Main Findings BY Misheck Kirimi Edith Kamundi

Scoping Study Objective: Assess the factors contributing to poor sanitation To analyze the impact of poor sanitation on beneficiaries’ groups and inclusion/exclusion to other WASH services. Analyze existing and potential sanitation innovations and actors

Methodology Focus Group discussions Others 1. Key Informant Interviews  County government  NGOs  NAWASCO 2. Household questionnaires 3. Observations/Transect Walk

Source : NAWASCO Manyani Mwariki

Demographics Nakuru County is the 4 th largest town in Kenya with Nakuru town being the fastest growing town in East Africa at 13% annually ( UN Habitat 2009) Populations statistics Nakuru Town - 500,000 Nakuru Low income areas – 218,216 Mwariki – 24,326 Manyani A – 8894 ( County Health Department)

Land Ownership Manyani and Mwariki was originally ranches land acquired by residents into smaller plots up to two (2) acre in size. Over the years, further subdivisions into much smaller 50x100 sizes Plot owners organized into association that lobby for legal status Ownership is through allotment letters with few having lease titles. Landlords are organized into plot owners associations

Basic infrastructure Road network from Nakuru town into Manyani and Mwariki settlements is adequate Housing is mostly permanent stone walled, a few semi permanent housing made of mud and timber Number of households per plot minimum 5 to as many as 150 houses

Water Supply Approximately 6 % household connection, 66% yard tap connections, 16% water kiosks and 2 pre-paid meters, rest 10% kiosks operated by local including pushcart vendors in a few cases. Kiosk rate - 20Litre jerry cans - Ksh 2 Vendors - Ksh. 10 to Ksh. 20 per jerry can. Water Rationing a common few hours a day for specific number days in a week or limits the quantities of water to households per week e.g. in Manyani tenants reported a limit of seven (7) jerry cans per household per week. To cope, tenants access extra water from vendors supplying water with donkey carts or water kiosks.

Landlord – tenant relationship Own land Responsible for infrastructure within plot – sanitation, water Plot owners Act as middle men for landlords and tenants Collect rent, general maintenance House Agents/Caretakers Pay rent Users Little contact with landlords Tenant

Service levels Sanitation coverage in Nakuru is 59% ( county health department) Sewerage coverage is 25% of population served. Number of latrines Mwariki A – 1692 Manyani A – 7700

Latrine Technologies Main technologies in the target settlements Pit latrines VIP latrines Water borne Pour flush into septic and pits Pour flush/WC Sewerage connections - NAWASCO and Private

Technologies

Latrine Technologies

Costs of Latrines A challenge in construction of improved sanitation options was the high cost of constructing a latrine. In Mwariki A, it cost the landlords Ksh 170,000 for putting up 3 latrines and 3 bathrooms with septic tanks, in addition to the Ksh 10,000 approval fees with the county government. In Manyani making a sewered connection for one door facility was Ksh 80,000, later on pay sewer monthly charges of 75% of water consumption. Operations and maintenance were shared among tenants whose consumption was quite high.

Pit emptying Operating Environment Practices/Activities Considered illegal Stigma attached to the practice Most landlords not willing to admit use of pit emptying Nakuru County bylaws, to include promotion of better emptying practices Organised into a group with savings Support with protective gear Pit emptying Collaborating with commercial exhausters to support removal of solid waste before exhaustion Private Sewer unblocking Emptying/cleaning septic tanks Tariffs – from Ksh 500 to 15,000 depending on the above activities

Defecation Practices It is evident that most residents use toilets Little open defecations Practised in open spaces by those few plots within the settlements without toilets, or for those where pit emptying tales too long The main challenge is the adequacy of latrines and quality of latrines

CLTS in Practice….(1) County Department of public health trained various PHOs to implement CLTS Commenced triggering in Mwariki, Pembe mbili in Mwariki already declared ODF, awaiting verification Enforcement barriers 1. Inadequate access on low income areas 2. Land ownership concerns 3. Harmonization of internal government coordination mechanisms Enforcement barriers 1. Inadequate access on low income areas 2. Land ownership concerns 3. Harmonization of internal government coordination mechanisms Proposed Strategies Sanitation and hygiene policy and by laws to address gaps in sanitation such as regularizing pit emptying. County budget allocations for 2014/15/16/17 to support CLTS, infrastructure improvement and demonstration of sanitation options Improve on enforcement Lobbying for support through partners to support county strategies

CLTS in Practice…..(2) RRTS (Practical Action and Umande Trust) Trained community mobilisers, PHOs 22 villages triggered by December 2013 Three (3) declared ODF Good follow up from PHOs and CHWs Improved relationship with partners Accompanied by intensive hygiene promotion Challenges Focus not spread to schools Triggering mostly involving tenants in majority Tenants have no mandate for sanitation ‘allowable’ sanitation options have high cost for construction Need for more intensive hygiene promotion

Existing Mechanisms Partnerships with K-rep Bank Landlords form a group of at least five (5) persons and open bank accounts Savings of 20% for at least 3weeks before loan is issued, which is held by bank till full loan is approved Affordable Interest rate of 15% on a reducing balance unlike normal loan that is 18.5% flat rate Members are the guarantors for loan Initial Loan Approval is done by the group Umande Trust supports landlords to prepare designs and Bills of quantities which are verified by the Bank Bank has assigned a special officer for easier follow up of loan Repayment period is 2years Maximum approved so far is Ksh 350,000

Opportunities Scaling up to other settlements Including other aspects of sanitation along the sanitation chain Other banks can get involved

Solid Waste Management Period collections in the settlements by licensed operators Costs – Ksh 30 per month, collected with Rent Private operators take garbage to municipal dumpsite Challenge - There is still evidence of indiscriminate disposal in drainages, open spaces

Hand Washing Practices

Gender Issues Menstrual hygiene – pits, garbage. No special disposal Landlords participation mainly by men, due to land ownership structures Female CHWs sometimes have trouble engaging with older members of opposite sex Involvement of youth, except in pit emptying should be more emphasized – hygiene promotion, reproductive health education

People Living with HIV/AIDS Stigma spread to sharing of latrines Home based care givers not careful in disposal Mwariki not organized, trouble in advocacy Manyani is able to advocate for HIV/AIDS issues due to presence of organized groups Concern with confidentiality

Elderly and Disabled Toilets not design for special needs groups Toilets located at the edges of plots, have to walk a distance if in a big plot Lighting is very poor, cannot be easily accessed at night

Drainage A few drainages in Mwariki and Manyani areas Inadequate due to location of settlements downstream of Town. Maintenance is poor, full of solid waste Waste water from bathrooms, laundry, flows freely in the settlements

Sanitation and Climate Change IPCC fifth Assessment report identifies informal settlements as most affected by issues of climate change Reasons: –  Lack of basic infrastructure to deal with inland flooding such as the case of Nakuru  Increased temperatures can lead to high risks to health, lack of income  Water scarcity in most urban low income areas due to congestion – water borne sanitation options

Sector Coordination ICC platform, present with active members NAWASCO coordination mechanism of NGOs Opportunities:- Engage academia – research, student learning More private sector – small enterprises in manufacture of low cost emptying technologies such as gulper

Opportunities Majority of households already on the sanitation ladder Infrastructure into the selected targets to allow for improved sanitation options at settlement level Ability of landlords to invest in affordable sanitation options Willing and enabling working relationship with county government Existing financing product Supporting legal framework – sanitation policy, county by- laws Existing coordination structure

Barriers Imbalance in number of toilets vis a vis number of households sharing Complex landlord – tenant relationship High cost of improved sanitation facilities Geological conditions inadequate for pit latrines Lack of knowledge/ignorance on laws, regulations

Recommendation