The Water and Sanitation Program is an June 2005 international partnership for improving water and sanitation sector policies, practices, and capacities to serve poor people Field Note

Serving the Urban Poor

Understanding Small Scale Providers of Sanitation Services: A Case Study of Kibera

Little is understood of the work of Small Scale Providers of Sanitation Services and their central role in sanitation provision but now researchers and urban planners are starting to pay attention. Focusing on sanitation providers in the informal settlement of Kibera in , this field note provides better understanding of who the SSPSS are, the range of services they offer, and recommends options for improving the quality and efficiency of their services. Introduction sector is increasingly attracting the and the quality and efficiency of the attention of researchers and planners in services they offer. non-governmental organizations Throughout the developing world many (NGOs), and development agencies. of the urban poor depend on informal, Kibera’s sanitation nightmare private small-scale providers for This field note is based on a preliminary sanitation services. These study carried out during 2003–04, and Kibera is composed of nine villages of builds on the work carried out by the entrepreneurs receive no government different sizes and population. Water and Sanitation Program-Africa resources but survive by offering Strategically placed to provide labor to (WSP–AF) since 1997. services that the consumers want and the industrial area and neighboring are willing to pay for. Until fairly residential areas, it is the largest The field research is based on recently Small Scale Providers (SSPs) informal settlement in Nairobi and were thought to offer only temporary, interviews conducted in Kibera with 51 home to more than a quarter of short-term solutions to the increasing service providers (14 groups or Nairobi’s estimated total population of and unmet demand for sanitation individual manual pit emptiers, 15 truck 2.3 million. It is the most densely services and were often ignored by emptier employees, 12 builders and populated area in sub-Saharan Africa government policy makers and donors. unskilled workers, and 10 public toilet employees or volunteer managers), 49 with 2,000 inhabitants per hectare. It is But there is growing recognition that a households, seven community-based estimated that on average, 3.4 people 2 meaningful response to the needs of organizations (CBOs), six NGOs, four occupy 10m single-room structures low-income and informal areas must international organizations, two Nairobi built from mud, timber and corrugated involve partnerships between small City Council officials, one consultant iron sheets. entrepreneurs and formal utilities. One of company and a Ministry of Health the reasons for this change in attitude is official. The purpose of the study is to The high population density, unplanned the persistent failure by municipalities provide a better understanding of who and crowded housing, and lack of and public utilities to meet service the SSPSS are, and the range of services infrastructure have resulted in poor demands in settlements that they offer, with a view to identifying and provision of environmental and social develop on the outskirts of cities and recommending improvements to the services. Most roads in Kibera are towns. This gap can be filled by SSPs environment within which they operate, inaccessible to vehicles, drainage who have shown remarkable resourcefulness in finding simple, but effective, solutions often under the most adverse operating conditions.

Kibera a sprawling informal settlement in Nairobi, , is home to half a million people. Here, Small Scale Providers of Sanitation Services (SSPSS) play a central role in sanitation provision, including the management of public toilet blocks, the construction of latrines, and the removal of sludge.

Until now, little work has been done to understand and evaluate the work of SSPs, but their importance in the Kibera’s streets are characterized by uncollected garbage and clogged drainage channels

2 Understanding Small Scale Providers of Sanitation Services: A Case Study of Kibera

channels on the sides of the roads are Where neither private nor public often blocked, pit latrines overflow latrines are available, many residents (especially in the rainy season) and have had to resort to using plastic heaps of uncollected garbage are bags that are then dumped in alleys everywhere. and ditches – a practice called “flying toilets”. In the already overcrowded Kibera is gazetted as government land, lack of adequate water supply, much of which has been allocated solid waste management, excreta informally to ‘structure owners’ disposal, drainage and wastewater (because they do not own the land but management impact severely on public only the structures they have built. This health. Of the ten most widespread field note refers to them as ‘owners’). diseases in Kibera, five are linked directly to inadequate water and sanitation The temporary shelters that the owners provision (diarrhoea, skin diseases, erect are let to the vast number of typhoid, tuberculosis, malaria). laborers seeking daily employment in Nairobi. These structures have been Small scale providers subject to constant threats of of sanitation services A typical pit latrine in Kibera demolition by the City Council, and this understand the financial situation of insecurity of tenure has affected the There is a range of different private households served, can offer credit level of investment that structure enterprises in Kibera each offering facilities and respond quickly to owners and residents are willing to risk. specific service skills: consumer preferences. With the Long-term improvement projects are Latrine management; exception of public latrine also hampered by the fact that 90 · Latrine construction; and management, all the service providers percent of Kibera’s inhabitants are · Latrine emptying. are men. tenants and the owners, who live · elsewhere, have little incentive to These services are mostly offered by There is a great disparity in their provide services or improve living independent SSPs who are resident in revenues (see Graph 1) but they conditions in the settlement. the settlement and can deliver what compare favorably to the minimum public services are unable or unwilling wage for general laborers in Nairobi. does not provide to provide. Alternative providers These figures highlight the important sanitation services to Kibera. Although two sewer lines cross the settlement, most people rely on on-site sanitation.

One latrine is often used by several 120 110 97 households or even several plots (a 100

‘plot’ refers to a group of rooms either 80 72 58 belonging to the same owner or placed 60 46 side by side), which means up to 150 Income 40 33

18 people may be sharing a single latrine. 20

In many cases the latrines lack privacy 0 General laborer Volunteer EmployeeCertfied Manual Worker Driver and security, are unhygienic and in minimum Public toilets managers latrines builder exhauster Truck exhauster company employees wage in Nairobi poor condition with gaping holes in the Providers walls, broken doors and filled pits.

3 commercial potential of this sector, and reluctant to invest in local the need for government to recognize infrastructure because the and support the business opportunities infrastructure (investment) may be as well as the contributions made by demolished at any time. This may these providers in extending services explain why Kibera has only one to the poor. privately-operated public latrine, which was financed by a micro-credit SSPSS do not keep account of their loan for 35 percent (US$260) of the expenses, and cannot therefore total investment. The structure of this estimate their income relative to their public latrine is largely made from revenue. They have a broad idea of removable materials such as timber their revenue range, which can be and iron roofing sheets. compared to the general laborer in Nairobi. Two externally funded pilot projects have introduced bio-digestion A public latrine funded by an NGO The business of operating technology into a public latrine block. This transforms the lined pit into a funding. The latrines are managed by and managing latrines digestion reactor producing biogas CBOs on a commercial or volunteer which can be used as an energy basis (volunteers often receive some There are six different models of compensation). Operation and source. If this proves to be a viable sanitation systems in Kibera, each maintenance costs are recovered by technology, the biogas could be used differing in ownership, access and levying a user service charge. to produce electricity and heat water management system (see Tables 1 and for showers. It should also help to 3). For pit latrines, the two main types The financial viability of the different tackle the problem of sludge disposal in Kibera are either lined or unlined. models of public toilet blocks has been since the process reduces the volume Public latrine blocks compared on the basis of their annual of excreta, and the resultant waste running costs in Table 2. material is less pathogenic. As Table 1 illustrates, municipal authorities neither own nor manage While unsecured land tenure does not An analysis of the three models of public latrines in Kibera. All but one of appear to hinder development public latrines shows that: the 20 toilet blocks have been organizations from funding public · Voluntary maintenance does not constructed using donor or NGO latrines, entrepreneurs appear deliver an effective and efficient Table 1: Characteristics of public latrines Services Investment Number Excreta Price (in US$) Owner of Management and Model funding of disposal Technology facility mode maintenance sources latrines method Per use Per month quality Pit or bio- Pit latrines or 0.025 to 1 CBO Volunteer Grant 105 digester 1.3 Poor toilets pour flush 0.064

2 CBO Employee Grant 24 Pit or bio- Pit latrines 0.025 - Good digester Private sector Private Sewer Pour flush 3 Employee and micro 6 0.038 - Good operator connection toilets finance institution

4 Understanding Small Scale Providers of Sanitation Services: A Case Study of Kibera

Table 2: Public latrine annual operation costs (in US$) Model 1 2 3 Owner of facility CBO CBO Private Management mode Volunteer Employee Employee Investment funding sources Subsidies Subsidies Private sector Excreta disposal method Pit Pit Sewer connection 8 latrines,4 showers 4 latrines, 2 ablution block 6 latrines, 1 ablution blocks Characteristics Water connection with tank Water connection with tank Water kiosk with tank Technology Pour flush Pit latrines Pour flush Village Kianda Soweto Investments (US$) Sanitation block construction 10,390 15,974 519 Sewer connection 0 0 32 Land purchase Community contribution Community contribution 130 Bribes 0 0 97 Total investments (US$) 10,390 15,974 778 Annual running costs (US$) Staff income Employees/volunteers 234 564 623 Functioning Water 779 31 312 Electricity No electricity connection 47 47 Miscellaneous (toilet paper, soap, cleaning products, stationery) 450 468 545 Sewage fee included Emptying 2,026 405 in water tariff Capital allowance/provision for depreciation (5 years) Sanitation block construction 2,078 (10,390 in total) 3,195 (15,974 in total) 104 (519 in total) Total annual running costs (US$) 5,567 4,710 1,631 Number of users Visitors 219 489 200 per day Subscribers1 242 0 0 Average cost per user 0.033 0.026 0.022 Annual revenues (from user charges) (US$) 4,548 4,636 2,844 Annual margin (including depreciation) -1018 -74 1,109 Annual margin (without depreciation) 1,059 3,121 1,213

Table 3: Characteristics of private latrines Owner of Management Investment Number Excreta Price per month Services and Model Technology facility mode funding sources of latrines disposal method (in US$) facilities quality CBO member 4CBO Grant 298 Pit Pit latrines 2.6 to 5.2 Fair and users

5 Owner Owner Owner and grant 60 PitPit latrines - Good

6 Owner Owner Owner (Data not available) PitPit latrines - Very poor

1 Subscribers pay per month

5 service. On the contrary, Private household latrines In Model 6, the construction is commercial management leads to a financed entirely by the owner. These Private latrines are only available to quality service and well-maintained latrines tend to be poorly constructed members of the same household or facilities, irrespective of whether the with unsatisfactory standards of plot. In the case of Model 4, the block is owned by a private maintenance unless the owner is construction was wholly funded by an operator or a CBO. Customers resident on the plot. Self-financing external aid agency and the appreciate a flexible service owners favor the unlined pit because of management entrusted to a CBO. The adapted to their demands, which its low cost, which works out at around CBO rents each latrine to a different include lending soap and sandals US$100, including labor and building user group, and provides operation for use in the ablution block. materials. Most externally funded and maintenance services, including · Private owner management is projects opt for the lined pit. financially viable, mainly because emptying. These models have investment costs are 13 times increased the number of decent Lack of coordination latrines available in Kibera but a cheaper than those for donor between development funded blocks (see Table 2). This is number of difficulties have been due to a ‘cost hunting’ approach, reported, notably poor quality of organizations the use of cheap materials and a construction, ownership claims from sewer connection that is less influential people and low cleanliness Various development organizations expensive than pit emptying. levels by latrine users. (including CBOs, NGOs and United Nevertheless private facilities Nations agencies) have financed provide a similar level of comfort The construction of Model 5 is partially latrines in villages in Kibera. The levels and hygiene to expensive donor- funded by an NGO with the owner of external funding range from 75 to funded blocks (though this financing the balance. This approach 100 percent. Table 4 highlights huge conclusion is based on a sample of has yielded positive results but NGO disparities in the numbers and one, it is a clear demonstration of funding of this nature is not likely to be distribution of such latrines which are the achievement of the private sustainable. In this specific case the partly the result of poor coordination sector). NGO worked closely with the provincial between the agencies involved. There · The CBO blocks are not financially administration, which has sometimes is a tendency for these externally viable if the costs of capital played a crucial role in encouraging financed latrines to be constructed in depreciation are included in the prospective owners to demolish a room villages where access may be relatively annual running costs (see Table 2). in order to build latrines. easy, but the needs are less urgent

Table 4: Presence of externally funded latrines

Village Population % of total population Total externally funded latrines Gatwikira 52,234 11.1 1 Kianda 71,366 15.3 136 48,340 10.3 34 Laini Saba 27,340 5.9 156 Lindi 57,715 12.3 30 Makina 95,636 20.5 96 23,437 5.0 0 53,850 11.5 30 Soweto 37,949 8.1 4 Total 467,867 100 487

6 Understanding Small Scale Providers of Sanitation Services: A Case Study of Kibera

entrepreneurs and these specialist latrine constructors now earn the highest wages of all workers in the sanitation sector (see Graph 1).

Individuals and small-scale builders need to invest, on average, about US$45 to buy tools and equipment. There is no public subsidy for this investment, which is often done gradually over time. There is also evidence of mutual cooperation among workers to facilitate borrowing or hiring tools.

The business of human Construction of a partially funded private latrine waste management than in more remote and equally masonry skills. As a result, the quality overcrowded areas. of construction varies a great deal and Sludge emptying is a key activity for depends primarily on the level of funds SSPSS since pits need to be emptied While current planning for sanitation available. every 10 months. In Kibera 13 percent services by municipalities, utilities and of pits are currently unusable because the donors who support them In Model 5 (see Table 3), the owner they are full (See Graph 2). Consumer recognizes the urgent need for more received a grant of 75 percent of the demand for pit emptying is particularly and better latrines in Kibera, and for an construction cost, and he provided the high during the rainy season when improved emptying service, SSPs are land and paid the wages. To qualify for blocked drainage channels and largely excluded from the planning the subsidy, the owner must employ overflowing latrines create acute process. They are simply used as certified builders trained to a high sanitation problems. Sludge disposal manpower to construct the facilities. standard by the NGO providing the into the local river, the Mbagathi, then Government should recognize the importance of the SSPs in the sector grant. This training has introduced a becomes convenient but also pollutes and the contributions their successful capacity building opportunity for local water for washing and bathing. operations could make in extending sanitation services to more poor households.

The business of building latrines

Latrines in Kibera are normally simple constructions of mud, wood and sheets of corrugated iron erected by unskilled workers, so there is little demand for builders with specialized

7 The three main emptying techniques Box 1: The manual pit emptiers’ burden employed in Kibera are manual, mechanical, and gravitational. Few manual emptiers can afford basic protective gear such as gloves and boots Manual emptying: an for their work. Lack of equipment exposes them to infections and diseases, irreplaceable activity especially when working directly in the pit, which they commonly refer to as the ‘kitchen’. Here, the manual pit emptiers are in direct contact with excreta, broken Manual emptying of pit latrines is the glass, and other discarded waste thrown in the pits and, as a result, are likely to method of choice for 28 percent of suffer from many health problems. households in Kibera (see Graph 2). It is well suited to slum conditions such In addition to being difficult and unhealthy, the work has a very negative social as chronic overcrowding, poor image and they are often obliged to work at night. Frequently excluded and vehicular access and heavy sludge, stigmatized, these workers express frustration and would like the importance of which is difficult to pump up into their work to be recognized. Moreover, manual emptiers are ignored by public trucks. authorities, despite the role they play in the domestic pit emptying market. They are often harassed by youth groups who use violence to extort bribes from them. This sector comprises small groups of There is a mistaken perception that manual emptying is illegal. people working together on a regular basis, and some individual operators Manual emptying will remain as a necessary method for exhausting pit latrines for who work on an occasional basis. as long as vehicle access is limited in Kibera. Since manual emptying is largely a seasonal activity it is not necessarily the main source of income for either group.

Estimates suggest there are between 50 - 100 manual emptiers working in Kibera, resulting in competition around service quality and features such as the use of a handcart, wheelbarrow or buckets for transport.

The use of 0.2m3 (200 liters) capacity drums does not allow the workers to fully empty a pit in one trip as pit capacity ranges from 2m3 to 3m3. When working as a group, people pool together and use personal savings (US$39-US$104) to buy equipment, but individuals working alone are usually not able to afford this type of investment. Incomes are irregular and modest, but still above the minimum wage for a general laborer in Nairobi

(see Graph 1). Manual pit emptiers at work

8 Understanding Small Scale Providers of Sanitation Services: A Case Study of Kibera

Limited access hinders real competition in mechanical emptying services

Mechanical emptying is the first choice of households (See Graph 2), as it is the cheapest, most hygienic and fastest method. Nevertheless, the presence of sludge and solid waste in the pit hampers the process. Accessibility is also a huge problem for mechanical emptiers and is the greatest deterrent to real competition in Kibera. Run by CBOs, the only two trucks based in the slum are subsidized and are smaller than most A food kiosk located next to a sewer manhole, rendering it inaccessible private trucks. Beyond Kibera, the Nairobi City Council Water and Gravitational emptying a pit to bury the sludge, dump it almost anywhere when it is dry, or pour it into Sewerage Department (NCCWSD) Gravitational emptying is used by 13 drains, streams or sewer manholes provides truck emptying services in the percent of households but is generally when it is liquid. The choice primarily capital city, but, at the time of writing, only possible when the pit is next to a depends on the distance of the they had only two fully operational river or a drain as the contents flow 2 disposal site from the worksite, as trucks . Because the NCCWSD has directly into the water. The process is sludge transport is difficult since it is struggled to provide reliable services, it usually facilitated either by manual has increasingly allowed the private done either by handcart in the best emptiers at a cost of US$22 or by the sector to get involved in this activity. case scenario or carried in buckets. owner of the latrine. Accessibility of sewer manholes is also Since 1998 licences have been issued Few accessible authorized a problem, as other structures have to private operators (see Table 5) and environmentally-friendly frequently been built on top of them or allowing them to carry out mechanical sites for disposal are too close by to allow access. In emptying and discharge the sludge addition, residents can hamper access into the city’s sewerage network since Kibera has no dedicated disposal site to manholes, as they fear the resulting the treatment plants are far from the and human waste disposal is a major disturbance and inconvenience. city center. In 1999, only three private problem. While mechanical emptiers providers were operating in Nairobi. mainly discharge sludge through the In practice, manual emptiers normally Five years later, there are about 30 sewers, manual emptiers have to dispose of their waste in streams. This operators, of which 10 are licensed. employ different options. They can dig is one of the reasons why manual These private operators compete with five mechanical emptiers subsidized by Table 5: Annual licence fees for private truck operators the municipality or development Truck capacity (m3) Licence fee (US$) organizations. This practice of issuing 0 to 3 260 licenses, combined with the lack of a 3 to 7 520 reliable public service, has confirmed > 7 780 the role that the private sector has been able to play in service provision. 2 Truck emptying services were taken over by the newly-formed Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company in May 2004

9 emptying is a seasonal activity with peak periods corresponding to rainy seasons, when the sludge is washed away by rainwater. Manual and gravitational emptying are compromise solutions to the sanitation problems of Kibera. They enable the residents to clear their latrines but with adverse consequences for health and the environment. Improper excreta disposal is a major health risk and contaminates the river water. Blocked drains and heaps of uncollected garbage are unsightly, unpleasant and provide breeding sites for mosquitoes and flies. Gravitational emptying is common where a pit laterine is located next to river

Emptying tariffs removed, this works out as the most Conclusion expensive method. Complete emptying 3 Mechanical emptying tariffs are lowest of a 2.5m - the average pit size - This preliminary research has shown per trip for services funded by costs US$100. But if the result is the that SSPSS are delivering essential development organizations, but these same, the nature of the work is totally services to low-income areas, and that are equal to or more expensive than different and accessibility constraints their operations form the basis of a real private sector services when calculated often make this option the only one business that is responsive to per quantity exhausted (see Table 6). possible. It is interesting to note that consumer demand. Despite the vital Manual emptying services have the many slum dwellers are convinced that service they provide in insecure and lowest minimum price, which suits manual emptying is the cheapest often ‘risky’ slum areas, SSPSS have customers with limited financial means option. The poorest people living in the no formal stake in the sanitation sector who only want to reduce the pit least accessible places have no other nor do they influence sector decisions. latrine’s contents as opposed to option but to pay almost seven times These small providers have the emptying it completely. However, when more than those in serviced potential to improve sanitation services the cost is based on the quantity settlements. in Kibera at comparatively low investment costs. But to achieve this potential the following steps need to be Tariffs Investments Type of provider Emptying taken. sources site Per trip Per 1m3 3 Manual emptiers (0,2m drum) Kibera 8 40 Private sector 1. The SSPs are poorly organized at 3 Truck emptiers (3 to 22m tank) Nairobi 57 6 present, have no formal service 3 Vacu-tug (0,5m tank) Kibera 918 Development associations and very little contact Kibera 196 6 organizations Truck exhauster (3m3 tank) with other stakeholders. Better Nairobi 36 12 Pit latrines 26 coordination would increase their NCCWSD City council trucks (3 to 8m3 tank) Nairobi Septic tank in areas not sewered 32 bargaining power and help them to Septic tank in areas sewered 45 gain proper recognition for the The Vacu-tug is a small mechanical exhauster designed to be used in informal settlements. contribution they make in the

10 Understanding Small Scale Providers of Sanitation Services: A Case Study of Kibera

sector. In a situation where planning of their interventions. would benefit from a training course ‘informal’ is sometimes interpreted 2. There is need for a concerted effort tailored for latrine masons. (wrongly) as ‘illegal’, a regulatory to improve the working The proposals which have emerged framework needs to be developed environment of SSPs, the most from this study are summarised in Box which is adapted to local critical of which is to enable better 2, but any proposals regarding SSPSS circumstances, fosters and use of existing sewers for sludge should be part of a bigger strategy to supports existing arrangements disposal. There is an urgent need improve living conditions in the slums which work, and provides for the construction of new facilities of Africa. These improvements would enforceable consumer protection and better regulation of sewer include the development of basic for vulnerable groups. NGOs and manholes. infrastructure such as roads, drainage, external aid agencies also need to 3. Maintenance of sanitation facilities waste disposal, and the provision of coordinate their activities through could be improved through power. It is however clear that such closer dialogue with all commercially-managed public toilet strategies would need to first address the stakeholders and more effective blocks. Construction standards fundamental issue of land tenure.

Box 2: Recommendations for improving Sanitation Services in Kibera

I. Stakeholder cooperation II. SSPSS working envir onment

1. Support private service providers’ coordination 5. Develop and implement a sludge disposal policy and SSPSS coordination through formal associations would the construction of facilities help transform them into real partners in the sanitation A stakeholders’ consultation needs to be conducted on sector. Regulating mechanisms need to be developed sludge disposal options, which would lead to the to avoid the formation of cartels. development of a sludge disposal policy that would 2. Promote a stakeholders’ dialogue specify accountable roles and enable the construction Dialogue between the various stakeholders (SSPSS, of appropriate facilities. public authorities, utilities, development organizations) 6. Facilitate and regulate the use of sewer manholes would help to clarify issues and obstacles, to better Where technically possible, the use of sewer manholes articulate activities of the various actors, and to make in Kibera as a solution to liquid sludge disposal should better use of the skills and know-how of the local be encouraged and regulated through a licence issued private sector. to all manual and mechanical emptiers. 3. Promote coordination between NGOs III. Latrine quality and coverage Better coordination between NGOs, who are often project pioneers who link donors with communities, 7. Support private investment into public latrines would greatly improve the efficiency of assistance to Public authorities should support and encourage the sector. private sector investment in the building of public latrine 4. Create an enabling framework for SSPSS blocks. This would include assurance of investment Start discussion between public sanitation authorities durability through property titles, and discounted rates and SSPSS to develop agreements, and good for water supply. Commercial management of latrine professional practices especially with regard to sludge blocks needs to be encouraged and regulated. disposal. This framework should not restrain SSPSS, 8. Train masons for latrine construction but rather take advantage of their flexibility. Government and NGOs should support the training of masons to promote quality improvements in the construction of sanitation facilities.

11 Serving the Urban Poor This series of field notes on Serving the Urban Poor aims to provide lessons to public sector decision-makers, managers and implementers, and their private partners, to tackle the challenges of service delivery to the urban poor. The series is concerned with the key issues and actions necessary to improve Water and Sanitation Program - the scale and rate of progress towards the MDGs in urban areas: making Africa utility reform work for the poor; enhancing the role of local private providers; World Bank promoting incentive-driven, predictable enabling environments; and Hill Park Building strengthening consumer voice and mechanisms to improve the accountability Upper Hill Road of service providers. PO Box 30577 Nairobi Kenya Bibliography Phone: +254 20 322-6306 Bongi, Sabine, and Morel, Alain. 2004. “Les petits opérateurs indépendants de Fax: +254 20 322-6386 l’assainissement à Kibera (Nairobi)”. Working document. Water and Sanitation E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.wsp.org Program-Africa Region.

Collignon, Bernard. 2002. “Les entreprises de vidange mécanique des systèmes d’assainissement autonomes dans les grandes villes africaines: Rapport de synthèse final.” Hydroconseil.

Collignon, Bernard, and Marc Vézina. 2000. “Independent Water and Sanitation Providers in African Cities: Full Report of a Ten-Country Study.” Water and June 2005 Sanitation Program-Africa Region. WSP MISSION: Kariuki, M., and J. Mbuvi. 1997a. “Water and Environmental Sanitation Needs To help the poor gain sustained of Kibera: A Rapid Needs Assessment.” Field Note. Water and Sanitation access to improved water and Program – East and Southern Africa Region. sanitation services.

Kariuki, M., and J. Mbuvi. 1997b. “The Water Kiosks of Kibera.” Field Note. WSP FUNDING PARTNERS: The Governments of Australia, Austria, Water and Sanitation Program – East and Southern Africa Region. Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Mohamed, Farid. 1999. “Small Scale Independent Providers of Water and Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, Sanitation to the Urban Poor: A case of Nairobi, Kenya.” Water and Sanitation The Development Programme, Program – East and Southern Africa Region. and The World Bank.

Seureca, 2002. Kibera Urban Environmental Sanitation Project, Diagnosis and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This paper has been prepared by Sabine Bongi Situation Analysis, Final report, Republic of Kenya, Ministry of Local and Alain Morel, based on a working document Government Urban Development Department, Nairobi City Council Water and “Les petits opérateurs indépendants de Sewerage Department, AFD. l’assainissement à Kibera (Nairobi)”. Information was gathered through field Water and Sanitation Program – East and Southern Africa Region. 1999. “Water research in partnership with Maji Na Ufanisi. and Sanitation Services to the Urban Poor: Small Service Providers Make a Big The text was reviewed by Barry Jackson, Difference.” Field Note Number 5. WSP-ESAR. Ousseynou Diop, Marc Vezina and Peter Kolsky. A special word of thanks is due to colleagues and friends who helped with Water and Sanitation Program – East and Southern Africa Region, 1997, Kibera feedback and technical support: Piers Cross, Rapid Needs Assessment, Urban Environmental Issues, Third Nairobi water and Jean Doyen, Andreas Knapp, Shagun supply, Informal settlements distribution infilling component, internal working Mehrotra, Micheal Muriithi, Janelle Plummer document, Kenya. Internal Paper. and Nathalie Semoroz, and to the Maji Na Ufanisi team who contributed greatly to this work. The paper was edited by Kathleen Graham-Harrisson and Melanie Low, and produced by Toni Sittoni. Logistical assistance was provided by Jane Wachuga and Peter Ng’ang’a.

Photo credits: Sabine Bongi Printed by Kul Graphics Ltd