Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Institutional aspects of slum sanitation: implication of multiple actors

2,094 views

Published on

WASH 2011 conference:

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to like this

Institutional aspects of slum sanitation: implication of multiple actors

  1. 1. Institutional aspects of slum sanitation: implication of multiple actors<br />John Bosco ISUNJU<br />UNESCO-IHE, Delft<br />& <br />Makerere University, Kampala<br />
  2. 2. Introduction<br /><ul><li>Research focus: Socio-economic & Institutional aspects of slum sanitation
  3. 3. In the framework of SCUSA project www.unesco-ihe.org/scusa
  4. 4. Case study: Bwaise III parish, Kampala - Uganda
  5. 5. Context: Urban poor slum settlement with a mix of tenants and petty landlords
  6. 6. Specific focus: Human excreta management
  7. 7. Research methods: A mix of Qualitative & Quantitative methods (In-depth interviews, FGDs, surveys, mapping and literature review)</li></li></ul><li>Sanitation Actors in Kampala<br />
  8. 8. State of affairs in Kampala<br /><ul><li>Sewer coverage is less than 8% of the City
  9. 9. National Water and Sewerage Cooperation (NWSC) – is in charge of Water supply & Sewerage
  10. 10. Majority (>90%) in peri-urban Kampala use pit latrines
  11. 11. On-site sanitation is considered a household responsibility
  12. 12. Kampala City Council (KCC) – monitors, enforces and regulates on-site sanitation
  13. 13. NGOs and government projects come in to fill gaps</li></li></ul><li>Institutional Challenges <br />A lack of Enabling environment<br /><ul><li>Fragmentation of sanitation governance among ministries e.g. MoH, MWE, MES and MLG
  14. 14. None of these ministries considers sanitation their core mandate</li></ul>Low prioritization<br /><ul><li>Sanitation is not high on the agenda; it comes after everything else in planning and budgeting
  15. 15. Water takes a lion's share in the water & sanitation sector
  16. 16. Low funding has a ripple effect downwards up to the user</li></li></ul><li>Institutional Challenges <br />A lack of streamlined institutional framework for sanitation in slums<br /><ul><li>Weak & confusing Institutional frameworks to engage the private sector
  17. 17. Unclear boundary lines between public & private roles in slum sanitation
  18. 18. No specific working urban policy
  19. 19. MoU between the line ministries does not precisely address the sanitation crisis in slums
  20. 20. Sanitation as a cross-cutting issue is said to be ‘every one’s responsibility’, but in reality it is ‘no one’s responsibility’.</li></li></ul><li>Institutional Challenges<br />A lack of streamlined institutional framework for sanitation in slums …<br /><ul><li>Interventions by the multiple actors are not harmonized
  21. 21. Approaches used by one actor do not necessarily complement those of other actors.
  22. 22. E.g. Differences in subsidies or terms & conditions of MoUs can impact the market/community attitude
  23. 23. Politicization of the process, may frustrate the implementation and regulation of desired sanitation improvements
  24. 24. Majority of slum households are tenants
  25. 25. Often, tenants do not invest in sanitation where they rent</li></li></ul><li>The Bwaise III case<br /><ul><li>Tenants are the majority
  26. 26. landlords construct for tenants shared pit latrines
  27. 27. The area is prone to flooding
  28. 28. latrines have to be raised.
  29. 29. Emptying is mostly do manually and contents buried adjacent to the latrine or in other cases drained into storm drains</li></ul>Raised pit latrine due to high ground water table<br />
  30. 30. Map of Bwaise III<br />
  31. 31. Aerial of Bwaise III (~2,000 households, 40,931 p’ple, 57ha)<br />
  32. 32. Public latrines in Bwaise III<br />
  33. 33. Landlords, Tenants, & Third party providers<br /><ul><li>Although third-party providers are demand driven, it's the landlords who demand on behalf of their tenants
  34. 34. Such landlords must have a plot/space that is enough to accommodate a public latrine
  35. 35. Eligible landlords contribute land (20-35 year period depending on the MoU) and are entitled to a stance in appreciation
  36. 36. Public facilities in residential areas are less enterprising compared to those in public areas</li></li></ul><li>Implication<br /><ul><li>Households that do have not private latrines facilities are expected to use the public ones at a fee (UGX 100-300) per visit
  37. 37. Some landlords intentionally avoid the cost of providing a private latrine on assumption that their tenants would use public ones.
  38. 38. Often, tenants prioritize other pressing needs for their diminutive resources more than a better latrine
  39. 39. Many opt out because they can not afford user fees, and more so, when they have cheaper (even if unhygienic) options</li></li></ul><li>For Sure…<br />Prevention is Better than Cure!<br />

×