Understanding the role of informal pit emptiers in sanitation in Nairobi through case studies in Mukuru and Kibera settlements

Achieving universal sanitation in informal settlements will depend on improved onsite sanitation, as sewer systems are unlikely to be viable solutions due to technical and political constraints. In Nairobi, Kenya, 60% of the population live among its 150 informal settlements, occupying only 5% of its total residential land. This research assessed the role of informal pit emptiers in providing sanitation in Mukuru and Kibera, two of the largest informal settlements in Nairobi, and the barriers to achieving improved services. Through qualitative data collection, the research found that pit emptiers are institutionally and physically outside of the current paradigm of sanitation service delivery. There is no infrastructure available to remove waste from informal settlements, except for a transfer station that is being piloted by Sanergy, and instead waste ends up disposed in the community. The pit emptiers also face violence and intimidation from competitors or locals claiming ownership of territory. Providing improved sanitation in such areas will depend on the provision of new infrastructure, but this can only succeed with a detailed understanding of the competing and vested interests that can enable or undermine a project.


INTRODUCTION
Achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) number 6, universal access to sanitation, is going to depend on increased coverage of safe onsite sanitation (WHO & UNICEF ). Onsite sanitation are systems where the excreta is stored on the plot where they are generated such as pit latrines or septic tanks (Tilley et al. ).
Systems such as this are likely to be increasingly important in urban areas in low-income countries where This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative not meet the criteria for 'decent' work and were often deprived of basic rights, and faced social and financial insecurities. The support of government and NGOs was able to improve the status of emptiers in certain cases, and identified a need to study the role and livelihoods of pit emptiers in different contexts (Zaqout et al. ).
The aim of this study was to understand the role of informal pit emptiers in contributing to the provision of urban sanitation. Specifically, the study sought to answer the following further questions focused on this context: (1) What is the role of informal pit emptiers in providing sanitation services in informal settlements? (2) What is the form and extent of the relationship between informal pit emptiers and other stakeholders in sanitation service provision?

Study area
This study was focused on Kenya as the rapid population  Whilst there is a sewer line passing through Kibera, connectivity is limited and most households rely on pit latrines (Seal Bown & Parker ). Informal settlements in Nairobi are characterised by dense dwellings, lack of land recognition and poor sanitation (Thieme ; Corburn & Hildebrand ). The informal pit emptiers who work here lack licencing, equipment or training and often work at night (Aquaya and WSUP, ). Whilst there are formal manual emptiers, their activity is often limited as they charge higher prices (Aquaya and WSUP, ).
This study focused on two organisations that are working on sanitation in these two informal settlements. Sanergy is a private company, who provide container-based sanitation services in Mukuru with regular emptying. A typical container-based sanitation system captures waste in an easily removable container instead of more traditional pits or septic tanks (Tilmans et al. ). With regular emptying, this means that the toilets take up less space which is often a major constraint to any infrastructure project (Oduro-Kwarteng Awuah & Nyarko ). The waste Sanergy collects is treated and reused as fertiliser and animal feed (World Bank ). Sanergy installed a transfer station in Mukuru kwa Njenga which provided a disposal point for pit emptiers.
The pit emptiers were partially formalised through this relationship as they also gained access to protective clothing at a subsidised price as well as a shower, soap and drinking water. Umande Trust also provides 'bio-centres' which are public toilets that have anaerobic digesters producing biogas that is used for cooking; they also work with informal pit emptiers in Mukuru and Kibera (Binale ).

Data collection and sampling
This study adopted a qualitative approach and data in this aspect of the study came from three main sources: interviews, observations and reports. Interviews were conducted face to face at the place of work for all participants, except residents who were interviewed at home.
Semi-structured interviews were used with an initial set of prompts and questions to elicit answers and further discussion. Interviewees included sanitation entrepreneurs involved in resource recovery, formal and informal manual pit emptiers, members of landlords and tenants' associations, public officials working in water and sanitation agencies and residents as summarised in Table 1.
Sample numbers were chosen to maintain consistency across the Mukuru and Kibera case studies, whilst achieving data saturation. It was not possible to have exactly matching sample sizes across both cases, as in Kibera there were no suitable resident groups to organise for focus group discussions and in Mukuru there were no groups of pit emptiers for focus group discussions. Where it was not possible to have a consistent amount of interviewees and focus group discussions across both cases data collection was done pragmatically to get as close to saturation as possible. Key informant interviews were conducted with Sanergy and Umande Trust employees who worked with pit emptiers or had a direct role in sanitation provision in Mukuru or Kibera. This was to understand their role and relationship with pit emptiers, and the intention and effect of interventions with pit emptiers. Pit emptiers were sampled purposively. In Mukuru, ten pit emptiers were interviewed, five who worked with Sanergy and five who did not. This was to contrast the work of the more formalised and informal pit emptiers and the impact of the transfer station. In Kibera, ten pit emptiers were interviewed in a focus group discussion and follow-up interviews. Focus groups were selected pragmatically with existing groups that could be arranged to meet, which was not possible in Mukuru. To understand the perception of sanitation from residents, the sampling focused on those who use private or shared pit latrines and regularly use informal manual pit emptiers when their latrines are full. Snowball sampling was again used to identify households using the same services. In Mukuru, observation was done with pit emptiers who worked with Sanergy, as they operated in the day, and transport routes were mapped. Mapping and observation was not possible with other pit emptiers in Kibera due to the danger involved in the work in the night, but mapping with them in the day to identify where they had last disposed.

Data analysis
Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and those done in Swahili were translated into English. Consent for data collected including audio recordings and field notes and its use was obtained from all respondents before the commencement of the interviews. Privacy and anonymity of the participants were ensured by avoiding asking for any identification details while informed consent was also sought from the participants.

Role of informal pit emptiers
Overall pit emptiers had only been in the job for a short time, often less than 6 months, and had started due to a lack of alternative employment. About 50% of the pit emptiers in Mukuru Kwa Njenga have at one point interacted with Sanergy as the organisation constructed a disposal site in their area of operation. In contrast, none of the pit emptiers from Mukuru kwa Reuben and Mukuru Kayaba had ever engaged with any other sanitation actor.
In Kibera, pit emptiers also worked with Umande Trust.
Pit emptying activities are characterised by limited demand and a lack of co-ordination leading to limited income.
Houses that are located next to drains empty their toilets out to the drain during rains, creating a health risk and undermining any potential for FSM.
'The work is very erratic. Can get a gig. Then nothing.
People might want something but then the emptier is not there as we've given up.' 'We can be recognised and organised but if we have to pour it we will always be at fault. As long as there is no place it will always be illegal.' -Manual Pit Emptier, Kibera.

Stakeholder co-ordination and roles in sanitation
Interviews with manual pit emptiers as well as residents and community groups indicated that sanitation stakeholders work in isolation due to their varying business models and interests with no apparent overall coordinator of sanitation  centres are introduced, faecal disposal cannot be a nuisance and also minimise our sufferings to accessing clean and safe toilets' -Manual Pit Emptier.
'We used to collect feaces and deliver to a project using the peepoo bags. We were told it was being used to produce fertilizer and generate money. However, when the project stopped coming for the waste, it piled there and we had nothing to do with it any more as we did not know how they used to make it into fertilizer. So we also wound up'

Violence and cartels
Violence was the most commonly cited difficulty of pit emptying in informal settlements. The illegality of the work means that they are often exposed to threats from govern-

Transfer stations and formalisation
Most of the manual pit emptiers stated that increased safe discharge of faecal waste would be improved by the pro-  Some pit emptiers did not use the transfer station saying that the disposal fee was too high and instead they disposed illegally. This shows the difficulty of improving service provision when pit emptiers operate on such fine margins. If there is a disposal fee but no accompanying regulation to provide an incentive, there will still be some who take the more financially beneficial option of unsafe disposal. The state needs to take a more active role in creating a conducive environment for pit emptiers and sanitation workers to provide safe sanitation whilst still being able to make a financially secure living.

CONCLUSION
This research sets out to find the role of pit emptiers in sanitation and the extent to which local sanitation stakeholders collaborate with pit emptiers in the provision of sanitation services in two settlements in Nairobi, and the effects of new attempts to work with pit emptiers. The study has shown that informal pit emptiers form a key section of the sanitation chain but due to a lack of recognition and infrastructure they may dispose of sludge illegally. Without recognition and support of the role they play it is unlikely that safe sanitation can be achieved in such settlements, though this needs to be done with consideration of the local contexts and risks of violence. This may call for a complete paradigm shift among all the stakeholders from the current one where sanitation service provision is a purely private matter (especially in the informal settlements) to one where sanitation is a public good to which all have a right.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data cannot be made publicly available; readers should contact the corresponding author for details.