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!