Up-scaling Basic Sanitation for the Urban Poor (UBSUP)
lnventory of current sanitation practices in Kenya
Prepared by the UBSUP technical team
UBSUP Document Nr. 4 (15.04.2012)
Public Sanitation Facility in Ugunja
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. iii
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................ iv
1.0.0.Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0.0 Inventory of onsite sanitation systems in Kenya ........................................................................... 1
2.1.0. User interfaces .............................................................................................................................. 1
2.1.1. General.......................................................................................................................................... 1
2.1.2. Simple pit latrines ......................................................................................................................... 2
2.1.3. Ventilated Improved Pit Latrines (VIP) ......................................................................................... 3
2.1.4. Pour flush Toilet ............................................................................................................................ 4
2.1.5. Ablution blocks.............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1.6. Urine Diverting Dehydrating Toilets (UDDTs) ............................................................................... 7
2.1.7. Conventional flush cistern toilets ................................................................................................. 8
2.1.8. “PeePoo” bio-degradable bags ..................................................................................................... 9
2.1.9. Open defecation areas ................................................................................................................ 10
2.2.0. Current sludge treatment systems in Kenya............................................................................... 10
2.2.1.0. Current emptying and transportation services........................................................................ 10
2.2.1.1. Manual services ....................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.1.2 Mechanical and exhauster emptying services .......................................................................... 11
2.2.1.2.1 Exhauster trucks..................................................................................................................... 11
2.2.1.2.2. “Vacutug” .............................................................................................................................. 13
2.2.1.2.3. Gulper ................................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.1.2.4 Sewers systems ...................................................................................................................... 15
2.2.3.0. Current sludge treatment methods ......................................................................................... 15
2.2.3.1. Septic tanks with soak away pits ............................................................................................. 15
2.2.3.2. Bio- digesters ........................................................................................................................... 16
2.2.3.3. Anaerobic baffled reactors. ..................................................................................................... 18
2.2.3.4. Sludge drying beds. .................................................................................................................. 19
2.2.3.5. Sludge digestion chambers ...................................................................................................... 20
2.2.3.6. Urine Diversion dehydrating toilets (UDDTs)........................................................................... 20
2.2.3.7. Sludge composting beds .......................................................................................................... 21
2.2.4.0. Current practices of sludge disposal and reuse ....................................................................... 22
i|Page
2.2.4.1. Agriculture and Agro forestry .............................................................................................. 22
2.2.4.2. Open water surfaces ............................................................................................................ 22
2.2.4.3. Sewer manholes ................................................................................................................... 23
2.2.4.4. Landfill .................................................................................................................................. 24
3.0.0. Existing business practices in the sanitation chain ................................................................. 24
3.1.0. Private business in exhauster services .................................................................................... 24
3.2.0. Exhauster services business by water utilities with regulated tariffs ..................................... 25
3.3.0. Private business in manual/mechanical emptying of pit latrines and septic tanks ................ 26
3.4.0 Private management of public sanitation facilities through lease agreement ....................... 27
3.5.0. Private business in provision of sanitation facilities in social and public gatherings. ............ 27
3.6.0. Productive rural household sanitation for enhanced agricultural production ....................... 28
3.7.0. Productive sanitation with production of biogas for energy .................................................. 28
3.8.0. Private sector participation in the production, marketing of toilet components and provision
of specialized professional services. ................................................................................................. 29
4.0.0. Best Practices .......................................................................................................................... 30
4.1.0. Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) .................................................................................. 30
4.2.0. UDDTs for rural households developed by EcoSan Promotion Project (EPP)......................... 31
4.3.0. DEWATS for public places, boarding schools and prisons developed by the EcoSan
Promotion Project (EPP) ................................................................................................................... 31
4.4.0. Single Vault Urine Diversion Dry Toilets for urban households in low income areas piloted by
Sanergy.............................................................................................................................................. 32
4.5.0. Public sanitation facilities developed by WSTF in public places ............................................. 33
4.6.0. Public sanitation facilities developed by Umande Trust in informal settlements .................. 33
4.7.0. Public sanitation facilities developed by Ecotact in cities and urban areas. .......................... 34
4.8.0. Pour Flush Toilets with condominium sewer system piloted by WSUP. ................................ 35
4.9.0. Waste water treatment plant ................................................................................................. 35
ii | P a g e
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ALDEF: Arid Land Development Forum
BMGF: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
BOD: Biological Oxygen Demand
CBD: Central Business District
CBO: Community Based Organisations
CLTS: Community Led Total Sanitation
COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand
EPP: Ecosan Promotion Project
EU: European Union
GIZ: Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit
GOK: Government of Kenya
KfW: German Development Bank
KWAHO: Kenya Water for Health Organisation
MPHS: Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation
NEMA: National Environmental Management Authority
NGO: Non Governmental Organisation
NPK: Nitrogen Phosphorous Potassium
OD: Open Defecation
ODF: Open Defecation Free
SIDA: Swedish International Development Agency
UBSUP: Up scaling of basic Sanitation for the Urban Poor
UDDT:Urine Diversion Dehydrating Toilet
UPC: Urban Project Cycle
VIP: Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine
WASREB: Water Services Regulatory Board
WHO: World Health Organisation
WSP: Water Services Providers
WSTF: Water Services Trust Fund
WSUP: Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor
iii | P a g e
Executive Summary
The Up-scaling Basic Sanitation for the Urban Poor (UBSUP-Kenya) Project is a joint project of the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation, KfW, GIZ, and WSTF aiming at improving the access to basic
sanitation and safe water for about 1,000,000 people in low income URBAN areas of Kenya. In this
regard, a concept paper for up scaling is being developed. This UBSUP document no. 4 is a part of
this concept paper and is an inventory of the current sanitation systems being used in Kenya.
Chapter 1 introduces the problems and challenges Kenya is experiencing with regard to high urban
migration and an increasing demand for urban sanitation especially in urban low income
settlements. The need for developing a national up scaling concept for urban household/plot level
sanitation is also discussed in this chapter.
Chapter 2 outlines and describes the various sanitation systems currently being used in Kenya. It
covers user interfaces, emptying, collection and transportation, sludge treatment, sludge disposal
and reuse.
Chapter 3 documents the existing business modules and practices within the sanitation chain in
Kenya.
Chapter 4 describes some of the best sanitation chain practices being implemented in Kenya. The
chapter covers best practices on on-site facilities for households and public sanitation.
A few examples of centralized wastewater and sludge treatment in wastewater treatment plants are
also described and documented.
iv | P a g e
Chapter 1
1.0.0. Introduction
Urbanization in Kenya is currently estimated at about 5% per annum. Rapid urbanization combined
with a widening income gap between the rich and poor including limited economic opportunities of
the poorer strata in society are the main causes of the increasing growth of the low income urban
settlements in Kenyan cities and urban areas. New slums are emerging; existing ones are becoming
larger and are experiencing a rapid increase in population density. Low income area dwellers tend to
be more dependent on others in terms of housing, income generating activities and access to basic
services such as water and sanitation. According to the 2009 population census, Kenya has more
than 1,800 low income urban areas with a total estimated population of about 12.5 million. The
population density in many low income urban areas is increasing rapidly and many planned urban
sections are gradually changing into unplanned slums1.
The sanitation situation in most urban low income areas is deplorable and unacceptable. According
to the 2009 Kenya population and housing census report, a large majority of the urban poor do not
have access to adequate sanitation. In some informal settlements with very high population
densities the space to build adequate toilets is simply lacking, forcing residents to resort to open
defecation or flying toilets. Currently 52 % of urban households in Kenya share toilet facilities with
others whereas 2.6% practice open defecation. In urban slums with high population densities, this
percentage is considerably higher. Only 19.5% of the urban households are connected to the sewer
network system. There is therefore an urgent need for up-scaling using appropriate sustainable lowcost on-site sanitation systems in order to cover many more people within a short term at a low per
capita cost.
Kenya still lacks a sound concept and strategy for the up-scaling of improved urban sanitation at
household and plot level. Therefore a concept for up-scaling basic sanitation in low income urban
households is being developed within the UBSUP-Kenya project which is a joint venture of BMGF,
KfW, GIZ and WSTF. It is in this regard that this UBSUP document no. 4 has been developed forming
part of the overall up-scaling concept to improve the access to basic sanitation and safe water for up
to 1,000,000 people in low income urban areas.
Chapter 2
2.0.0 Inventory of onsite sanitation systems in Kenya
2.1.0. User interfaces
2.1.1. General
The following sanitation facilities have been observed as the most used in Kenya.
1

Pit latrines (various types): used mainly in households. Simple pit latrines require emptying
when full and further sludge treatment.

Ventilated improved pit latrines: (VIPs) used mainly in schools, institutions and social places
requires emptying when full and further sludge treatment.
Pro-Poor mapping exercise (Maji Data) Progress Report July – October (WSTF, 2010)
1|Page

Pour flush toilet with pit or septic tank or connected to sewer or bio digester, or anaerobic
baffled reactor: used mainly in boarding schools, institutions and social places. If connected
to a septic tank exhaustion and further treatment is required.

Ablution blocks with septic tanks or connected to bio digesters and anaerobic baffled
reactors or sewers: used in markets, bus parks and informal settlements as public sanitation
facilities. An ablution block with a pit or a septic tank requires exhaustion and further
treatment of sludge.

Urine Diverting Dehydrating Toilets (UDDTs): used mainly in rural households and rural
primary schools. Faeces is sanitised on site and used as fertilizer and soil conditioner. Urine
is collected and diluted with water and used as liquid fertiliser or can be infiltrated in the soil
(soak-away).

Conventional flush cistern toilets: used at household level, boarding schools and institutions,
offices, hospitals, social amenities, airports, etc. The waste water is either treated in septic
tanks/bio digesters/anaerobic baffled reactors or conveyed to waste water treatment via
sewer networks

““PeePoo”” bio-degradable bags predominantly in Kibera, an informal settlement in Nairobi

Open defecation areas
These various sanitation facilities are described in detail below.
2.1.2. Simple pit latrines
The simple pit latrines are widely used in Kenya mainly at household or plot level in both rural and
urban areas. There are many types differing in the construction of the floor slab
(covered/uncovered) and the super structure construction material (mud, grass, cartons, stones,
corrugated iron sheets, sisal bags, plastic bags, reeds, etc). The Ministry of Public Health and
sanitation (MPHS) though it Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) Program has empowered many
communities predominantly in rural areas to construct simple pit latrines in order to be open
defecation free certified villages. According to the population and housing census done in Kenya in
20092, about 6.1 million households use simple pit latrines. This consists of about 2.1 million
households in urban areas and 4.0 million households in rural areas. The total households in Kenya
were estimated at 8.8 million. These simple pit latrines are designed for the on-site disposal of
human excreta (drop and store). They consist of a dug pit, timber or a concrete slab and a
superstructure built from various materials. Some have roofs (e.g. in urban areas) but many are
often left open especially in rural areas. One unit often serves one or more households.
The pit diameter is between 1 - 1.5 m. The depth of the pit is usually between 2-3 m. In loose soil,
the entire pits are lined in order to prevent the walls from collapsing. Pits are emptied manually,
mechanically or by use of an exhauster when full in urban areas. Most rural areas do not have
emptying services. The full latrines are therefore abandoned and new ones are constructed. This is
however possible only in rural areas since adequate land and space is available at household
homesteads.
2
Population and housing census 2009: http://www.knbs.or.ke/Census%20Results/KNBS%20Brochure.pdf
2|Page
Picture 1 Pit Latrines in Dagoretti corner, Nairobi (Doreen Mbalo, 2012)
Advantages and disadvantages of a simple pit latrine
Advantages

Suitable in areas where there is no
reliable water supply and sewer network

Low cost of construction therefore used
under CLTS to achieve open defecation
free villages


It can be made from locally available
material e.g. grass, reeds, timber, sisal
bags, bamboo, etc
Disadvantages

The superstructures are often damaged
after a short time e.g. by termites,
corrosion, wear, etc

Operation & maintenance costs are high
if emptying is done frequently

The sludge requires secondary treatment
and safe disposal

Presence of odour and flies can be a
problem depending on floor slab quality

Pits are often not lined thus causing
groundwater pollution

They require a lot of space
Easy to use
2.1.3. Ventilated Improved Pit Latrines (VIP)
The Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine (VIP) is used widely in Kenya at household, plot level, in
institutions, social facilities, primary and boarding schools. They provide basic hygienic sanitation in
areas with no sewer connections or with no reliable water supply. There are many variations
differing mainly in the construction of super structure material (mud, bricks, stones, corrugated iron
sheets, plastic, timber, concrete panels, etc). The Ministry of Public Health and sanitation (MPHS)
and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have been supporting their constructing in primary
schools, rural areas and low income urban areas within the country.
It is estimated that 431,000 household in Kenya use VIP toilets. This consists of 202,000 households
in urban areas and 229,000 households in rural areas. These VIPs are designed for the on-site
disposal of human excreta (drop and store). With the exception of enhancements in design (e.g. a
vent pipe for improved ventilation, odour and flies removal) its construction is similar to that of the
simple pit latrine. The number of units is designed for the intended use e.g. household single design,
multi designs for schools, social amenities, institutions, etc. The VIP meets the requirement of many
3|Page
users of various cultural backgrounds e.g. those practicing anal cleansing. Pits are emptied manually,
mechanically or by use of an exhauster when full in urban areas. In rural areas, they are often
abandoned when full thus resulting in graveyards of VIP especially in schools.
Figure 2 Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine (Doreen Mbalo, 2012)
Advantages and disadvantages of a VIP Latrine
Advantages
Disadvantages

Suitable in areas where there is no
reliable water supply and sewer network
since they do not need water for flushing

Operation & maintenance costs are high
due to the constant emptying especially
for plots, schools, institutions, etc.

The vent pipe allows circulation of air
preventing odour and flies

The sludge requires secondary treatment
and safe disposal

Low cost and affordable


It can be made from locally available
material
It is sometimes very difficult to empty
due to the presence of solid waste in the
pit

It is not detrimental to the ground water
if the pit is lined well
2.1.4. Pour flush Toilet
The pour flush toilets were designed to reduce the amount of water used per flushing. While the
conventional cistern flush systems use between 15-25 litres of water per flush, the pour flush uses in
average 3-5 litres per flush. In Kenya they are used widely in public sanitation facilities, boarding
schools, institutions and some plot level sanitation facilities. They are widely used in the Muslim
community households in urban areas. The pour-flush toilets are used with septic tanks, sewer
networks, bio-digesters and/or anaerobic baffled reactors. Boarding schools and prisons use
additional tertiary pond treatment with reuse of treated effluent for limited irrigation e.g. St. Mary’s
Lwak Girls high school and Meru GK Prison.
4|Page
Picture 3 Pour Flush Toilet (Doreen Mbalo, 2011)
The pour flush toilet super structure and slab is similar to that of the VIP latrine, except that it uses a
pour-flush pan with a siphon connection to allow flushing of faeces using water.
Advantages and disadvantages of Pour flush toilets
Advantages

It uses less amount of water as
compared to the conventional cistern
flush toilets

Suitable for anal cleansing

Can be incorporated to bio-digesters for
biogas generation (renewable energy)

The waste water can be treated on-site
and recycled for limited irrigation
purposes

Does not attract flies

They do not emit odour if used
appropriately

Easy to clean and maintain

Can easily be incorporated into a
household building
Disadvantages

Requires a reliable source of water

Requires some skills to construct

Can easily be blocked through disposal
of solid waste or use of unsuitable
material for anal cleansing
2.1.5. Ablution blocks
Ablution blocks are constructed for use in markets, bus parks and informal settlements as public
sanitation facilities. They are used with septic tanks, sewer network, bio-digesters and/or anaerobic
baffled reactors.
Most of the ablution blocks in low income urban areas were built with the support of NGOs, faith
based organizations and municipalities. NGOs and faith based organizations handed them over to
community based organizations (CBOs) for operation and maintenance after establishment. The
CBOs raise their revenue from the user charge fee. However the CBOs are often lacking the
management skills and the resources for proper maintenance of these facilities. Some of these
5|Page
facilities are far from the households and are thus insecure to use at night especially for women and
children.
Picture 4: Public Ablution Block in Nanyuki Financed by Water Services Trust Fund (Edward Kungu, 2011)
All the facilities which were developed by the municipal authorities collapsed eventually due to lack
of appropriate and practical management concept. The Water Services Trust Fund (WSTF) has been
funding the construction of public toilets in markets, bus parks and recreation parks since 2008.
Their implementation is embedded within the Water Service Providers (WSPs) with a clear up-scaling
and management concept (UPC). So far, WSTF have financed the implementation of 12 public
sanitation facilities in Nanyuki, Isiolo, Nyahururu, Kericho, Kisii, Busia, Murang’a and Mathira through
the respective WSPs in the areas. Additional 7 public toilets are under construction in Nanyuki,
Kakamega, Githunguri, Mavoko and Embu. The wastewater from these facilities is discharged into
the sewer system where a sewer network exists or to septic tanks in areas with none.
The Naivasha Bus Park, Ugunja Market and Luanda K’otieno fish landing bay public ablution facilities
were developed under the pilot projects of the Ecosan Promotion Project (EPP). The waste water
from the facilities is treated at the sites using bio-digesters and anaerobic baffled reactors. The
treated effluent is then disposed of into the environment.
Of late Umande Trust, an NGO in Nairobi together with Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company have
introduced on site treatment systems using Bio digesters/baffled reactors in informal settlements of
Nairobi e.g. Kibera Gatwekera Umande Trust Bio- Centers.
Advantages and disadvantages of ablution blocks
Advantages
Disadvantages




High investment costs

They offer a wide range of services such
as water kiosks, toilets, urinals, showers,
shoe shine and small shop selling goods
The user charge fee is high in low income
urban areas with no formalized water
service provision

They create job opportunities for the
youth in the operation and maintenance
of the facilities
Many in low income urban areas are
insecure to use at night for women and
children

Need proper source of water for proper
hygienic operation.

Prone to blockages
It is a cheap way of reaching more
people with basic sanitation with low per
capita cost.
6|Page
2.1.6. Urine Diverting Dehydrating Toilets (UDDTs)
UDDTs are mainly used in rural households and rural primary schools. Faeces are sanitised on site
and used as fertilizer and soil conditioner. Urine is collected and diluted with water and used as
liquid fertiliser in agriculture or agro forestry. Wood ash is used both as a drying and as a pathogen
reducing agent. It reduces the pathogens in faeces by increasing alkalinity. In addition it improves
the fertilizer value of the sanitized faeces by adding potassium.
Wood ash is a cheap material which is available in every Kenyan household. In primary schools, the
health clubs are normally trained on the operation and maintenance of UDDTs including the use of
sanitized faeces and urine in school farms. UDDTs operate without water and separate urine and
faeces. They promote excreta reuse in line with the ecological sanitation principle of closing the
loop. The separation of the faeces and urine ensures an odourless user interface. UDDTs can be
adopted for various users and cultures.
984 UDDT facilities were constructed under the EU-SIDA-GTZ Ecosan promotion project (EPP) of the
Ministry of Water and Irrigation. Additional UDDTs are being built by NGOs like KWAHO, ALDEF,
German Red Cross, CDTF, German Agro action, Engineers without Borders Spain and Germany. Many
of these UDDTs are implemented at rural primary schools and rural household level.
Advantages and disadvantages of UDDTs3
Advantages
3
Disadvantages

Does not require water for flushing
therefore suitable for water scarce
areas

No odours and flies

Can be built with locally available
materials and has O&M costs

Suitable for all users

Makes
sludge
emptying
management easy and safe

Provides cheap fertilizer.

Alleviates investment cost
rebuilding facilities when full.

Can be used to generate income for
families through selling of fertiliser

Requires awareness creation and
sensitization among the users

Requires training on composting of
sludge to avoid disease transmission

Requires
skilled
construction
artisans
for
and
for
For further information on UDDTs see: http://www.susana.org/lang-en/library?view=ccbktypeitem&type=2&id=874
7|Page
Picture 5: Ecosan Toilets built during EPP at Kenya Water Institute in Nairobi (KEWI) (Paul Mboya, 2009)
2.1.7. Conventional flush cistern toilets
Conventional flush cistern toilets are used at household level, boarding schools, offices, hospitals,
social amenities, airports, etc. The wastewater is either treated in septic tanks/bio
digesters/anaerobic baffled reactors or conveyed to wastewater treatment via sewer network.
The toilet bowl consists of a siphon which provides a water seal against bad odours from the effluent
pipe. Faeces and urine are then flushed away with water stored in the cistern. Depending on the
type, 5 to 25 litres can be used per flush. These types of toilets provide the highest level of
convenience and if maintained appropriately can have very clean and hygienic appearances.
However this is not the situation in many parts of Kenya due to poor usage and inadequate water
supply caused by water rationing in many towns and cities. They are often dirty especially in areas
where they are used by many people e.g. offices, hospitals and schools.
Picture 6: Conventional flush cistern toilet at the Ministry of Water and Irrigation in Nairobi (Doreen Mbalo, 2012)
8|Page
There are a few cistern flush toilets in low income urban areas in Kenya. However most of them are
not functional and are unhygienic due to lack of water and poor maintenance. Most of these
conventional flush toilets in public ablution blocks were constructed by municipal authorities and
NGOs and handed over to CBOs. In Kenya, experience shows that these types of toilets are not
suitable for many users. The weakest part is always the cistern flushing unit which is often broken
down due to improper usage thus causing high maintenance cost.
Advantages of a conventional cistern flush toilet
Advantages
Disadvantages

Hygienic and clean when properly used

High investment costs

No odour

Requires a reliable supply of water

Suitable for all users

High maintenance costs

Offers a variety of appropriate technical
solutions

Requires a very large volume of water
per flush

Easy installation for various users

Requires very skilled artisans

Prone to blockages
2.1.8. ““PeePoo”” bio-degradable bags
The “PeePoo” bio-degradable bags which are lined with uric acid have been introduced in Kibera
informal settlement in Nairobi on a pilot basis. It is being promoted by a Swedish NGO in households
and schools within Kibera. The households use the bags for defecation instead of flying toilets. The
used bags are collected from the households and transported to special collection points. The NGO
has organized monetary incentives for every bag which reaches the collection/disposal centre. From
the collection centre, the bags are being collected by the University of Nairobi and transported to
Kabete campus for research by the Department of Environmental Engineering.
The pilot project is fully run and financed by the Swedish NGO “PeePoo” people.4 The sustainability
of the services (subsidized bags, collection, storage and disposal) being currently provided by the
NGO is therefore not guaranteed.
Figure 7 “PeePoo” Bags in Kibera (Camilla Wirseen, 2011)
The major challenge lies on how the large quantity of “PeePoo” bags coming from the households
will be collected and disposed off within the informal settlements where space and land scarcity is a
4
For further information on Peepoo bags: http://www.peepoople.com/
9|Page
big problem. Currently “PeePoo” bags are also being introduced in primary schools in Kibera that
have no appropriate sanitation facilities.
2.1.9. Open defecation areas
Open defecation is still being practiced in both urban and rural areas of Kenya. According to 2009
Kenya population and housing census report about 14% (1,196,000 households) of the total Kenyan
households still practice open defecation. Out of this 87,000 households are in urban areas while
about 1,109,000 households are in rural areas. Open defecation has a direct link to the outbreaks of
Cholera and Typhoid and other water borne diseases in Kenya.
The Ministry of Public Heath and Sanitation (MPHS) has launched the Community Led Total
Sanitation (CLTS) approach in many villages of Kenya in areas like Nyando, Kajiado, Siaya, Turkana,
Busia, Bondo, Kisumu West, and Rachuonyo districts among others to eradicate open defecation and
achieve open defecation free (ODF) villages. The results being noted are positive5. Cholera cases
have been reduced drastically since the inception of CLTS which has made many villages in these
areas ODF. The Government of Kenya through the MPHS intends to make the whole country ODF by
the end of 2013 using CLTS as a tool.
2.2.0. Current sludge treatment systems in Kenya
Sludge is generated predominately from waste water treatment plants and onsite sanitation
facilities. The main source of untreated sludge among the onsite sanitation facilities are the toilet
facilities and septic tanks. The sludge from these facilities needs further treatment in order to meet
the national environmental standards stipulated by the National Environmental Management
Authority (NEMA).
The sludge generated from waste water treatment plants are treated at the same plants and
dehydrated in drying beds for possible use as fertilizer. The major challenge for farmers regarding
the use of this fertilizer is the amount of organic solid waste material mixed in the sludge e.g.
plastics, rubber, sanitary towels, etc. This is the case at Kericho waste water treatment plant which
could have produced a lot of fertilizer for the tea plantations. In addition the sludge could contain a
substantial amount of toxic heavy metals from industrial waste water.
2.2.1.0. Current emptying and transportation services
2.2.1.1. Manual services
Manual emptying services are found both in urban and rural areas of Kenya. It involves manual
emptying of pit latrines or septic tanks. Unfortunately most of the manual emptiers who are
involved in this job do not have the right protective equipment and are susceptible to a variety of
health risks. Full pit latrines pose huge health risks in areas with high water tables. They spill faecal
waste to the environment during rainy seasons thus causing considerable pollution of water
resources. This often leads to cholera outbreaks in rural and urban areas.
5
For more information about CLTS and ODF zones in Kenya: http://cltskenya.org/
10 | P a g e
Picture 8: Manual Pit emptying in Korogocho slums of Nairobi (Doreen Mbalo, 2012)
Low income urban areas in Kenya predominantly use on-site sanitation facilities most of which are
traditional pit latrines with poor dilapidated superstructures. The toilet emptying is mostly done
manually using buckets and drums as shown in Picture 8. The faecal sludge is transported on
wheelbarrows or makeshift handcarts and disposed off in rivers and water channels.6 This is a major
source of water resource pollution in many rivers flowing through the informal settlements of Kenya
which are chocking in faecal and solid waste.
2.2.1.2 Mechanical and exhauster emptying services
2.2.1.2.1 Exhauster trucks
Exhauster trucks offer faster and more efficient emptying and transport services of sludge from
septic tanks and pit latrines. In the case of pit latrines, the sludge to be exhausted can sometimes be
very dry and compacted making direct emptying impossible. Therefore watering of the pit must be
done for exhaustion to be possible. The services are offered in most cities and towns either by
licensed water utilities or private operators. The highest number of private operators is currently
found in Nairobi.
Most exhausters cannot access pit latrines in low income urban areas due to the dense housing
patterns which hinder accessibility. Many private exhauster operators discharge their load illegally in
open water surfaces to avoid long distance drives to designated dumping points in order to reduce
the operational cost (fuel, discharge levies). The other challenge facing the exhauster operators is
the existence of cartels that impose illegal levies. There is an urgent need to develop more discharge
points within the estates to reduce the distance to be covered by exhauster trucks. This will not only
6
A photo documentary of manual pit emptiers in Korogocho Nairobi by Doreen Mbalo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gtzecosan/sets/72157629202806662/
11 | P a g e
make this business more viable but will also contribute towards environmental protection by
alleviating illegal dumping into open water surfaces.7
Picture 9: Private exhaustion of a pit latrine at Dagoretti Corner Nairobi at a cost of KSh 10,000 (Doreen Mbalo, 2012)
In low income areas, many households and landlords are not able to afford the services of a private
exhauster and thus have to contact the licensed water utility whose price is subsided and is pro
poor. Unfortunately most of water utilities in Kenya have a maximum of 2 exhausters and they
prioritise their services to the needs of public schools and institutional facilities. Most residents
therefore resort to manual pit emptying.
Advantages and disadvantages of Exhauster operators
Advantages




Fast and efficient
Creates job opportunities
Provides an essential service in on site
sanitation
Less health risks than human powered
systems
Disadvantages





High investment cost
High operation and maintenance cost
Cannot pump thick solid sludge
Suction pipes are prone to blockage
Difficulty in accessing densely populated
areas with poor accessibility.
7
Photo documentary by Doreen Mbalo on how exhauster operators work:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gtzecosan/sets/72157629204908188/
12 | P a g e
Figure 10 Public exhauster from Oloolaiser Water and Sewerage Company: Emptying at a cost of KSh 7,000
2.2.1.2.2. “Vacutug”
The technology compromises of a 0.5 m³ steel vacuum tank connected to a sliding vane vacuum
pump capable of developing a 0.8 bar vacuum. A 4.1 kW petrol engine can be connected to either
the vacuum pump or a friction roller to drive the front wheels. On level ground, the vehicle can
achieve a speed of 5km/hr. The whole assembly is mounted on a steel chassis with a car axle and
wheel assembly to the rear. The overall dimensions of the machine are around 1.5m long by 1m
high. The vacuum tank is fitted with 3 inches diameter valves at the top and bottom of the tank and
the waste is evacuated from the latrine via a 3-inch diameter PVC vacuum hose.
The waste sludge can be discharged under gravity or by slight pressurisation from the pump. The
machine is equipped with a throttle, clutch and two brakes.8 Many exhauster operators do not offer
services in low income urban areas due to the problem of inaccessibility. UN-HABITAT “Vacutug”
pilot project evolved out of the need for a low cost and fully sustainable system for emptying pit
latrines in unplanned, peri-urban areas and refugee camps with poor accessibility. However, the
“Vacutug” has not been developed in large scale.
The “Vacutug” can be able to empty on average 8 pits per day. The tank has a nominal volume of
500 litres. It mostly requires 2 operators. A weekly check-up is required to ensure that it is
functioning properly. Costs per load are between 3-5 dollars (KSh 2400-4000). Capital costs are
about 7,000 dollars (KSh 560,000). If maintained well, the “Vacutug” can cover its initial costs.
However, sometimes the faecal sludge can be very thick and dense inhibiting the “Vacutug” from
functioning properly. In this case, it is necessary to thin the sludge with water. However this can be
costly and time consuming. Maintenance is a top priority when owning a “Vacutug”.
Most of the parts are not locally available, making them expensive. In addition, oil and fuel is costly
for most operators. The pumps can usually suck down to a depth of 2-3 m. The pump must be
located within 30 m of the pit. Albeit the above disadvantages, the use of a “Vacutug” reduces the
need for manual emptying.
8
More information about the Vacutug: http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=548
13 | P a g e
Advantages




Disadvantages
Can access latrines in high density areas
The system is capable of transporting the
waste to an appropriate disposal point
Operation costs of the service normally
covers the revenue generated
Has the capability of evacuating
compacted sludge from latrines




Capital costs are still unaffordable
Protective clothing is still required for
the operators
Can be expensive to repair
Danger of contact with raw faeces
2.2.1.2.3. Gulper
A gulper is a low cost effective solution for sludge emptying. The pump was originally designed and
developed by Steve Sugden from London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It was marketed
as the Poo pump by Oxfam. Partners in Development and EThekwini Municipality in South Africa
further developed the pump design.
The pump works similar to a water pump. The bottom of the pipe is lowered to a pit latrine or a
septic tank. The operator remains at the surface and pumps the sludge out. After the work has been
done, the Gulper is taken apart and cleaned appropriately. Hands should be protected when
cleaning the Gulper. Soap should be readily available for the operators to wash their hands after
work. Picture 11 was taken in Gatwekera, Kibera Tosha Bio Centre and show a group of workers
using a Gulper. The emptiers are from Kara Group in Nairobi, a CBO registered as a pit emptier
company.
Picture 11: Using the Gulper at Kibera slums Nairobi (James Ronoh Kiptanui, 2010)
The men were initially (manual pit emptiers) working independently in slums. They were then
supported by an NGO called Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor (WSUP) and Umande Trust to
establish their business. The Gulper and protective clothing was initially provided by WSUP. They
empty the containers with faecal sludge in a drum which is in a cart and transport to a central
emptying point. Pumping rate is 20 litres per 40 seconds.
14 | P a g e
Advantages and disadvantages of a Gulper
Advantages




Job creation for the youth.
Provides services to areas that cannot be
accessed by exhausters
Can be built will locally available material
Low operating costs depending on
discharge points
Disadvantages


If distance to a discharge point is far, the
workers tend to dispose of the waste in
nearby streams and rivers creating a
health hazards
Spillages happen during pumping and
transportation
2.2.1.2.4 Sewers systems
Sewer systems are only available in a limited number of cities and towns in Kenya. Rural areas have
no sewer systems in Kenya. The connection to the sewer systems is low in many cities and towns
due to inadequate enforcement of laws. Only 19.5% (about 665,000 households) of the urban
households in Kenya are connected to sewer systems according to the 2009 Kenya population and
housing census report.
Majority of wastewater treatment plants in Kenya are operating at 20% efficiency and need
rehabilitation. The investment requirement is enormous and unaffordable. The future strategy of
the Kenyan Government to increase sanitation coverage is therefore to develop sustainable low cost
onsite sanitation systems.9
2.2.3.0. Current sludge treatment methods
The following various systems are currently used for treating sludge in Kenya: Septic tank with soakaway pits, Bio-digestors, Anaerobic baffled reactors, sludge drying beds, Sludge digestion chamber,
UDDTs and composting beds.
2.2.3.1. Septic tanks with soak away pits
Septic tanks are designed for the on-site treatment of domestic sewage. The tank is located
underground and usually consists of two compartments. The first compartment is approximately
twice as large as the second one. Septic tanks can be constructed with only one compartment.
However, this will result in significantly reduced treatment effects and cost savings are minimal.
There are two main treatment effects:


Contaminants are removed from the sewage by either settling of heavy particles or by
flotation of materials less dense than water (e.g. oils and fats). The sludge layer at the
bottom of the tank is a result of the settling process. The scum layer is formed through the
floatation process.
Subsequently, organic matter in the sludge as well as the scum layer is digested by bacteria.
The gas produced escapes through a ventilation pipe in the system. The anaerobic digestion
process in septic tanks prevents the excessive accumulation of sludge.
Septic tanks can reduce the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) of raw sewage only up to 40% and the
suspended solids content by 65%. Their effluent is thus much more readily absorbed into the ground
9
Water Sector Sanitation Implementation Plan 2009
15 | P a g e
than raw sewage. Therefore smaller soil absorption facilities (e.g. seepage/soak away pit or drain
fields) are required. According to the 2009 Kenya population and housing census report, about
300,000 households use septic tanks for on-site waste treatment. Out of this about 274,000
households are in urban areas while 26,000 households are in rural areas.
Picture 12: Septic Tank at St Francis Rangala Girls in Ugunja (Paul Mboya 2009)
Advantages and disadvantages of Septic tanks
Advantages

Disadvantages
An easy way of managing household
waste water where there is no sewer
network

Requires a reliable water supply

Soak away/seepage pits can be a source
of ground water pollution

Easy to design and construct


Requires very little space
Treats waste water only to about 40%
BOD and COD elimination

Has a long life span

No flies and odour

Low investment costs
2.2.3.2. Bio- digesters
A bio digester is an on-site waste water treatment facility which produces biogas (mainly methane)
through anaerobic fermentation. The methane gas produced is used for cooking, lighting and
powering biogas generators. In Kenya, large volume bio-digesters (50-124 m3) for treatment of
waste water have been implemented in boarding schools, prisons and public sanitation facilities. A
lot of small volume bio-digesters (8 m3 -30 m3) have been built at household level for biogas
production using animal dung within agricultural farms. Additional bio-digesters of between 30 m3 –
50 m3 have been developed for slaughter houses to use organic by-products to produce biogas.
16 | P a g e
Picture 13: Dome of bio digester under construction at Gachoire School in Kiambu (Christian Rieck, 2007)
The major drive in the promotion of bio-digesters is to reduce deforestation in Kenya. The forest has
been depleted from 12% to a mere 1.2%. Biogas provides an alternative source of energy to replace
wood fuel and charcoal.
The major challenge has however been how to produce high amounts of biogas from human waste
which can replace at least 80% of wood fuel and charcoal demand for boarding schools, prisons, and
other public institutions. The biogas technology is currently promoted in Kenya by the Ministry of
Energy and International organizations (e.g. GIZ, SNV) and NGOs (e.g. Umande Trust in low income
urban areas like Kibera).10
Advantages and disadvantages of Bio-digesters
Advantages
Disadvantages

Produces very little sludge due to
anaerobic fermentation

Construction requires very skilled
manpower to achieve air tightness

Produces energy for heating, lighting and
powering biogas generators


Reduces pathogens and worm eggs and
treats waste water to at least 60% (BOD
and COD reduction)
The gas produced must still be filtered to
get rid of impurities such as Carbon
dioxide, Hydrogen Sulphide gases and
moisture

Requires special construction material
e.g. good sand and bricks

Requires little space and can be adopted
to
the
landscape
(underground
construction)

Low operation and maintenance cost
10
Pictures of Biodigestor under construction during the EPP by Christian Rieck:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gtzecosan/sets/72157625843400102/
17 | P a g e
2.2.3.3. Anaerobic baffled reactors.
Anaerobic baffled reactors are a combination of several anaerobic processes in a series of baffled
septic tanks. The waste water flows upwards with velocities not exceeding 2 m/h which is the limit
of its design. This is achieved by the use of a baffled cross section. The baffled reactor consists of at
least 4 chambers in series. The 1st compartment is always a settling chamber for heavy solids and
impurities. It is followed by a series of up flow chambers. The water stream between the chambers is
directed by baffled walls that form a down-shaft or by down-pipes that are placed on partition walls.
The last chamber can have a filter in its upper part in order to retain eventual solid particles. They
are ideal for decentralized waste water treatment and can be used to achieve up to 90% COD-BOD
elimination
In Kenya, these on-site facilities are used for waste water treatment in boarding schools, prisons and
public sanitation facilities in informal settlements. Most of the facilities in boarding schools and
prisons were built under The Ecosan Promotion Project (EPP) of the Ministry of Water and Irrigation
on a pilot basis. Prisons department is putting up more of these units in other Kenyan prisons. The
treated effluent and slurry from these facilities is used in schools and prison farms respectively for
agricultural production. An NGO called Umande Trust has also started installing these on-site waste
water treatment facilities in low income urban areas to treat waste water from public ablution
blocks. In low income areas, the treated effluent is conveyed to a sewer system or open drainages.
Picture 14: Baffled Reactor under construction at Meru GK Prison (Patrick Onyango, 2009)
Advantages and disadvantages of anaerobic baffled reactors
Advantages





Suitable for all kinds of wastewater.
Can achieve 90% BOD reduction
Produces high quality effluent which can
be used for limited irrigation
Requires little space for construction
They can be used to produce biogas for
energy.
Disadvantages


Requires high skills in designing and
construction
Requires inoculation to trigger the
activities of the bacteria in the activated
sludge
18 | P a g e
2.2.3.4. Sludge drying beds.
Sludge drying beds are designed and operated to produce a solid product out of treated sludge
which can be used either as soil conditioner or fertilizer in agriculture, or deposited in designated
area without causing damage to the environment. Sludge drying beds can be planted with plants or
unplanted. Most drying beds in Kenya are of the unplanted type, which are incorporated in the
waste water treatment plants e.g. Kericho waste water treatment plant.
Picture 15 Sludge Drying Bed at Kericho Treatment Plant (Anne Marie Ran, 2012)
Where dried sludge is used in agriculture, helminth (nematode) egg count should be the decisive
quality criterion as per WHO standards. One major challenge in Kenya with regards to the use of
fertilizer from drying beds is the large amount of inorganic debris which is not screened at the inlet
screens. As a result the dried sludge is contaminated with solid waste like plastics and sanitary pads
etc. This inhibits its suitability in agricultural use. Many farmers therefore find it as a nonenvironmentally friendly fertilizer due to the amount of solid waste.
Advantages and disadvantages of Drying Beds
Advantages




Can be built and repaired with locally
available materials
Moderate capital costs, low operating
costs
Produces dry organic fertilizer
Easy to operate and maintain
Disadvantages




Requires large land area
Can cause odours and flies if not handled
well
Can accumulate a lot of solid waste if not
well protected e.g. plastic, paper
Labour intensive to remove the dried
treated sludge
19 | P a g e
2.2.3.5. Sludge digestion chambers
These are anaerobic sludge digestion reactors for sludge stabilisation which are incorporated in
waste water treatment plants. They are implemented in combination with the aerobic activated
sludge process for municipality waste water treatment. They are used to treat mainly sewage sludge
which is the total solid material that results from sedimentation and bacterial activity and growth
during aerobic waste water treatment.
The sludge undergoes anaerobic fermentation in the sludge digestion chambers for about 30 days.
Biogas is generated. No waste water treatment plant in Kenya is using the biogas produced as a
source of energy. It is left to escape into the atmosphere. This has consequences on the ozone layer
(climate change)
The treated sludge is dehydrated and disposed of in landfills or utilized as an agricultural fertilizer
and soil conditioner. The major challenge in Kenya is the large number of inorganic waste in the
treated sludge e.g. plastics, rubbers, sanitary pads, etc. This inhibits the suitability of the sludge for
agricultural use. Most of the waste treatment plants in Kenya have sludge digestion chambers.
However their efficiency is as low as 20% due to poor operation and maintenance.
Advantages and disadvantages of Sludge digestion chambers
Advantages
Disadvantages

Reduces sludge volume


Produces biogas to be used as energy for
heating, lighting and powering biogas
generators.
May
require
temperatures

High investment costs

Must be incorporated within a waste
water treatment system

Stabilises the sludge

Valuable nutrients are retained

Anaerobic sludge can be preserved and
dehydrated easily
heating
in
cold
2.2.3.6. Urine Diversion dehydrating toilets (UDDTs)
Picture 16: Household UDDT at Mumias (Johannes Odhiambo Orodhi 2008)
20 | P a g e
The feaces are separated from urine in UDDTs. The feaces are composted and dried in UDDT
chambers using wood ash and hot air circulation for a minimum of 8 months. Most pathogens are
eliminated by the high pH (alkalinity) and radiation. The sanitized feaces and urine can thus be used
safely in agriculture or agro forestry. The dried sanitized faeces are a good soil conditioner (supplying
Phosphorus and Potassium) while the urine is a good fertilizer with about 97% nitrogen content. The
wood ash adds the value of the sanitized feaces in nutrients by adding Potassium.
2.2.3.7. Sludge composting beds
Sludge compositing beds are used to compost sludge. The sludge is mixed with organic material e.g.
saw dust, wood shavings, grass or plant straw and composted at regulated temperatures (aeration
from the bottom).
Picture 17: Co composting at Sanergy in Mukuru kwa Rueben (Doreen Mbalo, 2012)
Optimal moisture is maintained by adding urine which increases the fertilizer value of the resulting
organic compost. This method is being piloted by Sanergy in informal settlements of Kenya.11 It is
still not widely used in Kenya but is a promising technology. The resulting compost is meant for
agricultural use. Further use is being looked into in the horticultural farming and agro-forestry.
Advantages and Disadvantages of sludge composting beds
Advantages





11
Easy to set up with appropriate training
Provides a valuable resource
High removal of pathogens possible
Can be built and repaired with locally
available material
Low capital cost
Disadvantages





Requires training of staff
Long storage times
Requires expert design and operation
Labour intensive
Should be protected from the rain
More pictures of Sanergy by Doreen Mbalo here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gtzecosan/sets/72157629321008423/
21 | P a g e
2.2.4.0. Current practices of sludge disposal and reuse
2.2.4.1. Agriculture and Agro forestry
This is the best method for a country like Kenya which is food insecure. The sludge could be reused
in agriculture and agro forestry. It would not only contribute to food security but also to
reforestation and environmental conservation. The sludge being disposed of or reused must meet
the quality standard requirements. The sludge composted in the UDDTs is widely used for
agriculture and agro-forestry in the rural areas of Kenya. Urine from the UDDTs is also reused in the
same way in rural areas. The sludge from UDDTs does not contain solid wastes and can be applied in
agriculture without problems. However, the dried treated sludge from many treatments plants in
Kenya is not used widely by farmers as fertilizer because of the many inorganic solid waste
impurities.
Many households in Kenya still flush solid waste e.g. sanitary towels with waste water. The screens
in many waste water treatment plants are in a poor state thus do not filter out these solid materials
as required. This problem can be addressed through awareness creation and rehabilitation of the
existing waste water treatment plants. Illegal use of raw sewage and untreated sludge has been
observed in the low income urban areas of Kenya e.g. Kibera. This practice is very risky and exposes
the consumers of the agricultural produce to many health risks. Sanergy, an NGO based in Mukuru
kwa Rueben is looking for a market for its sludge from co-compost in horticultural farms.
Picture 18: Collection of organic fertiliser from UDDT in Mumias for Agro forestry (Johannes Odhiambo Orodi, 2009)
2.2.4.2. Open water surfaces
This is the easiest method used in Kenya by manual emptiers and private exhausters to dispose of
sludge from pit latrines and septic tanks. However, it is illegal and environmental unfriendly.
The faecal sludge emptied from pit latrines in low income urban areas are often disposed of in the
nearby rivers by manual emptiers. Many private exhausters also dispose of the sludge in open water
surfaces to reduce operation costs. This problem is compounded by lack of appropriate sludge
22 | P a g e
disposal points in cities and towns of Kenya. Almost all the rivers and open water surfaces in cities
and towns are choking with solid waste and faecal sludge.12
Picture 19: Disposing sludge in the river in Korogocho slums, Nairobi (Doreen Mbalo, 2012)
This situation can be improved by enforcement of relevant rules and regulation, developing
appropriate onsite sludge treatment facilities and dumping sites within the vicinity of estates and
low income urban areas.
2.2.4.3. Sewer manholes
Sewer manholes are not meant for discharging faecal sludge from pits latrines or sludge from septic
tanks unless designated by the national water utilities. It causes sewer blockage and peak organic
loading on wastewater treatment plants. However, this is a common illegal practice in cities and
towns. The major culprits are private exhauster operators and some utilities with exhauster services.
Picture 20: Manhole used to deposit faecal sludge in Mathare (Doreen Mbalo, 2012)
12
Pictures of faecal sludge disposal in open water surfaces by Doreen Mbalo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gtzecosan/sets/72157629202806662/
23 | P a g e
Very few manual emptiers use sewer manholes for disposing of septic or faecal sludge. The
problems leading to this habit are the same as the ones discussed under disposal in open surface
water. The solutions to the problem are therefore the same as the ones proposed before.
2.2.4.4. Landfill
These are used by water utilities to dispose of excess dried treated sludge from waste water
treatment plants which are not used in agriculture due to low demand as stated above. The low
demand is caused by many solid waste impurities in treated dried sludge. Land filling helps to
improve the landscape especially in areas where soil and rock mining have taken place leaving caves
and holes. Environmental standards must however be adhered to in order to avoid contamination of
water resources and soil.
Chapter 3
3.0.0. Existing business practices in the sanitation chain
3.1.0. Private business in exhauster services
Toilet and septic tank exhaustion is a major sanitation challenge in many cities and towns of Kenya.
The exhaustion services were initially being offered by the municipal authorities until the Water
Sector Reform was enacted in the year 2003. The municipal authorities were not able to offer the
services effectively due to lack of appropriate equipment and trained human personnel. The gap was
automatically filled up by private exhausters. The mandate of sanitation services was transferred to
water utilities according to the Water Act 2002 as from 2003 as part of the water sector reforms.
Picture 21: Private Exhausters discharging at Njiru disposal point in Nairobi (Doreen Mbalo, 2012)
The private exhauster operators have organized themselves in associations in order regulate these
services among themselves in towns and cities. This has resulted in cartels influencing the rules of
the business. Currently the private exhauster operators are facing the following challenges:

The business is not regulated by Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB) and therefore
open to cartels and monopolization
Tariffs are not regulated and not pro poor as the case with water supply provision. Costs are
not affordable to a majority of people in low income areas (Tariff ranges from KSh 10,00015,000 per 5 m3 trip).
24 | P a g e



There are inadequate sludge delivery points in cities and towns. Many private exhausters
deliver sludge illegally into sewer manholes, forests, and open water surfaces.
The licensing by NEMA is not based on meeting any quality standards with regard to
ensuring environmental protection. It is based on the amount of fee to be paid by each
exhauster operators.
The licensing of operators is not harmonized between NEMA and the licensed water utilities
in towns and cities. Each institution issues a permit and charges different permit fees.
The following groups are involved in this business chain





NEMA and water utility who charge a license fee from every private exhauster operator.
NEMA charges KSh 5,000 per year and a cost of KSh 3,000 for registration. Water utilities
charge between KSh 20,000 and 60,000 for exhauster trucks of volumes between 3m 3 to
7m3 for discharging the sludge into the designated dumping sites.
The exhauster associations which register every private exhauster operator
Water utilities charging dumping charges. The water utilities charge a dumping fee of about
KSh 1,000 per trip for discharging into the sewer network
The exhauster operators who are charging the septic tank/toilet owners for exhaustion
services. The clients are charged between KSh 10,000-15,000 per 5m3
Farmers who buy dried treated sludge from water utilities.
In order to maximize their profits by reducing operational costs many private truck operators avoid
dumping at designated dumping sites as they are often quite far to reach. For example the Nairobi
Water and Sewerage Company have only one designated dumping site which is not well maintained.
This problem can be solved by undertaking the following measures


Creating more easily accessible sludge delivery points within towns, cities and within large
estates with onsite sanitation facilities
Bringing the private sector exhausters services under the regulation of the Water Services
Regulatory Board in order to improve quality of services, stop water resource pollution and
create social pro poor tariffs.
Despite all these challenges, private exhauster services is a promising and viable business in most
urban areas and cities of Kenya. Market and demand for the services is especially available in middle
income areas that are not connected to the sewer network.13
3.2.0. Exhauster services business by water utilities with regulated tariffs
These services were initiated with the implementation of the water sector reforms in 2003.The
mandate of sanitation provision was taken away from municipal authorities and transferred to the
water utilities. The utilities provide exhauster services under regulation. Their tariffs are social and
more affordable (between KSh 3,000-8,000).The utilities operate the sewer and wastewater
treatment plants. They do not therefore pay any levies with regard to sludge disposal. Nairobi Water
& Sewerage Company for example has one exhauster. Many utilities lack exhauster trucks and
adequate human resource capacities to provide the required exhauster services. The gap in service
provision is being partly covered by private exhauster operators.
The following groups are involved in this business chain
13
Sludge study by Lolaiser consultancy company
25 | P a g e




NEMA charges the utility an effluent discharge fee of about KSh 500,000 annually which
varies according to the amount of sewage being treated by a utility per day.
WASREB charges monthly regulation fee of 1% of the monthly total revenue collected by
the water utilities for water and sewerages services
The water utilities who charge the septic tank/toilet owners for exhaustion services. The
social tariff ranges between KSh 3,000-8,000.
Farmers who buy the treated sludge from the utility
The services offered by the water utilities are still far below the demand in their areas of operation.
They need to invest on new equipment and more qualified human resources in order to improve
their service provision. The realignment of the water sector to the Constitution of Kenya (COK) 2010
is offering a good opportunity to reorganize the sector institutions to address this problem by
putting in place better financing mechanisms, enforcement, operation and maintenance and
stronger institutional framework.14
3.3.0. Private business in manual/mechanical emptying of pit latrines and septic tanks
They provide emptying services in rural and low income urban areas using manual or mechanical
methods. Mechanical and exhauster equipment for emptying are expensive and unaffordable to
most manual pit emptiers. The few who own mechanical equipment for emptying e.g. Kara Group in
Kibera, Nairobi received support from NGOs. However this kind of support is usually not sustainable
since the operation and maintenance collapses as soon as the NGO support is withdrawn.
Picture 22 Manual pit emptiers transporting sludge to the river (Doreen Mbalo, 2012)
The majority of manual emptiers work with no proper equipment and protective gear. The working
condition is usually unhygienic with a lot of public health risks involved. Their main equipment are
usually ropes, plastic buckets, drums and makeshift handcarts. Most of the sludge emptied from
facilities in low income urban and rural areas is disposed off in surface waters, forests, open water
channels and open fields. There is no regulation of the services provided by the manual emptiers.
The following groups are involved in this business chain
14
Draft Water bill 2012
26 | P a g e


Private households or tenants who pay approximately KSh 150 per drum of sludge emptied.
Manual pit emptiers who empty, transport and dispose the sludge
The sludge is disposed of illegally in unauthorized places. The manual pit emptiers are ostracized and
stigmatized by their neighbours albeit their vital and indispensable contribution to on site sanitation
service provision. The work of manual emptiers could be improved by linking them to water utilities
with the use of lease agreements. The water utilities could then equip them and formalize their
service provision. This would make them adhere to the rules of environmental protection, hygiene
and sanitation policies stipulated by NEMA and the Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation (MPHS).
3.4.0
Private management of public sanitation facilities through lease agreement
This management concept was developed by the WSTF in its UPC Window for public sanitation. The
facilities are financed by WSTF and implemented by water utilities. The water utilities lease the
facilities for day to day operation to private people or self-help groups. The following groups are
involved in this business chain





The water utilities that charge water fee and lease charges.
The public sanitation operator who charge user services (short and long call, KSh 10 and
shower KSh 15).
Charges for exhaustion services where there are no sewer lines which is paid to private or
water utility exhauster
Restaurants who buy the biogas from sanitation facilities
Farmers who use the sludge from the waste water treatment plant
3.5.0. Private business in provision of sanitation facilities in social and public gatherings.
“Excloosive” is a private business in Nairobi city. It offers private sanitation services in social
gatherings e.g. in weddings, exhibitions, agricultural shows, government functions and other social
functions. The toilets are provided in three cost categories i.e. executive, standard and economy.
Picture 23 Excloosive toilets (Moses Nderitu, 2011)
The sludge from these toilets are transported and discharged into sewer manholes. They are
licensed by NEMA and the water utilities. This business involves only Excloosive and its customers
27 | P a g e
(private households, government agencies, NGOs, and international organizations, water utility and
NEMA).The toilets are not affordable to the low income groups in urban slums and rural areas.15
3.6.0. Productive rural household sanitation for enhanced agricultural production
541 household UDDTs in rural areas of Kenya are being used to produce sanitized faeces and urine
for production of bananas, mangoes, maize, tree seedlings and tree crops in Mumias, Bungoma
Siaya, Rachuonyo, Rongo, Homabay, Mt. Elgon, Kitale, Ugenya, Budalangi, Rarieda, Ndhiwa, Rangwe
Nyakach, Nyamasaria, Bondo and Yala. One person produces 7.5 kg/year of NPK enough for
producing 250 kg of cereals. It is estimated that 1 UDDT unit can increase food production for a
household by 20%. Kenya being a food insecure country, productive sanitation has a good potential
for improving food production by making cheap organic fertilizer available to farmers.
The following groups are involved in this business chain





The households who invest in the UDDT facility
The farmers who use the produced organic fertilizer from the facilities.
The consumers who use the agricultural and agro forestry products.
The person who supplies material for UDDT construction
The artisans building the UDDTs
Figure 24 A household UDDT in Mumias (Photo by Johannes Odhiambo Orodi, 2008)
The UDDTs offer the simplest and hygienic technique of sludge management combining it with
income generation.
3.7.0. Productive sanitation with production of biogas for energy
This sort of sanitation facilities (toilets, bio digester, anaerobic baffled reactor and maturation
ponds) have been developed in the following areas in Kenya:

15
10 Boarding Schools (Rarieda, Kiambu and Ugenya)
More information about Excloosive: http://www.excloosive.co.ke/
28 | P a g e



2 Prisons (Meru and Embu GK Prisons)
3 public places (Ugunja Market, Naivasha bus park & Luanda Kotieno fish landing bay)
Umande trust in collaboration with Nairobi Water and Sewerage company has put up 52 biocenters in Nairobi informal settlements (Korogocho, Mathare, Mukuru kwa Njenga and
Kibera) Additional 7 bio-centers in Kisumu and 1 in Eldoret have also been constructed.
The following groups are involved in the business







SME that build the biogas facilities
Private sector that supplied the materials for the construction
The schools and prisons that use the biogas and reuse the effluent for agricultural produce
Employees of bio centres
Users of bio-centres who pay the user charges fee (toilet, shower etc)
Exhausters and manual emptiers who empties sludge at fees
NEMA and the water utility who ensure that social tariffs are implemented
Picture 25: Bio digester with anaerobic baffled reactor at St Mary Lwak Girls High School in Rarieda (Patrick Onyango, 2010)
All these facilities produce biogas which is used as a source of energy for cooking. The schools and
prisons use the produced biogas for their cooking needs. In the process the use of wood fuel is
drastically reduced thus contributing considerably to environmental conservation.
3.8.0. Private sector participation in the production, marketing of toilet components and provision
of specialized professional services.
In order to be successful in up scaling sanitation in both urban and rural areas of Kenya, the private
sector must be fully integrated in the development of sustainable sanitation systems.
Already a number of private sector players are involved in the development of sanitation systems.
They can be grouped in the following categories:

Private sector players providing professional services on sanitation (skilled artisans, manual
pit emptiers, exhauster operators, Excloosive, small and medium enterprises, associations of
professionals groups, consultants, contractors, etc.)
Private sector players involved in manufacturing sanitation components and equipments
(e.g. Kentainers, Polypipes, Roto, Polytanks, Sanergy, Davies and Shirtliff).
29 | P a g e
Picture 26: New urine diversion seats at Kentainers (Doreen Mbalo, 2012)16
The following groups are involved in this business chain


The customers of professional services in sanitation e.g. WSPs, Households, institutions,
GoK, International organizations, NGOs, relief agencies, Multinational companies, Schools,
Hospitals, Hotels, etc.
The customers purchasing components and equipment from private manufacturing sector
e.g. WSPs, households, institutions, GoK, international organizations, NGOs, relief agencies,
multinational companies, schools, hospitals, hotels etc.
Chapter 4
4.0.0. Best Practices
UBSUP intends to invent and not re-invent the wheel with a focus on coming up with an innovative,
affordable and sustainable pro-poor on site sanitation systems developed from the existing best
practices in Kenya. Some of the projects with good practices are described below.
4.1.0. Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS)
The community led total sanitation (CLTS) is an approach which was initially developed in India by
Kamal Kar who has also visited Kenya numerous times to promote this approach. The MPHS has
adopted this approach in its National Hygiene and Sanitation Policy and is implementing it in the
rural villages with an objective to make Kenya open defecation free by the year 2013. It is supported
by a number of NGOs in promoting this approach. The NGOs who are very active in CLTS among
others are Plan International, Kwaho, Umande Trust and Sana. Many villages in Busia, Siaya, Bondo,
Kisumu West and Nyando have been declared ODF through the implementation of this approach.
16
More pictures of Kentainers sanitary ware by Christian Rieck and Doreen Mbalo can be found here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gtzecosan/sets/72157623622125121/with/6892401606/
30 | P a g e
This has also been evidenced by eradication of Cholera outbreaks in these areas. CLTS has also been
extended to West Pokot and Turkana areas. PLAN International and Umande Trust are also
implementing the approach in Mathare and other informal settlements in Nairobi. This approach has
proven to be the best in triggering attitude change in sanitation among various communities to
move from OD to ODF status.
4.2.0. UDDTs for rural households developed by EcoSan Promotion Project (EPP)
541 rural household UDDTs were built on a pilot basis under the EPP in Mumias, Bungoma Siaya,
Rachuonyo, Rongo, Homabay, Mt. Elgon, Kitale, Ugenya, Budalangi, Rarieda, Ndhiwa, Rangwe
Nyakach, Nyamasaria, Bondo and Yala. These households were also trained on recycling (use of
sanitized faeces and urine in agriculture and agro forestry). In addition 150 artisans were trained and
deployed in the market. The best adoption of the EcoSan approach was achieved in Mumias,
Ugenya, and Rachuonyo where the awareness creation was done using NGOs who were already on
the ground. This technology offers a very simple way of sanitizing and disposing of both urine and
faeces in a productive (food security), hygienic and environmental way. In addition, several NGOs,
Institutions and Private Sector players, such as German Red Cross, German Agro Action, Engineers
without borders Germany and Spain, Kentainers, Maji na Ufanisi, CDTF, UN MDG Group, KEWI and
KARI were trained through the project. As a result more UDDTs were developed by some of these
NGOs in Mwea area, Wote and Mwala, Makindu and Ukunda in Mombasa (Refer to picture 16).
4.3.0. DEWATS for public places, boarding schools and prisons developed by the EcoSan Promotion
Project (EPP)
DEWATs consist of a bio-digester and an anaerobic baffled reactor. They were developed in public
places, boarding schools and prisons on a pilot basis under the EPP at Gachoire Girls High School,
Ambira Boys High School, Ramba Boys High School, Chianda Boys High School, St. Mary’s Lwak High
School, St, Francis Rang’ala Girls Secondary School, St. Peters Rambula Mixed Secondary School,
Raliew Mixed Day and Boarding Sec. School, Ugunja Market, Luanda K’otieno fish landing beach,
Naivasha bus park, Meru G.K. Prison and Kaurine Primary School. DEWATs treat all the waste water
on-site to the required quality standards.
The effluent produced is used for irrigation in the school or prison farms. A very small amount of
sludge is produced from the digesters due to anaerobic digestion. This sludge can also be used as a
fertilizer in the farms. The cost of sludge exhaustion is therefore very minimal. In addition the bio
digesters produce biogas which is used in boarding schools and prisons for cooking purposes. The
schools and prisons are responsible for operation and maintenance of the facilities in the
institutions.
The public facilities at Ugunja market, Naivasha Bus Park and Luanda Kotieno fish landing bay are
operated using a management concept which was developed and tested by WSTF for public
sanitation facilities. The overall responsibility of operation and maintenance is put on licensed water
utilities that have the powers to lease the facilities to private groups or organizations for day to day
operation. These facilities generate revenues to sustain their operation and maintenance.
31 | P a g e
Picture 27: Public Sanitation Facility under construction at Ugunja Market (Patrick Onyango, 2009)
4.4.0. Single Vault Urine Diversion Dry Toilets for urban households in low income areas piloted by
Sanergy
Sanergy is piloting household Urine Diversion Toilets (UDTs) sanitation infrastructure predominantly
in Mukuru Kwa Reuben, an informal settlement in Nairobi. Their concept involves building a network
of low-cost UDT, distributing them through franchising to local entrepreneurs, collecting the waste
produced, and processing the collected faecal sludge to produce biogas and compost fertiliser. The
biogas is eventually supposed to be used to produce electricity for sale.
Picture 28: Sanergy Fresh Life Toilet (Doreen Mbalo, 2012)
32 | P a g e
The urine and faeces is collected in plastic containers which are located beneath the squatting slab.
The containers are collected on a daily basis and transported with wheelbarrows to the composting
yards. In the composting yards, the faeces are mixed with wood shavings and composted at
optimum moisture content and temperature. Sanitized urine is used for adjusting the moisture
content of the compost as it improves the nutrient value of the compost by adding nitrogen. The
compost can be used in agriculture, horticulture and agro forestry. Sanergy is currently searching for
markets where the produced compost fertilizer could be sold in large volumes to make the business
sustainable.17
These are the major challenges so far experienced
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Daily emptying of the toilet is very demanding.
Transportation during the rainy season when most of the slum area is muddy is difficult.
Getting the right sites for toilet construction in the toilet construction
Getting big market for compost fertilizer.
Developing the right digester to produce the required amount of biogas for power
generation.
4.5.0. Public sanitation facilities developed by WSTF in public places
The WSTF through the Urban Projects Concept (UPC) has financed the construction of 12 public
ablution blocks which are operational and additional 7 which are currently under construction. The
ablution blocks contain operator’s office, waiting bay, urinal, 2 gents’ toilets, 1 disabled toilet, 3
ladies toilets and 2 bathrooms. The design of these toilets was done in a participatory way with all
the relevant beneficiaries and stakeholders. The design therefore has taken into consideration the
needs of different genders, the physically challenged and children. They are operated using a
management concept which was developed and tested by WSTF. It puts the overall responsibility of
operation and maintenance on licensed water utilities that have the powers to lease the facilities to
private groups or organizations for day to day operation. These facilities generate revenues to
sustain their operation and maintenance. (Refer to Picture 5)
4.6.0. Public sanitation facilities developed by Umande Trust in informal settlements
Umande trust in collaboration with Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company has put up 52 bio-centres
in Nairobi informal settlements (Korogocho, Mathare, Mukuru kwa Njenga and Kibera).
Additional 7 bio-centres in Kisumu and 1 in Eldoret have also been constructed. All the bio-centres
are managed by community based organizations. This is posing some operation and management
challenges since the capacity of CBOs with regard to these tasks is also limited. The bio-centres
consists of toilets, showers, operators office, meeting hall, restaurant and wastewater treatment
facilities (Bio digester, anaerobic baffle reactors or septic tanks).The biogas generated is used in the
restaurant within the bio centre or piped to nearby eating kiosk.
17
More about Sanergy here: http://saner.gy/
33 | P a g e
Picture 29: Kidyot Bio Centre by Umande Trust (Doreen Mbalo 2012)
Family households pay for every single toilet and bathroom use which ranges from Ksh 5-10.This
could be made more affordable for family households by introducing monthly family cards of fixed
amounts which entitles all family members to use the facility as the case in India. The bio centre
concept and designs are good however the community based management needs to be reviewed
and formalized through the use of licensed water utilities as the case with the public sanitation
facilities financed by the WSTF. The reliability of the water supply to these facilities also needs to be
improved.
4.7.0. Public sanitation facilities developed by Ecotact in cities and urban areas.
Picture 30: Ikotoilet in Kosovo Mathare (Doreen Mbalo 2011)
The Iko-toilet public facilities are being promoted by Ecotact (a social enterprise) since 2006 in
Nairobi, Kakamega, Embu, Meru,Nakuru, Othaya, Eldoret, Limuru, Mwingi, Wote and Ruiru. 50 such
facilities have so far been built. An Iko-toilet consists of a small shop (offering goods and shoeshine
services), urinal, bathrooms and toilets for ladies and gents. Most Iko toilets have been built in
34 | P a g e
Central Business Districts (CBDs). A few were tested in some informal settlements of Nairobi e.g.
Mathare Kosovo.
The wastewater from these facilities is predominantly discharged into the existing sewer systems.
The management and operation is done by private operators under lease agreement with the
respective municipalities and Ecotact. The user charges for toilet use are currently Ksh 10 per use.
Showering using hot water costs Ksh 15 while showering with cold water costs Ksh 10 per use. These
Iko toilets have improved the access to public sanitation services in the CBDs of most cities and
towns in Kenya. Some local authorities have also rehabilitated their old public toilets within the
CBDs and are operating them well using the management concept of Iko toilets.18
4.8.0. Pour Flush Toilets with condominium sewer system piloted by WSUP.
The condominium sewer systems were piloted by WSUP in the Kibera slums of Nairobi. A total of
104 households using pour flush toilets are connected by localized sewer network (UPVC pipes of
diameters 200mm – 250mm) which collects all household wastewater and transmit via secondary
sewer to the main trunk sewer. The Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company is still evaluating
whether condominium system could be up scaled in other informal settlements within Nairobi.
Some of the challenges experienced during the piloting of this project were:


High investment cost (approximately Ksh 5 million /km of sewer pipeline)
Lack of designated access roads for the sewer lines
Unreliable water supply
4.9.0. Waste water treatment plant
Nyeri, Nyahururu and Eldoret Water and Sewerage companies are the best showcases in Kenya with
regard to wastewater management. Their treatment facilities are producing effluents which meet
WHO, NEMA and WASREB effluent quality standards. They also practice reuse of effluent for
aquaculture, irrigation and agro forestry. 19
Picture 31 Nyeri Water and Sewerage Company –NYEWASCO (GIZ WSRP 2012)
18
More pictures by Doreen Mbalo of Ecotact toilets here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gtzecosan/sets/72157627978452067/
19
See pictures by Doreen Mbalo of Ruai Treatment plant in Nairobi:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gtzecosan/sets/72157629373779742/
35 | P a g e
Picture 32: Nyeri Water & Sewerage company trickling filter (GIZ WSRP 2012)
36 | P a g e