Master Thesis - TU Berlin by Yumi Neder

On-site sanitation in informal settlements A case study in Nairobi, Kenya Yumi Higashi Neder Dr. Christoph LĂźthi Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Urban Managementat Technische UniversitĂ¤t Berlin

Statement of authenticity of material

This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any institution and to the best of my knowledge and belief, the research contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text of the thesis.

Yumi Higashi Neder Berlin, 23rd of February 2019

Acronyms BSF FS FSM GDP GIZ GoK HRtWS JMP KESHP KENSUP KfW KUR LGC NCSS NGO NWCPC SDG SPA SuSanA TBC UBSUP UDHR UESHSAP USESIFP WASREB WHO WSB WSP WSTF WWM

Black Soldier Fly Faecal Sludge Faecal Sludge Management Gross Domestic Product Gesellschaft fÃ¼r Internationale Zusammenarbeit Government of Kenya Human Right to Water and Sanitation Joint Monitoring Program Kenya Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy Kenya Slum Upgrading Program German Development Bank Kenya Uganda Railway Local Government Act Nairobi Cross-sectional Slums Survey Non-Governmental Organization National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation Sustainable Development Goal Service Provision Agreement SuSanA Sustainable Sanitation Alliance Toilet Board Coalition Up-scaling Basic Sanitation for the Urban Poor Universal Declaration of Human Rights Urban Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Strategic and Action Plans Urban Strategic Environmental Sanitation Investment and Financing Plan Water Services Regulatory Board World Health Organization Water Service Board Water Service Provider Water Sector Trust Fund Wastewater Management

List of Contents 1. Introduction 10 1.1. Problem Statement 12 2. Methodology 16 3. Context 18 3.1. Kenya Profile 18 3.2. Urbanization in Kenya 20 3.3. Nairobi’s Urban Development 23 3.4. Precarious Informal Settlements in Nairobi 25 4. Literature Review 28 4.1. Sustainable Sanitation Systems in Low-Income Unserved Areas

Sustainable Sanitation Systems and Sustainable Development Goal 6

Centralized and Decentralized Sanitation Systems

c. Faecal Sludge Management 30 d. Resource Recovery from Faecal Sludge 32 e. Circular Economy 33 4.2. Sanitation: a Public Good and a Commodity

a. The Right to Sanitation 35 b. Public Good or Commodity 36 c. Market-based Approaches 36 4.3. Sanitation Service Delivery in Kenya 37 a.

SDG 6 and other International Agreements

b. Legal Framework 39 c. Policy Framework 41 d. Institutional Framework 44 e. Financial Mechanisms 45 5. Case Studies 46 5.1. Case Study 1: Sanergy 46 b. Institutional embedding 48 c. Affordability of services 59 d. Sustainability and up-scale perspective 50 e.

Fresh Life® toilets within Informal Settlements

f. Assessment of Sanergy’s Approach 54 5.2. Case Study 2: Umande Trust 56 a. Sanitation service chain 56

b. Institutional embedding 57 c. Affordability of services 59 d. Sustainability 60 e.

Assessment of the Umande Trust approach

5.3. Case Study 3: SafiSan 64 a.

Sector reform that promotes an enabling the environment

b. Sanitation service chain 64 c. Sustainability 67 d. Assessment of the SafiSan project 69 5.4. Water Sector Trust Fund

a. General Overview 70 b. The Urban Investment Programme 71 c.

Operating the UBSUP: Challenges and Perspectives

Challenges 72 Perspectives 73 6. Analysis and Recommendations 76 7. Conclusion 78 8. List of References 80

Acknowledgement

This work I dedicate first to my mother who always supported me. Life was hard for her and having a daughter reaching this point is certainly the result of a huge effort invested in my studies. Thank you so much and I love you very much. To my boyfriend Michael Ritter, who always supported whenever I was. He helped me in so many ways that I would need a whole chapter in my thesis to thank him for everything. To all my family and friends from Brazil who accompanied me all the time in this journey that was incredible but also very tough. Nothing would have prepared me for the difficulties of living away from the people I love and from my roots. To my friends in Berlin, with whom I have built a beautiful relationship that will last forever. I hope you all have a life of peace and happiness wherever you are. To Katie, Stephanie, Shegufta, Julia and Marcela. You were my base in Nairobi, the most challenging part of this journey. Being able to share the moments of anguish in the face of so many adversities was essential to me. To Bettina, who believed in me from the beginning, choosing me to be one of the scholarship holders. To my supervisor Christoph LĂźthi, who was always available and guided me through the sanitation world. It's really inspiring to work with those who believe in what they do. I hope to meet more people like you in my professional life. To the DAAD, for the general support in everything. I was very well received in Germany.

Abstract

The lack of sanitation degrades the environment, affects public health and human dignity. In Kenya, non-potable water intake, poor or non-availability of sanitation and unhealthy personal hygiene are risk factors responsible for 5.3% of deaths in the country. This statistic is even higher in informal settlements, where in addition women and girls are extremely vulnerable to abuse and rape due to lack of adequate sanitation facilities. Many practitioners and academics in the sector have advocated for a more pluralistic approach using innovative methods and technologies in the sanitation service delivery. Decentralized or on-site sanitation has proven to be efficient, sustainable and affordable, being considered a solution to tackle the precarious sanitation conditions in developing countries. Some initiatives in Kenya are providing safe sanitation for informal settlements by this means. For the first time on-site sanitation appears as recommendation in the sectorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s policy and became part of the sanitation governance structure. In view of the serious consequences of the poor sanitation in informal settlements in the country and the knowledge of independent initiatives that are committed to improving the current situation through decentralized sanitation, this study aims to investigate if such initiatives could integrate the sanitation governance structure in Nairobi. The methodological framework is based on the comparative study of three selected cases in Kenya: Sanergy, Umande and SafiSan. The analysis of the cases aims to document the methodologies adopted in the delivery of on-site sanitation service, identifying advantages and disadvantages according to previously established parameters. Key words: Sustainable sanitation, on-site sanitation methods and technologies, informal settlements, sanitation governance structure, market-based approach, community-oriented approach.

Introduction

Access to sanitation is a well-known challenge faced by many governments, especially those in the developing world. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are the countries with the lowest service levels of access to sanitation1. According to the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (JMP) the bottom 10 on the rank are Sierra Leone,

frameworks that are consistent with reality and thus take maximum advantage of investments. In addition, since many initiatives are carried out by international or multilateral organizations, when investments cease the trend is the degradation of equipment and infrastructure if they are not maintained by another instance, whether governmental or not. So the state plays an

Ghana, Togo, Benin, Niger, Eritrea, South Sudan, Madagascar, Chad, and Ethiopia. Although in the last decades there has been quite a progress in the extension of sanitation coverage (measured by the indicators of the Millennium Development Goals - MDG), the region still demands attention and investments within the sector.

important role on realizing for long-term the access to sanitation, which does not mean that it has to offer the service, but promoting the enabling conditions to the service delivery become possible.

Together with Asia, the African continent has shown the highest urbanization rates, being one of the last frontiers to be embraced by cities. This process has happened mostly through rural-urban migration, which is not a novelty looking behind in the history of global urban development, but stands out for the accelerated and uncontrolled pace that has resulted in even more people living in improper conditions as cities are neither spatially nor economically prepared to absorb such human influx. There is a clear need for financial resources for sanitation infrastructure in SSA, but as important is the establishment and consolidation of politicy, legal and institutional 1 Basic and safely managed sanitation.

For a long time, centralized sanitation systems were the prevailing paradigm in the sector. However, factors such as budget constraints, institutional greenness, and urban spatial configuration of many developing countries make it difficult to provide the service through sewers system. On the other hand, there has been an increase on the advocacy of decentralized sanitation systems insofar as they have demonstrated to be feasible, diverse in solutions and aligned with sustainability and affordability concepts. In SSA, this trend has been particularly pronounced. Since the period when the MDGs were sought, the use of pit latrines and septic tank has increased, as well as intensified discussions about faecal sludge management (FSM). In this scenario, innovative initiatives emerge proposing

decentralized sanitation approaches that derive from a multifactorial reading of the context. For instance: in Dakar, Senegal, there is an ongoing project that structures an entire non-sewer sanitation service chain, which also produces three by-products; in Malawi, the sanitation has been improved through partnerships among aid agencies, government, NGOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and small local

concessions; in Uganda, stands out the FaME project, a collaborative research on resource recovery from faecal sludge; and finally Kenya has been considered a hub of innovations in decentralized sanitation systems, both by the recent reform in the sector, and by the experiences that will be presented in this work.

Innovations in the sanitation sector in SSA

Kenya

Senegal

Uganda

Figure 1: Countries standing out on innovations in the sanitation sector SSA (Source: Author and the â&#x20AC;&#x153;The white paper on sanitation in Africaâ&#x20AC;?)

Malawi

1.1. Problem Statement

The lack of sanitation, solid waste collection and disposal not only degrades the environment, but also affects public health and human dignity. In Kenya, non-potable water intake, poor or non-availability of sanitation and unhealthy personal hygiene are risk factors responsible for 5.3% of deaths throughout the country (WHO 2009), a statistic that is higher in informal settlements and slums, especially for children aged less than 5 years of age. According to the Kenya Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy (KESHP 2016, pg. 12), approximately 19,500 Kenyans, including 17,100 children under the age of five, die each year from diarrhea, 90% of which are related to lack of clean water, sanitation and hygiene. The figures reveal a serious national public health problem, stemming from the precariousness or absence of access to improved drinking water and sanitation as well as dysfunctional governance of the sector. The country has lost more capital for lack of sanitation than it could spend investing in the sector to tackle the issue: within a year, about 1% of national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was lost due to the consequences of precarious sanitation, while only 0.2% was invested to improve infrastructure and service (KESHP 2016, pg. 31). The KESHP also shows that currently, only 5% of the waste water is properly treated (2016, pg. 8). The treatment plants are few and inefficient: there are 15 cities that benefit from such sewerage infrastructure, which operates at about 16% of the predicted 12

capacity. This data shows that poor sanitation is not limited to the poorer areas, such as informal settlements and slums. However, it is in these places that people are most exposed to the risks as, generally, human waste are dumped near households, and inhabitants do not have easy access to health facilities. In addition to its serious impacts on public health and the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s finances as shown above, studies show that women and girls are even more vulnerable to poor sanitation. In informal settlements2, many toilets are shared and located outside of the houses and often not close enough to reach in safety. For this reason, women and girls are extremely vulnerable to abuse and rape at night (Corburn & Hildebrand 2015, pg. 5). Most inhabitants of informal settlements and slums in Nairobi use shared toilets facilities. Although there are different types of washrooms, the most common is one in which people pay around US cents 5 per use. Normally, each toilet seat is used by 50150 people (Amnesty International 2009, pg. 7), which is way above the standard needed to be considered improved sanitation. The public facilities are not all the time accessible as they are closed at night. Furthermore, some people cannot afford the amount charged, or are not willing to pay because it is not a priority among the daily expenses (Corburn & Hildebrand 2015, pg. 5). Thus, many people opt for using a well-known method called â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;flying toiletâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; which consists of defecating in a plastic bag at night and throwing it out in the morning at any location. The universality of access to improved 2 From now on, the term informal settlement will refer also to slums, although the terms can have distinct understandings.

drinking water and sanitation is one of the general objectives of the New Urban Agenda, the Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6), which shows the global recognition of the importance of ensuring such services in a comprehensive manner. Water has always played a greater role than sanitation, but in recent decades access to sanitation has gained more ground in political debates, even to the point of reaching the status of legal right in many countries. The determination by law of the right to access to sanitation, or any other service, is a very important step, but it is not sufficient by itself. It is necessary to create

in the sanitation service delivery. The discussion about the most suitable sanitation has faced apparent antagonism along the lines of centralized and decentralized sanitation approach. Decentralized or onsite sanitation does not rely on a sewage network to take human waste to a treatment plant, and at the same time enable different types of economic activities along its service chain. Some initiatives have been demonstrated to be effective in providing safe sanitation for informal settlements by this means. However, there is still resistance in accepting different means of performing sanitation other than via sewerage.

institutions that can lead the processes based on a clear governance structure that allocates the responsibilities of each actor involved. Similarly, means by which the whole sanitation system will be funded have to be set, so that its existence is sustainable.

It was in KESHP that the term on-site sanitation appeared for the first time in a Kenyan sanitation sector policy, which indeed is a shift from the traditional way of thinking sanitation to a more plural approach. There are many independent initiatives in Kenya that are helping to change the sanitation condition in poor urban areas. They are community organizations, individual entrepreneurs, nongovernmental organizations (NGOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s) and private companies. Many bring innovative solutions, but all share the same difficulty of self-maintaining.

Traditionally, sanitation service in Kenya is provided through a centralized system, which, in addition to having a high cost to implement and maintain, it does not fit in any spatial and social context. By and large, informal settlements and slums are characterized by high population densities. Consequently, the provision of sanitation through sewers is a difficult goal to achieve since it would require high investments, massive evictions and replacements. Due to the urgency of providing minimum conditions of health and dignity to people living in extreme poverty, tangible solutions have been sought to address the sanitation crisis in many developing countries. Many practitioners and academics in the sector have advocated for a more pluralistic approach using non-conventional methods 13

In view of the serious consequences of the lack of sanitation in informal settlements in Kenya and the knowledge of independent initiatives that are committed to improving the current situation through decentralized sanitation, this study aims to investigate if such initiatives could integrate the sanitation governance structure in Nairobi. The Kenyan sanitation sector underwent a major reform that resulted in a new governance structure. Together with the new governance structure, new institutions have

emerged, such as the Water Sector Trust Fund (WSTF), with the mandate “to provide conditional and unconditional grants to the Counties and to assist in financing the development of and management of water services in the marginalized and underserved areas”3.

program proposal does not specifically address informal settlements.

The WSTF together with the German agency Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the German Development Bank (KfW) started a program of decentralized sanitation for the urban poor at the household plot scale named “Up-scaling Basic Sanitation for the Urban Poor” (UBSUP). It encompasses the entire sanitation value chain, from toilet manufacturing to human waste collection, treatment and transformation into endproducts etc.

Conditioned to the main research question, these are the following sub-questions:

While the program presents innovative and interesting solutions to the provision of sanitation to the urban poor, the initial 3 From the WSTF site: < http://www.waterfund.go.ke>

Figure 2: Public toilet in Mathare slum in Nairobi, Kenya (Source: Author)

Thus, the main question of this research is: since the UBSUP program is institutionally embedded, could independent initiatives addressing informal settlements be part of the program’s governance structure?

• Are the independent initiatives studied considered sustainable, affordable and scalable? • Is the UBSUP program enabling to support such initiatives? • What are the advantages and disadvantages of each independent initiative and the UBSUP program? • If UBSUP is able to support such independent initiatives, what would be the necessary measures to integrate them into the program?

Methodology

The methodological framework is based on the comparative study of three selected cases in Kenya. The analysis of the cases aims to document the methodologies adopted in the delivery of on-site sanitation service, identifying advantages and disadvantages according to previously established parameters. Having done a thorough evaluation of each case, I conclude whether the integration of independent initiatives into the state-led UBSUP program is feasible or not. In both positive and negative cases, I recommend how a better integration process could occur. The research is defined as qualitative and the data collection is based on bibliographical survey, documents analysis, field observation and interviews with key informants. Next, I present the selection criteria of the city of Nairobi, capital of Kenya, as the focus area of this research, and I justify the methods used. Semi-structured interviews and field observation are not exempted from my theoretical and subjective assumptions. Nairobi was chosen because it represents a recurrent urban phenomenon in developing countries: accelerated growth of urban population without an adequately planned urbanization processes, resulting in large parts of the urban territory characterized by the absence or precariousness of basic infrastructure, such as drinking water, sanitation, and affordable housing. As many 16

other cities in South America, Asia and SubSaharan Africa, Nairobi is a city of contrasts, where you can live in luxurious places, visit trendy restaurants, whereas a huge number of the people live without access to a simple toilet. Assuming that sanitation is more than the provision of toilets, the research firstly analyzes the previous and current frameworks and structures that define Kenya’s sanitation sector, as follows: • Policy Frameworks; • Legal Frameworks; • Institutional Frameworks; • Governance structure and • Financial Mechanisms. The analysis of the course of the sector considers the historical and political factors at different scales of government. Thus, it presents a conclusion on progress and challenges to be overcome. After a sectorial analysis, we conduct a performance analysis of specific operators within informal settlements that purposely were chosen due to their different characteristics. The three selected case studies are: Sanergy, Umande and SafiSan. All three offer on-site sanitation through different approaches. The choice of different models reflects my assumption that different forms of sanitation service delivery are necessary in view of the social, cultural, economic and geographical

diversity of informal settlements. Sanergy was chosen for its potential to enable locally-based income generation throughout the sanitation chain. Umande was chosen for being community-driven. Finally, SafiSan was chosen because it is an institutionally embedded sanitation program. SafiSan was not designed to be implemented in low-income areas, characterized by high population density. Rather it is a program which provides subsidized toilets at the plot level for un-serviced urban areas. On the other hand, Sanergy and Umande have been successful in addressing the lack of sanitation in poor and dense settlements. Therefore, this research aims to understand how the operational model of each initiative works, what are the main challenges faced and what the expansion and sustainability perspectives are.

The key informant interviews were conducted with the following sector stakeholders: • Sanergy: Isabelle Poulet - Policy and Advocacy Officer • GIZ: James Kiptanui Ronoh - Technical Advisor • Umande: Josiah Omoto - Co-founder • WSTF: Charles Kanyugo - Technical Advisor Visits to the Sanergy’s facilities at Mathare and Umande’s headquarter at Kibera were also carried out. In Mathare, it was possible to carry out interviews, do transect walks and take photos. For that, I hired the service of a resident. In Kibera, I was guided by a colleague who knows the area but is not a resident, so we did not interview people and take photos.

Context

3.1. Kenya Profile

Kenya is located in an ancient human settlement area, popularly considered the cradle of the world. As most of sub-Saharan African countries, it presents high levels of poverty, having 36.1% of its population below the poverty line (Basic Report on Well Being in Kenya 2018, pg. 9). Although the share of population living in extreme poverty is still high, the number of people in this condition has sharply decreased, from 46.6% in 2005/05 to the current one of 2015/16 (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics). The economy in Kenya is mostly based on services, representing 45.38% of total

Figure 3: Share of economic sectors in Kenya (Source: http://www. statista.com/statistics/451143/share-of-economic-sectors-in-thegdp-in-kenya)

GDP. The industry sector share 17.5% and Agriculture 31.52%1. The country has grown in importance, emerging as the richest nation of East Africa and the 5th on the African continent. Unfortunately, similar to many developing countries2, economic growth often does not correspond proportionally to the development of society as a whole. This reflects in the social gap between rich and poor, as summarized by the GINI index, which in Kenya is 0.44. 1 Kenya: Share of economic sectors in the gross domestic product (GDP) from 2007 to 2017. (http://www.statista.com/ statistics/451143/share-of-economic-sectors-in-the-gdp-in-kenya 2 While Brazil is one of the largest economies in the world, it is also among the 10th most unequal countries in the world, according to the GINI index.

Poverty and social inequity became more distinctive in the post-colonial period (Ndege 2008, pg.8). During the colonial times, the British government imposed a political and economic system that promoted the concentration of development in Nairobi, Mombasa, Nakuru, Kisumu, Eldoret and Naivasha (Ndege 2009, pg. 6). In this way, the areas which were not connected to these nodes, were marginalized, being to this day the poorest regions of the country. The independence of the country was led by the Mau Mau movement, which claimed the right to land and the sovereignty of the nation. However, the independence process was contradictory, as many leaders who contributed to the “decolonization” did so in order to be able easily buy cheap lands from the British. It is interesting to note that, unlike other British colonies such as South Africa, the political and social system was effectively de-racialized3. Nonetheless, the political class has delineated ethnic boundaries to encourage the support of the population based on tribal interests, which has skewed the national development orientation, strengthening even more the regional disparities (Ndege 2009, pg. 7). To the present day, the economic proximity to the British government still remains significant 4(Ndege 2009, pg. 7), in addition to other developed countries like the United States, the Netherlands, and more recently China. The trade relations have diversified and expanded to other countries mainly in East Africa, where Kenya has a prominent 3 Term used by Ndege, 2009 4 Among Kenya’s top export destinations, the UK is the fourth, totalling about $ 386 million, according to the OEC, see in: < http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/ken/>

role. However, legislation, policy, institution frameworks and governance structure have to be re-visited to make the economy more efficient. In 2010, a new constitution was released, opening the way to fundamental changes. The main amendments were the separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers; the delegation of authority at two levels, national and counties, and guarantee of socio-economic rights. One of the factors that led to the new constitution was the government’s inefficiency in distributing resources in a balanced way among different regions. In this way, the constitution decentralizes the decision-making process, from the national sphere to the counties that ideally could better decide how to manage public resources according to their specific needs. Through the new constitution, 47 political units with fiscal and legal autonomy were created. The so-called counties originated from the previous local governments’ reorganization, now responsible for the provision of urban infrastructure and basic services. To accomplish their mandates, it was defined that counties should be earmarked for at least 15% of national revenue. This division is based on the cost between the levels of government, national and counties (Commission on Revenue Allocation 2012, pg. 1). The distribution of the amount allocated to counties is based on a formula consisting of five (5) variables: population, poverty index, land area, basic equal share and fiscal responsibility (Commission on Revenue Allocation 2012, pg. 23). However, this revenue sharing formula has been

shown to be insufficient to deal with some differences between counties as the urban concentration and complexity. Urban centres require more investments in infrastructure and basic services than rural areas, so that many of them after the devolution are facing a funding crisis as they are receiving less resource than before. The largest Kenyan cities are operating with 60% of the budget they had before the devolution, and now have additional spending as institutional bodies, assemblies and executives (Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor 2017, pg. 8). While indeed the new constitution has represented a decisive step towards a better functioning of the governance structure, there is still a number of problematic issues to address. The legal system has to be

Figure 4: Mukuru (Author: Christoph LĂźthi)

complemented to meet different scales of governance. As well, it needs to be in accordance with the experience of reality, which is only possible if the act of legislating is accompanied by broad participation of society.

3.2. Urbanization in Kenya

Urbanization is occurring at a rapid rate, by 2030, it is estimated that more than 60 percent of Kenyans will be living in cities and towns. Although there is an increasing urban population growth rate of 6% per year, it remains a rural country. According to the last released national census in 2010, the share of urban population is 31.3%. The

Kenya Urbanization Review (World Bank 2016, pg. 1) defines that the country is in a rapidly urbanization process, but it is under-urbanized5. The Kenyan urbanization process has been mostly caused by an agriculture push, when people from rural areas migrate to the cities looking for job opportunities and better life conditions. Instead of being driven by the industrial pull, which could provide the necessary financial resource to leverage urban development (World Bank 2016, pg. 2).

(Hope 2012, pg. 6). Even though it seems unintelligible to pin all the blames on the colonization past, it cannot be denied that it has great part on the current urban context, as Hope (2012) mentions:

The urbanization process in Kenya has been concentrated in few centres since the British colonization. Likewise most Sub-Saharan African countries, the British colonial administration in Kenya set few urban cores to enable the flow of goods towards roads and ports. The main result of this regional development pattern inherited from the colonial era is the territorial inequalities that leverages the internal migration flows

Before independence, the migration from rural areas to urban centers was restricted. Afterwards, there were no rules regarding migration flows, which contributed to exponential increase of the urban population.

5 Under urbanized is a term used by the World Bank (2016) to refer that Kenya is under urbanization process.

“However, today’s urban challenges in Kenya, and the rest of Africa for that matter, are increasingly from the outcomes of postindependence political, economic, and social policy choices, albeit built on top of the model established under colonial rule”. (Hope 2012, pg. 7)

To distribute to the internal migration in Kenya, the growth of medium and small municipalities had been promoted by the national government since the 1970’s. However, such policy has been hindered by many factors: lack of criteria to select

Figure 4: Urban centres per population in 1962 and 1979 (Mireri 2005, pg. 112)

municipalities that had real growth potential; political convenience and corruption; besides the lack of reliable data on the reality of the country and its regions, human and financial resources (Mireri 2005, pg. 115). The urbanization of the country was not proportionally accompanied by economic growth. In addition to this, historically, migration to cities has been driven by the precariousness of rural life, which has increased the influx of migrants in search of a better life. But once in the urban environment, a difficult reality is uncovered: high unemployment, predominance of informal and precarious jobs, unequal population distribution, lack of or limited access to basic services6, dissemination of informal settlements, violence and serious environmental problems. The indicator which tells much about “how well urban areas have absorbed the rapid population growth” (Hope 2012, pg. 12), is the phenomenon of urban unemployment. The unemployment and underemployment impair a families’ socio-economic condition, leading them to live in poverty and vulnerability. As in many developing countries, the urban poor population is likely to live in fragile environment, like in rough reliefs and water banks, where there is no economic interest in using the land. In these places, the lack of sanitation and garbage collection coupled with the inadequacy of the natural environment to accommodate human settlements enhances the spread of numerous diseases. According to the last census of 2010 (Republic of Kenya), in terms of basic services: 6 Water, sanitation, housing, transport and so on.

1. 38% people have access to pipe-bone water; 2. 20% people have access to sewage; 3. 50% people have access to electricity. The distortions in the urban land market during the 1980s and 1990s contributed to worsen the situation: there are almost no public properties that can be managed in the public interest (World Bank 2016, pg. 4). Urban development in Kenyan cities is heavily dependent on private sector’s interests, which in turn is also unable to function effectively due to the highly bureaucratic land market and the tenure insecurity. Furthermore, in general, the municipalities do not have effective urban planning because of the lack of reliable data, which has resulted in urban development based on data not updated (Mireri 2005, pg. 118). One of the main challenges to overcome so that the population can develop and contribute to the country’s growth to ensure universal access to basic services such as drinking water, sanitation, collection and management of solid waste and urban drainage. Some basic services such as water supply and sanitation are already guaranteed by the current Constitution of Kenya but these have not yet been fully translated into action. To do so, it is necessary to implement an effective governance structure that mainly serves the poorest part of the population, which is the portion that in fact needs the most services.

3.3. Nairobi’s Urban Development

Prior to the establishment of the Kenya Uganda Railway (KUR) headquarter in 1899, Nairobi was an uninhabited swamp. As the creation of the East Africa Protectorate in 1902, the city was chosen to be the administrative headquarter in 1905 and in 1907 it became the capital of the country. The territory was divided in a racialized way from the very beginning - by 1900 an area of 18 km² just for European was created (Akumo & Olima 2007, pg. 87). Normally, institutionalized racial segregation refers to apartheid in South Africa, but in fact it was the way the settlers wielded power over the natives and their lands throughout colonized Africa. In Kenya, the main urban centers were sectorized by racial criteria supported by laws of planning and zoning, method which was employed by the East Africa Protectorate until the early 1960 (Desouza 1988, pg. 10). The sectorization divided Nairobi into three clusters where people classified as African, Asians and Europeans should live separately. North, East, Southeast and South, where the neighborhoods of Parklands, Pangani, Eastleigh, Nairobi South and Nairobi West are located nowadays, were designated to the “Asians”. East and Southeast, where Pumwani, Kariokor and Donholm are located, were designated to the “Africans”. And finally, to the North and West lived the Europeans (Akumo & Olima 2007, pg. 88). The territory’s racialized divide privileged the European area with fertile lands, while the African area with infertile ones (Owuor & Mabatia 2011, pg. 12). As might be 23

expected, the urban development of each of these regions had no comparative parameter, since investments on the African side were practically absent in colonial times. In fact, improvements in African areas such as housing provision were purposely discouraged by the protectorate so that Nairobi would not become a pole of attraction for African migrants (Akumo & Olima 2007, pg. 92). The urban management rationale was that the African area should have minimal maintenance so that it would not become a place for contagious diseases, remembering that it was the Africans who were responsible for the domestic services of the European area (Desouza 1988, pg. 15). So, in the end, what was done for the benefit of the natives was in fact to safeguard the living conditions of Europeans. By 1939, although the Europeans and Asians had boosted the city’s economic environment through the railway, industries, and commercial activities, very few Africans benefited with qualified jobs to promote the broader social development of Nairobi, a region which remained largely an administrative center, and most of production and services directed to supply the European areas, according to Zwanenberg: “Nairobi grew up parasitically, as a colonial, urban center concerned in the main to provide the services for the running of a rural colonial economy, its predominant concern being the provision of administrative services a transport system and the commercial, facilities of credit and trade” (Zwanenberg 1975, pg. 16). Abundant, cheap and unskilled work force was maintained in this condition with no prospect of social rise. Legally, Africans were

not allowed to have properties, produce food or have business (Lee-Smith & Lamba 2017, pg. 48). The fact that the origin of informal settlements in Nairobi is related to the urban politics of the colonialism that is based on segregation is a consensus among scholars, public sectors, and international organizations (Desouza 1988; Akumo & Olima 2007; Owuor & Mabatia 2011). The evidence is in the urban space designated to the native people in the past that until the present day remains in a situation of extreme precarious conditions, presenting the level of quality of life significantly different from those observed in the areas reserved for Europeans and Asians. Over the years, the yearnings for independence and the weakening of the protectorateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s power over Kenya, made the laws preventing the migration to Nairobi

loosened, which allowed the influx of people into the capital (Cashman 2017, pg. 38-39). The 1980s were marked by the rural exodus towards large metropolises such as Nairobi and Mombasa. Arriving in the city, most of the migrants were settled in the informal settlements, which made the density of these places reach 30,000 people / kmÂ˛ in the 90â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (Cashman 2017, pg. 39). Territories still bring the divisions defined in the past, but the present borders are social rather than racial. More affluent social classes generally live to the west and poorer to the East (Mitullah 2003, pg. 3). Today, there are about 200 slums in Nairobi, concentrated mostly in the same areas where Africans were assigned to live. Similarly, the western part is predominantly occupied by the upper classes except for Kawangware and Kibera (Cashman 2017, pg. 39).

Figure 5: Informal settlements in Nairobi (Source: http://hungrycities.net/city/nairobi-kenya/)

3.4. Precarious Informal Settlements in Nairobi

Informal settlements in Nairobi, as in many developing world’s cities, are mainly located in areas generally considered unfit for housing, such as flood plains of rivers. Most of them experience intense flood at least once every year in the rainy seasons. In general, the landscape consists of houses built with metal plates that have rooms accommodated by different families – the very common life within compounds. What draws attention is the intense social life through the streets and alleys, from conversation between neighbors and children playing to commerce of the most varied types. Regarding how the informal settlements were set, they can be divided into two categories: spontaneous occupation and illegal land subdivision (Mitullah 2003, pg. 8). In the first case, the settlement begins with a small core that widens and becomes progressively thickened. In the second, there is a planning of the area, which from the beginning is already divided into lots. In both cases, occupied land may be private or state owned. The largest and densest informal settlements in Nairobi are Kibera and Mathare. No one knows for sure how many people live in such areas, but it is estimated around 500,000 in Mathare and around 200,000 in Kibera7. In general, the population is composed of low-income migrants who do not have the financial resources to afford the formal city’s 7 See discussion about the population estimated in: http://www. theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2012/aug/01/africapropaganda-kibera.

living cost. Despite the unhealthy living condition, the intense influx of people has led to demographic pressure over the territories which are overcrowded, thus, showing signs of housing shortage and increase in rents (Mitullah 2003, pg. 4). Although the term informal settlement refers to the absence of legal land tenure, most inhabitants pay rent to landlords who are not really owners (Amnesty International 2009, pg. 13). In Kibera, Mathare and Kariobanji, rents are at levels that are unaffordable to many people. This is contested by tenants who accuse landlords of taking advantage of the housing shortage and overcrowding to institute abusive prices that do not match the infrastructure offered (Agwanda et al. 2004, pg. 6). As mentioned, in general, there is no tenure security in most informal settlements in Nairobi, which implies resistance on the part of the landlords and residents to invest in improvements in both household and neighborhood. There is no guarantee that the place where people are living is part of some urban project, such as the road construction that suffered clearance in Kibera. In this sense, in many areas, temporary living facilities are used. The lack of tenure security exposes residents daily to the risk of being removed from where they live from day to night, sometimes violently (Amnesty International 2009, pg. 12). Communities that do not form part of the city’s economic interests are forgotten by the public power keep growing uncontrollably without any government assistance. On the other hand, when they represent a threat or an obstacle, they become targets of state violence through forced evictions, which

countless times are carried out illegally. This is not only a condition of Nairobi, but of many slums in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. To be informal also indicates that the public power can act indiscriminately, as if they were a fragment apart from the city ruled by laws of another nature. In the same way that housing is costly for such poor living conditions, services like water and sanitation are also a burden to the family budget and generally are of poor quality. Water sold in jerry cans is more expensive than that provided by the public piped supply to formal areas. Cost, price and availability discourages people

Figure 6: Population Pyramid for Slums in Nairobi (NCSS 2014, pg. 9)

from taking the daily necessary amount of drinking water (Amnesty International 2009, pg. 27). Furthermore, the sanitation condition is even worse, as well toilets, often shared, are poorly maintained and wastes are disposed in the environment. According to the Nairobi Cross-sectional Slums Survey 2012 (NCSS), the top ranked peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s concerns living in informal settlements are storm water drainage - 33.7%, toilets - 26.7% and drinking water - 20.3% (NCSS 2014, pg. 18). The survey also shows data characterizing who are the residents of the informal settlements in Nairobi. In 2012, community

dwellers were mostly children and young adults. The average length of stay was two years, which indicates the migratory and unstable character of the population. Levels of unemployment among women reached 50.7%, being highest among the youngest women (83.9%). In addition, the study revealed that there was a predominance of certain ethnic communities in each settlement, demonstrating that occupations also occur according to ethnic lineage (NCSS 2014). Prior to the 1970s, the recurrent public policy over informal settlements was forced removal and eviction. After this period, the government influenced by donors, NGOs, churches and civil society organizations began to address the issue with the prospect of improving living conditions in situ (Amnesty International 2009, pg. 7). From the 1990s,

the third sectorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation in promoting better living conditions within slums increased a trend that has consolidated the dependence on technical and financial support from external agents. Although forceful removals are currently still underway8, the governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s main approach to intervening in the inadequate housing conditions of informal settlements is the Kenya Slum Upgrading Program (KENSUP). The KENSUP is a program undertaken by the Government of Kenya (GoK) in cooperation with UN-Habitat, specifically under the umbrella of the Water, Sanitation and Infrastructure Branch. The program is a landmark on GoKâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recognition of informal settlements as part of cities that must be improved rather than eradicated (UN-Habitat 2008). 8 See in: <http://theconversation.com/evictions-in-nairobi-whythe-city-has-a-problem-and-what-can-be-done-to-fix-it-100255>

Figure 7: Road and housing resulted from Kenya Slum Upgrading Program in Kibera, Nairobi (Source: www.designindaba.com)

Literature Review

4.1. Sustainable Sanitation Systems in LowIncome Unserved Areas

conceive or adapt systems in order to make them sustainable: • Health and hygiene;

a. Sustainable Sanitation Systems and Sustainable Development Goal 6

• Environmental and natural resources;

According to the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA), for a sanitation system to be considered sustainable, it should be

• Financial and economic issues;

“economically viable, socially acceptable, technically and institutionally appropriate, and protect the environmental and natural resources”1. For SuSanA, the concept of sustainability that it proposes does not necessarily have to be strictly followed, because the system that perfectly suits this cannot be said to be in place yet. Without the intention to standardize the action field, the alliance suggests some key criteria to

Sanitation is a subject that has acquired global relevance rapidly over the last few decades and currently makes up the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) group. The SDG 6 aims to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”2. For that, it sets the following targets and indicators:

1 From SuSanA site: < http://www.susana.org/en/about/visionmission/sustainable-sanitation>

• Technology and operation;

• Socio-cultural and institutional aspects.

As can be understood by the targets and indicators, access to drinking water and 2 From SDG site: <http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg6>

sanitation are inseparable since they belong to the same cycle, in which availability of drinking water depends on the promotion of sustainable sanitation.

b. Centralized and Decentralized Sanitation Systems Published literature provides an overall idea on what the best approaches for sustainable sanitation are. In general, the divergences present themselves in the seeming antagonism between centralized and decentralized systems. However, given the diversity of available technologies and their arrangements at different stages of the sanitation process, both terminologies are too broad. The most appropriate option depends on the conditions of the place where it is intended to implement the system. The analysis of the place for the implementation of the system has at least three scales: intervention area, city and country level. When it comes to the intervention area, following criteria should be considered: the physical characteristics of the land, the urban layout, population density, and residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; willingness to pay for the service as well as the sense of community that exists among them. In order for the system to be managed within the governance structure and to make possible upscale at municipal or even national level, policy/legal/ institutional frameworks have to be taken into consideration. Orth (2007, pg. 261) set various criteria for system selection, such as cost-effectiveness, skilled staff, institutional prerequisites, detailed ecological assessment, analysis of the degree to which natural resources are drawn on, possibility 29

of assets recovery, and hygienic appraisal. Sanitation itself is a chain of processes that deal in different ways with waste. Such processes that can be considered as stages or functional groups (Eawag 2014, pg. 10), contain technologies that vary depending on the context. Therefore, the technologies chosen for each functional group form a sanitation system which may even be a centralized part and decentralized part. In addition, the way in which the system is managed, operated and maintained also varies, thus, reinforcing the need to think about sanitation in several dimensions. When the centralization is overall adopted, the collection is via sewer pipes that route the wastewater to off-site treatment plants and later on it is disposed or reused far from the catchment area. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) considers the centralized approach as requiring fewer stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; participation. Moreover, the infrastructure needed involves high investments (Wilderer and Schreff 2000, pg. 3), thus many times, it is unviable for developing countries to afford. When properly implemented, operated and maintained, decentralized systems are more efficient in reusing wastewater, what makes possible its return to the basin of origin (USEPA 2004, pg. 24). Decentralized systems add up more than 70 types in total and this represents a huge field to be explored depending on the contextâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s characteristics (HO 2005, pg. 16). Financial constrain is a major issue to take into account in developing countries. Thus some initiatives, focused on lowincome settlement sanitation, have found decentralized systems more affordable. If

the funding is not available, it is not possible to implement centralized systems (Massoud et al. 2009, pg. 654). Although decentralized systems have many positive aspects, if not properly managed, they can adversely affect the health of the population served and can also have negative environmental impacts. For example, the simple septic tank is one of the most widespread systems. However, mismanagement can lead to overflow of the content, putting people and the immediate environment in contact with contaminant residues.

the waste from on-site sanitation systems. It can be found in many physical and chemical conditions, depending on the adopted technology. FS is collected, transported, treated, and disposed via Faecal Sludge Management (FSM), which differs from wastewater management (WWM), responsible by centralized sanitation (IWA 2014, pg. 1). Even when dealing with different sanitation systems, the FSM and WWM can act complementarily along with the sanitation service chain, so that they are not antagonistic approaches (IWA 2014, pg. 3).

Often, decentralized sanitation is perceived as temporary while centralized mode is definitive (IWA 2014, pg. 1). However, about 2.7 billion people worldwide rely on on-site sanitation technologies, number which is expected to increase by 2030 by 5 billion. Faced with this fact and perspective, the best solution in sanitation will depend on many variables.

In developing countries there is a recurrence of access to on-site sanitation systems without adequate FSM, resulting in accumulation of FS (IWA 2014, pg. 1). The idea that on-site sanitation is temporary and the sewerage system is the goal to be reached remains existent. However, the FSM methods are more efficient and cheaper than to implement and maintain a sewerage system (Dodane et al. 2012, pg. 3706).

c. Faecal Sludge Management

The following are the limitations which prevent the FSM to be on track (IWA 2014, pg. 4):

Faecal Sludge (FS) is the terminology for

Figura 8: Sanitation and faecal management service chain (Source: IWA 2014, pg. 4)

• Unaffordability of the collection service; • Operators not being able to afford the transportation from the collection point to the treatment facility; • Problems in accessing households by collection vehicles; • Absence of disposal and treatment locations. For the good functioning of the FSM, it is necessary to address all the steps involved in the service chain. In order to do so, we estimate the FS production estimate, which includes the number of users, location, type and number of existing systems, accumulation rates, and socioeconomic levels. This task becomes a challenge in a

Collecting FS is a task that requires careful handing by professionals so that there is no contact between waste and the environment. For this, they need specific instruments to perform the extraction, and this depends on the type of technology adopted. In many countries, workers who carry out FS collection are stigmatized, but in the FSM they have a strategic role, since they are in direct contact with the user. In addition to performing the service, the professional has the competence to evaluate the condition of the system and hence be a valuable source of information to improve the sanitation chain.

Solid/liquid separation

Dewatering

Stabilisation/ further treatment

Endproduct/enduse

Imhoff tanks

Mechanical dewatering

Co-composting

Soil conditioner

Setting/thickening tanks

Unplanted drying beds

Deep row entrenchment

Irrigation

Lime/ ammonia addition

Proteins

Sludge incineration

Fodder and plants

Anaerobic digestion

Building material

Black Soldier Flies; vermicomposting

Biofuels

Legend Treatment/goal Technology Endproduct/-use

Thermal drying

LaDePa

Solar drying

Planted drying beds

Co-treatment with wastewater

Figure 9: Treatment technologies (Source: IWA 2014, pg. 99)

city with rapid (or explosive) urban growth (IWA 2014, pg. 6).

Between collection and treatment plant, there are long routes and congestions that make the transport financially unfeasible for operators. This situation favors the discharge of FS at improper places without any previous treatment. Moreover, sometimes operators and users do not want to pay the fees for the treatment of the disposed waste (IWA 2014, pg. 22). The key stakeholders for FSM are (Eawag 2008, pg. 25): • Households: They decide which on-site sanitation system will be put in place, how often the facilities will be emptied as well as how much they would be able to pay. Unfortunately, user-participation is still not common in the FSM, so people are not aware of its importance. • Community: It can establish collective agreement for the improvement of the FSM within the neighborhood. The improper storage, collection and disposal might cause undesirable problems for the entire community. Community-based organizations/NonGovernmental Organizations: They play the role of a catalyst among households/ community and government authorities. • Government authorities: Different tiers of government involved in coordinating, regulating and giving the policy and legal foundation for the FSM operation. • Public utilities/Private sector: They are the service providers, from emptying services to operating public toilets and treatment plants. They can be either public or private owned/managed. Although the value of implementation and operation is lower than that of WWM, the FSM 32

requires that several stakeholders actively participate in the process of providing the sanitation service. There are several stages and different factors involved that make the dynamics quite complex. Therefore, it is fundamental that the public power has a leading role in articulating relations between stakeholders.

d. Resource Recovery from Faecal Sludge Taking into account the challenges of financing sanitation infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries, adding market value to what is normally discarded may be an opportunity. In this sense, some business Produced product

Soil conditioner

Reclaimed water Protein Fodder and plants Fish and plants Building materials

Biofuels

Treatment Untreated FS Sludge Compost Pelletising process Digestate from anaerobic digestion Residual from Black Soldier fly Untreated liquid FS Treatment plant effluent Black Soldier fly process Planted drying beds Stabilisation ponds or effluent for aquaculture Incorporation of dried sludge Biogas Incineration dried sludge Pyrolysis of FS Biodiesel from FS

Figure 10: Possible products and treatment technologies (Source: IWA 2014, pg. 204)

models have proposed the treatment of FS in a way that presents it as a marketable product. The more the infrastructure and sanitation service is independent of external financing, the greater the sustainability (Murray & Ray 2010, pg. 94). The following table explains the possible products from the FS and its treatment or processing technologies (IWA 2014, pg. 204): Although the resource recovery from FS seems to be a feasible solution to address the well-known financial constraints on sanitation delivery, the treatment and processing should be carefully carried out in order to safeguard public health and to ensure environmental protection. For example, concentration of pathogens and heavy metals in FS derived products should follow the standards previously defined, which vary depending on the use (IWA 2014, pg. 212). However, some contexts may not be able to afford such FS treatment and processing, a reality that has led to an alternative way on thinking this issue (Abeysuriya et al. 2016, pg. 1). Since 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) has advocated the â&#x20AC;&#x153;multi-barrier approachâ&#x20AC;? which encompasses strategies to eliminate or reduce risks to public health throughout the sanitation process, and is not restricted to treatment alone (Abeysuriya et al. 2016, pg. 2). The interventions start from the identification of the factors involved in the chain so that later measures of control and protection of the contact between these and the pathogens of the FS are adopted. The use of FS as a soil conditioner is highlighted, since it also involves the issue of food security. FS can be used without treatment in deep ditches or treated and 33

bagged, sold for cultivation of various scales (IWA 2014, pg. 206). When adequately managed, there are many benefits and advantages such as increased soil water retention capacity, erosion reduction, nutrient addition, low cost in relation to conventional fertilizers, decrease in the dependence of external fertilizer producers, and the strengthening of the local economy (UNEP 2016, pg. 15). Reclaimed water from treatment processes can be used in irrigation, non-recreational use of water and industrial processes. However, it is only usable if it has the necessary quality, this will depend on the use aimed. The use of Black Soldier Fly (BSF) to digest the bio-waste originates larvae that can be used to feed poultry and fish (Eawag 2017, pg. 1). The plants used in the drying beds can be commercialized by the functional and ornamental characteristics, meaning another avenue for income generation (IWA 2014, pg. 214). The conversion of FS to products without odor, flies and risks of contamination is a difficult goal to be accomplished in lowand medium- income countries (Singh et al. 2017, pg. 205). Although many methods are financially accessible, the safe management of FS requires behavioral changes and technical capacity in addition to the introduction of new technologies. Therefore, initiatives aiming at the use of FS as a product, marketable or not, should address not only the technical issues of treatment and processing, but also the relational aspect of those who are in daily contact with the waste, whether they are workers or consumers.

e. Circular Economy

• Recover natural environment.

economy would improve the sanitation value chain, making it self-sustaining through resource recovery which can reduce the reliance on public and donors funding. According to the Economics of Sanitation initiative (World Bank 2016)4, it is estimated that around $260 billion can be gained in the form of different benefits, although the ongoing attempt is to transform the financial potential into tangible value flow (TBC 2016, pg. 2). The study’s key findings were (TBC 2016, pg. 8):

A study carried out by the Toilet Board Coalition (TBC) in 2016 to find out if the circular

• Waste, although an important component of the biocycle, is not well-exploited;

The circular economy is a new paradigm that aims at shifting the linear take, make, dispose system in order to reduce the environment impact, promote resilience, generate business, social opportunities and benefits. According to Ellen Macarthur Foundation3, it is based on three principles: • Eradicate waste and pollution; • Reusing material from existing products;

3 From Ellen Macarthur Foundation site: < http://www. ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/concept>

4 From World Bank site: < http://www.wsp.org/content/ economic-impacts-sanitation>

Figure 11: Circular Sanitation Economy (Source: https://medium.com/impactengineered/reengineering-the-worlds-trilliondollar-waste-ecosystem-5c41a61c9514)

• The Circular Economy could provide the means to sanitation service chain becoming a self-sustaining by utilizing waste as resource;

the participation of the nations that suffered from lack of access to basic services, many of them being under the colonial rule (such as Kenya).

• The Circular Economy is an opportunity to the sanitation service chain through:

The recognition of HRtWS was a result of efforts to strengthen the agenda for social movements and several nations committed to this cause. The resolutions were not accepted by many of the members of the nations that questioned its legal basis (Brown et al. 2016, pg. 663). Gupta et al. (2010, pg. 296) suggest that the reluctance to accept HRtWS from developing countries is justified in that they did not want to commit to guaranteeing such rights, just as they may have been resistant to not being implicated in the application of such rights through international cooperation.

• Adding value to the waste from toilets; • Strengthening productor;

the

biocycle

• Ensuring financial autonomy to the facilities and operators.

4.2. Sanitation: a Public Good and a Commodity

a. The Right to Sanitation After the Second World War, the United Nations General Assembly published what would be one of the most important documents for the history of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). However, the right to access to water and sanitation was unclear, even though they are essential for human existence. It was just in 2010 that the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council recognized the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation “as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights” (United Nations 2010, pg. 2). The late consolidation of the Human Right to Water and Sanitation (HRtWS) can be explained by colonialist relations that lasted until the mid-1960s (United Nations Special Rapporteur 2014, pg. 23). The promulgation of the UDHR did not count on 35

Even though it is surrounded by divergences, the HRtWS is now a reality that has catalyzed important legal and policy changes in several countries. Some countries in Africa have reaffirmed the right through their constitutions. As reported by Sharmila et al., (2013, pg. 89) the move towards strengthening such a right is a reaction to the growing trend of the water and sanitation sector to adhere to marketbased approaches. Recognition of the right means that the States in agreement must quickly and effectively provide the necessary conditions for access to the services in question, such as the legal, political and institutional framework. Therefore, realizing the right does not make the State responsible in providing the service directly, but rather in creating, organizing and enabling the factors involved in the sector (UN Special Rapporteur 2014, pg. 27).

b. Public Good or Commodity As seen earlier, when a human right is established, the role of the state is to promote the necessary conditions for this right to be realized. It does not imply that the state is responsible for the direct provision of a good or a service determined by the human right in question. If it is the case that the realization of rights as provision of goods and services would be a state obligation, many developing countries would face an unattainable goal.

laws can be too neutral, incapable or disinterested in defending the full realization of human rights. On the other hand, she also emphasizes that the understanding of human rights centered on the idea of stateprovider state ends up not considering different actors outside the governmental sphere with potential to collaborate for the realization of human rights, which are not properly the big companies, like nongovernmental organizations and small entrepreneurs.

Private sector involvement is a strategy for realizing HRtWS, but there are some points of tension in this regard, according to Sharmila (2013, pg. 120). One of them is the financial sustainability since the cost of water and sanitation provision can either be subsidized or fully be charged. When the private sector is granted a license to operate water and sanitation systems, user fees generally increase, but international law stipulates that no one can be prevented from having access to water and sanitation because they cannot afford to pay for it. So this apparent divergence raises some question, major one being one bordering on whether water and sanitation is a public good or commodity.

While the debate is important in defining the responsibilities and boundaries of the state and the private sector, the dualism between public good and commodity needs to be overcome. Such a contraposition does not show the complexity in the operation of water and sanitation services, of which, often times, the state does not have the technical and institutional capacity to assume as its responsibility. In conclusion, the state as a rights-enforcer does not necessarily have to provide water and sanitation services directly, but rather to ensure that the defined strategy is universal in scope, whether or not it includes non-governmental actors, including the private sector.

Following the same logic, the topic of efficiency also incites tension with the private sector, since this is commonly perceived as result oriented. However, efficiency may not reach all the population, as it is pointed out: “Incentives to be efficient—and generate a profit—do not necessarily result in providing good services to all, which is critical from a human rights perspective” (Sharmila 2013, pg. 136). For Sharmila (2013, pg. 120), international 36

c. Market-based Approaches The market-based approaches applied in the sanitation sector assume that services become more efficient when operating under market logic. Thus, all stages of the sanitation process present one economic opportunity or the other, from the construction of toilets to the reuse of human waste (O’Keefe et al. 2015, pg. 424). Private sector participation is part of this approach, but it is not the main

substrate of the system. Such approaches focus on structuring and strengthening the local private sector so that they can offer goods and services that on the one hand generate income, and on the other hand are financially accessible (Kimani et al. 2005, pg. 5). They also aim to stimulate the demand through social-marketing. There are still many communities that practice open defecation and to change this reality we must work on the behavior change of the group as a whole (Kimani et al. 2005, pg. 5). As can be seen, adopting market-based approaches involves the state in the very early stage, since it is not just about allowing the private sector to operate freely. On the contrary, to attract the private sector it is necessary to establish conditions that will enable its participation, such as adequate governance structure, regulations and institutions. Creating a business model to enable access to a basic service is also a way out of financing, which is commonly a challenge for developing countries. Therefore, it has invested in the development of simple sanitation technologies so that the commercialization of goods and services for the most vulnerable populations is possible. However, it must be remembered that in informal settlements in sub-Saharan Africa, access to toilets is already marketed, as previously mentioned. The problem in this trade dynamic is that sanitation facilities and sanitation services are generally harmful for both human health and the environment. In an ideal scenario, existing initiatives would be improved so that they could be used safely and new ones would be inserted to 37

meet unsatisfied demands for sanitation.

4.3. Sanitation Service Delivery in Kenya

a. SDG 6 and other International Agreements The urban population is rapidly growing, however, access to basic infrastructure as sanitation have not accompanied the same trend. According to the collected data in 2015 performed by the Joint Monitoring Program (JMP), just 35% of urban residents have access to basic sanitation, 42% are covered by limited service, 20% use unimproved facilities and 3% practice open defecation. For Kenya, there is no data about safely managed sanitation service at this period. Before the greatest reform carried out in the water and sanitation sector, the water and sanitation services were accountability of local authorities and, at national level, of the National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation (NWCPC), which was a state owned company created through the State Corporations Act (Akech 2007, pg. 13). The NWCPC operated within the Ministry of Water that was created based on the National Water Master Plan of 1974, being responsible for the development and management of water systems. Although this arrangement was made to ensure provision of water and sanitation to all households by the end of 2000, many people are still depending of external assistance (Akech 2007, pg. 13-14). In 2000, the share of population accessing adequate sanitation was still very low: 31% had access to at least basic sanitation, 20.5% to limited sanitation (shared), 31.7% to unimproved sanitation and 16.8%

practiced open defecation. Nevertheless, compared with the data of 2015, it can be noticed that the increase in sanitation access was concentrated in the limited (shared) category, showing somehow a trend that should be taken into account (JMP 2000). In the course of the past decades, there has been reoccurrence of failure on reaching sanitation goals despite the attempts held in different directions in order to improve the situation in the country. What has been discussed is that the core of the problem is the governance structure, which has the decisive role on the long term system maintenance. This perspective makes the understanding of the situation more complex than it ought to be. People might think that lack of sanitation is due to lack of financial resource, but what about when existing financial resource are not “solving” the sanitation problem? Kenya has been field of many projects in sanitation, almost all of them initiatives of international organizations and NGO’s. However, there has been no substantial changes for the better in the quality of life, especially in the poorest segment of the population which is still lives in precarious sanitarian conditions. Previously to the Water Act of 2002, the water and sanitation sector were regulated by the Water Act 48, popularly known the Old Water Act (OWA), and the Local Government Act (LGA). The legal and institutional framework concentrated much power in the Ministry’s hands. The important decisions were taken by the Ministry but not always based on transparent criteria. In addition, the Ministry did not have a coherent role, for example: it was its responsibility to regulate the service delivery of water and sanitation, however, simultaneously, in many cases the Ministry 38

was acting as the regulator and the service provider simultaneously (Akech 2007, pg. 14). The described situation demonstrates that the existing governance structure did not have a solid basis from which sustainable water and sanitation service provision would be able to thrive. The establishment of clear roles is extremely necessary to make the process as more efficient as possible, even more in a context where the financial resources are meager. At the time of duties were badly divided and not officially or clearly designated what made things more confusing. There was no possibility for private participation. Lastly, the construction of the legal framework was not democratic, consequently, it did not reflect the population demands. Under the previous legal and institutional framework, the water and sanitation delivery presented several problems about governance. Akumu & Apida (2005, pg. 314315) pointed out as consequences of the governance arrangement: unaccountability, lack of metering, ineffective collection of revenue, inadequate tariffs, not coverage of the poor, unnecessary amount of staff and conflict of roles. This chaotic scenario led international organization to purpose the privatization of urban water and sanitation provision for Kenya, which has led to legal framework changes, materialized onward by the Water Act of 2002. In 1999, in order to overcome the problems in the water and sanitation sector, there was the promulgation of a policy called the National Policy on Water Resource Management and Development (Water Policy).

The document analyzes the situation in which the sector was, and listing the problems to be faced, such as: low fund capacity; institutional weakness; lack of qualified work force; inappropriate operation and maintenance arrangement; inadequate technology choices, monitoring system, consistent database, continuous assessment programs, lack of efficient coordination within the sector (unclear fragmentation of roles), over-centralized decision making on ministry’s hands, and weak bonds between transversal sectors (The National Policy on Water Resource and Management and Development 1999, pg. 7-8). The Water Policy of 1999 highlighted the importance of different actors out of the governmental sphere and stated that the government would encourage community participation and the private sector, by that moment not taken its relevance into account. It was also committed that the government would collaborate with the donor community, beneficiaries, NGO’s and the private sector on “mobilizing the necessary human and financial resources required” (The Water Policy 1999, pg. 31). It is interesting to note the influence of international organizations through the text, either being cited as actors on the ground, at the same level of self-help initiatives, or as the providers of technical assistance to develop policy, institutional and legal framework. This document is based on a research carried out together with the Government of Sweden between 1876 and 1981, further updated with the assistance of the Japanese Government. Although in 1999, Kenya already had an 39

increasing urbanization characterized by uncontrolled growth of precarious informal settlements, the document does not specify policies towards the sanitation issue in this context. The focus is mainly on water supply, which is also not adequately explored regarding informal settlements, bearing in mind the gravity of the issue in the country. The institutional framework proposed by the document starts setting the role of Ministry of Water and Resources on enabling the environment and regulating the services of water and sanitation sector, instead on delivering them. The policy sets forth the decentralization of the services, underlining the necessity of establishing the role of each actor in order to avoid the existing overlap of functions.

b. Legal Framework Since the new constitution release in 2010, some important reforms have been done in the legal framework of key sectors as the water and sanitation one. The Water Act (2002) is the current and main legislation of the water and sanitation legal framework, and it is considered an advance for the sector by international organizations, besides remaining gaps and conflicts that still have to be overcame (Mansour et al. 2017). However, according to some authors (Akech 2007; Akumo & Appida 2005), it addresses sanitation in an unrealistic way, as it is focused on sewer systems, which is not affordable in many situations, such as for the poor urban and rural areas. This legislation does not approach the alternatives to the standard sewerage, as the decentralized sanitation

systems, which in fact have largely operated in Kenya. Even updated, conforming the new constitution of 2010, becoming the Water Act (2016), which it is not yet operating, the legislation has several gaps that should be filled out in order to proper tackle the sanitation issue in the country. The Water Act established that the asset ownership is a different instance from the service provision. In that way, the Regional Water Services Boards (WSBs) delegate asset operations and maintenance to the Water Service Providers (WSPs) via Service Provision Agreements (SPAs). It is not only the Water Act that drives the sector. Sanitation as a transdisciplinary field, concerns different government bodies that ideally should work complementarily. However, exactly because it is the concern of many, sometimes it is not properly addressed by any. In the case of Kenyaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s legal framework regarding sanitation, other 3 legislations approach the issue: the Environment Management Act and Coordination Act (1999), the Urban Areas and Cities Act (2011), and the National Environmental Health and Sanitation Bill (2017). The Environment Management Act and Coordination (1999), as the name clearly expresses, is the legislation that regulates the protection of the environment in face of the use of natural resources and the interaction between man and nature. The legislation states that the effluents must be directed to the sewerage system. From it, effluents have to be treated before being led to water courses. There is neither statement about inter-sectoral work on sewerage systems operation nor regulation of on-site sanitation 40

practices as the usage of septic tanks, which if it is not used adequately can harm the environment. In conclusion, sanitation in this legislation is mentioned very briefly. The Environmental Management and Coordination (waste management) Regulation (L.N. 121/2006) was created in 2006 after the general guidelines were detailed in the form of complementary law. However, there is still no progress on the different ways of promoting sanitation, while still focusing on the centralized system. The Urban Areas and Cities Act (2011) aims to distinguish urban areas of cities and orient the governance and management of them. With respect to sanitation, the act define that all the urban areas and cities shall be responsible in delivering both water and sanitation service, considered basic services. In this legislation is interesting the especial attention given to the partnership and joint venture, by outlining, even though briefly, the delivery of service by the private sector or international entities. It might demonstrate the attempt of connecting the legislation with what is happening in reality, that is, the massive participation of other instances that are not under the public domain operating basic service delivery, mainly for the urban poor. The National Environmental Health and Sanitation Bill (2017) is still in process to be a definitive act. Developed by the Ministry of Health supported by the World Bank and UNICEF, it stablishes the national health system based on the coverage of all citizens health needs, highlighting the children and vulnerable groups. The bill, future act, provides the guideline to the county governments implement the national health

policy and ensure the right to health stated by the Constitution of Kenya (2010). Among the responsibilities of the counties is to maintain “standards of environmental health and sanitation as laid down in applicable law” (Constitution of Kenya 2010, pg. 437). Hence, each county government has to regulate the local sanitation management in order to guarantee a healthy environment. According to the Bill: “The National Health System shall ensure that measures for managing environmental risk factors to curtail occurrence and distribution of diseases are put in place and implemented. In particular such measures shall target – the reduction of disease burden arising from poor environment hygiene, sanitation, occupational exposure and environmental pollution”. (National Environmental Health and Sanitation Bill 2017, pg. 456) Since the Water Act of 2002, much has been achieved in terms of legal framework in Kenya. The legislation has supported the necessary decentralization of the sanitation service delivery, defining roles in each government levels. The plurality of

A multi-approach legal framework means a holistic understanding of the sanitation issue. Once sanitation service delivery impacts public health, urban and natural environment, consequently it will impact on social, economic and cultural dynamics, which means that it should be a priority at all governance levels. However, as well as in many developing countries that did not achieve complete sewerage, politicians do not endeavor sufficiently in this regards because it does not bring political prestige as road and building construction.

c. Policy Framework The elementary policies steering the sanitation sector are the Kenyan Vision 2030 and the Kenya Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy (KESHP).

Water Act (2016)

Urban Areas and Cities Act (2011)

Water Act (2002)

Environment Management Act and Coordination Act (1999)

Constitution of Kenya (2010) Main Legislation

Figure 12: Legal framework (Source: Author)

views over the sanitation field, expressed by different legislations approaching it, shows that sectors are raising awareness about the importance of this thematic. Unfortunately, there are still lacks of bonds within the legislations connecting these sectors in order to achieve a coordinated system.

National Environmental Health and Sanitation Bill (2017)

Complementary Legislation

The Kenya Vision 2030 is a long-term plan for social and economic development. As the name suggests, it foresees “globally competitive and prosperous nation with a high quality of life by 2030” (Kenyan Vision 2030 2008, pg. 2). Water and Sanitation are considered part of the social strategy cluster, but the flagship projects are not clear if they will endure the lack of sanitation in poor urban areas, where it is more needed. With 36.1% of population living below the poverty line and approximately 32 million deprived of at least basic sanitation (JMP 2015), the efforts should be channelized towards the poor urban areas. Even being a general

warns of problems with data: “Missing baseline data and sustainable information system hinder obtaining a clear nationwide picture and thus, coverage can only be estimated” (The National Water Services Strategy 2007 pg. 2). However, the first study cited (The National Water Master Plan Aftercare Study), to portray the water supply in the country, dates from 1998, which is almost 10 years before the publication of the document in question. Of course, to effectively carry out a census is not a one year task, but it is necessary control systems to map continuously the demands either of new users, or old ones having problems

policy that is supposed to be detailed in subsequent documents, the sanitation is a significant burden that hinders the whole country´s development.

with the existing infrastructure. In addition, as many Kenyans rely on non-sewerage systems, those have to be part of the network coordinated by established local organ, to ensure the quality of the service in terms of public health and environmental protection.

The population of informal settlements is not consistently taken into account in legal and policy frameworks. When the issue of the urban poor is addressed, in practice, the segment is divided, because urban poor does not mean that people live in informal settlements, where the life conditions are more precarious; rather in low income formal areas. The challenge of tackling the lack of sanitation in informal settlements should be also a part of land and urban reform policies. The National Water Services Strategy, well known as “The Strategy” was released in 2007, and from the start of wording it acknowledges the urgency of the situation, with special attention to the urban poor, who lives in high density settlements where the sanitarian conditions make the life of people extremely precarious, affecting from health to economic productivity. In the face of rapid urbanization, the policy 42

Unfolding of the Kenyan Vision 2030, the Kenya Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy (KESHP) is the main guiding policy in the sanitation sector. It has its foundation on the new constitution of Kenya of 2010, the SDG 6 and the Ngor Declaration5 on Sanitation and Hygiene. The KESHP is also based on a review of the previous policy, the National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy (NESHP) which, due to the changes enacted by the new constitution - such as the governance structure - has needed to be updated. NESHP was the beginning of the structuring of the sanitation policy in the country. According to the document released in 2007, before that there 5 The Ngor Declaration was signed at the 4th African Conference on Sanitation and Hygiene (AfricaSan) in Dakar, Senegal. The document is a commitment of Ministers and Heads of Delegations responsible for sanitation and hygiene in Africa to eradicate open defecation by 2030.

was no specific policy focused on the issue, which indicated the lack of prioritization given by the government.

for the poorest, the KESHP emphasizes onsite sanitation alternatives, which has been the predominant approach in contexts of high social and economic vulnerability.

However, after almost a decade, the KESHP has shown a certain maturity with regards to the sanitation sector, which suggests that although the NESHP did not reach the goals for 2015, it certainly catalyzed the process of organization of the system as a whole. This, even in the consolidation phase, continues to adapt to the demands and possibilities of reality, both in terms of the governance structure and in defining the legal, regulatory and financing bases.

The goal of ensuring access to sanitation to the whole population by 2030 is quite ambitious, but it is driven by a global movement which is mainly represented by the new development agenda of which Kenya is adherent. As well as the general objective of the policy, the guiding principles are in line with international trends, such as the recognition of access to sanitation as a human right, sanitation understood as a public service and an economic good and promotion of sanitation and hygienic habits as a way to prevent basic health problems (KESHP 2016, pg. 2).

From the NESHP to the KESHP the differences are significant. While the NESHP document had unrealistic objectives and overly broad action proposals, the KESHP presents a program with general guidelines that are detailed throughout the document in accordance with the many specificities of the sanitation sector and easier to operationalize. The policy of 2007, quite broadly, advocated the adoption of appropriate sanitation technologies, but did not discuss the options available. Probably, due to various initiatives to promote affordable sustainable sanitation 2007 National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy National Water Services Strategy

According to KESHP (2016, pg. 34), the Boards of Cities and Municipalities and Town Committees Towns should formulate the “Urban Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Strategic and Action Plans (UESHSAPs)”, which is the planning of actions to reach the goals according to the reality of each locality and the “Urban Strategic Environmental Sanitation

2010 - 2015 Kenya Vision 2030 SDG Ngor Declaration on Sanitation and Hygiene Constitution of Kenya (2010) Main Policy

Figure 13: Policy framework (Source: Author)

2016 Kenya Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy Main Policy

Investment and Financing Plan (USESIFP)”, which is the financial planning for the execution of the proposed actions. One key point in this policy is how infrastructure and sanitation services will be funded. Since the NESHP, private sector participation is seen as strategic to the success of the actions to be performed. However, in this version, the legal and regulatory means were not established so that private initiatives could operate safely and effectively.

d. Institutional Framework The Ministry of Health has the picture of the situation regarding sanitation of the whole country, taken into account that the data about sanitation it is essential to fight against the child mortality. However, its main role in the sanitation field is the coordination of programs which target population from rural areas through the shift of hygienic behaviors. Under the Ministry of Health’s responsibility is the program Open Defecation Free (ODF) Rural Kenya Campaign, which has started

in May 2011 and uses the Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) methodology that aims at eradicating the open defection by the end of 20206. For Kenya’s urban areas, the Ministry of Water is responsible for shaping policies and strategies relating to urban water and sanitation. As a crosscutting agency, the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources is in charge of environment regulation. The central government transfers a share of revenues to the counties for their expenditures according to respective necessities. This resource comes together with responsibilities: the counties must provide basic services and infrastructure within its territory. The revenue allocation among counties by central government is set by the Public Finance Management Act (PFM 2012). The PFM Act established controversially that counties have to invest at least 30% of their expenditure in development. Nevertheless, it has created a problem in funding basic 6 wash.health.go.ke/clts/index.jsp

National Level Policy making Planning Implementation

County Level

Ministry of Ministry of Water Health

County government (relevant county departments) City and municipality boards

WSBs

Public Utilities

Service provision Monitoring and regulation

WASREB

NEMA

Training and TA

Academia

Water I.

Financing

Treasury

County governments

WSTF

Figure 14: Sanitation and faecal management service chain (Source: IWA 2014, pg. 4)

Private Utilities

NGO

WASREB

Donors

Informal sector NEMA

urban infrastructure, once the formula which calculates how much money the counties are up to receive does not consider the ones with large urban concentrations, like Nairobi or Mombasa. These counties have more expenses than the ones mostly rural, so the formula must be updated taking into account population numbers, otherwise the counties are not going to be able to afford basic urban development. The regulation and monitoring is made by the Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB) which issues licenses to providers, approves service provision agreements and develops tariff guidelines. In its turn, the County Department of Health, Water and Environment have as its duties the planning and service delivery. Finally, the services providers, the WSPs, are organized by the WSBs; the county governments, which construct and manage public toilets; private companies and social enterprises. According to Akech (2007, pg. 4), the private sector participation can help to improve the public water and sanitation system. However, beforehand it has to ensure an integrated institutional framework to coordinate the operation and set the policies.

e. Financial Mechanisms There are three financial mechanisms to fund sanitation in Kenya. The first is through the national budget â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Treasury funds transferred directly from the Ministry/ Department of Finance to the Ministry of Water and Sanitation; the second is also through the national budget but transferred from donors to the Ministry/Department of Water and Sanitation; and finally is out of 45

the budget, funding directly independent projects. In respect of investment, Kenya has only allocated 0.2 percent of GDP to sanitation as compared to the global target of 0.9 percent and eThekwini Declaration commitment of at least 0.5 percent of GDP to sanitation and hygiene. For those who can pay for improved sanitation access, the service is offered by private companies, but for those parts of the poor urban areas, almost all the funds come from donors like the Water Services Trust Fund (WSTF), Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation and the World Bank. An important issue to be pointed out is the willingness to pay for the sanitation service. By and large, users are less willing to pay for sanitation than for water access. On the other hand, some projects in sanitation for the urban poor run previous research to implement the interventions and found out that users are willing to pay for this service, as they consider it as a significant improvement in life quality (UBSP up-scaling GIZ project). In general, water and sanitation services are operated by monopolies, because the necessary infrastructure for both supply of water and sewerage require huge investments, which some countries are unable to afford. Therefore, sewerage system most times is owned and operated by the state, with or without participation of the private sector. In contrast, decentralized sanitation systems enable the participation of different factors in multiple scales: public, private and community. In this way, the sector stimulates the competitiveness among them and consequently, the quality of the service and the price for the customers.

Case Studies

5.1. Case Study 1: Sanergy

the entire value chain. However, the next case studies will show that this statement depends on the perspective from which the issue is analyzed.

a. Sanitation service chain Sanergy is a private enterprise that offers sustainable sanitation for informal settlementsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; households. The service provided embraces all sanitation steps: toilet manufacture with specific technology, safe and professional collection, urine/ excreta treatment and processing, and lastly the commercialization of the end-products, in this case, fertilizers and animal feed. It is told to be the first and only enterprise that offers sanitation service to slums covering

The sustainability concept promoted by the enterprise is characterized by simple methods and technologies. In addition, all the chain interfaces allow income generation - with emphasis on the processing of human excrement in fertilizers and animal feed, which can be related to the circular economy principles. Therefore, sustainability in this case has to do with public health care, environment, social and economic

Co-composting sawdust

Fresh Life Facilities

User Interface

Container collection

Transport

Figure 15: Sanergyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sanitation value chain (Source: Author)

Fertilizers

Bio-digestion black soldier

Animal feed

Treatment and Processing

End-product commercialization

Figure 16: Sanergy’s toilet model (Source: Fresh Life® Sanergy)

development. By and large, pit latrines and septic tanks are the most used on-site sanitation technologies in informal settlements. However, usually, these facilities are not systematically emptied, collection is made precariously and waste is disposed without previous treatment. Therefore, the sanitation is not safe in this condition more due to the sanitation service chain than to the technologies employed. Based on that, the Sanergy business model promotes itself by highlighting that the main difference between the Fresh Life® toilets and those facilities commonly used in slums is the integral approach of the sanitation service chain, what is not reached even by the sewerage, as it is not all the sewage that are treated. The toilet model, called Container Based Toilets, commercially known as Fresh Life Toilet, is designed to separate urine and excreta in different containers. Such division 47

facilitates the excreta to be transformed into products, while urine is released into the city’s sewage system (although they are trying to get end-products from urine through a pilot project, once it is rich in nitrate). The business key point here is the regularity of the containers collection by Sanergy’s professionals. Other systems’ positive aspect is the safety procedure on collecting the containers - they are sealed and the professionals are trained and equipped to not get in contact with the waste (Interview Isabelle Poulete, 11/10/2018). From the sludge collected and treated through sawdust based co-composting is produced fertilizers. Other way to get end-product is the use of black-soldiers on bio-digestion, which produce animal feed. Aware that many people use pit latrines and septic tanks, Sanergy has tried to find out how to include these technologies on its business model. For that, there is an ongoing

pilot project named MTAA Fresh, which aims at collecting, safely disposing and making resources out of the human waste from pit latrines and septic tanks. By now, the project is taking place in Mathare, but operating only as part of the service chain, as they are still investigating how to get end-products from faeces and urine mixed, since the facilities do not separate as the Container Based Toilet do. Another challenge faced by the pilot project is how to collect the waste, as it is not found in easily emptiable containers. The containers are convenient because the collection can be done anywhere, even where the roads are too narrow for trucks or cars to reach. Sanergy has a strong academic focus as well: it is connected to several research institutions and conducts its own field research to improve the technologies with which the system works. There is a fairly present sustainability discourse that has not only commercial appeal but also an alignment with the ideas discussed internationally to achieve social and environmental goals in the years to come.

b. Institutional embedding Although Sanergy started to fill the gap that government and philanthropic organizations have left behind (Ruehle & Shields 2016, pg. 3), the sustainability of the business requires government participation and financial support. During the interview with Sanergy’s advisor, she stated that the company has been in contact with many stakeholders to push the sector organization towards a more comprehensive system that would enable the consolidation and scaling-up of 48

the business model for informal settlements through public private partnership (PPP). Government participation has intensified recently regarding on-site sanitation as well as private sector participation in the sanitation service delivery, as can be checked on KESHP (2016), the main public policy in the sector. When the policy was being drafted, Sanergy played an important role, which reflects the organized internal structure that counts with a governance and legislation department. This demonstrates a focus on establishing the service on a permanent basis. Although the sanitation policy addresses the on-site modality explicitly and in details, the legal framework is still pending, this framework will define the rules and regulations for example, the performance of private companies in providing the sanitation service in partnership with counties/WSP’s. Sanergy is expecting a specific legal framework for sanitation, which will be different from the current Water Act (2016), clearly separating the water and sanitation into sub sectors. Sanergy has collaborated with the Ministries of Health and Water at national and Nairobi County level, to come up with the legal framework and subsequent new institutions responsible for the sanitation sector. According to the KESHP policy, the power over the sector has been transferred from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Water, which is now called “Ministry of Water and Sanitation”. Despite this realignment, the core and distinct responsibilities of each sector stakeholder remains unclear. The uncertainty is also about which government body will regulate the on-site sanitation

service delivery. WASREB regulates the water and sewerage utilities, but there is no defined regulator and regulations for on-site sanitation in urban areas. c.

Affordability of services

Fresh Life® toilets are franchised to different types of customers, called operators. These can be local entrepreneurs, schools and landlords. The franchise agreement differs depending on the operator. Commercial establishments and community institutions pay an initial investment amount and after installation, they need to pay a monthly amount of operation. For residential use, only a monthly operation value is capped. The operators decide the amount to be paid by the users in the case of local entrepreneurs, what in general is equivalent of a private

latrine. When the operator is a landlord, the cost can be included in the rent price and tenants have the convenience and safety to use the facility inside the compound (Ruehle & Shields 2016, pg. 5). The service as a whole - the toilet manufacturing, the collection and transportation of containers - costs US$ 22.60 per person/per year. Fresh Life® toilet operators cover 11.5% of the total cost, while the marketing of treated and processed sludge products covers 35.5%. So basically, the total cost of the services is partially paid by the operators and farmers, remaining 53% which has to be covered by other financial sources to keep the price for users affordable. Because of this financial issue, the company is split into a non-profit and for-profit division. The non-

Type of Fresh payment Life® Toifor Fresh Toilet type Users let operaLife® Toilet tors operators to Sanergy Shops’ Up-front clients investment Shops’ Commercial and and monthly owners passers- service payby ment Up-front investment Schools’ School Pupils and monthly principals service payment Residential

Landlords Tenants

Type of payment Amount paid by for toilet toilet users users

$390

Pay for use

Not determined by Sanergy

$290

Monthly

Not determined by Sanergy

Monthly

Not determined by Sanergy

Fee for ser$8.50 per vice: monthly month

Figura 14: Charging system (Isabele Poulete 2018, pg. 3)

Amount paid by Fresh Life® Toilet operators to Sanergy

profit segment is registered by the name Fresh LifeÂŽ and operates sludge collection and transportation. The for-profit is called Sanergy Limited and operates the treatment and sludge transformation into fertilizers and animal food (Poulet 2018, pg. 5).

d. Sustainability and up-scale perspective This business model has drawn attention and reviews, both among the population of informal settlements, and among stakeholders in the sanitation sector. Sanergyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposal is cited by several authors (Satterthwaite et al. 2015; Tilmans et al. 2015) as a tangible solution to the serious sanitation crisis in informal settlements.

Nevertheless, in order for the initiative to expand and become financially sustainable, the on-site sanitation must be part of the municipal sanitation policy, supported by an adequate institutional and legal framework. In addition, to enabling the participation of private companies in this field, public-private partnership regulation must to be streamline, a critical issue for many reasons. Politically, the Kenyan government, from national to county governments, in general, does not have the culture and willingness to partner with the private sector. Financially, the counties are facing difficulties in including their annual sanitation service delivery in the budgets, even acknowledging that sanitation should be provided to everyone.

Figure 17. Fresh LifeÂŽ Toilet unit (Source: Author)

After the constitution reform, in which the mandate of providing sanitation became part of the countiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; responsibilities, those that comprise the largest and most populated cities have much higher costs to be included in the budget. The realities of the counties differ significantly, this calls attention to the necessity of having more resources for the big cities, as they handle more complex infrastructure and service delivery issues. The current problem borders on the absence of a clear mandate regarding onsite sanitation. As the Nairobi Water Service Provider does not have the mandate to provide such service, it does not want to subsidize the service provided by Sanergy or other private company that might want to offer the same service. On the other hand, Nairobi County wants to partner with Sanergy, since authorities are getting aware of consequences to the city from lack of sanitation (Interview and article of Isabelle Poulet, 2018). The perspective is that the service is subsidized by the county, so that it is consolidated as a service of governmental responsibility. Sanergy considers the sanitation value chain as a public good, so that public authorities should take part, formulating the necessary frameworks and providing the amount not covered by the income from users and farmers. It is not only the company that believes that public power should take responsibility in providing sanitation for all: the constitution establishes access to sanitation as a right. The interviewee brought her understanding of donors in general, which also applies to government investments. According to her, state and donor investments are usually 51

directed towards centralized sanitation infrastructure, i.e., sewage system. They prefer to invest in something that will be built than in the operation of a service that does not have a material result. Because of this belief, that infrastructure is a better investment than services the Sanergy model is still little accepted. However, the dependence of other financial resources compromises the continuity of the model proposed by Sanergy, since these are not available regularly and when it is, it is usually driven to centralized sanitation infrastructure. Donors and international/ bilateral agencies also prefer to fund initiatives with potential for consolidation and expansion by their own means and/or with the involvement of the national/local government.

e. Fresh LifeÂŽ Settlements

toilets

within

Informal

The Sanergy is delivering sanitation through Fresh Life Toilets in Mathare and Makuru informal settlements. I conducted field work in Mathare, where I had a previous visit and met a resident who ended up volunteering to be my guide. We agreed that I would pay for her guidance, as it would take time and required knowledge over the area. The objective of this field work was to analyze the following issues: 1. Are the Fresh Life Toilets widespread within Mathare? 2. How are they distributed? 3. How is the usage of Fresh Life Toilets by the residents? 4. Do they believe that the Fresh LifeÂŽ

Figura 18: Mathare and its sub-areas (Source: Author)

toilets are improving access to sanitation in Mathare? The issues have been outlined in order to answer whether Sanergy’s business model has been successful that would be worth to replicate in other informal settlements, which is Sanergy’s goal. Q1: Are the Fresh Life® toilets widespread within Mathare? Walking through Mathare, it was evident that the Fresh Life Toilets are widespread in some areas, but not in other parts. The work field starting point was where the blue toilets highlighted more in the landscape, which made it possible to identify them quickly. In the first interview with the person responsible of one of the toilets we found, he said that “his” was the first to be implemented and, from it, other residents joined the service offered by Sanergy. People around when noticed that we were talking about the facility wanted to show us the one that belonged to them. Clearly, sanitation is an important issue to people 52

living in Mathare: all the people who I talked to were very willing to explain how the toilets were working and how their quality of life had changed because of it. Q2: How are they distributed? The toilets are not equally distributed through the whole area. Mathare is a huge slum and so each part of it has an identity partly conferred by the way people are organized. Walking in the north direction of the settlement, there were fewer Fresh Life Toilets. On the other hand, we found other types of toilets, as public toilets managed by youth groups and individual entrepreneurs. At the west extremity, people were more likely to use pit latrines inside the houses and compounds, but not from Sanergy. In the north-eastern portion of Mathare, where a slope rises to the neighbouring wall, there are some houses that appear to be difficult to access, as can be seen in the X and Y images. In this unexpected location, I saw Fresh Life® toilets, which raises at least two questions: based on what location

requirements do Sanergy implements its product? How are the containers collected in this condition of inaccessibility? Q3: How is the usage of Fresh Life Toilets by the residents? As defined by the Sanergy’s business model, the toilets can be used in different schemes. In the field work, it was identified two ways: for household/compound usage and for commercial purpose. In the household/ compound scale, the landlord manages the toilet and includes the cost in the amount of the rent. A tenant came to talk to us and explained that when someone wants to use the toilet, the key has to be asked from the landlord, because it is kept locked all the time. According to her, around 150 people share the same toilet and it is empty every day. Talking to the people around the areas where we could not find Fresh Life® toilets, we found that even they did not have the facilities nearby, they did know the toilet of

Figure 19. Fresh Life® Toilet unit (Source: Author)

Sanergy. By the product name, it was not always the case that people got reminded of which toilet we were asking about, but once saying “the blue small toilet”, people realized what it was about. Q4: Do they believe that the fresh Toilets are improving the sanitation problem in Mathare? The guide, who also works in a public toilet, explained that since the coming of Fresh Life Toilets, she has seen less “flying toilets”. Despite not being a costumer, she considers the service delivered by Sanergy very useful for the community. A tenant who uses the toilet within the compound affirmed that, going to toilet is safer and more comfortable than before. Public toilets are not available 24/7 and most of them are not as clean as the one she is using now. However, the guide pointed out that the Fresh Life® toilets do not have a shower, so people are likely to use the public one because it is more convenient.

f. Assessment of Sanergyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Approach

Advantages Sanitation service Covers the entire service chain; chain Flexible implementation; Simple technology for toilets, easily replicable; Resource recovery; Use of local workforce.

Disadvantages Lack of control on how people use the toilet (nÂ° of people and maintenance); There is the risk that containers may be disposed of improperly if filled before collection; Need to better settle the toilet; Dependency on transport to collect the containers.

Institutional embedding

Articulated to government bodies; Participation in policy framework development; Attendance in discussions; Specialized department within the company to deal with governance and legislation issues.

Lack of local identity; Bottom-up approach; Lack of community participation; Lack of social approach.

Affordability of services

Different means to commercialize the toilet and sanitation service; Same price as other facilities.

Lack of alternative to those that cannot afford the service (e.g. ultra-poor)

Sustainability of operations

Well-structured business model; Income generation through the entire sanitation service chain; Successful funding acquisition; On-going articulation to enable public-private partnership.

Operation is (as yet) not covered by the revenue; Dependence of external financial sources.

5.2. Case Study 2: Umande Trust

a. Sanitation service chain Umande Trust is a non-profit organization self-defined as a rights-based agency aiming at improving access to basic services as water and sanitation through few investments (Umande Trust 2014). It supports the planning, design, construction, financing and management of multi-service facilities in informal settlements. Called â&#x20AC;&#x153;Bio-centresâ&#x20AC;?, each facility is constructed by a pre-defined group of households and offers different activities: public toilets, water kiosk, offices for rental, housing or a cafeteria. The entire sanitation service chain happens locally. Under de facility there is a bio-digester responsible for the waste treatment, generating biogas as an endproduct. Below in figure x is the scheme of a bio-digester is visualized:

Figure x: Bio-digester scheme (Source: Munala et al. 2015)

Like the first case study, the organization covers the entire service chain. Both by practice and discourse, it engages politically in promotion of eco-sanitation. Human waste processing using a bio-digester, besides being cheap and affordable, it produces renewable energy.

Figure 20: Bio-centre section (Source: www.designother90.org)

Based on community participation, the goal is to engage people at every step. Through training, households learn how to build and manage the facility so that they can be responsible for its operation. The inclusion creates a sense of ownership, as the facility is a result of their joint effort. In addition, Bio-centres have catalyzed community education and sensitization on conservation and hygiene (Umande Trust 2014).

b. Institutional embedding Umande was also involved in the KESH Policy drafting. Delegates attended the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee (ICC) meetings on behalf of the agency, where stakeholders could participate on the policy framing. For each office Nairobi, Nakuru and Kisumi - there was at least one person representing Umande Trust and contributing to include the onsite eco-sanitation in the sector agenda. Such meetings already coordinated by the Ministry of health have happened with the purpose of regularly promoting the moment and space of interaction and communication among stakeholders. The group is formed by academics, NGO’s, service providers and so forth. The Bio-centres are nationally and internationally renowned. Both the Ministry of Health and Water have already visited the facility on the occasion of the reform of the WASH sector. This demonstrates the ability of nongovernmental organizations to influence public policy. Moreover, Umande is quite supported by the served population, mainly in Kibera, where it was created. Residents recognize the agency 57

as belonging to the community, much due to the close connection between them. In fact, Umande has participated and contributed to improving Kenya’s sanitation conditions in conjunction with government agencies even before KESH Policy was formulated. In 2007, the Kenya Plan adopted the Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) methodology to completely eliminate Open Defecation (OD). Although commonly applied in rural areas, Umande and Practical Action implemented a project called “Realizing Rights to Total Sanitation” in which the methodology was adapted to the urban environment, experience is considered to be successful1. Political articulation has promoted the institutional embeddedness at national and county level. Many counties support the initiative through financing Bio-centres, for example, the Kisumu County has a program called KUP (Kisumu Urban Program) that has provided financial resources from a French Development Agency to construct three bio-digester in schools. Kisumu is also partnering with Umande Trust on promoting Open Defecation Free Neighborhoods, which needs more community engagement than financial resources, as it is about building awareness and creating demand to (improved) sanitation. Regarding Nairobi County, it has led, as a matter of fact, the WASH sector, following its mandate. It has also promoted stakeholders participation on decision-making processes, according to representative in the ICC meeting. Although it is the Ministry of Water and Irrigation responsible for the WASH sector, 1 See in: <http://www.communityledtotalsanitation.org/ sites/communityledtotalsanitation.org/files/PracticalAction_ LessonsOnUrbanCLTSNakuruKenya_Apr2015.pdf>

stakeholders still credit the Ministry of Health this leading role. As a result of this, there are many overlaps of attributions among them, which may be due to the fact that stakeholders continue to report to the Ministry of Health. For Josiah, even the Ministry of Water, despite having the mandate legally, it is not clear which its role is, while it has been the Ministry of Health to lead by now and the Ministry of Environment has been left out. It is interesting to know that Josiah, an important person within the sector believes that the Ministry of Health should have continued with the main mandate, but not taking off the Ministry of Water from it: “Umande has a very good relationship with the WSP in Nairobi”, says Josiah. Together with Nairobi City Water Company (WSP in Nairobi) and Athi Water Services Body (WSRB), the agency is currently implementing a project to improve sanitation in informal settlements through 15 bio-digesters construction. To make clearer the division of mandates in this project: • Umande: Construction of 15 biodigesters; • Nairobi City Water Company (WSP): Implementation coordination; • Athi Water Services Body (WSRB): Regulation of the project based on existing frameworks and funding; • Public Health Department: Approval of the bio-digester design. The partnership between Umande, Nairobi Water Company (WSP) and Athi Water Services Body (WSRB) existed before the KESHP. Together, they already had 58

implemented 25 bio-digesters. From this fact there are two evidences regarding Umande institutional embeddedness: (1) on-site eco-sanitation practices were already recognized by the Nairobi WSP, WSRB and hence the Nairobi County; and (2) on-going Umande’s practices, due to successful results both on the technical and governance perspective, influenced the KESHP. The establishment of a policy framework has created the enabling environment for scaling up on-site sanitation. By Josiah’s words: “Practice has informed the policy, not the other way. Normally, it is first policy and then practice. I think for me, if you look at the aspect of participation, it (policy) is accepting, building on what people have, trying on what people have, building on people experiments and then trying to mix their skill up. And I think for me, that’s why I’m happy about this policy.” (Josiah Omotto, interview on 17/10/2018) The mandate devolution to counties has the potential to bring the population closer to the process on formulating public policies resulting in more participatory governance with vision and actions more suited to the local reality. Previously, the governance structure in Kenya was very centralized, so decisions were made in a top-down manner, resulting in disconnection with population’s demands. Although the sector reform was a decisive step, much more has to be achieved such as the formalization of participatory mechanisms. Umande has established partnerships at different levels, always prioritizing people. It is a non-profit organization that started in the Kibera through community mobilization. Since

then, the agency and bio-centre have been operated and managed by people that lived or live in the served informal settlements. The local origin and people-centered approach confers legitimacy and influence on policy-making process, fundraising and articulation with other sector’s actors. It also contributes to a more diversified stakeholder environment: “Starting point is the people, and then we talk about partnership with the county government, the local government. Partnership with the civil society organizations, all programs. And now we’ve implemented partnerships with others, but people’s perspectives. Even if you find a program, that doesn’t make sense to communities, we respectfully decline. We have developed national partnerships. We have members of the Kenya Water and Sanitation Network. We are working on development coalitions.” (Josiah Omotto, interview on 17/10/2018) Human rights are one of the main ideological bases of Umande. An integral part of the activities is the involvement with various causes related to the situation of informal settlements worldwide. For that again, participation is very much advocated by Umande, not only in institutional and political framework, but it should be present in the budget decision process. As an example, it was cited by Josiah that the participative budget in Brazil, a local government mechanism which allows citizen to take part of the decisions made regarding local investments. In this sense, civil society organizations/ social movements are trying to get space for them to take part on decision-making processes: 59

“What I like about policy is that it allows multi stakeholders to contribute. The policies organized with the government alone cannot fulfill the sanitation agenda. So it is about households, communities, civil society organization and government. So it should have a chapter, which recognizes the valuable contribution of all actors. Policy should encourage it. We cannot let the government make it by itself, because sanitation belongs to all of us”. (Josiah Omotto, interview on 17/10/2018) Organized civil society groups / social movements do not have the visibility they should in public policies in general, which leads to the false conclusion that there are no mobilizations in this direction. According to Josiah, social movements exist, but opportunities for them to effectively participate in decision-making processes are lacking: “Nairobi actually has a social movement. The Slum Dwellers Coalition, the Slum Dwellers Federation. So there are people movements, but the issue is: are they involved? No. The social movements exist? Yes. In Kisumu for example, we have a program there that has brought together the toilet exhausters, the manual exhausters. They are involved in the decisions? No.” (Josiah Omotto, interview on 17/10/2018)

c. Affordability of services Pricing is not per-use, but weekly or monthly, so that people can have unlimited access to the service. It is also monitored the BioCentre catchment area regarding opendefecation, to analyze the facility impact and hence improving the accessibility of

it. Once there are many facilities that do not treat the human waste, and owners sometimes are not willing to substitute it, there are actions to improve the existing facilities as well. Activism is quite expressed in the organizational structure of the agency. Amid various types of toilets offered in Nairobiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s informal settlements, Umande stands out because it presents an option also for those who cannot afford this service, even if the amount charged is already calculated according to the possibilities of the community. In these cases, families in the vicinity of each facility who cannot pay for the service are identified so that they

simple but accurate: 60% of the dividends are returned to the organization and distributed among those working on it, 30% cover operation and maintenance costs, and 10% is kept in a fund (SANDEF) for the expansion of the service. If the value of the operation plus maintenance exceeds the established 30%, the surplus is subtracted from the 60%. The profit generated by the service provided is a form of income generation for the people living in the community.

are exempt from charges. Children under 10 years of age also do not pay.

The initiative also aims at searching innovative financial models to enhance the facilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sustainability, so as to broaden its access to more people. Like most public toilets in informal settlements, people have to pay to use the Bio-centresâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; toilets. The income that is generated keeps the facility functioning without subsidies. In addition, Umande Trust together with communities has created the Sanitation Development Fund (SANDEF), a self-sustained fund which provides loans to sanitation

Always looking for innovation, Umande has joined a mobile payment system called BebaPay, which does not require cash transfers. Thus, all the activities and products offered by Bio-center can be paid for by this method which is similar to the MPESA system quite popular all over Kenya2. The administration of resources is 2 See in: <http://umande.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/TheBiocentre-Story.pdf>

d. Sustainability

Figure 21. Katwekera Tosha BioCentre (Source: Umande Trust)

projects. The fund is fed by the Bio-centres revenue and can also receive donations from government and non-government agencies3. Government investment in sanitation for informal settlements is paltry, despite many promises to increase the amount allocated to the sector. On this issue, the position of Umande and Sanergy respondents are opposite. Josiah, cofounder of the Umande Trust, believes that the problem is not a lack of resources, but a lack of priority given to the sanitation agenda: “Money allocated for other things are much more than to sanitation. So that is very unfortunate, because the sanitation situation is critical. We really need to focus on the core minimal content (investment) of access to sanitation”. While Isabelle Poulet from Sanergy states that the lack of resources is due to the low tax collection in Kenyan cities, which makes the revenue insufficient for investments in basic infrastructure. Budget constraints put limits to expand access to sanitation. There is a general perception that the government is very corrupt, which causes financial resources to flow improperly rather than being invested in the basic needs of the population. Although the counties currently have more decision autonomy, the transfer of resources must be reviewed. According to Josiah, only 15% of the national collection goes to the counties. If this budget imbalance persists, legal reforms and advances in public policy will not have expression in people’s lives, in addition to relying heavily on donor’s financial support, as the interviewee emphasizes: 3 See in: <http://umande.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/TheBiocentre-Story.pdf>

“At the moment, the government budget to water and sanitation, I think is totally insignificant. And most of the sanitation needs you see have been catered by the donors in partnership with the county government. Cause if you can move around the city and say ‘this is what the county of Nairobi has done and this is what the county has pumped’, for the last six years, I think it would be easier to go to heaven than come with it. Unless those ones that have been supported by developing partner. That is the dilemma”. (Josiah Omotto, interview on 17/10/2018) The sustainability of Bio-centres is also in the use of few resources in the construction and operation of these. The use of local labor by granting commercial use of the facility is a way to reduce the cost of the service. As the entire sanitation process takes place on site, there is no cost of collection and transportation verified on the Sanergy model. For Josiah, Sanergy’s model is too sophisticated to be financially sustainable. Currently, this is the initiative that most receives donor resources, but if the flow of investment ceases, the operation of the scheme is compromised. On-site sanitation delivery has increased accessibility, compared to sewered sanitation. In the same proportion, the number of initiatives offering this type of sanitation increased and, thus birthing competition for resources. In this sense, the position of the agency is collaborative because it does not aim to impose its model, but can coexist and join efforts to promote better living conditions for vulnerable populations.

e. Assessment of Sanergyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Approach

Advantages Sanitation service Covers the entire service chain; chain Locally treated waste; Locally resource recovery; Use of local workforce; Sense of ownership; All the assets belong to the community; Knowledge transfer; Simple and easily replicable technology; Multi-activity facility. Institutional Articulated and recognized by the governembedding ment; Participation and influence on policy development; Many projects financed and supported by the counties; Participation in important government programs like CLTS; Attendance to discussions. Affordability of Same price as other facilities; services Price charged monthly for unlimited use; People living within the catchment area that cannot afford the service can use it without paying.

Disadvantages Need of unbuilt land to implement the facility; No clear criteria to choose the area to be benefited by the facility and the group responsible to manage it.

Sustainability of operations

Limited capability to expand the service without external financial support (CAPEX).

Revenue can cover the operation cost; Fund â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Sanitation Development Fund (SANDEF); Low overall cost of facility.

5.3. Case Study 3: SafiSan

a. Sector reform that promotes an enabling the environment Before SafiSan was conceived and officially launched, structural measures had to be set up, in order to organize the sector framework, making it capable to head the upscaling access to water and sanitation services. Since 2004, the Kenyan government has been engaged in reforming the water sector to better address the needs of lowincome populations. In this endeavor, the German Development Cooperation (GDC) has been in partnership, supporting technically through GIZ and financially, through the German Development Bank (KfW) (GIZ 2015, pg. 14). Reaching the water and sanitation up-scaling has been since the very beginning an ensemble of multi-scale strategies that aim at building and/or improving the foundations on which develop institutional mechanisms for implementing a policy of national scope. Because the effort was firstly towards the sector reform, to establish an enabling environment, the GDC allocated GIZ advisors within the Ministry of Water and Irrigation. The embeddedness of GIZ advisors within the government structure has been a common strategy in development cooperation. Although it seems to be well accepted, the extent this proximity is healthy for the government autonomy on later decision-making should be analyzed. The joint effort contributed to the policy of the sector begins to prioritize the poorest population, which had not yet been done by previous policies. Since most policies were 64

not translated into concrete actions, such as infrastructure implementation and service organization, it was essential that the partnership continued after restructuring the sector, so that the results would actually reach the population. One constant talk among the interviewees, from technicians and users, is that much data is collected and documents are written, but little has been converted into action and reality itself. Up-scaling Basic Sanitation for the Urban Poor (UBSUP) is a national sectorial programme focused on providing sanitation to low-income urban areas covering the entire sanitation chain. It has an ambitious objective: to meet the sanitation demand of 400.000 people by the end of 2018 (GIZ 2017, pg. 1). The programme is totally integrated within the governance structure, beyond the technical support of GIZ’s advisors. In this way, the sector reform came to fill the existing gaps, to make possible the programme running.

b. Sanitation service chain In reality, the UBSUP is a programme in which the SafiSan projects are included, according to the document, Phasing Concept and Procedure: “The projects funded within the framework of UBSUP programme and implemented by the service providers are called SafiSan projects” (WSTF & GIZ 2017, pg. 4). The programme is implemented by the WSTF which coordinates delivery of subsidies to the WSP. The fund comes from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the German Government through the German Development Bank (KfW) (WSTF & GIZ 2017, pg. 4).

This programme was designed based on the new structure defined by the water sector reform, which clearly devolves the mandate to provide water and sanitation to the counties. In each county, as already mentioned in Chapter 2, the service delivery is the responsibility of the Water Service Provider (WSP) that has a specific catchment area it operates. Having this key stakeholder in perspective, the programme has an insightful strategy in strengthening the connection between provider and served population because the demand can be better understood, closely stimulated and easier met. Furthermore, once the operation scheme has been consolidated, the provider will get reliance from people, who will have it as a reference where they can draw on. An important aspect emphasized in the

Figure 22: UBSUP toilet (Source: GIZ/Berea, 2017)

provided documents is the demand driven characteristic that applies both to the WSP and toilet owners, the two main fund beneficiaries. To be part of the SafiSan projects, WSPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s must demonstrate interest submitting SafiSan project proposals and accomplish the asked requirements. To receive the subsidies from WSTF, the toilet owners must build the facility according to the technical specifications. Periodically, the WSTF launches an UBSUP call for proposals, on which the WSP can submit its SafiSan Projects. The process was elaborated to consist in different phases to strategically manage the financial resource and so, minimize losses. Therefore, in the phase 1, the WSPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s get approved by the good quality of project proposal to finance for 9 months:

• 1 or 2 decentralized treatment facility (DTFs) and other equipment if necessary; • “accompanying measures”, exemplified as payment of social animators and training of the DTF operators and; • Market study to expand the service delivery. The role of social marketing by a social animator is crucial. Although the issue of sanitation is well-known to be urgent, many people living in low-income areas have adapted to other forms of sanitation, which are often inadequate, both from the point of view of health and environment. They might use pitlatrine that are not properly emptied or in the

Figure 23: DTF (Source: GIZ/Berea, 2017)

worst case utilize “flying toilet”. In addition, there is a minimum demand of 200 people for WSP to continue to receive resources in the next subsequent phases, if it is in their interest to expand access to the service to other areas. Stepping forward to the next phases, but still in the 1st phase, the market study acts as a stimulus to keep the WSP engaged on the project. As the first phase is for one area within the provider territory, the market study is carried out to identify other potential areas where the phase 2 can be implemented. The result of this study will condition the continuity or not of the funding, if positive, the WSP will pass by some short steps, in order to not

“undo the impact of the social marketing”1.

c. Sustainability

As well as phase two, the other phases follow the same logic: in all phases the contract connects the WSTF to the county, and the county to the WSP; each phase receives subsidies for 300 toilets and 1 or 2 DTF; and the time duration is 6 months. The resource to build a DTF is just provided if there is no treatment facility within the WSP catchment area.

Taking into consideration that the UBSUP programme has a limited duration and funding, the issue of sustainability is linked to the issue of planning that was taken into account since the early conception. Particularly in the sanitation field, many have been done, but few have been continued after the donors pulled out. This is a well-known reality faced by several initiatives financed by development agencies, they can start off with good results, but when funding and/or technical support from external actors ends, there is a great chance that there will be no continuity.

There are two types of toilets offered by the UBSUP programme. The most used one is the pour flush toilet (98%), followed by the urine diverting dry toilets – UDDT (2%). The first option can be connected to a sewer network or can have a septic tank, which is emptied by existing vacuum tankers or Sanigo, described as “a motorized tricycle pulling a customized carrier, which has two compartments to transport the content of two UDDT vaults. The carrier can be tilted with a hydraulic jack to facilitate the emptying” (GIZ 2017, pg. 3). The UDDT is advisable for areas where the water table is high or water availability is low. The DTF built follows UBSUP standards and consists in a small scale treatment plant that is up to process dry or wet faecal sludge transported by vacuum tankers and Sanigo registered at the WSP’s or provided by them. The treatment facility does not use electricity or chemical additives. Instead it relies on physical and biological treatment process. The DTF also has the capacity on reusing the faecal sludge, turning it into soil-conditioner, co-compost and irrigation water.

1 PPT Key Characteristics and Procedures – UBSUP & SafiSan

Sustainability of initiatives undertaken through partnerships with development partners has different dimensions, in the case of SafiSan, the continuity of the services or even the multiplication of the programme impact without the external technical and financial support depend on the social dynamics changes and the institutional capability in finding financial solutions to keep the programme working. In this sense, in addition to the material component, the program focuses on social structural changes in different scales: from the behavior of the population served to the organization of the sector’s governance. An illustrative example is the social marketing that has the double purpose of promoting the importance of having an appropriate toilet and sanitation service as well the advantages of participating of the SafiSan projects. Raising the awareness of the population about the problems coming from the lack of sanitation has been the role of the public health sector, which usually approaches hygiene issues in the daily life. However, implementation of infrastructure and services are

not part of the repertoire of such a sector. Performed by Social Animators (SAs), the social marketing has innumerable potentialities because it is a window through which the WSP interact with the people. SAs visit the households and get to know how people understand sanitation so that the service can be adapted. The SAs follow the entire process of purchasing and implementing the SafiSan toilets, that is, from the registration of the customer to the evaluation of the first moments of use of the product. Such proximity to customers can strengthen the acceptance of WSPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s operations and consequently favor the expansion of its activities. It is part of the promotion of the SafiSan project to hold public meetings called baraza in Swahili. Having a time and space to publicize the service is an opportunity in terms of popular participation in the formulation of community-oriented policies, as it encourages grouping people to discuss issues of collective merit. Many important civil society organizations have flourished from situations where people have come together to find solutions to problems of access to basic goods and services. In what concerns the facilities durability, it is determined by the programme that after the construction of the toilet, the owner is responsible for its maintenance, while the WSP will no longer have access to it. However, if the type of toilet is different from what was previously used by the residents and even if it is the first time they have such an installation, it would be important to have periodic supervision to ascertain the conditions of use so that the system remains efficient. Regarding this issue, there was a recommendation in 68

an official report to set a system on which data from toilets could be made available. Since the amount of subsidies is provided after the construction, it means that the owner of the toilet is able to pay for the facility. Therefore, the moment the fund ceases to be subsidized, the toilets the perspective is that the demand to come will be based on the benefits that the service of sanitation brings. However, one important characteristic of the programme is that even under the current financial support, it does not address the needs of people who are not able to afford the toilet or areas where it is not possible to implement one toilet per plot due to high density. For this kind of situation, the WSP can apply for public sanitation facilities developed under the Urban Project Concepts (UPC). The ideal setting for the programme sustainability would be access to more generous financial resources from the national and county budget, what indeed can be done in terms of legal framework, as the Water Act of 2016 states that the WSTF will receive the taxes paid by the consumers of piped water. Furthermore, according to the Kenyan Vision 2030, it is predicted that the share of the GDP invested in sanitation increase, although few have advanced on this issue. Even if there are policies and laws that make it possible to finance and implement infrastructure and services in any sector, political will is a key point in Kenya. In many interviews with people working in the field, it is clear the general perception that the problem of financing is not a lack of internal resources. For most of them, the problem is that sanitation for the poor is not prioritized

in the allocation of domestic resources. Kenya reformed not only the water and sanitation sector, but the Constitution in 2010, through which Kenyans became entitled to clean water and sanitation. The law by itself does not produce effects but establishes the legal basis necessary to implement better

policies. Therefore, the constitution and reform of the sector was essential for the program to be developed, thus more likely to be definitively incorporated into the structure of governance.

d. Assessment of the SafiSan project

Advantages Sanitation service Covers the entire service chain; chain Flexible implementation; Simple technology for toilets, easily replicable; Resource recovery; Use of local workforce. Institutional Part of the governance structure; embedding Mechanisms of community participation; It can be considered a public policy. Affordability of Same price as other facilities. services Sustainability of operations

Well-structured business model; Income generation in the entire sanitation service chain.

Disadvantages Limited scope in the implementation of toilets in informal settlements of high density; Dependence on transport to collect containers. Newly established governance structure.

Lack of alternative for those that cannot afford the service (ultrapoor) Dependence on external financial sources.

5.4. Water Sector Trust Fund

This chapter provides a brief overview of the origins, functions and organizational structure of the Water Sector Trust Fund (WSTF). WSTF is central to the urban sanitation sector in Kenya because it is the first government body to deal specifically with sanitation financing for the economically most vulnerable population. It then focuses on the Urban Investment Program, where UBSUP is inserted. In conclusion, based on the interview with the WSTF staff, the challenges of maintaining UBSUP and the perspective on incorporating existing initiatives into the financing scheme organized by such program are presented.

a. General Overview The Water Sector Trust Fund (WSTF) is a State Corporation set up by the Water Act of 2002, in which was legislated that the insti-

tution would have the responsibility to “assist in financing the provision of water services to areas of Kenya which are without adequate water services” (Water Act, Part V. Section 83, 2002). With the enactment of the new Kenya Constitution in 2010 which has devolved power to the counties the WSTF’s functions were reformulated under the Water Act of 2016. Since then, the fund is mandated to assist the financing of “the development and management of water services in the marginalized and underserved areas” (WSTF Brief 2018, pg. 1). Because of the difficulty in financing water and sanitation infrastructure and services for poor rural and urban areas, the strategic objectives are related to building and enhancing the fund capacity. So far the WSTF has led 4 financed investments programs that were also converted into its main financial and operational mechanisms approach (WSTF Brief 2018, pg. 1), as the table below shows (Water Sector Trust Fund Brief ,2018):

Investment Programme

Description

Nº of projects

Benef. (mm)

Development Partners

Urban Investment

Water supply and sanitation projects implemented through the WSP’s

305

1.63

KfW, EU, Gates F.

Rural Investment

Water supply and sanitation projects though water utilities in rural areas

2.41

Sweden, Finland, Danida, EU

Water Resources Investment

Support to communities to manage and protect their water resources through the 372 Water Resources Users Associations

IFAD, Danida, Sweden, Finland World Bank, KfW

1699

Water and sanitation projects in urban Result Based low income areas financed by loans Financing from Kenyan commercial banks

0.07

TOTAL

2,387

4.4

While the Kenyan government supports WSTF programs by incorporating them into the national budget, development partners (donors) are still the main source of funding, making the Trust Fund largely dependent on external actors. This situation is a frequent concern for people working within the sector because if, for some reason, donors pull out the provision of services will not have means to continue. The external supporters currently are: 1. KfW (German Development Bank) 2. The European Union 3. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) 4. Government of Sweden 5. Government of Finland 6. DANIDA (Denmark) 7. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

with the existing governance structure. The WSTF’s staff interviewed reported that some donors even when they know of the fund existence, they still prefer to allocate financial resources directly in the WSP’s. The WSTF is a great step forward in Kenya’s sanitation governance structure as it is focused on financing low-income areas that previously were not properly addressed. However, clustering this segment has some conflictive issues. On the one hand, a government entity was needed to advocate sanitation for the poorest within the public sphere, since this segment has long relied almost exclusively on donor support. On the other, the fact that the fund is a national government body may weaken the recent counties’ autonomy in the sanitation provision. Determining that counties are the key stakeholders within the programs reflects the concern on the part of the fund in maintaining the protagonism of these.

8. The World Bank 9. UNICEF WASH

b. The Urban Investment Programme

10. UN-Habitat, Nairobi

It is in the Urban Investment Programme that the UBSUP is placed together with the Urban Projects Concept (UPC). As already

Being one of the institutions resulting from the water sector reform, the WSTF considers the counties key stakeholders. Other relevant stakeholders are the Water Resources Management Authority, WSB’s, WSP’s, community groups in rural areas, civil society organizations and the third sector (WSTF Brief 2018, pg. 1). The fund seems to have the entire picture of the sanitation sector in poor urban areas, but it has not centralized all funds from donors. Ideally, if a development partner intends to invest in water supply and/or sanitation delivery for low-income population, it should first get in contact 71

mentioned, the channel to reach the lowincome areas is through the WSP’s, which can be considered a demonstration of coherence from the fund as it empowers the governance structure in order to consolidate it. Such stance on the issue might seem obvious, but just from the theoretical point of view, even the development partners often make shortcuts to implement projects instead of following the established means. Among the program’s objectives, “contribute to a reduction in Unaccounted for Wa-

ter (UfW) and an increase in Water Service Providers revenue” has the intention on formalizing the water and sanitation provision to get revenue from that to contribute to a system in which the implementation and operational cost can be recovered and thus sustained. The objective “provide the opportunity for close cooperation between stakeholders” also contributes to the formalization of access to sanitation if local initiatives are also included, such as groups of young people rarely mentioned in the literature or addressed in public policies. Informal settlements have several initiatives that are specific to each territory. Knowing them enables a clearer dimension of the site’s sanitation condition. Recognizing them can mean saving resources, since you can take advantage of the existing organization and structure.

c. Operating the UBSUP: Challenges and Perspectives

Challenges

From the WSTF staff’s point of view the UBSUP has been successful in delivering sanitation for the urban poor. So far 21 counties have joined the program, which represents almost half of the country in terms of administrative divisions. The current challenge is to attract more counties in the upcoming calls for participation in the program. Because the program is demand-driven, counties need to become pro-active to receive financial resources. Thus, in addition to organizing the calls and managing the SafiSan projects within the UBSUP program, it is important to sensitize the counties on the importance of 72

investing in sanitation in socio-economically vulnerable urban areas. Between 2011 and 2018, the fund received technical support from GIZ. Since October, it has been operating autonomously. For many years, several ventures financed and technically supported by development partners did not continue after they left the scene. In this sense, the WSTF is experiencing a moment of proof, because although UBSUP is still funded by BMG, GIZ is no longer providing advisory support for the management of the program. The WSTF staff is confident about UBSUP’s future and in fact, it can be an opportunity to strengthen the outcomes from the sector reform. Sanitation in dense informal settlements is a challenge that has not yet been directly addressed by any program included in the governmental sphere, such as UBSUP. While the objective of the Urban Investment Program in promoting sanitation in formal and informal urban areas is clear, the two existing programs do not account for the specificities of informal settlements characterized by high population density, such as Kibera and Mathare. The UPC has funded more sanitation initiatives in informal settlements, such as biodigesters built and operated by the Umande Trust. However, there is no continuous flow of capital to set up such a program as a public policy of sanitation in informal settlements. The financing of projects occurs according to the availability of financial resources, which almost always comes from donors. In the case of UBSUP, the program attends domiciles and not communities. This is a very important difference to be emphasized, because in slums like Kibera, high density

often does not allow the implementation of a toilet per lot/household. For this reason, publicly shared toilets are widespread, a situation also observed in Mathare.

tablished by the water and sanitation sector reform, which will consequently result in greater autonomy in the management of the same.

Although official UBSUP documents say that the program does not serve high population density settlements, WSTF staff members have stated that it is possible to address such areas but that depends on the WSP being interested in participating in the program. One respondent believes that some WSPs are not interested in the program because informal settlements such as Kibera already receive resources for implementing sanitation facilities. Even if such areas receive resources to promote sanitation, there is a need for continued investment flow and macro management to ensure the maintenance of existing facilities as well as increased access. Therefore, this study investigates the possibility of existing sanitation initiatives operating independently in informal settlements have space within WSTF programs.

Delivering sanitation to informal settlements requires different solutions since each of them has its own characteristics, which can limit or foster certain technologies and management models. For example, the technologies used in the UBSUP are suitable to be implemented at household/plot level while in informal settlements, the urban layout does not allow the toilet types available by the program implementation. This is so because often, it is not possible for each household/plot has its own toilet, and the existing solution is the public shared toilets, which the users pay to access. Public toilets occur in different formats, both in terms of size and services offered and in the form of management.

Perspectives

The WSTF has a strategic role between donors and WSPs in UBSUP, as it manages the financial resources according to program guidelines. It is also an articulator of stakeholders in the segment of the sanitation sector focused on the urban and rural marginalized areas, as well as having experience with alternative ways of promoting sanitation such as on-site forms, for example. Therefore, it is legitimate for this institution to be in charge of coordinating the funds, since it strengthens the governance structure es73

Both Sanergy and Umande operate in informal settlements delivering sanitation through their own technologies and methods. However, both share the need of being financed or cross-subsidized either at the time of construction (of the bio-centres), in the case of Umande, or in the collection and transportation phase, in the case of Sanergy. UBSUP is a program closer to be a public policy than the UPC, due to its incorporation to the sanitation governance structure and greater investment flow stability. Therefore, it was questioned to the WSTF staff if it would be viable the participation of initiatives like Sanergy and Umande in the program. In response, legal obstacles to the participation of the non-public sector in the program were raised, since the WSPs are public enterprises. Even so, the respondents were

sympathetic to the idea and in fact, it is an ongoing discussion within the fund, which is even supported by the BMGF rapporteur. In order for the non-public sector (companies, NGO’s, etc.) to participate in the UBSUP calls for proposals, it is necessary to simplify the procedures for making the public-private partnership possible, since the current format is too bureaucratic and demanding. In addition to the legal issue, it is necessary to analyze whether the technologies and the management methods of the service chain meet the quality standards required by both the program and the regulatory agencies of the sector. A contradiction that may perhaps emerge in the case of a successful public and private partnership is with regard to the financial support that initiatives receive directly from donors. In this sense, should these resources be directed to the fund? It is something to evaluate, thinking that in addition to the need for resources, the initiatives should in turn contribute to the efficient functioning of the governance structure of the sector. The strong presence of non-governmental organizations in the informal settlements in Nairobi is hypothesized by the WSTF staff as one of the reasons why Nairobi county and the WSPs did not join UBSUP in the first call. If the hypothesis is correct, it shows a stakeholders disarticulation. On the one hand, there are social enterprises looking for investments to deal with an alarming lack of sanitation in informal settlements. On the other hand, there are opportunities to deliver subsidized sanitation not taken into account by the county and the WSP’s. Another point is that when the program started, WSTF brought together all the counties to ex74

plain the purpose of the UBSUP, but Nairobi County didn’t want to give the “first step” as there was no evidence over the results the interventions would generate.

Analysis and Recommendations

Improving access to sanitation in informal settlements is a complex issue involving technological, social and political issues. Many projects have been implemented, mostly resulting from partnerships between local government and non-governmental organizations, governments of developed countries and international development agencies. Thus, it is understood that the provision of such service to the economically most vulnerable population is historically related to the initiatives of actors outside the governmental structure. After the promulgation of the new 2010 Constitution sanitation has become a right to every Kenyan citizen, which laid the legal basis for the construction of public policies. In this sense, many advances have been made, such as the restructuring of the sectorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s governance and the development of the KESH Policy. The realization of the right to access to sanitation in informal settlements encounters a number of challenges that have been tackled in different ways, often based on alternative technologies to sewerage. These are solutions that incorporate local sanitation practices into the technologies and management methodologies that enable the collection, transportation and appropriate treatment of human waste. Although the implementation costs are lower and there is a possibility of income generation of the actors involved, the initiatives still depend on external subsidies, either from donors or 76

from the government itself. The UBSUP program was designed to cover all stakeholders involved in the provision of sanitation in poor urban areas, with WSTF and WSPs standing out as protagonists. The positive aspect of this scheme is that the funds are invested in the existing governance structure, strengthening its consolidation. On the other hand, because it is demand-driven, it is up to the WSP to choose whether to participate in the callings issued by the program. A development of this situation is the nonparticipation of some key WSPs in the provision of sanitation for informal settlements. Even though it was demand-driven, WSTF initially held meetings to present the program in order to encourage WSP participation. However, we must consider the existence of initiatives that promote sanitation in unserved places that, although are considered successful, lack financial and institutional support as the case of Sanergy and Umande. However, we must consider the existence of initiatives that promote sanitation in unserved places that, although are considered successful, lack financial and institutional support as the case of Sanergy and Umande. Sanergy and Umande are non-governmental initiatives with different methodological approaches. Sanergy focuses on the de-

velopment of a service chain that is economically sustainable through the creation of income generation opportunities. On the other hand, Umande stands out by involving the communities in all the processes, from implementation to daily management, ensuring the participation hence, the sense of ownership. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Thus, this work makes the following recommendations so that these nongovernmental initiatives can achieve greater reach, stability and deliver a quality service to people: Sanergy • Sanergy needs to improve the control mechanism of the toilets use, since in some it was verified overutilization; • The location of Sanergy’s toilets can be improved through an urban layout study, as many toilets implemented at difficult places to access perpetuate the built-up area dysfunctional organization; • Although the difficulty of available land is a reality, the scheme proposed by Sanergy could adjust the method of collection and transport so that there is a decrease in operating costs. For example, waste could also be treated locally when the distance and the difficulty in transporting it make the cost of the operation high. Umande Trust • Umande should systematize the process by which groups and sites to be benefited by a Bio-center are chosen; • The way Umande aids families who do not have the resources to pay for the service should be disclosed as a good practice; 77

• Umande continues to credit the leadership to the Ministry of Health, but once the governance structure changes, it should support the Ministry of Water and Sanitation to consolidate the institutional arrangement established by the Water Act of 2016; • The initiative, as demonstrated, has been very involved in social issues, relating directly the provision of sanitation to community’s political engagement. For this reason, the initiative should keep working with people to let them know about their right to drinking water and sanitation, rights that were envisaged in the constitution of 2010; • The Partnership with the government, whether national or local, should not limit Umande’s position in claiming the realization of the rights established by law. The initiative plays a very important role in this respect, which cannot be weakened. SafiSan The UBSUP program is the government’s first public policy on on-site sanitation for poor urban areas that considers the limits and possibilities of such contexts. Therefore, it must be strengthened, either by filling existing gaps, improving its structure and methodology, or by overcoming the difficulties so that it can efficiently promote sanitation for the informal settlement population. In this sense, this work recommends: • Legal, institutional and governance recommendations; o Create legal mechanisms to ensure that donor funds for informal settlements are managed by the WSTF; o Create a commission with stakeholder representatives to annually evaluate the

financial statement of the WSTF; o Promote barazas even in areas where WSP did not apply for a SafiSan project, so that the population is informed about the UBSUP. If it is in the interest of the residents, they can charge from the provider responsible for their area to participate in the calls. This would decentralize the WSPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s decisionmaking power to decide to participate in the program; o Create legal mechanisms for nongovernmental organizations like Sanergy and Umande to participate in UBSUP program calls; o In order for initiatives of non-governmental nature organizations to take part in UBSUP program calls, the legal framework governing the public private partnership in the provision of basic services, such as sanitation, should be simplified; o The large number of youth groups that operate shared toilets in informal settlements can be an opportunity to stimulate cooperatives formation. Cooperatives could also participate in the UBSUP programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s calls to have access to the subsidies and thus improve the services that already offer. In this regard, it is important to emphasize that among the different forms of cooperatives, the model advocated by this work would be the one based on self-management and solidarity economy; o Different types of facilities that treat waste collected both by the toilets built by SafiSan projects and by Sanergy could be integrated into a coordinated network so that there is knowledge exchange and collaboration in the work carried out; o 78

In order for non-governmental initia-

tives to be able to participate in the calls for proposals, it is important that there is a contractual agreement of operation time, so that the method of collection and transportation is proven to be efficient and sustainable;

â&#x20AC;˘

Financial recommendations;

o To dedicate resources from the public budget to the operation and expansion of the programs managed by the WSTF and thus guarantee their autonomy in relation to financial support from donors; o The participation of the profit-driven private initiatives in the UBSUP program calls is not recommended, so that the subsidies are directly allocated to public goods.

Conclusions

The reform in Kenyaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sanitation sector resulted in a reorganization of the governance structure, with WSPs standing out as protagonists in the provision of the service in question. With regard to funding mechanisms, the establishment of the WSTF represents a major step forward in promoting sanitation in economically vulnerable urban areas, most of which rely on funds provided by donors. The institution manages the funds destined to the sector and coordinates programs that spread throughout the national territory in direct articulation with the main stakeholders. The UBSUP program for example, is innovative in using donor funds to strengthen the governance structure and could be considered a public policy, although it does not have government resources invested directly. Currently, the UBSUP program is the one that presents greater stability in the capital flow in the implementation of sanitary facilities and provision of sanitation services. However, the program has not reached high-density informal settlements due to the non-involvement of the WSPs responsible for the catchment areas and the technical requirements to build the toilet model offered. On the other hand, there are initiatives managed by non-governmental organizations, such as NGOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, companies and youth groups that have performed this function with different levels of quality, but could use the governance structure established to 80

form a network of connected services and guided by the same principles. In this regard, the main research question has a straight forward answer: the independent (or non-governmental) initiatives addressing informal settlements could be part of the programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s governance structure. Nevertheless, the consequent question of this positive perspective is how to enable their participation. Firstly, it is important to note that the WSTF is willing to bring together non-governmental initiatives operating in informal settlements. For this to be achieved, some adjustments in the legal framework on public private partnership must be done to simplify the process. In recent times, the process has become too complicated to the point that the initiatives are discouraged to get through it. Another point regarding the WSTF is that although it has a constant influx of funds to finance the UBSUP program, it remains dependent on external aids, which is not the ideal scenario for stability or even sovereignty. The national government should allocate more financial resources within the programs, not only in the institution functioning. The national budget commitment was pointed out by most of the interviewees of being essential to address the sanitation in informal settlements. In this sense, creating business opportunities along the sanitation service chain for

the same financial sustainability does not exempt public power from its obligation to ensure that the right to sanitation is carried out. Although, it is not the responsibility of the state to provide the service itself, it is incumbent upon it to create the conditions necessary for the service to operate properly and have universal reach. The two cases studied are divergent in relation to the methodology of sanitation and served population participation. Although Sanergy is partially a non-profit organization, its structure and methodology resembles the private sector. On the other hand, the Umande presents itself essentially as an initiative derived from the local populationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wishes, having several mechanisms of participation that makes it have more local identity. From the point of view of efficiency and sense of ownership, Umande is ahead of Sanergy. Regarding sustainability, all the initiatives studied (Sanergy, Umande Trust and

SafiSan) are aligned with the principles of social and environmental sustainability, as they promote the waste reuse and safe disposal, local income generation and community participation both in sectoral policies and in the facilities managements. The three are considered affordable as they offer sanitation service for an equivalent price to the commonly used shared toilets. However, they have different levels of scalable capacity, which in general will depend on the financing mechanism they pursue. In order to achieve the goals of the Kenyan vision 2030, much has to be done. But it is intelligible to say that the context is fruitful although full of challenges. The policy framework should be totally translated into laws, institutions and government budget commitment. Awareness should be raised among the societies regarding the sanitation issue, as it does not harm just the poor population but the entire natural environment.

Literature Review

African Population and Health Research Center (2014): Population and Health Dynamics in Nairobi’s Informal Settlements: Report of the Nairobi Cross-sectional Slums Survey (NCSS) 2012. Nairobi, Kenya. Akech, J. M. M. (2007): Governing water and sanitation in Kenya: Public Law, private sector participation and the elusive quest for a suitable institutional framework. Available from: http://www.ielrc.org/activities/workshop_0704/content/d0702.pdf Abeysuriya, K., Khawaja, N., Mills, F., Carrard, N., Kome, A., Willetts, J. (2016): Applying the WHO’s multi-barrier approach to faecal sludge reuse. SNV Netherlands Development Organisation. Agwanda, A., Khasakhala, A., Bocquier, P., Owuor, S. (2004): The effect of economic crisis on youth precariousness in Nairobi: an analysis of itinerary to adulthood of three generations of men and women. Document de travail DIAL / Unité de Recherche CIPRÉ. Paris, France. Amnesty International (2009): Kenya, the unseen majority: Nairobi’s two million slumdwellers. London, United Kingdom. Brown Colin, Neves-Silva Priscila, Heller Léo. The human right to water and sanitation: a new perspective for public policies. Ciênc. saúde coletiva [Internet]. 2016 Mar [cited 2019 Jan 31] ; 21( 3 ): 661-670. 82

Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo. php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413812320 16000300661&lng=en. Cashman, K. (2017): Community Gardening in Mathare, Nairobi: Opportunities to Improve Food Security and the Right to the City. Technische Universität Berlin. Berlin, Germany. Commission on Revenue Allocation (2012): Recommendations on sharing of revenue raised nationally between the national and county governments for the fiscal year 2012/2013. Nairobi, Kenya. Corburn, J., Hildebrand, C. (2015): Slum sanitation and the social determinants of women’s health in Nairobi, Kenya. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, pp. 1-6. Volume 2015. Article ID 209605. De Albuquerque, C. (2014): Realising the Human Right to Water and Sanitation: A Handbook by the UN Special Rappoteur. Portugal. Desouza, R. (1988): Urban growth and spatial planning of Nairobi, Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya. Dodane, P.H., Mbéguéré, M., Ousmane, S., Strande, L. (2012): Capital and Operating Costs of Full-Scale Faecal Sludge Management and Wastewater Treatment Systems in Dakar, Senegal. Environmental Science &

Technology 46(7), p.3705-3711. Dortmans B.M.A., Diener S., Verstappen B.M., Zurbrügg C. (2017): Black Soldier Fly Biowaste Processing - A Step-by-Step Guide. Eawag. Dübendorf, Switzerland Eawag (2008): Sandec Training Tool 1.0 – Module 5: Faecal Sludge Management (FSM). Dübendorf, Switzerland. GIZ (2015): Closing the Last Mile for Millions: Sharing the Experience on Scaling up Access to Safe Drinking Water and Adequate Sanitation to the Urban Poor.

Kimani, M. N. (2007): Market-based Approaches to Sanitation. Available from: h t t p s : / / w w w. p s i . o r g / w p - c o n t e n t / u p loads/2016/06/Sanitation_EvidenceSeries_ d1.pdf Lee-Smith, Diana and Lamba, Davinder (2017): Nairobi’s 21st Century Food Policy. Urban Agriculture Magazine. Volume 33. RUAF.

GIZ (2017): Up-Scaling Basic Sanitation for the Urban Poor (UBSUP) in Kenya. Sustainable Sanitation Alliance.

Mansour, G., Oyaya, C., Owor, M. (2017): Situation analysis of the urban sanitation sector in Kenya. Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor. Nairobi, Kenya.

Gupta J, Ahlers R, Ahmed L. The human right to water: moving towards consensus in a fragmented world. Rev Eur Commun Int Environ Law 2010; 19(3):294-305.

Ministry of Health (2016): Kenya Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy – KESHP. Nairobi, Kenya.

Ho, G., 2005. Technology for sustainability: the role of onsite, small and community scale technology. Water Science and Technology 51 (10), 15–20.

Mireri, C. (2005): Urbanisation challenges in Kenya. Environment and sustainable development: a guide for tertiary education in Kenya, pp. 109-120. Volume 1. Nairobi, Kenya.

Hope, K. R. (2012): Urbanisation in Kenya. African J. Economic and Sustainable Development, pp. 4-26. Volume 1, Issue 1 of this Journal. K’Akumu, O. A., Appida, P. O. (2006): Privatisation of urban water service provision: the Kenyan experiment.Water Policy, pp. 313324. Volume 8. IWA Publishing. K’Akumu, O. A., Olima, W. H. A. (2007): The dynamics and implications of residential segregation in Nairobi. Habitat International, pp. 87-99. Volume 31. Habitat International. 83

Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2018): Basic Report on well-being in Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya.

Mitullah, W. (2003): Urban slums reports: The case of Nairobi, Kenya. In: Understanding slums: Case studies for the global report on human settlements. University of Nairobi. Nairobi, Kenya. Murray, A., Ray, I. (2010): Back-End Users: The Unrecognized Stakeholders in Demand-Driven Sanitation. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 30 (1). Volume 30, pp. 94-102. Sage. Ndege, P. O. (2008): An assessment of pov-

erty reduction strategies in Kenya. In: Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA). Assessment of Poverty reduction in sub-Saharan Africa: The case of Kenya. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ndege, P. O. (2009): Colonialism and its legacies in Kenya. Lecture delivered during Fulbright. Nairobi, Kenya. O’Keefe, M., Lüthi, C., Tumwebaze, I. K., Tobias, R. (2015): Opportunities and limits to market-driven sanitation services: evidence from urban informal settlements in East AfricaEnvironment and Urbanization. Voulme 27 (2), pp. 421-440. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). Orth, H. (2007): Centralised versus decentralised wastewater systems? Water Sci. Technol. 56, 259-266. Parkinson, J., Lüthi, C., Walther, D. (2013): Sanitation 21: A Planning Framework for Improving City-wide Sanitation Services. IWA. Poulet, I. (2018): Container-based sanitation as a solution for slums? Sanergy’s experience in Nairobi, Kenya. Urban School, Sciences Po Paris. Paris, France. Republic of Kenya (1999): The Environment Management Act and Coordination Act. Nairobi, Kenya. Republic of Kenya (1999): The National Policy on Water Resources Management and Development. Nairobi, Kenya

ter Services Strategy. Nairobi, Kenya. Republic of Kenya (2007): The National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy. Nairobi, Kenya. Republic of Kenya (2010): The Constitution of Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya. Republic of Kenya (2011): The Urban Areas and Cities Act. Nairobi, Kenya. Republic of Kenya (2012): The Public Finance Management Act. Nairobi, Kenya. Republic of Kenya (2016): The Kenya Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy: 2016-2030. Nairobi, Kenya. Republic of Kenya (2016): The Water Act 2016. Nairobi, Kenya. Republic of Kenya (2017): The National Environmental Health and Sanitation Bill. Nairobi, Kenya. Singh, S., Mohan, R. R., Rathi, S., Raju, N. J. (2017): Technology options for faecal sludge management in developing countries: Benefits and revenue from reuse. Environmental Technology & Innovation. Volume 7. Pages 203-218. Strande, L., Ronteltap, M., Brdjanovic, D. (2014): Faecal Sludge Management: System Approach for Implementation and Operation. IWA.

Republic of Kenya (2002): The Water Act 2002. Nairobi, Kenya.

Sharmila L. Murthy JD, MPA. (2013): The Human Right(s) to Water and Sanitation: History, Meaning, and the Controversy OverPrivatization. Berkeley Journal of International Law. Volume 31. Issue 1. Pp. 89-147.

Republic of Kenya (2007): The National Wa-

Shields, B., Ruehle, E. (2016): The Sanitation

Crisis and Social Media: Sanergy in Kenya. Management Sloam School. Satterthwaite, D., Mitlin, D., & Bartlett, S. (2015). Is it possible to reach low-income urban dwellers with good-quality sanitation? Environment and Urbanization, 27(1), 3–18. Tilmans, S., Russel, K., Sklar, R., Page, L., Kramer, S., & Davis, J. (2015). Containerbased sanitation: assessing costs and effectiveness of excreta management in Cap Haitien, Haiti. Environment and Urbanization, 27(1), 89–104. Tilley, E., Ulrich, L., Lüthi, C., Reymond, Ph., Schertenleib, R. and Zurbrügg, C. (2014): Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies. 2nd Revised Edition. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag). Dübendorf, Switzerland. Toilet Board Coalition (2016): Sanitation in the circular Economy. Geneva, Switzerland. UN General Assembly (UNGA), Resolution: The human right to water and sanitation, 2010 (A/RES/64/292). UN-Habitat (2008): Un-Habitat and the Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme: Strategy document. Nairobi, Kenya. UNEP (2016): Sanitation Wastewater Management and Sustainability: From waste disposal to resource recovery. Nairobi, Kenya. WHO/UNICEF (2010): Joint Monitoring Program (JMP): Kenya. Available from: https:// washdata.org/ WHO/UNICEF (2015): Joint Monitoring Program (JMP): Kenya. Available from: https:// 85

washdata.org/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004): Primer for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems. Office of Wastewater Management and Office of Water. Washington, DC. WHO (2009): Global Health Risks Global Health Risks. WHO Mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks. Wilderer, P.A., Schreff, D. (2000): Decentralized and centralized wastewater management: a challenge for technology developers. Water Science and Technology 41 (1), 1–8. World Bank (2016): Kenya urbanization review. Washington, USA. Zwanenberg, R. van (1975): History and Theory of urban poverty in Nairobi: The problem of slum development. Institute for development studies, University of Nairobi. Nairobi, Kenya.