Analyzing sanitation characteristics in the urban slums of East Africa

Abstract

Urban slums in East Africa exhibit deplorable sanitary conditions. Despite (inter)national efforts, slum sanitation provision remains inadequate and the projected population growth forecasts a worsening of this crisis. The core of the problem is that available knowledge about the local feasibility of the currently applied sanitary methods is limited. This paper analyses the interface of sanitation policy and technology domains by reviewing the distribution and local characteristics of current centralized and decentralized sanitation options. The findings confirm that conventional, centralized sanitation is an unrealistic solution for application in slums. Simplified sewerage may prove appropriate, but the reported initiatives are in the planning phase only. At present, only decentralized sanitation options are found to be viable in the assessed slums, but their servicing is increasingly neglected by the municipal authorities. The quasi-monopoly of pit latrines implies that improved sanitation technologies are not sufficiently rooted yet. Public toilets are crucial to these slums, especially where land tenure issues prevail. Although the potential of ecological sanitation is currently negligible, novel biocenter initiatives are promising. Municipal authorities are advised to prioritize the implementation of elsewhere successful slum sanitation technologies and to integrate appropriate decentral solutions into their predominantly centralized sanitation schemes.

Multi-level sanitation governance: understanding and overcoming challenges in the sanitation sector in sub-Saharan Africa

“…The situation is worsened in many SSA countries by a lack of commonly agreed minimum standards for sanitation (WaterAid 2011). Pits do not ensure safe containment of excreta and hence pose a threat to human health especially in slums and informal settlements (Szántó et al 2012). Dysfunctional sanitation systems increase exposure to disease causing pathogens present in unconfined or poorly disposed human excreta (Boschi-Pinto et al 2006).…”

“…The list of governance challenges in the sanitation sector in SSA is long, and includes low importance ascribed to sanitation; absence of relevant data and environmental indicators; poor coordination and communication between stakeholders; lack of clear and effective integration of water, sanitation and hygiene issues (WaterAid 2011; European Union and European Court of Auditors 2012) gaps in research, policy, coordination and programmes (DFID 2012); inadequate commitment and actual spending in the sector (UN-Water and World Health Organization 2012); inadequate implementation of decentralized solutions (Szántó et al 2012); supply and technology driven interventions (rather than demand driven ones); inadequate capacity and up to date knowledge on sanitation and hygiene; inappropriate institutional and legal frameworks; insufficient focus on sanitation for the poor, especially those in the urban areas (Nyonyintono Lubaale and Musembi Musyoki 2011); and finally a lack of consideration of functionality during implementation, and a disconnect between sanitation and hygiene policy and prevailing practice (Ekane et al 2012;Ekane and Gill 2013). A review performed by the European Court of Auditors of 23 EU-funded projects in six SSA countries representing a significant part of aid provided to SSA revealed that less than half of these projects met the needs of the beneficiaries (European Union and European Court of Auditors 2012).…”

“…About 8% of Ugandans are served by a sewerage network, mainly in Kampala, which is more than the other countries discussed in this paper. Only 3% of inhabitants in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, have access to sewerage systems (Szántó et al 2012). Rwanda and Burundi are yet to construct sewerage systems (Sano 2007).…”

“…Progress in improved sanitation coverage in sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries has remained extremely slow despite enormous international assistance, largely in the form of supply-driven subsidies (European Union and European Court of Auditors 2012; Szántó et al 2012) and national interventions with limited financial resources. In SSA, about 70% of the population still relies on unimproved or shared sanitation facilities or resorts to open defecation (Morella et al 2008;World Health Organization and UNICEF 2013).…”

Preference for and characteristics of an appropriate sanitation technology for the slums of Kisumu, Kenya

“…Four sanitation technologies were mentioned by respondents, with the pit latrine being the most commonly used and preferred technology. Studies have shown that use of pit latrines is common in slum settlements in East Africa (Kulabako et al 2010;Omambia 2010;Szántó et al 2012;Isunju et al 2013;Tumwebaze et al 2013;Pieter Van Dijk et al 2014;Jenkins et al 2015;Nakagiri et al 2015;Tsinda et al 2015) and in other African countries such as Ghana (Adubofour et al 2013;Obeng et al 2015), Senegal (Gulyani et al 2010;Scott et al 2013), Zimbabwe (Chinyama et al 2012) and Malawi (Chunga et al 2016). In spite of their common use, pit latrines present a couple of shortcomings.…”