Introduction - Online Documents - IRC Publications - SSHE project

Tenancy and Sanitation Provision in Informal Settlements in Nairobi:
Revisiting the Public Latrine Option

by Madeleen Wegelin-Schuringa and Teresia Kodo

Summary - Introduction - Kitui Village - Mukuru Village -
Mathare Valley 4B - Conclusion - References

Summary: This paper describes experiences with the construction or improvement of public latrines in three informal settlements in Nairobi - including the type of latrine used and the organization developed for their maintenance and for cost recovery. It also describes why public latrines are the only possible sanitation solution for most such settlements, given the high densities, the high proportion of tenants and the very low incomes. The paper ends with a discussion on what has been learnt from these experiences, including how best to ensure maintenance and revenue generation. The paper was published in Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 9, No. 2, October 1997

Introduction

Informal settlements in Nairobi are housing over half of the city population, while they occupy 5.8 per cent of all land area used for residential purposes (1). Although these informal settlements each have their own socio-economic, political and ethnic characteristics, they also have conditions in common. All are characterized by very high densities (up to 63,000 persons per square kilometer)(2) and all have a history of neglect. City authorities have, over the years not regarded provision of basic services their responsibility, as these areas are considered illegal and therefore do not qualify for city services. Thus, water supply services are inadequate, drainage consists of 'natural' drainage channels formed in the paths and roads, which render the roads impassable during the rainy season, sanitation facilities are insufficient and waste disposal services do not exist. Settlements are often located on land unsuitable for residential purposes, either in flood plains, on steep slopes or near hazardous industrial activities. These characteristics apply to many informal settlements in cities in developing countries. A special feature in Nairobi is the very high proportion of tenants, reaching as high as 90% in some settlements. (2)

Land ownership is a complex issue in Nairobi. Most informal settlements are located on public land, but there are also pockets on private land. There is no legal system of permanent allocation of land in these informal settlements, but the chiefs (appointed by the city authorities) issue temporary occupation licenses (TOLs) which can be revoked at any time by the government. The chiefs determine at their discretion who may have a TOL and at what price, thereby establishing a system of patronage. Because all informal areas are illegal, it is prohibited to build anything else than temporary structures. This usually means mud-and-wattle houses with galvanized iron roofing at best. The most common form of tenancy is illegal room rental from (illegal) landlords.

Most landlords in informal settlements located on public land are absentee landlords. They are basically only interested in optimizing the income from 'their' land and hence construct as many rooms for rent as possible. This is clear from the settlement patterns - there is virtually no open space, very few roads and large scale encroaching on the roads and footpaths. Compounds consist of barrack-like structures with rooms of 10 square meter each under a common roof. The rooms are often back to back and the distance between one row to the next row within one compound may be as little as one meter. This comprises the 'outside' space available to carry out activities such as washing, bathing and playing. A single room is generally inhabited by one household , consisting of an average of 5 people. Because the compounds are used to capacity there is usually hardly any space for latrines and often there is only one latrine available for all residents in the compound. This may be from 25 to as many as 200 persons. Landlords do not feel much incentive to carry out improvements of the dwellings, although it could increase the rent, as there is also the risk of the dwelling being torn down if the government develops other plans for the area. Improvements for basic infrastructure are even more risky and usually they do not generate more rent. As discussions in several areas revealed, the amount paid for rent is not related to the provision of basic infrastructure such as water or latrines but is more related to provision of electricity and 'finishing' of the building, that is, cementing of floors and walls (3).

Lack of sanitation facilities is considered a big problem by the residents of most informal settlements in Nairobi, but it is very difficult to improve the situation because of several related issues. First of all, there is hardly any space for latrines, the compounds are built up to capacity and available empty spaces are getting encroached. Secondly, latrines are considered the responsibility of the landlord. Because the landlord usually does not live in the area, s/he is not interested in improving the latrine situation. The tenants are not willing to spend any money as they do not know how long they will be living in the room they are renting now. Moreover the lack of latrines is considered a nuisance but not something for which they would be prepared to pay. Thirdly, the tenants also fear that if they would themselves construct a latrine, the landlord would raise their rent, thus effectively making them pay twice. It should be stressed that for many tenants priority number one is the availability of a cheap room - if there are any savings, these are more likely to be spent on property in the 'home' rural areas (4).

In view of these circumstances, there may be only one option available for improvement of sanitary (latrine) conditions in these settlements and that is some form of public latrines. However, public latrines are generally considered disgusting, smelly, dirty places, which nobody who can help it wants to use. Experience with the operation and management of public latrines in India shows that pay-and-use latrines can work very well for latrines in public places. Community public latrines can work if the user group is defined and involved in planning/management of the facility and employs the caretaker and cleaner. Community and public pay-and-use toilets can function as income generation projects and there is a direct connection between standard of cleanliness of the facility and income to the operator, thus providing an incentive to keep the facility clean (5 and 6). Also in Indonesia, public community latrines, known as MCK, function well under the same preconditions (author observation). In Kumasi, Ghana, residents are willing to pay for public latrines as long as they are well maintained. Revenue of these latrines can be so attractive that the service has been contracted out and the contractor not only pays the municipality to manage the latrines, but also the sub-district in which the latrine is located (7).

When a woman water management group in Kibera, the largest informal settlement in Nairobi, heard about experiences with public latrines/bath houses in other countries, the group indicated that it was interested in also operating such a facility. The authors then decided to review public latrines operated under different conditions in three slums in Nairobi. The field visits were made in June 1996 and the experience in the three areas is summarized below.

Kitui Village

The Kitui-Pumwani community covers a small area in the South-east of Nairobi, near the Industrial area. Undugu Society, a local NGO, has assisted the community since 1983. After a fire destroyed the houses of the community, Undugu Society arranged for a piece of government land and paid for the materials for the 800 displaced households to construct their own mud-and-wattle houses. Each household built a two-room house. At present most of the households rent out one room and the total number of households is now estimated to be about 1600. About 75% of the households is female headed.

After construction of the houses, Undugu Society received funds from Unicef to construct latrines. Five blocks of latrines were built in 1990-1991 At that time, each family contributed Ksh 40 (1 US$ = Ksh. 24.3) to pay for the unskilled labour hired within the community. There are no water taps in the latrines, but water is for sale by jerrican in a number of water kiosks, generally managed by local water committees. The cost of the latrines could not be ascertained, but Undugu field workers assessed that the people themselves at that time would not have been able to construct the latrines without outside assistance.

One latrine block is connected to a main sewer which runs through the area. This block has 20 doors/cubicles, back to back. The latrine system consists of an open trench at the back of each cubicle, which is automatically flushed every ten minutes. Water supply in this block is through a piped connection to the Nairobi City Council (NCC) water supply. Water is supplied free of charge by the NCC, while there are also no sewerage charges. If the people would have to pay for these charges, expenses would be beyond their paying capacity as the system requires a lot of water. There are no separate taps in the latrine.

Each cubicle belongs to 20 households, who each have a key and in turn clean the toilet. The block has a committee, which inspects the latrines every week. In the five years of its existence, the latrine has never been blocked, mainly because the sewer to which the system is connected is very large.

The other four blocks are not connected to the sewer but each consist of a large pit over which 12 cubicles have been constructed back to back. It is a dry pit latrine system. Each block has a committee which inspects cleanliness weekly. When the pit is full, the committee arranges for the City Council desludging truck, for which they have to pay Ksh 800 per load (5000 litres). All households contribute to the desludging. A problem is that it may take a long time before the truck comes after the services have been called (and paid) for. Because of the desludging, many of the pits have started to form cracks, but so far repairs have not been carried out.

Most committees consist of older women who take pride in keeping 'their' latrine block clean and well organised. Initially, all households were owners who felt a sense of ownership towards the latrines, and cleanliness was never a problem. With the increase of tenancy, this is becoming more of an issue. Not only has the number of users doubled, but the tenants also do not feel the same kind of responsibility towards keeping the toilets clean. They feel that they pay rent for it and therefore are not the ones responsible for maintenance. Undugu Society has tried to convince the users to establish a maintenance fund for the latrines, but people prefer to pay when funds are needed.

Mukuru Village

Mukuru Kayabaa settlement is located in the Industrial Area of Nairobi and has a population of 30.000 people. The land is owned by the government and is illegally occupied. About 60% of the houses is occupied by the owners of the structures, the rest of the rooms are rented out. Usually, there is one household per room with an average of 5 people per household. A survey carried out in 1994 showed that one of the highest priorities for improvement was the provision of sanitation services as there were only about 30 latrines for the whole population (or one latrine per 1000 persons). In 1996 two public latrine blocks were constructed by the community with help from the Community Development Office of a local NGO active in education in the settlement.

In the two clusters where the sanitation problem was most urgent, toilet committees were elected, whose task consisted of finding space for toilet blocks and selecting a technology for the latrines. One cluster had 506 households, the other 466. The committees were elected from and by the residents and consisted of landlords and tenants, men and women. Engineers from the Nairobi City Council advised the toilet committees and since there were sewers present in the neighbourhood which could be used, a sewered connection appeared the best alternative. Pit latrines would not have been possible because lack of access prevents the emptying of such pits. Thus, the choice of sites was dependent on proximity to the sewers. In one cluster this entailed the demolition of a number of houses. The committee, with assistance from the chief, found an alternative plot for rehousing and out of community contributions, was able to bear all costs of demolition, rebuilding and loss of rent during the reconstruction process.

The plans for the toilet blocks were made by the engineers in co-operation with the committees and both blocks have 8 doors (back to back), and a trench system which gets flushed manually from a central point. There are two 200 litre overhead tanks directly connected to the municipal water system with a metered connection. In addition, there is a 400 litre overhead tank for reserve supply. Both latrines also have an outside tap from which water is sold. In both cases, the connection to the existing sewer is less than 2 metres long.

Cost of the materials for the latrines were borne by a donor and amounted to roughly Ksh. 350.000 (US$ 7000); the community contribution covered the cost of labour (Ksh. 30.000) and the demolition of the existing rooms and the construction of new rooms. The committee decided that the contribution would have to be borne by the landlords at a rate of Ksh 65 per room. This amount was paid by the tenants who then deducted it from the rent. Thus basically it was the landlords who paid for the latrines. The chief assisted in this collection by talking to the landlords and explaining the need for the latrines and the system of collection of the contribution (through the tenants). Over 80% of the community contribution was actually paid in this way.

Operation and maintenance of the two latrine blocks is carried out by two women in each area, elected by the community and trained by the Department of Public Health in operation, maintenance and environmental sanitation and health. Households become a member by paying a fee of Ksh 20 per month for use of the latrine. For water they pay Ksh 0.50 per jerrican of 20 litre. The attendants keep the facility clean and do the manual flushing when needed. Money collected each day is handed over to the latrine committee. Many people also use the latrine as bathing place which in principle is no problem, except that the floor of the cubicles does not sufficiently drain towards the trench. Thus water drains from under the doors, resulting in standing water in front of the latrine. It is not very difficult for the community to improve this by either constructing a small drain in front of the doors and connect it to the sewer or to cement the floors in such a way that they drain towards the trench in the back.

At the time of the visit of the authors, the latrines had been in operation for more than one month and household membership was not very high. This was a surprise for the Community Development Office and the chief and may have been due to the novelty of the latrines and the fact that as yet no follow-up had been done by the committee. Moreover, some landlords recently constructed individual toilets along the river - to prevent having to pay for the new latrines and as part of village politics. These self constructed latrines directly connect to the river thereby polluting this even more.

The latrines are operating at a profit, despite low membership This is mainly the result of fairly frequent use by non-members (passers-by) and the sale of water. Already, earnings are sufficient to pay the attendants Ksh 1500 per month each and to cover the water bill.

Mathare Valley 4B

Mathare valley is a large settlement in the Southeast of Nairobi, with a total population of approximately 300.000. Mathare 4B is one of the poorest sections of this settlement and has about 30.000 residents. Houses are at best made of mud-and-wattle, but many are made of wood and corrugated iron. None of the houses has a latrine. Almost all residents are tenants and 95% of these households are women headed. Employment levels are very low and most women try to survive by selling vegetables or second hand clothes in the informal sector. Many of the street children in Nairobi originate from this settlement. Residents generally stay a short time in a room: when they cannot pay the rent they shift at night to another part of the settlement. There are no city council services at all in the area, water is being sold by private kiosk owners at a price of Ksh 1 per jerrican of 20 litre.

The Wapenda Afya Bidi Group was formed in 1993 and at present has 27 members, 19 women and 8 men. With the help of a local NGO, they convinced the Nairobi City Council to let them manage the existing public latrine which was not being used because of its deplorable state as it was never cleaned. The latrine is a building divided into two sections of 12 open cubicles, one for men one for women. The latrine system has a trench at the back of all cubicles and the trench is connected to the sewerage. When the group started its activities, the inlet of the sewer was blocked. After much pressure, the city council unblocked it, only to have it blocked again soon afterwards as the sewer is basically too small and connection to the larger pipe not well designed. Yet the group kept the latrine in operation, daily scooping out the trenches with buckets and throwing the contents in the nearby river. When the local NGO ceased to function, the group continued on their own but were unable to actually change the construction and connection problems of the latrine and also were unable to motivate more people to assist in the upkeep. WaterAid, a British NGO, looking for activities in the informal settlements came to know about the group and started assisting them by conducting training in community mobilisation and development, funding reconstruction of the blocked sewer and providing a water connection and water tank, from where water can be sold. This gave a large boost to the morale of the group which was quite low as not only the local NGO had taken funds from the group without giving anything in return, they were also plagued by internal problems.

Each day two members are in charge of the latrine and have to keep the facility clean. They earn Ksh 20 per person for this. When the group started operating the latrine, they assumed that all households in 4B would become members of the latrine by paying Ksh 10 per household per month towards operation and maintenance. In addition, passers-by could use the latrine for Ksh 2 per time. However, this has turned out to be not feasible. Few households are members, total collection per month is about Ksh 1000, while more than 600 people are daily using the latrine. It turns out that the few households who have paid their monthly membership, are sharing the membership card, which gives free admittance to the latrine, with many other households and because the population is so transient, the attendants do not know most of the users. In view of the poverty of most residents, even Ksh 10 per month is considered too much money. In addition, the level of knowledge about and concern for the health effects of random defecation and unhygienic environment is very low. This can also be seen in the latrine, which despite daily cleaning of the management group, is not a very inviting facility as people do not consistently use the trench, but also the rest of the cubicle. The group is still deliberating on better mechanisms for collecting payments and ensuring more hygienic use of the latrine

The group itself had to organise and pay for the water meter which was to be connected shortly after the visit of the authors. Once the water meter is installed, the group will sell water for Ksh 0.80 per jerrican. Because they have a tank and their price is competitive, they have an advantage over most other water kiosks. The group hopes to generate sufficient profit out of the water vending to cover the maintenance costs of the latrine. Also, keeping the latrine clean will become a much easier task. The meter will be placed behind the water tank in the latrine, so the water for flushing and cleaning the latrine is free/subsidised by Nairobi City Council. Two cubicles on each side will be converted into bathrooms, the fee for use will be Ksh 1 and water has to be bought separately.

Conclusion

In all three areas, public latrines are the only possible sanitation solution. The densities are very high, which makes it virtually impossible to construct private latrines. Landlords who do live in the area are generally poor, but are willing to contribute to the construction of public latrines. The tenants are also poor, to a large extent transient and not willing to make investments in latrine construction. The sustainability of the public latrines depends on the technical system selected, but is determined by the approach taken for the management of operation and maintenance of the latrines.

The trench system with automatic or manual flushing connected to a sewer is the most common technical system for public latrines in Nairobi. It is found in all three areas. The committees in Mukuru selected it over any other system as they had seen it in operation elsewhere. Yet there are a number of constraints to the applicability of the system. First of all, it restricts location of public latrines to where sewers are located and connection is allowed. Secondly it must have adequate and secure water supply which is not common in Nairobi informal settlements and unlikely to be sustainable if users would have to pay for it. Thirdly, a system where faeces is pushed from cubicle to cubicle until the trench ends in the sewer is very basic indeed and has a high probability of becoming unhygienic.

There are also positive aspects. The trench system ensures that no blockages occur before the sewer - this is a pertinent issue as different materials are used for anal cleansing which could easily block a pour-flush latrine Also, the water supply not only facilitates cleaning of the latrine, but also hygienic behaviour of the users, especially if the cubicles can be used for bathing.

A dry latrine system is more appropriate to water supply conditions in most informal settlements and also allows the use of different materials for anal cleansing. Moreover, location of these latrines is not dependent on proximity of a sewer and thus has a much wider applicability. However, this type of system needs to be emptied and its effectiveness therefore depends on a reliable desludging service. Experience in Kitui village shows that this is a problem. Moreover, the latrine must be accessible for a desludging vehicle - that usually means a site at the edge of the settlement near the road, which is the most attractive location for income generating activities. Another constraint is formed by the recurrent costs of desludging which always has to be paid by the users. The feasibility of this depends to a large extent on the level of organisation and management of the facility.

To facilitate desludging in dense settlements, a new desludging vehicle was developed in 1996 and is being tested in Kibera, the largest informal settlement in Nairobi. The pedestrian-controlled vehicle consists of a two-wheeled tug unit attached to a 500 litre vacuum tank. A sliding vane vacuum pump evacuates the tank for sucking and pressurizes the tank for discharge wherever gravity discharge is not practical. The 5 hp engine uses a V-belt to drive either the vacuum pump or the wheels of the tug unit as required. In Kibera, the collected sludge is deposited in the sewers which bisect the area: in principle there is a manhole available within half an hour walking distance from anywhere in the settlement. Apart from testing the technical system, the trial period was meant to establish the average number of pits that can be emptied in a day - this is necessary to calculate the fee that must be paid for a sustainable service. At present this fee (Ksh 250 per load, US$ 5) is based on an estimated number of pits that can be desludged per day (8) and on the price people have said to be willing to pay for the service. One of the advantages of the system being that people can opt for any number of loads to be taken out, depending on the amount of funds available. The problem with disposal of the sludge is, that it needs to have a sewer nearby as walking over a longer distance than half an hour becomes ineffective. Methods for temporary storage in mobile tanks need to be looked into. In Dar es Salaam another desludger was developed in the early 90s, the MAPET, which is manually operated. Here, the sludge is buried on the plot after it is taken out of the pits. Hence this system can only be applied where there is sufficient space to dig a pit. This is not the case in most of the informal settlements in Nairobi - and if that space would be available, public latrines would not be such a necessity.

Two types of management of public latrines can be distinguished. In the first type, the public latrine cubicles are more or less divided among the residents who each have a key to their shared cubicle which they have to clean in turn. The users also have to contribute to the maintenance of the latrine when needed. This system seems to work with a clearly defined user group and consistent supervision. However, it breaks down when people do not feel responsible and the level of social pressure to clean the cubicles in turn decreases. This has already started to happen in Kitui Village where the increase in tenancy has a significant negative effect on the maintenance of the latrine cubicles. Tenants are far less committed to maintain 'their' cubicle and are probably even less committed when it comes to contributing to maintenance costs.

The other system is the more 'public' pay-and-use system (but still for residential use), where users have access to all cubicles and do not bear any responsibility apart from regular payment of fees. Where latrines are the result of a community effort, both in planning and implementation, this may work as the latrine operators tend to be residents from the area. They know the users, know who has paid the (monthly) fee and know who has to pay per use (passers-by). As they are hired by the community there is a level of control on the hygienic maintenance of the latrines. Fees collected are seen to remain within the area (for salaries of the operators and maintenance of the latrine). To ensure that the operators keep the facility clean and the user group well defined and known, a minimum level of social control/pressure is essential. The experience in Mathare 4B demonstrates what happens when this social control is absent. In such a case, where poverty basically prevents pay per use, it may be better to raise the price of water to cover operation and maintenance cost of the latrine, instead of user fees.

These cases in Nairobi (as well as experiences in other countries), show that construction costs of public latrines for residential use has to be subsidised by the government or a donor. The users of these latrines, who are mainly tenants, belong to the poorest sections of society. Residential owners are generally also quite poor and non-residential owners need to be forced to contribute - as was successfully done in Mukuru. Yet, community contributions are necessary to generate a sense of ownership and could cover (part of) labour costs and costs incurred to make a space available for the latrine. To what extent owners and/or tenants may contribute will depend on the local situation. Household user fees will never cover more than the cost of operation and maintenance and have to be borne by the user households. How these fees are collected (per time of use, on monthly basis or through water fees) and whether a subsidy is possible for the poorest households needs to be determined by the resident users, who in most cases will be tenants. The question of willingness of tenants to contribute on a membership basis will depend on the nature of the tenancy, that is transient tenants like in Mathare 4B are unlikely to commit themselves to anything, while long-time resident tenants are known to participate in community committees, as in Mukuru Village, and are very likely to be willing to support a service which responds to a felt need.

References

1. Matrix Development Consultants (1993), Nairobi's Informal Settlements: an Inventory. Matrix Development Consultants, Nairobi, Kenya,.
2. Lamba, Davinder (1994), The forgotten half; environmental health in Nairobi's poverty areas, Environment and Urbanization Vol.6, No 1, April.
3. Wegelin-Schuringa, M, J. Gitonga, T. Kodo (1994), Sanitation in Kibera, a low-income urban area in Nairobi, IRC, The Hague (unpublished).
4. Syagga, P.M. and J.M. Malombe (1994), Development and management of informal housing in Kenya: case studies of Nakuru and Kisumu, draft report. University of Nairobi, Land Development Department and Housing and Building Research Institute (HABRI), Nairobi, Kenya.
5. Institute for Housing Studies e.a. (1993) Operation and maintenance of sanitation systems in urban low-income areas in India and Thailand; Final report of a research study by HSMI (India), NHA and Chiang Mai University (Thailand), IHS and IRC (Netherlands).
6. RWSG-SA (1995), People's participation in improving sanitation, a case of Kanpur slums. Caselet no.1 Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, Government of India and Regional Water and Sanitation Group-South Asia, UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, New Delhi, India.
7. RWSG-WA (1994), A comparative case study of Ouagadougou and Kumasi sanitation projects. UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation Program.

Madeleen Wegelin-Schuringa is programme officer at the IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre in The Hague. She is concerned with water and sanitation provision in urban low-income areas. From '93 - '96 she has been working in Nairobi, Kenya.
Teresia Kodo is community development officer of KWAHO, a Kenyan NGO, concerned with water, sanitation and health. She has been working in Kibera, the largest slum in Nairobi over the past 10 years, mobilizing communities, assisting and setting up water management committees and managing a pit emptying service.

© 1998–2003 IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
For comments or questions, please contact IRC.