Water and Gendered Vulnerability: Toilets and Risk in Nairobi Part 2- Sanitation Solutions in Nairobi

WASH campaign, (WaterAid, 2013)

I ended my last blog by asking ‘'Is the solution then a higher provision of toilets?'

Well, yes and no. This question oversimplifies a complex issue especially regarding gender based violence in Nairobi but I want to understand if sanitation-based development interventions can contribute to the reduction of risk in the lives of women and girls.

One large scale study in India, found that compared to using household toilets, open defecation doubles a woman's odds of non-partner sexual violence; which does indicate that by improving toilet infrastructure has a direct effect on improving the safety of women (Jadhav, Weitzman & Smith-Greenaway, 2016). While it is somewhat impractical to say the solution to all sanitation problems is having household toilets installed for all, one recent study in Khayelitsha, South Africa, looked directly at the relationship between the costing involved with toilets and sexual assaults. The model showed with the current estimated 5600 toilets in Khayelitsha, sexual assaults caused US$40million social costs and showed that increasing toilets from 5,600-11,300 reduced reported sexual assaults from 635-446 causing social costs to fall US$5million, offsetting the cost of toilet installations.

As idealistic as it would be to install household toilets for everyone it is unlikely that Nairobi County government or even the most optimistic NGO could install toilets for all. Additionally, as mentioned in my last post, cultural attitudes around cleanliness and the costs involved mean household toilets are limited in Nairobi's slums.

The Amnesty International Report I focused on in Part 1, was used to call on the Nairobi government to implement safe sanitation strategies in the slums. Since there have been "a myriad development schemes that address the problem of sanitation", most of which are from non-governmental organisations and businesses, fuelling a 'toilet economy' (Thieme, 2010:340). For instance, The Gates Foundation's competition to reinvent the toilet resulted in winner 'Fresh-Life Toilets' launching 142
Sanergy toilets in Mathare. It was designed not to need a sewage connection with cartridges designed to help produce organic material that could be sold on as fertilizer but both the perception of using ‘shit from the slum’ and upkeep/annual service fees have been an issue(Thieme, 2018).

Some suggest the governments lack of action is down to gang activity, for example in Mathare, 152toilets were said to have been installed in the 1970s by the city council but lack of upkeep led to these becoming extremely run-down spaces for gang activity (Thieme, 2010). This perception of gang-run slum areas limits the activity of local councils and adds to the fears and risks slum residents experience (Mbiri, 2011). However increasingly, young members of gang are coordinating as youth groups and actors of development. I also question the government's motivation to implement sanitation as with much of the work being done for them by outside organisations, like the examples in this post, it can seem like they have a 'get out of jail free card' as their lack of sanitation service provision becomes legitimised. You can see here how the private issue of going to the toilet can become a public, political issue.

User cost is a vital aspect as the majority of residents use pay-per-use public toilets (Thieme, 2010). Prices vary from 3-10 Kenyan shillings (USD$0.03 – USD$0.10). This disadvantages women particularly. Many toilets even have free urinals for males but females are disadvantaged by, as mentioned in Part 1, their need for privacy and need 'to squat'. Women are also less likely to have these funds available for a myriad of reasons; they are primarily in charge of unpaid domestic labour, less likely to be in-charge of household income and are more likely to save the money they do have for their children to use the facilities instead. Without the funds or ability to access nearby toilet facilities many women lack the privacy they need and will either hold it or despite the danger wait for nightfall to defecate out in the open (UN, 2006; Sommer, et. al. 2012; Thieme, 2018; Winters et. al., 2018).