Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
KISUMUSAN BASELINE SURVEY REPORT
Report Submitted to Practical Action, East Africa Regional Office
DECEMBER 1, 2016 COUNTY RESEACH AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
P.O.Box 19472 Kisumu
1
Acknowledgement County Research and Development Consultants wishes to thank Practical Action, East Africa Regional
Office for this opportunity to contribute to the creation of new knowledge in the WASH sector in Kenya.
This study comes at a crucial time in Kenya. A time when Kenya has declared her strategic intention to
embark on long term development. We believe that findings of this study contribute to other studies to
provide the basis for measuring progress in the WASH sector.
County Research and Development Consultants sees this as a great landmark to celebrate. County
Research and Development Consultants thanks all those whose efforts contributed to the production of
this survey.
We thank Practical Action for the opportunity and the financial support to carry this out.
We thank the Government of Kenya through its various units who made contributions to the survey
notably the Kisumu County Government and sub-county teams and contact who provided the support
we wanted to carry this out.
We thank all interviewees and communities who facilitated our work.
Finally, we thank the baseline survey team for their commitment and dedication in getting this done in
good time. County Research and Development Consultants will like to single out Mathew Okello,
Practical Action’s Project manager-Urban WASH and waste management, for taking up this challenge
and preparing the ground with the partners and the community in Obunga and Nyalenda.
Through your collective efforts we have a baseline report and we thank you for this.
County Research and Development Consultants
December 2016
2
THE REPORT The information in this report provides a summary of the key required data for the Kisumu sanitation
program. This data set provides a baseline for the KisumuSan project being implemented by Practical
Action in partnership with Kisumu Urban Program (KUAP) and Umande Trust.
The survey report is presented in five broad sections.
Section 1: Gives a summary of the findings from the data that was collected and analyzed
Section 2: Introduces and provides a detailed description of the study area where data was collected.
This section also describes the water and sanitation in the county based on extensive literature review
that was undertaken for this study.
Section3: This section describes the methodology that was used in executing this study leading to the
numerous conclusions that have been arrived at.
Section 4: This section focusses on the findings of the study. Both quantitative and qualitative has been
analyzed in response to the survey objectives. The section gives a rapid run through of respondents,
percentages, and measurable quantities of indictors as they related to WASH.
Section 5: This section provides an analysis of policy and institutional framework for the WASH sector
within the project implementation environment.
3
Abbreviations and acronyms BCC Behavior Change Campaign
CLTS Community Led Total Sanitation
CHW Community Health Worker
OD Open Defecation
ODF Open Defection Free
DHSF District Health Stakeholder Committee
ESH Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHD Global Hand washing Day
GIC Global Initiative Committee
GLAAS Global Analysis & Assessment of Sanitation & Drinking Water
GSF Global Sanitation Fund
HWTSS Household Water Treatment and Safe Storage
ICC Inter-agency Coordinating Committee
IPC Interpersonal Communication Tools
JICC Joint Inter-agency Coordinating Committee
JMP Joint Monitoring Programme
KeBS Kenya Bureau of Standards
KES Kenya Shilling
KMTC Kenya Medical Training College
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
NACOSTI National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation
NPRI National Planning for Results Initiative
PHO Public Health Officer
PHT Public Health Technician
PoU Point of Use
PSI Population Services International
SSHIT Shared Sanitation, Hygiene, Information and Tales
SWA HLM Sanitation and Water for All High Level Meeting
ToR Terms of Reference
TWG Technical Working Group
USD United States Dollar
WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene
WTD World Toilet Day
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 1
THE REPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................... 3
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... 5
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 13
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................................................ 13 1.2 Status of Urban Water and Sanitation in Kenya .......................................................................... 14
1.3 BACKGROUND TO KISUMU COUNTY AND CITY ........................................................................................ 15 1.3.1 Sanitation Services in Kisumu County .............................................................................................. 16 1.3.3Growth and development of slums in Kisumu City ............................................................................ 17 1. 5.1 Status of water supply and Sanitation services in Kisumu City ....................................................... 21 1.6Slum upgrading initiatives in Kisumu ................................................................................................... 23 1.6.1 Cities Development Strategy .............................................................................................................. 23 1.6.2 Millennium Cities Initiatives ............................................................................................................. 23 1.6.3Cities without Slums ............................................................................................................................ 23 1.6. 4 Kisumu City Partnership for Improved Sanitation in Informal Settlements (KisumuSan) ............... 24 1.7 Climate Change and related issues in Kisumu City ............................................................................. 25 1.7.2 Impact of Climate Change on City Management and Residents ...................................................... 26
CHAPTER TWO: THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................... 27
2.1 OVERALL STUDY DESIGN .................................................................................................................................. 27 2.2. SAMPLING .................................................................................................................................................... 27
2.2.1 Sampling procedures for the household survey ................................................................................ 27 2.3 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES ............................................................................................................... 28 2.4 RESOURCE MAPS ............................................................................................................................................ 28 2.5 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGD) ................................................................................................................... 28 2.6 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................................ 28 2.7 DESK REVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 28 2.8 EXECUTION OF THE STUDY ......................................................................................................................... 29 2.9 DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................................. 29
3.0 CHAPTER THREE: STUDY FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 30
3.1 BENEFICIARY ANALYSIS IN RELATION TO ACCESS TO AND QUALITY OF WASH SERVICES .............................................. 30 3.1.1 Profile of landlords/ladies .................................................................................................................. 32 3.1.2 Membership to plot owners association in Obunga and Nyalenda Areas ....................................... 33 3.1.3 Challenges faced in terms of providing better sanitation facilities for tenants: .............................. 34 3.1.4 Investment in Water and sanitation improvement by plot owners in Obunga and Nyalenda Areas
..................................................................................................................................................................... 34 3.2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SOCIAL INCLUSION ............................................................................................. 36
3.2.1 Membership to social groups/networks and what they do (social capital) ..................................... 36 3.3 WASH SERVICE COVERAGE .............................................................................................................................. 38
3.3.1 Water and Sanitation Services in Nyalenda and Obunga Settlements ............................................ 38 a) Water sources ....................................................................................................................................................... 38 b) Water treatment .................................................................................................................................................. 40 c) Water Storage ....................................................................................................................................................... 41
3.3.2 Methods of Solid waste Disposal in Obunga and Nyalenda Areas ................................................... 41 3.3.4 Disposal of human excreta in Obunga and Nyalenda Settlements .................................................. 43 3.3.5, Available institutions/Facilities ........................................................................................................ 49
5
3.4 WATER AND SANITATION ISSUES IN SCHOOLS ....................................................................................................... 49 3.5 ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE COMMUNITY ON SANITATION AND HYGIENE ....................................................................... 50 3.6 FINDINGS FROM THE DISCUSSION WITH- RESIDENT ASSOCIATION/NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATION ................................ 51 3.7 MAPPING OF PARTNERS/STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................................................ 53 4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SANITATION .................................... 55
4.1 International and regional Policy Context ............................................................................................ 55 4.2 National and County Policy Context ..................................................................................................... 55
4.2.1 The Contrition of Kenya (2010) ....................................................................................................................... 55 4.2.3 National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy (2007)...................................................................... 57 4.2.4 National Health Policy Framework- (2012-2030) ............................................................................................ 57 4.2.5 Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy (2016-2030) ........................................................................... 57 4.2.6 Water Act, 2012 ............................................................................................................................................... 58 4.2.7 Water Act, 2014 ............................................................................................................................................... 59 4.2.8 The National Water Services Strategy (2007-2015) ........................................................................................ 59 4.2.9 Kisumu County Water Policy ........................................................................................................................... 60
4.2.10 Pro Poor Implementation Plan for Water and Sanitation ............................................................. 61 4.2.11 Strategic Guidelines for Improving Provision of Water and Sanitation Services to LIAs in Kisumu
..................................................................................................................................................................... 61
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................. 63
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE FOCUSED GROUP DISCUSSIONS FGDS .............................................................................. 63 KISUMUSAN BASELINE SURVEY HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................................................................... 65 LAND LORDS/LADIES’ QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................................................................... 75 PRIMARY SCHOOLS’ QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................................................ 78 GUIDE TO WOMEN ONLY FGD ................................................................................................................................ 81 BUSINESS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR WASH SME ............................................................................................................ 83 FGD GUIDE FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD/RESIDENTS PLANNING ASSOCIATIONS .................................................................... 85 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW CHECKLIST .................................................................................................................... 86
List of tables
Table 1: Population size and distribution in Nyalenda A ..................................................................... 18
Table 2: Population assize and distribution in Nyalenda ‘B’ ............................................................... 19
Table 3: Population size and distribution in Obunga ........................................................................... 20
Table 4: Household’s head in Obunga and Nyalenda ........................................................................... 30
Table 5: Education levels of the respondents ....................................................................................... 30
Table 6: Sources of income ................................................................................................................... 31
Table 7: Average Household Income per month .................................................................................. 31
Table 8: Ownership of occupied house ................................................................................................. 32
Table 9: Challenges faced in providing better sanitation facilities ....................................................... 34
Table 10: Future preferred mode of disposal of human excreta .......................................................... 34
Table 11: willingness to take a loan to improve sanitation facilities .................................................... 35
Table 12: Interest participants willing to pay to improve sanitation facilities ..................................... 35
Table 13: Assistance to construct toilets/latrines ................................................................................. 36
Table 14: Committees/associations that exist ...................................................................................... 36
Table 15: Recognized leaders in the community .................................................................................. 36
Table 16: Participation in various committees ..................................................................................... 37
Table 17: Membership to various committees ..................................................................................... 37
Table 18: Ways of participating in the various committees ................................................................. 37
Table 19: whether committees effectively address concerns raised ................................................... 38
6
Table 20: Tenants mode of access to water ......................................................................................... 39
Table 21: Sources of drinking water ..................................................................................................... 39
Table 22: Source of water for cooking .................................................................................................. 39
Table 23: Source of water for washing ................................................................................................. 39
Table 24: Source of water for livestock ................................................................................................ 40
Table 25: treatment for drinking water ................................................................................................ 40
Table 26: Water storage ....................................................................................................................... 41
Table 27: Ways of solid waste disposal ................................................................................................. 41
Table 28: Challenges of effective waste management ......................................................................... 42
Table 29: Recommendation for addressing challenges of effective waste management .................... 42
Table 30: Availability of toilets within the plot ..................................................................................... 43
Table 31: Type of toilets within the plot ............................................................................................... 43
Table 32: Method of disposal of human excreta where toilet ............................................................. 43
Table 33: Ways of disposing human excreta ........................................................................................ 43
Table 34: Conditions of the latrines within the plots............................................................................ 44
Table 35: Methods of emptying filled up latrines ................................................................................. 45
Table 36: Frequency of toilet cleaning .................................................................................................. 45
Table 37: Responsibility of toilet cleaning ............................................................................................ 45
Table 38: Latrine/toilet functionability of the door .............................................................................. 46
Table 39: Materials used for toilets wall construction ......................................................................... 46
Table 40: when hands are washed ....................................................................................................... 47
Table 41: where children’s feaces are disposed ................................................................................... 47
Table 42: Description of quality of the toilet ........................................................................................ 48
Table 43: Point of disposal of waste water from the household .......................................................... 48
Table 44: Available facilities .................................................................................................................. 49
Table 45: Rating of performance of the county government ............................................................... 53
Table 46: Areas where the county government needs to improve ...................................................... 53
Table 47: Development partners working within the settlement ........................................................ 54
Table 48: Functions of the National vs County Governments in relation to sanitation ........................ 56
7
Summary of the findings Household socio-economic and demographic characteristics
i. In both Nyalenda and Obunga Settlements, majority of heads of households were men at 70.8%
and 60.8% respectively.
ii. Women headed 29% and 37% of the households in Nyalenda and Obunga while 1 household
was headed by a child in Obunga.
iii. Most of the respondents (42%) in Nyalenda have attained primary level of education followed
closely by secondary level of education (38%) while in Obunga, most of the respondents (47%)
have attained secondary level of education followed closely by primary level at 31%.
iv. In both the settlement areas, gender differentials are significant on the highest level of
education. Most of the women headed households in Nyalenda (50%) only attained primary
level of education with just 31% of the women having gone beyond primary level of education
compared to men headed households with more than half (59%) going beyond primary level of
education.
v. The same was noted in Obunga where just 42% of women heads of households compared to
74% of men headed households had gone beyond primary level of education
vi. 17% of the male household heads had attained tertiary level of education compared to Obunga
with 22.6%. Their female counterparts in both settlements had not attained any tertiary level
of education (0%).
vii. Majority of the households in Nyalenda (54%) have between 5 and 8 members while majority
of the households in Obunga (59%) had between 1 and 4 members.
viii. More than 50% of the respondents rely on own business or self-employment as the main source
of income at 71% and 53% for Nyalenda and Obunga settlements, respectively
ix. There is a significant differences in sources of income between the two settlements as more of
the respondents in Nyalenda depend on self – employment (38%) while in Obunga, more
respondents depend on salaried employment as the main source of income at 31%.
x. There is gender disparity in household incomes in Nyalenda where majority of the women
headed households (73%) had the lowest average monthly income of between KES 5000 and
KES 10000 compared to men headed households (44%), who had average monthly household
income of between KES 10000 and KES 20000 in the same settlement area.
xi. In Obunga, the disparity is still evident with 57.9% of the women earning between KES 5000
and KES 10000, against 25.8% of their male counterparts. Similarly, 54.8% male headed
households earned between KES 10,001 and KES 20,000 as compared to their female
counterparts who accounted for a paltry 31.6% within the same income bracket. 19.4 % of the
male headed households earned KES 20000 and above as compared to only 10.5% of the female
headed households.
xii. In terms of house occupancy, majority of the respondents are tenants in both settlements
(Nyalenda – 60% and Obunga – 80%).
xiii. Gender differentials were noted in terms of home ownership in Nyalenda where majority of the
women headed households (58%) of the respondents owned the houses themselves compared
8
to men headed households that only owned 33.3% of the houses they occupied in the same
settlement. In Obunga, 21.1% of the women owned their houses while their male counterparts
owned 16.1%.
xiv. House rent ranged between 2400 for a single unit in Nyalenda and KES 2000 for the same kind
of unit in Obunga.
xv. Majority of the landlords were male in both Obunga and Nyalenda at 75% and 73%
respectively.
xvi. On average, housing units owned by a single landlord/landlady in the two settlements varied
from between 6 to 8 units in Nyalenda and between 8 and 10 units in Obunga.
xvii. Landlords or plot owners are not organized into associations as only one plot owner/landlord
in Obunga and Nyalenda confirmed belonging to a landlord’s self-help group.
Environmental Sanitation
xviii. Landlords in Obunga cited poor sanitation and hygiene practices by tenants as the main reason
for poor sanitation in the settlement at 57.1% while their counterparts in Nyalenda reported it
at 45.8%. Lack of sewerage was cited at 12.5% in Nyalenda as a contributing factor to the poor
state of sanitation in the settlement.
xix. In addition 20% of landlords in Obunga cited high cost of constructing durable toilets while
16.7 % of their counterparts in Nyalenda cited high water table and poor soil structure as
contributory factors.
xx. 87% of plot owners/ landlords have thought of taking the necessary steps to improve their
tenants’ human excreta disposal in Obunga while in Nyalenda, this proportion stands at 83%.
xxi. In Obunga, 47% of the landlords/plot owners would like to improve their toilets to flush
toilet/WC and 40% to VIP latrines. In Nyalenda, however, plot owners desire to improve to pit
latrine and flush toilet/WC at 30% and 26% respectively.
xxii. Only 8.7% and 13% in Nyalenda are willing to upgrade to pour flush and WC connected to
septic tank in Nyalenda, respectively and 0% in Obunga.
xxiii. 93% of landlords/plot owners in Obunga and 91% in Nyalenda are willing to invest in their
preferred modes of improved human excreta disposal.
xxiv. None of the plot owners in Obunga have ever taken a loan to improve the sanitation facilities
in their plots but all are willing to take a loan for the same purpose.
xxv. In Nyalenda, only 3 of the plot owners have taken loans to improve the sanitation facilities in
their plots but 90% of those who have never taken a loan to improve sanitation in their plots
are willing to take such loans for the same purpose.
xxvi. In Obunga, all those willing to take loans to improve sanitation in their plots are willing to take
it up at 0% interest rate. The 0% interest rate is also preferred by 88% of the plot owners who
are willing to take a loan for the improvement of sanitation facilities in Nyalenda.
xxvii. The plot owners in Obunga are willing to take on average KES 25750.00 while in Nyalenda,
the plot owners are willing to borrow up to KES 4000 to improve sanitation facilities for their
tenants.
xxviii. Only 14% of the plot owners in Obunga confirmed ever receiving assistance in constructing
their existing toilets or latrines. In Nyalenda just 4% of the plot owners had received such help.
The assistance was in form of vent pipes in both cases.
9
Human Excreta Disposal and Hygiene
xxix. Majority of the households had pit latrines in their plots both in Nyalenda (78%) and Obunga
(72%). At least one household in each of the two settlements practiced open defecation (OD)
to dispose human excreta with the main reasons given being inadequate toilets in the settlements
xxx. Interestingly, however, the proportion of toilets that were either dirty, filled up, partly collapsed
and no longer in use was 40% in Nyalenda and 50% in Obunga.
xxxi. Therefore, effective latrine coverage and usage for the two settlements can be estimated at 38%
in Nyalenda and 22% in Obunga. Of this total, only 25% of the residents in Nyalenda felt the
toilets were safe and secure to use while in Obunga, only 21% felt the same.
xxxii. Makeshift toilets accounted for 6% and 18% in Nyalenda and Obunga respectively, while the
Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) accounted for 8% and 4% for Nyalenda and Obunga
respectively.
xxxiii. 7% and 21% of the toilets in Nyalenda and Obunga were filled up respectively and a further
16% and 10% required emptying at the time of the survey
xxxiv. 90% of the plot owners/ landlords/landladies interviewed in Obunga confirmed manual pit
emptying as the most common method for faecal sludge management while 70% of their
counterparts in Nyalenda did the same. Only 29% of landlords/landladies in Nyalenda used
mechanical exhauster services for pit emptying against 0% in Obunga.
xxxv. The tenants corroborated the above figures on prevalence of manual pit emptying at 71% for
Nyalenda and 92% for Obunga. Mechanical exhausters recorded 29% points in Nyalenda and
0% point in Obunga.
xxxvi. Most of the existing toilets in both the areas are cleaned daily (Nyalenda – 60%, Obunga –
53%) and when they are dirty (Nyalenda - 24% and 25%). Just 6% of the toilets in both
Nyalenda and Obunga are not cleaned at all.
xxxvii. Majority of the respondents from both settlements (Nyalenda – 67%, Obunga – 77%) where
toilets are at cleaned irrespective of the frequency in a day, week or month, agreed it is the
responsibility of the tenants to clean the toilets. Only a marginal 3.5% in Nyalenda and 6.3%
in Obunga felt it was the responsibility of the landlords.
xxxviii. 42% of respondents in Nyalenda and 46% in Obunga are at least satisfied by the current latrine
systems. 17% in Nyalenda and 26% in Obunga felt their latrine systems provided poor privacy
while 21% and 39% in Nyalenda and Obunga respectively, felt the toilet systems offered poor
convenience to users
xxxix. An insignificant 6% and 9% for Obunga and Nyalenda settlements, respectively, had hand
washing facilities
xl. Majority of the households in both the areas wash their hands with soap quite often (Nyalenda
- 95%, Obunga – 100%). In both areas, most people wash their hands just after visiting the toilet
(Nyalenda – 87%, Obunga – 88%), before and after eating food (Nyalenda – 73%, Obunga –
73%) and just before preparing food (Nyalenda – 53%, Obunga – 45%).
xli. Hand washing is mainly done in a basin or trough by most of the households in both the
settlement areas (Nyalenda – 85%, Obunga – 88%).
xlii. Waste water disposal was mainly done on open ground (Nyalenda – 73%, Obunga – 63%)
followed by open drains (Nyalenda – 21%, Obunga -31%).
10
Solid Waste Management
xliii. The landlords/ plot owners aver that the most common waste disposal method in Obunga are:
burning (53%), Open dumping sites or fields (27%) and compost pit (13%) while in Nyalenda
they are: burning (62%), open dumping/field (21%) and compost pit (8.3%).
xliv. The household survey findings confirmed the above, but gave high scores for burning in both
settlements (Nyalenda – 61%, Obunga – 51%). This was followed by compost pit (Nyalenda –
27%, Obunga – 45%).
xlv. On willingness to pay for solid waste collection services, 31% of the households in Nyalenda
are willing to pay for waste collection while in Obunga, a slightly higher proportion of 37% are
willing to pay for waste collection. The households are willing to pay up to KES 147 (23%) in
Nyalenda and KES 160 (39%) in Obunga respectively.
xlvi. In Nyalenda, the four (4) most common challenges of effective waste management in that order
is: poor waste disposal and sanitation practices from tenants, poor waste management by the
county government, Lack of enough toilet coverage and poor planning for infrastructure.
xlvii. In Obunga, these challenges are: poor planning for infrastructure, poor waste disposal and
sanitation practices from tenants, poor waste management practices by the county government
and lack of enough toilet coverage in the area.
Sources, cost and household water treatment and storage
xlviii. According to plot owners/landlords, the most common water points in Obunga is the standpipe
within the plot (47%). This is followed by water vendors at 33% while 13% indicated existing
household water connections.
xlix. In Nyalenda, 67% of the landlord/plot owners confirmed existence of standpipe within the plot
while 21% indicated household connection within the settlement.
l. From the household survey however, the most common source of drinking water among the
residents in both the two settlements are water kiosks (Nyalenda - 54%, Obunga – 63%)
followed by communal stand pipe (Nyalenda – 36%, Obunga – 31%). Only 10% of households
in Nyalenda relied on water connection in their households for drinking. For Obunga, the
proportion of households dependent on drinking water from household water connection was
only 4%.
li. The average cost of 20 litre jerrican of water from the kiosk was KES 3 in Nyalenda while in
Obunga the same quantity of water was sold for KES 3.94.
lii. The time taken for round trip to fetch water in Nyalenda was 6.5 minutes in Nyalenda while it
was 5.8 minutes in Obunga.
liii. 63% of the households in Nyalenda treat their drinking water while in Obunga, the proportion
of households that treat their drinking water stands at 53%.
liv. The most common mode of water treatment in the two settlements is chemical treatment used
by 70% and 72% of the households in Nyalenda and Obunga respectively. This was followed
by boiling at 27% in Nyalenda and 24% in Obunga, respectively.
lv. Most households in Nyalenda (54%) store drinking water in traditional pots while 37% of their
counterparts in Obunga did the same. Jerrican containers were also common in Obunga at 33%
and Nyalenda at 24%.
Community leadership and participation in decision making
lvi. Various committees exists to take care of health, water, environment and education in both
settlements. However, 15.7% of respondents in Nyalenda were aware about the water
committee as compared to 9.8% in Obunga. The Neighbourhood Planning Association (NPA)
11
in Nyalenda was known to 9% while the Residents Association in Obunga was known to 9.8%
only.
lvii. Majority of the women headed households (86%) in Nyalenda recognized provincial
administration (chiefs and assistant chiefs followed by religious leaders just like men in the
same area (provincial administration – 84%, religious leaders – 44%).
lviii. In Obunga, respondents also recognized the provincial administration at 95% for women and
77% for men.
lix. Of the respondents interviewed, 28% in Nyalenda were members of at least one of the
committees or associations confirmed to exist in the area while just 6% were members of any
such committees or associations confirmed to exist in Obunga.
lx. Members of any of the committees in Nyalenda, participate in the committees by attending
public participation meetings (39%) and raising issues affecting them and their communities
(28%).
lxi. Residents of Obunga and who are members of any of the committees, participation is mainly
by other engagements (42%), election of leaders (25%), attending public participation meetings
(17%) and raising issues affecting them and their community members (17%).
lxii. Participation by attending public participation meetings and raising issues affecting the
community were significantly different across the two settlements. Fewer respondents
confirmed participation in this manner in Obunga (17%) than Nyalenda (39%). A similar
number participated by raising issues affecting them and other community members (17%) in
Obunga as compared to 28% in Nyalenda.
lxiii. A higher proportion of men (30.6 %) compared to women (23.1%) were members of such
committees in Nyalenda.
lxiv. Majority of the respondents from the two areas do not believe that the committees are effective
in addressing the concerns raised by members of the community (Nyalenda – 71%, Obunga –
91%).
lxv. There was no significant relationship in the perception of women and men regarding the
effectiveness of the committees in addressing the concerns raised by community members at
34.8% for men and 15.8% for women in Nyalenda while in Obunga 15% of the men thought
they were effective against 0% for the women.
lxvi. Performance of the County Government in Kisumu toward improving water and sanitation
services in the two settlements was rated as poor by 30% of the respondents in Nyalenda and
48% respondents in Obunga.
lxvii. The respondents identified the following areas for improvement by the county government to
improve the status of sanitation in the settlements: waste management (Nyalenda- 42%,
Obunga-19%); compel landlords to build toilets (Nyalenda- 25%, Obunga -19%); and improve
sewerage and drainage (Nyalenda -15%, Obunga -39%).
Pit latrine emptying services
lxviii. Both landlords/plot owners and tenants sampled avow Pit latrine emptying services in Obunga
and Nyalenda is provided by private actors
lxix. An informal network of 30 (28 male, 2 female) manual pit latrine emptiers exists in Obunga
and Nyalenda having 7 (all male) manual pit emptiers registered with a Sanitation service
providing self-help group (Vuka sasa youth group)
lxx. Pit latrine emptying in Obunga and Nyalenda is done manually by the private actors using
rudimentary tools (cut jerry cans with ropes attached on them) for scoping out the sludge
12
lxxi. All the 7 manual pit emptiers in Nyalenda maintain that they are not aware of any other
technology for manual pit emptying, 3 manual pit emptiers in Obunga pointed out at knowing
the gulper technology
lxxii. All the manual pit emptiers reached by the survey confirmed that they wear no protective
clothing when at work. Reason given for this is that they perceive the earning from the work
cannot afford to purchase protective gear
lxxiii. Sludge from emptied pit latrines in Obunga and Nyalenda is on most occasions buried in earth
on a dug out pit nearby, however during the rainy season it is common practise to pour the
sludge into storm waters
lxxiv. All manual pit emptiers reached by the survey confirm they use open buckets to transport
emptied sludge to disposal point
lxxv. Specifically during the rainy season for Nyalenda, there is a lot of work for manual pit latrine
emptying as the latrines often fill with water
lxxvi. The manual pit emptiers aver that sludge must undergo some form of treatment before being
empties. Forms of treatment cited by pit emptiers from Obunga included use of a disinfectant
“Jeshi” that is poured a few hours before emptying, for Nyalenda the pit emptier poited out at
using soap detergent “omo” mixed with water then poured into the pit to reduce foul smell and
ash to kill worms
lxxvii. All respondents providing manual pit emptying confirmed that they do not market their work
but always get referrals from previous customers as well as repeat businesses
lxxviii. The manual pit emptiers reached by the survey maintain that this is a part time income
generating activity besides other engagement including fishing, boda boda bicycle riding,
landscaping and farm tending, motor bike mechanic, ice cream vending
lxxix. The average price charged for the manual pit emptying service ranges from KES 3000 to KES
5000 per door of pit latrines. However the manual pit emptiers agree that on many occasions
shrewd landlords cunningly deceive prospecting service providers that competitor was willing
to accept much lower rates resulting to manual pit emptiers accepting as little as KES 1000 to
undercut the competition
lxxx. All manual pit emptiers reached by survey confirmed they do not keep any form of records for
their business
lxxxi. The manual pit emptier from both Obunga and Nyalenda maintain that the frequency of landing
assignment is highly irregular
lxxxii. The manual pit emptiers also pointed out at not having any employees; when one pit emptiers
secures an assignment, he sources out help of preferred colleagues depending on the volume of
work from their network and pays them an agree wage after the assignment
lxxxiii. All surveyed manual pit emptiers agree that they are highly stigmatized in the community.
Example were given of community member throwing away cups used by the manual pit
emptiers to drink water on location of an assignment, to being referred to by people in their
community by derogatory words
lxxxiv. In Nyalenda the manual pit emptiers pointed out 12 cases of colleagues who have passed on
over the last 15 years with their deaths being attributed to their occupation as manual pit
emptiers. All 12 had symptoms of swollen stomachs and yellowing skin before their deaths.
lxxxv. Number of years on the job by the manual pit emptiers from Obunga and Nyalenda recorded
during the survey ranges from 5 years to 30 years
lxxxvi. 70% of the manual pit emptiers in Obunga and Nyalenda reached by the survey had aspirations
of making their services modernized, professional and profitable through training in business
skills and access to mechanized exhaustion technologies. The other 30 % were either content
with the status quo or expressed no idea of future aspirations.
13
Chapter One: Introduction 1.1 Background information
Kenya, like many countries in the developing world, experiences rapid rates of urbanization. This
urbanization unfortunately is taking place within the informal settlements and other peri urban areas
with lurid living environmental conditions. To make matters even worse, it is estimated that close to
60% of the population live in these settlements.
In Kisumu, Kenya’s third largest city the situation is much the same. People in the informal settlements
live in squalid conditions, characterized by poor housing, with inadequate clean water, poor sanitation
and lack of waste removal services. They live on land to which they have no legal claim and are
generally excluded from decision-making and resources allocation processes. Even when resources are
allocated, they do not address the priority needs of the poor either because of technology choices or
from blatant exclusion by the powers that be.
Over 50 % of Kisumu’s 600,000 residents live in deprivation and 80 % are tenant householders. Fewer
than 30 % have adequate toilets and open defecation is widespread (Practical Action, 2014). Slum-
dwellers’ demands for better sanitation infrastructure and services fail to influence landlords or
authorities. Enterprising residents dig and empty their own pits; some earning incomes by offering these
services to others, but standards are extremely poor and practices dangerous. The results of non-
governmental organization such as Kisumu Urban Apostolate Programme (KUAP) and Umande Trust
to effect change are promising, but limited by their organizational capacity. Human waste seep into
drinking and flood-waters cause a public health hazard, spreading water-borne diseases and degrading
the environment. Children under 5, women of reproductive age, people living with disabilities and
HIV/AIDS are most affected
Kisumu San - the Kisumu City Partnership for Improved Sanitation in Informal Settlements is a 5-year
water, sanitation and hygiene initiatives funded by Comic Relief and designed to trigger the delivery of
safer, healthier and better futures and enhance the voice of marginalized slum-dwellers. The project
recognizes that in urban areas, established community-based total sanitation (CLTS) approaches
promoted as Kenyan national policy need to be strengthened with greater attention given to the issue of
appropriateness and affordability of latrine technology and financing, safe disposal of excrement
through effective faecal sludge management and the institutionalization of sustainable mechanisms of
awareness raising.
Focusing primarily on the 3 low-income urban settlements of Obunga, Nyalenda A and B, this 5-year
project brings together the community, the County Government of Kisumu, Practical Action, KUAP
and Umande Trust in active partnerships that seek to directly contribute to 5 key outcomes namely:-
i. Greater engagement of Obunga and Nyalenda informal settlement residents (both women and
men) through the NPAs with the county government on WASH issues.
ii. The demand from residents of Obunga and Nyalenda for sanitation increases & hygiene
practices improve.
iii. Residents in Obunga&Nyalenda gain improved supply & coverage of appropriate & affordable
water & sanitation facilities and services
iv. Informal workers ( in pit-emptying & latrine construction) increase incomes sustainably while
policies & regulations become more favourable to them
v. Umande Trust and KUAP and their leaders are more effective in delivering on their missions
and strategic goals
14
1.1.1 Scope of the Study
The overall purpose of the baseline study is to develop bench marking indicators and provide
detailed information on the two settlements covering the following areas:
i. Provide and document detailed background information on the two settlements in the context
of Kisumu City and County; namely: location and size; geophysical features; socio
demographic characteristics; existing status of WASH service indicators and key development
issues,
ii. Review the policy and institutional framework at national and county levels governing water
and sanitation service delivery, identify gaps and make recommendations for improvement,
iii. Undertake gender profiling in Obunga and Nyalenda Informal Settlements to identify
underlying issues that affect women participation and leadership/ social inclusion in relation to
WASH service delivery and county planning and decision making process,
iv. Review existing county and city development strategies, plans, standards and technologies and
WASH delivery models vis-à-vis slum up grading initiatives in Kisumu City and make
recommendations for tested low cost technologies and standards for LIAs in the city,
v. Identify existing opportunities and constraints for effective community
participation/engagement in decision making through the Neighbourhood Planning Association
(NPAs) and other structures at the community, city and county levels in relation to sanitation
service delivery, and
vi. Identify all actors in WASH service delivery value chain using Participatory Markets Systems
Development (PMSD) and their specific roles; constraints and opportunities for improvement
and/ or scaling up improved service delivery in the two settlements.
1.1.2 Expected Outputs
At the end of the baseline survey, the following outputs were expected:
i. An inception report (maximum five pages) outlining the approach/methodology and
execution programme/timetable. This report shall be submitted for review and approval by
Practical Action and partners two (2) days after the signature of the contract before
commencement of the work.
ii. Data collection tools which shall be submitted within two days after acceptance of the
methodology for review and approval Practical Action and partners.
iii. Draft survey report which shall be submitted within five days after completion of the field
work and shall be accompanied with the raw data as collected by the data collection tools.
iv. Presentation of the key findings to the stakeholders in a validation workshop.
v. The final report which shall be submitted within five days after the stakeholders’
dissemination workshop and shall incorporate Practical Action and stakeholders’ inputs.
1.2 Status of Urban Water and Sanitation in Kenya Urban water and sanitation coverage have steadily increased over the recent years, reaching 52% and
69% respectively in the country, courtesy of comprehensive and aggressive water sector reform
programmes operationalized through the Water Act (2002). The reforms led to the creation of new
institutions and effectively separated policy formulation, regulation, asset development and water
service provision.
The rate of urbanization in Kenya continues to soar, and an estimated 60 per cent of the population will
live in cities and towns by 2030. According to the Joint Monitoring Programme (2008)1 only 27 percent
1 Joint Monitoring Programme- Kenya Report, 2013
15
of the urban population had access to private improved sanitation in Kenya, most of which consisted of
simple pit latrines providing varied degrees of safety, hygiene and privacy. The sewerage coverage is
estimated at only about 12 percent with only 5 percent of the national sewerage effectively treated.
An assessment report in 2009 showed there were 43 sewerage systems in Kenya and wastewater
treatment plants in 15 towns (serving a total population of 900,000 inhabitants). The operation capacity
of these wastewater treatment plants is however, estimated at around 16 percent of design capacity. The
inefficiency is caused by a number of factors including:
Inadequate operation and maintenance,
Low connection rates to sewerage systems, which are often neglected and characterized by
overloaded pipes and blockages owing to intermittent water supply,
Sewer bursts and non-functional treatment plants that discharge raw sewage into the
watercourses.
In poor urban settlements, less than 20 per cent of the population has access to sanitation, and 80 percent
of facilities are shallow pit latrines that contribute to pollution of the environment2. Kenyan urban
settlements are characterized by uncontrolled, unsightly, and indiscriminate garbage disposal. Drains
are clogged during the rainy season, while streams running through settlements carry polluted water
from a combination of sources including sullage.
1.3 Background to Kisumu County and City
Kisumu County is one of the 47 Counties in Kenya. It lies within longitudes 33° 20’E and 35° 20’E and
latitudes 0° 20’South and 0° 50’South. The County is bordered by Homa Bay County to the South,
Nandi County to the North East, Kericho County to the East, Vihiga County to the North West and
Siaya County to the West. The County covers a total land area of 2009.5 km2 and another 567 km2
covered by waters of Lake Victoria, the second largest fresh water lake in the world.
Figure 1: Kisumu County Administrative Boundaries
Source: National Bureau of Statistics 2010
2 EHS Policy (2016-2030)
16
1.3.1 Sanitation Services in Kisumu County In Kisumu County, the status of sanitation paints a grim picture. The county is ranked 10 out of the 47
counties in terms of sanitation indicators3. In spite of this, however, 31.3 per cent of the population use
unimproved latrines; 30 per cent use improved latrines, while 25.9 per cent share latrines. The biggest
challenge to the county is the 12.9 per cent who still defecate in the open. According to the same report,
the county loses Ksh.740 million annually as a result of poor sanitation. These loses are due to poor
access, loss of time, premature deaths, healthcare costs and loss of productivity. The county’s progress
in Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) is not encouraging either. Out of 1,868 villages only 742
have been triggered and a dismal 506 progressing to achieve ODF statuses.
1.3.2 Kisumu City
Kisumu City is the third largest metropolis in Kenya with a population of over a half a million people.
It covers approximately 417 Km2 (297 km2– land while 120 Km2 are under water). It is one of the
fastest growing cities in the region with an annual growth rate of 2.8%4 and currently serves as the main
commercial, industrial, transportation and communication hub in the greater Lake Victoria Basin
serving Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi. The city experiences one of the highest absolute
poverty rates in the country estimated at 48%, against the national average of 29%5. About 50% of the
population live in the informal settlements and other peri-urban areas around the city and lack access to
basic infrastructure and services including water, sanitation, and waste management.
The city typology consists of the colonial city with its typical iron grid layout; the unplanned slum belt
around the colonial city and the sprawling peri-urban interphase undergoing rapid transformation as the
city expands as shown in the diagram below.
Figure 2: The slum Belt in Kisumu City
Source: ISUD Plan- 2013-2030
3 WSP Report, (2014) 4 Population Census 2009; UN Habitat 2008 5 UN Habitat (2005)
17
1.3.3Growth and development of slums in Kisumu City The emergence and development of slums in Kisumu City is traceable to 1901 with the arrival of the
railway line in the town, then known as Port Florence. The town’s function as a lake port was further
enhanced with the railway line owing to increased accessibility and connectivity to other regions such
as Nairobi and Kampala, Uganda. This further promoted trade and other economic activities such as
farming and fishing. Rapid population growth in the subsequent years prompted the extension of the
town boundary to accommodate the additional population and various infrastructure facilities and
services. In 1908, the town was struck by bubonic plague leading to land use zoning in the residential
areas (Blocks A, B, and C for the European settlers, Asians and Africans, respectively) with the aim of
curbing future outbreak and spread of diseases across the racial groups.
In 1930, the town boundary was reduced (to exclude areas beyond Block C) to make it more
manageable. This led to the development of un-planned and other peri-urban settlements devoid of the
necessary infrastructure and facilities such as roads, water supply and sanitation services. In 1972, the
town boundary was again extended, a move that saw Nyalenda and Manyatta informal settlements
incorporated into the municipality.
Figure 3: Informal Settlements in Kisumu City
Source: Situational Analysis of Informal Settlements in Kisumu, UN Habitat, 2005
18
1.4 Project Locations
1.4.1 Nyalenda A Ward
Nyalenda settlement rose into prominence in 1901 with the arrival of the Railway line in Kisumu town
then known as Port Florence. An in-depth study into the names used in the area revealed that Nyalenda
area derives its name from the word ‘boma’ (cow-dung collection points) and the name ‘Pandpieri’ is
the equivalent of a hiding place. Dago is the local word for a Swampy area while Dunga was formerly
known as Nanga due to the fact that many Indian dhows used to dock in the area.
The settlement is located within the Kisumu City, within Kisumu County. Administratively, the
settlement sits in Kisumu East Sub County following the implementation of the devolved structures of
government. Together with and Manyatta B Ward, the sub locationscum wards form Kolwa West
Location in Winam Division. Politically, Nyalenda ‘A’ falls within Kisumu Town East Constituency.
The development of the settlement starts proximately 1km away from the City Centre and covers an
area of approximately 3.2 km2. The slum has got a well-developed linkage with its neighborhoods such
Manyatta, Nyalenda B, the CBD, and Nyamasaria among others. The smaller administrative units in
the ward include:
Dago
Kanyakwar
Central
Western
Table 1: Population size and distribution in Nyalenda A
Population
characteristics
No. of
Males
No. of
Females
Total
Population
No. of
HHs
Area (km2 Density
Slum
Nyalenda A 14,829 13,440 28,269 8,070 3.2 8,953
Source: Compiled from National Population and Housing Census (2009)
1.4.2 Nyalenda B Ward
Nyalenda ‘B’ Ward is one of the 35 Wards that make up Kisumu County and falls within Kisumu City
boundaries Administratively, the ward is located in Nyalenda ‘B’ sub location, West Kolwa Location,
in Kisumu Central Sub County. Politically, Nyalenda ‘B’Ward is in the Kisumu Town Central
Constituency. The development of the settlement starts proximately 1km away from the City Centre
and covers an area of 4.7 km2(National Population and Housing Census 2009). The ward has got a well-
developedtransport network of marram roads s and is linked with its neighborhoods such Milimani, the
City Centre, and Nyalenda ‘A’ among others. The smaller administrative units in the ward include:
Western
Kilo
Got Owak
Nanga
Dunga
19
Table 2: Population assize and distribution in Nyalenda ‘B’
Population
characteristics
No. of
Males
No. of
Females
Total
Population
No. of
HHs
Area (km2 Density
Slum
Nyalenda B 16,189 16,241 32,430 8,561 4.7 6,886
Source: Compiled from National Population and Housing Census (2009)
Figure 4: Nyalenda Settlement
Source: Socio-Economic Survey Report for Informal Settlements in Kisumu: Ministry of Land and
Urban Development
20
1.4.3 Obunga (Railways Ward)
Obunga settlement falls within Railways Ward is inhabited by the Kanyakwar, Gem ad Lego people
who migrated into the originally expansive farm land at the turn of the century. Its growth and
development like other settlements in Kisumu is attributed to the railway line and the up surge of the
migrant population into the larger Kisumu town. The smaller administrative units include:
Kasarani
Sega Sega
Obunga Central I
Obunga Central II
Kamakowa
Table 3: Population size and distribution in Obunga
Population
characteristics
No. of
Males
No. of
Females
Total
Population
No. of
HHs
Area (km2 Density
Slum
1. Obunga 6,447 6107 12,554 3,553 6.6 1,913
Source: Compiled from National Population and Housing Census (2009) Figure 5: Obunga Informal settlement
Source: Socio-Economic Survey Report for Informal Settlements in Kisumu: Ministry of Land and
Urban Development
21
1. 5.1 Status of water supply and Sanitation services in Kisumu City 1.5.1.1 Sanitation services
In Kisumu City, however, the latest estimates indicate 55% coverage for sanitation (sewerage and onsite
sanitation). Out of the 55%, only 10 % of the population has access to the sewer network, mainly
concentrated within the Central Business District (CBD) of Kisumu City. The rest of the city, including
the up market Milimani Estate rely on conservancy/septic tanks and pit latrines. The situation in the
LIAs is further compounded by high water table and flash floods which make pit latrines unstable, often
filling with water rather than sludge. The worst hit settlements are the low lying Nyalenda, Obunga and
Bandani settlements. Manual pit emptying is common, but is unregulated and criminalized by the Public
Health Act6. The emptiers lack appropriate equipment and protective gear for their trade. Designated
disposal sites are not available and raw sludge is dumped in the environment. Public toilets are few and
unevenly distributed. Moreover, the pay-as you-use toilets have not addressed the problem owing to
low incomes in the settlements. Ecological and bio sanitation technologies have been piloted by
development partners, but their uptake and scale up remain minimal owing to cultural barriers and initial
investment costs.
1.5.1.2 Water supply
The water coverage is estimated at 53%. The current water demand in the city and its environs is
estimated at 44,000 m3 per day, while the two water treatment plants serving the area have a
combined capacity of 45, 000m3 per day. However, these plants cannot be operated at full capacity
owing to inadequate distribution systems and aging infrastructure which cannot cope with high
pressures. The network distribution is indicated in the figure below.
Figure 6: Main water reticulation network in the LIAs in Kisumu City
Source: KIWASCO Strategic Guidelines for LIAs, 2013
6Public Health Act of Kenya, Cap 242
22
Existing Water Delivery Models-KIWASCO Water delivery model Advantages Disadvantages
KIWASCO household
connections7
16000 serving
approximately 128,000
people
Convenience to the customer, direct
relationship with KIWASCO
Connection cost of Ksh. 6,0008 is beyond the reach of informal
settlement residents
Additional material and labour costs if more than 50 m. KSHs
6000-10,000. This is beyond the ability of many residents
Kiosks
342 Kiosks serving
approximately 102,600
people thus 300 persons per
kiosk
Public water access at a regulated price
Reliable and semi-convenient access
Accessible to any consumer with cash
Led to elimination of water borne diseases
in informal settlement.
Exploitation of customers by some operators.
Cash only payments thus a consumer who cannot pay on spot
misses on the services.
Long queues/ waiting time
DMM9
15 DMM lines having
connections of 2,546 serving
approximately 25,460
persons
Lower tariffs compared to regular
customers
Lower connection fees.
Improved system for monitoring leading to
reduction in NRW
Reduced staff-residents interface hence
low opportunity for corruption
Created employment and enhance business
skills in the community
Reduced tariffs hence penetration of
services and improved health in the
informal settlement
Continued unplanned nature of the informal settlement
Lack of frame work to deal with NRW for Master Operators
(MOs).
Resistance by some community members because they have
illegal connection.
MOs debts to KIWASCO
7Charges for new connections: ½’’= Ksh 4,000; ¾’’ =Ksh 5,000; 1’’ =Ksh 15,000; 3’’ =Ksh16,000; 4’’ =Ksh 30,000 8Ksh. 1800 deposit (security), Ksh. 4,000 (connection fee), Ksh. 200 (connection form) if less than 50 metres 9 Delegated Management Model
23
1.6Slum upgrading initiatives in Kisumu The national government and international development agencies have piloted a number of slums up
grading initiatives both in Kisumu and other towns in the past. Whilst some gains have been made towards
improving the lives of the urban poor in the settlements and useful lessons drawn, it remains to be seen how
the initiatives will be scaled up to provide sustainable urban solutions to the people who need it most, the
urban poor in Kenyan towns and cities.
1.6.1 Cities Development Strategy Kisumu was the first city in Kenya to prepare, through a partnership with UN Habitat and other
stakeholders, a 5 years Cities Development Strategy (CDS) (2004-2009) targeting poverty reduction and
environmental management for the city. The CDS which was formally adopted the City Council as a policy
document provided the framework for achieving the following objectives:
Improving the quality of life of 40% of the urban population by promoting actions towards a healthy
environment and access to quality food;
Ensuring 40% of the population have access to potable water and sanitation;
Encouraging public-private investment initiatives for improved productivity and poverty reduction;
Developing and institutionalizing frameworks that promote stakeholder participation in urban planning
with due consideration to gender equity, efficiency and empowerment; and,
Contribute to the reduction on current trends of environmental pollution within the city and its environs
for the protection of the lake and its resources.
1.6.2 Millennium Cities Initiatives Kisumu was declared the first United Nation’s Millennium City in the world in January 2006, with specific
focus to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as articulated in the Cities Development
Strategy (CDS) which recognized water and sanitation as the major challenges towards sustainable urban
development in the lake side city. Since then, Kisumu has continued to attract development initiatives
including the on -going Kisumu Urban Project (KUP) whose objective is to enhance living conditions of
Kisumu’s population by introducing a comprehensive urban programmes. Key activities include
strengthening the local capacity (financial, technical and political) and supporting investments (solid waste
management, slum upgrading, commercial facilities and other public infrastructure and facilities). This
initiative is implemented by the County Government of Kisumu with financial supported by the
AgenceFrançaise de Développement (AFD).
1.6.3Cities without Slums Kisumu, together with Nairobi and Mavoko were the first three cities in Kenya to pilot the Cities Without
Slums (CWS) initiative under the Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme KENSUP) implemented by UN
Habitat and the Government of Kenya in 2003. The main thrust of the process was to create conditions that
can sustain long term nationwide slum upgrading initiatives by harnessing political will while strengthening
nascent forms of organization of slum dwellers in the promotion of an inclusive process based on consensus
and partnership. The programme aimed at consolidating experiences of existing and past interventions to
undertake an integrated slum-upgrading programme which would eventually improve the conditions of
those living and working in the informal settlements in Kenya.
The strategies above laid out broad principles for attaining integrated and inclusive cities development.
However, it should be noted that they had shortcomings which undermined the overall success and
replication across Kenyan towns and cities. Some of these challenges include:
Lack of sustainable financing models for prioritized community action/investment plans.
Inadequate institutional as well as regulatory reforms and instruments to support the
implementation of the strategies,
24
Lack of clarity on the roles of stakeholders and sustainable platforms to promote dialogue across
board,
Lack of clear framework for providing feedback on progress and monitoring and evaluation,
Unrealistic standards and regulations that ignored prevailing social and economic indicators of the
target beneficiaries,
Lack of long term capacity development programmes for government officers, community
representatives and civil society organizations for sustained programme interventions, and
Awareness raising across all stakeholders and exploration of synergy between formal and informal
private sector players for integration of pro poor considerations.
1.6.4 Kenya Informal Settlements Improvement Project
Kenya Informal Settlement Improvement Project (KISIP) is a Kenyan Government project jointly designed
and prepared with the World Bank, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)
and the AgenceFrançaise de Développement (AFD). KISIP focuses on improving living conditions in
existing informal settlements or slums by investing in infrastructure and strengthening tenure security, as
well as supporting the government in planning for future urban growth in a manner that prevents emergence
of new slums, based on plans developed in consultation with the beneficiary communities. In addition,
KISIP is also supporting the Ministry of Land and Urban Development (MoLHUD) and the County
Governments in selected counties in planning to help them anticipate and manage future demand for
housing and environmentally healthy neigbourhoods as cities and urban areas expand.
The above overall objective and specific-objectives are to be achieved through the implementation of the
following four project components:
Component 1: Strengthening institutions and project management. This component will carry out
activities to strengthen the institutional capacity of MoLHUD and the selected counties. It will also carry
out a range of activities associated with programme implementation and establishment of a monitoring and
evaluation system.
Component 2: Enhancing tenure security. This component will support participatory mapping and
planning, cadastration, information systemization, registration and issuance of titles to individuals or groups
in informal settlements.
Component 3: Investing in infrastructure and service delivery. This component will support
implementation of community-driven settlement upgrading plans, investment in settlement level
infrastructure—water and sanitation systems, solid waste management, storm water drainage,
electrification, pedestrian walkways, roads, bicycle paths, street and security lighting, vending platforms,
public parks, and green spaces—and, where necessary, extension of trunk infrastructure to settlements.
Component 4: Planning for urban growth. This component will support the development of policies,
standards and systems that facilitate delivery of affordable serviced land and housing for low-income
households. It will also support the selected counties in implementing activities aimed to improvement
planning and management of future municipal growth.
1.6. 4 Kisumu City Partnership for Improved Sanitation in Informal Settlements (KisumuSan) The project takes cognizance that over 50 % of Kisumu’s 600,000 residents live in deprivation and 80 %
are tenant householders. Fewer than 30 % have adequate toilets and open defecation is widespread
(Practical Action, 2014). Slum-dwellers’ demands for better sanitation infrastructure and services fail to
influence landlords or authorities. Enterprising residents dig and empty their own pits; some earning
incomes by offering these services to others, but standards are extremely poor and practices dangerous. The
25
results of non-governmental organization such as Kisumu Urban Apostolate Programme (KUAP) and
Umande Trust to effect change are promising, but limited by their organizational capacity. Human waste
seep into drinking and flood-waters cause a public health hazard, spreading water-borne diseases and
degrading the environment. Children under 5, women of reproductive age, people living with disabilities
and HIV/AIDS are most affected. The project has therefore, been designed to trigger the delivery of safer,
healthier and better futures and enhance the voice of marginalized slum-dwellers in Obunga and Nyalenda
informal settlements.
The current project appears to be specifically designed to complement existing national and county
government slum upgrading initiatives. The strategic objective to incentivize private sector participation in
sanitation service delivery appears novel. Caution has also been taken to subsidize the very poor and most
vulnerable with the two informal settlements to ensure that no one is left behind. Gender considerations
have also been made, taking into account that women are the de factor managers of water and sanitation
services, roles that have been hijacked by the men in the predominantly patriarchal society.
1.7 Climate Change and related issues in Kisumu City Kisumu City’s geomorphological and climatic conditions are determined largely by three highlands (Nandi
Hills, Riat Hills and Kisian Hills), two plains (Kano Plains and Kanyakwar Plains), and several wetlands
and of course Lake Victoria, the second largest fresh water lake in the world. The city’s vulnerability to
climate change (CC) is a function of rapid urbanization and population growth (tripling from 150,000 in
1989 to more than 500,000 inhabitants in 2009), high poverty levels (48%), deforestation and soil erosion,
flooding, deterioration of the riparian reserve; and pollution and discharge of untreated solid and liquid
waste into the environment among other factors.
Approximately 60% of the city population lives in slums and other informal settlements which are
characterized by dense populations and lack basic infrastructure and services. They are the most vulnerable
to CC and its impacts which have been noted in the recent past including:
Flash floods
Receding water levels in Lake Victoria affecting water supply and fish breeding grounds
Surface water pollution (rivers, lakes, earth dams)
Prolonged droughts,
Very high temperatures,
Irregular and unpredictable rainfall patterns), and
Disappearance of wetlands and endangered/rare species of aquatic flora and fauna
Owing to its location on the Kano plains and the Nyando river basin, the city experiences perennial foods
during the rainy season which wreak havoc on human population, livelihood assets (such as livestock, and
businesses) and infrastructure/services. Most shocks and stresses in the city may be categorized as follows:
Natural disasters - climate change related resulting in flooding, drought, erosion and siltation of
water bodies including rivers and Lake Victoria,
Social shocks - frequent disease outbreaks such as cholera, lack of access to food, shelter and
education, fire outbreaks in informal settlements, markets, road accidents caused by poor road
conditions,
Economic stresses- unemployment, economic disparity, lack of access to financial resources
Physical and infrastructure stresses - collapse of physical infrastructure- roads, water and sewerage
networks, power cables, collapse of bridges and culverts, houses and sanitation facilities etc.), and
Political unrest -riots, demonstrations and violence leading to destruction of property and loss of
livelihoods.
All these factors individually or collectively impact negatively on the local population and affect the ability
of the County Government, city management and other institutions to provide efficient services. The burden
is greater for the urban poor (rising cost of food and transport; destruction of houses and businesses;
26
disruption of water supply, sanitation facilities and energy services; loss of livestock and sometimes even
human lives). The County government and the city both lack the necessary institutional framework,
policies, and staff capacity to adequately respond to disasters (natural or man-made) whenever they occur.
1.7.2 Impact of Climate Change on City Management and Residents 48% of Kisumu residents live below the poverty line ($2.5). This increases the burden of bearing the shocks
and stresses that come with CC further eroding their capacities and capabilities, and therefore, increases
their vulnerability. For example:
Kisumu’s informal settlements are densely populated and poorly served by road networks and other
services compromising the ability of the city management to effectively respond to emergencies
in the LIAs,
Loss of revenue due to destruction of property and livelihood assets,
Interruption of essential service delivery such as provision of water and sanitation services;
Redirection/reallocation of resources and personnel to emergency response, whenever such
disasters occur, at the expense of normal service delivery; and
Huge reconstruction costs of roads, bridges and drainage systems
Limited access to water increases the tariffs (costs) of clean drinking water leading to water borne
diseases and ailments,
Lack of sanitation facilities lead to open defaecation (OD), environmental pollution and outbreak
of diseases such as cholera, and
Lack of street lights (or lights on public spaces) increases insecurity for women and girls after night
fall and small business, often operated by women and youth, have to close early, leading to lost
business opportunities and incomes.
27
Chapter two: The design of the study
2.1 Overall Study Design This was a cross sectional descriptive study that involved both qualitative and quantitative data collection
and analysis methods. All quantitative and qualitative data collected by the baseline study was
disaggregated by sex and beneficiary group.
2.2. Sampling The formula below was used for calculating sample size is as follows:
2
2
122111 )1()1()1(2
ZPPPPZPPDn
Where:
n = sample size
D = design effect = 2
P1 = the estimated proportion of indicator of interest = X%
P2 = the estimated proportion of indicator (at time of follow up survey) = X% + 5%
P = (P1 + P2) / 2;
∆2 = (P2 – P1)2 = (5%)2 = 0.0025
Z1- = the z-score which is the probability an observed change of size (P2 - P1) has not occurred by chance;
at 95% confidence level, =0.05 and Z1- = 1.65
Z1- = the z-score corresponding to the desired level of power to detect size (P2 - P1) with power of 80%,
=0.20 and Z1-=0.84
The following estimates were been taken into consideration in estimating the sample size:
The indicator of interest (community access to toilets of 30%)
The survey when repeated should detect changes of at least 5% points in the indicator of interest
Confidence levels of 95% and power of 80%
Design effect (DEF) of 2
Response rates of at least 85%
2.2.1 Sampling procedures for the household survey The sample size of 256 households as calculated using the above procedure were targeted during the
baseline survey and allocated between the 2 clusters in proportion to the total population of each cluster (ie.
Obunga and Nyalenda). We used a two stage stratified cluster sampling strategy, whereby the study clusters
were the Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) and Households our Secondary Sampling Units (SSUs). The first
stage involved the listing of all households from each cluster. The allocation of the number of households
to be surveyed in each cluster was done using proportion to population size (PPS) sampling which is based
on the actual number of households in the respective cluster ensuring that a more populated cluster got
more households selected.
At the second stage, households were randomly selected from the household lists of each cluster based on
the proportion calculated at the first stage. In cases, where people were not available at home, the field
interviewers made another visit to the household. For those households where no eligible household
28
respondent was available after two visits, the household was replaced by another household nearest to the
initially selected one.
2.3 Household survey questionnaires A comprehensive household survey questionnaire was developed in consultation with the three
implementing partners. This tool focused on capturing responses on the key issues:
Social , economic and demographic characteristics
Beneficiary Analysis in relation to household and community access to and Quality of Water Sanitation
and Hygiene (WASH) Services
Community Engagement and Social Inclusion
WASH Service Coverage at the community level(public primary schools)
Mapping of Partners/Stakeholders.
2.4 Resource Maps Resource maps were drawn by various community groups using locally available materials to show location
and use of community resources e.g. water sources, schools, health facilities, financial institutions, market
centers, etc. Discussions during the mapping exercise lead to the identification of key opportunities and
issues existing within the project location. This information forms part of the baseline data. In each
settlement, 2 resource maps were drawn.
2.5 Focus Group Discussions (FGD) Focus Group discussions were conducted with different community groups to collect qualitative baseline
information related to the key project indicators. In each settlement, an FGD was conducted for the
following categories of respondents:
FDG for women only groups
FDG for Neighbourhood Planning Association (NPA)
FDG for WASH based Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) such as manual pit emptiers
2.6 Key informant interviews The study team to conduct 6 key informant interviews for the following individuals:
Two community leaders- one from each settlement
Two project staff
Two county government technical officers responsible for the areas
2.7 Desk review This involved collecting and reviewing relevant documents to capture the secondary data. The following
key documents were reviewed:
The project implementation documents to provide a further understanding of the project purpose
and scope
The policy and institutional framework at national and county levels governing water and sanitation
service delivery
Existing county and city development strategies, plans, standards and technologies and WASH
delivery models vis-à-vis slum up grading initiatives in Kisumu City
Project reports of similar projects implemented in Kenya
29
2.8 Execution of the study Under the leadership of a Lead Consultant, a team of 4 multidisciplinary consultants worked together to
execute the assignment. The Lead consultant provided overall leadership in the design, field
implementation, data management and reporting. Data collection in each cluster was conducted by a team
of 5 individuals. Each team comprised four research assistants and one supervisor. The key informant
interviews were conducted directly by the consultants. Four data entry clerks were engaged to ensure that
data is expeditiously and accurately edited, cleaned and entered within the shortest time possible.
Data was collected via face-to-face interviews administered either in English or the appropriate local
language. Technical assistance and support supervision of fieldwork was provided by a two-tier structure
involving both the supervisors and the study consultants.
2.9 Data analysis Statistical analysis software, SPSS, was used to analyze all quantitative (survey) data. Qualitative data was
analyzed using the following steps to ensure rigor is applied at every stage of analysis: First, recorded
interviews were first transcribed verbatim into Microsoft Word. Second, transcripts were uploaded into
qualitative software (NVivo8 or NUDIST*) for content analysis as both are highly suitable to use when
analyzing high-volumes of data. Third, a coding framework was developed following review of transcripts
and instruments used in data collection. This was used to code transcripts and identify key themes that
emerged from the data during content analysis.
30
3.0 Chapter Three: Study findings
3.1 Beneficiary Analysis in relation to Access to and Quality of WASH Services The baseline study conducted in Nyalenda and Obunga Informal settlements was conducted in both
Nyalenda A and Nyalenda B wards in Nyalenda and Obunga in Railways Ward with 163 respondents from
Nyalenda and 93 from Obunga Settlements.
Majority of the households where the study was conducted were headed by men in both the settlements
(Nyalenda (115, 70.8%), Obunga (57, 60.8%). Women headed about 29% of the household in Nyalenda
and 37% in Obunga. Only one (1) household was headed by a child and this was in Obunga.
Table 4: Household’s head in Obunga and Nyalenda
Household Head Settlement Area:
Nyalenda Obunga
Woman 48 (29.2%) 34 (37.3%)
Man 115 (70.8%) 57 (60.8%)
Child 0 (0.0%) 2 (2.0%)
The highest level of education by the respondents across Nyalenda and Obunga settlement areas show that
most of the respondents (42%) in Nyalenda have reached primary level of education followed closely by
secondary level of education (38%) while in Obunga, most of the respondents (47%) have attained
secondary level of education followed closely by primary level (31%). In both the settlement areas, gender
differentials are significant on the highest level of education. Most of the women headed households in
Nyalenda (50%) only reached primary level of education with just 31% of the women having gone beyond
the primary level of education compared to men headed households with more than half (59%) going
beyond primary level of education. The same was noted in Obunga where just 42% of women compared to
74% of men headed households had gone beyond primary level of education as table below shows.
Table 5: Education levels of the respondents
Highest Level of
Education
Household Head: Nyalenda Household Head: Obunga
Woman Man Woman Man Child
Never Attended School 11 (19.2%) 6 (3.2%) 3(5.3%) 3 (9.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Primary Education 30 (50.0%) 55 (38.1%) 10 (52.6%) 5 (16.1%) 2(100%)
Secondary Education 19 (30.8%) 60 (41.3%) 8 (42.1%) 14(51.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Tertiary Education 0 (0.0%) 26 (17.5%) 0 (0.0%) 6(22.6%) 0 (0.0%)
Significance: Χ² (3)=11.731, p=0.008 Χ² (6)=12.129, p=0.023
Majority of the households in Nyalenda (54%) have between 5 and 8 members while majority of the
households in Obunga (59%) had between 1 and 4 members. These difference in size of households was
significant across the two settlement areas but not by gender differentials.
In terms of source of income, more than half (50%) of the respondents in both sites depends either in own
employment or own business as the main source of income (Nyalenda – 71%, Obunga – 53%). Generally,
there is a significant differences in sources of income between the two settlements areas as most of the
31
respondents in Nyalenda depend on self – employment (38%) while in Obunga, most respondents depend
on salaried employment as the main source of income (31%) as table below shows.
Table 6: Sources of income
Source of income Household Head: Nyalenda Household Head: Obunga
Woman Man Woman Man Child
Salaried Employment 4(7.7%) 16 (14.3%) 7 (21.1%) 23 (38.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Own Employment 7 (15.4%) 55 (47.6%) 7 (21.1%) 18 (32.3%) 0 (0.0%)
Own Business 22 (46.2%) 31 (27.0%) 17 (47.4%) 8 (12.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Other Sources 14 (30.8%) 13 (11.1%) 4 (10.5%) 9 (16.1%) 1 (100%)
Significance: Χ² (3)=11.949, p=0.008 Χ² (6)=12.917, p=0.044
Slightly more than 80% of the households in both Nyalenda and Obunga had average monthly household
income of between 5000 and 20000 (Nyalenda – 81%, Obunga – 84%).
In Nyalenda, there is a significant gender disparity in terms of average monthly household income. Majority
of the women headed households (73%) had the lowest average monthly income of between KES 5000 and
KES 10000 compared to men headed households that for majority (44%), had average monthly household
income of between KES 10000 and KES 20000 in the same settlement area.
Table 7: Average Household Income per month
Average HH Income
per month
Household Head: Nyalenda Household Head: Obunga
Woman Man Woman Man Child
5001-10000 73.1% 30.2% 57.9% 25.8% 100%
10001-20000 23.1% 44.4% 31.6% 54.8% 0.0%
20000+ 3.8% 25.4% 10.5% 19.4% 0.0%
Significance: Χ² (2)=14.614, p=0.001 Χ² (4)=6.673, p=0.154
Majority of the houses occupied by the respondents are not owned by residents (Nyalenda – 60%, Obunga
– 80%) but by someone else. The ownership of houses occupied by the residents are not significantly
different in the two settlement areas. For most of the residents (Nyalenda – 58%, Obunga – 70%) who
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
5001-10000 10001-20000 20000+
Average Household income per month in Ksh
Settlement Area: Nyalenda
Settlement Area: Obunga
32
occupy their own houses, these have been self – built figure below shows. For majority of the residents
staying in houses that they don’t own, the houses are leased or rented (Nyalenda – 98%, Obunga – 100%).
Gender differentials on ownership status of the occupied houses was significantly different in Nyalenda but
not in Obunga. Majority of the women headed household (58%) in Nyalenda were owned by the
respondents themselves compared to men headed households that only owned 33.3% of the houses they
occupied in the same settlement area. From the household survey, the mean amount of rent paid by
households that don’t own a house that they occupy in Nyalenda settlement is KES 2437 (178) while in
Obunga it is KES 2005 (154).
Table 8: Ownership of occupied house
Ownership of Occupied
House:
Household Head: Nyalenda Household Head: Obunga
Woman Man Woman Man Child
Yes 57.7% 33.3% 21.1% 16.1% 100%
No 42.3% 66.7% 78.9% 83.9% 0.0%
Significance: Χ² (1)=4.534, p=0.033 Χ² (2)=4.363, p=0.113
3.1.1 Profile of landlords/ladies In the study, a total of 39 respondents owning residential units in both Nyalenda (15 respondents) and
Obunga (24 respondents) were also interviewed. Of the respondents, majority were males in both the areas
58.30%
8.30%
22.20%
11.10%
70%
0.00%
30.00%
0.00%
Built
Gifted
Inherited
Bought
Mode of Aquisition of Owned House
Settlement Area: Obunga Settlement Area: Nyalenda
33
(Nyalenda - 73%, Obunga – 75%) as shown below.
The plot owners interviewed in Obunga had on average between 8 and 10 housing units while their
counterparts in Nyalenda owned on average between 6 and 8 housing units. Of the units owned by plot
owners in Obunga, on average between 1 and 4 units were occupied while in Nyalenda, on average between
1 and 2 units were occupied.
The plot owners in Obunga spent on average KES 9266.40 (2582.80) on materials while in Nyalenda, this
investment was KES 20137.33 (3929.58). In Obunga, the average amount of money spent on labor during
the construction of housing units was KES 6360.00 (2563.12) while in Nyalenda this stands at KES 6000.00
(1303.84).
3.1.2 Membership to plot owners association in Obunga and Nyalenda Areas Only one (1) of the landlords/landladies in Obunga belong to a plot owners association. In Nyalenda, this
was the same – one (1) landlord. The plot owner In Nyalenda belonged to Asembo Self Help Group.
Asembo Self Help Group has ten (10) members (9 men and 1 woman).
73.30% 75%
26.70% 25%
0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%
Obunga Nyalenda
Settlement:
Profile of the Landlords/ladies
Male Female
7%
93%
Membership to landlords/ladies association in Obunga
Yes No
4%
96%
Membership to landlords/ladies association in Nyalenda
Yes No
34
3.1.3 Challenges faced in terms of providing better sanitation facilities for tenants: Below are a list of challenges landlords face in providing better sanitation facilities especially toilets and
latrines to the tenants in both Obunga and Nyalenda settlements
Table 9: Challenges faced in providing better sanitation facilities
Challenges faced in terms of providing better sanitation facilities
for tenants:
Settlement Area
Obunga Nyalenda
Cost of constructing a modern and durable toilet is too high 3 1
Getting tenants to adhere to the set sanitation rules 8 11
High water table and soil structure 3 4
Lack of detergents to clean the toilets - 1
Lack of sewage line - 3
Toilets are not enough 1 1
Water accessibility problem - 2
3.1.4 Investment in Water and sanitation improvement by plot owners in Obunga and Nyalenda
Areas Of the plot owners in Obunga area, 87% are/have thought of taking the necessary steps to improve their
tenants’ human excreta disposal. For the land owners in Nyalenda, this proportion stands at 83%. For these
group of plot owners willing to improve the disposal of human excreta in their plots in Obunga, 47% would
like to improve it to flush toilet/WC and 40% to VIP latrines. For the plot owners in Nyalenda, the desire
for most is to improve to pit latrine and flush toilet/WC at 30% and 26% respectively. This desire to change
the sanitation specific to mode of disposal of human excreta is significantly related to the two settlement
areas. This is since VIP latrines, pour flush toilets, WC connected to septic tanks and other human excreta
disposal mechanisms are highly regarded in Nyalenda but not in Obunga.
Table 10: Future preferred mode of disposal of human excreta
Future preferred mode of disposal of
human excreta:
Settlement: Significantly
Different? Obunga Nyalenda
Flush Toilet/WC 7 (46.7%) 6 (26.1%)
No
Pit Latrine 2 (13.3%) 7 (30.4%)
VIP Latrine 6 (40%) 2 (8.7%)
Pour Flush Toilet 0 (0.0%) 2 (8.7%)
WC Connected to septic tank 0 (0.0%) 3 (13%)
Other 0 (0.0%) 3 (13%)
For the plot owners willing to invest in improving modes of disposing human excreta, 93% in Obunga are
willing to pay for their preferred mode of disposal of human excreta. This proportion is 91% in Nyalenda.
On average, plot owners in Obunga are willing to pay KES 1000 while those in Nyalenda are willing to pay
KES 20000 for their preferred mode of disposal of human excreta.
35
None of the plot owners in Obunga have ever taken a loan to improve the sanitation facilities in their plots
but all are willing to take a loan for the same purpose. In Nyalenda, just 3 of the plot owners have taken
loan to improve the sanitation facilities in their plots but 90% (19) of those who have never taken a loan to
improve sanitation in their plots are willing to take such loans and for the same purpose.
Table 11: willingness to take a loan to improve sanitation facilities
Has taken a loan to improve
sanitation facilities in the plot:
Settlement: Significantly
Different? Obunga Nyalenda
Yes 0 (0.0%) 3 (12.5%) Yes
No 15 (100%) 21 (87.5%)
Willing to take a loan to improve
sanitation facilities in the plot:
Settlement: Significantly
Different? Obunga Nyalenda
Yes 15 (100%) 19 (90.5%) Yes
No 0 (0.0%) 2 (9.5%)
In Obunga, all those willing to take a loan to improve sanitation in their plots are willing to take it up at 0%
interest rate. The 0% interest rate is also preferred by 88% of the plot owners who are willing to take a loan
for the improvement of sanitation facilities in Nyalenda. The plot owners in Obunga are willing to take on
average KES 25750.00 (8148.36) while in Nyalenda, the plot owners are willing to burrow KES 40000
(15275.25) to improve sanitation facilities for their tenants.
Table 12: Interest participants willing to pay to improve sanitation facilities
Interest participants willing to pay for
borrow to improve sanitation facilities:
Settlement: Significantly
Different? Obunga Nyalenda
0 5 (100%) 7 (87.5%) Yes
7 0 (0.0%) 1 (12.5%)
Only 14% of the plot owners in Obunga area confirmed having received assistance in constructing their
existing toilets or latrines. In Nyalenda just 4% of the plot owners had received such help. This help was
only in the form of provision of vent pipes for those who had received such help across the two areas.
93%
7%
Landlords/ladies willingness to pay for a preferered mode of waste disposal in Obunga
Yes No
91%
9%
Landlords/ladies willingness to pay for a preferred mode of waste disposal in Nyalenda
Yes No
36
Table 13: Assistance to construct toilets/latrines
Got assistance to construct existing
toilets/Latrines:
Settlement: Significantly
Different? Obunga Nyalenda
Yes 2 (14.3%) 1 (4.2%) Yes
No 12 (85.7%) 23 (95.8%)
3.2 Community Engagement and Social Inclusion
3.2.1 Membership to social groups/networks and what they do (social capital) In both the settlements, various committees exists to take care of health, water, environment, education,
Neighborhood Planning and development and other committees taking care of other issues within the
community. However, water committees and other committees are known by most of the residents of
Nyalenda to exist. In Obunga, most residents know of the existence of water committees, Neighborhood
Planning Associations and other committees as table below shows.
Table 14: Committees/associations that exist
Committees/associations that exists: Settlement Area:
Nyalenda Obunga
Village Health Committee (5.6%) (0.0%)
Water Committee (15.7%) (9.8%)
Environment Committee (2.2%) (0.0%)
Education/School Committee (9%) (7.8%)
Neighborhood Planning Association (9%) (9.8%)
Ward Development Committee (9%) (2%)
Constituency Development Fund (3.4%) (3.9%)
Others (38.2%) (23.5%)
By gender, majority of the women headed household (86%) in Nyalenda recognize provincial
administration (chiefs and assistant chiefs followed by religious leaders as their respected community
leaders just like men in the same area (provincial administration – 84%, religious leaders – 44%). The most
respect leaders in the community in Obunga were also the provincial administration among majority of
women and men (women – 95%, men - 77%). Though the proportion of women who trusted officials in the
provincial administration was significantly higher than that of men in Obunga as table below shows.
Table 15: Recognized leaders in the community
Recognized
Leaders in the
community:
Household Head: Nyalenda Household Head: Obunga
Woman Man Significantl
y Different? Woman Man Child
Signif
icance
Village Elders 3.8% 9.5% Yes 0.0% 0.0% 100% No
Chiefs/Assistant
Chiefs 88.5% 84.1%
Yes 94.7% 77.4% 0.0% No
Religious
Leaders 50.0% 44.4%
Yes 36.8% 35.5% 0.0%
Yes
Neighborhood
Planning
Associations
15.4% 14.3% Yes
0.0% 6.5% 0.0% Yes
37
Member of
County
Assembly
26.9% 30.2% Yes
5.3% 16.1% 0.0% Yes
Member of
Parliament 19.2% 25.4%
Yes 21.1% 22.6% 0.0%
Yes
Others 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% Yes
Of the respondents interviewed, 28% in Nyalenda were members of at least one of the committees or
associations confirmed to exist in the area while just 6% were members of any such committees or
associations confirmed to exist in Obunga. For those who are members of any of the committees in
Nyalenda, majority participate in the committees by attending public participation meetings (39%) and
raising issues affecting them and their communities (28%). For those from Obunga and who are members
of any of the committees, participation is mainly by other engagements (42%), election of leaders (25%),
attending public participation meetings (17%) and raising issues affecting them and their community
members (17%) as shown in table below. Participation by attending public participation meetings and
raising issues affecting the community are two ways of participation of the participants that is significantly
different across the two settlement area. This is specifically since fewer participants confirmed participating
in the committees in this manner in Obunga compared to Nyalenda.
Table 16: Participation in various committees
Participates in the committees by: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Attending Public Participation meetings: 39% 17% No
Participation in the election of Leaders: 17% 25% Yes
Raising Issues affecting me and other members of the
community: 28% 17% No
Presenting Written Memos or Petitions 9% 0.0% Yes
Doing other things: 7% 42% Yes
Membership to the committees was not significantly associated to gender in both the settlement areas
through more a higher proportion of men compared to women were members of a committee in Nyalenda.
Table 17: Membership to various committees
Are you a member of any of the
above committees?
Household Head: Nyalenda Household Head: Obunga
Woman Man Woman Man Child
Yes 23.1% 30.6% 0.0% 10% 0.0%
No 76.9% 69.4% 100% 90% 100%
Significance: Χ² (1)=0.516, p=0.473 Χ² (2)=2.128, p=0.345
Also not significant cross the gender differentials in both the areas was ways of participating in the
committees for those who were members of any of the committees in Nyalenda and Obunga areas.
Table 18: Ways of participating in the various 37committees
38
Ways of
participating in
committees
Household Head: Nyalenda Household Head: Obunga
Woman Man Signifi
cance Woman Man Child
Significanc
e
Attending Public
Participation
meetings:
23.1% 19.0% Yes 0.0% 6.5% 0.0%
Yes
Participation in the
election of Leaders: 15.4% 6.4%
Yes 100% 6.5% 0.0%
Yes
Raising Issues
affecting me and other
members of the
community:
11.5% 15.6%
Yes
0.0% 6.5% 0.0%
Yes
Presenting Written
Memos or Petitions 7.7% 3.2%
Yes
Doing other things: 0.0% 4.8% Yes 10.5% 9.7% 0.0% Yes
Majority of the respondents from the two areas do not believe that the committees that exist in their areas
are effective in addressing the concerns raised by members of the community (Nyalenda – 71%, Obunga –
91%)
. Table 19: whether committees effectively address concerns raised
Is the committee/association effectively addressing
Concerns raised?
Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Yes 29.2% 8.8% No
No 70.8% 91.2%
There was not significant relationship in the perception of women and men regarding the effectiveness of
the committees in addressing the concerns the community members raise as table below shows.
Is the committee/association
effectively addressing Concerns
raised?
Household Head: Nyalenda Household Head: Obunga
Woman Man Woman Man Child
Yes 15.8% 34.8% 0.0% 15% 0.0%
No 84.2% 65.2% 100% 85% 100%
Significance: Χ² (1)=2.345, p=0.126 Χ² (2)=2.303, p=0.316
3.3 WASH Service Coverage
3.3.1 Water and Sanitation Services in Nyalenda and Obunga Settlements
a) Water sources
The most common water point for tenants according to the plot owners in Obunga is the standpipe within
the plot as confirmed by 47% of the plot owners. This is followed by purchase of water from water vendors
according to 33% of the plot owners in the same area. Only 13% of the plot owners confirmed that water
connections reach household level in Obunga. In Nyalenda, water access points and connection at
household levels were mainly standpipe within plot and household water connection according to 67% and
21% of the plot owners respectively. Water access by buying through the vendors was only common in
Obunga but not in Nyalenda.
39
Table 20: Tenants mode of access to water
Tenants Access water through: Settlement: Significantly
Different? Obunga Nyalenda
HH Water Connection 13.3% 20.8% Yes
Standpipe Within the Plot 46.7% 66.7% Yes
Shallow Well 0.0% 4.2% Yes
Water Vendors 33.3% 0.0% No
Protected Springs 0.0% 4.2% Yes
Other Sources 6.7% 8.3% Yes
From the household survey, the most common source of drinking water among the residents in both the
settlement areas are water kiosks (Nyalenda - 54%, Obunga – 63%) followed by communal stand pipe
(Nyalenda – 36%, Obunga – 31%). Only 10% of households in Nyalenda relied on water connection in
their households for drinking. For Obunga, the proportion of households dependent on drinking water from
household water connection was 4%.
Table 21: Sources of drinking water
Source of Drinking Water: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Individual Household Connection 10.1% 3.9%
Yes Water Kiosk 53.9% 62.7%
Communal Stand Pipe 36% 31.4%
Protected Spring 0.0% 2%
For water for cooking, same sources of drinking water were used by majority of the household (water kiosk
– Nyalenda (48%) and Obunga (61%) and communal stand pipe – Nyalenda (35%) and Obunga (31%)).
Table 22: Source of water for cooking
Source of Water for Cooking: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Individual Household Connection 9% 3.9%
Yes
Water Kiosk 48.3% 60.8%
Communal Stand Pipe 34.8% 31.4%
Borehole 2.2% 2%
Shallow Well 4.5% 2%
Protected Spring 1.1% 0.0%
Water for washing was mainly sourced from water kiosks (43%) and communal stand pipes (33%) in
Nyalenda and from the same sources in Obunga (Water kiosk – 57% and Communal Stand pipes -29%).
Table 23: Source of water for washing
40
Source of Washing Water: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Individual Household Connection 9% 3.9%
Yes
Water Kiosk 42.7% 56.9%
Communal Stand Pipe 32.6% 29.4%
Borehole 3.4% 3.9%
Shallow Well 7.9% 5.9%
Protected Spring 1.1% 0.0%
River/Stream 1.1% 0.0%
Lake 2.2% 0.0%
Water was given to livestock by most households mainly in Nyalenda where it was sourced mainly from
water kiosk (27%) and shallow wells (27%). In Obunga, only one (1) household confirmed giving water to
livestock. This water was sourced from their household’s individual connection.
Table 24: Source of water for livestock
Source of Water for Livestock: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Individual Household Connection 13.3% 100%
Yes
Water Kiosk 26.7% 0.0%
Communal Stand Pipe 6.7% 0.0%
Borehole 6.7% 0.0%
Shallow Well 26.7% 0.0%
Unprotected Spring 6.7% 0.0%
Lake 13.3% 0.0%
The cost of a jerrican of water for the households that buy water from vendors on average is KES 3 (0.1) in
Nyalenda and KES 3.94 (0.23) in Obunga.
It takes on average 6.49 (0.39) minutes in Nyalenda and 5.76 (0.65) minutes in Obunga to get water from
the source to where it is used within the household.
b) Water treatment
In Nyalenda, 63% of the households treat their drinking water while in Obunga, the proportion of
households that treat their drinking water stands at 53%. The most common mode of water treatment in the
two settlement areas is chemical treatment used by 70% and 72% of the households in Nyalenda and
Obunga respectively. This was followed by boiling used by 27% and 24% of the households in Nyalenda
and Obunga respectively.
Table 25: treatment for drinking water
Treats Drinking Water through: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Boiling 27.1% 24.1% Yes
Filtration 3.4% 0.0% Yes
Chemical 69.5% 72.4% Yes
Solar Disinfection (Sodis) 3.4% 3.4% Yes
41
c) Water Storage
Most of the households in Nyalenda (54%) preferring storing water in traditional pots. The same as in
Obunga (37%) though jerrican containers are also common in Obunga.
Table 26: Water storage
Water Stored in: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Traditional Pot 53.9% 37.3% Yes
Open Water Bucket 1.1% 0.0% Yes
Water Bucket With Lids 18.0% 23.5% Yes
Jerican Container 23.6% 33.3% Yes
Water Drums 5.6% 7.8% Yes
Others ways 1.1% 2.0% Yes
3.3.2 Methods of Solid waste Disposal in Obunga and Nyalenda Areas From the plot owners’ survey, the most common waste disposal method in Obunga are: burning (53%),
Open dumping sites or fields (27%) and compost pit (13%) while in Nyalenda they are: burning (62%),
open dumping/field (21%) and compost pit just like in Obunga.
Table 27: Ways of solid waste disposal
Ways of Solid waste disposal among tenants
according to landlords/landladies:
Settlement: Significantly
Different? Obunga Nyalenda
Open Dumping/Fields 26.7% 20.8%
Yes
Burning 53.3% 62.5%
Compost Pit 13.3% 8.3%
Private Garbage Collectors 6.7% 4.2%
Dust bins 0.0% 4.2%
This is further confirmed by the findings from the household survey where it was established that majority
of the households dispose of their wastes through burning in both the areas (Nyalenda – 61%, Obunga –
51%). This is followed by compost pit (Nyalenda – 27%, Obunga – 45%).
Solid Waste Disposed Through: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Compost Pit 27% 45.1% No
Burning 60.7% 51% Yes
Solid Waste Disposed by the: Road Side 7.9% 9.8% Yes
Dust Bins Provided by the County Governments 3.4% 0.0% Yes
Dumping Sites 5.6% 2% Yes
Collection By Private Companies (Youth Groups and
women Groups) 3.4% 2% Yes
For the respondents who are willing to use private companies to collect their wastes, the average cost they
are willing to incur for these services is KES 147.9 (23.1) in Nyalenda and KES 160.6 (38.8) in Obunga.
In Nyalenda, only 31% of the households are willing to pay for waste collection while in Obunga, 37% are
willing to pay for waste collection.
42
In Nyalenda, the four (4) most common challenges of effective waste management in that order is: poor
waste disposal and sanitation practices from tenants, poor waste management by the county government,
Lack of enough toilet coverage and poor planning for infrastructure. In Obunga, these challenges are: poor
planning for infrastructure, poor waste disposal and sanitation practices from tenants, poor waste
management practices by the county government and lack of enough toilet coverage in the area.
Table 28: Challenges of effective waste management
Challenges of effective Waste Management in the settlement Settlement Area
Nyalenda Obunga
Poor waste disposal and sanitation practices from tenants 42 25
Poor Waste Management by the County Government 33 7
Lack of enough toilet coverage 19 4
Poor Planning for infrastructure 18 34
Improper Handling of the sewerage plant by responsible people 11 2
High cost of water 3 0
Lack of resources to build toilets 3 0
High water table cannot allow us to dig deep toilet 2 0
To overcome the above challenges, the list below provides the proposed recommendations disaggregated
by settlement area.
Table 29: Recommendation for addressing challenges of effective waste management
Recommendations for addressing Challenges of effective Waste
Management in the settlement: Nyalenda Obunga
All stakeholders to improve waste disposal and collection methods 5 3
County government to improve on drainage 1 0
County Government and development partners to assist in putting up
modern toilets 10 1
County Government to employ garbage collectors 4 3
County Government to Improve the drainage systems 9 16
Create Awareness on the importance of proper sanitation and waste
management practices among tenants 11 9
Develop a proactive garbage collection system 17 5
Identification of a waste disposal location 5 3
Yes31%
No69%
Willingness to pay for waste collection in Nyalenda
Yes37%
No63%
Willingness to pay for waste collection in Obunga
43
Improve on handling of the sewerage by the County Government 8 4
Involve the youth in garbage collection 2 0
Need to have more people collecting waste 1 0
Plot Owners to construct enough and proper toilets in their plots 8 4
Support waste segregation at point of collection 3 1
There should be penalties for handling waste incorrectly 1 0
3.3.4 Disposal of human excreta in Obunga and Nyalenda Settlements From the plot owners survey, majority of the plots owned by the respondents from the two areas have toilets
or latrines within (Obunga – 80%, Nyalenda – 96%).
Table 30: Availability of toilets within the plot
Has toilets or latrines within the plot: Settlement: Significantly
Different? Obunga Nyalenda
Yes 12 (80%) 23 (95.8%) Yes
No 3 (20%) 1 (4.2%)
The types of toilets or latrines in their plots were mainly Pit latrine with floor slab in all the two areas
(Obunga – 75%, Nyalenda – 57%).
Table 31: Type of toilets within the plot
Type of toilets/latrines in within the
plot:
Settlement: Significantly
Different? Obunga Nyalenda
Makeshift Latrine 2 (16.7%) 4 (17.4%)
Yes Pit Latrine with floor slab 9 (75%) 13 (56.5%)
Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) 1 (8.3%) 5 (21.7%)
Flushable Toilet connected to septic tank 0 (0.0%) 1 (4.3%)
In Obunga area, three of the landlords/landladies confirmed that in their plots, there were no toilets or
latrines while in Obunga, just one of the respondents did not have a toilet or latrine in his or her plot in
Nyalenda. Two of the landlords/landladies in Obunga had their tenants using other unspecified methods for
disposing human excreta while for one of them, his or her tenants shared toilets in other neighbouring plots
just like the tenants in the plot of one of the landlords/landladies without a latrine or toilet in Nyalenda.
Table 32: Method of disposal of human excreta where toilet
Method of Disposal of human excreta
where toilet/latrine not within plot:
Settlement: Significantly
Different? Obunga Nyalenda
Share Toilet with neighbors 1 (33.3%) 1 (100%) Yes
Others 2 (66.7%) 0 (0.0%)
These were confirmed in the household survey where it was established that in Nyalenda just like in
Obunga, disposal of human excreta among majority of the households is through pit latrines (Nyalenda –
78%, Obunga – 72%). At least one household in each of the two settlement areas still used open field in
disposing human excreta with the main reasons given as in adequate toilet coverage.
Table 33: Ways of disposing human excreta
44
Ways of disposing human Excreta: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Open Field 1.1% 2%
No
Make Shift toilet 5.7% 18%
Pit Latrine 78.4% 72%
VIP Latrine 8% 4%
Pour Flash Latrine connected to septic tank 5.7% 0.0%
Eco-san toilet 1.1% 0
Communal/ Commercial Toilets 0.0% 4%
On average, 8 households share a toilet in Nyalenda while in Obunga, up to 7 households share a toilet. The
average distance between a house and latrine in Nyalenda 21.57 (2.1) metres while in Obunga, the distance
is 15.19 (2.5) metres. For the households that use commercial toilet facilities in Obunga, the average amount
of money paid is KES 7 (2).
The condition of majority of the toilets within the plots from where the respondents interviewed came from
was the same across the two settlement areas. In Nyalenda, most of the toilets were clean, safe and secure
and comfortable to use (60%). This was the same for Obunga (50%). Proportion of toilets that were either
dirty, filled up, partly collapsed and no longer in use was 40% in Nyalenda and 50% in Obunga.
Table 34: Conditions of the latrines within the plots
Conditions of the latrines within plots: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Dirty 13.5% 16.7%
Yes
Filled Up 6.7% 20.8%
Require Emptying 15.7% 10.4%
Partly Collapsed 2.2% 2.1%
No longer in Use 2.2% 0.0%
Safe and Secure 24.7% 20.8%
Clean 32.6% 27.1%
Comfortable to Use 2.2% 2.1%
According to more than 90% of the plot owners interviewed in Obunga and more than 70% in Nyalenda,
the most common method of emptying filled up latrines is the manual pit emptying compared to mechanical
exhausting that was used by none of the plot owners in Obunga and just 29% in Nyalenda. This was partly
because most of the members of the community or tenants recognized just the manual pit emptier in both
the sites (Obunga – 92%, Nyalenda – 85%). In fact, it is the most commonly preferred method for emptying
toilets and latrines among the tenants in the two areas as it is being used by 71% of the tenants in Obunga
and 55% in Nyalenda.
45
Table 35: Methods of emptying filled up latrines
Method of emptying filled up latrines: Settlement: Significantly
Different? Obunga Nyalenda
Manual Pit Emptying 91.7% 71.4%
Yes Mechanical Exhausting 0.0% 28.6%
Others 8.3% 0.0%
From the household survey, most of the existing toilets in both the areas are cleaned daily (Nyalenda –
60%, Obunga – 53%) and or when they are dirty (Nyalenda - 24% and 25%). Just 6% of the toilets in both
Nyalenda and Obunga are not cleaned at all.
Table 36: Frequency of toilet cleaning
Frequency of Toilet Cleaning: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Whenever it is Dirty 23.9% 24.5%
Yes
Daily 60.2% 53.1%
Once a week 10.2% 12.2%
Once a month 0.0% 4.1%
Not Cleaned at all 5.7% 6.1%
According to majority of the respondents from both the areas (Nyalenda – 67 %, Obunga – 77 %) where
toilets are at cleaned irrespective of the frequency in a day, week or month, it is the responsibility of the
tenants to clean the toilets.
Table 37: Responsibility of toilet cleaning
Responsibility of Toilet cleaning lies with: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Care Taker 4.7% 4.2%
Yes
Cleaner 7% 4.2%
Tenants 67.4% 77.1%
Landlords 3.5% 6.3%
Others 17.4% 8.3%
According to just 9% and 6% of the households in Nyalenda and Obunga respectively, toilets have hand
washing facilities available.
46
According to majority of the households in both the areas (Nyalenda – 77%, 72%), toilets have a functional
door.
Table 38: Latrine/toilet functionability of the door
Latrine/toilet has a functioning door: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Yes 77.3% 72% Yes
No 22.7% 28%
According to majority of the respondents in Nyalenda, the most common materials the walls, floor and the
roof of the toilets are made of bricks (75%), cemented (91%) and iron sheet (84%) respectively while in
Obunga, the walls, floor and roof are made of iron sheet (55%), cement (92%) and iron sheet (82%)
respectively.
Table 39: Materials used for toilets wall construction
Materials for the latrine/toilet walls: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Walls
No Bricks 75.3% 41.2%
Iron sheet 22.5% 54.9%
Mud 1.1% 0.0%
Floor
Yes
Cemented 91% 92.2%
Marram 2.2% 0.0%
Tilled floor 1.1% 0.0%
Wooden 4.5% 4%
Roof
Yes Iron sheet 84.3% 82.4%
Open 14.6% 13.7%
Majority of the households in both the areas wash their hands with soap quite often (Nyalenda - 95%,
Obunga – 100%). In both areas, most people wash their hands just after visiting the toilet (Nyalenda – 87%,
Obunga – 88%), before and after eating food (Nyalenda – 73%, Obunga – 73%) and just before preparing
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Yes No
Nyalenda 9.10% 90.90%
Obunga 5.90% 94.10%
Axi
s Ti
tle
Availability of Handwashing facility at the toilet
47
food (Nyalenda – 53%, Obunga – 45%). Hand washing is mainly done in a basin or trough by most of the
households in both the settlement areas (Nyalenda – 85%, Obunga – 88%).
Table 40: when hands are washed
Washes hands: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
After Visiting Toilet 86.5% 88.2% Yes
Before Preparing Food 52.8% 45.1% Yes
Before and After eating Food 73% 72.5% Yes
Before Breast Feeding 7.9% 3.9% Yes
After Changing Baby's Diapers 3.4% 5.9% Yes
During other times 3.4% 2% Yes
Children Faeces are disposed in the toilet by majority of the households in both the settlement areas
(Nyalenda - 78%, Obunga – 78%).
Table 41: where children’s feaces are disposed
Children's Faeces Disposed by: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
In the Toilet 77.5% 78.4% Yes
Burying In Soil 2.2% 0.0% Yes
Throwing in the Garden 2.2% 2% Yes
Placing it Directly in the Waste Basin 5.6% 5.9% Yes
Other Means 13.5% 13.7% Yes
In Nyalenda, about 58% of the households are at least satisfied with their present toilet system. This is
slightly lower among the households in Obunga who only 54% are at least satisfied with their toilet systems
though this implies that majority of the households in both areas are satisfied with their toilet systems.
1.10%
2.20%
1.10%
5.60%
6.70%
85.40%
2.20%
2%
3.90%
2%
0.00%
7.80%
88.20%
0.00%
Hand washing Basin/Sink
Tippy Tap
Leaky Tin
Bucket
Jag
Basin/Trough
Stand Alone Tap/Yard Tap
Technologies used for hand washing
Obunga Nyalenda
48
For most of the respondents in the two settlement areas, current quality of toilets in the area in terms of
privacy is good (Nyalenda – 48%, Obunga – 43%), in terms of cleanliness, fair (Nyalenda – 45%, Obunga
– 43%) and in terms of convenience fair as well (Nyalenda - 48%, Obunga – 39%) though a similar
proportion in Obunga felt that the current quality of toilets in terms of convenience was poor.
Table 42: Description of quality of the toilet
Description of current Quality of toilet in terms
of:
Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Privacy
Poor 16.9% 25.5%
Yes Fair 33.7% 31.4%
Good 48.3% 43.1%
Cleanliness:
Poor 20.2% 31.4%
Yes Fair 44.9% 43.1%
Good 34.9% 25.5%
Convenience:
Poor 21.3% 39.2%
Yes Fair 48.3% 39.2%
Good 29.2% 21.6%
Point of water waste disposal in both the areas was similar according to majority of the households visited
during the study. This was mainly open ground (Nyalenda – 73%, Obunga – 63%) followed by open drain
(Nyalenda – 21%, Obunga -31%).
Table 43: Point of disposal of waste water from the household
Point of disposal of waste water from the HH: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Open Drain 21.3% 31.4%
Yes
Open Ground 73% 62.7%
Soak pit 2.2% 3.9%
Pit Latrine/toilet 2.2% 0.0%
Others 1.1% 2%
Very Satisfied
Satisfied
Very Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
9.10%
48.90%
19.30%
22.70%
8%
46%
22%
24%
Satisfaction with the present toilet system
Obunga Nyalenda
49
3.3.5, Available institutions/Facilities According to most of the respondents in Nyalenda, the available facilities in the area are: ECD (97%),
Primary Schools (85%) and Secondary Schools (33%) while in Obunga they include: ECDs (98%), Primary
Schools (96%) and Secondary Schools (77%). The proportion of participants mentioning Primary and
Secondary schools is significantly higher in Obunga compared Nyalenda.
Table 44: Available facilities
Available Facilities: Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
ECD 96.6% 98% Yes
Primary 85.4% 96.1% No
Secondary 32.6% 76.5% No
Tertiary 2.2% 5.9% Yes
Health 5.6% 3.9% Yes
Recreational 1.1% 0.0% Yes
3.4 Water and sanitation issues in schools The study sought to establish the state of water and sanitation situation at the schools located in the informal
settlements of Nyalenda and Obunga. The following conclusions were made on this
Access to Safe Water
Only 2% of the sampled schools report treating water to make it safe for drinking.
While 85% of schools have a rainwater storage tank, only 63% of schools have a rainwater
storage tank in working condition and only 42% have a tank that is in good condition and with
working gutters.
In the rainy season, the average distance from schools to the primary water source is 71m while
in the dry season it is 425m.
In the rainy season, 90% of schools have access to an improved water source (mainly rainwater
tank), while in the dry season, this number shrinks to 41% with 40% using surface water.
Access to Sanitation
95% of schools surveyed exceeded the government recommended ratio of girl pupils per latrine
of 25:1. The average ratio in schools surveyed was 86.3:1 or more than triple the recommended
pupil per latrine ration (25:1).
100% of schools exceeded the government ratio of boy pupils per latrine of 30:1. The average
ratio in schools surveyed was 99.7:1 or more than two and a half times the recommended ratio.
There are significant problems with latrine cleanliness and maintenance.
52% of schools had a latrine bank with odour problems, 68% had at least one bank with a
general lack of cleanliness or visible feces and 45% of schools had latrines with fly control
problems.
Promotion of Hygiene
Only 21% of schools indicated to be providing water for hand washing and only 13% of schools
provided water for hand washing on the day surveyed.
What impact do school WASH interventions have on the community
There is a modest but statistically significant influence of school WASH on behaviors in the
household. It is one of several factors that have an impact on household behavior
50
For example, those having seen a friend, family member or neighbor use WaterGuard are
more likely (2.2 times greater odds) to use it, as well as those having discussed it with a child
(1.4 times greater odds)
3.5 Role of women in the community on sanitation and hygiene From the focused group discussion, most women are involved in maintaining cleanliness in the community
by collecting garbage and burning and also clearing the drainage system around the plots. Other roles
identified during the discussions include:
Women are aware of the existence of neighbourhood/resident association and some of them are
members and are even officials of the same
Women are not given power to make major decisions at both the household and community level
as men are and rate their participation as fair at all the levels, however its majorly dependent on
households
No structures exist for women to articulate their issues except when meetings are conducted in the
settlement where everyone is invited
Women are given less powerful positions in the community which dilutes their influence in the
community. This does not allow them to articulate their issues very well as it should be
Women can be integrated in the management of water and sanitation by:
1. Sensitizing and emphasizing their role in sanitation and hygiene
2. Supporting their initiatives on sanitation
3. Training them on the need for maintaining hygiene at the household as well as in the community
4. Allowing women to hold positions in the associations within the community to boost their level of
confidence
Menstrual hygiene management challenges
1. Lack of closeness of parents with their children
2. Disposal of sanitary towels
3. Insufficient knowledge concerning menstrual hygiene management
4. High cost of sanitary towels
How to manage /address menstrual hygiene at household level
1. Taking time discussing menstrual issues with teen daughters and sharing tips on management of
the same
2. Buying sanitary towels to teen daughters and training on how to use them
How to manage/address menstrual hygiene at community level
1. Awareness creation
2. Openness of parents with their teen daughters
3. Manufacturing of sanitary towels which are environment friendly/easy to dispose
4. Donors to support in supplying towels to schools/community
Role of men and women in menstrual hygiene management
1. Training/ educating of young girls on menstrual hygiene
2. Providing sanitary towels to young girls
Business opportunity in WASH:
Business opportunity exists for women in the community in sanitation and waste
management where we can form groups and provide garbage collection services at a fee
51
When well trained we can also offer counselling, menstrual hygiene and general sanitation
capacity building services at a fee especially in schools
How to support women in running WASH business
1. Training women on business management skills including record keeping
2. Providing soft loans
3. Providing necessary tools
4. Help in sensitization to convince women on the viability of this kind of business
5. Help in organizing women in groups
6. Support in registering of the business
Challenges women face in decision making regarding WASH at the household level
1. Lack of co-operation
2. No back-up support from the husband
Challenges women face in decision making regarding WASH at the community level
1. Lack of co-operation by community members
2. Less representation at the community leadership structure
3. lack of capacity on sanitation
Challenges women face in decision making regarding WASH at the county level
1. No consultation
2. Lack of representation at county level
What hinders women from participating in community development?
1. Lack of awareness
2. Lack of courage to take on men for positions in the community projects
3. Lack of support from husbands
4. Home chores
3.6 Findings from the discussion with- resident association/neighbourhood association From the FGDs, the residents association operate in the following thematic areas:
1. Water and Sanitation
2. Solid waste management
3. Education
4. Security
5. Energy
6. Agriculture
7. Drainage
8. Environment
The main objectives for these associations have been clustered as follows:
1. Equitable distribution of resources especially from the government and its agencies
2. Attract donors for support
3. Lobbying and advocacy
4. Representation
5. Purchasing of various assets to act as security for finance
6. To enhance neighbourhood unity and as a base for confronting of communal issues
52
Key priority areas for these associations has been summarised as:
1. Construction of suitable toilets connected to sewer line
2. Garbage/ solid waste management
3. Water connection and accessibility
4. Security
The following Achievements have been realised by these associations
1. Nyalenda A community members are united under one resident association with units (4) namely;
central, kanyakwar, Dago & Western for easy co-ordination and this has reduced rate of crime
within the settlement
2. Rehabilitation of springs
3. Extension of DMM
4. Connection and extension of water to kapuothe
5. Connection and extension of water to Dunga
6. Recognition of association by county authorities and development agencies
These associations have faced the following Challenges
1. Lack of awareness on sanitation matters by members of the settlement
2. High cost of constructing toilets because of high water table
3. Sinking of toilets as a result of the loose type soil which leads to frequent collapsing of toilets
4. High number of households sharing one latrine
5. Lack of refuse skips and dumping site for solid wastes
6. Lack of space within the plots and in the settlement as a whole
7. Flooding of the settlement especially during rainy periods of the year
Interventions by the associations on challenges of WASH in the settlement
1. Sensitization
2. Appeals to the county government to construct and expand feeder roads for easy accessibility
3. Vigilance to ensure members of the settlement are responsible
4. Educating of landlords on matters of sanitation
5. Landlords to be compelled to construct enough toilets in their plots
6. Collection garbage by county government
7. Appeals to the county government to construct and expand feeder roads for easy accessibility
Challenges encountered when working with community, county and national government and
development agencies
1. Slow responses
2. Duplication of work
3. Many unfulfilled promises
4. Lack of proper consultation
5. Shorter period of engagement especially non-government agencies
6. Inadequate support
7. Lack of co-operation
8. Conflict of interest
9. Too much of expectation especially from community members
10. Communication procedures and network is not perfected
How to address the above challenges
1. Openness of community members, government and development agencies
53
2. Frequent communication and consultations
3. Engagement of community members through the existing leadership
3.7 Mapping of Partners/Stakeholders According to majority of the respondents in the household survey in Nyalenda area (58%), the County
Government has not done enough to improve sanitation and access to safe water in the area while in
Obunga, majority of the residents feel that the County Government has done enough to improve sanitation
and access to safe water in the area (57%). In both the areas, majority of the respondents rate the
performance of the County Governments between average and good (Nyalenda – 70%, Obunga – 52%).
Table 45: Rating of performance of the county government
Rating of the performance of the County
Government in improving sanitation and access
to safe water:
Settlement Area: Significantly
different? Nyalenda Obunga
Good 35.1% 17.2%
Yes Average 35.1% 34.5%
Poor 29.7% 48.3%
The table below shows the key areas according to the respondents in the household survey that the County
Government needs to improve on disaggregated by settlement area.
Table 46: Areas where the county government needs to improve
Key Areas that the County Government needs to improve on: Nyalenda Obunga
Improve sanitation by addressing waste management issues 37 10
Compel landlords to build toilets 22 10
Improve sewerage and drainage systems 13 20
Improve access roads 6 3
Strengthen Public Health Systems to create awareness on water, hygiene
and sanitation issues 6 3
Improve water accessibility 4 1
Plant trees around the sewage lagoon 1 0
Address security issues 0 4
From the plot owners’ survey, just one (1) and two (2) plot owners have received support from government
to improve WASH in Obunga and Nyalenda respectively. This support has been in the form of water
connection for the plot owners in both the sites.
54
Below is the list of development partners focusing on WASH in Obunga and Nyalenda settlements
according to the plot owners/landlords.
Table 47: Development partners working within the settlement
Development Partners working within the settlement:
Obunga Nyalenda
Umande Trust Umande Trust
SOS KIWASCO
KUAP KUAP
KMET Kazingumu
Practical Action Practical Action
Kenya Red Cross
MUUNGANO
Pamoja Trust
USAID
13.30%
86.70%
4.20%
95.80%
Yes No
Propotion of plot owners receiving WASH support from the government
Obunga Nyalenda
55
4.0 Chapter Four: Policy and Institutional Framework for Sanitation
This chapter reviews the existing policy and institutional framework for delivery of water and sanitation at
international, national, county and local levels in Kisumu. The purpose is to identify policy gaps and any
other regulations that may barrier the delivery of adequate sanitation facilities and services with a pro poor
focus.
4.1 International and regional Policy Context Kenya is a signatory to several international conventions, treaties and declarations, under which the human
right to safe drinking water and sanitation is guaranteed. Examples include:
i. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Right (ICESCR),
ii. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),
iii. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC),
iv. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),
v. eThekwini Commitments,
vi. Ng’or Declaration), and
vii. Sanitation and Water for All High-Level Meeting Commitments 2012.
SDG: Goal No 6
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) No. 6 aims to ensure access water and sanitation for all. The goal
aims by 2030 to:
i. Achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all, and end open defecation,
paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations.
ii. Improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of
hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and
substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally.
iii. Expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water
and sanitation related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water
efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies.
iv. Support and strengthen the participation of local communities for improving water and sanitation
management.
4.2 National and County Policy Context
4.2.1 The Contrition of Kenya (2010)
The Constitution of Kenya (2010) provides the overall policy anchorage and direction to all policies and
legislations. The Bill of Rights (Article 19) applies to all laws and binds all state organs and all persons
with a view to protecting and preserving the rights and dignity of all persons and to promote social justice.
Article 43 (b) of the Constitution declares sanitation as a basic human right and guarantees the right of
every person to “reasonable standards of sanitation”. Article 42 also guarantees the right to a clean and
healthy environment. The Constitution, therefore, confers the state with the obligation to give priority to
ensuring the widest possible enjoyment of these rights. The state in Article 21(2) is required to take
legislative, policy and other measures, including the setting of standards, to achieve the progressive
realization of the rights guaranteed under Article 43. Article 21 also requires the state to address the needs
of vulnerable groups within society, including women, older members of society, persons with disabilities,
children, and youth, members of minority or marginalized communities, and members of particular ethnic,
religious or cultural communities and to enact and implement legislation to fulfil its international
obligations in respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
56
In addition, the fourth schedule devolves most sanitation functions and services to the 47 County
Governments with the National Government retaining responsibility for national policy, training, capacity
building, technical assistance and standards formulation. The county governments are responsible for
county sanitation services including licensing and control of undertakings that sell food to the public,
cemeteries, funeral parlours and crematoria, refuse removal, refuse dumps and solid waste disposal and
storm water management in built-up areas.
Table 48: Functions of the National vs County Governments in relation to sanitation
National Government - CK 2010 4th Schedule
Part I
County Government - CK 2010 4th Schedule Part
II
9. National economic policy and planning
11. National statistics and data on population, the
economy and society generally
14. Consumer protection
19. National public works
22. Protection of the environment
24. Disaster management
28. Health (sanitation) Policy
32. Capacity building and technical assistance to
counties
33. Public investment
2. County health services, including, in particular—
(c) Promotion of primary health care;
(d) Licensing and control of undertakings that sell
food to the public;
(f) Cemeteries, funeral parlours and crematoria; and
(g) Refuse removal, refuse dumps and solid waste
disposal.
County planning and development including (a)
statistics, and (d) housing
11. County public works and services, including— (a)
storm water management system in built up area
and (b) water and sanitation services.
12. Disaster management.
14. Ensuring and coordinating the participation of
communities and locations in governance at the
local level and assisting communities and locations
to develop the administrative capacity for effective
exercise of the functions and powers and
participation in governance at the local level.
Source: National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy 2016-2030)
4.2.2. Kenya Vision 2030
This is the overall long term national development blue print for the country anchored on three pillars;
political, economic and social pillars. Under the social pillar, Vision 2030 stipulates that ‘every Kenyan
should have access to clean, safe water and improved sanitation by the year 2030’. The goal is to ensure
that water and sanitation is available and accessible to all by 2030. It proposes the following strategies:
i. Improvement and application of improved toilets and community sanitation;
ii. Promotion of the use of hygienic toilets including ventilated and improved pit (VIP) latrines and
septic tanks in rural areas and schools on a ratio of one toilet for every 35 boys and one toilet for
every 25 girls;
iii. Constructing sanitation facilities to support a growing urban and industrial population.
iv. Development and expansion of sewerage schemes especially in urban areas;
v. Promotion of public health education on sanitation;
57
vi. Encouraging planned rural and informal urban settlements to ensure access to improved and safe
sanitation;
vii. Research and development;
viii. Innovations in rural waste disposal combined with relevant incentives;
ix. Encouraging transition from traditional pit latrines to (adoption of) improved sanitation
x. Encouraging public-private partnerships in the development and management of sewerage systems;
and
xi. Promotion of solutions that can provide Total Hygienic Sanitation that includes clean toilet, safe
sludge removal and effective sludge treatment.
On urban sanitation, Vision 2030 prioritizes the rehabilitation, expansion and development of urban
sanitation infrastructure in the satellite towns around Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisumu, Nakuru and Kisii.
4.2.3 National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy (2007)
The National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy (2007) targets 90% of households to have
hygienic affordable and sustainable toilets by the year 2015. The policy states that “the human right to
water entitles everyone to sufficient, affordable, physically accessible, safe and accessible water for
personal and domestic use’ and therefore underscoring the rights’ based approaches to basic service
delivery to all Kenyans.
4.2.4 National Health Policy Framework- (2012-2030)
The aim of the National health Policy Framework is to ‘attain the highest possible standard of health in a
manner responsive to the needs of the population’. The policy aims to achieve this goal by supporting
provision of equitable, affordable and quality health and related services at the highest attainable standards
to all Kenyans. Unsafe water and sanitation are recognized as the leading risk factors and contributors to
morbidity and mortality in Kenya.
4.2.5 Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy (2016-2030)
The Kenya Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene (KESH) Policy (2016-2030) lays out a robust framework
for steering Kenya’s environmental sanitation and hygiene interventions for the next fifteen years. The
policy takes cognizance of the new dispensation under the Constitution of Kenya 2010, the Kenya Vision
2030 and the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The policy has adopted the rights based
approach and is designed to enable every person to enjoy the greatest extent possible, his/her constitutional
right to the highest attainable standard of health, sanitation, clean and healthy environment. The policy
provides the framework for the execution of the sanitation related functions constitutionally assigned
respectively to the National as well as the 47 County Governments.
The successful implementation of the policy will be achieved through the following eight strategic goals:
i. Scaling up access to improved rural and urban sanitation.
ii. Assuring clean and healthy environment free from public nuisances.
iii. Fostering private sector participation and investment in sanitation.
iv. Building governance and leadership capacity for sanitation.
v. Sustainable financing and investment for sanitation.
vi. Building enabling legal and regulatory environment.
vii. Establishing an effective research and development framework for sanitation.
58
viii. Strengthening monitoring and evaluation systems for the sanitation sector.
In addition to the policy, the following strategic documents were also launched to support its
implementation:
a) Kenya Environmental Sanitation & Hygiene Strategic Framework (2016-2020);
b) Kenya ODF 2020 Campaign Framework; and
c) The Prototype County Environmental Health and Sanitation Bill
4.2.6 Water Act, 2012
The water Act (2012), has been hailed as a major milestone in the water sector reform in Kenya, even
though its structures centralized decision making with the Minister for Water and Irrigation and the
president for appointment of board members and chair persons respectively for the Water Services
Regulatory Board (WSREB) and Water Service Boards (WSBs) . It clearly separated service provision
functions from regulation and allocated the same to WSB and WASREB, respectively while the Water
Appeals Board (WAB) was mandated to arbitrate water related disputes and conflicts between institutions
and organizations. The National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation (NWCPC) was mandated to
construct dams and drill boreholes.
The licensee (WSB), however, may delegate all or part of its functions to a Water Service Provider (WSP)
to deliver water services through a service provision agreement (SPA). Licensee may enter into an
agreement with any person to supply water in bulk form for a specific terms, period and conditions subject
to approval by Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB). WRUAs are supposed to operate in rural
areas where a water licensee does not operate.
Figure 7: Institutional Framework for Water Resource Management
Source: Water Act, 2012
WAB NWCPC Policy, regulation &
monitoring,
Planning & coordination
Quality assurance/guidance
Capacity development overall sector
Nat
ional
Poli
cy
Form
ula
tion
Reg
ion
al
Lev
el
Reg
ula
tion
Ser
vic
e
Pro
vis
ion
Consu
mer
s
Lo
cal
Lev
el
Consumers, Users
WSPs
Water
Services
Board
WASREB
Ass
et
man
agem
ent
Policy, regulation &
monitoring,
Planning & coordination
Quality assurance/guidance
Capacity development
Service delivery
Asset management
Support to communities
Service delivery
Operation/ maintenance
Fees& charges payment
Water resources
management Water and sanitation
services
WRUAs
Regiona
l
WARM
CAACs
WARM
A
NIB KEWI MW
I
59
4.2.7 Water Act, 2014
The Act affirms the right to safe and clean water in adequate quantities and reasonable standards of
sanitation as provided under the COK (2010). It commits the Cabinet Secretary responsible for water to
formulate a water strategy, whose object is to provide the government’s plans and programmes for the
progressive realization of the right of every person in Kenya to water. The strategy shall outline, among
others;
Existing water services;
The number and location of persons who are not provided with a basic water supply and basic
sewerage services;
Standards for the progressive realization of the right to water; and
A resource mobilization strategy for the implementation of the plans.
The Act establishes the Water Harvesting and Storage Authority with the following functions:
Undertake on behalf of the national government, the development of national public water works
for water resources storage;
Maintain and manage national public water works infrastructure for water resources storage;
Collect and provide information for the formulation by the Cabinet Secretary of the national
water resources storage and flood control strategies;
Develop a water harvesting policy and enforce water harvesting strategies; and
Advise the Cabinet Secretary on any matter concerning national public water works for water
storage
The Act also establishes agencies of the national government known as the Water Works Development
Board with the following powers and mandates:
Development of water works for water services
Formulation of development and investment plans for rural and urban areas aggregated from the
county development plans and established by the County water services providers and through
the county government water services institutional structures for their designated areas,
Provision of input to the national development and financing plan established by the Cabinet
Secretary
Provision of technical assistance to the water services providers as county government agents for
county asset development in consultation with respective county governments
Handover of developed public assets to the licenced county water service providers or to the
county water department
In addition, the Act establishes the Water Services Regulatory Authority whose principal object is to
protect the interests and rights of consumers in the provision of water services. The regulator shall
among other functions:
Determine and prescribe national standards for the provision of water services and asset
development for water services providers;
Evaluate and recommend water and sewerage tariffs to the county water services providers and
approve the imposition of such tariffs in line with consumer protection standards;
4.2.8 The National Water Services Strategy (2007-2015)
The National Water Services Strategy (NWSS) provides a clear, accountable and transparent road map to
implement sector policy in order to improve health, jobs and wealth for all Kenyans (MWI, 2007). Other
than water, the NWSS recognizes the need for the provision of sanitation services through sewerage and
on-site sanitation, by:
60
Halving the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic
sanitation by 2015 (MDG 7, target 10), and thereafter
Moving to universal access by 2030 (Vision 2030).
4.2.9 Kisumu County Water Policy
The need to provide safe and adequate drinking water and sanitation, as well as water for production is
universally recognized and legally suctioned by treaties, conventions, and legislation, including the
Constitution of Kenya (2010). The Kisumu County Water Policy, has been prepared in accordance with the
Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Kenya, and aims to create an enabling environment for strengthening
water supply and sanitation systems that meet constitutional rights to safe and clean water supply through
universal water coverage10.
The primary policy goals are to inter alia:
i. Double coverage of adequate clean and safe drinking water for domestic use and human
consumption from about 40% to 80% in the next five years at a steady state incremental rate of 5%
annually,
ii. Ensure adequate supply of water for production purposes, reclamation of wastewater for recycling,
and improved sanitation with a coverage of 50% population to sewer connectivity in the next five
years,
iii. Ensure agile technology-based applications, services and enterprises in the development of the
water sector leading to below 10% failure time in service delivery and less than 15% UFW in the
next five years,
iv. Implement a strategy aimed at the realization of the forty (40) litres per capita water provision
within a period of five years, and
v. Sustainably conserve water catchments and available water resources by facilitating human
capacity building for innovation and development among WRUA members and the local
communities by attaining 90% appropriate awareness of water affairs in the next five years.
One of the policy objectives in relation to water and sanitation supply to the poor and underserved in urban
areas is very succinct, and aims to ‘ensure safe, reliable, and affordable access to water rights in poor
urban settlements especially in the low-income areas’: This is intended to be achieved through‘deliberate
programmes to address the rights to water in underserved urban settlements’11.
Through this policy pronouncements, the County Government of Kisumu is, therefore, committed to
ensuring that all households in the poor urban and peri-urban slums have access to clean water supply and
improved sanitation facilities and services.
The policy promises to develop responsive water supply and sanitation systems to meet the needs of the
citizens and ensure that necessary services reach the poor and the underserved in society through the
following interconnected five strategic direction:
Empowering and engaging citizens through public participation
Strengthening governance and accountability
Reforming water delivery models
Coordinating water services around citizens including multiple sectors
Creating an enabling policy and legislation environment
10Kisumu County Water Policy,2015 11Kisumu County Water Policy, 2015
61
The policy objective for rural and urban water and sanitation is to ‘ensure reliable rural and urban water
supply and sustainable sanitation in Kisumu County’. It has a focus for urban areas and intends to achieve
the following:
Ensure safe, reliable, and affordable access to water rights in poor urban settlements especially
in the low-income areas: This entails deliberate programme to address the rights to water in
underserved urban settlements.
Ensure efficient waste water disposal measures are incorporated in urban and rural settlement
planning: This will include development of sewerage systems, open channels, septic tanks, soak
pits, latrines and eco-san systems where applicable,
Increase Kisumu City’s recovered and treated waste water from its sewage: This entails recovery
and recycling of the city’s total drinking water supply and using the reclaimed water mainly in
irrigation production systems.
Ring fence revenues for the WSIs and WSPs from undue external influence and pilferage: This
will ensure re-investment of a portion of revenue into the enhancement of water infrastructure.
Establish wastewater treatment units at household level: This will enhance reduction of waste
water from the environment while increasing amount of available water for re-cycling for
production use.
4.2.10 Pro Poor Implementation Plan for Water and Sanitation The Pro-Poor Implementation Plan(PPIP) for Water Supply and Sanitation sets out the actions which need
to be undertaken by water sector institutions, water and sanitation service providers, development partners
and civil society among other stakeholders to streamline their actions towards a national approach aiming
to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for water and sanitation. In this regard, KIWASCO
has developed a Pro Poor Strategy and Action Plan (PPAP) to extend the provision of water and sanitation
services to underserved people in Low Income Areas by:
• Establishment and review of underserved areas using the completed MajiData survey (2009),
• Recruitment of a Pro-Poor Programme Coordinator (PPPC) to spearhead the development and
implementation of the strategy with local WASH stakeholders,
• Expanding coverage levels in prioritized LIAs through the development of funding proposals submitted
to the Water Services Trust Fund (WSTF),UNICEF, EU, and/or other partners
• Regulating water service provision in LIAs by scaling-up Delegated Management Model (DMM), and,
• Collecting, analyzing and responding to complaints from consumers in LIAs.
4.2.11 Strategic Guidelines for Improving Provision of Water and Sanitation Services to LIAs in
Kisumu Kisumu Water & Sewerage Company (KIWASCO) is a limited liability company fully owned by the
County Government Kisumu, registered in 2001 and autonomously started operations in 2003. It is the main
Water Service Provider (WSP) in Kisumu through a Service Provision Agreement (SPA) signed with Lake
Victoria South Water Services Board (LVSWSB) in 2005.
The company recognizes the complexity of providing services to the informal settlements owing to their
unplanned nature resulting in inadequate infrastructure (roads, water, sanitation, sewerage, drainage, and
electricity), proliferation of temporary and haphazard building solutions, poor housing, high densities, and
very low levels of public services. Clean water, adequate sanitation, and hygiene are visibly substandard or
62
non-existing altogether. Expansion and densification of settlements calls for urgent plans and innovative
ways for upgrading and service improvements.
KIWASCO agrees that Low Income Areas (LIAs) in Kisumu are beset by a number of challenges that affect
effective and efficient service delivery; namely: precarious living conditions, scarcity of available options,
and uncertain land tenure which limit the incentives for investment to improve the surroundings or develop
proper facilities. The net effect of these bottlenecks are low coverage; low service levels; high Non Revenue
Water (NRW), water contamination; corruption and intrusion of cartels; frequent pipeline bursts and
leakages which also affect the quality of water supplied12. The non-revenue water is as high as 54% against
the country’s average of 47%13. All these challenges require a deliberate pro poor strategy to accelerate
service provision to the LIAs, where approximately 50% of the city population lives14.
The main objectives of current pro poor strategic guidelines being implemented by KIWASCO are,
therefore, meant to:
Attain 84% water access and coverage in LIAs,
Attain 90% coverage on safe, dignified and sustainable sanitation in LIAs,
Reduce the cost of accessing quality water in the LIAs to not more than Ksh.2/- per 20 liter Jerrican,
Reduce NRW in low income settlement to 5%,
Achieve operational financial sustainability in LIAs thus increase and maintain revenue collection at
93% and above, and,
Improve community participation/ partnerships in water and sanitation management.
In summary, the policy and regulatory framework at both the national and county levels for inclusive basic
service delivery are bold and vibrant and makes very clear provision for pro poor approaches and
programmes. They have adopted rights based approaches and are also anchored in international treaties,
conventions and human development objectives. They have also been prepared through consultative and
participatory process with all stakeholders as required by the constitution of Kenya (2010) and Vision 2030.
It now requires the necessary legislations and regulations at both levels to turn the policy statements into
reality. The County Government of Kisumu should now domesticate the Environmental Sanitation and
Hygiene Policy (2016-2030) and put in place the necessary regulations and allocate adequate budgets to
achieve the stated objectives in the water policy once assented by the Governor.
12KIWASCO Reports, 2010 13 Impact Report No.4, 2011
14 KIWASCCO Strategic Guidelines for LIAs, 2013
63
APPENDICES
List of participants in the Focused Group Discussions FGDs LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
OBUNGA FGD –WOMEN ONLY
No. NAME OF PARTICIPANTS CONTACTS
1. Jenipher Atieno 0725-704957
2. Elizabeth Adela 0704-278843
3. Quilent Atieno 0710-685018
4. Mercyline Awino 0718-624136
5. Peres Adhiambo -
6. Nancy Achieng 0710-884760
7. Carren Anyango 0722-531623
8. Jesica Mulonga 0723-794974
9. Millicent Akinyi 0711-476649
10. Lilian Atieno 0723-040942
11. Roseline Adhiambo 0700-144428
12. Lydia Akinyi 0706-735641
13. Millicent Atieno 0716-628198
14. Lucy Ogwel 0724-285163
15. Pamela Ibrahim 0712-789218
16. Mary Ongadi 0723-832517
17. Seline Akinyi 0701-4150089
18. Sarah Atieno 0726-909426
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
NYALENDA A FGD –WOMEN ONLY
No. NAME OF PARTICIPANTS CONTACTS
1. Lilian A. Odero 0701-475272
2. Hellen J. Okumu 0721-394339
3. Elizabeth Odero 0722-795573
4. Elsa A. Omollo 0718-124937
5. Catherine Liani 0700-566478
6. Pamela A. Abala 0717-349624
7. Florence Achieng 0716-859845
8. Mary Adada 0729-967513
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
NYALENDA B FGD –WOMEN ONLY
No. NAME OF PARTICIPANTS CONTACTS
1. Matyline Atieno 0707-292489
2. Belinda Awuor 0712-696878
3. Grace Atieno 0716-488564
4. Millicent Adhiambo 0718-829574
5. Lucy Mideya 0710-386832
6. Nancy Atieno 0721-680048
64
7. Flidah Adhiambo 0707-324146
8. Everline A. Okumu 0729- 567217
9. Peres A. Otieno 0717-139687
10. Margaret Okullo 0708-210399
11. Florence Guya 0717- 544302
12. Pamela Oduor 0701-135637
13. Millicent Akinyi 0701-135653
14. Christine Auma 0704-434363
15. Rose j. Anyango 0702-185968
16. Everline Nyaboke 0714- 032683
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
NYALENDA B FGD – NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATION
No. NAME OF PARTICIPANTS CONTACTS
1. Carren Allambo 0735-534039
2. Anitta Nyagaya 0711-844197
3. Lydia Agunda 0733-691772
4. Millicent Atieno Onyango 0702-186522
5. Mito Milambo 0714-026809
6. Zeddy Tunya 0724-172501
7. Fatuma Swalleh 0726-106283
8. Alice o. Jobitta 0721-888763
9. Tom Obuya 0719-500548
10. Barrack Ojiel 0707-967136
11. Violet Wasonga 0721-310212
12 George Owuor 0726-526934
13. Paul Rangoro 0719 -240117
14. Francis Owenga Omoke 0716-488564
15.. Rhoda Otieno 0724-164721
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
NYALENDA A FGD – NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATION
No. NAME OF PARTICIPANTS CONTACTS
1. Peter Anditi Andiwo 0715-537471
2. Peter Musa Abuor 0712-503846
3. Francis Manasse oguna 0702-404794
4. Carrey A. Anyango 0726-645007
5. Mathews Onyango 0706-942246
6. William Odhiambo 0710-400539
7. Charles Asembo 0701-766438
8. John Odhiambo Kungu 0721-517551
9. George O. Awuondo 0728-226285
10. Booker Omollo 0721-622992
11. Mary Adada 0729-967513
12. Elizabeth Odero 0722-795573
13. Hellen Juma 0721-394339
65
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
OBUNGA FGD – NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATION
No. NAME OF PARTICIPANTS CONTACTS
1. Barrack O. Agallo 0702-714565
2. Mercyline Awino 0718-624136
3. Jenipher Atieno 0725-704957
4. Isdorah Onyango 0724-608578
5. Margaret Ochieng 0714-912681
6. Joseph Anyama 0706-071035
7. Tobias Ayugi 0721-737795
8. Paul Nyula 0716-035445
9. Jessica Mulonga 0723-794974
10. Stanley Manyasi 0728-654176
11. Raphael Oloo 0723-368875
12. Fredrick Buyoka 0710-808310
13. Maurice Ongawo 0739-398462
KisumuSan Baseline Survey Household Questionnaire General information
1. Name of research assistant …………………………………………………..
2. Date of interview ………………………………………………………………….
3. Sub location………………………………………….......................................
4. Name of settlement……………………………………………………………….
5. Administrative unit…………………………………………………………………
6. Ward………………………………………………………………………………..
7. Location…………………………………………………………………………. …
Household details
8. Who is the household head?
i. Woman
ii. Man
iii. Child
9. Sex of the household head if child
1. Male 2. Female
10. What is the highest level of education attained by the household head? Tick as appropriate in the
table below.
Highest level of education attained Tick as appropriate
Never attended school
Some Primary education
66
Completed Primary Education
Some Secondary Education
Completed Secondary Education
Tertiary or vocation education
College or University education
Refused to answer
Does not know
Not applicable
67
11. How many people live in this household?
Number of people in household Tick as appropriate
1-4
5-8
9-12
More than 12
12. What is the age bracket of the household members?
Age bracket Number
Male Female
1-5
6-14
15-18
19-25
26-30
31-40
41-45
Above 45
Total
Grand total
Sources of income
13. What is the main source of your household income?
1. Salaried employment
2. Self-employment
3. Own business
4. Others sources, please specify…………………………………………
14. What is the average household income per month?
Average household income (in
Ksh)
Tick as appropriate
68
Less than 5000
5001-7000
7001-9000
9001-11000
11001-13000
13001-15000
15001-17000
17001-19000
19001-21000
Above 21000
Home/ house ownership
15. Do you own the home/ house in which you live (please tick mode of acquisition)?
1 Yes 2 No
(a). If Yes. How did you acquire it?
Built gifted inherited bought others, specify……………………………………
(b). If No. What is the mode of occupancy?
Leased rented squatting Others, specify……………………………………….
16. If you lease/rent, how much rent do you pay per month? ......................................
Water Supply
a. Sources of water for domestic use
17. Where do you obtain water for the following domestic uses?
Water Source Drinkin
g
Cookin
g
Washin
g
Waterin
g
livestock
Cost (20
litre
Jerrican
)
Time
taken for
round
trip
(minutes
)
1 Individual
household
connection
2 Water kiosk
69
3 Communal
stand pipe
4 Bore hole
5 Shallow
well
6 Protected
spring
7 River/strea
m
8 Un-
protected
spring
9 Lake
1
0
Water
vendors
1
1
Others
sources
(Please
specify)
b. Household water treatment and storage
18 Do you treat water for drinking?
1. Yes
2. No
19. If yes, how do you treat it?
1. Boiling
2. Filtration
3. Chemical treatment (Aquatab/water guard/Purr)
4. Solar Disinfection (Sodis)
5. Others (specify)
20. How do you store water for drinking?
1. Traditional pot
2. Open water buckets
3. Water buckets with lids
70
4. Jerrican containers
5. Water drums
6. Others. (Please specify)……..
Solid Waste Management
21. Where do you dispose of solid waste?
1. Compost pit
2. Burning
3. Road side
4. Dust bins provided by County Government
5. Refuse skips
6. Dumping site
7. Collected by private companies (youth groups/women groups)
22. If collected by private companies, how much money do you pay per month (in Ksh)?
1. 100-300
2. 300-400
3. 400-500
4. Over 500
23. In case you don’t pay currently, would you be willing to pay for waste collection services? If yes, how
much per month?
1. Yes. Amount per month………………………………………
2. No
24. What do you consider to be the main challenges to effective waste management in your settlement?
1……………………………………………………………………
2…………………………………………………………………….
3…………………………………………………………………….
4……………………………………………………………………..
5………………………………………………………………………
25. In your opinion, how do you think some of these problems may be sorted out?
1………………………………………………………………………
2………………………………………………………………………
71
3………………………………………………………………………
4………………………………………………………………………
5………………………………………………………………………
Sanitation Facilities
26. How do you dispose of human excreta?
1. Open field (open defecation)
2. ‘Flying’ toilet
3. Make shift latrine
4. Traditional pit latrine
5. Pit latrine
6. VIP latrine
7. Pour flush latrine connected to septic tank
8. Pour flush latrine connected to sewer line
9. Flushable toilet connected to sewer
10. Eco-san toilet
11. Bio centre
12. Communal/commercial toilets
27. In case latrines are shared, how many households share it?
………………………………………………………………………..
28. How many latrine doors do you have within your plot?..................
29. In case you use commercial toilets/ ‘pay as you use’ facilities, how much do you pay per visit?
30. How far is the latrine/toilet from your house in metres?..................................................
31. In case you use open fields/ open defecate, what are the reasons for doing so?
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………..
31. How would you describe the condition of the latrines within your plot?
Dirty Filled up Require
emptying
Partly
collapsed
No
longer in
use
Safe and
secure
Clean Comfortable
to use
32. How often is the latrine cleaned?
1. Whenever it is dirty
2. Daily
3. Once a week
4. Once a month
5. Not cleaned at all
72
33. Who cleans the toilets whenever they are dirty?
1. Care taker
2. Cleaner
3. Tenants
4. Landlords
5. Others, specify…………………………………………………….
34. Does your latrine/toilet have a hand washing facility?
1. Yes
2. No
35. Does your latrine/toilet have a functioning door?
3. Yes
4. No
36. What material(s) were used to build latrine/toilets? Check only one primary material for walls, floor
and roof.
i. Walls
i. Floor
ii. Roof
Personal Hygiene
37. Do you often wash your hands with soap?
i. Yes
ii. No.
38. If yes, when do you wash hands?
i. Before visiting the toilet
ii. After visiting the toilet
iii. Before preparing food
iv. Before and after eating
v. Before breast feeding
vi. After changing baby’s nappies
vii. Others, please specify……………………………..
39. What technologies do you use for hand washing?
i. Hand washing basin/sink
ii. Tippy tap
iii. Leaky tin
iv. Bucket
v. Jag
vi. Basin/trough
vii. Stand-alone tap/ yard tap
40. How do you dispose children/infants’ feaces?
73
1. Throw down the latrine/toilet
2. Bury in soil
3. Throw in the garden
4. Place directly in the waste bin/heap
5. Other, Specify…………………………………………………….
41. Are you satisfied with your present toilet system?
1. Very Satisfied
2. Satisfied
3. Very dissatisfied
4. Dissatisfied
5. Not sure
42. How would you describe the quality of the toilet in terms of?
Poor Fair Good
Privacy 1 2 3
Cleanliness 1 2 3
Convenience 1 2 3
Wastewater Disposal
43. Where do you dispose of waste water from your household?
1. Open drain
2. Open ground
3. Soak pit
4. Pit latrine/toilet
5. Others, please specify……………………………………………..
Community Organization and Leadership
49. Which of the following leaders do you recognize in your community? Tick as appropriate
1. Village elders
2. Local assistant chief/chief
3. Religious leaders
4. Neighbourhood Planning Association/ Residents Association (RA)
5. Member of the County Assembly (MCA)
6. Member of Parliament (MP)
7. Other (specify)
50. Which of the following committees/associations exist in your area?
74
1. Village Health Committee
2. Water Committee
3. Environmental Committee
4. School/education committees
5. Neighbourhood Planning Association/Residents Association
6. Ward development committee
7. CDF Committee
8 Others (please specify)…………………………………………………
51. Are you a member of any the above committees/associations
1. Yes
2. No
If yes which ones.....................................................................
52. How do you participate in the above committees/association?
1. Attend public participation meetings
2. Participate in election of leaders
3. Raise issues affecting me together with other community members with them
4. Present written memos or petitions
5. Other ways (please specify)
53. Do you feel the committees/associations effectively address your concerns?
1. Yes
2. No
If Yes, please explain ……………………………………………
Community facilities in the neighbourhood
54. Which of the following community facilities exist in your area? Tick as appropriate
ECD Primary
Schools
Secondary
Schools
Tertiary
Institutions
e.g.
polytechnics
Health
facilities
Recreational
facilities e.g. play
grounds
Number
75
55. In your opinion has the county government done enough to improve sanitation and access to safe
water in your settlement?
a. Yes
b. No
56. If yes, how do you rate their performances?
9-10 = excellent
7-8= Good
5-6 = Average
4 and below = poor
57. What are some of the key areas that they need to improve on?
1……………………………………………………..
2………………………………………………………
3……………………………………………………..
4…………………………………………………….
5……………………………………………………..
6………………………………………………………..
Land Lords/Ladies’ Questionnaire General information
1. Name of research assistant…………….
2. Date of interview…….
3. Unit …………………………………………..
4. Settlement ……………………………………….
5. Sub location………………………………………..
6. Location………………………………………………..
7. Ward ………………………………………………………..
Landlord Details
1. Gender of plot owner/landlord/landlady
1. Male
2. Female
3. Number of housing units……………………………………………
4. How many units are currently occupied?
1. 1- 4
2. 5- 6
3. 7- 10
4. 10 and above
5. Average number of individuals per household
1. 1- 3
2. 4- 6
76
3. 7- 10
4. 10 and above
5. Don’t know
6. Do you have toilets or latrines within the plot?
1. Yes
2. No
7. If yes which type of toilets/latrines do you have?
1. Traditional pit latrine
2. Makeshift latrine
3. Pit latrine
4. Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP)
5. Pit latrine connected to septic tank
6. Pit latrine connected to sewer
7. Flushable toilet connected to septic tanks
8. Flushable toilet connected to sewer line
9. Others (Specify)…………………………………………….
8. If no, how do your tenants dispose of human excreta?
1. Open defecation
2. Share toilets with neighbours
3. Flying toilets
4. Basin/bucket
5. Don’t know
9. How do you empty filled up latrines within your plot?
1. Manual pit emptying
2. Mechanical exhausting
3. Chemical depressants
4. Open drains
5. Any other (specify)
10. Are the manual pit emptiers recognized by the community/tenants?
a. Yes
b. No
11. Do you recognize and work with manual pit emptiers?
a. Yes
b. No
12. How do your tenants dispose of solid waste?
1. Open dumping/fields
2. Burning
3. Compost pit
4. Private garbage collectors
5. Dust bins
6. Refuse skips
7. Others (specify)………………………………………
13. Did you get any assistance to construct the existing toilets/latrines?
i. Yes
ii. No
14. If yes, what kind of assistance was it?
1. Provided with slabs
2. Provided with vent pipes
3. Provide with material for super structure
4. Any other (specify)……………………………………………………..
15. If no how much money did you use to construct the present toilet facility in terms of:
77
a) Materials (1) Ksh __________________
b) Labour (1) Ksh. _________________
c) Any other (specify)………………………………………………….
16. Where do your tenants access drinking water from?
1. Household water connection
2. Stand pipe within the plot
3. Borehole
4. Shallow well
5. Water vendors
6. Stream
7. Protected springs
8. Other sources (specify)………………………………………
17. Do you belong to any landlords’/landladies’ associations or any organization within the
community?
1. Yes
2. No
18. If yes, specify the name of the association………………………………..
19. Indicate the total number of membership of the association……………..
20. Specify the gender composition of the association
1. Male………………..
2. Female……………...
21. What challenges do you face in terms of providing better sanitation facilities for your tenants?
…………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………….
22. Have you ever thought of taking the necessary steps to change our tenants’ human excreta disposal to
an improved system?
i. Yes
ii. No
23. If you are going to make a decision in the near future, which alternatives would you choose?
i. Flush toilet/WC
ii. Pit Latrine
iii. VIP Latrine
iv. Pour Flush Toilet
v. WC connected to septic tank
vi. Public Latrine
vii. Ecosan
viii. Other specify
24. Would you be willing to pay for this?
1. Yes
2. No
25. If Yes state how much? -------------------------------------------------------------
26 Have you ever taken a loan to improve sanitation facilities in your plot?
1 Yes
2 No
78
27. If no, would you be willing to take any loans to finance sanitation facilities’ improvement
28. How much are you willing to borrow to improve sanitation facility?
29. How much interest would you be willing to pay on the principal loan?
30. Have you got any support from the County Government and its agencies in terms of WASH services?
1. Yes
2. No
31. If yes, please specify?
1. Emptying of pit latrines
2. Communal ablution blocks
3. Sewer connection
4. Water connection
5. Garbage collection
6. Others, please specify………………………………….
32. Who are some of the development partners working in your settlement?
Development Partners What they do
Primary schools’ questionnaire 1. Name of school………………………………………………………
2. Location of School (Ward) …………………………………………………..
3. Name of head teacher (optional) ………………………………………………
4. Number of staffs and pupils in school (use the table below)
Teaching staff Non- teaching staff Pupils Totals
Male Female Male Female Boys Girls
5. Type of school: a. Pre-school only
b. Primary School only
c. Both Pre-School & Primary School
6. Total number of toilet doors for:
a. Boys …………….
b. Girls …………….
7. Type of toilets in use
a. VIP latrine
b. Pit latrine
c. Ecosan
d. Latrine connected to septic tanks
e. Latrines connected to sewer line
f. Bio centre
g. Any other (Specify)………………………………………………….. 8. Sources of water for use within the school?
1. Shallow well
2. Rivers/streams
3. Lake 4. Water vendors
5. Borehole
79
6. Stand pipe within the school
7. Protected springs
8. Unprotected springs
9. Rain water harvesting
10. Any other (specify)………………………
9. Do you treat drinking water?
1. Yes
2. No
10. If yes, how do you treat it?
1. Boiling
2. Chemical treatment (e.g. water guard, aqua tab, purr)
Other, specify................................................................
………………………………………………………………………………..
11. Do you have any hand washing facilities/vessels in the school?
1. Yes
2. No
12. If yes, what type of technology do you have?
i. Tippy tap
ii. Leaky tin
iii. Concrete slab
iv. Metal washing basin
v. Plastic tanks
vi. Bucket
vii. Wash basins/sinks
viii. Stand-alone taps
13. Are they in use?
i. Yes
ii. No
14. If yes, how many are there for boys and girls?
1. Girls………………..
2. Boys………………….
15. Do you face any challenges with hand washing facilities in your school? If yes, which ones?
a. No clean water - yes No
b. No soap - yes No
c. Usually forget - yes No
d. Busy/I don’t have time - yes No
e. Need training - yes No
f. Not used to doing it - yes No
g. My hands are not dirty - yes No
h. I don’t value hand washing - yes No
i. I don’t have a reason - yes No
16. Is there any active health club in your school?
i. Yes
80
ii. No
17. If yes, how many members does it have?
1. Boys…………..
2. Girls………………….
18. Are members of the school health club trained on hygiene and sanitation?
1. Yes
2. No
19. Do you remember some of the methodologies/approaches that were used in the training?
Name them.
…………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
20. Were they also trained on Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM)?
21. If yes, by which organization?
22. How do you handle issues of menstrual hygiene in school?
23. Are there any specific facilities for girls to use during menstruation?
a. Yes
b. No
24. If yes, which ones? Specify.
25. What challenges do you face regarding menstrual hygiene management in your school?
26. Are there any facilities that are specifically designed for children and teachers with special needs
in the school? Explain your answer.
27. Are there any other groups within the school community that were also trained?
1. Yes
2. No
28. If yes, which ones?
a. Head teachers
b. Teaching staff
c. Subordinate staff 29. Have you participated in any hygiene promotion/ education activities?
i. Yes
ii. No
30. If yes, which ones (specify)?
31. Who are some of the WASH development partners working in your school?
32. How best can we improve on hygiene promotion activities in the school?
33. Is hygiene education part of the school curriculum? If yes are teachers trained in providing
hygiene education?
…………………………………………………………………….…………………………………
…………………………………..
34. Is the responsibility for promoting hygiene in the school identified clearly and supported?
…………………………………………………………………….…………………………………
…………………………………..
81
35. What approaches and methods are used to deliver hygiene-education in the school?
…………………………………………………………………….…………………………………
………………………………….. 36. How do pupils/students participate in maintaining personal and general school hygiene?
…………………………………………………………………….…………………………………
…………………………………..
37. Are pupils/ students trained on how to correctly use toilets/pit latrines, water facilities, as well
as hand washing practices?
…………………………………………………………………….…………………………………
…………………………………..
Solid and Liquid Waste Management
38. How is solid and liquid waste managed in the school?-
…………………………………………………………………….…………………………………
………………………………….. 39. Does the school have proper wastewater drainage system? If yes is the wastewater drainage
system used correctly and maintained?
…………………………………………………………………….…………………………………
………………………………….. 40. How regularly are classrooms and offices cleaned?
…………………………………………………………………….…………………………………
………………………………….. 41. Does the school have a Parent Teachers Association (PTA)? If yes, how does the PTA participate
in maintaining water, sanitation and hygiene facilities at the school?
…………………………………………………………………….…………………………………
………………………………….. 42. Does the management of the school provide any support for the maintenance of the water,
sanitation and hygiene facilities at the school? If yes, what type of support does the management
provide?
…………………………………………………………………….…………………………………
…………………………………..
Guide to women only FGD 1. What do women and men do differently in the community (seasonal calendar)?
Gender Roles
Women
Men
2. What is the main sources of income for women in this neighbourhood?
3. What role do women play at the household level in terms of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH)?
4. What role should women play at the household level in terms of water, sanitation and hygiene?
5. What role do women play at the community level in terms of water, sanitation and hygiene
(WASH)?
6. Are you aware about the neighbourhood planning/residents association in this settlement? How do
you articulate your issues through it?
7. Do women participate and make any decisions regarding water, sanitation and hygiene facilities
(such as designs, construction materials, siting, cost/pricing etc.)?
8. What structures exist at the community level through which women can articulate their unique
water and sanitation needs?
82
9. Using a scale of one to five, how would you rate women participation in decision making processes
at the household level?
1 2 3 4 5
Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent
10. Using a scale of one to five, how would you rate women participation in decision making processes
at the community level?
1 2 3 4 5
Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent
11. Using a scale of one to five, how would you rate the existing water, sanitation and hygiene facilities
in this neighbourhood/community?
1 2 3 4 5
Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent
12. How can women be integrated into the design and management of water, sanitation and hygiene
(WASH) facilities/services?
13. What role do women play in leadership positions in your community/settlement?
14. What are your views about Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM)?
15. How do you address issues about MHM at the household level?
16. What challenges do you face with MHM at the household and community level?
17. What role should women and men play in relation to MHM?
18. Would you be comfortable using safe reusable sanitary towels?
19. In your view, are there any business opportunities that exist for women in the management of water,
sanitation and hygiene (WASH) facilities and services?
20. What do you think we need to do to ensure that women actually take up and run some of these
business opportunities?
21. What challenges/ barriers do women face in decision making regarding water, sanitation and
hygiene (WASH)?
a) Household level
b) Community level
c) City level
d) County level
22. How can these barriers be addressed at these levels?
e) Household level
f) Community level
g) City level
h) County level
23. What hinders women (underlying issues) from participating in community development initiatives?
24. What are some of the common ailments/diseases in your settlement?
25. Who are some of the development partners working in your settlement?
Development partner What they do?
83
Business Questionnaire for WASH SME General information
Name of research assistant/interviewer………………
Date of interview…………………………………………….
Name of respondent…………………………………….
Business location………………………………………………
1. What does the business do?
………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………….
2. Who are the major customers of the business?
…………………………………………………………….
3. Is the business registered?
1. Yes
2. No
4. When was the business started?
1. 1-2 years ago
2. 2-3 years ago
3. 3-4 years ago
4. 4-5 years ago
5 Over 5 years ago
5. Who owns the business?
1. Self
2. Family business
3. Jointly owned with somebody else
4. Owned by a group/ CBO/Association
6. How much was your initial capital?
……………………………………………………….
7. What was the initial capital used for?
………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………..
8. What was the source of the initial capital?
1. Own savings
2. Credit from friends/family
3. Credit from saving schemes
4. Loan from Micro Financial Institutions (MFIs)
5. Loan from the banks
6. Others (please specify)……………………………….
9. How much is the interest payable on the loan...?
………………………………………………………………………….
10. How many households/plots do you serve in a month?
84
……………………………………………………………………………….
11. How much do you charge for your service/products?
………………………………………………………………………………
12. How do you determine the price charged for your service/product?
……………………………………………………………………………….
13. Are you willing to take credit/loan to expand your business?
1. Yes
2. No
14. If yes, how much interest are you willing to pay?
…………………………………………………………….
15. Do you have any employees/casual labourers?
1. Yes
2. No
16. If yes, how many?
1. Male……………………………….
2. Female………………………………………………..
17. How much do you pay them per week?......................
18. Does the business own any tools, equipment, assets?
1. Yes
2. No
19. If yes, list the tools, equipment, assets
1……………………………………………
2………………………………………………….
3……………………………………………………………
4……………………………………………………………………….
5………………………………………………………………………………..
20. If no, where does the business get tools, equipment for delivering service to customers?
1…………………………………………………………………
2………………………………………………………………….
3………………………………………………………………………….
21. Is the business profitable?
1. Yes,
2. No
22. If yes, how do you calculate the profit? ……………………………….
23. What records do you keep to help in calculating profits?
1………………………………………………………………………..
2……………………………………………………………………………
24. How do you use the profit from your business?
1…………………………………………………………
2…………………………………………………………….
25. What are some of the challenges you face as individuals or business?
1…………………………………………………..
2……………………………………………………….
3………………………………………………………………
4………………………………………………………………….
26. Are there any organizations addressing some of these challenges? Name them (if any).
1………………………………………………….
85
2……………………………………………………………………..
27. Have you been trained on any business skills?
1. Yes
2. No
28. If yes, which ones?
1……………………………………………………………
2………………………………………………………………..
29. If no, would you be willing to be trained?
1. Yes
2. No.
30. What specific skills would you like to be trained on?
1…………………………………………………………..
2…………………………………………………
3……………….…………………………………………………………..
4………………………………………………………………………………
26. Who are some of the business development support partners working in your settlement?
1………………………………………………………………………..
2……………………………………………………………………………
3…………………………………………………………………………………..
FGD Guide for Neighbourhood/Residents Planning Associations 1. What is the name of the association/group/CBO?
2. When was the association formed?
3. How many members do you have (women, men, youth, elderly, people with disability)
4. What were its main objectives?
5. Are the objectives still the same today, or have they changed? Has the constitution been amended
to reflect these changes?
6. How does the association work/runs its activities?
7. Is the association/group/CBO registered? By whom?
8. How are community members recruited into the association?
9. How does the management structure look like?
10. How inclusive is it in terms of representing the various segments of the population (women, men,
youth, people with disability, and the elderly)
11. How often are the elections held and who presides over them?
12. How do you ensure that women and men have a fair and equal chance of being elected as leaders
in the association?
13. How do men, women, youth and other vulnerable groups articulate their issues through the
association and how do you respond to those needs?
14. What are some of the challenges relating to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in this
settlement?
15. What are some of the unique challenges that women and men face differently in relation to water,
sanitation and hygiene (WASH)?
16. What are the main devolved structures of county government and how do you relate and work with
them?
86
17. How often do you meet county government officials to discuss key development issues in your
settlement per quarter?
18. What challenges do you face as you work with community members, county and national
government and other development agencies?
19. How can some of these challenges be addressed?
20. How do you think the association can work and relate better with community members on one hand
and the county government and development partners on the other?
21. How can you make the association a model for effective community engagement structure with
county government and other development partners?
22. Who are some of the development partners working in your settlement? Which programmes are
they implementing? How do you work together with them?
Development partner What they do?
Key Informant Interview Checklist Department of Health (County Government of Kisumu)
What is the current status of sanitation and hygiene in Kisumu City, especially in the informal
settlements?
Do we have any sanitation and hygiene policy guidelines and plans for informal settlements in
Kisumu City/County?
Do we have any approved designs or standards for sanitation facilities for informal settlements in
Kisumu?
How do you address issues of sanitation and MHM in the informal settlements in Kisumu
City/County?
What is the progress of CLTS in the informal settlements and what are the greatest challenges?
Do you have any school WASH/ Hygiene promotion programmes in the city/ County?
What are the greatest challenges to improving the state of sanitation and hygiene in the informal
settlements in Kisumu?
What are the County Government short and long term plans for improving sanitation in the
informal settlements in Kisumu?
How do you propose to deal with manual pit emptying especially in relation to occupation health
and safety and unsafe disposal of sludge in the environment?
What are some of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the informal settlements in
Kisumu City/County
Are there any Climate Change (CC) issues and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) interventions in
the informal settlements in Kisumu City/County?
What are the main development partners in WASH working in Kisumu City/County?
Department of water, environment and natural resources (County Government of Kisumu)
What is the current status of safe water supply in the informal settlements in Kisumu
City/County?
What is the status of solid waste management in informal settlements? What approaches and
technologies are you promoting to improve service delivery?
87
How do you deal with new/emerging wastes such as sanitary pads/ diapers/ flying toilets,
polythene papers and plastic bottles
Do you have any water policy guidelines for informal settlements in Kisumu City/County
How do you address issues of inadequate and unsafe water supply in the informal settlements
What are the County Government short and long term plans for improving water supply in
informal settlements in Kisumu City/County?
Are there any specific technologies that the county government is promoting to improve water
supply in the informal settlements in Kisumu City/County?
What are some of the challenges that the county Government faces in terms of safe water supply
in the informal settlements
Are there any issues related to water resource management that the county government of Kisumu
is facing?
How is the County Government trying to address the above issues?
Are there any Climate Change (CC) issues and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) interventions in
the informal settlements in Kisumu City/County?
Kisumu Water and Sewerage Company (KIWASCO) Ltd
What is the status of water demand and supply and sewerage in Kisumu City/County?
What is the status of water demand and supply and sanitation in Obunga and Nyalenda informal
settlements?
Does the company have any short and long term plans/strategies for improving water supply and
sewerage in Kisumu especially in the informal settlements (Obunga and Nyalenda)?
What is the performance of the company’s pro poor department/unit to date?
What technologies and approaches are you using or piloting to improve water supply among the
low income groups?
Do you face any challenges supplying water to the informal settlements in Kisumu City/County?
How is the company dealing with Non-Revenue Water (NRW)
Are there any areas for proposed improvement for the water company for effective service
delivery?
Are there any Climate Change (CC) issues and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) interventions that
the company are addressing?
Are there any partners working with you to improve water and sanitation services provision in
Kisumu City?
Physical Planning Department, County Government of Kisumu/City Hall
What are the overall county government plans/ strategies for informal settlements in the city?
Are there any zoning plans for the informal settlements?
Are there any plans/programmes targeting Obunga and Nyalenda?
What building standards and designs/technologies do you approve for sanitation facilities and
services in the informal settlements?
What is the progress of slum up grading initiatives in Kisumu City such as Kenya Slum Upgrading
Programme (KENSUP), Kenya Informal Settlements Improvement Programme (KISIP) and
Kisumu Urban Project (KUP) among others?
88
Are there any plans to protect slum dwellers from market forces that are likely to involuntarily evict
them from their homes?
What challenges do you face in relation to enforcement of planning standards in the informal
settlements and how are you planning to address them?
![GST Survey Report _ Final[1]](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/577d23b11a28ab4e1e9a825b/gst-survey-report-final1.jpg)
![Eclipse survey 2012 report [final]](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/554f72a4b4c905c8088b56d2/eclipse-survey-2012-report-final.jpg)
