This document summarizes a study on institutional challenges around slum sanitation in Kampala, Uganda. It finds: 1) Sanitation governance is fragmented among different ministries, with no single entity considering it a core mandate. 2) There is a lack of a clear institutional framework for slum sanitation engagement with the private sector and unclear public-private roles. 3) Interventions by multiple actors involved in slum sanitation are not well-coordinated or harmonized.

1. Institutional aspects of slum sanitation: implication of multiple actors John Bosco ISUNJU UNESCO-IHE, Delft & Makerere University, Kampala

3. In the framework of SCUSA project www.unesco-ihe.org/scusa

4. Case study: Bwaise III parish, Kampala - Uganda

5. Context: Urban poor slum settlement with a mix of tenants and petty landlords

6. Specific focus: Human excreta management

9. National Water and Sewerage Cooperation (NWSC) – is in charge of Water supply & Sewerage

10. Majority (>90%) in peri-urban Kampala use pit latrines

11. On-site sanitation is considered a household responsibility

12. Kampala City Council (KCC) – monitors, enforces and regulates on-site sanitation

15. Water takes a lion's share in the water & sanitation sector

17. Unclear boundary lines between public & private roles in slum sanitation

18. No specific working urban policy

19. MoU between the line ministries does not precisely address the sanitation crisis in slums

21. Approaches used by one actor do not necessarily complement those of other actors.

22. E.g. Differences in subsidies or terms & conditions of MoUs can impact the market/community attitude

23. Politicization of the process, may frustrate the implementation and regulation of desired sanitation improvements

24. Majority of slum households are tenants

26. landlords construct for tenants shared pit latrines

27. The area is prone to flooding

28. latrines have to be raised.

29. Emptying is mostly do manually and contents buried adjacent to the latrine or in other cases drained into storm drainsRaised pit latrine due to high ground water table

30. Map of Bwaise III

31. Aerial of Bwaise III (～2,000 households, 40,931 p’ple, 57ha)

32. Public latrines in Bwaise III

34. Such landlords must have a plot/space that is enough to accommodate a public latrine

35. Eligible landlords contribute land (20-35 year period depending on the MoU) and are entitled to a stance in appreciation

37. Some landlords intentionally avoid the cost of providing a private latrine on assumption that their tenants would use public ones.

38. Often, tenants prioritize other pressing needs for their diminutive resources more than a better latrine