent.

Kenya was amongst the first countries to accede to the ICESCR on 1 May 1972. To date virtually all States that have ratified the ICESCR have stated twice that the right to an adequate standard of living implicitly includes water and sanitation. The Programme of Action of the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development, endorsed by 177 States, recognises in Principle 2 that:

For a detailed discussion on the Right to Water and Sanitation, please refer to COHRE, Manual on the Right to Water and Sanitation available on www.cohre.org/manualrtws 18 For excerpts of these treaties, as well as national laws and cases, see COHRE, Legal Resources for the Right to Water, available on www.cohre.org/water.

19 See, for example, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the rights of the Child: Ethiopia. U.N. Doc. CRC/C/ETH/CO/3 (2006), at para 61.

20 The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21 Oct. 1986, ratified by Kenya 10 Feb. 1992, art 24.

17

20

Countries should ensure that all individuals are given the opportunity to make the most of their potential. They have the right to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing, housing, water and sanitation.”21 The Habitat Agenda, adopted in the framework of the Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) held in Istanbul in 1996, provides in almost identical terms in Principle 11 that: Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing, housing, water and sanitation, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.22 Access to water and sanitation for all is also required in order to realise other human rights explicitly contained in the ICESCR, including the right to the highest attainable standard of health (article 12 (1)) 23The right to adequate housing (article 11 (1))24 and the right to education (article 13(1)),25 as well as the right to life contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (article 6 (1)).

The UN General Assembly Resolution on the Right to Development in 2000 recognised the right to clean water.26 The Non-Aligned Movement, which consists of 118 countries, including Kenya, also recognised the right to water in 2006.27 In 2002, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the body of independent experts responsible for interpreting and monitoring implementation of the ICESCR

by States parties, adopted General Comment No. 15 on the right to water,28 in which it states: Available at: http://www.unfpa.org/icpd/icpd_poa.htm. For a list of participating countries, see the Report of the International Conference on Population and Development, A/CONF.171/13, 18 October 1994, available at: http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/offeng/poa.html.

22 The Habitat Agenda and Principles The Habitat Agenda Goals and Principles, Commitments and the Global Plan of Action, available at: http: // www. unhabitat.org. content.asp? ID 1176&catid=10&typeid=24&subMenuId =0. The Habitat Agenda was adopted by consensus of all 171 UN member States represented at the conference.

For a full list of participants, see UN Doc. A/CONF.165/L.4 (1996).

23 A core obligation of the right to health is for the State to ensure access to basic sanitation, and an adequate supply of safe and potable water, see Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14: The right to the highest attainable standard of health, UN ESCOR, 2000, para. 43 (c). See also paras. 11, 12, 15, 36.

24 Access to safe drinking water and sanitation is an element of the right to adequate housing, see Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 4: The right to adequate housing, UN ESCOR, 1991, UN Doc. E/1992/23, para. 8 (b).

25 Sanitation facilities for both sexes and safe drinking water are required in schools as part of the right to education, see Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 13: The right to education, UN ESCOR, 1999, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/10, para. 6 (a).

26 General Assembly Resolution 54/175 (2000) para. 12(a) which states the “rights to food and clean water are fundamental human rights, and their promotion constitutes a moral imperative both for national Governments and for the international community.”

27 The Non-Aligned Movement acknowledged the right to water in September 2006: “The Heads of State or Government recalled what was agreed by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in November 2002, recognised the importance of water as a vital and finite natural resource, which has an economic, social and environmental function, and acknowledged the right to water for all” (14th Summit Conference of Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Movement, Final Document, 16 September 2006, NAM 2006/doc.1/rev.3, para. 226).

28 General Comment No. 15 is not legally binding per se, but it constitutes an authoritative interpretation of the provisions of the ICESCR by the competent body. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights sought the authorisation of the United Nations Economic and Social Council to develop General Comments, and received encouragement from the Council to “continue using that mechanism to develop a fuller appreciation of the obligations of State Parties under the Covenant.” Economic and Social Council Resolution 1990/45, para. 10, General Comment No. 15 has received wide acceptance by States parties.

21

21

Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Covenant specifies a number of rights emanating from, and indispensable for, the realization of the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing. The use of the word ‘including’ indicates that this catalogue of rights was not intended to be exhaustive. The right to water clearly falls within the category of guarantees essential for securing an adequate standard of living, particularly since it is one of the most fundamental conditions for survival.

General Comment No. 15 makes reference to sanitation, where it states with respect to the right to adequate housing and the right to health: In accordance with the rights to health and adequate housing (see General Comments No. 4 (1991) and 14 (2000)) States parties have an obligation to progressively extend safe sanitation services, particularly to rural and deprived urban areas, taking into account the needs of women and children.29 Access to water and sanitation for all is also required in order to realise other human rights explicitly contained in the ICESCR, including the right to the highest attainable standard of health (article 12 (1)) 30 the right to adequate housing (article 11 (1))31 and the right to education (article 13(1)),32 as well as the right to life contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (article 6 (1)).

2.2

United Nations expert reports

The right to water and sanitation was recognised in the 2006 Guidelines for the realization of the right to drinking water and sanitation adopted by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.33 In addition, the legal basis for this right was set out in the 2004 report of the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Special Rapporteur on the Right to Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation34 and the 2007 Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the scope and content of the relevant human rights obligations related to drinking water and sanitation (OHCHR Report). The OHCHR Report concluded that “it is now time to consider access to safe drinking water and sanitation as a human right.”35 The OHCHR report was based on an explicit mandate of the Human Rights Council in a decision taken without a vote to carry out: “a detailed study on the scope and content of the relevant human rights obligations related to equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation under international human rights instruments.”36

General Comment No. 15, para. 29.

A core obligation of the right to health is for the State to ensure access to basic sanitation, and an adequate supply of safe and potable water, see Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14: The right to the highest attainable standard of health, UN ESCOR, 2000, para. 43 (c). See also paras. 11, 12, 15, 36.

31 Access to safe drinking water and sanitation is an element of the right to adequate housing, see Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 4: The right to adequate housing, UN ESCOR, 1991, UN Doc. E/1992/23, para. 8 (b).

32 Sanitation facilities for both sexes and safe drinking water are required in schools as part of the right to education, see Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 13: The right to education, UN ESCOR, 1999, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/10, para. 6 (a).

33 Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/water/index.htm.

34 Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Final report of the Special Rapporteur on the relationship between the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and the promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation, 14 July 2004, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/20, paras. 40-44.

35 Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/water/docs/HRC_decision2-104.pdf. At para 66. Emphasis added.

36 UN Doc. A/HRC/2/L.3/Rev.3.

29 30

22

Human Rights to Basic Services: Definition of the Right to Water and Sanitation General Comment No. 15 and the Sub-Commission Guidelines, taken together, explain that the right to water and sanitation includes the following: Sufficient water: Water supply for each person that is sufficient and continuous for personal and domestic uses, which normally include drinking, personal sanitation, washing of clothes, food preparation, personal and household hygiene. 37 Clean water: Safe water that, in particular, is free from hazardous substances that could endanger human health, 38 and whose colour, odour and taste are acceptable to users.39 Accessible water and sanitation: Water and water and sanitation services and facilities that are accessible within, or in the immediate vicinity, of each household, educational institution and workplace, and which are in a secure location and address the needs of different groups, in particular threats to the physical security of women collecting water.40 The Sub-Commission Guidelines provide that sanitation must be safe, adequate and conducive to the protection of public health and the environment. 41 Affordable water and sanitation: Water and sanitation should be affordable without reducing any person’s capacity to acquire other essential goods and services, including food, housing, health services and education. 42 As outlined in General Comment No. 15 and the Sub-Commission Guidelines, the following are also particularly important components of the right to water and sanitation: Non-discrimination and inclusion of vulnerable and marginalised groups: This means that access to water and sanitation is ensured for everybody, including vulnerable or marginalised groups, and without discrimination. Non-discrimination implies that there is no distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference - which is based on any ground (e.g. race, colour, sex, age, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, physical or mental disability, health status (including HIV/AIDS), sexual orientation and civil, political, social or other status) - which has the intention of effect of impairing the equal exercise of the right. 43 Non-discrimination also includes proactive measures to ensure that the particular needs of vulnerable or marginalised groups, such as women, persons with illnesses (e.g.

HIV/AIDS), people living in informal settlements and excluded minorities.44 Access to information and participation: Each policy, programme or strategy concerning water and sanitation is to include, as an integral element, the right of all people to participate in decision-making processes that may affect their rights.45 Special efforts are made by General Comment No. 15, para. 12(a).

General Comment No. 15, para. 12(b), referring to the respective WHO Guidelines.

39 General Comment No. 15, para. 12(b).

40 General Comment No. 15, paras. 12(c)(i), 29, Sub-Commission Guidelines s. 1.3(a)-(c).

41 Sub-Commission Guidelines s. 1.2.

42 General Comment No. 15, para 12(c)(ii); Sub-Commission Guidelines, s. 1.3(d).

43 ICESCR, Art. 2 (2), General Comment No. 15, paras. 12 (c)(iii), (13), (16); Sub-Commission Guidelines, s. 3.

44 ICCPR General Comment No. 18, para. 10.

45 General Comment No. 15, para. 48; Sub-Commission Guidelines, s. 8.1.

37 38

23

governments to ensure the equitable representation in decision-making of marginalised groups, in particular women. Communities have the right to determine what type of water and sanitation services they require and how to manage those services.46 All people will have full and equal access to information concerning water, sanitation and the environment. 47 Accountability: Persons or groups denied their right to water and sanitation have access to effective judicial or other appropriate remedies, for example courts, national ombudspersons or human right commissions.48

2.3

Duties of government

The role of the government in the water sector is redefined with emphasis on regulatory and enabling functions as opposed to direct service provision. In realising economic, social and cultural rights, governments must take the necessary steps to ensure that everyone has access to these rights as soon as possible. Some steps can be done immediately, such as preventing discrimination and putting in place a targeted plan to achieve the right. Other steps can take time to implement. But governments must demonstrate that they are doing everything possible with their resources.

International standards identify three main obligations for governments; obligations to respect, protect and fulfil economic, social and cultural rights, without discrimination, in regard to the people of their country.

Respect: Not unfairly interfere with people’s economic, social and cultural rights; for example, by excluding any person from water supply and sanitation even when one is genuinely unable to pay.

Protect. Safeguard people from interference by others; for example, by stopping pollution or unaffordable price increases by corporations.

Fulfil. Take all steps with available resources to realise economic, social and cultural rights; for example, through legislation, effective pricing policies, programmes to expand access to basic services and monitoring of programmes.

Governments also have international obligations to make water and sanitation a reality to everyone, by respecting, protecting and fulfilling economic, social and cultural rights of persons in other countries. For example, by providing sufficient international assistance appropriately directed to the poor.

While human rights are principally concerned with obligations of governments, actors in all parts of society should assist in making the right to water a reality. These actors include: 1. Individuals and communities Individuals and communities are supposed to strengthen their capacity through information sharing and awareness raising.

2. Civil society and NGOs

Sub-Commission Guidelines, s. 8.2.

General Comment No. 15, paras. 12(4), 48; Sub-Commission Guidelines, s. 8.3.

48 General Comment No. 15, para. 55; Sub-Commission Guidelines, s. 9.

46 47

24

Their role here is to design and to strengthen tools to capture their needs and ensure pro poor service delivery through analysing the state of the consumer and proactively disclosing the service delivery standards.

3. Regulatory bodies and agencies Their role is to strive to improve the poor by covering their areas and trying to improve their areas 4. National Government The government needs to demonstrate the political will to come up with innovative finance, provide efficient institutional leadership and provide collaboration amongst the water sectors.

5. Service Providers Come with mechanisms that provide for efficient delivery of water services and provide services that can support small scale service providers.

6. Private sector The media plays a major role in terms of advocacy and awareness campaigns in the whole region and influence pro poor strategies.

7. International organisations such as the United Nations agencies and the World Bank They should evaluate their activities accordingly. International organisations also have legal obligations, at the very minimum, to not interfere with any person’s economic, social and cultural rights.

2.4

Kenyan Law and Policies

At the national level the Water Act of 2002 is the principal legislation that governs water and sanitation. The Act introduced new water management institutions to govern water and sanitation. While water resources remained vested in the state49, the water reforms saw the separation of the core functions of policy formulation and regulation from asset holding and service provision and the separation of water resources management from water services. (For a detailed discussion on the water sector institutions see Chapter three, ‘Institutional Responsibility, Action and Inaction on Water and Sanitation Services’.)

Significant principles contained in the Water Act include: 1. State ownership of all water resources; exploitation of such resources requires authority granted through issuance of a water permit; 2. Stakeholder involvement in management of water resources; 3. Management of water resources on catchment basis and not administration boundaries; 4. Equitable allocation of water for all Kenyans; 5. Recognition of the economic value of water; 6. Social objectives including supplying the poor with water to be achieved by 7. other means including Government subsidy; 8. Accelerating supply and distribution of in rural areas through special funding; 49

Section 3.

25

9. Ring-fencing of service operations; 10. Development of sector strategies for management and development of the sector; 11. Protection of the quality of water resources; 12. Cost recovery as a means of sustainable service provision.

There are an estimated 26 other national statutes and policies that touch on water and sanitation.50 For instance under the Local Government Act (Cap 265) Local Authorities in Kenya51 are charged with the responsibility for providing services such as health, primary education, refuse collection among others and principally deal with waste water management.

The Environmental Management and Coordination Act is mandated to ensure sound environmental management, complementing the mandate of the Water Resources Management Authority constituted under the Water Act. The Constitution of Kenya while not providing for the explicit right to water and sanitation, includes the right to life52 which implicitly encompasses clean and sufficient water as a right and includes provisions of non discrimination53 through which explicit recognition and protection of the right against discrimination can be drawn.

A number of polices and regulations have been developed with the passing of the Water Act to ensure coordination and to implement activities in the water sector. Key policies include the National Water Resources Management Strategy (2005-2008) for the management of water resources in the country; the National Water Services Strategy (2007-2015) aimed at offering sustainable access to safe water and basic sanitation to all; the Water Services Regulatory Board Tariff Guidelines and Model (2007), whose goal is to establish tariffs that balance commercial, social and ecological interests and the Pro-Poor Implementation Plan for Water Supply and Sanitation (PPIP - WSS), 2007 aimed at up-scaling and fast-tracking actions for water and sanitation coverage by concentrating on low cost technology and settlements of the urban poor.54 Complimentary policies include the National Housing Policy55 adopted in June 2004. The policy provides direction and guidance to Kenya’s progressive realization of the right to adequate housing. The policy targets include urban housing, slum upgrading and vulnerable groups; and propose solutions within the context of poverty reduction.56 The policy with respect to slum upgrading recognises the need to take into account infrastructure facilities and basic services. The Ministry of Health, National Health Sector Strategic Plan of Kenya (2006) and the National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy (2006) provide policy direction on environmental sanitation, the development of basic sanitation infrastructure and promotion basic sanitation and hygiene education.

The Bomas Draft Constitution of Kenya,57 and subsequently the Proposed New Constitution of Kenya address issues of unavailability of clean water, inadequate drainage and sanitation and environmental degradation.58 The Proposed New Constitution of Kenya provided in section 65 Public Consultation, National Water Resources Management Strategy, p.2.

Kenya has 175 local authorities including 67 county councils, 43 municipal councils, 62 town councils and three city councils.

52 Constitution of Kenya, Chapter V. 53 Constitution of Kenya, Article 70.

54 The Ministry of Health, National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy (2006) provides similar proposals on the provision of improved sanitation technology that are cost effective, affordable and appropriate for the needs of children, women and men, p.2.

55 Ministry of Lands and Housing, National Housing Policy, Sessional Paper no. 3 (2004).

56 Id, p. 5-7.

57 Bomas Draft Constitution of Kenya, 2004.

58 The Proposed New Constitution of Kenya, 2005.

50 51

26

for the right to water and a reasonable standard of sanitation. It further stated that water “...should be in adequate quantities and of reasonable quality�.59 The Proposed New Constitution of Kenya was however not passed during the November 2005 national referendum rendering it un-operational.

The land tenure regime operating in peoples’ settlements have adversely affected constrained and limited the levels and types of services provided by tenants, structure owners and the government. Currently, the government is in the process of completing a comprehensive national land policy. The Draft Kenya National Land Policy was formulated to address among other critical issues the deterioration in land quality, squatting and landlessness, urban squalor, tenure insecurity and conflict. The main focus of the policy, though on land management and administration, includes the express recognition of the need to guarantee security of tenure for all Kenyans and more relevantly to residents of informal settlements.

59

Similar provisions were provided under the Bomas Draft Constitution of Kenya, 2004.

27

3. INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, ACTION AND INACTION ON WATER AND SANITATION SERVICES 3.1

Water

The Water Act of 2002 introduced new water management institutions to govern water and sanitation. The Water Act established the Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB) to set standards and regulate the sub-sector; the Water Appeal Board (WAB) to adjudicate on disputes; seven Water Services Boards (WSBs) to be responsible for the management of efficient and economical provision of water and sewerage services; Water Services Providers (WSPs) to act as agents of the Water Services Boards (WSBs) in the actual provision of water and sewerage services; the Water Services Trust Fund (WSTF) to finance pro-poor investments; and the Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA) to manage and protect Kenya’s resources.

Catchment Area Advisory Committees (CAAC) support the WRMAs at the regional Level. Water Resource Users Associations (WRUA) were established as a medium for cooperative management of water resources and conflict resolution at sub-catchment level. The Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI) was vested with the responsibility for overall sector oversight including policy formulation, coordination and resource mobilisation.

Water sector institutions that are particularly relevant to water and sanitation provision in Kibera include;

3.11 The Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB) The Water Services Regulatory Board was operationalised in March 2003. The functions of the WASREB include the issuance of licences to Water Service Boards. Currently, there are seven Water Service Boards covering the whole country. One of these is the Athi Water Services Board.

The WASREB has approved the service provision agreements concluded between the Athi Water Services Board and the Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company (NWSC) the principal Water Service Provider in Kibera. The WASREB is responsible for maintaining appropriate standards for the provision of water service and is vested with powers to monitor compliance of established standards by Athi Water Services Board and the NWSC. To standardize service provision, the board is charged with the responsibility of developing among others, tariff guidelines.

In 2007 the WASREB published the Draft Water Services Regulatory Board Tariff Guidelines and Model, April 2007. The main objective of Tariff Guidelines “is to establish tariffs that balance commercial, social and ecological interests by ensuring access to all while allowing Water Service Boards and Water Service Providers to recover justified costs”.60 The Tariff guidelines further specify that Water Service Boards and Water Service Providers should apply tariffs at Water Kiosks for a minimum consumption of 20 litres which should be affordable.61

Ministry of Water and Irrigation, The Pro- Poor Implementation Plan for Water Supply and Sanitation (PPIPWSS) 2007 p.4.

61 Ministry of Water and Irrigation, The Water Services Regulatory Board Tariff Guidelines and Model p.5.

60

28

While the Tariff guidelines respond to the need to subsidise water and sanitation costs for low income users, the guidelines do not provide guidance on disconnection procedures in the event of water and sanitation bills remaining unpaid. The lack of policy guidelines regulating disconnections means that the water sector reforms have yet to take into consideration genuine inability to pay into disconnection procedures. This omission has significant repercussions for the poor.

3.12 The Athi Water Services Board The Ministry of Water and Irrigation formally transferred the management and operation of water services to the Water Service Boards in July 2005. There are currently seven established WSB in Kenya. The Athi Water Services Board is responsible for the provision of water and sewerage services in Nairobi, in addition to Kiambu, Thika, Machakos, Kajiado and Makueni districts.

The Athi Water Services Board is responsible for contracting the NWSC for the provision of water and sanitation services in Kibera. The service provision agreements entered between Athi Water Services Board and the NWSC must be in writing and may include provisions with respect to the development, rehabilitation and maintenance of water and sewerage facilities of the Athi Water Services Board. The Athi Water Services Board is responsible for the application of regulations governing water services and developed tariffs.

Currently, the Athi Water Services Board has not effected provisions requiring service provision agreements entered between itself and the NWSC to be made public. For residents of Kibera, this significantly undermines their ability to monitor the NWSCs’ progress in the extension of water and sanitation services in the settlement.

3.13 The Water Services Trust Fund (WSTF) The Water Services Trust Fund established under section 83 of the Water Act, has the role of harnessing financial resources for the water sector in order to extend water and sanitation services in areas without adequate coverage such as Kibera. The WSTF is funded through direct allocation by parliament and donations and grants that may be received from bilateral and multilateral development partners, organizations and individuals.

Since the WSTF was operationalised in 2004, the WSTF which is based in Nairobi has focused on rural areas and is only beginning to address urban areas with a focus on extending its activities to the urban settlements. The WSTF, in collaboration with the Kenya Water and Sanitation Programme, developed the Community Project Cycle for rural areas62 and is refining the Urban Poor Concept to cover urban areas.

3.14 Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company (NWSC) The functions of NWSC include the provision of water and sanitation services and the development, rehabilitation and maintenance of water and sewerage facilities of the Athi Water Services Board. The NWSC was formed in 2004 to take over the role of the former Department

62

In 2006, the WSTF identified 362 of the poorest locations in Kenya that would receive funding to implement water and sanitation projects. In the same year the WSTF had inititated 62 project in the sum of Kshs. 596, 812, 224.00.

29

of Water and Sewerage in the City Council of Nairobi. It is the principal water service provider to the city including Kibera.

Although the NWSC supplies 392,000 cubic meters of water per day in the city and the consumption is 350,000 cubic meters, there are constant shortages and interruptions. Much of the unaccounted for water results from physical leakage and the rest is due to water theft and failure to bill, essentially as a result of mismanagement. The National Water Services Strategy indicates that the WASREB, the Athi Water Services Board, and the NWSC, will be responsible for decreasing nationwide unaccounted for water from 2008. Accordingly, the NWSC will be tasked with improving the situation.

Only about 187,000 or 42% of the total households in Nairobi have legal water connections.

Nearly all others, largely poor households, which include Kibera, obtain water from kiosks, water delivery services and illegal connections. The lack of policy guidelines regulating disconnections might suggest that illegal water connections may be the target of disconnections in attempts at decreasing unaccounted for water. This will have significant repercussions for the poor as witnessed in Mathare informal settlement in Nairobi.63 There is however no indication that residents of Kibera will be involved in the determination of initiatives to address operational efficiency of the NWSC and respond to economical and technical losses incurred as a result of leakages and unaccounted for water.

As provided in the National Water Services Strategy, the Athi Water Services Board is expected to ensure that the NWSC makes provision for the extension of services to the poor. Currently, there is indication that the Water Services Regulatory Boards will require the explicit provision within Service Provision Agreements concluded between Water Services Boards and the Water Services Providers setting out the planned extension into poor areas such as the informal settlement.64 The Water Services Regulatory Board draft Tariff Guidelines further indicate that WSBs such as the Athi Water Services Board and contracted water services providers like the NWSC must extend their services progressively to areas that are still served by informal providers as is the case in Kibera. The guidelines provide that extension may be undertaken by either by linking up with informal providers and ensuring fulfilment of minimum requirements, or by extending their own systems in order to guarantee the same advantages to the poor that the presently connected consumers have.65 One of the undertakings agreed upon during the Annual Water Conference (2007) sets a specific target requiring WSPs to extend service to un-served populations in their areas of mandate by the next Conference at the end of 2008.

3.2

Water Quality

Currently, water quality standards and monitoring in Kenya adhere to the WHO guidelines as provided in the Kenyan water quality standards developed by the Kenya Bureau of Standards.

Access to safe water and adequate sanitation is a cross cutting issue that receives considerable policy attention from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Water and Irrigation. ‘Darkness in Slums’ East African Standard, 29 July 2007. In July, the NWSC sanctioned the disconnection of water supply to Mathare peoples’ settlement. The disconnection which also included alleged illegal power lines were carried out in the presence of armed police officer resulting in a day long riots with residents.

64 Munguti Katui Katua et al, Kenyan- German Development Cooperation in the Water Sector, Assessment from a Human Rights Perspective (GTZ, 2007) p. 27. This report if available at the website of the German Institute for Human Rights http://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de 65 Ministry of Water and Irrigation, the Water Services Regulatory Board Tariff Guidelines and Model, p. 5.

63

30

The Ministry of Health has the overall mandate for hygiene education and basic sanitation where facilities do not rely on sewerage systems, such as pit latrines which are predominant in Kibera.

As provided under the National Health Sector Strategic Plan of Kenya (2006), the Ministry of Health is expected to undertake national hygiene campaigns in fulfilling its mandate to provide basic sanitation and hygiene education.

Coupled with the lack of water quality monitoring, there is little attention paid to ensuring that residents of Kibera have sufficient and reliable information on the risks associated with unsafe water. While a number of the residents use some form of water purification techniques, normally introduced by NGOs, the majority are influenced by private sector commercial companies that advertise a number of water purification methods. The decision on which water purification method to utilize is often made without any information on the water quality, which has serious health implications for the residents.

The Ministry of Health despite its mandate to promote basic sanitation and hygiene education has failed to take any specific action to address the situation. No campaigns have been undertaken. This inaction is further worsened by the overall lack of coordination between the Ministry of Water and Irrigation and the Ministry of Health in fulfilment of their respective mandates.

In line with the recommendations of the Tariff guidelines, the NWSC has indicated initial preference to linking up with informal providers in Kibera in extending access to water. The NWSC therefore has among other obligations, to ensure that water supplied meets approved water quality standards. The NWSC prides itself in supplying water to connected consumers that meets water quality standards provided by the WHO guidelines and stipulated in the Kenyan water quality standards developed by the Kenya Bureau of Standards. The NWSC is however not confident on the quality of water supplied to the Kibera and other informal settlements.

The NWSC requires owners and households to install their own piping and officially requires the use of metal pipes. As earlier noted, residents of Kibera rely on low quality plastic water pipe connections. These pipes often burst, contaminating water supplied to majority of the residents.

The NWSC is quick to note that the plastic pipes are more often than not illegal water connections and as such the company is reluctant to assume responsibility for water quality supplied. The residents of Kibera must therefore contend with paying dearly for water supplied that is of dubious quality and have no mechanism to require the enforcement of water quality monitoring and standards.

The NWSC has either failed or neglected to monitor service provision in ensuring that the residents are benefiting from attempts at extending access to water in Kibera. In the absence of regulations governing informal service providers within informal settlements, residents themselves have little leverage to demand service, accountability or monitor service provision.

This in part leads to a further disempowerment of the poor.

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE NAIROBI WATER AND SEWERAGE COMPANY The NWSC, a company wholly owned by the City Council of Nairobi, has been tasked with provision of basic services in Nairobi following the extensive reforms of the water sector. Privatisation of these services has improved efficiency in the overall provision of basic services in the city. But the challenge has been how the company has tackled the issue of affordability of and access of basic services by the urban poor. In an interview with Mildred Ogendo and Edith Kamunde of the Nairobi City Water Company Social and Environment Department, the following issues came up:

31

In response to the question of how the NWSC was championing community participation in accessing adequate, safe and affordable water with respect to the Water Act’s emphasis on community participation in the provision and management of water, the company stated that it has been able to extend its services in two major informal settlements i.e. Kibera and Mukuru.

In Kibera the company did reticulation in areas that did not have water. This ensured that water was well distributed.

However water shortage is a problem still widely experienced in the Kibera peoples’ settlements. This was attributed to the topography of the area i.e. Kibera is in a dry upper zone. Water provided by the Sasumua and Thika dams has to be pumped in Kabete in order for it to reach Kibera. Also water provided by these dams is not sufficient for the whole area consequently forcing the company to ration the available water.

The company is also in the preliminary stages of getting into an agreement with Maji Bora, a local water vendors’ umbrella body in the informal settlements to see how they can add water points in the settlement.

On how security of tenure, or lack thereof, has affected efforts to improve water and sanitation in informal settlements, the company responded that security of tenure is not a problem as far as connection of water points is concerned mainly because the informal settlements are on government land. However, the company is concerned about structures that are built on trunk sewers which damage sewer lines.

The company is keen to work with the peoples’ settlements, but faced the challenge of getting credible community groups to work with. Most of the people who express interest in partnering with the company to act as links with the people in the informal settlements happen to be landlords. This group is known to overcharge their tenants as far paying for water is concerned. For instance, the company charges (the landlords Ksh 10 per cubic metre) while the same is sold to the tenants at more than ten times more. This negates the whole objective of this partnership: serving the poor.

3.3 Toilets, Sewerage and Latrine Exhaustion.

The Nairobi City Council (NCC) operates latrine exhauster services. The NCC’s latrine exhaustion services are unreliable and further hampered by exhauster trucks inability to move through congested areas. Because of the high expenses involved and delays in accessing the service, small-scale sanitation providers manually exhaust over 80% of the pit latrines. The exhausted waste is directed into NCC sewers or into drainage channels particularly during the rainy seasons. The services cost between Ksh 300 and Ksh 500.

Civil society organisations such as Maji na Ufanisi, Undugu Society and AMREF have supported the construction of toilets through close partnerships with community-based organizations.

Examples include a facility constructed by Nuru ya Kisumu (Kisumu Ndogo) and the Ushirika groups (Soweto, Gatwikera, Kianda and Laini Saba).

In Makina and Mashimoni, the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) has been utilised to complete the construction of Ventilated Improved Pit ablution blocks.

In the residential blocks, neighbours (especially women) have in place a weekly roster for cleaning the latrines and the compound. Structure owners are responsible for the construction and emptying of latrines for their tenants. However, the lack of an effective enforcement system for sanitation services means that they are at liberty to determine whether and how to provide their tenants with sanitation facilities.

3.4

Garbage Disposal

Under the Public Health Act Cap 242, The Local Government Act Cap 265 and its by-laws, the Nairobi City Council (NCC) is charged with the responsibility of ensuring proper storage,

32

collection, transportation, safe treatment and, disposal of waste.66 This is with the ultimate goal of protecting public health, safeguarding the environment and maintaining public cleanliness – all in order to keep public places healthy and aesthetically attractive.

The NCC has the primary obligation for the provision of all services with the exception of water and sewerage services, which have been taken over by the NWSC. Provision of environmental services, which includes drainage and all other forms of wastewater and garbage collection, however remain the responsibility of the NCC. The NCC has been unable to provide reliable adequate waste disposal services in Kibera.

Previously, the NCC collected waste around the D.C’s office in Makina. This service is no longer provided. Over the past decade, the NCC has encouraged private waste collection companies to provide services to individual households at a fee. However, these services have had limited impacts in the peoples’ settlements. Private operators only infrequently collect waste from two villages - Makina and Kianda. This is largely attributed to the proximity of these villages to the Kibera drive.

In response to the lack of services a number of CBOs provide garbage disposal services. But these contributions are in most cases, neither appreciated nor encouraged by central and local governments. Where there is cooperation amongst the neighbours, residents collect waste and either burn or dispose of it along the railway line or river. In Gatwikera, the mapping session revealed that community-based organizations are involved in a variety of voluntary clean-up efforts along the pathways. Carolina for Kibera is active in supporting youth groups to promote the sorting and recycling of solid wastes. Other groups cited include Slum Totos and Weaving.

Up to 2004, two groups (Nuru ya Kisumu Ndogo and Pillars of Kibera) used to be quite active in collecting waste. Owing to poor organization and low motivation, they are no longer as active. In Laini Saba, a local CBO (Ushirika wa Usafi) conducts weekly clean-ups in the village. In Kianda, a number of organizations are actively involved in a variety of activities. Prominent amongst these is Kianda Youth Self-Help Group which supplies waste collection polythene bags to households.

They charge a fee of Kshs 10 per day for this. Similarly, in Makina, youth groups are now getting actively involved in garbage collection and disposal. They charge each household a sum of Kshs 20 a week for this. Not many residents can afford this amount.

In Mashimoni, the Mashimoni Youth Group is currently involved in garbage collection. They charge households a Kshs 20 fee for the service. The group sorts, recycles and disposes the waste collected. Similarly, in Kambi Muru, three youth groups are active – Kamshake, Gange and KYDO. The youth groups provide polythene bags at a cost of Kshs 20 per week.

The Kianda Self-Help Group has an organic composting site and operates a collection centre where they sort the waste. Private sector operators such as Nairobi Bins then collect the residues for disposal in Nairobi’s dumping sites. However, the majority of the households are yet to participate in these programmes. Away from the road, one is likely to be confronted by mounts of uncollected waste. Households who do not pay for the service often find garbage deposited on their doorsteps.

There is little indication that sufficient focus, beyond policy declarations, has been given to ensuring that the poor are truly entitled to the provision of basic services and/or should be equal 66

Section 160 (a) of the Local Government Act gives the NCC power to ‘establish and maintain sanitary services for the removal and destruction of, or otherwise deal with, all kinds of refuse and effluent, and where any such services is established, to compel the use of such service by persons to whom the service is available.’

33

participants in the development of by laws and other policies. In July 2007, the NCC published vide Kenya Gazette No. 6297 several by-laws including Solid Waste Management and Waste Water Conservancy by-laws of 2007.

The by-laws were developed without meaningful public participation especially of community groups in Kibera that had and continue to provide garbage disposal services. While the by-laws came into effect in July 2007, the Council failed to communicate or widely publish the contents of the by laws or provide any grace period for transition. In sum the by-laws seek to criminalize garbage collection and disposal without authority of the NCC. However, the Council before issuance of a waste operator permit will require community groups to meet technical and financial requirements that community members have expressed their inability to meet.

3.5

Drainage

Maintenance of drainage channels is the responsibility of the NCC. As was previously noted with respect to garbage disposal, the NCC takes no action to maintain or clear drainage channels. In the absence of formal provision of services, community groups have taken the lead.

Unfortunately for many of these groups, financing and maintenance remain a huge challenge.

In Gatwikera, the local Ushirika group is currently planning to improve drainage through the construction of culverts and storm water drains around the ablution blocks. These facilities are operated and maintained by tenants and structure owners.

Profile of the Soweto Group The Soweto Group was formed in 1999 with the assistance of Maji na Ufanisi. The group draws its members mostly from Soweto village, with a few of its members from Laini Saba and Silanga.

The group’s objective was to improve the standard of living in Soweto by improving the environment through income generation projects such as provision of water, toilet facilities.

Some of the challenges facing the Soweto Group in delivery of water and sanitation are; • Intermittent water supply and disconnections especially during the dry season.

• Stiff competition from other private vendors.

• High cost of water supply from the Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company.

• Lack of institutional support from the Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company and the Nairobi City Council.

Impact and Successes • • • •

The group has constructed a number of water points, toilets and drains.

The group successfully negotiated with the Ministry of Lands to land secure tenure for their project sites.

The group has been able to build strategic partnerships with other key water operators in the area.

The group has been able to successfully apply for CDF and Bursary funds from the government for project financing.

Over the past five years, the government has promoted the Local Authorities Service Delivery Action Plans (LASDAP) to enable communities to participate, prioritise and plan services at ward 34

levels. However, in Kibera and in many other areas in Kenya, the process has remained cosmetic with limited participation by the people. Kibera has four elected councillors. An actor’s survey conducted by Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme (2003) maps over 545 civil society organizations composed of NGOs, community-based groups and religious organizations. These design, plan and implement programmes in a highly sectoral and uncoordinated manner.

While both Constituency Development Fund (CDF) and the Local Authorities Services Delivery Action Plans (LASDAP) offer opportunities for funding projects in Kibera, the majority of the participants and residents are not aware of their funding opportunities under the LASDAP and CDF initiatives.

3.6

Housing and Land Tenure

In 2004, the government launched the Kibera-Soweto pilot project under Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme (KENSUP). The KENSUP programme initiated in 2000 through an agreement between the Government of Kenya and UN-Habitat is intended to improve the livelihood of at least 5.3 million residents of informal settlements by the year 2020. The Kibera- Soweto pilot project is planned to benefit residents of Soweto village situated in the south eastern section of Kibera peoples’ settlement.

The project which would culminate in the redevelopment of Soweto village into orderly blocks of flats with 50m2 two-bed roomed units would be preceded by the provision of basic infrastructural facilities and services by government and local authorities. Despite meticulous attention to project formulation, efforts at decentralizing the process through the creation of varying levels of implementation have failed. Residents have repeatedly complained of a general lack of information and inappropriate opportunities to meaningful participate in the projects formulation and implementation.

The failed Nyayo High Rise project, intended to benefit the residents of Kibera’s informal Settlement in the early 1990’s has profound implications on the residents of Soweto who perceive a lack of political will on the part of government to fully support slum upgrading projects.

Implemented jointly by National Social Security Fund, National Health Insurance Fund and the government, the Nyayo High Rise project saw beneficiaries lose out to influential medium and upper income earners who were irregularly allocated all the housing units on completion.

35

4. TECHNICAL OPTIONS FOR EXTENDING ACCESS TO WATER AND SANITATION Despite the potential of a number of low cost technical options, implementation remains low for a number of reasons including, limited investment in research and development of alternative options, the lack of community and private sector involvement, information gaps and lack of adequate financial, institutional and human resource allocation, arising from a lack of political commitment.

The National Water Services Strategy indicates that the water sector intends to develop national standards (technical and managerial) for low-cost technologies to be designed and enforced through the WSTF by the provision of appropriate financial resources and WASREB to be incorporated in tariff negotiations by 2008.

In addition to identifying appropriate technical options that are acceptable to the community, the sustainable extension of water and sanitation will require accurate data collection to identify and map basic services.67 Currently, there are no adequate statistics to properly inform government resource allocation and set priorities on the provision of water and sanitation services in Kibera.68 Further, there is need for collaboration between NGOs and government to facilitate the exchange of information on technical and alternative options of supply already developed and determine options that can be up-scaled.

To guarantee non-discrimination and inclusion of vulnerable groups, data collection should specifically focus on gender, income, age and other related grounds. As collection of disaggregated data is often resource intensive, the process in collaboration with the communities, can be undertaken in phases concentrating on areas identified by the community.

4.1 Water Supply 4.1.1 Improvements to Kiosk Systems and Public Standpipes (Short-term) The expansion of water kiosks is a sustainable and appropriate option for the provision of water supply in Kibera. Although water kiosks and public standpipes have significantly improved water access in Kibera, the management of the facilities remains uncoordinated and unregulated. The lack of coordination between the WSB, CBOs NGOs and individual (private sector) vendors has resulted in price speculation with different vendors charging different prices. More significantly however, water kiosk installations do not take into account the quality and location of installations, the relative need for basic services, water quality, and the overall consumer voice.

Umande Trust in collaboration with CBOs in Kibera is working with the Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company (NWSC) to licence a strong CBO that can supply water to all the villages at affordable and competitive prices. Similarly, the collaboration between Maji Bora Kibera and the NWSC hopes to coordinate interventions in improving access to water.

Munguti Katui Katua et al, Kenya-German Development Cooperation in the Water Sector, Assessment from a Human Rights Perspective (GTZ, 2007) p. 27. This report is available at the web-site of the German Institute for Human Rights, http://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de.

68 The National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy (2006), p.9. Recognises the lack of adequate national statistics on sanitation and hygiene.

67

36

In response to the lack of accountability and transparency in the management of water kiosks in Gatwikera, Umande Trust has initiated consultations between the NWSC and Gatwikera TOSHA group. The joint project will oversee the management of water kiosks and ensure that the kiosks remain community managed, encourage cost recovery and are not taken over by the water mafia and the community forms groups with proper governance structures that promote transparency and accountability. The community groups establish a project management committee that reports back to the community through monthly accountability sessions. Other small scale water vendors have the opportunity to be members and participate in the management of water kiosks.

Pros: • Due to the current impracticality of individual personal connections, water kiosks provide an effective way of delivering services to the community.

• Improved water accessibility, quality and supply. The improvement of pipe quality reduces the risk of bursts that result in water contamination and reduction of unaccounted for water.

• Increased sustainability of services, particularly if the water kiosks are managed by community groups.

• Improved infrastructure; managed water kiosks will phase out the uncoordinated plastic water pipe connections.

• Promotes affordability of water.

• Increased coverage will result in reduction in water collection time.

• Water kiosk offers a feasible solution with lower capital costs, compared with private and yard connections.69 • Increased regulation encourages sustainable monitoring of water quality.

Cons: • The creation of monopolies and water mafias/cartels. Risk of vandalism and theft of metal pipes.

• Risk of conflicts between new entrants and existing operators who are dependant on water sales.70 • Increased water supply in the absence of infrastructural improvements to waste water disposal and sewage will result in increased difficulties in managing waste water collection and drainage.

• Does not address the inability of the community to store water.

• Provision of water through water kiosks does not specifically address the needs of the poorest members of the community who may not be able to pay.

• Affordability may only be realized if block tariff pricing system which charges small scale providers and other vendors a high tariff because they buy large quantities is revised so that the higher cost is not passed on to the users.

• The value of the existing water network will be greatly reduced and investments lost.

Sumila Gulyani et al, Water for the Urban Poor: Water Markets, Household Demand and Service Preferences in Kenya, (2005) Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Board Discussion, Paper Series No 5, p. 32 70 Munguti Katui Katua and Gordon McGranahan, Public Private Partnerships and the Poor, Small Enterprises and Water Provision in Kibera, Nairobi (2002) p. 8-10.

69

37

4.1.2 Water Management As shown by various studies including the recently launched Citizen’s Report Card on water and sanitation in urban settlements in Kenya funded by the Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank, the distribution of water points in informal settlements like Kibera is still far from adequate. Water pressure is often not sufficient to be bringing connections closer to the community as a result of illegal connections. Where water is supplied there are no assurances of quality. In response community groups are utilizing storage tanks to ensure sustainability of water supplies. Efforts are being made to ensure that the community is involved in the entire process of delivering water services in Kibera and instilling a sense of community ownership that will lead to social policing of the water lines to avoid vandalism and illegal connections.

Collaboration between CBOs and the NWSC has worked in certain cases. For instance, the success behind the collaboration between the Ushirika wa Maji Safi Kibera and the NWSC has been attributed to the promotion of governance structures by Ushirika wa Maji Safi Kibera that has contributed to sustained water management. The case studies documented in chapter three of this report illustrate the value of promoting community ownership and building effective partnership between the NWSC. In all cases, the community is directly involved in monitoring service provision by water vendors and kiosk operators.

4.1.3 Alternative Supply Options 4.1.3.1 Rainwater harvesting Rainwater harvesting is a viable option in the supply of water especially for other uses apart from drinking such as washing and in toilets. Provision of gutters need not be too expensive since one can easily improvise gutters using GCI roofing ridges which are not too expensive. There are many development partners with programs supporting rain water harvesting that would be willing partners in such programs. To limit pollution of harvested roof water, sanitation and solid waste management systems need to be improved simultaneously. Industrial emissions polluting the air also need to be monitored for the same reason. Here, collaboration with NEMA would be of critical importance.

Pros: • Will decentralize water collection.

• Significantly reduce water collection time.

• Encourages water conservation and resources management, reducing the demand on existing water supply.

• Rainwater harvesting technology is flexible and can cater for the varying needs of the community.

• Significantly reduces flooding and storm water.

• If implemented within educational institutions, will result in the increased attendance of school-going children especially girls.

Cons: • Water quality on collection is not assured and will require filtering and treatment, which has further financial and other cost implications.

• Collection of rainwater is dependant on climatic conditions and weather patterns that are increasingly changing.

• Requires additional and safe storage system.

38

• •

Frequent mobility of residents will require continuous capacity training and skills development for management and efficient use.

Increased water supply in the absence of infrastructural improvements to waste water disposal and sewage will result in increased difficulties in managing wastewater collection and drainage.

4.1.3.2 Bore holes Bore holes are not a viable option in Kibera partly due to the underlying rocky soil profile that makes drilling too expensive to be economical. There is also a very high risk of contamination of ground water due to among others the many poorly constructed pit latrines and significant amount of solid waste and excreta on the ground.

4.1.3.3 Water tankers Most parts of Kibera are inaccessible by all means of transport apart from on foot. Where road networks exist, they are not sufficient to handle large trucks. Water tankers are therefore not a realistic approach in accelerating access to water supply for Kibera’s vast population. In addition, water supply through water tankers will not address affordability, water storage and quality concerns.

4.1.4 Long – term Options for Water Supply Household level connections are not foreseeable in the near future due to cost implications. Such water supply systems have to be part of an extensive area-wide program that would only be successful if accompanied by re-planning of the area. Such re-planning would have to take into consideration linkages between expansion of basic services and land tenure/ housing policy.

4.1.5 Way Forward on Water Supply To ensure the provision of sufficient water supply, there is an urgent need to formalise and regularise the provision of water supply by small scale service providers. This will ensure maximisation of resources and improve the management of kiosks in order to allow for improved accessibility of safe and affordable water and sanitation services in the short-term.

Additionally, improved co-ordination and collaboration between the various organisations involved in working in Kibera is crucial to ensure that work is not duplicated and/or undermined through the application of different approaches. This will be very hard to achieve, given the differing ideologies and working methodologies that different development agencies espouse.

There needs to be debate around this at a political level.

4.2 Sanitation 4.2.1 Improvements to Public Latrines (Short-term) 4.2.2 Construction of Pit latrines As a short to medium term measure, accelerating access to toilet facilities will require the construction of additional public pit latrines in all the villages of Kibera.

39

Pros: • • • • Cons: • • • • • •

Will bring toilet facilities closer to homes.

The pit latrine is widely understood and familiar concept for residents.

Presents a possible income generation project for community managed facilities.

Does not require connection to sewer lines, increasing economical viability.

Does not address current misuse of pit latrines for dumping and disposing of garbage.

Requires exhaustion which increases overall cost of access.

Requires community interest in maintaining the facility.

Environmental and health risks associated with water pollution from over flowing facilities are not addressed.

The provision of commercially managed public latrines is not seen as an ‘improved’ solution under the MDGs. Lack of space to construct additional latrines.

4.2.3 Ecological Sanitation: Installation of Biogas Latrines Biogas latrines offer an acceptable and affordable alternative to conventional sanitation technology. In Gatwikera, community groups with the support of Umande Trust piloted the installation of biogas latrines. The project proved successful as a sanitary solution especially in high density areas that are not connected to main sewer lines.

Pros: • • • • • • •

Does not require exhausting which reduces the overall cost and increases affordability.

Does not take up as much space as household level latrines.

Presents a possible income generation project for community managed facilities.

Does not require connection to sewer lines.

Offers an ecologically sound alternative.

Minimizes water pollution.

Provides an environmentally sound source of energy production, such as cooking fuel.

Cons: • The provision of commercially managed public latrines is not seen as an ‘improved’ solution under the MDGs. • Poorly maintained facilities will result in increased incidences of water contamination.

• The construction of community managed public latrines has in some instances in Kibera led to structure owners shutting down their own latrines.

• Potential corruption in the management of services.

4.2.4 Increasing Connections of Public Toilet facilities to existing main sewer lines Kibera is one of the few informal settlements with a sewer line running through it though the residents do not benefit from it. There is potential for connecting the various bio-centres now being developed to the sewer line. This would not unnecessarily overload the sewer system due to the fact that the bio-digestion process reduces the level of solids to less than 5% in the final 40

discharge. As such the bio-centres of Kibera would form a flushing system for the trunk sewer lines if they were to be connected.

Pros: • Reduces risk of diseases likely to result from unconnected sewerage system • Environmentally sound.

Cons: • Lack of space to construct the toilets • Financially unfriendly since people have to pay for the services • Lack of infrastructure for emptying the latrines

4.2.5

Long-term Options for Sanitation

Household level latrines Pros: • Much more likely to be well maintained. Could possibly use small bore sewerage pipes in much of Kibera; the existing gradient in Kibera would support construction.

Cons: • Takes up a lot of space and if there is no sewerage connection, there is the likelihood that there could be problems with contamination of the environment/ water.

• Cost of emptying the latrines is high (although only needs to be done once a year or so, generally, depending on the number of people using the latrine).

4.2.6

Way Forward on Sanitation

While the provision of household level sanitation is a long term measure, this can only be implemented alongside supplementary infrastructural developments towards adequate housing.

The incremental installation of public latrines remains the most viable solution and can be used to offset the costs of providing sanitation. Efforts are needed by the Ministry of Health to promote hygiene awareness and education in Kibera in the immediate short and long term to address the health and environmental sanitation challenges facing residents of Kibera.

Again, it is crucial that there is some form of debate around the most appropriate approach to sanitation within settlements at NCC (or whichever is relevant) to promote a co-ordinated approach to sanitation provision, to avoid the current situation of various agencies trying to solve the same problem in many different ways, leaving communities with either confused service provision or none at all.

4.3

Solid waste management

4.3.1 Development of Community Systems with Nairobi City Council (NCC) Support (short-term) The community and NCC need to come up with criteria on garbage collection and identify approved official dumping sites in each village.

41

Pros: • Encourages job creation especially among the youth.

• Environmentally sound.

• Participation of the public private sector may reduce the perception of corruption and inefficiency in the management of solid waste.71 Cons: • Though recycling companies may be involved in the collection of waste from a central location, volume of waste will have to be considered in determining if such an initiative would be viable.

• Perceived competition to existing small scale providers might result in their complete withdrawal from services or create conflict.

• Enforcement of city by-laws that have not taken into consideration local conditions will result in a conflict of interest and stall formalization of garbage collection services.

• There is need to consider the identification of a suitable dumping site which may be problematic given the current space constraints in Kibera.

• Low feasibility due to required infrastructural development such as roads.

• Requires continuous capacity building among community groups and the community.

4.3.2 Long-term Options for Garbage Collection The NCC will be required to integrate and expand its services to Kibera. While current thinking at the NCC is to outsource garbage collection,72 this has to be based on a more comprehensive strategy developed through extensive consultations with all parties, especially local community groups currently providing garbage collection services. Additional and of importance would be road infrastructure development that would facilitate easy collection of garbage.

4.3.3 Way Forward on Garbage Collection Community garbage collection has provided challenges of sustaining the tempo beyond the life of a project but key lessons have been developed that can form the basis of future solutions. Of importance is the need to look at waste as a resource and developing viable business enterprises around solid waste e.g. through sorting and recycling waste. Youth groups can sustainably charge for garbage collection and also sell the re-usable and recyclable waste. Use of new technological innovations like the community cooker at Laini Saba that convert non-recyclable waste into heat for cooking, baking and warming hot water should be researched and promoted.

4.4

Drainage

Construction of Drainage (short-medium term) Closed drains should be constructed to ensure that open drainage systems drain household waste water, storm water to streams and rivers. This has to be coupled with well-executed and planned strategies of garbage collection and sanitation to reduce contamination of water resources, blockage of drains and stagnant water.

Munguti Katui Katua and Gordon McGranahan, Public Private Partnerships and the Poor, Small Enterprises and Water Provision in Kibera, Nairobi (2002) p. 21.

72 See Nairobi City Council By-laws on Solid Waste Management, July 2007.

71

42

Pros: • Removes contaminated water from the direct environment.

• Slows down the erosion process.

• Decreases health risks associated with poor access to water, sanitation and hygiene.

Cons: • Fails to address the pollution of water sources as it moves the problem downstream.

• Requires community education to discourage dumping of garbage and solid waste into open drains. Without alternative dumping sites, attitude change cannot be sustained.

• High construction costs.

• Requires concurrent efforts at improving garbage collection to avoid blockage.

Long-term Options for Drainage Sewerage leading to treatment plants

Way Forward on Drainage A long-term plan needs to be created for storm water and wastewater.

4.5

Ensuring Housing Affordability after Basic Services are extended

Improvements to basic services will improve standard of living in Kibera, make essential services available to the poor, which will also improve opportunities for economic activity, such as laundry services, car washing and various small scale local manufacturing processes.

However, there is a danger that extension of basic services (in situ upgrading) can lead to gentrification. Kibera is a very central area of Nairobi, if the situation is dramatically improved, it will no longer be affordable to the poorer residents. Incremental upgrading where services are improved progressively through consultation with the community should therefore be undertaken. Case studies of other upgrading programs in Kenya would provide valid lessons.73 One option for improving the conditions in Kibera would be for the NCC to start looking for alternative sites and servicing these as a planned expansion of the city as the city population continues to grow. This may encourage newcomers to settle in other areas and would demonstrate an approach to planned settlement. While this would not resolve the many issues in Kibera, particularly the structure owners versus tenants problem, it would be a step towards avoiding the creation of a future Kibera.

73

For a detailed discussion of the broader issued of slum upgrading, refer to COHRE, Listening to the Poor: Housing Rights in Nairobi, Kenya, Final Report (Geneva: Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, 2006)

43

5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENSURING ACCESS TO WATER AND SANITATION The recommendations in this section build upon the suggestions generated and articulated by community representatives during the action planning sessions. This draft will be finished after discussion with all community representatives.

The following recommendations are made to the following:

5.1 Government of Kenya These recommendations are directed to the Kenyan Government (including the various Ministries and departments) and Parliament.

1. Evaluate existing legislation, policy and institutional arrangements to assess their adequacy to the human right to water and sanitation.

The Government has committed itself to adopting a human rights based approach in the water sector. Accordingly, the government is urged to mainstream rights based approaches in the water sector by ensuring that principles of non discrimination and attention to vulnerable groups, participation and access to information, empowerment, transparency and accountability and the express linkage to all rights are adopted in all policy and legislation formulation.

Since Kenya is a signatory to leading international conventions on human rights that secure and acknowledge the right to water and sanitation, the Water Act should recognise the right to water and sanitation. In addition, the development of national legislation and policies should reflect and make reference to international human rights standards.

The Government is urged to secure the gains with respect to the right to water and sanitation articulated in the Proposed Constitution of Kenya, 2005 and the Bomas Draft Constitution of 2004 that provided for the explicit recognition of the right to water and sanitation. This can be achieved by ensuring that the on going constitutional reform process is concluded in a timely manner.

2. Ensure that various government institutions coordinate their efforts in extending access to water and sanitation to Kibera.

The Ministries of Local Government, Land, Environment, Health and Water and Irrigation have varying but overlapping mandates that deal with water and sanitation. The Government must take steps to improve overall ministerial coordination. It is proposed that the Government ensure that an agreement is reached between the various government institutions to identify their respective roles and responsibilities with regard to water and sanitation. In addition, the Government must ensure that national standards are developed to harmonize targets developed by government institutions so as to identify existing gaps.

3. Promote transparency and accountability and take measures to curb corruption within the water sector.

44

4. The Ministry of Finance should increase the annual budgetary allocation for water and sanitation.

The Government has shown increased commitment to taking measures to obtain sufficient financial and other aid to accelerate coverage improvement beyond that possible with domestic resources. To ensure that the poor and marginalized benefit it is recommended that the Ministry of Finance prioritize and increase its budgetary allocation to the Ministry for Water and Irrigation for the extension of water and sanitation to areas of low coverage such as Kibera. In addition, Water Service Providers need to make extension of services to the lower income settlements a major priority in their business plans and performance contracts.

5. Collect and disseminate accurate information on access to water and sanitation services, including disaggregated information on levels of access by vulnerable and marginalised groups.

The sustainable extension of water and sanitation will require accurate data collection to identify and map basic services. Currently, polices and strategies are being implemented without sufficient statistical information, that is required to ensure that accurate levels of access particularly for the poor and residents of the informal settlements are recorded. We recognize that collection of disaggregated data is often resource intensive; it is therefore proposed that the Government through the Ministry of Water and Irrigation as well as Ministry of Health initiate the data collection process in collaboration with the communities. The communities should be involved in prioritizing issues and areas to be covered in initial baseline surveys. During the baseline surveys every effort should be made to ensure that communities become principal data gatherers and not passive objects of research.

5.2 Specific Government Actors Certain recommendations are directed to specific government actors to implement the following recommendations within their mandates.

5.2.1 Ministry of Health 1. In collaboration with the Ministry of Water and Irrigation, implement information and education campaigns on water quality, storage and environmental management. The Ministry of Health should also conduct a base line assessment in collaboration with residents and civil society organizations working in Kibera to identify the information and education gaps in Kibera with regard to water, hygiene, risk awareness and basic sanitation to inform its education campaigns.

2. Ensure that all government health facilities located in Kibera or in its periphery are required to disseminate information and training on basic sanitation and hygiene education.

5.2.2 Ministry of Lands 1. Ensure security of tenure from forced evictions by government bodies for residents of Kibera. Facilitate education and awareness of land policy and its implications.

45

5.2.3 Ministry of Housing 1. Proactively consider mechanism to address the lack of security of tenure in informal settlements, in wide consultation with residents and other relevant organs.

5.2.4 Ministry of Water and Irrigation 1. Allocate a reasonable percentage of funding for Nairobi to extension of access to informal settlements. Increase the budget allocation for the Water Services Trust Fund to support investment into water and sanitation services in Kibera. Facilitate the inclusion of the residents in the determination of budgeting processes by providing information on budgetary allocations especially with respect to allocation for water and sanitation in areas of low coverage.

2. Research and promote appropriate technologies for use in informal settlements such as ecological sanitation. Increase community and civil society participation in the identification of appropriate technology to increase coverage. Increase financial resource allocation to the investment in research and development of alternative options.

3. The Water Act and the Water Resources Management Strategy acknowledge the right of stakeholders to participate in the water sector. The Ministry of Water and Irrigation should disseminate information on the water sector reforms and developed policies to residents of Kibera. The policies should be disseminated in easy to read formats; additionally information on the water sector reforms should be disseminated in a variety of media and communication outlets within Kibera.

4. In addition, the Ministry and Water Services Regulatory Board should, in consultation with the general public and all stakeholders participate and disseminate information, enact policies and regulations to govern informal service provision of water and sanitation including in Kibera; to ensure that the poor and vulnerable who are unable to afford to pay for basic minimum essential water (for personal and domestic use) have procedural and substantive protection and to govern the disconnection of water supply for lack of non payment.

5.2.5 Athi Water Services Board and Water Services Regulatory Board Enact regulations to require the Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company to extend water and sanitation to informal settlements in accordance with recommendations in Section 5.2.6 below.

1. Ensure that the service provision agreements concluded with the Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company provide the planned extension into poor areas such as the informal settlement with clear target and timelines. Additionally, the Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company service provision agreement should be made public to residents of Kibera to promote accountability and transparency.

2. Ensure that residents of Kibera have access to complaints mechanisms established within the Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company and the Athi Water Services Board.

3. Ensure residents of Kibera fully participate in decisions on issues affecting them such as the determination of initiatives to address operational deficiencies as a result of leakages and unaccounted for water, especially through illegal water connections.

46

5.2.6 Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company (NWSC) Commit to including the residents of Kibera in the determination of procedures and guidelines to extend water and sanitation coverage; 1. Extend services to those without access by ensuring that new water points and toilets are in areas more likely to be safe especially for women and girls. Additionally, new locations should specifically target institutions such as schools as priority points for water supply and for construction of toilets – including separate toilets for men and women.

2. Monitor water supply to Kibera to ensure that water supplied by water service operators is routinely tested for water quality. Provide information to consumers and water operators on tested water quality and conduct education campaigns with identified water operators on water quality.

3. In consultation with water operators, progressively upgrade water connections and install metal piping.

4. Develop own ability to engage Kibera residents in provision of water and sanitation services and to effectively regulate and monitor water operators. Specifically, the NWSC should ensure that water operators respect applicable tariffs. Conversely, the NWSC should also strengthen the capacity of water operators to improve provision of water and toilet services.

5. Promptly investigate allegations that NWSC officials are involved in bribe taking to speed up water connections and protecting criminal water cartels.

6. Provide residents of Kibera with the company’s long term operational plans for extending its own systems into the settlement.

7. Establish a set maximum price for water sold by operators and widely advertise it.

5.2.7 Nairobi City Council (NCC) 1. Identify and demarcate sites within each village of Kibera for the dumping of garbage.

2. In collaboration with civil society organisations and residents research, recommend and promote appropriate technologies for garbage collection and management such as waste recycling.

3. Increase its own ability to engage Kibera residents in provision of garbage collection and management and to effectively regulate and monitor garbage collectors. Specifically, the NCC should ensure that garbage collectors are included in the development of policies and by-laws on garbage collection and management.

4. Implement information and education campaigns solid waste and environmental management in Kibera. Additionally, the NCC should provide the capacity building for garbage collectors to improve provision of services.

5. Urgently improve roads in the settlements to ensure and facilitate easy access for pit latrine exhausters and garbage collection trucks.

6. Urgently improve the drainage systems in the settlement including providing well secured and covered drainage channels to prevent dumping of garbage and blockages.

7. Guarantee that residents of Kibera have full access to information concerning NCC services in order to enable informed participation and to ensure transparency.

5.2.8 Provincial Administration 1. Promptly investigate allegations that the Provincial Administration is involved in irregular allocation of land and illegal collection of money for construction and repairs.

47

5.2.9 Nairobi City Council (NCC) 1. Build community capacity and knowledge on the water sector reforms, including on rights and responsibilities, monitor how to ensure that there is service delivery, management and technical information.

2. Carry out advocacy campaigns to ensure that the extension of access to water and sanitation for the residents of Kibera is prioritized by the water sector.

3. Facilitate community organisation and assist communities with their advocacy and lobby processes.

4. Ensure that women are adequately represented especially in decision making.

5. Monitor government and specifically the water sector on the implementation and development of the water sector reforms to ensure that they are consistent with the right to water and sanitation.

6. Increase coordination between all stakeholders to ensure maximization of resources and overall impact and avoid duplication.

7. Mainstream the right to water and sanitation in ongoing projects.

5.2.10 The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNHCR) While complaints mechanisms have been institutionalized within water companies and water service boards, they remain privy to those connected to networks. The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights is strategically positioned to independently monitor the provision and administration of water and sanitation.

1. We recommend that the government provide the KNCHR with sufficient capacity (and assistance from water sector institutions) to function as an independent monitor providing redress and complaints mechanism for all users especially residents of Kibera.

2. That the KNCHR institutionally position itself through the incorporation of a national programme that will focus on the right to water and sanitation.

48

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. The Water Act, 2002 2. Ministry of Planning and National Development, Geographical Dimensions of Well-Being in Kenya, Nairobi Central Bureau of Statistics, (2003).

3. Ministry of Water and Irrigation and WSP-Africa, The Cost of Providing Water Services to the Urban Poor, (2006).

4. Ministry of Water and Irrigation, National Water Resources Management Strategy (20052008).

5. Ministry of Water and Irrigation, the National Water Services Strategy (2007-2015).

6. Ministry of Water and Irrigation, Water Services Regulatory Board Tariff Guidelines and Model (2007).

7. Ministry of Water and Irrigation, Pro-Poor Implementation Plan for Water Supply and Sanitation (PPIP - WSS) (2007).

8. Government of Kenya, A Development Strategy for Nairobi’s Informal Settlements (Nairobi, Government of Kenya, (1997).

9. The Ministry of Health, National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy, (2006).

10. Ministry of Lands and Housing, National Housing Policy, Sessional. Paper No. 3, (2004).

11. Sumila Gulyani et al, Water for the Urban Poor: Water Markets, Household Demand and Service Preferences in Kenya, (2005) Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Board Discussion, Paper Series No 5.

12. Munguti Katui Katua et al, Kenya-German Development Cooperation in the Water Sector, Assessment from a Human Rights Perspective (GTZ 2007).

13. Munguti Katui Katua and Gordon McGranahan, Public Private Partnerships and the Poor, Small Enterprises and Water Provision in Kibera, Nairobi (2002).

14. Water and Sanitation Programme (WSP), Small-scale Independent Providers of Water and Sanitation to the Urban Poor, Nairobi, Water and Sanitation Programme, (1999).

15. Nairobi City Council, Ministry of Local Government and JICA, The Study on Solid Waste Management in Nairobi City: Progress Report (1) Nairobi, CTI Engineering, (1997).

16. Inside Informality: Poverty, Jobs, Housing and Services in Nairobi Slums (2006) World Bank Report No. 36347-KE. 17. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 15, The right to water, UN Doc. E/C.12/2002/11.

49

18. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General comment No. 4 The right to adequate housing, UN Doc. E/1992/23.

19. Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Final report of the Special Rapporteur on the relationship between the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and the promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation, 14 July 2004, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/20.

20. Nairobi City Council By-laws on Solid Waste Management, July 2007.

21. COHRE, Listening to the Poor: Housing Rights in Nairobi, Kenya, Final Report (Geneva: Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, 2006) 22. COHRE, Manual on the Right to Water and Sanitation, (Geneva: Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, 2008) 23. The Kibera Urban Environment and Sanitation Project (KUESP) study.

24. Household enumerations along the railway line (Pamoja Trust, 2005-06).

25. Small-scale water and sanitation providers (Water and Sanitation Programme, 2004).

26. The Kenya Slums Upgrading Stakeholder and Infrastructure Mapping (2003-04).

50