An Inventory of the Slums in Nairobi 1 Table of Contents FORWARD APPRECIATION LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS WHY THE INVENTORY METHODOLOGY A HISTORY OF NAIROBI SLUMS ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS ESSAY ON TENURE MAPS PICTURES SLUM PROFILES • DAGORETTI • EMBAKASSI • KAMKUNJI • KASARANI • LANGATA • MAKADARA • STAREHE • WESTLANDS ANNEXES 2 Forward As we were writing this inventory, residents of Mukuru Sinai came to Pamoja Trust for help in fighting off an eviction threat. Sinai is part of a belt of slums collectively called Mukuru that run along the length of Nairobi’s industrial area. Sinai is built on both sides of the petroleum pipeline. A dangerous place to live. The state owned corporation, Kenya Pipeline Company had issued an eviction notice to the residents. The corporation had plans to expand the line. Sinai’s residents have no legal title to the land and so the company did not feel compelled provide compensation or alternative relocation options. The residents said they would go with a relocation plan. This story is not unique for Kenyan slum dwellers. Theirs is a-wrong-way-round world. Conventionally, security of tenure is the quiet enjoyment of personal space bestowed on citizens by their Government. It is different for slum residents. Since no one will bestow any space to them, they have little choice but to squat on any parcel that is unutilized. And by virtue of numbers, because they outnumber those legally bestowed citizens, their claim carries truth – not all the truth but certainly some truth. So the Mukuru story epitomizes a battle of truths for urban space. Losing the battle for the slums would mean the residents of Sinai, and a hundred other slums, become entirely destitute. It is not a battle they can afford to lose. Yet, to yield to their existence would be to accept a breakdown of social order and the rule of law. Then, only a negotiated position that appreciates the values, believes and needs of the state, and those of its dislocated poor, is a workable way forward. In Kenya today, there is a process of negotiation between the slums and the state. Rather unfortunately this process is characterized by aggression. The state declares its commitment to solving the slum problem and sets up a program within a Ministry to coordinate slum upgrading. The state then finds that the slums are very inconveniently located. There are slums on riparian, road, power, railway and other utility reserves and on private poverty. It follows that whenever any organ of the state, except the slum upgrading program, is confronted with a slum, that organ seeks to evict the people. And on the slum dweller’s end, every eviction is resisted. If and when resistance fails the next step is inevitably the invasion of some other contestable land. Our purpose in putting together this Inventory is to change the nature of the negotiation. To provide an appreciation of the scale and depth of the slum problem. To provide a starting point for positive action. To impress, hopefully that evicting slums is in the long run futile. To encourage the development of a plan to ‘sort out’ the slums. We realize that policies, as opposed to a plan, assume that slums are part of the human condition. They are not. They are quantifiable and the challenge surmountable. In order to do this, we found it necessary to collect and present the story of each slum in the city. After many years of working with slums, we know that no slum is exactly the same as any other. The ratio of 3 structure owners (the informal equivalent of landlords) to tenants may vary anywhere from 1 structure owner to 100 tenants or adversely 100 to 1 tenant. The physical locations and layouts; demographics; histories and economies, fit only the broadest of ranges. This was important because we are persuaded that no upgrading model or plan, by the fact of its existence, will change the urban landscape. For there to be a change, there must be an intervention in each and every slum. An intervention that appreciates each slum’s unique set of circumstances and therefore negotiates and crafts a suit that fits. It was important to present information in this manner because, today in Kenya, the process of negotiation will be shaped by the amount of information that replaces perception as its basis. Everything else we threw into the Inventory – maps, pictures and case studies are there to give form and life to what may otherwise be a faceless, colourless monologue of discontentment. In describing the slums we did not derive variables from professional, academic or technical strains. That pallet does not have all the colours you need to paint the informal reality. Yet even the Inventory is not the complete picture. The full motion picture is only available for those inspired to wander down twisted, slippery, narrow aisles, jump over open sewers, take in the smells of one-year old garbage, taste stewed chicken beaks or roasted fish gills, and share in the fear of being bulldozed in the middle of the night. Irene Wangari Karanja and Jack Makau 4 Appreciation Compiling this inventory and undertaking the enumerations in various settlements has been an invaluable and voluntary effort of several hundred slum dwellers. It is not possible to mention them all by name. Those that are mentioned here are those that were part of the team that coordinated the data collection. Nevertheless, we acknowledge all those patriots that contributed in so many ways to putting together this inventory. Benson Osumba (Korogocho), Joseph Mwendo (Laini Saba), Wilberforce Ochieng (Toi Market), Peter Mutunga (Kibera Soweto), Julius Kibe (Kiambiu), Perter Wambua (Kiambiu), Mary Mwimbi (Mariguini), Joyce Nyangote (Kibera), Margaret Makokha (Toi Market), Margaret Okoth (Kibera), Kimuli Komu (Kibera), Sabina Mwende (Kibera), Edwin Gachugu (Kibera), Lilian Muturi (Toi Market), Silvia Koori (Toi Market), David Munyua (Kawangware Coast ), Rosemary Wangui (Kawangware Biafra), Susan Wanja (Kawangware Kiamboni village), Esther Wamaitha (Kawangware Sokoni village), Pst. Chrisphus Kariuki (Riruta Githembe Village) Lydia Mugure (Riruta East ), Keziah Wacheke (Githembe A Wanyee Close), Samuel Kiheko (Kawangware Takataka Village), Henry Odhiambo Otunge (Korogocho Village), Esther Wambui Ndungu (Gachui Village), Simon Gachuru (Njiku Village) ,Joseph Kariuki ( Kaburi Village), Lucy Waweru (Center Village), Gladys Wanjiku Gikambu (Kigaro 1), Samuel Waweru (Mutego Village), Amos Ndung’u (Kareru Village), Grace Waweru Ndegwa (Kanguku Village), Charles Njuguna (Muria Mbogo Village), Ezekiel Rema (Toi Market), Osumba Benson (Korogocho Village), Peter Chege (Kambi Moto), Noah Kitema (Mtumba Village), Margarete Makokha (Toi Market), Jane Njeri (Githarane Village) Joseph Njoroge (Mahira Village), Mary Adhiambo (Korogocho Village), Wycliffe Weche (Kibera Village), Joyce Njeri (Gachui Village), Ann Wambui (Kware Village), the late Wagure Warui (Redeemed Village), Paul Gaitho (Kirigu Village), Dorisilla Akinyi (Korogocho Village), Mary Wambui (Gachui Village), Esther Wambui (Kareru Village), Rose Wanjuku (Kirigi Village), Rahab Njeri (Githarane), Philomena Kalondu (Korogocho Village), Carol Njambi (Kware Village), Monica Wanjira (Githarane Village), George Njoroge (Muria Mbogo Village), Charles Njuguna (Muria Mbogo), Grace Wambui (Githarane Village), James Gathiru (Ghetto Village),Teresa Anyango (Mtumba Village) The Pamoja Trust team that worked on the inventory included Jane Weru (Executive Director), Jack Makau ( Information and Communications Coordinator), Irene Karanja (Research and Advocacy Team Leader), Solomon Gichira, Patrick Mbindyo, Patrick Gumo, David Mathenge and Joyce Mararia, Nicholas Ouma, Stephen Waithaka, Joseph Kimani, Alice Sverdlik, Gloria Chaponda . 5 6 List of Abbreviations 7 Methodology At the heart of this inventory are narratives recorded by the Nairobi informal settlements residents. More so the history is narrated by the elderly residents of the settlement. Assisted by Pamoja Trust officers, teams of men, women and youth collected information from all of the city’s informal communities. Notably, every settlement has a “founding father(s)” oftentimes living in the settlement since its formation. These key informants would then lead teams to other village elders to complete the settlement’s history. The documents were thereafter compiled and edited by the staff of Pamoja Trust. While every effort was made to ensure the data’s accuracy, some limitations should be noted: • Settlements are subject to frequent upheavals given their vulnerability to evictions and fires, informal status, and the recent post-election violence. • In some settlements, residents were hesitant to divulge details of land ownership or their efforts to regularize their tenure status out of suspicion or fear of attracting outside interest • Land ownership in the informal settlements is often contested, and current information is unavailable from Government. • Population figures given in some settlements were estimates. Yet, the populations will undoubtedly rise as settlements continue absorbing new residents. 8 A Brief History of Slums in Kenya 1900 to 1963 - The Colonial Era Emergence of urban centers Many of Kenya’s urban centers were established in the last hundred years. These centers were established as seats of the British colonial Government. As a result the most visible feature of these centers was their segregated residential layouts. There were white residential areas, where natives required a pass to visit. There were areas demarcated for the Asian population and