ADDRESSING SANITATION CHALLENGE IN POOR URBAN AREAS THROUGH SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES, GENDER INTEGRATION AND

SUPPORTIVE POLICY FRAMEWORK

Report on End of Project Workshop

Held atLake Naivasha Country Club, Kenya

On2-3 April, 2012

Table of Contents

1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................................3

2. Official Opening of the Workshop.......................................................................................................3

2.1 Remarks from Mayor of Masaka.................................................................................................3

2.4 Official Opening...........................................................................................................................4

2.5 Participants Introduction and expectations.................................................................................4

2.6 Objectives of the workshop.........................................................................................................5

Workshop Proceedings : Day One: 2nd April 2012........................................................................................5

3. Project Background and Findings........................................................................................................5

3.1 Key Findings on Sanitation Technologies.....................................................................................6

3.2 Key Project Findings on Gender in urban Sanitation....................................................................6

3.3 Key Project Findings on Policy in urban Sanitation......................................................................7

3.4 Key Socioeconomic issues in Urban Sanitation............................................................................7

3.5 Sanitation Models for the Urban Poor........................................................................................8

4. Field Visit to the project site................................................................................................................8

4.1 Feed Back on Field Visit.............................................................................................................10

4.1.1 Communal Facility....................................................................................................................10

4.1.2 Plot Based Facilities...........................................................................................................10

4.1.3 General Comments............................................................................................................11

5.0 Good practices on the ground.......................................................................................................11

5.1 Schools sanitation - Aqua Privy in Ssenyange Education Centre................................................11

5.2 Sludge Management for Urban Poor settlement.......................................................................12

5.3 Experiences from Nyendo Ssenyange Division:.........................................................................12

6.0 Group recommendations for policies, technology and environmental management...................13

7.0 Recommendations.........................................................................................................................16

8.0 Conclusion and closing..................................................................................................................16

1. Introduction

The end of the project workshop of the IDRC supported project was conducted on 2nd and 3rd of April 2012 at the Lake Naivasha Country Club. The workshop brought together 44 Participants from Kenya and Uganda, drawn from government, Municipal Council, Public health, Ministry of water, NGOs, local & community leaders among others.

The purpose of the end of project workshop was to disseminate the key research findings to stakeholders at different levels – Government (policy), implementers and practitioners in the water and sanitation sector. The workshop also provided an opportunity to share experiences, good practices and lessons learnt.

The workshop was facilitated by the Institute of Environment and Water and NETWAS Uganda. It adopted an inductive and participatory approach to the workshop proceedings including plenary presentations, discussions and group work.

2. Official Opening of the Workshop Richard Rono started the workshop with a warm welcome to the participants. Annabell provided a background of the project noting that the main aim was to contribute to the global, regional and national efforts to meet the MDGs on water and sanitation in the region. Annet Najjuko graced the day with a word of prayer and the official opening began.

2.1 Remarks from Mayor of MasakaHis worship, the Mayor of Masaka, Mr. Kayemba Godfrey Afaayo was given an opportunity to address the participants briefly. He gave greetings from Masaka and hoped for fruitful discussions to come up with some solution to the prevailing sanitation challenges.

2.2 Remarks from IDRC Representative.Dr Francois Gasengayire, the senior program officer at IDRC was also given a change to make brief remarks. He welcomed all present and gave a brief background on how the project came about. He noted that sanitation was critical, given the grievous consequences of lack of or poor sanitation to families and government alike.

He pointed out a number of questions which the project sort to address and expressed his eagerness to listen to what the project has come up with in terms of key findings and lessons learnt. He also hope that different stakeholders, policy makers, NGOs and communities present would do something to tackle the sanitation challenge as a result of learning brought about by the workshop.

2.3 Key Note AddressThe key note speaker was Mr Samuel Kingori, the District Public Health Officer (Naivasha).

He noted that due to overpopulation and environmental problems in urban areas brought about by rural urban migration, poor sanitation is a major challenge that needs to be addressed sustainably. We need sound, affordable and locally based solutions to water and sanitation problems.

He pointed out some poor agricultural and environmental practices that have lead to water scarcity and poor water quality. To address problem of water and sanitation we require appropriate, environmentally friendly, sustainable and affordable technology as well as good solid waste management. There is need to Increase water access equitably so as to lower the disease burden and improve life expectancy.

Mr. Kinjori (DPHO Naivasha) as he gives the key note address (Below Left)

His Worship, Mayor Warothe (Naivasha) officially opens the workshop (Above, Right)

2.4 Official OpeningThe Workshop was officially open by the Mayor of Naivasha, His Worship Jonathan Warothe. He took the opportunity to welcome all participants to Naivasha. The Mayor thanked the project implementers and donor for three things i.e. a public toilet at Karagita, sanitation facilities for some vulnerable members of the community and community/public participation during the whole project process. He thanked WSUP for the work they have done to improve aces to water in Karagita. He noted the major water and sanitation problem in Naivasha is lack of proper planning which is aggravated by rapid population growth.

The Mayor hoped that the workshop would be informative and urged the participants to make use of feedback from the research in a progressive way. The Mayor declared the workshop officially open.

2.5 Participants Introduction and expectationsThe participants who had attended the workshop were given an opportunity to introduce themselves and mention the organizations from which they came from. The participants were

also given a chance to express their expectation of the workshop. The participant’s expectations are clustered herebelow;

- networking with likeminded professionals- learn the best sanitation options/ solutions the project identified for urban poor

settlements- learn more on gender mainstreaming especially in planning, implementation,

management of sanitation facilities especially for the urban poor- identify policy issues in sanitation from Kenya due to the many challenges in urban

sanitation.- Looking forward to have Fun- hear and share experiences of what transpired in the Kenya Naivasha perspective visa

vie what happened in Uganda so that we are able to learn and share and relate and get the way forward.

- learn from research findings especially on how we can use the lessons from research and experience from participants to increase coverage on water and sanitation for the urban poor

Majority of participants (40%) wanted to hear more about the solutions that the research project came up with for addressing the poor urban sanitation challenge. Other participants wanted to learn more about integrating gender in sanitation, policy issues needed and networking and experience sharing with like-minded people.

2.6 Objectives of the workshopMs. Annabell presented the workshops main objective as follows

1. Share results and findings of the research and lessons learnt2. Share experiences on what has worked and explore best possible ways of going to scale3. Concretize recommendations for policy and practice4. Networking with likeminded people and share experiences

Workshop Proceedings : Day One: 2nd April 2012

3. Project Background and FindingsMs. Annabel Waititu began her presentation by posing a question to the participants. Where do you find the greatest sanitation problem - in rural or in urban areas? In response, there were diverse views with some participants feeling that the greatest challenge is in the rural because people are underserved, others views were that urban poor face a greater challenge.

Ms. Annabell then made her presentation of the project’s background, specific objectives and implementation process. She pointed out that the project targeted the urban because of the following;

• Half of the world’s population lives in towns and cities, and it is expected to increase to two-thirds over the next decades – by 2050 according to UN HABITAT.

• More than 50% of urban population live in the slum environment (UNICEF) where sanitation is appalling.

• Sanitation target is lagging behind and the poor urban are most affected, For example in Kenya

Access Sanitation % Water

Urban 19 85

Rural 48 49

Total 42 57

The urban environment and water catchment are most affected by poor and inadequate sanitation

5% of Africa’s GDP is spent on treating sanitation related diseases Inadequate sanitation perpetuates gender inequality

Selection of the target settlements was largely determined by the fact that there were already some partners on the ground – WSUP in Kenya and UN HABITAT in Masaka who were already implementing sanitation projects, who were willing to partner and who would eventually use the data and information generated during the research period. Noting that the project would not necessarily be the consumer of the same information it generated, partnership with a wide range of actors was a key component of this project.

3.1 Key Findings on Sanitation Technologies Ronald Omnyoga from Kenya presented the project findings on, sanitation technologies in the project area, hydro-geological and ecological conditions, the main challenge and issues affecting the integrity of water sources. The key issues identified and were poor quality of facilities (design, materials, and technology); inadequate facilities (underserved); unresponsive designs to gender and user needs and concerns and poor management of facilities.

3.2 Key Project Findings on Gender in urban SanitationThe major issues in relation to gender were unresponsive designs, poor hygiene, lack of privacy, safety and security problems, high cost of accessing or installing sanitation facilities and low participation of women and poor in decision making processes relating to water and sanitation. She noted that in many situations, the project team found cases of sexual harassment including rape when girls are trying to use sanitation facilities. Hygiene and Privacy were key issue of concern to many women and children at all levels – household and school level. Many facilities are shared by many people and many households thereby compromising hygiene, dignity and convenience. Low investments on the poor and stereotypes that many water suppliers hold that poor cannot afford. They are already paying much more than the wealthier in the society.

Recommendations made include - strengthening capacity for gender integration in water & sanitation, - economic empowerment of poor women and men.- increase focus on poor as viable customers and therefore increase household level

sanitation facilities. if the poor are already paying much higher than the well to do in the society, it means they can afford

- address issues of exclusion and bring the local actors into the mainstream. For example, most facilities in the target town faced a major challenge of evacuation when they are full. The manual evacuators are always working behind the scenes (hiding because their job is perceived as dirty) where they are ridiculed and exposed to sanitation and hygiene diseases. Equipping such groups of people with skills and tools for work, and recognizing their contribution to sanitation would enhance safe sanitation in the poor urban settlements.

- Increasing access to water which in many cases shapes the choices of sanitation by especially women.

3.3 Key Project Findings on Policy in urban SanitationTrina Kyomugisha from the Ministry of Water and Environment in Uganda and Josiah Omotto from Kenya presented policy issues in sanitation. In Uganda, the legislation governing sanitation is the Public Health Act (PHA), enacted in 1964, and incorporated in the Laws of Uganda in 2000. There is no separate policy on sanitation although there is an Environmental Health policy 2005 (in line with the sanitation MOU-2001). Both Kenya and Uganda have many policies governing sanitation. Kenya has recently formulated a Environmental sanitation and Hygiene policy 2008. Sewerage issues are governed by the Water Policy 1999 and ACT 2002 in Kenya.

Mr. Omotto pointed out that sanitation is about humility, dignity and equity. The Key policy dimensions in Kenya are environmental governance, Economic governance, social well being and inclusive governance. In both Kenya and Uganda it emerged that there is poor sanitation governance as there is no single institution with comprehensive sanitation mandate, and marred with poor budgetary allocation to sanitation and weak implementation/enforcement.

Uganda has a Water and Sanitation sub-sector Gender strategy (2010-2015) that aims at mainstreaming gender in the WATSAN sector and in enhancing the capacity for gender mainstreaming in the sector. The strategy hopes to facilitate improved opportunities for women, men and other disadvantaged groups to access water and sanitation facilities and participate in their management. In Kenya on the other hand, there lacks a sector gender policy and strategy. However, the current constitution addresses issues of human rights to water and sanitation and gender equity, and can significantly contribute to gender equality in sanitation if effectively implemented.

3.4 Key Socioeconomic issues in Urban SanitationMr. John Njoka was ushered to commence the afternoon session with a presentation on the social economic aspect in relation to the project. He defined Social Economics as everything

about life and it has three pillars i.e. wealth and poverty, interaction issues and cultural issues. He underlined four important things when thinking about sanitation intervention in a community, one, understanding the situation/ community’s social economic characteristics- through surveys, community entry which involves key local stakeholders and gate keepers, sensitization and mobilization of community to help mange the expectation of the community and finally community based designs of the sanitation facility which helps to capture community priorities e.g. women, disabled, men, children e.t.cMr. Njoka also gave a brief profile of the communities such as poverty, low education, high cost of water & sanitation, mental and physical disability, high cultural context and high incidence of gender violence.

3.5 Sanitation Models for the Urban PoorRonald Omyonga and Daniel Mwesige shared on the sanitation models that were identified and tested in the project areas. Any selected design had to meet the gender, social and economic conditions stipulated. The process of identifying and selecting was inclusive and participatory. This was achieved through design clinics that enable participation of all stakeholders and users. The result was that various models were tested at household, community and schools levels. At household level plot based VIP toilets of different locally available materials and Ecosan were tested; an aqua privy toilet water installed at school and public water borne sanitation facility for communal use.

4. Field Visit to the project siteA visit to view the 4 different plot based toilets and the communal/public water and sanitation facility was the last agenda of day one. Purity and Ronald facilitated the participants visit to all the facilities.

View of the Iron sheet plot based toilet Mayor of Masaka viewing Wooden Plot Based toilet

Pumice Plot Based Toilet for a person living with disability. Participants speaks beneficiary

View of hard core, plot based toilet The public toilet at Karagita

Different views of the communal water and sanitation block

Day Two: 3nd April 2012

4.1 Feed Back on Field VisitDay two started with a word of prayer and immediately the session began with participants reflecting on the previous day.. Using the fish bowl technique, Daniel Mwesige facilitated a feedback session that brought out observations, learnings and experiences of the previous day’s field visit. Participants shared their view on different aspects of gender, sanitation technology, policy, social-economic and environmental issues based on their field observasation/ experience. Some of these are listed here below;.

4.1.1 Communal Facility Public consultation key in constructing such facilities Consideration for physically challenged people was recognized and commended at

household and community level. It was however noted that access to the facility is still difficult as the person has to climb out of the wheelchair on to the toilet at household level, sharp edges that would hurt the user, and the position of the door would also pose challenge; at the community level facility, the challenge was mainly the bars that would need to be reassessed.

Community facility all inclusive (enterprising Sanitation merged well with water in public toilet, shower and water kiosk facility and also including a changing room

Ownership- the foreman of the community facility was passionate about the facility. The Community toilet has no disposal mechanism for used sanitary pads and diapers

e.g. incinerator Children were not included in the design and they should not be sidelined. The facilities

should be suited for children as well. Clarification of the management structure of the community facility was sort. There are no hooks for hanging bags, cloths e.t.c in the public toilet. Tapping rain water should be integrated.

4.1.2 Plot Based Facilitieso Good targeting of beneficiaries- giving priority to the needy in societyo Simple and manageable design for benefactor.o Used locally available materialso Liked designs of plot toilets and reason why they were choseno Difficulty in accessing one of the plot toilets. Could cause challenge when

exhausting the toilet in future. o Intervention for the poor with sanitation facilities is good on one hand ,but on

the other hand, the main house of the benefactor needs also improvement- prioritizing

o Toilet for disabled with a pedestal has sharp edges that need refining.o What measures have been put in place for maintenance of the communal facility

o Hand washing facility in plot based is missing.

4.1.3 General Commentso Lack of sanitation facilities in slums has a sanitation policy gap angle to it and

needs to be addressedo Poor solid waste management especially polythene in the area. According to the

participant, Uganda has laws on disposal of polythene but it is not enforced. She sought to know if Kenya have policy on the disposal of polythene bags.

o Natives are exposed to hard labour- stone quarrying done by hand not machineo Poor drainage and solid waste management in the surrounding areao Lobby government to do slum upgrading which will result in improvement in

drainage, roads, water access, better sanitation etco Market sanitation as a “good” not just a “service” e.g. Promote micro-credit &

Revolving fund to raise money for sanitation.

5.0 Good practices on the ground

5.1 Schools sanitation - Aqua Privy in Ssenyange Education CentreSsenyange Education Centre is a school in Masaka that opened 20years ago and was later turned up into an orphanage school to cater for the disadvantaged children. The school has about 700pupils 450 girls, 250boys) with 13 teachers staff. It depends on external support from Sweden and small contributions from guardians. The school participated in decision making and contributed to construction of the aqua privy toilet. The teachers were trained on O&M of the facility. The key benefits of the pilot included provision of a sustainable solution to the school which has limited land for continued sinking of pit latrines; provision of separate stances for girls and boys; and provision of a wash room and incinerator for the girls. The school has developed an action plan and O&M budget for the facility. Ms. Najjuko ended by highlighting some of the challenges they face.

5.2 Sludge Management for Urban Poor settlementMs. Gertrude Salano from Water and Sanitation for Urban Poor (WSUP), shared how WSUP has supported sludge management in Kibera as a good practice.

WSUP identified the need to fill a market gap between the use of pit latrines in the high density informal settlements of Nairobi and the long term Nairobi City Water and Sewerage Company aim to sewer the whole city. Pit latrines are a common form of sanitation facilities in Kibera and sewer connection is still a challenge in the area among other urban settlements.In the meantime, manual pit emptying is the main form exhausting toilets when they are filled up. Disposed waste is thrown into rivers. It done using buckets and per trip it is charged Kshs 2,500 per trip. Pit emptiers (manual evacuators) were stigmatised though offering a crucial service. Residents viewed them as dirt/criminals.WSUP supported in a participatory manner development of a locally manufactured technology to empty the pit, a gulper. Ten gulpers were manufactured and quality checked through various trials and uses. Two are currently being used in Kibera while the other eight have been taken to different countries.

Gulpers in the making and emptiers at work

5.3 Experiences from Nyendo Ssenyange Division: Mr. Jonathan Kabyanga, the Senior Health Officer of the division made a presentation covering the socio- economic background of the division, gender concerns, sustainability of installed sanitation facilities, vulnerability, technology option, ownership and hand over of public facilities, land issues, sanitation challenges and achievements. His presentation also made recommendations on applying the lessons learnt from the project, including law enforcement, gender mainstreaming, promotion of Ecosan toilets, planning and budgeting for O&M. Though out the presentation, he focused on what they intend to do differently in all the mentioned areas.

6.0 Group recommendations for policies, technology and environmental management The group was divided into four groups to discuss some of the key findings they feel be used to inform policy Issues, technology and Environmental Management. The emphasis was made to ensure that gender needs and concerns are addressed at all the three levels;

The results of the group discussions were presented during a plenary session and they reported back as follows;

Group 1Policy Issues Technical Issues Environmental Concerns

Document the process (outcome and lessons learnt). Awareness creation.

Technical designing. Use of holistic approach integrating all stakeholders’ opinions.

Environmental planning. Approval of development intervention

Financial mechanisms in sanitation. Use opposite of PPDA

Appropriateness in terms of sustainability, affordability, functionality and serviceability.

Compliance enforcement (Uganda perspective). Harmonizing different environmental policy and guidelines e.g. presidential and Ministerial directives.

Streamlining roles and responsibilities in sanitation issues.

Looking at technology for sanitation marketing (public facilities)

Environmental planning. Approval of development intervention

Creating awareness on existing policies to the community

Dissemination strategy. Disseminate policies at different levels

Group 2Policy Issues Technical Issues Environmental Concerns

Need for coherence in policy dialogue. Lack of centralized coordination foe policies implementation (e.g. urban and rural cases)

Lack of adequate involvement of private sector in offering appropriate sanitation options.

Observe environmental public health regulations -sludge disposal -Management of solid waste (sanitary towels, diapers) - Sludge exhaustion processes (mechanical/manual)

Land issues in the informal settlements

Lack of a sanitation “basket” for actors and beneficiaries to select from

Gender

Non compliance with regulation constructions

Sustainability in terms of subsidy and O&M.

Get gender sensitive sanitation furniture (pit hole, urinals etc.)

Lack of adequate enforcement of rules and regulations

Cost effectiveness (affordability) of sanitation options available.

Review policies & strategies to be in line with the constitution &the devolution process.

Sanitation financing ( recommendation go for various options)-government bulk

-plot owners.Gaps in regulating on-site sanitation service providers/ cartels.

Group 3Policy Issues Technical Issues Environmental Concerns

Need to unpack what is meant by ‘right to sanitation’

Importance of community involvement

Adopt technologies which are environmentally friendly and promote holistic exploitation.

Explore linkages between urban land policy and sanitation.

Suitable designs for respective target groups i.e. school case in Masaka.

Incooperate hygiene promotion at design level through by providing for trapping/ harvesting water for hand washing.

Gap between good policies and implementation. Involve grassroots stakeholders/ideas in policy formulation and also disseminate massively through media/public gatherings.

Trainings, workshops of effective use of sanitation facilities.

Incooperate issues of disposal of the ash from the incinerators. Ash can be used as soil conditioner.

Both men and women should be given equal platform not promoting women at the expense of men.

Targeting children/ inclusion in training users of technologies

Government should embrace appropriate technologies, come up with policies promoting uptake and good enforcement plans.

There is need for regular review of the designs.

There is a link between corruption and bad sanitation.

Involve experts to design and reduce the cost

Embrace appropriate technology- ISSB

Group 4Policy Issues Technical Issues Environmental ConcernsLand Tenure. This is a problem that affects location e.g. ownership, space and management.

1. Lack of involvement of community in designing available technologies.

Waste from Ecosan, pit

latrine.

Duplication of roles due to lack of coordination between various players i.e. government, NGOs etc.

Site specific- use, management, materials available, affordability

lack of facility for sanitary

towel disposal

National strategy on sanitation, where it exists, it should be implemented and there should be community participation.

Provision of technology options that are suitable and specific to users.

Dissemination of policies to end users

Sustainability and maintenance.

The process of evolving policy is not participatory.

Traditional/cultural issues in promotion of sanitation-Barrier. Use of waste from Ecosan

Gender mainstreaming and reflect.Political will during implementation. Kenya- appointment of various bodies/sectors

Capacity gap to translate the policy into action

7.0 Recommendations

RECOMMENDATIONS

1Policy incentives-Government policy

-To financial agencies2 Empower local communities

-Skills training in sanitation-Private-public partnerships-Develop capacity for local community to build, operate, and manage.-Advocate for their rights

3 Public awareness campaigns for people to understand sanitation needs.

4 Sustainability / O&M for projects e.g. schools, public place to have a budget-Feed back mechanism after monitoring and evaluation.

5 Provision for disposal of used sanitary towels and diapers e.g. Incinerator

6 Availability of cheap sanitary towels through tax incentives.

7 Upscale sanitation budget at all levels

8 Involvement of all stakeholders in sanitation provision -Cultural, Religious and civil society

9 Government should give land ownership to communities or buy land for community and dialogue with the local community.

10 Availability of physical infrastructure plan to guide development at all levels.-Must be followed (Ministry of land, urban development & planning, local authorities, energy, water etc. Need political will.

11 Pro-poor governance for lower local governments

12 Slum upgrading to be speeded up.

13 Provision of incineration facilities to all sanitation facilities

8.0 Conclusion and closingMs. Annabell wrapped up the workshop with some reflections and gave a vote of thanks to the different participants and contributors for making the project and workshop a success. She recalled the support of the municipal councils, Public Health offices and other government institutions; WSUP and UNHABITAT, the local people- recalling their contribution of land for the public facility, the researchers, NETWAS Uganda among the many other actors. She recognised the continued support financially and technically from IDRC. She thanked the Naivasha team for all their support which has been so overwhelming during preparation and implementation of this workshop and recognized the participation of the Council team – mayor, Town Clerk, Town Engineer; the local administration the DO, the Local Chief as well as the Public health Office. She also thanked all those who have contributed during the research in any big or small way. All these contributions added to the success of the project. She urged all

those present to make use of the lessons and experiences shared during this workshop alongside other experiences.

Dr. Francois also gave some remarks and a vote of thanks to the participants. He also posed a challenge to the participants by asking participants what they were going to do with the solutions that the research has come up with. He stated that the solutions should be owned and implemented by all of us. He also encourage the users to get more involved in all stages of decision making and have a final say in the choice of technology and policy making as they are the ones who are directly affected by the outcomes.

-

Official Closing of Workshop

The Mayor of Masaka, Mr. Kayemba in his closing remarks called on the participants to continue working towards appropriate sanitation for all and especially in the urban poor areas. He expressed gratitude for the new knowledge and learning that this workshop brought about and noted that they will implement what they have learnt. He extended an invitation to the participants to visit in Masaka.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: List of Participants

List of Participants to End on Project Workshop

Name Organization /Designation Contact

1. Annabel Waititu Project Coordinator, Direct IEWM 0722021056

2. Richard Rono Administration (EAWLS) 07253874145

3. June Wangui Finance (EAWLS) 0751751245

4. Dr Francois Gasengayire Senior Program Officer, IDRC 0722807851

5. Ronald Omyonga Project Architect (Consultant) 0733579489

6. John Njoka Social Economist 0720414470

7. Josiah Omotto Sanitation Policy Analyst, UMANDE Trust 0723560092

8. Gertrude Salano Water and Sanitation for Urban Poor (WSUP) 0722706844

9. Purity Wangombe Institute of Environment and Water Management, IEWM 0723409164

10. Jared Mecha Institute of Environment and Water Management, IEWM 0721763862

11. Daniel Mwesige Program Officer NETWASS (Uganda) +256772345620

12. Afayo Kayemba Godfrey Mayor Masaka Municipality (Uganda) +256752611875

13. Ashabrick Nantege Bamutaze Social Scientist (Uganda) +256794723475

14. Khasifa Nantaba Gender Specialist (Uganda) +256772442994

15. Rose Nakyejjwe District Environmental Officer (Uganda) +256772556787

16. Kiiza Wilson Senior Community Development Officer (Uganda) +256772083720

17. Kabyanga Jonathan Health Officer Nyendo Division (Uganda) +256755414734

18. Najjuko Annet Ssenyange Education Centre +256785379411

19. Trinah Kyomugisha Salome Environmental Health Specialist -LV WATSAN Project Phase 2(Uganda) +256782853020

20. Jonathan Warothe Mayor/Councilor (Naivasha) 0727084978

21. Mr. Hussein Guyo Chief Hells Gate Location (Naivasha) 0725826952

22. Eng James Ochieng Town Engineer (Naivasha) 0722741797

23. Peter Mburu Chairman KWUA/KMSHG 0722303708

24. James Mburu Secretary WATSAN Committee(KWSC) 0720325481

25. Jane Wanjiku- KWUA Treasurer 0733458691

26. Virginia Wamaitha Karagita Water Users Association 0721564292

27. Samuel Kingori DPHO District Public Health Officer (Naivasha) 0714870997

28. Patrick Wanjohi (PHO) Public Health Officer (Naivasha) 0720734568

29. Angela Wanyama District Officer-Naivasha 0721466139

30. David Kuria C.E.O, ECOTACT 0722509242

31. Camilla Wirseen Executive Director, PEEPOOPLE Kenya 0725953000

32. Priscillar Mwaniki Project Officer, KWAHO 0720917561

33. Clement Manyulu Project Officer,AMREF 0722623107

34. Cliff M. Barkatch NEMA 0723710517

35. Patrick Mwanzia Practical Action 0723816619

36. Leah Gichohi KEWASNET 0720690711

37. Theresa Wasike GFP, Ministry of Water and Irrigation, +25472172888828

38. Nancy Ndirangu WASH Advicer,SNV Kenya 0733608085

39. Goodere S.K. Mwaniki Mirera Secondary School 0724855997

40. Phyllis Thaara Environment Patron, Rubiri Primary School 0727407869

41. Barnard Mulwa Ministry of Water and Irrigation-KWSP 07292841758

42. Terry Macharia Water and Sanitation for Urban Poor 0723607011

43. Rose Nyaga Athi Water Services Board 0722516986

44.James WachiraChairman Town Planning,M.C.Naivasha 0726595973

Appendix 2: Workshop Program

Addressing Sanitation Challenge in Poor Urban Areas through Sustainable Technologies, Gender Integration and Supportive Policy Framework

End of Project Workshop ProgramTime Sessions Facilitator

Day 1: 1st April 2012: Arrival to the Lake Naivasha Country Club at 3.00 pm

Evening tea will be served at 4.00 pm at the Hotel.

Day 1 – Monday April 2nd, 2012

8.00-8.30am Registration of Participants Purity and Mecha

8.30-9.00am Welcome and Introduction AnnabellRono

8.40. 9.00 Opening and key note address Ministry of Public HealthCouncil, DPHOIDRC - FrancoisMayor, Naivasha

9. 00 - 9.15 Project Background and Objectives & process Annabell Waititu

9.15 – 9.30 Key Project Findings 1: Sanitation Technologies in the project area, Hydro-geological and ecological conditions, Main challenges,Issues affecting the integrity of water

Ronald

9.30 – 9.45 Key Project Findings 2: Key Socioeconomic issues in urban sanitation

John Njoka

9.45 - 10.00 Key Project Findings 3: Gender in urban Sanitation Annabell

10:00 -10:30am Plenary discussions on Socioeconomic and Gender findings

Share successes and good practices

Gertrude

10:30- 11.00am Tea Break

11:00-11:30am Key Project Findings 4: Sanitation Policy issues in urban sanitation

Ministry Water Uganda /Omotto

11:30-12:15am Sanitation Models for the urban poor Ronald Omyonga/ NETWAS Uganda

12:15-1:00pm Discussions on Sanitation Models

Policy issues for urban sanitation?

Daniel (NETWAS UG)

1.00 -2:00pm Lunch Break

2.00 – 2.15 pm Prepare for the field visit Ronald

2:15 – 4.00pm Travel to the Communal and plot based sanitation models Ronald & Purity

04:00-04:30pm Tea Break

04:20-04:30pm Closing for the day

Time Sessions Facilitator

Day 2 – Tuesday April 3rd , 2012

8.30 - 9.30am Feedback session on field visits Participants/Ronald Omyonga

9.30-9.45am Experiences (beneficiaries) &

Lessons learnt and key messages

Ssenyange Education centre, Health officer, community,

Gertrude9.45-10.30am Working Groups – Key findings that can inform

- Policy issues- Technical issues- Environmental management

Participants

10:30 – 11.00am Tea Break

11:00- 12:00am Feedback and Key Recommendations participants

12.00 – 12.15 Closing IDRC Mayor, Masaka

12.15 – 1.00 Lunch and Departure All