Date post: | 05-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Business |
Upload: | international-watercentre |
View: | 1,726 times |
Download: | 1 times |
John Bosco ISUNJU
Institutional aspects of slum sanitation:
implication of multiple actors
UNESCO-IHE, Delft
&
Makerere University, Kampala
WASH conference 2011
Introduction
• Research focus: Socio-economic & Institutional
aspects of slum sanitation
• In the framework of SCUSA project www.unesco-
ihe.org/scusa
• Case study: Bwaise III parish, Kampala - Uganda
• Context: Urban poor slum settlement with a mix of
tenants and petty landlords
• Specific focus: Human excreta management
• Research methods: A mix of Qualitative & Quantitative
methods (In-depth interviews, FGDs, surveys, mapping
and literature review)
WASH conference 2011
Gov
Ministries
NWSC
KCC
INGOs, LNGOs, CBOs, Private sector
Households
Landlords/Owners
Tenants
Sanitation Actors in Kampala
WASH conference 2011
State of affairs in Kampala
• Sewer coverage is less than 8% of the City
• National Water and Sewerage Cooperation
(NWSC) – is in charge of Water supply & Sewerage
• Majority (>90%) in peri-urban Kampala use pit latrines
• On-site sanitation is considered a household
responsibility
• Kampala City Council (KCC) – monitors, enforces and
regulates on-site sanitation
• NGOs and government projects come in to fill gaps
WASH conference 2011
Institutional Challenges A lack of Enabling environment
• Fragmentation of sanitation governance among
ministries e.g. MoH, MWE, MES and MLG
• None of these ministries considers sanitation their
core mandate
Low prioritization
• Sanitation is not high on the agenda; it comes after
everything else in planning and budgeting
• Water takes a lion's share in the water & sanitation
sector
• Low funding has a ripple effect downwards up to
the user
WASH conference 2011
Institutional Challenges A lack of streamlined institutional framework for
sanitation in slums
• Weak & confusing Institutional frameworks to engage
the private sector
• Unclear boundary lines between public & private
roles in slum sanitation
• No specific working urban policy
• MoU between the line ministries does not precisely
address the sanitation crisis in slums
• Sanitation as a cross-cutting issue is said to be ‘every
one’s responsibility’, but in reality it is ‘no one’s
responsibility’.
WASH conference 2011
Institutional ChallengesA lack of streamlined institutional framework for
sanitation in slums …
• Interventions by the multiple actors are not harmonized
• Approaches used by one actor do not necessarily
complement those of other actors.
• E.g. Differences in subsidies or terms & conditions
of MoUs can impact the market/community attitude
• Politicization of the process, may frustrate the
implementation and regulation of desired sanitation
improvements
• Majority of slum households are tenants
• Often, tenants do not invest in sanitation where
they rent
WASH conference 2011
The Bwaise III case
• Tenants are the majority
• landlords construct for
tenants shared pit latrines
• The area is prone to flooding
• latrines have to be raised.
• 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
WASH conference 2011
Map of Bwaise III
WASH conference 2011
Aerial of Bwaise III ( 2,000 households, 40,931 p’ple, 57ha)
WASH conference 2011
Public latrines in Bwaise III
WASH conference 2011
Landlords, Tenants, & Third party
providers
• Although third-party providers are demand driven, it's
the landlords who demand on behalf of their tenants
• Such landlords must have a plot/space that is
enough to accommodate a public latrine
• Eligible landlords contribute land (20-35 year
period depending on the MoU) and are entitled
to a stance in appreciation
• Public facilities in residential areas are less
enterprising compared to those in public areas
WASH conference 2011
Implication
• Households that do have not private latrines facilities
are expected to use the public ones at a fee (UGX 100-
300) per visit
• Some landlords intentionally avoid the cost of providing
a private latrine on assumption that their tenants would
use public ones.
• Often, tenants prioritize other pressing needs for
their diminutive resources more than a better latrine
• Many opt out because they can not afford user
fees, and more so, when they have cheaper (even
if unhygienic) options
WASH conference 2011
For Sure…
Prevention is Better than Cure!