URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN KIGALI CITY
RWANDA
(Challenges and Opportunities for Modernised Decentralised Sanitation
Systems in Poor Neighbourhoods)
James Cleophace Sano
MSc Thesis Environmental Sciences
August 2007
Supervised by: Dr. Peter Oosterveer
Environmental Policy Group
TITLE
URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN KIGALI
CITY RWANDA
(Challenges and Opportunities for Modernised Decentralised
Sanitation Systems in Poor Neighbourhoods)
Thesis is Submitted to the Wageningen University and Research Centre in
Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Award of Master of Science
Degree in Environmental Science (MES)
By
James Cleophace Sano
MSc. Environmental Sciences
Supervisor:
Examiners:
Dr. Peter Oosterveer
Dr. Peter Oosterveer (Environmental Policy group)
(Environmental Policy Group) Drs. Judith van Leeuwen (Environmental Policy group)
Prof.,Dr. Gert Spaargaren (Environmental Policy group)
No part of this thesis may be copied or reproduced without the authority of the author and the
Environmental Policy group of Wageningen University and Research Centre
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The journey to the completion of this thesis (MSc. in Environmental Sciences) started way
back in the year 2001, when I decided to leave my family which was then comprised of my
beloved wife Lina and first born Chelsea, and go to The Cape Peninsula University of
Technology in Cape Town, South Africa, where I complemented my previous education to
attain a Batchelor of Technology degree in Chemistry, with a specialisation in Analytical
Chemistry. Joining an academic life in a foreign country can be challenging, but the
challenge becomes even daunting when you part with a young family you love and care so
much. After coming from South Africa in 2003, I worked for my current employer, The
National University of Rwanda until September 2005, when I had to full fill my academic
obligation as a university employee and leave my family again which had become even
bigger after my wife and I had been blessed with the arrival of Rita and Lambert Butera. My
new destination was The Wageningen University and Research Centre in the Netherlands
where I am graduating this next month, with a MSc. Environmental Sciences, after two years
of hard working and sleepless nights.
Going through this entire journey and succeed can never happen without the wish of
Almighty God as well as the support, encouragement and contributions from various
individuals and organisations which can not tally on this peace of space. Therefore I will ask
those who offered valuable contribution to this success, and who I will not be able to mention
their names here to understand and bear with me.
First and foremost, I thank almighty God for lighting me with the light of hope every time I
found myself in difficult situations. My life here wouldn’t have been comfortable without
prayers, love, braveness and sacrifice from my children Lambert Butera, Rita, Chelsea and
my beloved wife who I am proud to be a husband, Lina. Worth mentioning after my family is
my parents and the entire Gahamanyi family, as well as my parents in-law and entire
Rwamuhinda family. I am blessed to be part of your family and together with my wife and
children; we owe you a lot, for you have been a strong pillars for us to accomplish our goals.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor, Dr., (Ir) Peter Oosterveer
for your dedication and patience when helping me to accomplish this thesis. I remain
challenged by the invaluable guidance and support that I received from you. May I reserve
my special thanks to my lectures at Wageningen University; Dr. Bas van Vliet, Prof. Gert
Spaargaren and Prof. Arthur Mol from Environmental Policy Group (ENP) as well as Ir. Karen
Fortune, Prof Leemans, Dr. Dolf de Groot, Dr. Andre van Amstel and Ass. Prof. Carolien
Kroeze from Environmental Systems Analysis (ESA) group, and all other lectures and staff,
who contributed to the rich knowledge I have gain in the past two years, all of whom I can not
mention here. To my class mates and friends, Olalekan Adekola, Tassi Chick Yunga,
Romana, Aafke, Anda, and all my country mates studying at WUR. Thank you all for making
my life in Wageningen easier, and to Olalekan, please accept my special appreciation for
being a peer reviewer of this work.
This acknowledgement cannot draw to a close, without expressing my heart felt gratitude to
special people in my life who have helped me in different ways. These are the family of
Rutikanga Bernard, Virginia Kainamula, Dr. Butera Jean Bosco and John Gatebera. May
almighty God keep us well, I am hopeful of a better future ahead of us all, with God’s grace.
I am very grateful to the Government of the Netherlands through NPT/RWA/061 project and
staff, Director, Prof. Mohren, F.; The coordinator (NL), Ir. Neeltje van Hutlen; Coordinator
(RW), Ir. Innocent Nzeyimana, and Dean of Faculty of Agriculture Dr. Rukazambuga, D., for
assistance and financing my study. Last but not least, I am thankful to my employer, the
National University of Rwanda, and the Faculty of Agriculture in particular for agreeing grant
me with a study leave to undertake this task.
iii
SUMMARY
The work presented in this thesis, makes this study one of its kind in that, unlike other
studies; it bases its research on poor neighbourhoods of Kigali city. The study is
mainly descriptive on the characteristics of existing municipal, industrial and domestic
sanitation systems; their physical infrastructure as well as social-economic and
technical management practises. Challenges and opportunities for modern
decentralised sanitation systems with Modernised Mixture Approach are discussed.
In order to achieve these goals, a combination of literature and relevant documents
review, interview administration for key informants in Nyarugenge district, the Kigali
City Council, Ministry of Lands, Environment, Forestry, Water and Mines (MINITERE)
as well as Public and Private institutions was performed. In addition to that, a survey
was conducted in 237 households in four selected sectors of Nyarugenge district,
one of three districts of Kigali City.
The data obtained through key informants was treated as qualitative and was
analysed during data collection period. Each day after field work, all the data
collected in a note book were edited, matched to the questions, and story lines were
drawn and organised basing on responses.
Qualitative data collected in a survey were transformed into quantitative data, with
the help of a computer based Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS-version
12.0) and Excel. The data were entered into a developed SPPS sheet for analysis.
The outputs were descriptive statistical data, such as frequencies, percentiles and
correlation, and cross tabulation tables. These were copied to an Excel sheet for
production of graphs and tables used to present the results of the findings. Results
obtained from a survey were aggregated over the entire number of households in
Kigali and a statistical generalization was made.
The following are some of the important findings:
• Water and Sanitation Unit in MINITERE which is responsible for water and
sanitation in the country is overstretched by responsibilities. Together with water
and sanitation provision and to ensure equitable accessibility to Rwandan
population, the unit is also responsible for water availability for agriculture,
transportation, energy and all other economic water uses. A lot of responsibilities
placed on the sector, holds back its capacity to solve water and sanitation
problems.
• Government’s established institutional frameworks for water and sanitation, as
well as environmental protection, such as Water and Sanitation Unit in
MINITERE, RURA and REMA lacks qualified human resources to provide
technical back-up to guide or help potential polluters like industries, hotels, and
farmers, e.t.c. Inexistence of national guidelines and standards for discharging
industrial and institutional wastewater undermines compliance to the organic law
for protection of the environmental. This manifests to continued discharge of
untreated wastewater to ecologically sensitive environments like wetlands by
industries and other businesses.
• The existing policies and legal frameworks are silent on which sanitation
technologies and approaches (forms of management) should be exercised in the
iv
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
country. On the other hand both policy and legal documents do not hinder
development of DESAR or Modernised Mixture systems. This provides flexibility,
a good environment for development and institutionalisation of modern
decentralised systems
The financing of water and sanitation at the national level is not sustainable
because, significant amount (58% in 2005) of development budget for their
projects is disbursed by external donors. At district level, beside that the
ownership of water and sanitation infrastructure was decentralised, districts in
Kigali are yet to have capacity to mobilise enough funds from internal sources as
stipulated by law, to finance planned projects, including water and sanitation,
therefore they are still dependent on funds from central government and
international NGOs
More than 70% of Kigali city is occupied by informal settlements, most of which
are found in poor neighbourhoods. In these areas there is poor and inadequate
water supply and municipal sanitation infrastructures. Portable water connection
is not accessed by 49.8% of the households, and 93% of these, buy water from
ELECTROGAZ water kiosks and vendors, while 6.1 % fetch water from boreholes and natural springs found in wetlands which surround Kigali.
Decentralized, on-site sanitation systems are the only types of excreta
management systems that exist in Kigali
The excreta management systems in poor neighbourhoods of Kigali are
characterised by do-it-yourself approach in management and maintenance
Tradition pit latrines are dominant excreta management systems in poor
neighbourhoods with a proportion of 80.2% of households, compared to
automatic flushing toilet with septic tanks 11.8%, pour flush 4.2%, VIP 3% and
0.8% do not have toilet at all. The numerous number of pit latrines in poor
neighbourhoods makes it difficult for regulators make sure that toilets meat public
health and environmental standards.
According to the citizen (92.9%), the establishment of CBOs which deals with
solid waste management has improved municipal waste management in the city,
including in informal settlements. CBOs have succeeded to created markets in
solid waste management services in Kigali. The majority (89.4%) of the citizen
have the opinion that the CBOs provide good services at affordable charges.
However, the CBOs are still dependent on local governments help in recovering
bills and raising awareness among the citizen.
There is poor infrastructure for municipal wastewater and runoff in Kigali in
general. Only 30% of Kigali is covered by paved runoff water infrastructure and all
this is found along main roads and in the city centre. In poor neighbourhoods,
lack of runoff water and drainage systems costs the citizen their structures and
causes trenches resulting from soil erosion.
The majority of the citizens (total of 97.9%) in poor neighbourhoods have the
opinion that they are willing to share the use and management of community
wastewater treatment in their neighbourhoods. In regard to re-use of human
waste compost if treated well, 87.1% said they would have no problem with using
it, while 2.1% said they cant use it, and most of them said they can’t use it
because they will not trust or be sure if the compost is safe.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iii
SUMMARY
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
ix
LIST OF TABLES
x
LIST OF PICTURES
xi
LIST OF ACRONYMS
xiii
1. INTRODUCTION
1
1.1. Background Information
1
1.2 General description of study area
2
1.2.1 Rwanda
2
1.2.2 Kigali City
4
1.2.3 Nyarugenge District
6
1.3 Problem statement
6
1.4 Conceptual design
7
1.4.1 General and Specific objectives
7
1.4.3 Main research questions
7
1.4.4 Sub-research questions
8
1.5 Description and scope of the study
8
1.6 Methods of data collection
8
1.6.1 Key informants and respondents Interviews
9
1.6.2 Survey Questionnaires for households
10
1.6.3 Reconnaissance and field observation
10
1.6.4 Literature and official documents study.
11
1.6.5 Methods of data analysis
11
1.7 Outline of thesis Report
11
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
12
2.1. Sustainability of Centralized and Decentralized Sanitation Systems:
12
2.1.1 Centralized or off-site sanitation systems
12
2.1.2. Decentralized or on-site sanitation systems.
15
2.2 Modernized Mixture Systems
17
2.3 Modernised Mixture systems as Social-Technical Artefacts
20
2.4 Public Private Partnerships for Water and Sanitation Utilities
22
2.5 Pro-Poor Urban Sanitation Planning
24
2.5.1 Challenges for urban water and sanitation in Rwanda and East Africa
24
2.5.2 The need for Strategic sanitation planning
25
2.6 Conclusion
26
3. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR POLICY MAKING IN RWANDA
28
3.1 Political Transformation (Modernisation): From Four decades of Centralised to
Decentralised Governance.
28
3.1.1 Genesis of Decentralisation Governance in Rwanda
28
3.2 The Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
29
3.3 Community Collective Action (Ubudehe) as an Instrument for Inclusive
Governance in Rwanda
33
3.4 Conclusion
34
4. RESEARCH RESULTS
35
4.1 Institutional framework for water and sanitation
35
4.1.1 Stakeholders Analysis for water and sanitation provision
35
vi
4.2 Policy and Legal framework for water and sanitation in Rwanda
37
4.2.1 Policy framework
37
4.2.2 Environmental policy
38
4.2.3 National Water and Sanitation Sector Policy
38
4.2.4 The Rwanda Vision 2020
39
4.2.5 The EDPRS
40
4.2.6 National Investment Strategy
40
4.2.7 National human settlement policy
40
4.3 Legal framework and relevant provisions
40
4.4 Financing of water and sanitation systems
43
4.4.1 Financing at National level
43
4.4.2. Financing of sanitation systems in Nyarugenge district
45
4.5 Characteristics of Water and Sanitation Infrastructure in Kigali
47
4.5.1 Water supply
47
4.5.2 Water Sources
48
4.5.3 Access to water connections in Poor neighbourhoods
49
4.6 Municipal wastewater management in Kigali
53
4.6.1 Domestic Sanitation systems
53
4.6.2 On-site sanitation systems in Kigali
55
4.6.3 Sanitation systems in Poor neighbourhoods
55
4.6.4 Results of analysis on wastewater management practices in poor
neighbourhoods
56
4.6.5 Industrial wastewater discharge practices in Kigali
58
4.6.6 Wastewater management in Hotels
60
4.6.7 Wastewater management systems in academic institutions
61
4.6.8 Wastewater management in Hospitals
61
4.6.9 Wastewater management in Prisons
62
4.6.10 Run off/storm management in Kigali
63
4.7 Solid waste management in Kigali
65
4.7.1 Results of analysis on solid waste management in poor neighbourhoods 67
5. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
69
5.1 The existing wastewater management technologies in Kigali: strengths and
weaknesses of their physical functioning
69
5.1.1 Traditional Pit latrines
69
5.1.2 Automatic flushing toilet connected to septic tanks
71
5.1.3 Access to portable water connections in poor neighbourhoods
72
5.2 Challenges for water and sanitation provision in poor neighbourhoods
74
5.3 Opportunities for Modernised Mixtures Approach (MMA) in Poor
neighbourhoods of Kigali
76
5.3.1 Political governance
77
5.3.2 Existing technical systems in Sanitation
77
5.3.3 Existing and potential actor networks in sanitation
78
5.3.4 Policy and legal frameworks
80
5.4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
82
5.4.1 CONCLUDING REMMARKS
82
5.4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
85
REFERENCE
87
Appendixes
91
Appendix 1: Survey data presented into graphs
91
Appendix 2: Survey data presented in SPSS tables
94
vii
ANNEXES
97
ANNEX 1: Questionnaires used to collect data through a survey and interviews 98
Annex 2
110
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: World population with and without access to improved sanitation 19902015
Figure 2: Administrative Map of Rwanda as of 2006
Figure 3: A satellite image of Kigali showing its topography
Figure 4: Linear flows in a conventional Centralized sanitation system
Figure 5: The new paradigm in sanitation: Closing the nutrient and water ecocycle loops. Modernized Mixture approach is built upon this kind of paradigms.
Figure 6: Variables characterizing sanitation technologies
Figure 7: A dynamic multi-level perspective on TT
Figure 8: Institutional Framework after full implementation of Decentralisation
Policy, presenting the position of the State, Local Government and Civil Society
Figure 9: Access to portable water connections from ELECTROGAZ in poor
neighbourhoods
Figure 10: Other sources of drinking water for households without portable water
connection
Figure 11: Reasons for inaccessibility to ELECTROGAZ water connections in
poor neighbourhoods
Figure 12: Types of excreta management methods in poor neighbourhoods
Figure 13 Grey water discharge practices in poor neighbourhoods
Figure 14: Opinion of the citizen in poor neighbourhoods to share the use and
management of wastewater treatment facilities
Figure 15: Citizen opinion on whether runoff water infrastructure in their
neighbourhood is poor
Figure 16: Methods of solid waste handling in poor neighbourhoods
Figure 17: Citizen opinion on the quality of services provided by newly
established solid waste management CBOs in poor neighbourhoods of Kigali
Figure 18: Water supply compared to consumption requirements for people who
have portable water connections
Figure 19: Water consumption among households with and without portable
water
Figure 20: Impacts of urbanization on aquatic environments
Figure 21: Actor networks in sanitation provision in urban Rwanda
ix
1
4
5
14
18
19
21
31
50
51
52
56
57
58
65
67
68
73
73
76
79
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Population growth and Area coverage trends of Kigali city
Table 2: Main features of PPP in relation to Privatisation
Table 3: Allocation of Key responsibilities under the various options for private
sector participation
Table 4: Water and sanitation stakeholders, their roles, interests and influence
Table 5: Water and Sanitation resource flow expenditure in millions (RWF)
2003-5
Table 6: Sector expenditure by sub-program (million RwF) 2003-2005
Table 7: MTEF Development budget for Infrastructure Development in
Nyarugenge district (2007-2009)
x
5
23
24
34
44
44
46
LIST OF PICTURES
Picture 1: A treatment plant for drinking water at Kimisagara, Kigali
Picture 2: A constructed Lagoon in Nyarutarama, Kigali
Picture 3: The final effluent from a chemical treatment plant at UTEXRWA
Picture 4: An open drainage system in Muhima, used by Central Kigali Prison
to transport faecal sewage
Picture 4: A collapsing pit latrine in Gitega Neighbourhood
xi
49
54
60
63
70
LIST OF BOXES
Box 1: Detailed Shortcomings of Centralized sanitation systems
15
Box 2: Principles of National Water and Sanitation Sector Policy
39
Box 3: Punitive provisions for solid and wastewater management, from
Organic law on Environmental protection
42
xii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADB:
CBOs:
CDC:
CDF:
CHK/U:
DESAR:
ECOSAN:
EDPRS:
ELECTROGAZ:
EU:
FIDA:
GoR:
INGO:
ISAR:
KCP:
KIST:
LNGO:
MDG:
MINAGRI
MINALOC:
MINECOFIN:
MINEDUC
MININFRA:
MINISANTE:
MINITERE:
MMA:
MTEF:
MVK/COK:
N:
NGO
P:
PARES
PIGU:
PNEAR:
PPP:
PRSP:
RBS:
RBS:
REMA:
RPF:
RURA:
RW:
RwF:
S:
SSFR:
African Development Bank
Community Based Organisations
Community Development Commettee
Community Development Fund
University Hospital Centre of Kigali
Decentralised Sanitation and Re-use
Ecological Sanitation
Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy
Electricity and Water Utility
European Union
Foundation of International Development Assistance
The Government of Rwanda
International Non Governmental Organisation
Institute of Scientific and Agricultural Research
Kigali Central Prison
Kigali Institute of Technology
Local Non Governmental Organisation
Mellenium Development Goals
Ministry of Agriculture
Ministry of Local Government
Ministry of Finance and Econmic Planning
Ministry of Education
Ministry of of Infrastructure
Ministry of Health
Ministry of Lamds, Environment, Water and Mines
Mordenised Mixture Aproach
Medium Term Expenditure Framework
The Kigali City Council/ City of Kigali
Nitrogem
Non Government Organisation
Phosphorous
Programme d'Appui a la Rencertion Ecomique et Sociale de
démobilisé de la ville Kigali”
Project des Infrastructure et gestion Urvbain
National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Program
Public Private Partnerships
Poverty reduction Strategy Paper
Rwanda Bureau of Standards
Rwanda Bureau of Standards
Rwanda Environment Management Authority
Rwandese Patriotic Front
Rwanda Utility Regulation Agency
Rwanda
Rwandan Francs
Sulfur/Sulphur
Social Security Fund of Rwanda
xiii
SULFO
Rwanda:
TT:
UBUDEHE:
UNDP:
US Dollar:
UTEXRWA:
VIP:
WB:
WHO:
WSF-AF:
A utility industry producing detergents, cosmetics etc
Technological Transition
Local Collective Action
United Nations Development Program
United States Dollar
Textiles Company
Ventilated Improved Pit latrines
World Bank
World Health Organisation
Water and Sanitation Program, Africa
2
3
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background Information
Sustainable delivery of basic services continues to be an elusive goal for water and
sanitation operators in developing countries. At present access to sanitation in the
world is markedly less than water supply both in urban and rural areas. According to
WHO and UNICEF, 2006 mid-term assessments, 1.1 billion people in the world don’t
have access to improved water sources, while 2.6 billion lack access to sanitation. As
a result, 6, 000 children die everyday due to diseases linked to lack of sanitation and
1.3 billion remain parasitized1. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were
adopted in early 90s by all the world's governments as a blueprint for building a
better world in the 21st century. MDG 7 covers among others, improvement in
accessibility to sustainable and safe water and sanitation; and the targets are to
halve the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water; and
to halve the proportion of people without access to improve sanitation, all by 2015.
Figure 1: World population with and without access to improved sanitation 1990-2015
Source: WHO and UNICEF, Meeting the MDG for water and sanitation, 2006
The situation in Africa demonstrates the biggest challenge ahead in meeting the
MDG. The continent has the lowest water supply and sanitation coverage of any
region in the World. More than 1 in 3 Africans residing in urban areas currently lack
access to adequate services and facilities. In the year 2000, coverage levels for
water supply and sanitation were 62% and 60% respectively 2
Besides having less or not invested in urban infrastructure, Africa is urbanizing faster
than any other region. Between 1990 and 2025, the total urban population is
expected to grow from 300 to 700 million; and by 2020, it is expected that over 50%
of the population in African countries will reside in urban areas3. According to the
World Health Organization, in order to meet the established millennium development
goal of ‘halving the unsaved population by 2015’; urban Africa will require an 80%
increase in the numbers of people served. This objective would require, on average,
1
Meeting the MDG: Drinking water and sanitation target: The urban and rural challenges of the decade, WHO/
UNICEF Report, 2006
2
Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment Report, 2004, WHO, Geneva.
3
Water Utility Partnership for Capacity Building (WUP) Africa, 2003
about 6,000 to 8,000 new connections every day4. Political commitment to these
goals, backed by resources and action, is essential if utilities are to prevent a
widening of the gap between ‘saved’ and ‘unsaved’ households.
Rwanda is one of the countries located in Sub-Saharan Africa, in the East African
great lakes region, where according to 2006 MDG report much effort must be put by
governments in order to meet the target. Besides the GoR’s commitment and
willingness to provide its citizen with essential services, the aftermath of the war and
1994 genocide still makes it difficult to overcome social-economic problems. Unique
demographic dynamics as a result of influx of old case refugees who returned to their
home land after 35 years in exile and new case refugees of the war and genocide
have exaggerated the problem of water and sanitation infrastructure in urban areas
where most of returnees opted to live for security and employment reasons. As if that
is not enough, lack of safe drinking water and sanitation, has not been helped either,
by increasing population in urban Rwanda, particularly in the capital Kigali. (Refer to
table 1). The government is hardened with the task of water and sanitation
infrastructure provision because; population growth is a significant factor in the ability
of a country, particularly low-income country like Rwanda to increase coverage of
urban infrastructure5.
The 2006 country water and sanitation sector performance report indicates slight
increase in water supply between 2001 and 2005 from 58% to 62% respectively, but
the supply did not go along with increased area coverage of water infrastructure in
urban areas because most returnees and immigrants mentioned above, built their
houses within old settlements, next to old plots, so that they could easily connect
their houses to electricity and water supplies. This was possible because the city
council did not have a settlements master plan which could leave a room for
organised expansion of the city; this also contributes to the presence of large parts of
informal settlement in urban Rwanda6.
1.2 General description of study area
1.2.1 Rwanda
Rwanda is a land locked country, located in the great lakes region of East Africa. Its
neighboring countries are Uganda in the North, Tanzania in the East, Burundi in the
South and Democratic Republic of the Congo in the West. The country covers an
area of 26,338Km2 and an estimated population of 8.8 million people in 20057, with
an annual population growth rate of 3.1 %8. The population density is therefore 310
inhabitants per square kilometer, making Rwanda one of the most populated
4
Water Utility Partnership for Capacity Building (WUP) Africa, 2003
The term “Urban Infrastructure” presents a concept of infrastructure including four parts: (1) a
Market – consuming the product; (2) a process unit – where the flow of energy or matter is processed
in one way or another; (3) a distribution unit – connecting the market and the location of the process
unit; (4) The Environment – Which is providing resources for the systems and receiving emissions and
waste products from the systems
5
6
Interview with Director of water in ELECTROGAZ
Rwanda 3rd General Census for population and housing ( projection)
8
Rwanda 3rd General Census for Population and Housing, 2002
7
2
countries in Africa. Population trends projects 9.3 million people in 2007 and that by
the year 2020, Rwanda will have a population of 12,9 million people9.
The country possesses water in abundance (lakes, rivers and swamps). Surface
water covers 211,000 hectares equivalent to 8% of the total national territory, with
rivers occupying an area of 7,270 hectares and 22, 300 natural springs that feed into
rivers and lakes10. These rivers meanders between hills and ridges scattered all over
the country, the reason Rwanda is famously known as the “country of a thousand
hills”.
Rwanda’s hydrology is divided by divide line called the Congo- Nile ridge. The Congo
basin to the west covers 33% of the territory and receives 10% of the water11. The
Nile basin covers 67% of the territory and receives 90% which is drained towards
east of the ridge where several small rivers and steams pour their water in big rivers
of Nyabarongo and Akanyaru. These big rivers join in the south of Kigali to makeup
Rusumo river, which is latter called Akagera river as it approaches Lake Victoria
where it pours. The two rivers of Akanyaru and Nyabarongo which originates in
Nyungwe Forest Reserves in South-west Rwanda are now believed to be the true
source of Nile River, according to 2006 new expedition of British and New Zealand
researchers Neil McGrigor, Cam McLeay and Garth MacIntyre.
The annual rainfall varies from 700 mm to 1400 mm in the East and in lowlands of
the West, from 1200 mm to 1400 mm in central plateau and from 1300 mm to 2000
mm in the high altitude region with an average of 1200 mm per year12.
9
Water and Sanitation Sector Performance Report 2006
Ibid
11
National water and sanitation policy
12
Water and Sanitation Sector Performance Report 2006
10
3
Figure 2: Administrative Map of Rwanda as of 2006
Administrative Map of Kigali city showing the area of study
Source: http://www.minaloc.gov.rw and http://www.kigalicity.gov.rw
1.2.2 Kigali City
This study was conducted in the City of Kigali, the capital and commercial city of the
Republic of Rwanda. The city covers an area of 730km2 with about one million
inhabitants. Kigali is located in the center of the country with a status of a province,
one of the five provinces in the country. Kigali is built in hilly landscapes sprawling
across ridges and wet valleys in between. Big structures like the universities, banks,
hotels, international organizations, embassies, government offices, commercial
buildings and residential areas of affluent people tend to be built on top of the ridges
while the poorer people live down towards the valley. Other poor neighborhoods are
located on the hills which can be seen in the fringes of the city.
4
Figure 3: A satellite image of Kigali showing its topography
Source: Google Earth/Wikipedia
The fringe-neighborhoods have grown fast over the recent years due to the growing
population in the city, and implementation of Decentralization policy which have
resulted in the adoption of some semi-urban areas which were previously not part of
the Kigali City Council.
Compared to other African cities, the size and population growth of Kigali has until
early nineties trivial, but its demographic profile was seriously affected by the 1994
genocide which claimed the lives of about 1,000,000 million Tutsis and moderate
Hutus country wide. Since then it is estimated that there has been over 800,000 old
refugees of 1959 returning from exile in neighboring countries of Uganda, Democratic
Republic of Congo , Burundi, Tanzania, Kenya and oversees, with a big number of
them opting to settle in the capital for employment and security reasons (Santiago, P,
A,, 2002) & (Musahara H., and Huggins, 2005). There has also been momentous
migration of people resulting in drastic increase of population in Kigali. Besides war
and genocide, the immigration to Kigali from late 1990s may be a manifestation of
more employment and business opportunities there, compared to other Rwandan
towns.
As a result of demographic dynamics as a result of all the above mentioned factors,
Kigali City which only covered an area of 112km2 with 140,000 inhabitants in 1991 is
believed to have a population of about 1,000,000 people living in an area of 730 km2
in 200613.
Table 1: Population growth and Area coverage trends of Kigali city
Year
1907
1945
1991
1996
2001
2006
Area
8ha
250ha
112km2
112km2
314km2
730km2
Number of inhabitants
357
6,000
140,000
358,200
605,000
1,000,000
Source: http://www.kigalicity.gov.rw
13
www.kigalicity.gov.rw.
5
1.2.3 Nyarugenge District
The study focused on Nyarugenge district, one of the three districts which make up
the Kigali City Council. The other two are Kicukiro and Gasabo. Nyarugenge is where
the first Kigali structures were built at its establishment in 1907, and is still the city
center. From the year 2006, the district stretched to semi-urban sectors of
Mageragere, Kanyinya and Mount Kigali. These sectors which have rural
demographic and social characteristics became part of Kigali as a result of
Government of Rwanda’s second phase decentralization policy implementation,
which resulted in the country’s administrative territories reduced from twelve to five
provinces. Other sectors which have always been part of urban Kigali are Muhima,
Kimisagara, Nyakabanda, Nyarugenge, Gitega, Nyamirambo and Rwezamenyo.
Nyarugenge is the smallest district of the three, with an area of 134km2, compared to
Kicukiro (166.7km2) and Gasabo (429.3km2). Beside its small size, Nyarugenge is
the head-quarter of Kigali city and home to big businesses and social activities such
as banks, commercial and shopping streets, insurance companies, international
organizations, some government ministries, colleges, the central Kigali prison, two
referral hospitals, several dispensaries and some industries. The existence of
economic and social activities in the district, together with its geographical position
makes it the most populated district in the city and beside its permanent residents
estimated to be over 237, 00014 people, Nyarugenge is always amassed by a lot of
people who flock the city center from other districts of the city and up-country during
business hours.
1.3 Problem statement
Provision of adequate sanitation and water facilities in urban areas is an important
investment which safeguards health and well-being of the people living in cities, as
well as protection of the environment. The city of Kigali is one of the cities which need
to improve its water and sanitation infrastructure, since the existing ones are not
environmentally friendly and does not provide its citizen with adequate services.
Unlike other cities in East Africa, which have small networks of sewer pipes and
treatment plants to cover a small percentage of its inhabitants, Kigali has no single
central sewer system and wastewater treatment facility for municipal, industrial and
domestic wastewater, as a result, big volumes of wastewater produced in the city, is
either discharged untreated into wetlands surrounding the city or absorbed into
ground water, polluting both fresh and ground water resources as well as soil.
In 2005, the Government of Rwanda adopted the first ever organic law determining
the modalities of protection, conservation and promotion of environment in Rwanda.
The law covers all aspects concerning people’s health, natural environment and
ecosystems. In regard to sanitation and waste water management, it states clearly
that water from sewage systems as well as any liquid waste must be collected in a
treatment plant for purification before being released into a river, a stream a lake or a
pond, and that swamps with permanent water shall be given special protection, and
the protection shall consider their role and importance in preservation of the
biodiversity.
14
Interview with Mr. Fisto NDIKUMANA, Acting Director of urban infrastructure, settlements and
the environment in Nyarugenge district
6
In order to comply with this organic law and off course meet the MDGs, the City of
Kigali will require heavy investments in the installation of wastewater management
systems both social and technical. Choices will have to be made on different
approaches and alternatives of wastewater management systems basing on
available funding, the landscape in terms of existing infrastructure, topography and
demographic distribution. The choices will require decision makers to decide on
whether to adopt off-site, large scale (Centralized systems), which do not exist at the
moment, on-site, small scale (Decentralized systems), which exist at the moment or
Modernized Mixtures approach which combines the best out of both, centralized and
decentralized systems.
This study investigates the existing sanitation systems and the social-technical
establishments which govern these systems. The study will also depict in-depth
information about Modernized Mixture approach, its feasibility as well as advantages
over conventional centralized and decentralized systems for provision of sustainable
sanitation services. The findings will contribute in providing the basis for policy
makers and other actors involved in improving wastewater management in
Nyarugenge district, the City of Kigali and all other urban centers throughout the
country to make informed decisions on which approaches fits for Rwandan situation.
1.4 Conceptual design
1.4.1 General and Specific objectives
The General objective of this study is to explore the challenges and potentials for
improving wastewater management by promoting Modernized Mixtures approach in
Kigali city, particularly in poor neighborhoods.
In order to realize this objective, the following specific objectives were devised, and
these were to:• Determine socio-technical wastewater management systems that exist in
Kigali
• Describe available socio-technical regimes for wastewater management in the
study area and Rwanda in general
• Articulate environmental problems associated with poor urban environmental
infrastructure provisions (water supply, solid and waste water management)
• Present the potential for implementing Modernized Mixture Systems in poor
neighborhoods of Kigali
1.4.3 Main research questions
The following main research questions were formulated in order that their answers
could address issues raised in research objectives:• What are the social and technical waste water management systems and
regimes that exist in Kigali?
• What are the environmental problems associated with the existing
environmental infrastructure (water supply, solid and waste water
management)
• What is the feasibility, challenges and potentials for implementing Modernized
Mixture systems (social and physical infrastructure) in poor neighborhoods of
Kigali ?
7
1.4.4 Sub-research questions
In order to further address the issues raised in the main research questions, the
following specific research questions were developed:•
Who are key actors in water supply and sanitation in Urban Rwanda and Kigali
in particular and what are their roles, responsibilities and their view in adopting
community based sanitation infrastructure?
•
What are institutional, policy legal frameworks that are currently governing
water supply and waste water management in Kigali, and what are their
strengths and weaknesses?
•
How is the financing of public and private sanitation systems; and what are the
positive and negative aspects of the financing of these infrastructures in terms
of sustainable financing and affordability?
•
What are the waste water management technologies that are currently used in
Nyarugenge district; and what are strengths and weaknesses of their physical
functioning?
•
What are challenges and opportunities for institutionalizing Modernized
Mixtures Approach and Systems?
1.5 Description and scope of the study
The work presented in this thesis, makes this study one of its kind in that, unlike other
studies; it bases its research on poor neighbourhoods of Kigali city. The study is
mainly descriptive on the characteristics of existing municipal, industrial and domestic
sanitation system, their physical infrastructure, and management practises. The work
goes further with the use of a survey to search for primary data on accessibility to
safe water, basing on households water pipes connections and other sources of
water, sanitation practices and soli waste management. Reasons for inaccessibility
of water and sanitation infrastructure, and willingness of people in a study area to
participate in the management of community based sanitation infrastructure in their
neighbourhoods were analysed. Sanitation policies and other national policies that
link up with water and sanitation sector have been identified and their strength and
weaknesses studied. Also the study analyses the existing processes of policy making
and implementation at cellule, sector, district, city council and at the national level.
In the end, the opportunities for Modernised Mixtures Approach (MMA), with
decentralised sanitation systems as a possible solution to the existing approaches
will be discussed, but no particular wastewater management technology will be
suggested for Kigali.
The next section in this chapter discusses sources and methods of data collection
used in this study.
1.6 Methods of data collection
Primary data sources are data that are not in previous existence but are acquired
directly from field. In social science, primary data can be obtained through key
informants or other respondent interviews, survey questionnaires and field
8
observation. Secondary data are normally sourced from contemporary literature,
official documents, as well as relevant web cites.
In this study a combination of all these methods was used to complement one
another so that a comprehensive search for answers of research questions could be
achieved. Four sectors with poor neighbourhoods in Nyarugenge district, one of
three districts of Kigali were selected for data collection
1.6.1 Key informants and respondents Interviews
Key informants interviews were performed with the use of semi-structured
questionnaire with government officials in MINITERE, The city of Kigali, Nyarugenge
district and different government institution and private companies operating in the
district.
As an intern with REMA, the author had the opportunity and was fortunate to be
granted formal and/ or informal interviews by many relevant government and private
company officials. The author was privileged to interview separately key informants
like Mrs Patricia Hajabakiga a State Minister in MINITERE responsible for
Environment and Land, who has been a prominent figure behind all environmental
reforms in the country; and the Director in the same ministry for water and Sanitation.
Other key informants were the In-charge of Environment, water and Energy in the
City of Kigali (MVK), Acting In-charge of Urban Infrastructure, Settlements and
Environment in Nyarugenge District and Director of Water at ELECTROGAZ.
In order to establish the characteristics of sanitation systems in domestic, public and
private institutions in the study area, field trips accompanied by administration of
interviews to officials responsible for sanitation in institutions were the methods used
to collect data. Most of Informants or respondents selected for data collection through
semi-structured interviews were from different government and private institutions
operating in Nyarugenge district. These were two biggest referral hospitals called
University Teaching Hospital of Kigali (CHU/K) and Muhima martenity hospital. The
two hospitals were purposely selected because they are the busiest of all, and they
represent others because, they receive majority of the patients in the city. The
academic institution selected was Kigali Institute of Science and Technology. This
institute was chosen with the hypothesis that it is a large institute with over 4500
students and staff, and that it would be an ideal institute to represent other academic
institutions of higher learning, because it is seen as a model to newly established
three private universities in the city. The private organisations selected were two
private industries UTEXRWA (a textile company) and SULFO-Rwanda (a utility
industry producing detergents, cosmetics etc.), and two hotels called “Hotel des Mille
Collines” and OKAPI. The two industries were selected due to the fact that they use
large quantities of organic and inorganic chemicals in production. UTEXRWA
represents majority of the industries which are in industrial park located in a wetland,
while SULFO-Rwanda represents industries or factories which are located within
residential and commercial areas, as will be described in the results of the analysis.
In order to understand more about different wastewater management options that
exist in the city, one interview was conducted outside Nyarugenge district for a
unique treatment plant in new affluent neighbourhood of Nyaruratama called Vision
2020 Estate. Field trips were performed in two other wastewater treatment facilities,
all in Kicukiro district. Vision 2020 Estate was a government project in the year 2002
to develop a model neighbourhood for future settlement plans in the city of Kigali.
9
This project was latter handed over to Social Security Fund of Rwanda (SSFR) who
took over the development and ownership of the project..
1.6.2 Survey Questionnaires for households
Further primary data were obtained through a survey using closed-ended structured
questionnaires. The unit of study for the survey was a household and a sampling
plan used was “systematic random sampling”. Systematic random sampling is a
technique whereby random sampling from the sampling frame and a starting point is
chosen at random, and thereafter at a regular intervals. This technique is usually
used to control extraneous variables and at the same time ensures
representativeness because each unit in a sample population has equal chance or
probability of being chosen (Punch K.F, 2005). Another reason for choosing this
sampling strategy is that systematic random sampling method extends a sampling
frame and therefore covers larger areas that also have an advantage on
representativeness and this will provide us with the opportunity to generalise the
findings to poor neighbourhoods in Nyarugenge district and Kigali.
The questionnaire survey was conducted in four of the ten sectors of Nyarugenge
district. The sectors surveyed were purposely selected and the criteria for the choice
was that they have neighbourhoods with urban characteristics; are poor
neighbourhoods; are high density settlements; and are potential polluters of
watersheds, valleys and natural streams that surround the City of Kigali.
A total of Two hundred thirty seven (237) households were systematically sampled,
sixty (60) in each of Muhima, Nyarugenge (Rugenge), Gitega and fifty seven (57) in
Kimisagara sectors. The first household on each day was chosen randomly then a
sample was taken at every tenth (10th) household, which means that in total, our
sampling frame was two thousand three hundred and seventy (2,370) households.
This number is 12%, and hence, a reasonable representation of our sample
population of about 20,000 households, that are in the four selected sectors.
Given the number of questionnaires and the area that was to be covered, four
research assistants (third year students in the faculty of Agriculture at the National
University of Rwanda) were employed to help conduct a survey. Respondents were
encouraged to fill the questionnaire for themselves to avoid biasness in favour of
researchers on the responses.
1.6.3 Reconnaissance and field observation
Another technique used during data collection period was reconnaissance and field
observation. This was used to get information on technical hard ware of sanitation
and water infrastructure in the area of study, such as drainage and sewer systems,
wastewater treatment technologies at households and industrial premises and the
state of pollution down streams as well as difficulties faced by communities in
copping with inadequate water and sanitation services in their neighbourhoods. Field
trips were made to several wastewater management facilities in three new affluent
neighbourhoods, two referral hospitals, three industries, one academic institution,
three hotels and restaurants. A number of households were also observed during a
survey conducted in poor neighbourhoods of four sectors in Nyarugenge district.
10
1.6.4 Literature and official documents study.
To complement primary data obtained through a survey, interviews and field
observations, secondary data were acquired with the help of existing literature and
government official documents. Being an intern with Rwanda Environment
Management Authority (REMA) made it possible for the author to access a good
number of relevant documents for this study. These documents were used to identify
different policies in the country that affect water and sanitation sector. The official
documents and contemporary literature helped the author to study the relationship
between different stakeholders, policy making and implementation and the impact of
the existing water and sanitation management and physical infrastructure on the
environment and the social-economic conditions of households in poor
neighbourhoods of Kigali city.
1.6.5 Methods of data analysis
The data obtained through key informants was treated as qualitative and was
analysed during data collection period. Each day after field work, all the data
collected in a note book were edited, matched to the questions, and story lines were
drawn and organised basing on responses.
Qualitative data collected in a survey were transformed into quantitative data, with
the help of version 12.0 of a computer based Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) and Excel. The data were entered into a developed SPPS sheet
for analysis. The outputs were descriptive statistical results such as frequencies,
percentiles and correlation tables and these were copied to an Excel sheet for
production of graphs and tables, used to present the results of the findings.
Although only a fraction of the population, (237 households) were sampled for a
survey. Data from this sample was aggregated over the entire population and with
this, a statistical generalization is made. The findings of the study are presented in
chapter four, five and in appendixes.
1.7 Outline of thesis Report
After introduction which includes background information, area of the study, problem
statement, conceptual design, problem statement and methods used to collect and
analyse data, the rest of this thesis report is organised as follows: Chapter two is
basically composed of literature review which details relevant theories and concepts
which make the basis of this study. Chapter three describes Institutional framework
for policy making and implementation in Rwanda and emphasis is put on ongoing
political transformation (modernisation) from centralised to decentralised form of
governance. Chapter four presents main findings of the research, while the final
chapter (five) discusses results, and thereafter proceeds with providing conclusions
and recommendations, basing on the findings of this study.
11
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter two presents conceptual and theoretical framework which constitute the
basis of this study. Concepts and theories relevant to this study are developed with
the help of the existing literature and relevant documents which were collected and
reviewed during data collection period in the study area.
2.1. Sustainability of Centralized and Decentralized Sanitation Systems:
2.1.1 Centralized or off-site sanitation systems
In cities of developed world, during the last decades most of sewer pipes have been
connected to waste water treatment systems before the wastewater is discharged in
open waters (van Vliet, B., 2004). Centralized sanitation system consists of sewer
network which transport waste water from a household to a treatment plant and the
effluent is discharged in the environment. They are some times called conventional
sanitation systems because they have been in existence and dominant technology
for many years and most of institutions and policies that tend sanitation in cities of the
west and developing countries are based on these systems. Proponents of
centralized sanitation claim that they are more hygienic than traditional decentralized
systems. Another advantage of centralized sanitation systems according to their
promoters is that they are more convenient (“flush and forget”).
While Sewer pipes are connected in all areas of cities and towns of developed world,
most parts of cities and towns in developing countries has not been connected to
treatment systems and this results in sewer pipes discharging untreated effluent into
fresh waters in sea, lakes, natural ponds and river streams (Spaargaren, G., at al,
2005). This trend in poor countries is due to the fact that centralized or off-site
networks with treatment facilities need high investment (Krekeler, T., 2005). Most
developing countries lack financial resources therefore can not afford centralized
sanitation systems because of the high cost of physical infrastructure which include a
network of pipes and treatment plants and the maintenance. Most centralized
infrastructure in developing countries if exist were built during colonial period. They
only cover initial sections of the city and have not had maintenance since then.
Water and sanitation utilities in African cities and towns are very weak. They are
characterized by intermittent supplies, frequent breakdowns, inefficient operations,
poor maintenance; unqualified personnel in management and depleted finance
(Cross, P., & Morel, A., 2005). The utilities are confronted with rapid urban population
growth, which make municipalities incapacitated to provide adequate services. It is
forecasted that, in less developed regions there is ongoing increase in population
densities with unforeseen saturation reaching nearly 4 billion by 2030 ( Rosemarin,
A., 2005). If the situation left the way it is, the driving forces for sanitation problems
will over stress the already stressed accommodation capacity of infrastructure and
hence aggravate sanitation problems.
Costly centralized sanitation systems are not a problem for developing countries
alone. In developed countries, because of high maintenance cost while there is little
profit returns, centralized or off-site water and sanitation systems are directly cross
subsidized and the chances of ever become financially sustainable are low1.
12
There are other problems caused by centralized sanitation systems associated with
over exploitation of natural resources. Net works Sewer pipes consume enormous
volumes of precious drinking water to transport human waste and this is a concern
for environmentalists, given that natural water resources are over stretched.
Treatment of drinking water it self is very expensive and as mentioned in the
introduction, there are still a big number of people in developing countries and over
1.1 billion people globally without access to safe drinking water. Toilets alone in
European countries consumes one third of personal daily water consumption (Henze,
M., 1997); and according to Lettinga et all, (2001) only 5 percent of treated drinking
water are used for essential uses like cooking and drinking while the remaining 95
percent is used for transporting waste water to treatment facilities. Apart from
wasting treated and precious high quality drinking water, the dilution of human waste
by huge amounts of water makes treatment of wastewater highly inefficient in terms
of capacity use, energy consumption and overall treatment performance (B. van Vliet,
2004).
Fig 4: Linear flows in a conventional Centralized sanitation system
(Source: Langergraber, G., and Muellegger, E., 2004)
The low quality of the final product (effluent) from centralized treatment plants is
another set back for these systems. In the last two decades, there has been more
and more understanding of effects of poor water quality in the survival of ecosystems
and the health of humans. As a result of increased environmental awareness, high
quality standards have been set for the quality of water to be discharged from
treatment plants. How ever, most of all of treatment plants existing today in most
cities are based on aerobic treatment methods, which of recent have come under
criticism that its end product (effluent) does not meet the required standards to be
discharged into open water and soils. According to Lettinga and Zeeman (1999),
aerobic treatment technologies which are used both in developing and developed
countries produce large quantities of secondary sludge, which are too heavily
polluted with for example heavy metals to be used in agriculture.
Achieving ecological sanitation is also a set back for centralized sewer technologies.
Centralised technologies are disposal-based, “linear flow systems”, which do not give
opportunity of recovering scarce nutrient resources (N,P,S) which would have been
used for agricultural and energy production. Sewer systems transport much diluted
human waste very far from human settlements, depriving poor communities the
possibility to re-use the waste water in agriculture. For example according to SIDA
(2000), in developing urban society, the wastewater generation is usually 30-70m3
per person per year. In the city of one million people, the waste water generated
would be sufficient to irrigate approximately 1500-3500 hectares. This is a big water
loss which would be used to irrigate crops especially during dry seasons when there
is scarcity of vegetables to feed the poor in most tropical cities.
13
From social perspective, centralized or grid-based or network-bound utilities do not
recognize the role of social actors or consumers in the sustainability of the systems
because they are designed on technological and economical biased approaches.
According to B. van Vliet, (2006), Centralized sanitation systems are large technical
systems whose management systems seems to be restricted to big actors, like
managers, regulators, NGOs and the likes while citizens-customers are the subjects
of change, qualified as end-users, consumers or simply ‘ the demand side’. The main
feature of network-bound or centralized systems is that they have “natural monopoly”.
Natural monopolies are market situations in which network providers are the only
providers in a region, because there is only one available network (van Vliet, B.,
2004). They are termed ‘natural because they take advantage of economies of scale,
as having many providers wouldn’t be economically viable. As a result of “natural
monopoly”, services of Centralized water and sanitation system are characterized by
universal services, uniform products, flows instead of units, inelastic prices which in
the end manifest into having providers who enjoy higher economic and authority
benefits while leaving users “captive consumers” who are left without choice and
authority. This kind of relationship between the consumers and utility providers
according to my opinion, has direct or indirect negative impact on the sustainability of
water resources, as well as the infrastructures themselves, especially in African
countries because, the users are left to be irresponsible consumers. This is so
because of poor management of natural water resources and physical infrastructure.
Natural water resources, water and sanitation infrastructure are often abandoned and
not protected, and since there is no sense of “identity” or ownership of infrastructure
and water resources among citizens, these resources are abused as a result you find
a “tragedy of the commons” scenario. From social scientist point of view, what lacks
in Centralized sanitation systems is social-technical networks which could help in the
development of technology as well as creating responsible and hence sustainable
consumers and a society at large.
In regard to social and environmental injustice, McGranaham et al., (2001) argues
that Centralised management systems and sewage transport wastewater over long
distances to central treatment plants, and that environmental burden usually ends up
near the poor neighbourhoods who in most cases live in fringe suburbs.
14
Box 1: Detailed Shortcomings of Centralized sanitation systems
Many of the disadvantages of the unified flushing systems are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nutrient losses with the best affordable treatment plants are over 20% Nitrogen (N), over
5% for phosphorous (P) and more than 90% for potassium. The discharged nutrients are
accumulated in the sea. P and K resources that are to replace these losses are likely to run
out within a time span of concern (order of magnitude of 10 human generations with a
wide variation in different publications
High energy demand for destruction of the organic wastewater contents and for the
nitrification. In addition, the synthesis of ammonia from nitrogen for production of
fertilizer is very energy intensive
High pollution loads in the sewage sludge and missing potassium makes its use as an
agricultural fertilizer often impossible. Non- cycling of organic compounds of human and
bio waste to the soil does not maintain human layer and does not create a carbon sink for
carbon by increasing C-contents in the soil (Arrhenius, 1999).
A high amount of water is necessary for flushing human wastes to the treatment plants
( leads to disasters especially in water scarce metropolitan areas)
Hygiene problems in receiving waters after combined sewer overflows and waste
treatment plants effluents. Severe problems without adequate treatment in low-income
countries (even existing plants often fail within a couples of years)
The joint presence of sulphur (S) and heavy metals can lead to a mobilization of the
metals (Beck et al.,1994)
High operation and rehabilitation cost for drainage system and the sewer treatment plants.
Most municipalities do not rehabilitate the average 1% to 2% of the drainage and
treatment system per year due to the systems life times of 50 to 100 years.
Little sense of responsibility for the water cycle and the fate of pollutants is developed
on the users side due to the invisibility and invulnerability (mainly by dilution, not by
final degradation of chemicals) of the wastewater infrastructure in the local environment
Source: Otterpohl, O., et al., 1997
The effects mentioned in the box above, contain a strong potential for a slow
degradation of the performance of the natural systems used for food production and
fishery. With such a development, social injustice can be increased by rising prices
for water and food.
2.1.2. Decentralized or on-site sanitation systems.
Although the boundary for difference between centralized and decentralized
sanitation systems is not always clear, decentralized sanitation systems can literally
be defined as opposite of centralized sanitation systems. They are not grid or
network- bound systems but rather autonomous house-hold based wastewater
management facilities. The autonomous part of on-site sanitation refers to the
techniques used in wastewater treatment and disposal, design, as well as its
financing, implementation and maintenance. The techniques used normally are lowtech; therefore they don’t need expert maintenance as well as management skills like
centralised systems do. While neither decentralized nor centralized systems provide
a single, integrated model of best practice, overall, decentralized systems
demonstrate better practices than their centralized counterparts. Decentralized
systems systematically outperform centralized ones in financial efficiency and in their
15
ability to increase coverage of basic services over time ( Pearce-Oroz, 2006). These
advantages are manifested in the current sanitation status in developing countries,
including Rwanda where decentralized systems are the only sanitation systems in
existence.
Decentralized sanitation technologies used world wide include Simple Pit or
Traditional Latrines, Ventilated Improved Latrines (VIP), Ecological (Ecosan) latrines,
Pour-flush latrines and Water closet toilets, connected to septic tank. These
technologies are so far not well developed, as a result they still have disadvantages
such as soil and ground water contamination with pathogens, bad odours, flies
/mosquito breeding and potential pit collapse in cases of heavy rains . Other
inconvenient drawbacks for these technologies are the distance from house,
especially for women and children during night ( Cairncross, S., 2003); and in a
densely populated areas, the limits are obvious that digging a new pit when the old
one is full often leads to questions of where to build a new one (G. Spaargaren at al,
2005).
What is obvious about all these technologies is that they are not water and energy
intensive as compared to centralized technologies and that is why different scholars
in Environmental sciences and Engineering have conducted extensive research with
the aim to promoted these systems as being sustainable option to centralized
sanitation system for the future (Lettinga et all, 1997). Shortage of resources in many
parts of the world while there is a growing population in urban areas increases the
requirements for preservation and restoration of natural flows, and this requirements
can not be achieved with conventional off-site technologies. Decentralized sanitation
systems provides the opportunity for innovative and sustainable sanitation
technologies which will reduce over exploitation of scarce resources by applying
cleaner as well as closed-loop or re-use technologies. According to Zeeman and
Lettinga (1999), decentralised sewage treatment is more considered to be more
sustainable way of wastewater treatment, both in developing and developed
countries, as it:
- Creates possibilities to re-use treated wastewater for irrigation and fertilization
- Offers the possibility to separately collect and treat the different wastewater
streams. Thus diluted streams can be reused in for example the household it
self and more concentrated streams can be treated with more appropriate
techniques, such as anaerobic digestion, and subsequently reused in
Agriculture and bio-gas
As a result of potential for sustainable wastewater management in urban areas, there
is a lot of ongoing research based on decentralised sanitation systems for domestic
and municipal wastewater treatment, with the aim of closing loops. Many of these
researches use anaerobic treatment technologies, but until now, they have not
managed to produce high quality water standards, so those which are already in the
market need secondary treatment (H, Yu, 1997). Anaerobic technologies give
comparative advantages for tropical countries where Rwanda is allocated over
temperate regions, because they work more effectively in tropical climates than
temperate ones (Zeeman, G and Lettinga, G., 1999)
16
2.2 Modernized Mixture Systems
Modernized mixture approach deviates from both non-flexible grid-based systems
that dominate in the west, as well as on-site systems based on appropriate
technologies of seventies and eighties, which are dominant in Rwanda. When
working with modernized mixtures according to Spaargaren et al, (2005), one leaves
behind false dichotomy dividing centralized, large scale, high-tech solutions on one
hand from appropriate, small scale and low-technology solutions on the other.
Instead of opposing centralized and decentralized paradigms, the best of both
paradigms have to be combined into new configurations that represent the low-cost,
accessible and robust performance of decentralized systems with economies of
scales and high urban/capacity characteristics of centralized systems (Spaargaren et
al, (2005). Modernized systems are designed to engage integrated approach in
which participation of users, providers (which in some cases are the same people),
the CBO, NGOs, Research Institutions, donor communities as well as political
authorities are key to the successful operation of the systems, as they participate in
the whole process of choosing, planning, designing, implementing and management
of their sanitation infrastructure. Modernized Mixture approach integrates the (eco)
technological, economic and social-political dimensions of new environmental
infrastructure against the background of specific local context (Spaargaren, et al,
(2005).
Modernized Mixture systems looks at specific local context, in terms of socialeconomical, cultural and physical-geographical conditions. On the management of
the sanitation infrastructure, it is based on inclusive, democratic approach which aims
at achieving equity as it is designed to suit both affluent and poor neighbourhoods.
This kind of approach provides a basis for self sustainability of the system, because
burning issues such as billing system, maintenance cost and others are discussed
democratically among stakeholders and strong decisions are made. In this way,
social-technical networks are created and this help making sure there is common
understanding, as well as rising awareness among stake holders
Another important aspect of Modernised mixture Approach is that it takes advantages
of contemporary research on sanitation with emphasis on environmental
sustainability. That is why its management and technologies are built upon DESAR ,
ECOSAN and other similar concepts. According to Lettinga et al, (2001), DESAR
approach is by no means about the scale of technology per se, but rather about
redirection of nutrients to the community so that they could be reused. Van Vliet and
Stein (2003) differentiate DESAR from conventional sewer, centralised systems.
They urge that while conventional sewers mixes wastewater, there by making it
difficult and expensive to treat, DESAR makes the waste more concentrated and
enhances separation of different wastes streams and this helps in recovery during
treatment.
17
Figure 5: The new paradigm in sanitation: Closing the nutrient and water eco-cycle loops.
Modernized Mixture approach is built upon this kind of paradigms.
Source: EcoSanRes programme. (www.ecosanres.org)
Modernized Mixture brings together the best elements from both centralised
sanitation and decentralised systems in a number of options and strategies, adapted
to the particular infrastructural, institutional, economic and environmental context.
The figure bellow is adopted from Bas van Vliet (2006). This figure illustrates
variables that have to be considered when making choices of a potential sanitation
infrastructure.
18
Figure 6: Variables characterizing sanitation technologies
Source: van Vliet,B., (2006)
“Three main clusters of variables can be made to categorize sanitation systems:
conventional systems (A), alternative systems (B) and what may be called
‘modernized mixtures’ (C) (Van Vliet, 2006).
A. Conventional systems can be found in the clustering of values at the top of the
diagram: central organization, large-scaled systems and low user involvement.
B. Alternative systems are to be found at the opposite end of the diagram: smallscale systems, responsible users, de-centralized organization.
C. Various combinations of social and technical variables make up for
‘modernized mixtures’.
Conventional sanitation systems (A) are centralized systems designed for the
treatment of single water flows. Large-scale sewer systems that collect all water flows
are the extreme example of this category. The end-user involvement in these
systems is low.
The category of alternative systems (B) has since the early 1970s been propagated
and developed by supporters of the ‘small is beautiful’ thesis by Schumacher (1975),
which encompasses consumers, technicians, philosophers and environmentalists
(Van Vliet, 2006). The idea is that not only the hardware of sanitation systems should
be of a small, ‘human’ size, but rather especially the social organization around the
design, implementation, use and maintenance should be kept as small or local as
possible to secure democratic control by the users of such systems. Besides, it is
believed that such small systems are the most environmentally sound. Examples
within such an alternative category are ‘stand-alone’ systems that do not need a
connection to larger infrastructures, like composting toilets, rainwater recycling
systems, and reed-bed filters for waste water (Van Vliet, 2006).
The category of ‘modernized mixtures’(C) Encompasses various score sets on the
four variables mentioned. Example include centrally managed vacuum systems at the
scale of a residential area with a high separation of flows and low consumer
involvement; or small-scale but sewer connected - water systems that are based on
the dual water flows and high consumer involvement. As these empirical examples
illustrate, we are dealing here not only with a mixture of ‘conventional’ and
‘alternative’ technological aspects but also with a mixture of social elements (Van
Vliet, 2006). The modernized mixtures bring together social and technical elements
19
that used to be strictly separated and organized into ideological debates between the
opponents and defenders of conventional, centralized and complex large technical
systems” (Van Vliet, 2006).
2.3 Modernised Mixture systems as Social-Technical Artefacts
As mentioned in previous sub-chapters of the literature, Modernised mixture systems
are built on acquiring the best out of both centralised and decentralised systems.
Utility providers especially grid-based find no profit when there are few connections.
For example it is very uneconomical to install sewer networks for a small community
living in a small scattered area or town, but it is more profitable to use the same
sewer network in a big city, with households close to one another. One of advantage
which may be taken into account, which can be taken from centralised sanitation
systems when designing a modernised mixture system for poor neighbourhoods
which are densely populated in cities like Kigali would be taking advantage of
“economies of scales” and connect household in these areas. So instead of choosing
autonomous or on-site sanitation systems like septic tanks which are costly when
constructed by individual household, it would be wise to opt for community based
sanitation systems. For a community on-site treatment15 or sanitation system, based
on modernised mixture to succeed in Kigali and specifically poor neighbourhoods, it
is important that all important actors are involved in this endeavour. Change of
technology as well as roles of policy makers, water and energy providers and
consumers will be required. Water and energy providers come in here because
sanitation these days is an integral part of water supply as well as energy in that
there will not be good sanitation if there is no enough supply of water and energy, at
the same time, it will be difficult to obtain safe water in highly concentrated area if
there is no good management of wastewater before it is captured back into water
cycle.
Technical, social-economical and environmental advantages of Modernised Mixtures
Approach over on-site sanitation systems will be critical when determining a change,
therefore thorough assessment of advantages and disadvantages of both
technologies will be carried out, before a decision will be taken. At this point, it is
important to know that before decisions are made on whether to go for a change;
stakeholders will have to know all about the existing infrastructure technical facts as
well as an alternative technology (Nielsen S., at al,2000) The existing sanitation
technologies in Kigali are quite different from the ones promoted by modernised
mixture approach, and the difference does not lie in the technology alone. The
difference extends to other elements such as management methods and attitude of
consumers. The example of source separation for the case of urine separation toilets
which will require men to sit when urinating is a big cultural change and an
inconvenience. Management and maintenance of community wastewater
infrastructure is quite different from management of individual on-site toilets or septic
tanks, therefore in order that sustainable change can be achieved, the concept of
Technological Transitions (TT) should be adopted. According to Geels F.W, (2002),
Technological transitions are defined as major, long-term technological
transformations in a way societal functions such as transportation, communication,
15
Community on-site treatment: refers to treatment of wastewater and solid waste within the locality
or closer to cluster of households from which it was produced using existing different types of
technologies
20
housing, feeding, are fulfilled. Technological Transition does not only involve
technological changes, but also changes in elements such as user practices,
regulation, industrial networks, infrastructure, and a symbolic meaning.
Technological Transformation (TT) for sanitation from on-site, low tech to modernized
mixture systems requires strong Multi-actor networks, comprising societal groups (
such as public authorities- policy makers, water committees and NGOs, etc),
Research networks ( Universities, Research Institutes and Consulting firms), User
groups, Producers networks, Financial networks as well as Suppliers of materials,
components and machines for physical infrastructures.
Further success of this Technological transition will depend largely on Multi-Level
perspective governed by process within the niche and developments at the level of
existing regimes and socio-technical landscapes. According to Geels F.W., (2002)
Socio-technical landscape consists of deep structural trends containing a set of
heterogeneous factors, such as oil prices, economic growth, wars, emigration, broad
political coalitions, cultural and normative values, environmental problems e.t.c. While
regimes refer to rules that enable and constrain activities with communities and for
this case they are existing rules which will provide opportunity for Modernised Mixture
to succeed or to fail.
Multi-level perspective does not only include socio technical landscape and regimes,
but also includes technological niches. While regimes usually generate incremental
innovations, radical innovations are generated in niches ( Geels F.W, 2000).
Technological Niche management is an attempt to nest or protect a technology along
with other elements which would make it successful. It protects a technology from
uncontrolled market selections, acts as incubator rooms where innovations take
place, so that socio-technical networks can be initiated to achieve sustainable
technological transformation.
Figure 7: A dynamic multi-level perspective on TT
Source: Geels F.W (2000), p. 1263)
The above figure shows that TT is about the linking of multiple technologies. And it
shows that TT do not only involve technology and market shares but also changes on
wider dimensions such as regulations, infrastructure, symbolic meaning, industrial
21
networks (represented by the increased density of arrows). Once established, new
socio-technical regimes may contribute to changes on the landscape level (Geels F.W
(2000). Note that the arrow at Landscape level are not dynamic because changes at
this level takes longer as compared to those from technological niches to regimes. The
arrows actually consists of a process of nice-cumulation.
For modernised decentralised systems to be develop in Kigali, multi-level perspectives
of TT ought to be pursued. This is because TT management helps the embedment of a
technology into a society. Since people in poor neighbourhoods have been using
appropriate technologies developed in the 70s, introducing new systems will require
purposeful strategy. There exist Research and academic institutions like the National
University of Rwanda, Kigali Institute of Science and Technology, ISAR and others
which can develop technological niches in sanitation for these neighbourhoods Kigali.
The existing social-technological regimes for sanitation are not well established,
because present policies and laws emphasises on pollution abetment, with little notion
on re-use. The existing policies however, provide good environment improvement for
future development and accommodation of re-use values.
2.4 Public Private Partnerships for Water and Sanitation Utilities
Before examining or discuss the role Public-private partnership (PPP) can play in
delivering sanitation services in the framework of Modernised Mixtures approach in
Kigali, I will first explain this concept in the context of this study.
For the purpose of this study, it important to put into perspective that, the concept of
Public-private partnership covers whole range of options involving private sector,
including community ownership and management, to provide and/or manage the urban
environmental services like water supply and waste water treatment (Memon M., A.,
2004). The proponents of Public-private partnership and Privatisation including the main
inter- national financial institutions such as World Bank (WB) and International Monetary
Fund (IMF) urge that these modes of service provision are ultimate solutions to inefficient
and inadequate delivery of services that have for many years characterised traditional
public utilities in developing countries. In Africa, wide spread dominance of public
enterprises in the provision of public goods has been repeatedly blamed for terrible state
of services (UN, 2005). Monopolistic nature of the market structure has lead to the
absence of competition, resulting in inefficiency and lack of pricing mechanisms to
determine consumer demand and reflect service costs. According to the UN, (2005), the
low-cost prices have contributed to the low levels of government investment and lack of
service expansion.
Two definitions have been selected to define PPP in the context of this study. The first
is adopted from the South African National Treasury which has been commended by
its African peers (NEPAD) for promoting capacity building for PPP projects in South
Africa, which defines in its Manual for Standardised PPP Provision Guide as:
“A contract between a public sector institution and a private party, in which the
private party assumes substantial financial, technical and operational risk in
the design, financing, building and operation of a project”
The second definition is adopted from a UN (2005) which defines PPPs as:
“The combination of a public need with private capability and resources to
create a market opportunity through which the public needs are met and a
profit is made”
22
The second definition is self explanatory in that it provides a “win-win situation” for
public, private as well as the users, and fits well in the context of provision of
environmental services such as water and sanitation. For the case of Rwanda, one
can argue that market opportunities in water and sanitation sector are available but
what lack are the financial resource as well as management skills on the side of
private sector. The obstacle to PPP engagement in water and sanitation sector in
Rwanda is that, there is weak private sector in the country with limited financial,
human and technical resources for them to risk their capital investment in projects
which take long to bring back profit as it is the case for water and sanitation venture.
Privatisation is different from PPP in that it is transferring a public service or facility to
the private sector, usually with ownership, for it to manage in accordance with market
forces and within defined framework.
Table 2: Main features of PPP in relation to Privatisation
PPP
•
•
•
PRIVATISATION
Contracting Authority establishes the
specifications for a project and leaves
to the private sector the responsibility
of proposing the best solution, subject
to certain requirements
Price is one of the main criteria in the
evaluation of bids. A lot of emphasis
is on technical and financial
capabilities of the bidder, financial
arrangements proposed and the
liability of technical solutions used
Given the long duration of the
concession period, the empasis is on
the arrangements proposed for the
operational phase.
•
•
•
•
•
Privatisation authority prepares the
divestment plan
Involves transfer of ownership to the
private sector
Is generally a complex transaction with
careful designed contracts and multi
stage competitive tender process
Generally
the
private
sector
withdraws from management of the
entity o privatisation
Almost all risks are borne by the
private sector
Source: SADC Banking Association in (Farlam, 2005).
As can be seen in the above table, the criteria used to choose the private partner for
PPP are more complex than just who offers the best prices and who conforms to the
technical specifications. PPP envisions a more open relationship in which business is
encouraged to propose alternatives rather than blindly providing what is demanded.
Emphasis for PPPs is put on the actual delivery phase and specifically on defining
precisely how prices can be changed and where necessary negotiates detailed
service and investment obligations, such as price caps for poor consumers.
There are several contractual arrangements for PPP trough which different
partnerships can be established to improve levels of efficiency, effectiveness,
responsiveness and adequacy of public services. Such arrangements can be service
contracts, management contracts, lease contracts, operations and maintenance
concessions. These partnerships can be with small-scale providers, private
companies, Non governmental Organisation (NGOs) or Community based
Organisations (CBOs), and in most cases the arrangements are service or sector
specific. The table bellow illustrates different PPP options for water and sanitation
provision.
23
Table 3: Allocation of Key responsibilities under the various options for private sector
participation
OPTION
ASSET
OWNERSHIP
OPERATIONS
AND
MAINTENANCE
Service
contract
Management
contact
Lease
Concession
Buid
Operate
Own
Contracts
(BOO)
Divesture
Public
Public
Private
Public
Public
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
COMMECIAL
RISK
DURATION
and Public
Public
1-2 years
Public
Public
3-5 years
Public
Public
Private
Public
Private
Private
and Private
Public
Private
Private
Shared
Private
Private
8-15 years
25-30
20-30
Private
Private
Public
or Private
and
Private
Private
Indefinite
(may
be
limited by
licence)
Source: World Bank (WB), 1997. “ Toolkit for PPP in water and sanitation”
According to a recent study from the South African Institute for International Affairs, in
cases where partnerships have been able to best deliver desired outcomes, thorough
planning, good communication, strong commitment from parties and effective
monitoring, regulation and enforcement by the government was present (UN, 2005).
Bringing an end to monopoly of public companies in the country with Law no. 18/99
which accommodates liberalisation, coupled with the newly established National
Investment Strategy document, and Rwanda Investment and Export Promotion Agency
(RIEPA) which have a mandate to assist and guide local and international investors to
make informed decisions before and after venturing their business in the country,
shows signs of an intent by the government to promote private investment in the
country.
Communication and transportation sectors have already attracted
international and local investors, but water and sanitation sectors are still lagging
behind, probably because they require huge initial investment, while requires long
recovery period. Another possible reason may be the fact that there is no markets in
sanitation provision services, as the existing trend in Rwanda is “do it yourself”
approach.
2.5 Pro-Poor Urban Sanitation Planning
2.5.1 Challenges for urban water and sanitation in Rwanda and East Africa
The rapid urbanisation in Rwanda as it is in other East African countries is a big
challenge for town administrators, planners and Engineers, as it comes along with a
tremendous demand of urban environmental infrastructure for water supply,
wastewater as well as solid waste disposal. Towns are struggling to meet ever
increasing demand, and there are no signs that adequate water and sanitation services
will be provided in the near future to the people living in urban areas. Failure in
expanding and extending these services to reach all the people has been down to
many factors including lack of financial resources to invest in new infrastructures,
24
existing infrastructure which do not pay back because of inefficient management,
inability to plan for services, and that the existing infrastructure were built to cater for
the minority during colonial period on supply based approach when the cities were
smaller than they are today (Nilsson D, 2006). These problems are compounded by
the general lack of a commercial orientation in utility management, and inappropriate
tariffs regimes. With the growing urban population reported in many developing
countries, water utilities need to quickly adopt robust plans and strategic actions to
improve operational efficiency and reduce the service gap ( Mugabi et al, 2007).
Poor neighbourhoods are the most hit with inadequate or no water and sanitation
services in Developing countries (Spaargaren, G., et al, (2005). If adequate and
equitable delivery of water and sanitation in urban areas is to succeed in developing
countries, good planning approaches is key to achieving this goal, but this planning
should be strategic in nature, focusing on the most important issues and allowing for
the many uncertainties that are inherent in the current situation (Tayler and Parkinson,
2005). Traditional or conventional planning approach (Top-down), built on beuroctaric
mechanisms where by projects are brought to the people by administrators, and
engineers without consulting end users have proved to be financially, environmentally
and morally unsustainable (van Vliet, 2006), (Chambers R., 1994), and (Tayler and
Parkinson, 2005). Conventional planning has been accused by both Neo-liberalist as
being un-economically viable, because it is supply-driven rather than being grounded
in demand-driven (market-based) , hence does not make comprehensive study of the
demand by consulting the users prior to project implementation. Development theorists
as well accuse conventional planners for not adopting a new development model,
grounded in the insights and demands of service users, rather than professionals
(Chambers R., 1994).
2.5.2 The need for Strategic sanitation planning
The strategic sanitation approach promoted by the Water and Sanitation Program of
the UNDP-World Bank is meant to be flexible and adaptive planning so that it can
incorporate lessons from new experiences and innovations in the sanitation sector
worldwide. Due to uncertainties associated with comprehensive planning, it is advised
that planners make a series of action plans to implement projects. Recently, planning
theorists have come to agree to adopt “adaptive approach” to planning, based on
concepts of strategic planning (Tayler and Parkinson, 2005). Adoptive approach to
planning means avoiding comprehensive reforms, the efficacy of which can not be
predicted, rather planners should start with what is known already, focusing on actions
that will broaden the knowledge base, and then prepare for comprehensive change
when the time arrives.
The approach also involves a wider choice of technology options; recognition and
analysis of consumers’ willingness to pay for perceived benefits; methods of matching
service levels to affordability so as to achieve optimum coverage with economic
efficiency; innovative financing mechanisms and institutional frameworks, including
unbundling of investments into affordable parts (Wright A. M., 1997). Unbundling of
investment and services is aimed at increasing competition among service providers
with the aim to provide competitive services to customers.
Strategic planning is crucial for making sure, water and sanitation services reaches the
poor in developing country. This is because it is grounded in principles of participatory
25
approach, where by the citizens get involved in mapping their real problems, and find
solution with the guidance of professionals. This builds trust between the users and
providers of services and makes them responsible consumers rather than passive (van
Vliet B., et al, 2004), and may contribute to look after, support projects and their
willingness to pay for the services (Wright A. M., (1997). Strategic planning avoids a
situation where by city official sit and wait for directives from upper levels, hence
depriving them creativeness and culture of planning, which often lacks in countries
where conventional-planning approach is a practice. The key two principles of strategic
planning approach are that it is demand-based and incentive/rules-driven. In
operational terms, the demand-based approach requires stakeholder participation, and
the incentive-driven approach requires rules, referees and rewards. Incentive can
stimulate behaviour required from key actors including users, suppliers, service
providers, and government officials to achieve sustainable expansion of sanitation
coverage (Wright A. M., (1997). Rules govern the relationship and interaction between
the utility/infrastructure, service, and the users. Wright in (Tayler and Parkinson, 2005)
suggests that the adoption of a strategic approach to sanitation planning is only
possible if an adaptable and responsive institutional framework is already in place. This
is why decentralised policy need to be institutionalised in developing countries so that
even the poor can be part of projects, and this has to go along with capacity building
through training and raising awareness for town official as well as the citizen. The
training should cater for citizens rights and knowledge to identify and make responsive
choices from different alternatives brought about by professionals. Strategic planning
calls for change of attitudes and roles for professionals and citizen. During planning,
the roles and attitude of professionals should be intermediaries and active listeners
while citizen’s role changes to key actors.
The experience of Strategic sanitation planning is that with clear guidance on
technological options, and freedom to make arrangements for payments and local
management of facilities, residents are usually able to help develop affordable and
effective solutions. According to Wright (1997), Women in particular need to be
involved, because they are the principle users and managers of household water and
sanitation services; If women are excluded or involved only indirectly, programs are
usually not sustainable.
2.6 Conclusion
Centralised or grid based sanitation systems, which have dominated and shaped the
way people appreciate high standards of sanitation, especially in the developed
countries, requires intensive investment, not only in purchasing and piping sewer
networks and treatment plants, but also their running cost after installation. Most of
existing grid-based sanitation systems today requires local or central governments’
intervention in providing subsidies so that they can keep providing services. This
makes it difficult, if not impossible for poor countries to have economically and
environmentally sustainable grid-based sanitation systems. Where centralised
sanitation exist in Africa, the systems are characterised by inefficiency and
inconsistency caused by frequent breakdowns, poor maintenance, unqualified
personnel and depleted finances (Cross, P. & Morel, A, 2005)
Compared to decentralised (on-site) and community based sanitation systems,
centralised sanitation systems wastes much more precious drinking water and energy
whose treatment and production is very costly, to transport sewer to long distances
where it is discharged, giving no chance for re-use or nutrients recovery.
26
On other hand, on-site (decentralised sanitation systems), based on appropriate
technologies, although they are not water based, they pollute ground water which
eventually depletes water sources. Another disadvantage is that, they are not efficient
(low tech), don’t meet hygiene standards, therefore endangers both public health and
the environment.
Inefficiencies of existing centralised (off-site) and decentralised (on-site) sanitation
systems, does not end in their financial, environmental or technical draw backs alone,
because on social perspective, they both don’t provide a room for social networks.
Grid-based systems make customers captive, giving them no chance to make or
determine their own choices in terms of who provides them with services and how
much they will pay and consume. The existing decentralised encourage “do it alone
attitude” so these systems too don’t create social networks which could help in creating
platforms for learning how to improve sanitation technologies, or cost reduction.
It is from all the above rationale that in cities of developing countries like Kigali, where
there is no adequate resources to sustain grid-based sanitation systems, Modernised
Mixture Approach which take the best features out of both centralised and
decentralised systems, may be the best option. Modernised Mixture Approach leaves
room for improvement since it adopts integrated approach in planning, designing and
implementation of sanitation projects. It takes into consideration the local context,
bringing together all important stakeholders, including owners (citizen), expatriates
(researchers) and private sector. With modernised Mixture Approach, confidence can
be built between important stakeholders, and this can be very useful in bridging the
gap between the existing technologies, technological niches and new technologies,
thereby going away with technologies which deplete financial resources, the
environment and public health.
In the following chapter, the on going landscape developments in terms of political
governance and decision making platforms in Rwanda is presented. This will be used
in chapters five when establishing whether or not these developments will provide
opportunities for change towards Modernised Mixture Approach in the city of Kigali and
in poor neighbourhoods in particular.
27
3. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR POLICY MAKING IN
RWANDA
3.1 Political Transformation (Modernisation): From Four decades of Centralised
to Decentralised Governance.
Rwanda has had an outrageous social-political history since attaining her
independence from Belgium Administrators in 1962. The post-colonial regimes badly
governed the country with policies based on ethnic discrimination, regionalism and
favouritism (Akodjenou, 1995). This sort of policies which were institutionalised by
respective governments of the 1960s and 70s distorted the harmonious social
structures of Rwandans who otherwise share same language, neighbourhoods and
cultural practices. The political power was concentrated at the state (the president) and
was transferred down to his self appointed Ministers, Regional Prefects and District
Burgomasters, resulting in subject-object relationship between the population and their
leaders. It is in the course of this long history of bad governance that climaxed with a
systematic campaign of genocide which eliminated a million of Tutsis and Hutus who
opposed the ideology in 1994.
The relationship that existed between the state, market and civil society was that which
is described by Tatenhove et al (2000) as early Political modernisation characterised
by insulation of state, market and civil society, with each sphere functioning to its own
rationalities, but what missed in Rwanda was competition and solidarity for markets
and society respectively, however it is described in “early modernisation” the state
remained allocative and “power container”.
During the time, the government organised different obligatory environmental programs
in rural areas which like in many African countries, were limited to conservation, such
as tree planting and terracing for soil erosion protection in farms, and the role of the
population was to implement these programs without them participating in decision
making on which programs were beneficial to them.
3.1.1 Genesis of Decentralisation Governance in Rwanda
Governance is understood as a model of social coordination, is different from
governing; which is an act, a purposeful effort to steer, guide, control and manage
society. Governance is one gets to act, through what type of interactions (deliberation,
negotiation, self regulation or authoritative choice) and the extent to which actors
adhere to collective decisions (Kemp, R., et al,2005). From 1998-1999, the Office of
the President of Republic of Rwanda, launched national reflection sessions on the bad
history which the country had endured since independence, so that Rwandans could
think on what kind of a nation they wanted in the future. This consultative sessions
brought together all levels of Rwandan society, including politicians representing their
political parties, civil society from all corners of the country and ordinary citizens from
rural areas. After a year long debates and extensive consultation, the Government of
the then, National Unity which comprised of all political parties in the country which did
not participate in the 1994 genocide, led by Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF), came out
with a document and called it VISION 2020.
The ambitious and practicable vision expresses the aim of attaining per capita income
of a middle-income country in an equitable way, and the aspirations to become a
modern, strong and united nation, without discrimination between its citizens (Vision
2020, 2000). Six priority pillars and three cross cutting areas which will move along
28
these pillars were identified. One of cross-cutting issues that are on priority is
environmental sustainability, and given the bad history Rwanda has undergone no
wonder Good Governance is the topic of the first pillar.
Today, Vision 2020 is a main document which provides a direction to all other
important social-political national documents including Economic Development and
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (EDPRS), Decentralisation Policy, National
Investment Strategy and others social- economic policy papers.
The purpose of this sub-section is not to discuss the Vision 2020, but I will briefly
discuss on a it’s relevant pillar for this study16, Good Governance because it is believed
that poor governance has direct negative consequences on the environment
(Musahara H., & Huggins C, 2005) in Huggins & Clover, (2005), relates that lack of
local involvement in resource management have been recognised as one of the
fundamental obstacle to sustainable development. The majority of Rwandans live
below the poverty line and depend largely on the use of natural resources, so it is
important that these resources are managed in a sustainable way to mitigate the
problem of resource degradation.
Tatenhoven, , et al, (2000), defines Political Modernisation as the process of
transformation within the political domain of society. In the case of Rwanda, there has
been notable Political Transformations which are the result of implementation of Vision
2020. In May 2001 a National Decentralisation Policy was instigated with the overall
objective to ensure political, economical, social, managerial /administrative and
empowerment of local populations to fight poverty by participating in planning and
management of their development process (National Decentralisation Policy, 2001).
This Policy have legal and political foundation and is accepted by “ The Arusha Peace
agreement between the Government of Rwanda and the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF)
signed during the war between the two in 1993 (the agreement aimed at power
sharing between the then rebels RPF and The former MRND Government),
Constitutional provision that all the power emanates from people and that the national
sovereignty belongs to Rwandese people, and the Presidential Consultations held from
may 1998 to March 1999 which resolved that decentralisation and democratisation will
be one of policies to reconcile the Rwandese people and fight poverty.
3.2 The Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
In implementing this policy, political and administrative divisions of the country were
revised and created by law, resulting in Rwanda being divided into five Regions
(Intara) from 12 Prefectures (Regions) in 2006. The immediate lower structure which
was previously a Commune was changed to a District (Akarere), but Akarere became
bigger in size and population than a commune. The division of Intara and Akarere were
subjected to criteria like Size of population, accessibility of public Services, economic
viability and environmental considerations. From Akarere, the immediate lower levels is
Umurenge (Sector), followed by Akagari (Cellule). According to the decentralisation
16
Other pillars of Vision 2020 beside Good Governance are:
- Human Resource Management and a Knowledge-based economy
- Private sector-led Development
- Productive high value and market oriented agriculture, and
- Regional and International Integration.
29
policy document, Regions will be eliminated frpm Rwandan administrative structures
when decentralisation process becomes complete.
Policy Implementation process started in 2001 and has been through “adoptive
approach” with three phases17, guided by elaborated policy instruments18. The phases
are now being pursued, and the second phase started in 2006. The Intara level will be
removed from national administration structures to reduce beurocracy and bring close
decision making process near to local governments.
This means that at the end of phase three, we will have a Akarere (district), Umurenge
(sector) and Akagari (Cellule) with very big powers. Akagari is the basic Politicoadministrative unit of the country with legal entity and powers. It is led by elected
members of the Akagari Executive Committee (AEC), who are also members of upperlevel, Umurenge Council (UC). The composition of Akagari is almost similar to levels
above it and at unlike at Akagari level where all the citizen participate in election of
their leaders, the members of committees at upper level of Umurenge and Akarere are
elected by Akagari and Umurenge representatives respectively. In both Umulenge and
Akarere there are technical staff who represent the central government under different
Ministries, but all are employees of the Ministry of Local Government.
For Decentralisation policy to be implemented successfully the first thing was to
execute Fiscal Decentralisation at Akarere and Umurenge level and this was backed
by the Fiscal Decentralisation Law of November 2001 and a 5 year a Decentralisation
Implementation Program (DIP). This provided legal, policy and technical framework for
devolving power and functions from Central Government to local Authorities at District
and cellule level.
Three evaluation assessments were carried out in 2003, 2004 and 2005 and were
conducted by Rwanda development partners represented by USAID/RWANDA who
also prepared a term of reference for a consultant. In these evaluations, the following
achievements were acknowledged:
- Organising successful elections for local leadership at the cellule, the sector
and district levels and presidential election
- Promotion of participatory culture in identification, negotiation and subsequently
implementation and monitoring of community projects and programs
- Institutionalisation of Local governance
- Establishment of Fiscal decentralisation mechanisms through CDFs and
Devolved taxes
- Bottom-up participatory planning and budgeting using CDCs
The three phases of decentralisation in Rwanda are
- Phase one, Deconcentration of the Intara level and devolution at the Akarere level
- Phase two, To raise capacities at Akarere level, so that some functions and responsibilities at
Intara level can be decentralised to the Akarere with responding resources and some
administrative functions at Akarere will be deconcentrated to Umulenge
- Phase three: The capacities at Akarere level and Umulenge should be sufficient to take on all
responsibilities and functions at Intara level.
18 Decentralisation policy framework in Rwanda is elaborated in four policy instruments:
- Decentralisation policy, adopted in the year 2000
- Decentralisation Implementation Strategy (2000)
- Fiscal and Financial Decentralisation policy (2001)
- Community Development Policy (2001).
17
30
Conflict resolution mechanism in which elected leaders in decentralised
structures played an important role in traditional courts (Gacaca) and
reconciling citizens
- Decentralised service delivery as a tool was developed in Rwanda.
The same evaluations indicated challenges which Local Governments encounter, and
these can be summarised here as:
- Weak fiscal potential and revenues for Local governments
- Poor service delivery
- Weak institutional coordination and un-harmonised financial support from the
Central Government and Donors.
To address these challenges, the Ministry of local Government ventured reforms to
correct the weaknesses which included restructuring to strengthen financial base of
local governments, clarification of roles and responsibility with the aim of deepening
decentralisation, reviewing fiscal decentralisation where funds budgeted and provided
reflected functions and responsibility, Strengthening human resources base by
recruiting qualified employees for functions and restructuring their salaries with the aim
of retention, and lastly but not least was the institutionalising public accountability
mechanisms. The figure bellow shows future relations between state, local
governments and civil society as described in Decentralisation policy.
-
Figure 8: Institutional Framework after full implementation of Decentralisation Policy,
presenting the position of the State, Local Government and Civil Society
STATE
LOCAL GOV AND CIVIL SOCITY
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT)
-
Ministries
Gov.
Departments
Gov. Parastatals
DISTRICT
( Akarere)
CITIZENS
- Akagari
- Umurenge
SENATE AND
PARLIAMENT
LNGOs/
CBOs
INGOs
Source: Author, Designed using information obtained in Rwandan Decentralisation Policy
Today the implementation process is still in its second phase. Notable at this stage is
that there has been considerable effort in raising human capacity in local
government, after a National Public Service reform of the year 2005, where elected
members of councils and executives, administrative and technical staff in Akarere
and Umurenge possesses a minimum education level of a university degree. There
have been a lot of training on good governance, and a big share on a budget put
aside for training local government officials and council members (“Budget ordinaire
du district de Nyarugenge”, 2006 – 2008) is a good evidence of the government’s
31
policy to promote Good Governance in the country. In an effort by the Ministry of
Local Government to retain qualified officials in local governments, salaries were
raised considerably. Today these Local government employees are among the well
paid government staff and this helps them to de-associate themselves from
corruption.
Another notable achievement is the out-put based performance, a strategy which
include all areas of social-economical activities including environmental protection. In
this strategy, citizen participate in mapping their priority projects, based on the
problems on the ground, and sign voluntary “performance contracts” containing
measurable indicators with their leaders at the district (Akarere) level. The District
Executives then sign these performance contracts with the President of the Republic
on behalf of councils and the citizen. The outcome of these “performance contracts”
were in 2006 evaluated by independent consultants from the National University of
Rwanda for the Ministry of Local government and the result of their assessment
indicated accelerated development in communities.
As mentioned earlier, the district ( Akarere) will in the third phase of decentralisation
policy implementation be an administrative structure to link the central government
(the state) on one hand and the Sectors ( Umirenge) and Cellules ( Akagari) on the
other. The Regions (Intara) will be eliminated in future government structures. The
functions that will be devolved to Akarere are many, and require a lot of resources
but the mechanisms for copping with the responsibilities put at Akarere have been
dealt with in terms of financial resources and human capacity although there are still
a lot of challenges. Fiscal and financial decentralisation measures were established
to facilitate the districts to acquire financial resources for operational and
developmental activities, how ever a comprehensive assessment study on the fiscal
potential of all decentralised entities in Rwanda conducted in 2004, under financing
of the Royal Netherlands Embassy showed wide disparities between the potential tax
bases of different Districts and indicated that a big number of them would not be able
to sustain themselves financially, necessitating perpetual dependency on central
transfers, hence questioning their financial sustainability (EDF, 2005). Some of the
functions that have been devolved to the Akarere from the Central Government for
Urban districts are:
- Urban and Land use planning,
- Ownership of infrastructure, construction and maintenance of roads, footpaths,
street lightning, water supply, sanitation, sewage, storm water drainage solid
waste management
- Environmental protection and management and green areas
- Primary health care (including maternity centres, clinics, pharmacies,
dispensaries, prevention and control of communicable diseases including
HIV/AIDS
- Education ( Primary, secondary and vocation schools
- Markets and trade licences
- Small scale industries
- Vulnerable groups such as widows and orphans of HIV and genocide
32
3.3 Community Collective Action (Ubudehe) as an Instrument for Inclusive
Governance in Rwanda
The Community Collective Action (CCA) or sometimes called Area-Based Initiatives
(ABI) is in the traditions of Rwandans since pre-colonial period. It is imbedded in
Rwandese and African culture of togetherness and willingness to give to the needy
“Ubuntu”. CCA or ABI which is called in local language (Kinyarwanda) Ubudehe have
traditional and cultural value,
and was used to bring the neighbours together and join hands to solve problems that
could not be solved by one family. Ubudehe was also used to help the vulnerable like
the old and widows. Some of activities which were accomplished through Ubudehe
were harvesting, when the harvests were in larger quantities than a family could
manage especially when the rain season was approaching and could destroy the
produce still in the farm, planting, building or maintenance of houses especially for the
vulnerable. Ubudehe existed and still exist in Rwanda, and from its cultural
background; it was a tool to bring household together to act collectively to share the
burden and make sure that no one was left behind, during planting or harvesting
season.
CCA or ABI is not a Rwandan phenomenon alone. CCA or ABI have existed in the
North for many years as well, with the aim to solve and address the needs of the
population in a geographically bounded area according to their priorities, rather than
standardised, country wide provision. According to Fisher J., (2003) in the United
Kingdom, over a last quarter of a century, the British Government have developed a
plethora of initiatives in the framework of ABI targeting the most disadvantaged
neighbourhoods. The Government provides funds, and the interventions are planned
and implemented at a local level
Until before 2001 when the Government of Rwanda decided to institutionalised
Ubudehe, as a way to bring back people together to fight poverty and promote
decentralisation through inclusive governance, Ubudehe had started to be seen by
people as an out-dated concept. This was caused by the fact that, people no longer
have large areas to cultivate, so they would not need a help from neighbours, and in
urban areas, people earn money from other activities such as doing business and
working in offices and get paid salaries. The Government of Rwanda realised the
potency of Ubudehe practices in bringing together people living in the same
neighbourhood, and decided to institutionalise it so that it can help in an attempt to
promote inclusive governance through decentralisation. The department of Ubudehe
and a program to promote the concept were established in the Ministry of Local
Government and Community Development (MINALOC) with the mandate to build
human and financial capacity at the lowest level of administration, the cellule
(umurenge).
Ubudehe is rooted in the community and does not exclude any section of a society
behind, therefore enables all the households in the neighbourhood to prepare a social
map, prioritise their needs, prepare an action plan and monitor the implementation of
the selected collective action. As an instrument of Decentralisation, Ubudehe is
consistent with both Vision 2020 and EDPRSP which guide all reforms and initiatives
being undertaken by the government, so when there is a target set by local
administration in consultation with the citizen; Ubudehe becomes a forum for inclusive
33
decision making and implementation. A lot of projects have been implemented at
grass-root level in the country, both in urban and rural areas through Ubudehe, and the
MINALOC through Ubudehe program have supported cellules (Umurenge) country
wide, with $1000 each so that they can carry out projects designed, monitored and
implemented by themselves.
3.4 Conclusion
In conclusion, Rwanda has endured a terrible history characterised by divisionism
since its independence in 1963. The unrest and lawlessness experienced in post
independence period was to the large extent contributed to centralised form of
administration which was cantered at the state, and its instruments.
Political transformation that has taken place since the establishment, followed by
implementation of decentralisation policy in 2001, which promises participatory
governance encourages involvement of the citizen in deciding their fate. The policy can
be seen as a way to regroup and unite Rwandan society, whose society is still deeply
divided following the events of the 1994 genocide.
Implementation of decentralisation in Rwanda is still in its second phase, and
evaluation done after phase one indicates that, there is still a lot to be done, in terms of
local governments sustaining themselves financially so that they can cope with
demands brought by the implementation of decentralisation of powers and
responsibilities. Success of implementation of decentralisation policy remains to be
seen, and will highly depend on the willingness of politicians and opinion leaders in the
society to understand their role in giving opportunities the citizen to participate actively
in decision making processes. Values of ubudehe which are imbedded in Rwanda
culture can be reviewed and practised to make it a good platform for decision making
and implementation of different projects.
According to Kemp, R., et all (2005), decentralised governance and sustainable
development are concepts which are children of the same history, and Modernised
Mixture approach and its system elements work efficiently under these kind of
environments, therefore, establishment of decentralised and democratic governance in
Rwanda, provides good environment for institutionalisation of Modernised Mixture
systems.
34
4. RESEARCH RESULTS
4.1 Institutional framework for water and sanitation
4.1.1 Stakeholders Analysis for water and sanitation provision
A stakeholder analysis is a technique used to identify and assess the importance of
key people, groups of people, or institutions that may significantly influence the
success of a sector, project or an organisation, and this can be done by one person
alone or as a team of people (Irwin, R.A & Stansbury, J., 2004).
In this sub-chapter, different actors in water and sanitation at national level as well as
at district level, in this case Nyarugenge district are identified. Their influence,
interest, roles and responsibilities can be found in table 4. In regards to institutional
framework for water and sanitation, at national level, water supply and sanitation
remains to be under the Ministry of Land, Environment, Forestry, Water and Mines
(MINITERE), while districts are owners and managers of municipal sanitation
systems. A district also plays the role of monitoring and compliance of domestic
sanitation systems, but the management remains to be the responsibility of individual
institutions and households.
Line ministries and other actors in sanitation are presented in the table bellow.
Determination of the influence of stakeholders was made by personal judgment of the
author, basing on the information gathered during field work and knowledge obtained
after working for four months as an intern with REMA.
Table 4: Water and sanitation stakeholders, their roles, interests and influence
ORGANISATION
Ministry of Lands,
Environment, water
and
mines
(MINITERE)
and its Water and
Sanitation Unit
ROLES
RESPONSIBILITY
•
•
•
•
•
Ministry
of
Infrastructure
(MININFRA) with the
help of its “Special
Unit”
•
Ministry of Health
(MINISANTE)
•
•
AND
INTERESTS
INFLUENCE:
VH = VERY HIGH
H = HIGH
L = LOW
To define the overall
policy of water and
sanitation.
Mobilising funds for
the sector
Organise activities of
WSS
Planning of water and
sanitation projects
Funding of water and
sanitation
projects,
using
governments
funds,
but
also
bilateral
and
multilateral
donors
funds
•
Implementation
of
investment and labour
intensive water and
sanitation projects
Contribute in policy
making process
To put in place
health/hygiene
•
Development of
infrastructure in
Rwanda
H
•
Good hygiene
and a healthy
H
35
•
Environmental
sustainability
Sustainable
and equitable
provision
of
water
and
sanitation
services
VH
•
Ministry of Finance
and
Economic
Planning
(MINICOFIN)
•
•
•
•
Ministry of Local
Governments(
MINALOC), it’s CDF
head quarter and
UBUDEHE program
•
The City of Kigali
•
•
•
•
District
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rwanda
Environment
Management
Authority (REMA)
•
•
standards
and
regulations for water
and sanitation
Ensures compliancy in
hygiene
standards,
through its department
of inspection
Financing
of
MINITERE budget
Harmonises external
finances
Participates in the
determination of tariffs
Supervises
Institutional reforms
Ensure
good
governance in all local
administration levels
Playing
an
intermediary role in
channelling funds for
dev. projects
Provides
technical
support to the district
on
municipal
sanitation
Participates
in
inspection
of
sanitation
systems
and hygiene for hotels
Participates in policy
making process
Ownership of Water
and
sanitation
infrastructure
Mobilising funds (eg.
tax
collection
as
stipulated by law and
decentralisation policy
Prepare budgets and
projects as required by
citizens
Delegation of smaller
projects
to
lower
(Sector level)
Implementation
of
MINITERE and other
government
policies
and specific projects
Participate in policy
making process
To set up environment
standards
and
regulations (eg. EIA,
Critical-Load
Exceedance, etc.)
Monitoring
and
compliance
36
society
Best
practices
in
financial management
•
•
•
Good
governance
VH
Clean City
H
Availability of funds and
personnel to implement
sanitation projects
•
VH
Environmental
sustainability
H
H
•
Rwanda
Utility
Regulatory Agency (
RURA)
•
•
ELECTROGAZ
•
•
Environmental
awareness
To ensure services
are
provided
according to required
standards
To ensure there is
good conditions for fair
completion
in
provision of public
services
To distribute water
and energy (electricity)
Implementation
of
water projects
Provision
of
high
quality
services
H
•
To
supply
adequate water
to its customers
Make enough
profit
Competitive
Rwandan
products
L
•
To
participates
in
•
inspection
of
sanitation systems of
hotels
and
other
businesses along with
MINISANTE The City
of Kigali
NGOs
and
• To provide water and
• Sustainable
Multilateral
sanitation
facilities,
development in
Organisation (BAD,
especially to the poor
the framework
WB, EU, UN-Habitat,
of MDGs
• To provide technical
PIGU, WHO, etc.)
support
• Advice in policy
Private
sector
• To participate in policy
• Making
good
(Industries,
hotels
making process
profit
and
other
• Participate
in
• Fair regulations
businesses)
implementation
of
government policies
• To comply with the
set standards and
regulation
Sectors (Umurenge)
• To
participate
in
• Good water and
and the Community
implementation
sanitation
services
• Participate in policy
making process
• To comply with the set
standards
and
regulation
• Beneficiary of water
and sanitation projects
Source: Author, with the help of different formal and informal interviews
Rwanda Bureau of
Standards (RBS)
•
•
H
VH
L
L
4.2 Policy and Legal framework for water and sanitation in Rwanda
4.2.1 Policy framework
Besides water and sanitation sector policy, which complements an environmental
policy, provision of water and sanitation are very much emphasised in other major
country’s policies and documents such as PRSP, now known as EDPRS, Vision
2020, and National Investment Strategy document.
37
4.2.2 Environmental policy
The first ever environmental policy in Rwanda was instituted in 2004, and this was a
starting point towards the establishment of Organic law for environmental protection
and later Rwanda Environment management Authority (REMA).
The policy recognises the adoption of environmentally friendly technologies and that
the technology constitutes high priority for central and local authorities. The policy
also understands the role of private sector and civil society in coordinated and
harmonious actions which favour the environment.
4.2.3 National Water and Sanitation Sector Policy
The national water and sanitation policy is a very important document which guides
water and sanitation provision in the country. The policy does not only address issues
of water and sanitation services, but also issues of water availability for agricultural,
industrial, energy, transportation and other economic uses of water. This broadness
of the policy is reflected in high responsibility that the Water and Sanitation Unit in
MINITERE bears. The policy is oriented to achieving the Vision 2020, MDG and other
national and international policies and agreements such as National Investment
strategy, Agenda 21, e.t.c. On water and sanitation, the policy provides national
goals, strategies and programs. The weaknesses of policy document is that it
doesn’t seem to be well organised. Reading the principles and vision of the sector in
the box below, and many other parts of the policy document, one can see a number
of unclear statements. Another example which is not in the box is where it list one of
its objectives which is, I quote “To increase the use of water for energy production”.
This may be in the framework of using renewable energy, if one may take it on a
positive, but the way it is presented does not sound sustainable. The reason for poor
presentation of a policy document may be due to the fact that the policy was
translated from French to English and that the translator may not have good
translation abilities. Besides that, one can also notice that, there are technical issues
which are left unclear such as, baseline year for set goals of accessibility to safe
water and sanitation. Other issues which are not clear or miss are data and set goals
for sanitation for both urban and rural areas.
The box bellow includes the Vision and principles on which Water and sanitation
sector policy is based on:
38
Box 2: Principles of National Water and Sanitation Sector Policy
3.1
Principles of the sector policy
The water and sanitation sector-based policy is based on the following principles:
Each person has right to access to water services
Water has value and is a social and economic good
Priority should be awarded to safeguard the satisfaction of the county’s water needs
Men as well as women should equally participate in the water resource protection and
management
Water resource management should be integrated and made watershed
Water use should be rational and should take into account the environmental concern
The quality and quantity standards of water should be respected
The polluters will have to pay for the damage thus created
The gender perspective should be taken into account at all levels of water management
The beneficiaries should be responsible of their water and sanitation services
Each rural water supply must systematically contain a sanitation component
The utilization of transboundary water resource should be equitable
All water sector partners should be involved in water resource management
3.2
Sector Vision
The entire population will have access to clean drinking water and sanitation services;
The water rainfall collection and retention techniques will be mastered and utilized for
agricultural use
The natural water reservoirs especially forests at high altitudes will be renewed and
managed more appropriately
The water resources will be rationally managed and harmoniously integrated with regards
to the national master plan on the space use
The population will be able to ensure the equitable and sustainable resource management
The production, protection, distribution and sanitation water infrastructures will be
maintained by all users
Urban and rural areas will be in a healthy acceptable conditions
All households will have to acquire appropriate practices in hygiene and sanitation
Each town or development pole needs to acquire waste water and solid waste treatment
units
Source: : National Water and Sanitation Sector Policy, 2004
4.2.4 The Rwanda Vision 2020
The Vision 2020 is a document which spells the countries’ development agenda and
policies. It sets goals that should be achieved in 20 years, with the year 2000 taken
as a baseline. Vision 2020 provides clear objectives which are based on how
Rwandans envisions themselves as socially and economically stronger nation in the
year 2020.
In regard to water the vision is that by the year 2020, all the population of Rwanda
will have access to safe drinking water, and sets the increase rate of 2.5% per annum
from 52% which was the accessibility in the year 2000.
For sanitation, Vision 2020 reorganises poor sanitation systems as a cause pollution
of water resources, the environment and human diseases. It sets goals that “by 2020,
the rural and urban areas are to have sufficient sewerage and disposal systems.
Each town is to be endowed with an adequate unit for treating and compressing solid
39
waste for disposal”. What can be seen here is that there is no base line data for
sanitation, just as it is for all other water and sanitation policy documents.
4.2.5 The EDPRS
The latest version of EDPRS runs from the year 2008 to 2012. The document
consists of principle actions and goals which form the basis for all the strategies
aimed at developing the country. In regard to water and sanitation, EDPRS is the
only document which sets up goals and indicates the progress made so far compared
1990, a base line year for MDG for sustainable development. However there is no
consistency in its data base in water and sanitation sector, because the data
presented in EDPRS don’t match with the data in the first version named PRSP, and
National Water and Sanitation policy.
It was also observed that PRSP and its predecessor EDPRS lacks strategies for
sanitation which will help to achieve the set goals.
4.2.6 National Investment Strategy
The 2002 National Investment Strategy document/policy like the Environmental policy
encourages the private sector to participate in the provision water and sanitation
systems in rural and urban areas at affordable prices for the citizen. It states that the
state will continue to play a leading role in the development of water and sanitation
sector through the provision of the necessary infrastructure.
4.2.7 National human settlement policy
The main objective of the national human settlement policy in the urban areas is to
improve the settlement conditions of the urban population. However the policy is
completely silent on sanitation issues. For example the policy doesn’t determine or guide
land use for sanitation or solid waste management in urban areas.
4.3 Legal framework and relevant provisions
On the side of legal framework, new Rwandan constitution of 2003 as well as the
Organic Law determining the modalities of protection, conservation and promotion of
environment of April 2005, underscores the right of the citizen to good living
environment. They both underline obligations of the state and individual citizen to
protect the environment. In addition the organic law for environmental protection has
preventive and punitive provisions for those who pollute or destroy the environment.
Rwandan constitution clearly states in its 49th article that, every citizen have the right
to a healthy and satisfying environment. The same article continues stating that every
person have the duty to protect, safeguard and promote the environment, and that,
the state shall protect the environment. After reading this article and some other
articles in the organic law for environmental protection, one may take them to be
irrelevant to water and sanitation, but when taken in their totality, it becomes
obviously clear that unhygienic water and sanitary, as well as sanitation systems
which pollute the environment oppose the law. There are articles though which
specifically target waste management. For example, there are preventive provisions
which protect the environment from poor solid and wastewater management. Article
81 (part 1) prohibits any dumping or disposal of any solid, liquid waste or hazardous
gaseous substances in a stream, river, lake and in the surroundings. Same article (
part 2) continues by stating that it is prohibited to damage the quality of air, the
40
surface or underground water19. Another preventive provision related to sanitation is
found in article 83 and 84. In these two articles, it is stated clearly that it is prohibited
to dump in wetlands. Article 83 (part 1 and 2) continues to state that it is prohibited to
discharge wastewater or hazardous waste in wetlands, except after treatment in
accordance with instructions that govern it, and that any activity that may damage the
quality of water is prohibited. Article 84 prohibits keeping or any dumping of waste
which may encourage the breeding of diseases carriers and which may disrupt the
people and the property20.
The box bellow contains punitive provisions for those who dispose solid and
wastewater in an environmentally unfriendly ways.
19
Rwandan Organic Law determining the modalities of protection, conservation and promotion of
environment.
20
Ibid
41
Box 3: Punitive provisions for solid and wastewater management, from Organic law on
Environmental protection
Article 101:
Any one who undertakes illegal research or commercial activities of valuable minerals, is punished by a fine
ranging from one million (1,000,000) to two million and five hundred thousand (2,500,000) Rwandan francs
and an imprisonment ranging from six (6) months to two (2) years or one of these penalties.
Article 102:
Any one who dumps in unaccepted manner or without authourisation any waste that is subject to prior
authorisation provided for by this organic law is punished by a fine ranging from one million Rwandan francs
(1,000,000) to five million (5,000,000) Rwandan francs and an imprisonment ranging from six (6) months to
two (2) years or one of these two penalties.
Article 103:
Any one who pollutes inland water masses by dumping, spilling or depositing chemicals of any nature that
may cause or increase water pollution is punished by a fine ranging from two million (2,000,000) to five
million (5,000,000) Rwandan francs and an imprisonment ranging from two (2) months to two (2) years or
one of these penalties.
In case of recidivism, such a penalty is doubled. The offender may be required to rehabilitate the polluted
place.
Competent authorities may, in case of negligence, refusal or resistance, proceed to rehabilitate it but at the
expense of the offending party.
Article 105:
Any treatment plant which is authorised to treat waste products but which dumps it in inappropriate place is
punished by a fine ranging from one million (1,000,000) to ten million (10,000,000) Rwandan francs.
Any permission for collection of waste products in the country may be suspended at any time in case of non
respect of contractual obligations.
Article 107:
Any person who deposits, abandons or dumps waste, materials, or who pours sewage in a public or private
place, is punished by a fine ranging from ten thousand (10,000) to one hundred thousand (100,000) Rwandan
francs except if such a place has been designated by competent authorities.
The person is punished by a fine of ten thousand (10,000) Rwandan francs or he or she may be compelled to
clean the place where persons have polluted public or private property with human and domestic waste,
except if such a place has been designated by the competent authorities.
Article 115:
Investigations of infringements provided for by this organic law shall respect provisions of the law on the
rules of criminal procedure
Source: extracted from Rwandan Organic Law (No. 04/2005) determining the modalities of
protection, conservation and promotion of environment.
The observations during field trips at different institutions like industries, academic
institutions, hospitals and the prison indicates that the above laws are not enforced.
42
Firstly, the reasons that the law for environmental protection is not enforced is that , it
is itself new, and secondly, Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA)
which was established in 2005 to enforce the law is also still young with few staff who
are themselves new to the task of enforcing environmental standards. Another
problem is that, REMA have not published standards and guidelines for discharging
wastewater in the environment, which means, they do not have legal instruments for
law enforcement. In June 2007, a ministerial decree was passed by the cabinet which
appointed REMA senior employees and those working in the department of
compliance and enforcement to the rank of public prosecutor, as stipulated by
Organic law for the protection of the environment, so that they can have legal
jurisdiction to enforce the law. However when there are standards, guidelines, as well
as authorised organisations like laboratories to determine conformity and compliance
to standards, it will still be impossible to enforce the law. The lesson that can be
learnt here is that, on one hand, it is important to have institutional framework to
solve environmental problems, but on the other, establishing institution alone can not
be enough to address environmental problems when there are no qualified staff to
deal with technical issues such as preparation and interpretation of legal and policy
instruments.
4.4 Financing of water and sanitation systems
4.4.1 Financing at National level
In this sub-chapter financing of water and sanitation will be analysed at national level,
then analysis will descend to Nyarugenge district. On national level, water and
sanitation are financed by money from recurrent as well as development budget of
MINITERE, under its Water and Sanitation unit. Recurrent budget covers day- to- day
activities and salaries of sector employees and comes from internal revenues, while
much of the money for development budget is provided by external donors, and is
spent for water and sanitation infrastructure development as well as water resource
management. There are other Ministries such as MINISANTE, and MINEDUC, which
also tend to finance their own water and sanitation projects for example, sanitation for
schools, hospitals, or water supply for farmers, etc., which according to the director of
water and sanitation in MINITERE need to be harmonised so that the sector can
pursue good data management on the development of the sector.
The table below provides expenditure trends on water and sanitation from different
sources in the country.
43
Table 5: Water and Sanitation resource flow expenditure in millions (RWF) 2003-5
Source: GoR Budget, ELECTROGAZ and NGOs; Cited in Water and sanitation sector
performance 2006.
The table above highlights the allocation and actual expenditure to the sector. Actual
disbursement into the sector increased from 2003 to 2005 from 5. 4 to 19.8 billion
RwF. Substantial amount of the money from the national budget for the sector is
allocated to the utility company ELECTROGAZ which is responsible for urban water
supply. As mentioned, other line ministries benefit from sector government budget
and one can see that MINAGRI and MINALOC have increased their share of
allocation in recent years.
Notable also is that the majority of financial resources that fund the sector is provided
by external donors, which in 2005, accounted for 58% of the total resource flow to the
sector, at the same time, the contribution of external donors to the disbursement of
water and sanitation sector has more than tripled from 2003 to 2005.
When analysing on expenditure of resources into the sector, it is important to look at
the actual allocation of funds on each project so that one can realise how much is
actually spent on sanitation. According to different documents, water and sanitation
sector operates under four sub-programs, named Management support which is
responsible for among other things human resource capacity building, water resource
management, portable water and sanitation. The table bellow, indicates what was
allocated to each sub program between the years 2003 to 2005.
Table 6: Sector expenditure by sub-program (million RwF) 2003-2005
Source: water and sanitation sector performance indicator 2006.
44
From the above table, it can be observed that portable water had the biggest portion
of disbursed funds, compared to other sub-programs, which accounted for 92% of the
total sector expenditure in 2005, with sanitation accounting for only 7%. This means
that little funds were left to be allocated to fund sanitation projects; and this just
shows disparity in prioritization between the two sub-programs. For the year 2006
and 2007, the development budgets denotes huge dependence on external financing
of the sector, 73.9 % and 62.4% respectively, and there is no increase in the
allocation of funds from internal financing in the same period (2.3 and 8.2 billion RwF
in 2006 and 2007 respectively)21, as compared to the year 2005 when signs were
that, there was increase in internal disbursement to the sector (refer to table #
above).
The principle bilateral donors that that support water and sanitation sectors in
Rwanda are Germany, Austria, Belgium and Japan. Key multilateral donors include
the World Bank, FIDA, ADB, ABEDA, UNICEF and EU. Unlike other countries like
Kenya, where 70% of the donor funding is channelled through NGOs, most of the
money from donors for water and sanitation in Rwanda is channelled and
implemented through the national development budget, and only 7% is channelled
through NGOs, and this may be due to that donors have confidence in the
governance systems.22
4.4.2. Financing of sanitation systems in Nyarugenge district
Like at the national level, the financing of water and sanitation systems in
Nyarugenge district is guided by Rwandan Vision 2020 and EDPRS directives for
sustainable development. From the year 2006, all development activities in the
districts have been deciphered into performance contracts which are prepared by the
citizen themselves in the framework of both Vision 2020 and EDPRS.
The financing of water and sanitation like other development projects at district level
in the country is guided by Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) budget.
This is a framework for integrating fiscal policy and budgeting over the medium term
by linking a system of aggregate fiscal forecasting to a disciplined process of
maintaining detailed medium term budget estimates by districts, reflecting existing
government policies. Forward estimates of expenditures become the basis of budget
negotiations in the years following the budget and the forward estimates are
reconciled with final outcomes in fiscal outcome reports.
Nyarugenge district being an urban district do not allocate funds for water supply,
because water supply in urban areas and Kigali in particular is a responsibility of
ELECTROGAZ. From the year 2006, management of sanitation systems has been
devolved to district councils from Regions and City council for Kigali. This delegation
was preceded by fiscal decentralisation, so the funds which used to be provided by
the government to the city council for sanitation infrastructure development are now
given to district councils. The money for district projects from the government budget
is channelled through district’s CDF which has its head office in MINITERE.
Nyarugenge CDF, like other districts submits their projects and budgets to CDF head
office in MINITERE who examines projects and provides money to finance districts
projects.
21
22
2006 and 2007 development budgets for water and sanitation
Ibid21
45
As it is in Vision 2020 and EDPRS documents, in Nyarugenge district’s development
budget, sanitation is categorised under 4th pillar, infrastructure development, which
also encompasses projects on protection of the environment, natural resources
management and urbanisation.
Since sanitation is classified under infrastructure development, it was important for
the author to analyse how sanitation is ranked in terms of how it is financed by district
council compared to other projects. To achieve this, an MTEF development budget
was used and the table bellow indicates the portion of funds which are allocated for
each project.
Table 7: MTEF Development budget for Infrastructure Development in Nyarugenge district
(2007-2009)
Projects
2007
2008
2009
Road maintenance and
construction
Construction of offices
and other public buildings
Construction of portable
water infrastructure
Construction of run off
water drainage systems
Sanitation infrastructure
Total
2,125,769,200
2,404,000,000
4,098,000,000
Total
8,627, 769, 200
734,475,000
240,000,000
750,000,000
1,724, 475, 000
87,247,600
0
0
86,000,000
147,000,000
317,000,000
0
100,000
1,200,000,000
87, 247, 600
550, 000, 000
1,200,100,000
12,189,491,800
Source: Extracted from Nyarugenge MTEF Development budget for 2007-2009
In the table above it can be seen that in 2007, there is money planned for portable
water project, besides that water supply is not a responsibility of the district. This is
because there are new adopted administrative sectors which were previously part of
Kigali rural, and which do not have portable water infrastructure from ELECTROGAZ,
which at the moment has no plans to invest in the area. The money amounting to
over 158,000US Dollars (87 million RwF) have been planned to construct bore-holes
for people living in those former rural sectors. As can be seen, there is no money
allocated for sanitation for the year 2007, and almost in 2008, but, there is 2.2million
USDollars (1.2 billion RwF) proposed for two domestic sewage treatment plants to
save the City centre / Muhima, and Gitega/Nyamirambo in 200923.
In regard to the amount of money planned for sanitation in comparison to other
construction projects, the above table indicates that substantial amount of money is
planned for construction of Roads, which accounts for 70% of all the funds planned
for infrastructure development from 2007 to 2009, followed by construction of public
houses like markets and offices, while the funds designated for sanitation are less
than 10% in the same period24.
Financial sources which disburse different projects including environmental
infrastructure in Nyarugenge district are local collections as stipulated by law, and
fiscal decentralisation policy, money from the central government in the form of Block
grant, Capital grant (earmarked funds) and from CDF. Different ministries also fund
specific projects of interest for them. Much of the funds that disburse environmental
23
24
Nyarugenge district MTEF Development budget 2007-2009
ibid
46
infrastructure, come from foreign NGOs like “project des infrastructure et gestion
urbain” (PIGU) which is financed by the ADB, “Programme d'Appui a la Rencertion
Ecomique et Sociale de démobilisé de la ville Kigali” (PARES) financed by The EU,
and MININFRA financed beauro fund “Fond d’entretien routier” (FER) which finances
roads maintenance, and in doing so, it constructs runoff water drains along roads25.
In regards to financing of domestic, institutional and industrial sanitation systems, it is
obvious that since there is no centralised sewer system in Kigali, individual
households, institutions, businesses and industries are responsible in construction
and maintenance of their sanitation systems. In general, households with financial
power will own a septic tank, because it more hygienic but require enough water
supply and more money to construct than traditional pit latrine which are owned by
those who are not financially powerful. The cost of construction of a complete
automatic flushing toilet with a septic tank in Kigali can be in a region of 1,500 to
3,000US dollars, which is a lot of money for a common resident, while a tradition pit
latrine can be around 180-350US dollars, depending on the material used on the
supper structure. The cost of a pit latrine has dramatically risen in recent years
because of the government’s new law, which ban unauthorised cutting of trees, even
if you have a forest farm. This has also resulted in high prices of burned bricks.
In the following sub- chapters, we are going to identify stakeholders for water and
sanitation at national level and in the district.
4.5 Characteristics of Water and Sanitation Infrastructure in Kigali
4.5.1 Water supply
Portable water in Kigali City is supplied solely by a state owned public utility for
production, transmission and distribution of electricity and water (ELECTROGAZ).
Besides the capital city, the company provides electricity and portable water to all
major towns in the country, with over thirteen (13) drinking water treatment plants and
customer service offices.
ELECTROGAZ is a semi-autonomous public company with a Director General
appointed by cabinet of ministers. However principal decisions like investment,
planning and development budgets are taken by sentinel ministries of MINITERE for
water supply projects in its Water and Sanitation Unit and MININFRA in its Special
Unit, for Electricity projects. A Special Unit in MININFRA was established by the
government in 1994 and approved ten years latter with a mandate to study,
supervise and commission all intensive investment projects in the country. MINITERE
and MININFRA have a State Minister each responsible for water and energy
respectively and the two units are some of the departments directly under each of
them.
ELECTROGAZ enjoys monopoly in the country since its establishment after
separation from REGIDESO (a colonial period utility, owned by Rwanda and Burundi)
in 1976, besides that in August 1999, Rwandan Law no. 18/99 brought to an end
companies monopoly to accommodate liberalization in provision of electricity and
25
Separate interviews with Mr. Jean Pierre KAGABO and Mr. Fisto NDIKUMANA, In charge of Energy, water
and environment in MVK; and Acting Director of urban infrastructure, settlements and the environment in
Nyarugenge district respectively
47
water in the country. In 2003, the Government of Rwanda contracted Lahmayer
International, a Germany Consulting Engineering Company with 5 years
Management Contract to run ELECTROGAZ, but due to devoid of expectations on
the side of the government, and drought crisis of 2004/5 which resulted in substantial
fall of water level in all power stations and water plants, on the side of Lahmayer
International, the contract was friendly terminated in March 2006. This brake up
raises a lot of unanswered questions about viability of foreign private companies
which do not have in-depth information of the situation on the ground, in the provision
of urban environmental infrastructure services.
4.5.2 Water Sources
Portable water supplied in Kigali originates from three types of sources. The main
and biggest source is Yanze River, whose water is transported to Kimisagara
treatment plant for purification. The other source is ground water. This consists of
natural springs and a ground water plant. There are several natural water springs at
Rwampara, Mburabuturo, Kizanye, Kinyinya and Jali Mountain. The water obtained
from these natural water springs is safe and doesn’t require treatment; therefore it is
piped directly to main reservoirs ready to be pipes for supply to customers26. In
addition to that, there is also a ground water plant on Nyabarongo river valley. This
plant will be extended, but at the moment its production is about 3500M3/day
complimenting 26,000M3/day produced by the other sources mentioned above27.
Therefore, a total of approximately 30,000M3/day of portable water is produced by
ELECTROGAZ in Kigali. This water total covers only 47% of the water consumers’
demand. This is because the last major investment in water infrastructure which
involved the extension of Yanze River water source was in 1988 when the number of
customers in need for water at that time was less than a half of today’s cities
customers28.
ELECTROGAZ is stressed with water demand in the city. Water deficit in the city has
recently called for initiation of several projects which include: the extension of a
ground water production plant in Nyabarongo river valley, Karengye water plant in the
eastern province (which will supply water in Kimironko and Remera suburbs of Kigali)
and the upcoming Nyabarongo River drinking water project29. With the work that is
being done, it estimated that water production in Kigali will be increased by 50% in
the year 200830.
26
Interview with The Director of Water at ELECTROGAZ, Mr. Vedasté TWAGIRAYESU
27
Ibid
Data from ELECTROGAZ statistics office
29
Ibid26
30
The interview of the Director General of ELECTROGAZ Mr. John MIRENGE with New times of 28th May
2007.
28
48
Picture 1: A treatment plant for drinking water at Kimisagara, Kigali
Source: Author, December 2006
In Nyarugenge district where this study was conducted, water supply was reported to
be adequate in the city centre. This is a place where most of the public institutions
such as KIST and CHU/K hospital; private institutions like hotels and banks as well
as affluent residences like Kiyovu are located31. However, that was not the case in
poor neighbourhoods where less that 50% of the plots are in unplanned
settlements32.
As a result of implementation of decentralisation policy in the country, all the districts
in Rwanda were demarcated in 2006, making them bigger than they were before.
Because of this exercise, Nyarugenge district adopted Kinyinya, Kigali and
Mageragere sectors which were previously parts of Kigali rural province. People
living in these sectors live in completely unplanned settlement with no any urban
environmental infrastructure including water pipes and electricity network. This rural
characteristic makes these areas attractive to new immigrants who are still looking for
jobs and who can not afford to rent houses with water and electricity facilities found in
old Kigali city neighbourhoods
4.5.3 Access to water connections in Poor neighbourhoods
This sub-section presents the result of questionnaire survey conducted in December
2006.
In respect to access to portable water connections, the survey results basing on 233
households who answered the questionnaire indicated that only 50.2% of the
households in poor neighbourhoods have access to portable water connections,
while the remaining 49.8% fetch drinking water from other sources.
31
Interview with KIST Estate Manager Mr. RIZIKI and In charge of Hygiene at CHU/K Mrs Mary
MUKAKIGERI
32
Mr. Fisto NDIKUMANA, Acting Director of urban infrastructure, settlements and the environment in
Nyarugenge district
49
Figure 9: Access to portable water connections from ELECTROGAZ in poor neighbourhoods
n=233
60
50.2
49.8
50
Percentage
40
30
20
10
0
0
YES
NO
Portable w ater connection from ELECTROGAZ
Source: Author, 2007
Unlike in the city centre and affluent neighbourhoods where information gathered
from interviewees indicated adequate water supply from ELECTROGAZ, poor
neighbourhoods do not receive adequate water. The survey revealed that only 51.3%
of people with portable water connections in poor neighbourhoods get above 80% of
their total water requirements. 32.5% said they receive water between 60-80% of
their demand, while 12.8 get just 50% of their demand.
The analysis of other sources of water for 49.8% without access to portable water
connection in poor neighbourhoods was also carried out, and the results indicated
that the majority, 93% buy water from neighbours or ELECTROGAZ water kiosks
(stand pipes) at a price of 0.04 U.S dollars (20 Rwf) per 20 litres, while 6.1% fetch
water from water streams around Kigali city. Only 1% of those without access said
they fetch water from bore-holes or a well near the house, although this number may
be small because some vendors sell water from bore-holes.
50
Figure 10: Other sources of drinking water for households without portable water connection
%
n=115HH
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
93.0
6.1
0.9
I buy electrogaz
w ater from
vendors/electrogaz
standpipe
fetch w ater from a
w ell near my house
I fetch w ater from
the valley/river
Other sources of drinking w ater for households in poor
neighbourhoods
Source: Author, 2007
Reasons for inaccessibility of portable water in poor neighbourhoods were also
probed during a survey to determine why people do not have access to safe water
from ELECTROGAZ. The results showed that 73.6% of the households without
access to portable water in poor neighbourhoods (basing on 110 households
response) said that they do not have water at their houses because they can’t afford
water bills from ELECTROGAZ. 21.8% said they are satisfied with the water they get
from sources mentioned above like water kiosks and water streams, while 4.5% said
their plots are inaccessible for ELECTROGAZ to bring water connections to their
home, because of a difficult terrain and congestion of houses around theirs. Another
notable result which was obtained from the data of a survey is that there was no
significant difference on average in water consumption between people with and
without access to portable water respectively, as will be explained in the discussion.
51
Figure 11: Reasons for inaccessibility to ELECTROGAZ water connections in poor
neighbourhoods
n=110HH
80.0
73.6
70.0
Percentage
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
21.8
20.0
4.5
10.0
0.0
I am Satisfied
w ith w ater I get
from other
sources
I can not afford
w ater bills from
electrogaz
my plot is
unaccessible
Reasons for households for innaccess to
portable w ater connection from ELECTROGAZ
Source: The Author, 2007
A reason of inaccessibility to water from ELECTROGAZ for fringe suburbs mentioned
during interview was that, the company can not invest water network where there is
no enough water demand, and where there is a water network in place, and a new
customer applies water from ELECTROGAZ, the process of bronging water takes not
more than three weeks. The procedure that was told to the author is that
ELECTROGAZ makes a technical study which is paid for by a client. More payment
is made on the infrastructure and equipments like pipes by the client and the total
cost depends on the distance of the house from the ELECTROGAZ infrastructure
and the size of the pipes, but ranges between 40,000RwF to 90,000RwF33.
ELECTROGAZ is regulated by Rwanda Utility Regulatory Agency (RURA) for the
quality of the services to its customers, Rwanda Bureau of Standards and Ministry of
Health on the quality of water supplied, and Rwanda Environment Management
Authority (REMA) for Environmental protection.
In urban areas and Kigali in particular, the water supply systems can be described as
grid based, large scale system where by the customer participation in decision and
getting information on important issues like determination of water tariffs and
management is very limited. As it is now, ELECTROGAZ and line Ministries
particularly the Ministry of Lands, Environment, Forestry, Water and Mines
(MINITERE) and Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, together with Rwanda
Utility Regulation Agency (RURA) are the ones which make key decisions on water
tariff, investment, supervision and institutional reform of water and sanitation sector.
RURA was established in 2001 by law number 39/2001 of 15 October 2001, and its
main attributions are to ensure that public services are provided according to the
required standards and financially viable; good competitive conditions are maintained
33
Interview with The Director of Water at ELECTROGAZ, Mr. Vedasté TWAGIRAYESU
52
and investments in the sector are facilitated; and consumers are protected from
abuses of monopoly power.
Ás a result of the above arrangements of provision, there is no community
participation in water supply in Kigali. The principle of decentralization where by
ownership, responsibility and management of water supply systems belong to
community through their local governments have not worked in Kigali and other
urban areas because of the monopoly enjoyed by ELECTROGAZ. This is not the
case in rural areas though. In areas where ELECTROGAZ do not operate,
community participation exists, through communal organizations (“Regis
communales” or “inter communales”) where the facility is shared by two or more local
governments. Water users associations (Regis associatives) and private operators
which exists in rural areas are always contracted by local governments in the area34.
Private participation is water supply
through vendors and people who
Electrogaz, and given a large number
homes seen in this study, no one can
water provision in the city.
in Kigali is limited to informal water supply
own water houses (Kiosks) belonging to
of people without access to tap water at their
underestimate private involvement in portable
4.6 Municipal wastewater management in Kigali
Municipal wastewater refers to a mixture of domestic, effluent from commercial and
industrial establishments, and run off. In the following sub-chapter, different types of
wastewater management practices that found in Kigali are described. Existing
sanitation systems in households, institutions, industries and municipal runoff water,
together with solid waste management as part and parcel of municipal sanitation are
presented.
4.6.1 Domestic Sanitation systems
Kigali city unlike other East African cities such as Dar Es Salaam, Mwanza, Nairobi
and Kampala does not have a centralised sewer system for collection, transportation,
treatment and disposal of domestic and institutional wastewater. However, there are
three new estates in Kacukiro district with a small network of sewer pipes connected
to treatment plants.
Two of the three are owned by Social Security Fund of Rwanda (SSFR), one
Kakiru area (here under referred to as Kakiru SSFR plant), and another
Nyarutarama Vision 2020 estate ( to be referred to as Vision 2020 plant).
The third is also in Nyarutarama area, and its treatment facility belongs
Nyarutarama Property Development Association, which built most of the houses
the area.
34
Water and Sanitation sector performance report 2006
53
in
in
to
in
The Kakiru SSFR treatment plant
Kakiru SSFR plant is the oldest of the three, and has been in existence for more than
15 years. About 100 houses are connected with a small network of sewage pipes to
an aerobic treatment plant which uses an activated sludge process. The sewage is
passed through a screen, grit chamber, primary sedimentation, actuated sludge
process, secondary sedimentation and disinfection. There are complains from people
living downstream due to bad smell, and poor quality of effluent from the treatment
plant. A plant technician cited poor aeration and sometimes electrical motor failure as
prime causes of bad smell at the plant
Vision 2020 treatment plant
The second and the largest sewer network is found at Vision 2020 estate in
Nyarutarama. Vision 2020 plant serves 300 houses, estimated to house about 2100
people. The plant is under utilised because it has a capacity of treating sewage for
10,000 people35. The type of a treatment plant is a rotating biological contactor (RBC
modular system or Rotor disk). No smells were experienced during a field trip and
there people living downstream, and around the plant, said they don’t have any
problem with smells and quality of effluent, and actually some of them were using the
effluent from the plant to irrigate their gardens. SSFR has sold a number of houses in
the estate and will in future sell all the houses. SSFR is still managing the treatment
plant, but it is looking for modalities to hand over the management to the residents of
the estate.
Nyarutarama Constructed Lagoon
The third sewer network is at Nyarutarama estate. Here under identified as
Nyarutarama constructed lagoon. The Laggon was constructed by NPD-COTRACO,
a real estate company. Clusters of households built by the company are piped to
septic a tanks which perform primary treatment. These septic tanks are then piped to
a constructed lagoon for secondary treatment.
The lagoon is not performing well, because the developer looks like he has
abandoned it after selling some of the houses to private owners. There is no
management and therefore no any maintenance on the facility, which makes people
building new houses in the area to also connect their septic tanks to the lagoon.
Some houses have gone far to connect their toilets directly to the lagoon, as a result,
fresh faeces can be seen floating.
Picture 2: A constructed Lagoon in Nyarutarama, Kigali
Source: The author, 2007
35
Interview with Mr. Emmanuel Nganirwa, Technician in charge of SSFR estates wastewater treatment plants
54
4.6.2 On-site sanitation systems in Kigali
Apart from those three mentioned small estates, the rest of Kigali city, including
Nyarugenge district where the city centre is located, Decentralised, on-site systems
sanitation, are the only ones in existence. In general the type of wastewater
management system in the households depends on the financial power of the
owners and people who are financially powerful possesses water automatic flashing
toilets connected to septic tanks.. It was observed during field trips in Nyarugenge
district that, in the city centre and affluent neighbourhood of Kiyovu, the type of
sanitation systems and toilets in use were septic tanks with soak pits. This type of
sanitation system was found to be dominant in the above mentioned areas because
its construction requires a lot of money and water to transport wastewater and
excreta to a septic tank. Septic tanks with soak away pit latrines are water based
sanitation systems and when there is adequate water supply, they provide the same
comfort as Centralised Sanitation systems. It was also observed that in some of the
houses which had septic tanks with soak away pits, they also had traditional pit
latrines. This trend was found in both households and small low cost restaurants and
the reason for having two types of toilets was explain to be a back-up in case there
would be no water supply from ELECTROGAZ.
In November and December 2006 at the time when data collection for this study was
being carried out, there was a crack down by the Ministry of Health, led by the
minister himself to close down all the restaurants and hotels which did not meet
hygiene standards. In this exercise, most of low cost restaurants in Nyarugenge
district were affected. The author made field trip to two small restaurants which were
to be closed and found that, indeed sanitation systems of both restaurant was very
poor and besides that the infrastructure was too old and worn out, they still used it
without doing any repair. Information obtained from the City Council revealed that this
was the case in majority of small restaurants in Nyarugenge district36.
4.6.3 Sanitation systems in Poor neighbourhoods
In poor neighbourhoods it was not possible to easily determine characteristics of
sanitation systems that exist. In order to identify wastewater management in these
areas, a survey was carried out in the fore mentioned sectors of Kimisagara, Gitega,
Muhima and Rugenge . A survey questionnaire was prepared to cover several issues
which were aimed at addressing research questions, on issues of characteristics of
sanitation systems and their practices, accessibility, and willingness to share
community wastewater management facilities as a community, which could pave a
way for Modernises Mixture Approach. The respondents were also asked to give their
opinion on re-use concept, specifically on their willingness to use compost from their
toilets if treated well to remove pathogens. In addition, their opinion on the state of
municipal sanitation infrastructure in their neighbourhoods in general was probed to
determine whether they are satisfied with the current state of municipal sanitation
systems or not. This could indicate whether or not they would need a change to
improve the current state of municipal sanitation infrastructure in their area.
36
Conversation with the In charge of Energy, water and Environment in Kigali City Council, Mr. Jean Pierre
KAGABO
55
4.6.4 Results of analysis on wastewater management practices in poor
neighbourhoods
Basing on a total of 23537 households that were surveyed, the analysis of results
indicates that 99.2% of households in poor neighbourhoods of Nyarugenge district
have toilets. Unlike affluent areas of Nyarugenge district, traditional pit latrines were
found to be dominant type of toilet systems used by the majority of the residents
living in poor neighbourhoods. The survey went further to establish that 80.2% of the
households in the study area, use traditional pit soak away latrines, while 3% have
Ventilated Improved Pit latrines (VIP)38. Other technologies of excreta management
that were found in the study area were Pour-flush latrines piped to soak pit and
Automatic flushing toilet systems, piped to septic tanks. Households that were found
to be using Pour-flush toilets connected to soak pits were 4.3% and those who could
afford automatic flushing toilet systems (water closets) piped to septic tanks were
found to be 11.8 %.
Figure 12: Types of excreta management methods in poor neighbourhoods
n=237HH
90.0
80.2
80.0
70.0
Percentage
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
11.8
3.0
0.8
4.2
0.0
No toilet
traditional
simple pit
latrine
VIP
Pour- flush
Automatic
latrine piped
flushing
to soak pit toilet pipped
to septic
tank
Types of ecreta management systems
Source: Author, 2007
In regard to management of grey water, the same survey questionnaire probed
respondents about their practices in grey water discharge. Basing on a working
sample size of 23639 households in the study area, the findings from data analysis for
this, disclosed that 53% of the households in poor neighbourhoods discharge grey
water into constructed soak away pits, in their plots. 18.6% said they discharge into
common public drains, 25.4% said they pour grey water outside their houses, while
only 3% said they discharge in plumbed sinks inside their houses, and which are
connected to septic tanks.
37
This number is less than 237, because of missing data in two of survey questionnaire
VIP: This is a type of pit toilet with a vent-pipe connected in the pit. This vent provides ventilation
with a fly proof netting at the top to block flies from spreading diseases
38
39
This number is less than 237, because of missing data in one of s survey questionnaire
56
Figure 13 Grey water discharge practices in poor neighbourhoods
n=236
60.0
53.0
Percent, n=236
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
25.4
18.6
10.0
3.0
0.0
Pour into
common
public
drainage
pour in
constructed
soak pit at my
house
pour outside
Pour in the
my house sink piped to a
septic tank
Grey w ater discharge practices
Source: The Author, 2007
This latter finding indicates that not all the people with septic tanks (only 3%
compared to 11.8%) use them to discharge grey water. This may be due to the fact
that many people try to avoid over utilisation of septic tanks because the more septic
tanks are used the faster they get filled, resulting in inefficiency and consequently
overflow of unpleasant discharges in the environment. The other possible reason
could be that septic tanks emptying services in Kigali are limited.
In respect to constructed soak pits for pouring grey water in the study area, the
reason a large percentage, 53% of the households have them, may be due to the
existing by-law in the city which requires people to manage storm water as well as
wastewater within their plots40
Another issue that was covered by a survey was the opinion of the people on their
willingness to share the use and management of community wastewater facilities.
Four options were designed to determine people’s opinion. The respondents were
required to respond whether they strongly agreed, they agreed, didn’t agree or they
strongly disagreed. The findings on this opinion revealed that 53.2% of respondents
said they strongly agree, 44.7% said they agreed making a total of 97.9% of people
who at least agreed to share wastewater management facilities as a community.
2.1% said they don’t agree, while no one said he or she strongly disagrees.
Separate interviews with Mr. Jean Pierre KAGABO and Mr. Fisto NDIKUMANA, In charge of
Energy, water and environment in MVK; and Acting Director of urban infrastructure, settlements and
the environment in Nyarugenge district respectively.
40
57
Figure 14: Opinion of the citizen in poor neighbourhoods to share the use and management of
wastewater treatment facilities
n=237HH
60.0
53.2
Percentage
50.0
44.7
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
Strongly agree
Agree
Dont agree
Strongly
disagree
Opinion on willingness to share the management of
community based WW treatment facility
Source: Author, 2007
4.6.5 Industrial wastewater discharge practices in Kigali
Two industries operating in Gasabo and another in Nyarugenge districts in Kigali
called “Usine Textiles du Rwanda” (UTEXRWA) and SULFO RWANDA respectively
were selected. these two industries are described in the following paragraphs,
starting with the latter.
SULFO RWANDA is a manufacturing and trading company which produces assorted
types of detergents (solids and liquids), cosmetics, confectionaries, mineral water
and cartons. The company also trades batteries (including battery acids), tires,
gasses, fridges, cooking ranges etc and runs a car maintenance garage. Over seven
hundred (700+) people are employed by SULHO RWANDA and spend their day in
the company.
SULFO RWANDA is situated within the vicinity of Kigali city centre. The land covered
by the industry is not traversed by a river or stream. It is however well drained as it is
on a slope facing Nyabugogo valley, above Kigali Central Prison KCP) and a poor
neighbourhood of Muhima. The slope conveniently drains surface water resulting
from domestic and municipal wastewater towards the valley
Two types of wastewater are produced in the industry; and these are chemical waste
and human waste. Liquid chemical waste results from cleaning production vessels,
chemical containers and a small amount from spillages. SULFO RWANDA does not
have a liquid chemicals waste treatment plant, besides that strong acids, alkali and
organic compounds are the main raw material for production of detergents and
58
cosmetics. Liquid chemical waste produced is discharged into two filtration pits (
soak), one for detergents and the other for cosmetics plants. The construction of
filtration pit for cosmetics plant was completed few weeks before the authors visited
the factory. The information obtained during field trips revealed that, before
construction and use of this ground filtration pit, there were cases of complains from
residents in Muhima on the distasteful wastewater believed to have been flowing
from the industry through public drains..
Human wastewater produced in the company comes from a canteen and toilets. The
type of toilets used are flush toilets (water closet) connected to septic tanks with soak
away pit for liquid waste, and the solid part is emptied when it is full by septic tanks
emptying trucks and transported to Nyanza open dump site.
The level of hygiene in the company was adequate including in the toilets, because
there was enough water supply and all the floors in and around production area were
paved and had enough drainage systems. Another positive thing that was observed
was re-use of water used for heating and cooling batches of products during
production. This water do not need treatment because it does not have contact with
raw materials. Boilers are used to heat water to steam, which is used during heating
process. After heating, the water is piped to a cooling tank, where it is later pumped
back for cooling process. Re-use of water is sustainable as it reduced water
consumption, and this in turn has economic benefits for the company.
The second industry called UTEXRWA is a textiles manufacturing company which
produces more than fifty (50) textile products, ranging from cotton, polyester, viscous
and mixed brands. The company is located in the neighbourhood called Gacuriro,
Gasabo district about 5 km from the city centre. The area covered by the company is
spread over an area of six hectares with built-up construction which occupies over
23,500square metres. Like the majority of industries in Kigali, the land covered by the
company is in the wetland with swamps and streams which pour into Nyabugogo
river, besides that textile manufacturing use very strong chemicals as raw material in
dyeing and other production processes.
There are two types of wastewater produced in the company. These are the effluent
from production lines including spillages; and human waste produced in the workers
kitchen, canteen and toilets. The effluent from production line contains dyes and
strong alkali, including sodium hydroxide (caustic). For liquid chemical waste,
UTEXRWA has effluent treatment plant. This plant treats the waste in four steps
which involves dosing of hydrochloric acid, aluminium sulphate and cow dung, in the
dose which depend on the initial concentrations. By the end of treatment, the effluent
is usually have passed through raw effluent tank, clariflocculation tank, surface
aeration tank and secondary clarifier tank. All this processes are intended to
neutralise strong alkali effluent from production line to the pH of 7-9 before it is
discharged into the environment. However, during the author’s field trip, after
checking on the laboratory log book used to keep concentration records of the final
effluent, it was found that the treatment plant produces very high pH end-product of
up to 12. Physical observation of final effluent also showed a dark brown colour with
suspended solids, and this indicates that the effluent have high turbidity. The endproduct is discharged in streams which pour into Nyabugogo River.
59
Picture 3: The final effluent from a chemical treatment plant at UTEXRWA
Source: Author, 2006
4.6.6 Wastewater management in Hotels
The hotels selected for the study were Hotel des Mille Collines and Hotel Okapi. Both
hotels are located in the city centre. Mille Collines is a four star hotel with a capacity
of receiving 112 tenants, while Okapi is a small hotel which can accommodate 45
tenants per day. OKAPI was selected as it represent the other small hotels found all
over the city.
Other services provided by the two hotels are conference facilities, tourist agency;
and for Mille collines a swimming pool and a tennis court. The kinds of wastewater
produced in both hotels are human waste as well as chemical waste from laundry.
Mille Colllines has a wastewater treatment plant but this is only used for excreta
waste from toilets. Laundry wastewater is separately disposed in soak away pit
constructed for this purpose. The separation of wastewater from laundry and toilets is
aimed at protecting bacteria in the wastewater treatment plant which help to
decompose organic matter and produce digested sludge. The type of wastewater
treatment used at Mille collines is aerobic with activated sludge process. The aeration
process is helped by submerged aerator, before the effluent is clarified and
disinfected using chloride solution to remove pathogens. The aerator used for this
particular treatment plant is powered by electricity. The final effluent is then
discharged into open public run off water drain behind the hotel, and a total of 60M3
per day is discharges from the hotel, the sludge is emptied every two weeks by a
private company which transport it to Nyanza dumping site and the hotel pays110US
dollars (60500RwF) per trip41.
At Hotel Okapi, the kind of wastewater treatment used is septic tank with a soak
away pit. Like Mille Collines, they also separate wastewater from the laundry which is
discharged in the soak away pit and then to underground. All the rest of wastewater
like black water from toilets and grey water from the kitchen is discharged in a two
41
Interview with MBARUSHIMANA, J. De Dieu, Director of administration and Finance; together with his
maintenance technician
60
large compartment septic tank with a soak away pit. When the author visited the
hotel, the septic tanks still had space, and they had not started to evacuate solid
matter.
4.6.7 Wastewater management systems in academic institutions
The academic institution that was selected for this study was Kigali Institute of
Science and Technology. About 4500 students and staff members spend their day at
the institute. The method of wastewater treatment at the institute is septic tanks with
soak pits. Given the size of its population, nine large septic tanks with soak pit each
are located in different parts of the campus. The effluent from the septic tank
percolates through a gravel-packed filter before it is directed into a soak pit. One to
two vent pipes are installed on each tank. These vent pipes causes bad smell for
people working near the vent. There have also been cases of spilling of smelly
wastewater from soak pits during rainy season. The volume of wastewater soaked
into the ground, including that of storm water, exceeds the permeability of the ground,
and this smelly water ends up into public runoff drain along Avenue Paul IV, and
eventually to Kiyovu neighbourhood42. The problem and complains observed at KIST
are likely to be in all other academic institutions in Kigali including secondary schools.
There is a growing interest in Ecosan projects in Rwanda. In this regard, Nyarugenge
district has set aside in its MTEF development budget for 2008 and 2009 about 178,
500 US Dollars (100million, RwF) each year to install Ecosan toilets in two boarding
secondary called St André and Lycée Notre Dame de Citeaux respectively.
Primary schools in poor neighbourhoods including those in the area where the survey
was conducted as well as fringe neighbourhoods of Kigali city, use traditional pit
latrines, because they can’t afford septic tanks, and water supply is very limited.
4.6.8 Wastewater management in Hospitals
Two hospitals were also visited during the study. These were University Central
Hospital abbreviated in French as CHU/K and Muhima maternity Hospital. The kind
of wastewater produced in the hospital is grey water from the kitchen and food that is
brought by people who look after patients, and human waste (excreta). At CHU/K,
there are two type of toilets, which are Automatic flushing toilets (WC) and two public
pour flush toilets. Both are connected by pipes and closed drains respectively to a
wastewater treatment plant. The type of wastewater treatment plant found at CHU/K
is aerobic with activated sludge. The sewage from the hospital is passed through a
sieve which isolates papers and other solid materials. This is removed, dried and
taken to an incinerator by an employee in maintenance department. Solid separation
step is very important for maintenance and good keeping of the circulators. Other
processes are aeration in the aeration tank. Aeration is attained by a circulator
powered by an electric motor. Then the effluent is directed to a sedimentation tank
where it is clarified into two compartments. It is letter disinfected with Calcium hypo
chlorite to remove pathogens.
The final effluent is discharged in an open public runoff water drain directed towards
Gitega neighbourhood, and the remaining mud separated at a sedimentation tank is
sucked and transported to Nyanza dumping site.
People living in Gitega where the effluent flows though, have often complained as a
result of bad smell of the effluent from the Hospital. When the author visited the area,
42
Interview with Mr. Riziki, Estate Manager, Kist
61
it was clear that it is uncomfortable to live in the area and this may pose a danger for
water bone diseases especially for children as a result of hand to mouth
contamination
At Muhima hospital, the types of toilets that exist are generally automatic flushing
toilet (WC) and one traditional pit latrine. The author was told that this traditional pit
latrine was constructed as a result of request from some of patients from rural areas
who felt uncomfortable to sit on modern toilet43. The type of wastewater treatment
plant at Muhima is a biological filter treatment plant, with Fluidized Bed Filters made
of gravel, and sprinkling system. The information obtained from laboratory tests for its
final effluent showed high pH value of 10, with concentrations of phosphates
exceeding the standard concentrations for discharging effluent into the environment,
set by WHO. Biological Oxygen Demand and chemical Oxygen Demand of the final
effluent also surpassed the WHO discharging standards of 30 and 50mg/100ml
respectively, while the smell was described as bad.44
Due to the nature of medical waste produced in the hospital, the interviewees from
both hospitals said they have a policy to separate solid waste at source by providing
dust bins for bio-degradable and non-biodegradable. The patients and people who
visit the hospital are informed by labels with different colours where to throw their
trash. This is because most of non-biodegradable, including metals like needles are
usually incinerated. Plastic containers are collected by a private solid waste company
(COPED) which recycles plastic materials, while biodegradable waste is taken to
Nyanza, by Nyarugenge district employees.
4.6.9 Wastewater management in Prisons
The Worst performing sanitation system in Nyarugenge district was found at Kigali
Central Prison (KCP 1930). The Prison holds about 5,800 inmates45. Most of the
wastewater produced in the prison is human waste resulting from the kitchen and
toilets. Grey water from the kitchen is discharged in the open as there is no good
drainage system in the kitchen area, then it is directed outside the prison where it is
trapped by natural drain that also directs the waste into cesspits. The number of
toilets in the prison is not adequate to serve the population of people living in the
prison and inmates have to sometimes queue to defecate. The types of toilets used
in the prison are pour-flash toilets which are evacuated by open drains to the same
cesspits that receive grey water. Water supply in the prison is adequate, and the
prison has enough water reservoir tanks to keep enough water. A number of cesspits
are found in the area behind the prison and all are drained by large pipes to the
central cesspit which is evacuated twice a day; early in the morning and in the
afternoon. The sewage from central cesspit when opened, is left to flow in an open
public drainage which transverses Muhima neighbourhood and goes down to pour
raw sewage into Nyabugogo river. During the time of data collection, there was a lot
of complains from the residents in the area where this open sewage passes and
people who use Nyabugogo valley for farming. Complains included intolerable smell
and cases where children and adults alike, have fallen into this paved sewage
causing serious injuries.
43
Interview with Mr. Pascal GATETE, In charge of Hygiene and Sanitation
Appendix # a, b & c
45
Interview with Mrs KUBWIMANA Therese , In charge of administration, Kigali Central Prison
44
62
Picture 4: An open drainage system in Muhima, used by Central Kigali Prison to transport
faecal sewage
]
Source: The Author, 2006
The CKP administrator reported that the prison will be moved to Butamwa outskirt
from where it is today, and according to 2007-9 districts MTEF budget, the money for
relocation and construction of a new prison to Mageragere outskirt is provided for by
MININTER and should be ready by the year 2009. This will be received as good
news by the residents of Muhima area, and those who use Nyabugogo for different
wetland functions.
There is a policy in the MININTER that all the prisons in Rwanda must be installed
with Ecosan sanitation systems which will enable them to use sewage in the
production of biogas for cooking fuel. The implementation of this policy has already
started, and it is a national wide project, run by Ministry of Internal Affairs
(MININTER), with the help of expertise from KIST46. A prison in Butare where the
author lives has reduced the consumption of wood fuel by 75%, while sanitation
condition inside and outside the prison has improved by 90%47.
4.6.10 Run off/storm management in Kigali
As a result of implementation of 2001 Decentralisation Policy in Rwanda, in 2006 the
ownership and management of wastewater infrastructure for public places like
commercial and residential areas was devolved from provinces and the City Council
for the case of Kigali, to districts. From then, the infrastructure for runoff/storm water
drainage in the city centre and all other parts of the city belongs to three districts of
Kigali city. These districts are the ones responsible for construction and maintenance
of drainage systems and other sewers channels. There is very low coverage of runoff
water infrastructure in the city. The coverage of storm water infrastructure in Kigali in
general is about 30%48; and all this can be found along the main roads. Most of
paved drainage infrastructure is found in the city centre where about 60% is
46
Interview with the Director of administration of Kigali Central Prison Mrs KUBWIMANA Therese
Interview with Mr. Frudould Nsabimana, Bio gas maintenance technician, Butare Central Prison
48
Interview with Mr. Jean Pierre Kagabo, In charge of Energy, water and Environment in Kigali City Council
47
63
covered49. Besides of low coverage of municipal waste water infrastructure, there
was only one project underway to manage storm water in the city. This project is the
construction of storm water drainage system. It is about 4.5kilometres long and will
collect storm water in areas where it passes in Mpazi and Kimisagara. The project is
jointly funded Community Development Fund (CDF) and a called PPGE, which gets
money from the World Bank (WB). In Kigali, there have never been a water infiltration
infrastructure leaving large quantities of rain water to flow through the other wise poor
infrastructure to wetlands that surround the city.
The city council have a by law which requires every household to contain rain water
from its roof. Most government and business buildings are equipped with infiltration
facilities made of soak away pits with built in gravel filtration, and these helps to
reduce the amount of storm water that could cause trenches as a result of soil
erosion. Much of storm water that causes damage in Kigali comes from residential
areas especially poor neighbourhoods. This is besides that there is a by law which
restricts owners of houses from letting any kind of water from their plots to flow to
their neighbours or public places. The district and city council have a department of
inspection which oversee the implementation of this by law, but faces difficulties
because the topography of Kigali makes it expensive for ordinary people to construct
rain water infiltration facilities.
At the time when this study was being conducted, the city did not have a Master Plan
for its settlements, wastewater management infrastructure and other urban
infrastructure. However it was learned that this master plan was being prepared by
the City of Kigali with the help of a African Development Bank (ADB) funded project
called “Projet des Infrastructure et Gestion Urbain” (PIGU)50. Inexistence of master
plan was mentioned by interviewees as the main hindrance to development of
infrastructure; along with lack of financial resources. Most of the poor
neighbourhoods are built in unplanned areas. Only up to 10% of the households in
poor neighbourhoods are in authorised plots, while the rest are in informal
settlement51. As a result in these areas, the runoff/storm water infrastructure is in
very bad condition, because areas away from main roads are saved by either
unpaved drains made by the locals in their collective action initiatives or are saved by
natural drains. Poor storm/runoff water infrastructures causes a lot of environmental
problems including transporting sewage from households (as shown in the survey) to
wetlands found between hills that make up the city. Other environmental damage
caused by poor storm water infrastructure is the formation of deep trenches, as a
result of soil erosion. The survey conducted during this study revealed that a total of
89% of the residents living in poor neighbourhoods had the opinion that the state of
the municipal infrastructure for runoff water is poor and that it destroys their
environment.
49
Ibid
Ibid
51
Separate interviews with Mr. Jean Pierre KAGABO and Mr. Fisto NDIKUMANA, In charge of Energy, water
and environment in MVK; and Acting Director of urban infrastructure, settlements and the environment in
Nyarugenge district respectively.
50
64
Figure 15: Citizen opinion on whether runoff water infrastructure in their neighbourhood is
poor
n=236
60.0
51.7
50.0
37.3
Percentage
40.0
30.0
20.0
9.3
10.0
1.7
0.0
strongly agree
agree
Don't agree
Strongly
disagree
Opinion on whether the existing runoff water infrastructure
destroys the environment
Source: Author, 2007
The district and city councils sees the expropriation and relocation of the most
overpopulated settlement areas, leaving only households with authorised plots, as a
solution to providing environmental infrastructure to poor neighbourhoods, and have
allocated in its MTEF development budget for 2007, about 54,000US Dollars
(30,000,000RwF) for expropriation of 1000 households in Muhima neighbourhood.
4.7 Solid waste management in Kigali
Solid waste management in urban areas is recognised as an important part of good
municipal sanitation systems. This is so because, in urban areas where large
quantities of garbage are produced and not cleared, they enter into municipal
drainage systems, blocks drains, and pollute runoff waters and consequently surface
and ground water. Poor solid waste management in deprived neighbourhoods can
cause more harm to residents living there because often, these neighbourhoods
have poor domestic sanitation systems which force them to discharge wastewater
into public drains (as will be shown in the result of a survey). When the drains are
blocked by solid waste, the consequences can be devastating in poor
neighbourhoods, since these areas are always high density settlements.
Besides that solid waste management is part and parcel of municipal sanitation, the
author became interested with solid waste management after he observed that unlike
before, there was improvement in solid waste management in the city as there was
no more garbage in trenches and runoff water drains in supposedly poor
neighbourhoods of Nyarugenge district and other three districts in the city.
After interview with city officials, it was later understood that under the instruction of
the City Council, all the districts councils in city, have put up a by law which prohibits
any kind of dumping of garbage outside ones plot. This has resulted in forcing all the
households to register for solid waste management services to CBOs or the district
council, in areas where CBOs have not been established. The CBOs were
65
established in the end of the year 2005 and are made mainly by women. As seen on
municipal sanitation infrastructure, devolvement of solid waste management services
have also gone to district, but for solid waste management, there has been more
development as management of solid waste services have gone down to a lower
level called sector (umurenge) administration. Sectors have taken up the challenge of
managing solid waste for commercial areas as well as settlements and are the ones
who oversee the performance of CBOs through a special unit for the Environment.
The Nyarugenge Sector spends around 11, 000 US Dollars (6, 000,000RwF) every
month to collect and transport waste in the city centre and Gitega area. The sector
also helps in payment recovery from households who get services provided by CBOs
and plays a very big role in raising awareness on the importance of urban solid waste
management.
Before establishment of CBOs, poor neighbourhoods did not have access to solid
waste management services because private companies which existed did not see
benefits of serving these neighbourhoods. The establishment of CBOs have come as
an answer to solving solid waste management in poor neighbourhoods. These CBOs
have been a success, to the extent that district councils have often come in, to
protect them from private companies which have wanted to take areas saved by
CBOs, after realising that profits can be made even in poor neighbourhoods. The
districts also helps in punishing people who fail to pay for services provided to them
by CBOs.
The districts policy is that, private solid waste companies continues to operate in
affluent areas, and at big institutions and businesses, while CBOs are left to operate
in neighbourhoods, and each neighbourhood or sector is encouraged to have its own
solid waste management CBO to serve the neighbourhood, and businesses which
are located in their neighbourhood
It was important that during this study, different issues were to be looked at, so that
sustainability of solid waste management in Kigali and poor neighbourhoods in
particular can be studied. One of the questions aimed at probing respondents on how
they handle solid waste. This question would tell us, if there are other solid waste
handling practices used by households and would as well tell us which percentage of
households actually uses services from CBOs. More questions were included in the
questionnaire to cover issues of solid waste separation at source, the citizens opinion
on the quality of services provided by CBOs, and whether the users of the services
finds the charges that they pay for the services fair. Other issues that were covered
were the opinion of the customers on whether the involvement CBOs has improved
solid waste management in their neighbourhoods. The CBOs which delivered solid
waste management in the area of study area with the area they serve in brackets are
Amizero ( Rugenge), S.A.M.U (Muhima), A.C.E.N (Kimisagara) and Coperative
bageza (Kimisagara). During data collection, Gitega did not have a solid waste CBO
so; they are saved by Sector administration (“Umurenge”).
66
4.7.1 Results of analysis on solid waste management in poor neighbourhoods
According to the results from the survey, only 71.2% of households in the study area
use services of CBOs in handling their solid waste. 20.4% of the households are
saved by sector administration, and these were found in Gitega sector which do not
have a solid waste management CBO. Beside that there is a by law which require
every household to register to either a Solid waste CBO or a Sector for handling of
the waste, it was found that up to 4 % of households in poor neighbourhoods still
throw garbage in public areas near their house, while 4.4% throw garbage in
constructed pits in their plots. Most of people who throw garbage in constructed pits
in their plots said they use their biodegradable as compost in their garden, but since
they are not registered to CBOs, one could wonder where they throw nonbiodegradable waste.
Figure 16: Methods of solid waste handling in poor neighbourhoods
n=226HH
80.0
71.2
70.0
60.0
Percent
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.4
20.0
10.0
4.0
4.4
0.0
Throw in a
Throw in a
A CBO collects
The district
dump near my constructed pit soli w aste from council collects
neighbourhood
in my plot
my house
w aste from my
house
Solid w aste handing
Source: Author, 2007
In regard to whether CBOs have improved solid waste management in
neighbourhoods, 92.9% said that, the involvement of CBOs have improved the
management of solid waste in their area, while 7.1% said that they have not seen the
difference52. Separation of biodegradable waste from non-biodegradable solid waste
such as glasses, metals and papers, can be an indicator of environmental
sustainability of solid waste management practices in a society. This is the case
when what is considered as a waste for some, can be a resource or raw material for
another society. In reference to this, the survey included a question to determine
whether the CBOs and Sector administration ask people to separate waste at
household level. The result of the survey revealed that 29% of the respondents said
52
Refer to appendix 1, figure 22
67
CBOs ask them to separate biodegradable from non-biodegradable, while 71% said
they have not been asked to do so53.
Opinion of the people in poor neighbourhoods on the quality of solid waste
management services provided by the CBOs was that, 12.8% of the respondents
said the services provided by CBO are excellent, 47.4% described the services as
good. 34.6% said CBOs provide fair services, while only 5.2% said CBOs provide
poor services.
Figure 17: Citizen opinion on the quality of services provided by newly established solid waste
management CBOs in poor neighbourhoods of Kigali
n=211HH
47.4
50.0
45.0
40.0
34.6
Percent1
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
12.8
10.0
5.2
5.0
0.0
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Opinion on the quality of services from CBOs
Source: Author 2007
In regard to fairness of charges/bills paid for services provided by CBOs, the majority,
89.37% of the respondents said the charges are fair, while 10.63 said the charges
are not fair54. It was noted also that more people serve by the CBOs were satisfied
with the services than those served by the sector.
53
54
Refer to appendix 1, figure 23
Refer to appendix 1, figure 26
68
5. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 The existing wastewater management technologies in Kigali: strengths and
weaknesses of their physical functioning
This sub-chapter presents discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the physical
functioning of the two most used sewage disposal methods in poor neighbourhoods
of Kigali, which are traditional pit latrines (80.2%) and automatic flushing toilets
connected to septic tanks (11.8%). Other types that were found to be used less such
as Pour-flush (4, 2%), VIP (3%), and others which were visited in affluent
neighbourhoods in Kucukiro district will not be discussed because they have been
given their fair share of attention when presenting results.
5.1.1 Traditional Pit latrines
According to the findings of this study, in poor neighbourhoods of Kigali, traditional pit
latrines serve about 80.2% (Table #) of the population. This proportion resembles the
one mentioned in water and sanitation policy of 2004, which enlighten that people
who use pit latrines country wide is 80%. This indicates that districts in Kigali are
required to increase effort in making sure their residents have better sanitation
facilities, because it would be expected that, being urban districts, the number of
people with traditional pit latrines would be lower than national average.
In general, traditional pit latrine systems serve the primary purpose of a toilet which
is excreta disposal. They are cheap to construct, easy to maintain and need no water
to function. However they have a lot of disadvantages. General disadvantages are to
attract flies and other insects and bad smell. Other disadvantages specific to this
study and to Kigali in particular are presented below.
In regards to re-use, although 87.1% (figure #) of respondents in the study area said
they would use treated compost from the toilet in their garden or farms, the existing
pit latrines are too deep for one to recover and re-use compost for agriculture. This is
because the groundwater table in hilly areas is very low and that there is no tradition
in Rwanda of re-using treated sludge for conditioning farm land, besides that the soils
in the country are very much deteriorated due to soil erosion and over exploitation55.
The habit in Kigali and other towns in Rwanda is that the pits are dug deep, between
10-20 m. People dig deep their pit latrines especially in urban areas because there is
no good technology to de-sludge tradition pit latrines. Another impediment to re-use
of compost from the existing traditional pit latrines is that they are not designed to be
emptied. Traditional pit latrine emptying method used is called “vomiting” where by a
new pit is dig very close to the existing filled latrine, and a whole is made between the
two pits to allow watery sludge to flow into a new pit. Unfortunately this method takes
a lot of space so is only possible in small towns and not in informal settlements of a
big city like Kigali. However this emptying is not very much practised in rural and
small towns because when latrines are filled, they are abandoned and a new pit
latrine is constructed.
The other reason that people in urban areas dig deep when constructing traditional
pit latrines could be that sludge emptying services are only found in Kigali, where
there are just two private operators and one in the Ministry of Defence which also
55
Agro-forestry checks the devastating loss of land on Rwanda’s a thousands hills : by C. Zaongo, ICRAF,
Nairobi
69
operate commercially. The city council used to have two septic tank emptying tracks,
but they no longer do the emptying.
In regard to weaknesses on the physical functioning, traditional pit latrines are
vulnerable to topographic and climatic conditions of Kigali. As mentioned in the
introduction, Kigali is built on steep hills where poor and informal slums are found on
the lower sides of the hills. Due to poor drainage infrastructure, during rain season,
when there is heavy rains, it is common to find pit latrines which have been
prematurely filled with runoff water which is mixed with landslides. You also find
collapsed toilets, and this is because most of them are not constructed with stable
roof and structure with a sufficient water proof edge to protect water surface and
runoff water to enter and destroy the facility.
Picture 4: A collapsing pit latrine in Gitega Neighbourhood
Source: The Author, 2006
Given that some of poor households are built very close to wetlands, there is more
direct and uncompromising surface water pollution in these areas.
In order to reduce the runoff water which causes soil erosion, resulting into formation
of trenches, there is a city council by-law which requires people to contain rain water
in their own plot but this by-law is difficult to be implemented especially in informal
settlements where there are almost no drainage systems. Besides lack of drainage
systems, the fact that it is not possible to identify whether the rain water is from within
the plot or is coming from a neighbour makes it impossible for city inspectors to settle
disputes when runoff water from one household destroys another’s property. Toilet
owners tend to divert runoff water away from their plot, but because there is no good
coordination of where rain water should be directed in the absence of good runoff
infrastructure, destruction caused by runoff water can be devastating especially in
poor neighbourhoods. The results of a survey conducted in poor neighbourhoods,
70
revealed that the opinion of the majority (89%) of residents in these neighbourhoods
is that, the state of run off infrastructure is very poor, and that it destroys their
environment56.
5.1.2 Automatic flushing toilet connected to septic tanks
Automatic flushing toilets (WC) are used by 11.9% in poor neighbourhoods57, and are
dominant excreta management systems in formal and affluent neighbourhoods. The
proportion of household who use automatic flushing toilets in poor neighbourhoods in
slightly higher than the average proportion of people who are classified as having
hygiene sanitation country wide which is 8%58.
The systems serve the primary toilet purpose of disposing excreta, they meet
hygiene standards and provide comfort equivalent to conventional sewer systems
found in western cities. When in good working condition, septic tanks perform well
the treatment of the sewage. The treatment process is anaerobic and, under ideal
conditions; the treatment should be complete after 24 hours of sewage settlement,
although it needs a secondary treatment before it can be discharged into the
environment, so to some extent, even an efficient treating septic tank will pollute
ground water if it is discharged to a soak away pit, as it is in Kigali. The problems with
Septic tanks are that, although they don’t pollute the ground water as much as
traditional pit latrines, they are water based and require uninterrupted and adequate
water supply for them to work efficiently.
However, the problem identified in Kigali where this study was conducted is that
when septic tanks are old they cease to be efficient. Inefficiency of septic tanks
occurs also when they are over utilised. When over utilised, they can cause a great
deal of environmental problems, due to overflow and leakage of untreated liquid
effluent from septic tanks or soak away pits which in most cases are saturated with
the effluent. The saturation happens in soak away pits of septic tanks because the
types of soils found in Kigali have large percentage of clay which has limitations in
absorbing and infiltrating waters. It is common in old parts of Kigali to confront
stinking wastewater in open runoff drainage systems which comes from leaking and
overflowing septic tanks. When septic tanks are over exploited, the treatment process
in the septic tank can not be complete, as a result, vent pipe installed in soak away
pit of septic tanks releases unpleasant smells in the atmosphere. The problem of
over flow is made worse by the limit of septic tank emptying services in Kigali. De
sludging services are not well established and unlike other cities in East Africa like
Dar Es salaam, where public and private de-sludging operators work under the
guidance of cities’ Water and Sewerage Authority (DAWASA) (Chaggu, E, et al,
2002), sewage management in Kigali is not organised, as a result who ever has a
sludge sucking track can decide to do the business without any guidance on sewage
disposal. very which is not good for the environment because no one takes care so
that there can be environmentally friendly disposal of the sludge.
Another issue related to septic tanks is that they are very expensive. The cost of a
complete automatic flushing toilet with a septic tank in Kigali can go as high as
3300US Dollars (1.800.000RwF) or more, which is not affordable to the majority of its
residents. High costs in construction industry in the country is caused by high
demand of construction materials most of which are imported or are in short supply
56
Refer to figure 15, Chapter 4, section 4.6.10
Refer to figure 12 in chapter 4 section 4.6.4
58
Water and sanitation sector performance, June 2006
57
71
locally, and the government’s ban on local methods of burning bricks which was a
threat to the environment because of its high consumption of wood fuel and
degradation of wetlands whose clay soils were being over exploited.
The existing use of septic tanks in Kigali and Rwanda in general, is intended to safely
dispose the sewage from households with a linear approach, which means there
have never been intentions to re-use treated effluent from septic tanks for agriculture.
As mentioned earlier, septic tank systems contribute to a certain extent to polluting
ground water, because the liquid part of the treated sewage is directed into a soak
away pit. It would therefore be good for the environment not to direct septic tank
effluent into soak away pits, instead, the effluent would have been piped to a
secondary treatment, using a lagoon or any other appropriate technology which
produces a good quality effluent. However given the current status of sanitation
systems in poor neighbourhoods, whereby the majority still use traditional pit latrines,
leaving just a small scattered proportion with septic tanks, it will be impossible for
now to cluster and pipe these septic tanks to a secondary treatment. The use of
secondary treatment of effluent from septic tanks however could be possible in
affluent neighbourhoods. As described in the results, there is one lagoon in
Nyarutarama which is supposed to treat effluent from a small group of household, but
the problem is that, it is not well maintained, and therefore produces a very poor
quality final product. The re-use of wastewater decreases the money spent on
fertilisers, when the effluent from a treatment plant meets the WHO hygiene
standards.
The use of septic tanks as a primary treatment, connected to a secondary treatment
gives the opportunity to recycle nutrients for agriculture. The advantage is that the
sewer is not transported to a long distance and for the case of Kigali where there is a
natural gradient which can be used to transport sewer, energy can be served, and
there would not be a need to use wider pipes.
High septic construction costs also means, instead of an individual household having
its own system; households can be clustered to have one septic tank for a group of
houses. This can as well serve space. There is a one kind of systems in
Nyarutarama, but because sewage management in the city is not well organised, the
developer is not managing his systems, which makes it very inefficient, because it
over exploited and when we visited it, it looked like it is abandoned.
5.1.3 Access to portable water connections in poor neighbourhoods
Portable water in Kigali and other major towns in Rwanda is supplied by
ELECTROGAZ. Portable water supply for 50.2% of people who were found to have
tape water connection at their homes is inadequate in poor neighbourhoods, with
only 51.3% getting water to over 80% of their requirements. The remaining 49.7%
don’t get enough water although they have tape water connection at their homes.
This percentage has no significant difference to, and is slightly above the data
obtained from ELECTROGAZ statistics department, which indicated that 47% of their
customers do not get water to fulfil their requirements, and this means more people
who are connected to ELECTROGAZ infrastructure in poor neighbourhoods don’t get
adequate water supply.
72
Figure 18: Water supply compared to consumption requirements for people who have portable
water connections
n=117HH
60.0
51.3
50.0
40.0
%
32.5
30.0
20.0
12.8
10.0
3.4
0.0
over 80%
betw een
60-80%
about 50% Below 25%
Extent to w hich ELECTROGAZ satify w ater
requirem ents in poor neighbourhoods
Source: Author, 2007
It was also learnt during this study that, households without water connections, 93%
of whom buy drinking water from neighbours, vendors or ELECTROGAZ water
houses59, consumes on average 76 Litres per day, which almost equal to an average
of 78 Litres which is consumed by households with tape water connections.
Figure 19:
Wate r consumption among house holds with
and without portable wate r conne ction: n=232
50
45
40
Frequency
35
30
YES
25
NO
20
15
10
5
0
les s than Between
20L
30-40L
About
60L
About
80L
Over
100L
Estimated water consumption
Source: Author, 2007.
This finding which contradicts the existing phenomena that people with water
connection consume more water than those without connection can be explained as
follows. When a household in poor or informal settlements has access to water
59
Refer to Figure 10, Chapter 4, Section 4.5.3
73
connection from ELECTROGAZ, water pipes are not plumbed in the house for
shower, toilet and kitchen use. In most cases, only one water tap is installed outside
the house, and usually owners fetch and store water in plastic containers, and use
the water when they want it from these containers, instead of opening directly from
the tap.
What can also be observed here is that, although the majority of the people (73%)
who don’t have access to portable water connection claimed they were not
connected because, they can’t afford water utility bills, they in fact pay more for water
than those with tape water connection. This is so because the price of water at
ELECTROGAZ water houses and from vendors is 0.04 US dollars (20 Rwf) per 20
litres, which is higher than the 0.01US dollars (4.8RwF)60 for the same volume, it
could cost if they had tape water connection at their homes. This implies that poor
people spend more of their hard earned income for this basic service than wealthy
people.
5.2 Challenges for water and sanitation provision in poor neighbourhoods
Sanitation provision in poor neighbourhoods provides a big challenge to city officials
and planners in Kigali. The Kigali City Council has never had a city master plan for
settlements and environmental infrastructure as a result; slums have developed
within few kilometres from the inner city over the years. Neighbourhoods such as
Kimisagara, Muhima, Rugenge and Gitega where this study was conducted are
within 3-10 Km from the city centre but large parts of these areas are slums since
over 70% its houses are in informal settlements.
In regard to municipal wastewater infrastructure provision, the challenges that city
officials face are firstly, fast growing populations in the city, while there isn’t enough
investment on sustainable urban wastewater management infrastructure to provide
adequate and equitable services to all, particularly people living in poor
neighbourhoods. Kigali has expanded dramatically over the last fifteen years both in
size and population. In the last decade alone, the population has increased from
140,000 people in 1991 to about 1,000,000 people in 200661. This is an enormous
population increase in a city given that investment in development of urban
infrastructure, particularly water supply and sanitation did not equally increase.62
Secondly, there is limited social- technical human resource capacity both in the city
and districts to set up effective policies, accepted principles( by laws) and standards
in order to achieve improved and environmentally responsive sanitation and
wastewater management. The government started its second phase of
decentralisation in 2006 and is keen to make sure there are qualified personnel in all
technical posts in the district by reforming and recruiting qualified people. However
there is still a lot to be done because, although there are staffs that have high level of
education, they still lack technical ability to confront challenges that lies ahead of
them, especially in areas such as resource mobilisation, project management, and
urban environmental management. Another problem which was observed during this
study is that, people who hold office don’t actually have education background
related to the field in which they effect. For example, it was discovered that in both
the City council and Nyarugenge district, people who were responsible for
60
ELECTROGAZ Water tariffs
Refer to table 1, Chapter 1
62
Refer to table 5, chapter 4, Section 4.4.1
61
74
environmental management had qualifications of a mechanical and electrical
engineers respectively. In Nyarugenge sector, the responsible person for
environment holds a diploma in agriculture. Therefore, although there has been
public service reforms from national to sector level of administration, where technical
staffs have high level of education, they still don’t qualify to deal with environmental
issues in their area. The consequence of this is lack of effective planning,
prioritisation and feasible strategies to solve the existing environmental infrastructure
problems.
The third challenge is lack of financial resources to finance urban environmental
infrastructure projects. Decentralisation policy has resulted in districts owning water
and sanitation infrastructure, although big projects in water supply in urban areas has
remained to be under government owned utility company ELECTROGAZ. The
problem is that, while the central government does not provide enough financial
resources for water and sanitation infrastructure, the districts which own these
infrastructures are still struggling to mobilise enough funds to sustain most of their
development projects.
It was observed also during this study that majority of international NGO funded
water and sanitation projects in the country like PNEAR and WSP-AF, are found in
rural areas, because these projects are inline with the MDG 7, and that they believe
problems of safe drinking water and sanitation provision are more critical in rural than
urban areas where the majority of population live63.
Another observation during this study was that, sanitation infrastructure does not get
from key decision makers the priority it deserves, compared to other development
projects such as transportation, construction of public houses etc,. Although water
and sanitation are coordinated on the national level by the MINITERE in its Water
and Sanitation unit, at districts level, during planning and budgeting, the two are
classified under infrastructure development log frame, like it is in Vision 2020
document. This has direct effect on the financing of water and sanitation. It appears
that district official rank sanitation and municipal waster infrastructure low. When
comparing water and sanitation, water is allocated more funds than sanitation at both
national and district level and at the national level particularly, water is more funded
through ELECTROGAZ64. The money allocated for water in district is always
intended to supply water to fringe neighbourhoods, and for the case of Kigali, new
sectors which used to be part of Kigali Rural Region before the year 2006. Lack of
prioritization of environmental infrastructure is not an isolated case for Kigali city
alone. In other cities in East Africa, like Dar Es Salaam, sanitation is provided with
the least funding in their development budgets (Chaggu et al, 2002)
There is a growing concern among city official and environmentalist about the
degrading state of the environment in the city and the surrounding wetlands as a
result of poor municipal water/runoff and wastewater discharge practices and
infrastructure. Valleys, wetlands and water stream found between hills, on which
Kigali is built, are used as discharge destination for untreated municipal runoff as well
as domestic and industrial wastewater. Ecological functions of these wetland is on
constant risk due to ongoing pollution, and according to (Gasana J. et all, 1997)
water quality in these wetlands is no longer good enough for drinking, and that the
concerns that people may use it for drinking have gone as people are deterred from
63
64
Interview with Mr. MUSHINZIMANA Jean Marie Vianey, Director of water and sanitation in MINITERE
Refer to table 6, chapter 4, section 4.4.1
75
using it due to its bad colour and taste. Discharge of untreated municipal wastewater
in Kigali and in most Rwandan town is helped by physical features (topography) of
the country. As described in the background, Rwanda is famously known as a
country of thousand hills because of its hilly topography. The city of Kigali and all
other towns in the country side are built on these hills and ridges between which lies
valleys and wetlands with rivers and water streams. This makes it easy for any
wastewater produced in the city to naturally flow, ending up in these sensitive
ecological sites. Bellow is a figure adopted from Bertrand-Krajewski J.-L., et al,
(2000), which summarises impacts of fast growing populations in urban areas on
aquatic environments.
Figure 20: Impacts of urbanization on aquatic environments
Source: Bertrand-Krajewski et al, 2000
5.3 Opportunities for Modernised Mixtures Approach (MMA) in Poor
neighbourhoods of Kigali
As described in the literature review, MMA brings together the best elements from
both centralised and decentralised sanitation systems in a number of options and
strategies, adapted to the particular infrastructural, institutional, economic and
environmental local context. The concept of MMA is very similar to Decentralised
sanitation and Re-use (DESAR), because on one hand, it embraces technologies
which apply modern materials, management partners and scientific knowledge to
develop sanitation infrastructure and organisational formats that are sustainable both
from social and technical point of view, and on other hand MMA shifts from negative
features of decentralised sanitation systems, based on appropriate technologies such
as those found in poor neighbourhoods of Kigali, which contributes to environmental
degradation.
In this study, the opportunities for change towards MMA in Kigali are structured in
four-layered description of different indicators for change of infrastructure systems.
76
These will be political governance at national level, the existing technical systems in
sanitation, Actor organisations involved in the sector and finally Institutional, policy
and legal frameworks.
5.3.1 Political governance
From the year 2001, Rwanda is undergoing political transformation and is now in its
second of three phases from authoritative, up down or centralised to decentralise and
more participatory form of governance. At this level of decentralisation process in
Rwanda, districts have already taken over some important responsibilities from upper
administration levels, one of which is the ownership of sanitation infrastructure. All
this is in the effort to take decision making processes close to the citizen in their local
governments. Platforms for decision making process have been created with reestablishment of “Ubudehe”65, which acts as decentralisation policy instrument to
prepare the community to internalise their issues and to own the approach for
application in development processes.
The existence of decentralisation policy with “ubudehe” as a platform for decision
making process and implementation is consistent with MMA since the modest scale
and size of modernised mixture system elements, allows people to participate in
working out on solutions to their own problems, and take their own initiatives to
create their own better living environment.
5.3.2 Existing technical systems in Sanitation
The findings of this study reveals that decentralised sanitation systems are the only
excreta management methods in Kigali city, with traditional pit latrine serving 80.2%,
while septic tanks serve 11.8% in poor neighbourhoods. VIP and pour flush which
are also decentralised sanitation systems serves 3% and 4.2% of the households
respectively. There are three community based sanitation system in Kucukiro affluent
neighbourhoods, which can be classified as on-site, because the treatment plants are
located within the neighbourhoods.
There is no any indication in this study which suggests that there is a centralised
sanitation system in Kigali, therefore difficulties related to the path of dependences
and lock-in-effects that come along with the existence of centralised sanitation
systems (Spaargaren, G. et al, (2005), which have hampered successful
implementation of DESAR or MMA systems in developed countries, are not a hitch to
institutionalisation of these systems in Kigali.
The weaknesses of physical functioning of the existing sanitation systems paves a
way for improved technologies like modernised decentralised sanitation systems with
re-use options since, the existing appropriate technology don’t provide users comfort,
at the same time don’t meat environmental and public health standards. The
pressure of high populations in Kigali, calls for searching solutions to weaknesses
brought about by the existing sanitation systems, and solution can be found by
institutionalisation of modernised mixture systems with community based aerobic
treatment technologies (Lettinga, G., et, 1997), (Zeeman, G., et al 1999), (Otterpohl,
R et al, 1997), (van der Hoek, W., 2001) and (van Burren, J., 2004) being one of
feasible options. These technologies work more efficiently in tropical climates
experiences by Rwanda, than temperate regions.
The result of a survey which revealed that the majority of the households in poor
neighbourhoods rank the municipal infrastructure as very poor to destroy the
environment (total of 89%)66, and those with the opinion that they would agree to
65
66
“Ubudehe” is a Rwandan version of community collective action (CCA) or Area based initiatives (ABI)
Refer to figure 15, chapter 4, 4.6.10
77
share the use and management of wastewater treatment facilities (total of 97.9%)67
indicates that, people will be willing to change towards better options, and their
opinion may have been influenced by inefficiency of the existing systems.
5.3.3 Existing and potential actor networks in sanitation
MINITERE in its Water and Sanitation Sector is the key actor in Sanitation at National
level. At District level, the district in its directory of urban infrastructure, settlements
and the environment oversees all issues concerning sanitation. There are other line
ministries like Ministry of health (MINISANTE), Ministry of Local Governments
(MINALOC) The existing actors in water and sanitation at the national and district
level provides dynamic initial basis for institutionalisation of Modernised Mixture
Approach. However actors who are currently more involved in policy making as well
as in implementation are traditional government officials and international NGOs.
There is evidence that the citizen are more and more being involved in different water
and sanitation projects, especially in rural areas, but their involvement is still on the
level of implementation, leaving politicians and expatriates with more influence on
deciding which technology is the best the citizen. In urban areas, there is still need to
sensitize the citizens to have more roles in water and sanitation initiatives. According
to a State Minister in MINITERE, the ministry has a policy to involve in an integrated
way, all the stakeholders in decision making processes, but in urban areas and Kigali
in particular, there is still reluctance on the side of citizens and private sector. When
private companies are invited to attend to decision making platforms on a policy or
projects, they hardly honour the invitation and when they come, they are presented
by people who are not competitive with no authority in the companies they come
from68.
Since modernised mixture technologies are social artefacts, there will be a need for
more intergraded involvement of all the stake holders, some of which are presently
not considered as being actors. The existence of a policy entailing integrated
approach for sanitation in MINITERE, and decentralisation policy at the national level,
gives a basis for creating sustainable policy, social and economic networks for
sanitation in the country. In addition to the existing actors enlisted in table 4, a
detailed actor network which classifies policy, economic and social networks for
future sanitation service provision in Kigali is presented in figure 21bellow. It is
important to note that there is no clear divide between the three actor networks. Each
(policy, social and economic networks), need one another in many different ways to
succeed. For example, consumers of sanitation services need providers to give them
good services, but providers too, need consumers so that they can sustain their
business. In other ways a sanitation infrastructure or technology, will require users
and in some cases requires a certain number of users to operate at its highest
efficiency (economies of scale).
As it can be seen in the figure 21 below, that there are actors who are at present not
considered as stakeholders in sanitation provision. These are found mainly in social
and economic networks side and are shown in blue boxes. These actors are not
taken as stakeholders at the moment because, the type of sanitation systems that
have been in place so far are decentralised sanitation systems whose management
depend on individual owner. However, due to prerequisites brought by a growing city,
and therefore environmental rules and regulation which require the state, individual
organisations and households to dispose their waste in environmentally responsive
67
68
Refer to figure 14, chapter 4, section 4.6.4
Interview with State Minister in MINITERE, Honorable Mrs. Hajabakiga Patricia
78
methods, it will be necessary for Kigali and other urban areas to resort to new
wastewater management technologies, Modernised Mixtures being one of the
options. This will require more stakeholders to be included in the provision of
sanitation services and the potential actors not in the present list (shown in table 4)
may be Banks, Insurance companies, Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA), Research
institutions, CBOs, Women associations and Mass media.
Figure 21: Actor networks in sanitation provision in urban Rwanda
Economic
Networks
Policy
network
RBS
MINECOFIN
`
BANKS
INTERNATIONAL
DONORS
ELECTROGAZ
RRA
REMA
PRIVATE SECTOR
PRIVATE
SECTOR
FEDERATION
INSURANCE
COMPANIES
RESEARCH
INTITUTIONS
CBOs
CBOs
NGOs
Social
Social
Networks
Networks
MININFRA
MINISANTE
SANITATION
SERVICE
OPERATORS
CONSULTANCY FILMS
MINITERE
MASS MEDIA
WOMEN
ASSOCIATIONS
Source: Author, 2007
79
LOCAL GOV.
RURA
MINALOC
Financial Organisations
Stable and apposite banking and insurance policies and systems in the country will
be required to ensure long term investment in sanitation infrastructure, while research
institutions and consultancy firms are needed to help in identifying and advising on
profitable, sustainable sanitation technologies and management methods.
Research Institutions and consultants
Research institutions such as NUR, KIST, ISAR and others have a very big role to
play as developers of sanitation technological niches by creating networks with
community organisations and selected consumers to experiment different sanitation
technological options. So far, KIST has been on forefront in developing and installing
Ecological sanitation (large-scale Bio gas plants) in prisons and farmers, with the
cooperation of GTZ and Ministry of Internal Security. There is a project to install
these systems in all the prisons in the country which houses on average 5, 000
inmates. The project has received national and international recognition and in 2005
it received from an American organisation “The Ashden Award for sustainable
Energy”. With projects like these, nexus can be formed, through a dynamic
transitional management as presented by (Geels, F.W., 2000) & (van Vliet, B., 2006)
and in chapter three of this thesis.
Community based Organisations
CBOs can be partners or actors in service provision, while women association are
needed as people who are managers of sanitation service consumption, and can
play an important role in raising awareness on best consumer practices, which would
bring about sustainability.
Private Sector
In Rwanda, private sector is weak, and at its early stage in the country, thus still
hesitant; but has the potential and should emerge from its traditional role of supplying
materials for maintenance of water and sanitation infrastructure. It should start to get
more involved in investing in water and sanitation provision through Public
partnerships. So far markets for sanitation services have not been established, but
there is a potential for their creation and this could attract PPP, as it has been the
case in solid waste management in Kigali.
5.3.4 Policy and legal frameworks
The existing policies for water and sanitation as presented in the National water and
sanitation sector policy, EDPRS, Vision 2020, National Housing policy and National
Investment strategy are aimed at increasing the coverage of access to sanitation to
reach the Rwandan vision 2020 and MDGs for sustainable development. National
water and sanitation policy also aims at providing sanitation services which conform
to public hygiene and environmental standards. How ever sanitation is always
overshadowed by water supply during policy implementation, and this can be
reflected by the amount of finances allocated to water supply compared to sanitation.
The implication is that, it is common to find water infrastructure networks in new
neighbourhoods while there is always non for sanitation. This may be due to the
existing policy in urban areas that, wastewater management should be handled by
households, and all the waters, including runoff water should be contained within
ones plot.
80
The problem to achieving the goals in sanitation provision can be that the existing
policy documents for water and sanitation like Water and sanitation sector policy,
EDPRS and Vision 2020 seem to have different and inconsistent data on the
sanitation, in terms of level of population accessibility to water and sanitation
services. Sanitation goals are not indicated in Water and sanitation policy, and also in
EDPRS. Lack of data can be a hindrance to achieving sustainable development
goals. The policy documents also lack elaborated strategies to meet the set goals.
The existing policies and laws for water and sanitation provides peace meal solutions
towards abating pollution of water sources in cities and the environment in general.
For example the Organic law for protection of the environment establishes the
Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA) with legal personality to
monitor, inspect and prosecute those who pollute the environment. The Law also
establishes the National Fund for Environment in Rwanda with the mandate to
soliciting and managing financial resources in the framework of polluter pays
principle, however this organisation has not yet started its operation. It is important to
note here that the National Fund for the Environment will reward those who will
introduce environmentally sustainable technologies when it starts its operation69.
The policies and laws however miss the focus on closing the loop, which can be a
supplement in curtailing the problems of deteriorating resources. The far reaching
policy which promotes technologies and strategies to assist in closing the loop for
resource recovery is needed in Rwanda since these resources are needed to reduce
the pressure on limited natural resources.
The findings of this study suggest that both policy and legal documents for water
ands sanitation, and environmental protection are silent on what technology for
wastewater management is appropriate. The documents also do not prescribe any
approach for provision of sanitation services in the country. The silence of the
policies and laws on which technologies or approaches are deemed appropriate for
Rwanda, coupled with the presence existing legal instruments, policies and goals,
provides a non barrier environment for emergency of innovative technologies and
approaches for provision of sanitation in the country, and in this case, modernised
mixture approach and technologies.
69
Interview with Minister of State in MINITERE, responsible for Lands and Environment, Mrs Hajabakiga
81
5.4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This final chapter presents over all conclusions and recommendation which are
based on the finding of this study. These are geared towards addressing issued
raised in research questions and consequently objectives of this study.
5.4.1 CONCLUDING REMMARKS
Government’s established institutional frameworks for water and sanitation, as well
as environmental protection, such as Water and Sanitation Unit in MINITERE, RURA
and REMA lacks qualified human resources to provide technical back-up to guide or
help potential polluters like industries, hotels, and farmers, e.t.c. Inexistence of
national guidelines and standards for discharging industrial and institutional
wastewater undermines compliance to the organic law for protection of the
environmental. This manifests to continued discharge of untreated wastewater to
ecologically sensitive environments like wetlands by industries and other businesses.
Different respondents provided different regulators for sanitation in Kigali. This
indicates that roles and responsibilities of different actors in sanitation are not clearly
defined, and this can be manifested to poor data management in sanitation that was
observed throughout this study.
Water and Sanitation Unit in MINITERE which is responsible for water and sanitation
in the country is overstretched by responsibilities. Together with water and sanitation
provision and to ensure equitable accessibility by Rwandan population, the unit is
also responsible for water availability for agriculture, transportation and all other
economic water uses. A lot of responsibilities placed on the sector, holds back its
capacity to solve water and sanitation problems.
The existing actor networks in water and sanitation provides a good framework for
institutionalisation of Modernised mixture approaches and systems, however more
actors will be required to be included. Private sector can play a role in sanitation if
markets (which do not exist at the moment ) can be created in sanitation services
provision. The existing research and academic institutions acts as a handy stepping
stone towards future creation of niche experiments with deliberate involvement of
initial users.
Planning of municipal sanitation infrastructures is yet to effectively involve the citizen.
The existing planning department in the district does not identify and consult end
users (citizen) at early stages of projects to formulate the goals.
There is compelling policy and legal framework for water and sanitation geared
towards pollution abatement as well as public health order. However, the notion of
re-use or nutrients re-cycling (closing-the-loop) is not addressed in both policy and
legal documents. In contrast, these issues are addressed in solid waste
management.
The transformation in political landscape towards decentralisation, and
democratisation in the country is in consistent and sides with modernised mixture
approach, whose system elements are embedded into participative and integrated
approaches.
82
The existing policies and legal frameworks are silent on which sanitation
technologies and approaches (forms of management) should be exercised in the
country. On the other hand both policy and legal documents do not hinder
development of DESAR or Modernised Mixture systems. This provides flexibility, a
good environment for development and institutionalisation of modern decentralised
systems.
The financing of water and sanitation at the national level is not sustainable because,
significant amount (58% in 2005) of development budget for their projects is
disbursed by external donors. At district level, beside that the ownership of water and
sanitation infrastructure was decentralised, districts in Kigali are yet to have capacity
to mobilise enough funds from internal sources as stipulated by law, to finance
planned projects, including water and sanitation, therefore they are still dependent on
funds from central government and international NGOs
As a result of classification of water and sanitation provision under general
infrastructure development in districts planning department, sanitation receives the
least of financing and this is an indication that sanitation and drainage systems are
ranked the lowest compared to maintenance and construction of roads and public
buildings
The results of this study indicate that decentralized, on-site sanitation systems are
the only types of excreta management systems that exist in Kigali. Water based
sanitation systems such as automatic flushing toilets connected to septic tanks and
three different community based excreta management systems which are
constructed lagoons, rotor disk and aerobic with activated sludge process, found in
Nyarutarama, Vision 2020 estate and Kakiru SSFR estate respectively are types of
sanitation systems used by the rich. This means that the higher the income the
people become, the more water-based systems and expensive human waste
disposal systems they use.
Besides that the GoR is keen to attract private investors in water and sanitation
sector, water supply in Kigali and other major urban areas is a monopoly of
ELECTROGAZ. More than 70% of Kigali city is occupied by informal settlements,
most of which are found in poor neighbourhoods. In these areas there is poor and
inadequate water supply and municipal sanitation infrastructures. Portable water
connection is not accessed by 49.8% of the households, and 93% of these, buy
water from ELECTROGAZ water kiosks and vendors, while 6.1 % fetch water from
bore-holes and natural springs found in wetlands that surround Kigali.
In poor neighbourhoods, there is no significant difference in consumption of water
between people with and without portable water connection from ELECCTROGAZ
Besides that majority of people without water connection (73%), said they don’t have
ELECTROGAZ water connection because they can not afford water bills, the price of
water in kiosks and vendors is four times higher than the bills from water supply
utility, which means poor people pay more for water than the rich. The involvement of
informal sector into water supply in Kigali through vendors and people who sell water
to their neighbours can not be underestimated.
The excreta management systems in Kigali are characterised by do-it-yourself
approach in management and maintenance. Tradition pit latrines are dominant
83
excreta management systems in poor neighbourhoods with a proportion of 80.2% of
households, compared to automatic flushing toilet with septic tanks 11.8%, pour flush
4.2%, VIP 3% and 0.8% do not have toilet at all. The numerous number of pit latrines
in poor neighbourhoods makes it difficult for health and district inspectors to make
sure the toilets meat public health standards.
In general the existing sanitation systems in poor neighbourhoods help to maintain
public health but, demonstrate weaknesses in their physical function. Septic tanks
and pit latrines are vulnerable to leakages and collapse during heavy rains.
Traditional pit latrines used by the majority of the people in poor neighbourhoods
don’t meet hygiene standards; they attract houseflies as a result of nuisance. Pit
latrines and existing septic tanks don’t encourage re-use of treated sludge.
The habit of the people in Kigali whereby they dig their pit latrines very dip and septic
tanks which infiltrates effluent into the ground do not give opportunity for closing-theloop, let a lone that they contribute to surface and groundwater pollution.
Pit latrines will continue to save the majority of the people in poor neighbourhoods as
long as their economic power and living standards will not improve. The best options
in poor neighbourhoods at the moment are innovative DESAR and water serving
sanitation technologies, because they play a part in reduction of over exploitation of
natural water sources, which continue to be scarce, as a result of population
pressure in the country. Lack of adequate water supply in these areas too, makes
these technologies the ones to opt, before water-based technologies. DESAR, onsite sanitation technologies provides opportunity for nutrients re-cycling which is
environmentally sustainable than water –based, offsite sanitation systems.
De-sludging services exist in Kigali, but are limited, not well established and
unorganised. The inexistence of sanitation guidance and regulatory body leaves loop
holes for environmentally unsustainable dumping and sludge management.
According to the citizen (92.9%), the establishment of CBOs which deals with solid
waste management has improved municipal waste management in the city, including
in informal settlements. CBOs have managed to created markets in solid waste
management services in Kigali. The majority (89.4%) of the citizen have the opinion
that the CBOs provides good services at affordable charges. However, the CBOs are
still dependent on local governments help in recovering bills and raising awareness
among the citizen.
There is poor infrastructure for municipal wastewater and runoff in Kigali in general.
Only 30% of Kigali is covered by paved runoff water infrastructure and all this is
found along main roads and in the city centre. In poor neighbourhoods, lack of runoff
water and drainage systems costs the citizen their structures and causes trenches
resulting from soil erosion.
The majority of the citizens (total of 97.9%) in poor neighbourhoods have the opinion
that they are willing to share the use and management of community wastewater
treatment in their neighbourhoods. In regard to re-use of human waste compost if
treated well, 87.1% said they would have no problem with using it, while 2.1% said
84
they cant use it, and most of them said they can’t use it because they will not trust or
be sure if the compost is safe.
5.4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are put forwards:Institutional, Legal and Policy framework
There should be human resource capacity building for water and sanitation
staff at national and district level, as well as other staff from key actors such as
REMA and RURA. To encourage continuity on issues concerning water,
sanitation and environmental protection, districts should instate a qualified
person (official) who will be responsible to MINITERE, REMA and RURA. The
role of the district in water and sanitation provision should be revised to cope
with demands associated with the ownership and maintenance of water and
sanitation infrastructure in the city
Water and Sanitation Authority should be established in Kigali to oversee
sustainable water and sanitation service provision. This will relieve Water and
Sanitation Unit in MINITERE from stretched responsibilities. The Authority
should operate in an integrated approach
The role of academic and research institution should be enhanced by
empowering these institutions with allocation of enough financial resources for
sanitation niche experiments and development
Water and sanitation committees mentioned in Organic law for the protection
of the Environment should be established, strengthened and empowered, so
that they can act as active platforms for citizen participation in decision making
when planning and implementing water and sanitation projects in their local
administrative areas
Policy and Legal framework
MINITERE and REMA should publish guidelines and standards for discharging
wastewater from households, businesses and industries in different
environments, in order to protect wetlands, surface and groundwater
Since the majority in poor neighbourhoods have no problem in re-using treated
compost from human waste in their gardens and farms, and since the same
big proportion of citizens in the same areas are willing to share the
management and use of wastewater treatment facilities as a community,
policies in sanitation that encourage re-use and nutrients recycling
(Modernised Decentralised Systems-(DESAR like ) should be introduced to
complement the existing policies which are geared towards pollution
abatement
85
Technical
Technical Innovation and transformation in poor neighbourhoods should be
incremental, improving on the existing sanitation systems, so that embedment
of improved technologies can be sustainable with the aim to develop re-use
and nutrients re-cycling systems. Another reason is that the citizen in these
area are poor therefore would not afford brand new and modern technologies
Niches to be developed for poor neighbourhoods should be robust, of low cost
and affordable
Anaerobic technologies should be one of options for Modernised Mixture
systems since they have proved to be a success in tropical climates, which
Kigali enjoys. Other technologies that should be explored are those for water
infiltration, since a lot of damage in soil erosion is done by municipal run-off
water
Planning and financing
Water and sanitation should receive its due recognition and prioritisation when
planning development projects at National and district level, bearing in mind
that they internationally recognised as indicators of sustainable development
Ways should be looked at on how to create markets in sanitation service
provision so that PPP can be attracted in the sector
Districts self financing mechanism should be improved to raise enough
finances to disburse planned projects
Suggested further studies related to this study
Perceptions and attitudes of opinion leaders on adoption of Modernised
Mixture systems in Urban Rwanda
Assessment of economic feasibility of Modernised Mixture Systems in poor
neighbourhoods of Kigali
Impacts of poor sanitation and urbanisation on wetlands in Rwanda
Analysis of environmental sustainability of Solid wasting Management CBOs in
Kigali
86
REFERENCE
1. Akodjenou Arnualt (1995). Lessons learned from the Rwanda
emergency, A UNHCR workshop held at the Chateau des Penthes,
Geneva, 15-17 may 1995
2. Anne P. S., (2002), Returning to their Homeland: Rwandan old caseload
refugees motivated to rebuild the country they never knew: a Phd thesis;
The University of Maryland-National University of Rwanda.
3. Bertrand-Krajewski J.-L., Barraud S., Chocat S. (2000). Need for
improved methodologies and measurements for sustainable
management of urban water systems. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 20(3), 323-331.
4. Budget ordinaire du district de Nyarugenge, 2006 – 2008
5. Chaggu, E., Mashauri, D., van Buren, J., Sanders, W., and Lettinga G.,
(2002): Excreta disposal in Dar Es Salaam, Journal of environmental
management, 30(5), 609-20
6. Chambers R (1994), Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis of
Experience, Journal of World Development,22(9) 1253-1268
7. Cross, P., and A. Morel, 2005: Pro- poor strategies for urban water
supply and sanitation services in Africa, Journal of Water science &
Technology, Vol. 51 No. 8 p. 51-57
8. Gasana J, Morin J, Ndikuyeze A, Kamoro P. (2002) Impact of water
supply and sanitation on diarrheal morbidity among young children in the
socioeconomic and cultural context of Rwanda (Africa). Environmental
Research 90:76-88.
9. Glenn Pearce-Oroz, 2006, The viability of decentralized water and
sanitation provision in developing countries: the case of Honduroas
10. Haudd and Lens, 2001; sighted in G. Langergraber et al, 2005:
Ecological sanitation – a way to solve global sanitation problems,
Journal of environment international Vol 31 (2005) 433-444
11. Irwin, R.A and Stansbury, J., (2004): Citizen Participation in Decision
making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review 64: 55-65
12. Kemp, R., and Parto, S., (2005), Governance for sustainable
development: Moving from theory to practice, International Journal for
sustainabme development, 8(1/2)
13. Lettinga G., Field, J, van Lier, J., Zeeman, G., and Hulshoff Pol, L.W;
(1997), Advanced anaerobic wastewater treatment in the near future,
87
Journal of water science and technology, 35(10) 5-12
14. Lewis M. and Miller T., (1987) Public-private partnership in water supply
and sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa; Journal of Health policy and
planning, pp.70, Vo.2 issue 1
15. M. Henze, 1997, Journal of water science and technology, Vol. 35, No.
9, pp. 133-120
16. McGranahan, G., Jacobi, P., Songsoro., Surjadi, C., Kjellen, (2001), The
Citizen at Risk: From Urban Sanitation to Sustainable Cities, Earthscan
Publications Limited, London and Sterling, VA. UK
17. Mid-Term Evaluation Mission of the 9th European Development Fund
(EDF), Decentralized Programme for Rural Poverty Reduction in
Rwanda, October 2005, Funded by the European Commission
18. Mugabi J., Kayaga S., and Njiru C., (2007), Strategic planning for water
utilities in developing countries, Journal of Utilities Policy (15), 1-8
19. Musahara, H., in Huggins, C., & Clover, J., ( 2005): From Ground Up:
Land rights, Conflict and Peace in Sub-Saharan Africa, Institute of
Security studies, Pretoria, South Africa. pp.1-383
20. Nielsen Susanne B., and Morten Elle, (2000); Assessing the potential for
change in Urban Infrastructure systems: Journal of Impact assessment
Review, 20 (2000) 403-412
21. Nilson D., 2006, A heritage of sustainability? Reviewing the origin of the
large scale water and sanitation systems in Kampala Uganda, Journal of
Environment & Urbanisation, (18), ( 2), 369-385
22. Otterpohl, R., Grottker, M., and Lange J., (1997), Sustainable water and
waste management in urban areas, Journal of water science and
technology, 35(9) 121-133
23. Punch F. Keith (2005): Introduction to social research: Quantitative and
Qualitative Approaches, 2nd Edition, Sage Publication (101-102).
24. Rosemarin, J. A, 2005,. Journal of Water science& Technology Vol. 51
No. 8, p.109-118
25. Spaargaren, G., et al, (2005), Mixed Moderrnities: Towards viable urban
environmental Infrastructure development in East Africa (Position paper,
Environmental Policy group (ENP) Wageningen University, for
PROVIDE Project)
26. Tatenhoven, J., Leroy, P., and Arts, B., (2000) Political Modernisation
and the Environment: The Renewal of Environmental Policy
Arrangements, Kluwer Academic Publishers
27. Tayler K. and Parkinson J. (2005), Strategic planning for urban
88
sanitation—a 21st century development priority?, Journal of Water
Policy, (7) 569–580
28. Torsten Krekeler, 2005: general options for groundwater protection
(Kabul water conference and workshop, 2005
29. UN (Economic and Social Council, Economic Commission for Africa
(2005): Public-Private Partnership for service delivery: Water and
Sanitation, Third meeting of the Committee on Human Development and
Society, Adis Ababa, Ethiopia 4-6 May, 2005
30. van Buren, J (2004), Appropiate technology for urban sanitation in van
Buren and Harmelers, (2004) Water and Waste management in
developing countries. Course reader, WUR, The Netherlands
31. van Vliet, B., 2006. The sustainable transformation of sanitation. In:
Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Ch. 13, p. 337-354.
Eds: Voß J.P., .Bauknecht and R. Kemp.Edward Elgar Publishing
Limited, UK.
32. van Vliet, B., and Stein N., (2003); The development and implementation
of ecosan in the Netherlands: Social opportunities and risks. In ecosanclosing the loop, proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on
ecological sanitation, incorporating the 1st IWA special group
conference on sustainable sanitation, 7th -11th April 2003, Lubeck,
Germany
33. van Vliet, B., in Southerton,D, Chappells, H., van Vliet B., (eds) (2004),
Sustainable consumption: The implications of changing Infrastructure
Provision, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing
34. van Vliet,B., 2004: The Sustainable transformation of Sanitation;
Development of technology and policy, p.337-353
35. van Vliet,B., 2006 in P.P Verbeek and A. Slob (eds), User behaviour
and technology development: Shaping sustainable relations between
consumers and technologies, p.p 309-318, Published by Springer
36. WHO/ UNICEF Report, 2006: Meeting the MDG: Drinking water and
sanitation target: The urban and rural challenges of the decade
37. Wright A.M., (1997), Toward a Strategic Sanitation Approach: Improving
the Sustainability of Urban Sanitation in Developing Countries, UNDPWorld Bank Water and Sanitation Program, an internal working
document published informally by the UNDP-World
38. Yu H, Tay J, and Wilson F, (1997), A sustainable Municipal Wastewater
treatment process for tropical and subtropical regions in developing
countries, Journal of Water science and technology, Vol. 35, No. 9, pp.
191-198
89
39. Zeeman, G and Lettinga, G. (1999): The role of Anaerobic Digestion of
Domestic Sewage in Closing the water and Nutrient Cycle at Community
Level, The Journal of water Science and Technology, Vo. 39, No. 5, pp.
197-194
90
Appendixes
Appendix 1: Survey data presented into graphs
Figure 22
n=210HH
100
92.9
90
Percent, n=210HH
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
7.1
10
0
YES
NO
Opinion on w hether the introduction of CBOs
has om proved SWM in the neighborhoods
Figure 23
n=210HH
80
70
60
percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
YES
NO
Whether citizen are asked to seperate solid w aste at
source
91
Figure 24
n=211HH
47.4
50.0
45.0
40.0
34.6
Percent1
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
12.8
10.0
5.2
5.0
0.0
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Opinion on the quality of services from CBOs
Figure 25
n=232HH
100.0
90.0
87.1
80.0
Pwercentage
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
12.9
10.0
0.0
YES
NO
Opinion on w illingness to use treated com post
from the toilet in garderns
92
Figure 26
Percentages
n=207
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
89.4
10.6
YES
NO
Opinion on fairness of charges/bills from
SWCBOs
NB: n =207, 30 households not served by CBOs
93
Appendix 2: Survey data presented in SPSS tables
Table 8: How do you rank cultural as a reason compared to economic,technology, topography, plot size
(1-5 points). Lowest ranked 1; Highest ranked 5
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1
81
34.2
45.3
45.3
2
33
13.9
18.4
63.7
3
26
11.0
14.5
78.2
4
25
10.5
14.0
92.2
5
14
5.9
7.8
100.0
Total
179
75.5
100.0
System
58
24.5
237
100.0
Total
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Value
df
Pearson Chi-Square
44.813(a)
12
.000
Likelihood Ratio
50.580
12
.000
N of Valid Cases
179
a 7 cells (35.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.58.
Table 9: How do you rank economic reasons compared to culture, technology, topography, plot size (1-5
points). Lowest ranked 1; Highest ranked 5
Valid
Missing
1
Frequency
1
Percent
.4
Valid Percent
.5
Cumulative
Percent
.5
2
9
3.8
4.3
4.8
3
16
6.8
7.6
12.4
4
24
10.1
11.4
23.8
5
160
67.5
76.2
100.0
Total
210
88.6
100.0
System
27
11.4
237
100.0
Total
Table 10: How do you rank technology as a reason compared to culture , economic, topography, plot size
(1-5 points). Lowest ranked 1; Highest ranked 5
Valid
Missing
Total
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
1
59
24.9
34.1
Cumulative
Percent
34.1
2
58
24.5
33.5
67.6
3
24
10.1
13.9
81.5
4
22
9.3
12.7
94.2
5
10
4.2
5.8
100.0
Total
173
73.0
100.0
System
64
27.0
237
100.0
94
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Value
df
Pearson Chi-Square
58.097(a)
12
.000
Likelihood Ratio
59.532
12
.000
N of Valid Cases
173
a 8 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.68.
Table 11: How do you rank topography as a reason compared to culture, economic,technology, plot size
(1-5 points). Lowest ranked 1; Highest ranked 5
Valid
Missing
Cumulative
Percent
1
Frequency
16
Percent
6.8
Valid Percent
9.3
2
29
12.2
16.9
26.2
3
50
21.1
29.1
55.2
4
56
23.6
32.6
87.8
5
21
8.9
12.2
100.0
Total
172
72.6
100.0
System
65
27.4
237
100.0
Total
9.3
Table 12: How do you rank plot size as a reason compared to culture, economic, technology, topography
(1-5 points). Lowest ranked 1; Highest ranked 5
Valid
Missing
Total
1
Frequency
35
Percent
14.8
Valid Percent
18.8
Cumulative
Percent
18.8
2
31
13.1
16.7
35.5
3
48
20.3
25.8
61.3
4
49
20.7
26.3
87.6
5
23
9.7
12.4
100.0
Total
186
78.5
100.0
System
51
21.5
237
100.0
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Value
df
Pearson Chi-Square
25.665(a)
12
.012
Likelihood Ratio
28.663
12
.004
N of Valid Cases
186
a 1 cells (5.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.08.
95
Table 13: Do you have access to potable water * Location (sector) Cross tabulation
Location (sector)
Do you have
access
to
potable water
Rugenge
46
Muhima
29
Gitega
26
Kimisagara
16
Total
YES
NO
14
30
34
38
116
0
1
0
3
4
60
60
60
57
237
Total
117
Table 14: If Yes, What kind of a toilet do you have? * Location (sector) Cross tabulation
Location (sector)
If Yes, What kind
of a toilet do you
have?
Rugenge
Muhima
Gitega
Kimisagara
Total
traditional simple
pit latrine
36
52
52
50
190
VIP
3
1
1
2
7
2
4
1
3
10
18
3
6
1
28
1
0
0
1
2
60
60
60
57
237
Pourflush
latrine piped to
soak pit
Automatic
flushing
toilet
pipped to septic
tank
Total
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value
df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
33.960(a)
12
.001
Likelihood Ratio
33.488
12
.001
N of Valid Cases
237
a 12 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .48.
96
ANNEXES
97
ANNEX 1: Questionnaires used to collect data through a survey and interviews
Closed-Ended Questionnaire for Citizens
1. What is your age?
• Between 18-25 years
• Between 26-35 years
• Between 36-45 years
• Between 46-55 years
• Between 56-65 years
• Above 65 years
2. Where is your house located?
• Sector………………………….District………………………
3. What is the size of your family?
• 1 person
• 2-3 people
• 3-4 people
• 5-6 people
• 7-8 people
• Above 8 people
4. What is your occupation?
5. What is your monthly family income?
- Bellow 25, 000RwF
- Between 25,000 and 50000RwF
- Between 50,000 and 100000RwF
- Between 100,000 and 150,000RwF
- Between 150, 000 and 200,000RwF
- Above 200,000
6. Do you get drinking water on the tap at your house from ELECTROGAZ?
• YES
• NO
i) If YES, to what extent do the water you get meet your needs?
• Over 80%
• Between 60 -80%
• About 50%
• Bellow 25%
ii) If NO, Where do you get drinking water from?
• I buy tap water from a neighbour
• I fetch water from the well near my house
• I fetch drinking water from the valley/river
• Others, specify……………………………………………………………
7. I don’t have access to tap water because...
• I am satisfied with drinking water I get from the sources mentioned above
• I can not afford bills from ELECTROGAZ
98
• ELECTROGAZ is not capable of bringing water to my house
• Othersreasons, specify…………………………………………………..
8. What is your daily water consumption?
• Less than 20L
• Between 30-40L
• About 60L
• Above 80-100L
• Above 100L
9. Do you have a toilet?
• YES
• NO
i) If YES what kind of a toilet do you have?
• Simple/traditional Pit latrine
• Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine (VIP)
• Pour-flush latrine piped to a soak pit
• Automatic flushing toilet piped to a septic tank
• Others, specify………………………………………………………..
10. How do you discharge the wastewater you produce at your house?
• I pour the wastewater in the common/public drainage
• I pour the wastewater in a constructed soak pit at my house
• I pour wastewater outside my house
• The wastewater goes into a sink piped to a septic tank
• Others, specify………………………………………….
11. How do you handle the solid waste you produce at your house?
• I throw it in a dump near my neighbourhood
• I dump it in a constructed land fill at my plot
• The company/association collects the waste from my house
• Others, specify………………………………………………..
i)
If a company/association collects solid waste from your house, what is the
name
of
the
company/association?......................................................................
ii)
Have the solid waste companies/associations improved solid waste
management in your area?
• YES
• NO
iii)
Do the company ask you to separate biodegradables from nonbiodegradables
when handling solid-waste at home?
• Yes
• NO
99
iv)
How do you can describe the quality of the services you get from the
company/ CBO?
• Excellent
• Good
• Fair
• Poor
12. Which of the following factors determines most, which type of toilet and sanitation
system you will have at your house? (Locate in the boxes bellow points from 5 - 1,
giving a big determinant 5 points and 1 point the least determinant).
• Cultural factors
• Economic factors
• Technological factors
• Plot Geographical location or Topography
• Plot size
13. If there could be a technology to disinfecting faeces from your toilet, would you
adopt it and use them as compost/manure in your farm?
• YES
• NO
If NO, what is the reason?.......................................................................................
14. I am willing to share in my neighbourhood a technology which requires me to
participate in the management and use of a shared excreta treatment facility with my
neighbours
• I strongly agree
• I agree
• I don’t agree
• I strongly disagree
15. The state of Municipal water (runoff/storm water) drainage Infrastructure in my
neighbourhood is poor and it doesn’t protect the environment…
• I strongly agree
• I agree
• I don’t agree
• I strongly disagree
100
Open Ended Interview for MINITERE
1. Who are the main players (stakeholders) on Solid waste management in urban
areas in Rwanda?
2. Who are main players (stake holders) on water supply and Public sanitation,
including Industrial and municipal sewage systems in Rwanda?
- What are their roles and interests? (Documents if any from the ministry)
3. What is the procedures/process for environmental policy making in Rwanda?
- What is the role of Local governments in policy making?
- What is the role of polluters (industries, Public Institutions) in
environmental policy making process in Rwanda
- What is the role of the citizens in environmental policy making
process in Rwanda?
4. Who is responsible for water and sewage infrastructure in Rwanda?
- Who are the main players in decision making on Water supply,
Public sewage and sanitation in Rwanda and who are the
implementers?
- Who evaluates and who monitors the activities of water supply,
public sewage systems and solid waste management in
Rwanda?
5. What are the policies that govern water supply and public sanitation in
Rwanda?
- What are the regulations for discharging waste water from households to the
environment? (surface and ground water)
- What are the regulations for discharging waste water from industries and
public institutions like prisons, hospitals, colleges to the environment?
6. In each case, which measures do you take when these regulations are
violated?
7. Do you give any incentives to industries or public institutions which practice
good environment management practices, such as waste water treatment,
waste recycling, re-use and waste minimization? If you have any what are
they?
8. What are the policies that govern solid waste management in Rwanda
- Which of them are for domestic solid waste management and disposal?
- Which of them are for municipal solid waste management and disposal?
- Which of them are for industrial/chemical waste?
9. What is the policy on public sewage in urban areas in Rwanda?
10. What is a financing policy on public sewage infrastructure and solid waste in
urban areas of Rwanda?
11. Where do you rank portable water supply to citizen in your development
budget?
12. Which percentage of this budget is allocated for water supply and which share
does the urban water infrastructure get?
13. Where do you rank municipal run off/storm water and sewage infrastructure in
the development budget for your ministry?
14. Which percentage of this budget do you allocate for municipal runoff/storm
water and sewage infrastructure? (Data for the last three years)
15. Where are the sources of the funds for this purpose and how sustainable are
these sources?
101
16. How can you describe the decentralization of funding of public sewage and
solid waste management in Rwanda, compared to old centralized policy?
17. What difficulties do you get in financing municipal runoff/storm water
infrastructures?
18. Which local NGOs in Rwanda have interest in urban water and sanitation and
what are their specific activities? (Which projects are ongoing or have been
realized?
19. Which International NGOs in Rwanda have interest in urban water and
sanitation and what are their specific activities? (Which projects are ongoing or
have been realized?
20. What are your future plans and approach in making sure waste water from
public sewage is treated before it is discharges to the environment?
21. How can you describe compliance of articles 81, 82, 83, 84, 102 and 103 of
organic law determining the modalities of protection, conservation and
promotion of environment in Rwanda?
22. In your opinion, what could be the reasons as to why most people and
institutions/companies still do not dispose or discharge their waste in a manner
established in the above mentioned articles?
23. What can be done by the stakeholders (MINITERE, Funding organizations,
Provinces, Local governments, companies, institutions and the citizen), so that
there is safe disposal/discharge of waste in the environment?
102
Open Ended Questionnaire for the District
1. What are area administrative areas of Nyarugenge district?
2. Is the whole of Nyarugenge district planned ( are all the neighbourhoods in
Nyarugenge in the city plan)
a. If NO, which neighborhoods are planned and which are not?
b. What are the district’s future plans on these neighborhoods/ houses to
settle these neighborhoods?
3. What is the population in Nyarugenge district?
4. What is the population growth rate?
5. What are the sources of water in for drinking in Nyarugenge district?
- Do you have any policies that protect these sources?
6. Are all Nyarugenge district neighbourhoods supplied with portable water?
- If NO, can you estimate the percentage of neighbourhoods with portable
water?
- Which neighbourhoods have no portable water at all?
- What are the reasons as to why some neighbourhoods have no access to
potable water?
6. What is the water consumption/capital in Nyarugenge district?
7. Can you tell me different kinds of wastewater management that exist in
Nyarugenge district?
- Do you have some wastewater treatment plants in Nyarugenge district?
- If you have any, where these plants are and from which wastewater sources
do these plants service?
8. How do you manage municipal runoff/storm waster?
9. How is the runoff/storm water infrastructure in the district?
10. Are there any closed sewer systems in Nyarugenge?
- If YES, which neighbourhoods are connected? - Which are not connected
11. What kind of sanitation systems for domestic wastewater that exist in
Nyarugenge districts?
- Can you estimate the percentage of the contribution of each type of sanitation
system in the districts households? Pit latrines/septic tanks (soak, filtration)
12. What is the districts policy/bylaw on waste water management?
13. What is the districts policy on financing of municipal and domestic sanitation
systems?
14. Who is responsible for solid waste management in the district?
15. Can you estimate the amount of solid waste produced in Nyarugenge district?
16. What are the districts policies/by laws on solid waste management?
17. What is the districts policy on financing of municipal and domestic solid waste?
18. Do you have associations/companies which collect, handle and dispose solid
waste in the district?
18. Where and how do these associations/companies handle and dispose the
solid waste?
19. Does the district have a policy to give incentives to associations/companies
that deal with waste management? And if there are any, which incentives do
you provide?
103
20. Which neighbourhoods do this service reach and which do not get this
service?
21. What plans do you have to protect the environment from wastewater and solid
waste in the district?
22. What is your opinion on the standard of sanitation and solid waste
management in Nyarugenge district?
23. What constraints do you face in the establishment of good urban
environmental services (quality, adequate water supply and sanitation) in your
district?
104
Open Ended questionnaire for Kigali city council (MVK)
1. What is the population of the city of Kigali?
2. What is the population growth rate?
3. Who is responsible for waste water/solid waste in the city? (Water and
sanitation)
4. What is the cities policy on wastewater discharge?
5. What is the cities policy on solid waste management/handling?
6. Can you estimate the daily quantity of solid waste produced in the city? (Do
you have data?)
7. What percentage of this waste is collected/handled in the city?
8. Where and how do you handle (at household, street, district and city level)
solid waste in the city?
- How is this waste disposed?
9. Who is responsible for municipal sanitation in Kigali city?
10. Who is responsible for the financing of sanitation infrastructure in the city?
- How can you describe the way these infrastructures are financed? (Data for
cities plan of action to see how much is located for environmental infrastructure)
11. How do you manage runoff/storm water in the city?
12. What area of the city is covered with the infrastructure for municipal storm
water/runoff
13. Do you have any projects for runoff/storm water management in the city?
- If you have some, how many are they?
- Where are they located and what area is expected to be cover?
- Who is financing them?
14. Do you have any wastewater treatment plant for public waste water treatment
in the city? If YES:
- Where are they?
- What is their type?
- How many household do they serve?
- Who finances/manages them?
- What is their functioning strengths and weaknesses?
15. Do you have any Public-Private Partnership projects for urban environmental
management services?
- If there are any, can you mention them and what is your pinion on their
performance in terms of the quality of services they provide?
- How are they financed them?
- Are there any incentives that MVK offers to these companies/associations?
16. What constraints do you face in improving urban environmental infrastructure
in the city?
17. What future plans do you have to improve municipal sanitation systems in the
city?
105
OPEN ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS (Hospitals,
Prisons, Colleges)
1. What is the name of your institution/organization?
2. What kind of business do you operate?
3. What kind of service do you provide?
4. How many people spend their day in your institution?
5. What type of toilets do you have in your institution?
6. Is the number of toilets enough to handle the number of people who spend
their day in the institution?
7. What kind of solid waste do you produce?
8. How do you handle your solid waste?
9. Do you produce wastewater?
10. Do you have any solid/water waste reduction or recycling policy in your
organization? If YES, how do you implement this policy?
11. How do you discharge the wastewater produced in your organization?
12. Do use human waste as a source of energy? If YES, which technology do you
use to produce energy? How has this technology helped you to improve the
environment in terms of sanitation? To what extent has this reduced your
demand on fire woods?
106
Open ended questionnaire prepared for ELECTROGAZ
1. Apart from supplying water and Electricity to citizen of Kigali and the country
as a whole, Which other services do your company provide?
2. Where are the water sources for your customers?
3. Do you have policies for protecting the water resources from human activities?
4. How do you protect the natural environment at water sources?
5. Can you estimate which percentage of Kigali households/ residents are
connected to water from electrogaz?
6. Do you satisfy all your customers? To what extent do you need to increase
the water quantity and pressure to your customers?
7. Those who are not connected what could be the reason as to why they are not
connected?
8. How long does it take for one to be connected to water from electrogaz?
9. Do you have external regulators for the quality of drinking water?
10. Which water treatment procedures do you execute?
11. What parameters (chemical and Biological) do you use to control treated and
non treated water quality and where do you refer yourself to?
12. How do you cope with water demand in Kigali city given the population growth
registered in recent years?
13. What is Electrogaz achievement over these years in supplying water to its
customers?
14. What constraints do you face in providing your services to your costumers?
15. What are your future plans to extend your services?
16. What constraints can you foresee in realisation of these plans?
107
Open ended questionnaire for industries
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
What kind of business do you operate?
How many products do you produce?
How many employees do you have?
What type of solid waste do you produce?
How do you handle the solid waste you produce?
How do you handle the chemical waste?
What type of waste water do you produce?
What sanitation system do you have for:
Industrial waste water (Chemical)?
Human waste?
Other liquid waste?
Do you have solid/ liquid waste recycling in your organisation?
Do you have waste minimisation/reduction or recycling policy in your
organisation? If YES,
- What is the content of the policy (Document if available)
- How do you implement it?
8. What constraints do you face in improving the quality of waste water you
discharge to the environment?
9. For the development budget of your company, how do you rank sanitation
infrastructure and waste water treatment? And which percentage do you
provide for this?
10. What future plans do you have to improve the sanitation infrastructure and the
quality of water you discharge to the environment?
108
Open ended questionnaire for Hotels.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
What kind of business do you operate?
What kind of services do you provide?
Who is an external regulator for waste management at your Hotel?
Which environmental regulations are you subjected to?
What kind of sanitation system do you have?
Describe the kind of solid waste you produce and how you handle it?
Do you have any company policy on wastewater/solid waste reduction and
recycling? If YES how do you implement it?
8. How do you manage the wastewater at your hotel?
9. Where and how do you discharge the wastewater you produce at the
hotel?
10. What constraints/difficulties do you face in managing solid waste/
wastewater from your hotel?
11. What future plans/goals do you have to improve the state of environment in
your hotel and the surrounding neighborhood and what will you do to
achieve these goals?
109
Annex 2
110
Annex 3:
111