Municipal solid waste management under decentralisation in Uganda

Municipal solid waste management under decentralisation in Uganda

James Okot-Okumu *,Richard Nyenje

Makerere University Institute of Environment and Natural Resources (MUIENR),P.O.Box 7298,Kampala,Uganda

Keywords:

Decentralisation

Municipal solid waste management Urban councils Uganda

a b s t r a c t

This paper examines municipal solid waste management in Uganda under the decentralisation policy.The aim is to analyse devolved solid waste management and the constraints on achieving sustainable waste management.To achieve the objectives,waste characteristics,generation rate,collection,disposal and stakeholder roles and waste management responsibilities were analysed.Results indicate the waste is predominantly biodegradable (78%)with generation rate of 0.55(0.3e 0.66)kg/capita/day and collection coverage of 43.7%.Urban Councils are under capacity to handle waste management demands and where services are poor or nonexistent the community have developed onsite waste management methods.Waste recovery,recycling,re-use,and composting are being practiced by the urban community.The national strategy for solid waste management is failing because environmental management is not mainstreamed into local development plans and weak resource mobilisation,due to the lack of ?scal decentralisation and lack of participatory approach to the decentralisation process.Waste management receives less than 10%of urban council budgets compared to other policy areas.In conclusion,for effective waste management there is need for genuine decentralisation where urban councils are empowered,have capacity for resource mobilisation and apply participatory planning.

ó2011Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.

Introduction

The main sources of wastes in Africa are households,markets,institutions,streets,public areas,commercial areas and manufacturing industries (Kaseva &Mbuligwe,2005).There is often indiscriminate waste disposal without concern for human health impacts or envi-ronmental degradation.The problems of solid waste management are compounded by the rapid urban population growth caused by rural to urban migration overstretching resources (Yhdego,1995).Municipal wastes constitute one of the most crucial public health and environ-mental problems in African cities (Achankeng,2003;Adebilu &Okenkule,1989;Rotich,Yongsheng,&Jun,2006).

In the 1950s and 1960s waste management was ef ?cient because of the lower urban population and adequate resources.It is evident from some African authors like Achankeng (2003)Cameroon,Adebilu and Okenkule (1989)Nigeria,Kaseva and Mbuligwe (2005)and Rotich et al.(2006)Kenya,that urban areas in Africa have been experiencing serious solid waste management failures.Urban councils (UCs)often failed to provide adequate waste management services due to factors such as lack of capacity to adequately adopt the technology-intensive methods from the developed world.

According to Manga,Forton,and Read (2008)and Oosterveer and Van Vliet (2010)other management barriers include limited ?nan-cial powers,lack of resources and poor governance.

Uganda,on the realisation that the country did not have the capacity centrally to effectively deliver services to the different communities and the environment,adopted a decentralisation policy in 1997.The reforms to strengthen local governments were initiated in the 1980s and were consolidated by the 1995constitution and further elaborated by the Local Government Act (LGA)of 1997.

To adequately assess the effectiveness of waste management under the decentralisation policy a multidisciplinary approach was used for this study which looks at both technical and socio-economic issues of waste management under decentralisation.The objective of this paper therefore is to identify and analyse the key solid waste management issues under the decentralisation system and examine opportunities for sustainable solutions.It focuses on examining waste management activities (waste gener-ation,collection and disposal)and the roles and responsibilities of those concerned with waste management.Materials and methods Study area

This study covered nine urban centres (UCs)from the political-administrative regions of Uganda namely Central:Kampala City,

*Corresponding author.Tel.:t256772411460/t256414530135;fax:t256414530134.

E-mail addresses:jokotokumu@muienr.mak.ac.ug ,jokotokumu@https://www.360docs.net/doc/562569814.html, (J.

Okot-Okumu).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International

journal homep age:www.elsevie https://www.360docs.net/doc/562569814.html,/locate/habit

atint

0197-3975/$e see front matter ó2011Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.03.003

Habitat International 35(2011)537e 543

Entebbe Municipality,Masaka Municipality and Nansana Town Council;Eastern:Jinja Municipality,Mbale Municipality and Soroti Municipality;Northern:Lira Municipality;Western:Fort Portal Municipality.Selection of the urban areas for the study was based on urban population and socio-cultural differences.Urban councils are graded on a population basis as:Town Council 25,000inhabitants;Municipal Council 100,000and City Council 500,000inhabi-tants (Local Government Act,1997,Schedule 3,Article 32-1).Methods

We used a range of methods involving interviews,questionnaires,observations and document reviews to obtain quantitative and qualitative data.Five hundred households were selected based on statistical methods of random sampling design by iteration (Zar,1999),whereby human issues related to waste management were explored and feedback used to determine the next sample groups,households and individuals in a ?exible manner.Selection of house-holds was systematically done from Local council (LC)records.The household survey was carried out following Vidanaarachchi,Yuen,and Pilapitiya (2006)that applies a door-to-door method,using enumerators to administer questionnaires.Since the population of the towns varies considerably we used a method of ‘probability proportionate to size ’(Cochran,1977)that ensures that selected samples are representative of the study groups.These methods were able to obtain responses from 478households out of the 500intended.Household interviews covered waste characteristics;onsite storage;generation rates;collection frequency;perception;attitude;management practices;willingness to sort;willingness to pay for waste collection and awareness.Key stakeholders in the UCs,Government,waste workers and private companies were interviewed to obtain information on policy,legal and the institutional framework for waste management and associated issues.

Waste characterisation and quanti ?cation were done following standard procedures whereby waste was collected in plastic bags at source for 7days,sorted and weighed .The impacts of solid waste on environment were recorded through visual examination of all the stages of solid waste management and by interviewing stake-holders.Data collected were statistically analysed for association

(Fowler,Cohen,&Jarvis,1998)to test the interdependence between factors.

Results and discussion

Solid waste characteristics,generation rate and household management

Waste generation in Uganda is between 1.2and 3.8kg/day (low income 0.3kg/capita/day and high income 0.66kg/capita/day).We found the average waste generation rate of 0.55kg/cap/day comparable to NEMA (2007)results and also to other devel-oping countries like Cameroon (Achankeng,2003),Tanzania (Kaseva &Mbuligwe,2005)and Sri Lanka (Vidanaarachchi et al.,2006).Total waste generation rates by the urban councils range from 44.5to 1320ton/day and the waste streams are summarised in Table 1.Households are the major solid waste generators as in other developing countries like Cameroon (Achankeng,2003),Tanzania (Kaseva &Mbuligwe,2005),Kenya (Rotich et al.,2006)and Indonesia (Supriyadi,Kriwoken,&Birley,2000).

The urban solid waste composition is 37.8%(food waste),33.6%(yard wastes),6.7%(paper),0.8%(metals),7.8%(plastics),8.6%(stones &debris),1.3%(textiles),0.7%(glasses)and 2.7(miscellaneous)which is typical of the East African urban areas like Nairobi e Kenya (Rotich et al.,2006)and Dar es Salaam e Tanzania (Kaseva &Mbuligwe,2005).Being predominantly biodegradable (72e 86.5%)the urban wastes are suitable for composting.Most low-income households (82.5%)disposed of wastes daily because of poor and improvised storage,while 85.3%high and middle income people dispose twice a week and 60%of commercial premises dispose of wastes daily.Some households sort waste components considered valuable such as peels of bananas,potatoes and cassava and leaves (animal feeds),plastic bags (re-use &recycling),bottles (re-use &recycling),tins (re-use &recycling)and scrap metals (recycling).Sorted items are either sold or re-used by the sorters.Willingness to sort is not asso-ciated (c 2,P ?0.05)with family income as opposed to the ?ndings in Limbe,Cameroon (Mbeng,Phillips,&Fairweather,2009).This can be attributed to greater awareness that exists among Ugandan urban community about the ?nancial values of some waste items.

Table 1

Solid waste streams and the estimated contribution to the urban waste load.Solid waste streams Contribution in weight %Waste characteristics

Comments

Domestic

52

Major:food wastes.

Minor:paper;plastic;textiles;glass;ceramics;ashes;leather;compound wastes

-Quantity increasing with population.-Wastes collection:urban councils;private companies

Markets a

20

Major:vegetable wastes (leaves,stalks),spoilt fruits Minor:damaged packaging materials (e.g.,sacks,bags,paper,timber)

-Markets in all municipalities -Number increasing

-Waste collection:urban councils Commercial (excluding markets)8

Major:packaging materials;food wastes;scrap metals Minor:glass,hazardous wastes (e.g.contaminated containers,batteries and cleaning textiles)

-Shops,hotels,restaurants,of ?ces,open pavement trading -Mobile open air traders -Increasing business

-Increasing waste volumes

-Waste collection:urban council;private companies

Institutional (e.g.,Educational,sports facilities,clubs)5Major:food wastes,stationery

Minor:packaging (e.g.,cardboard,paper,plastics)

-Expanding in numbers with population increase -Waste collection:mainly private companies.Industrial (manufacturing)

3

Various types depending on industry (e.g.,decomposable wastes from food industries,non-degradable such as broken bottles and plastic containers)-Broken bottles:no recycling plant in Uganda -Plastic:recovered,re-used,recycled -Recycling plants in Kampala

Healthcare

(hospitals,clinics,drug shops)1

Major:domestic type of wastes Minor:hazardous

(e.g.,anatomical,contaminated materials,sharps)-Major hospitals treats own hazardous wastes.-Clinics dump with other wastes

-Domestic:collected by private companies.Others

11

Examples:street sweepings,public park wastes,construction wastes

-collected by:Urban council and private companies

a

Merchandise for urban markets comes along with enormous amounts of wastes (e.g.leaves,stalks,grass,sacks,and branches)from the countryside.

J.Okot-Okumu,R.Nyenje /Habitat International 35(2011)537e 543

538

Policy and legislation

The legal framework for waste management is provided for under a range of government and Local Government Act(1997)and laws (Table2).Key among them is the decentralisation policy which devolved the roles and responsibilities of many government depart-ments to lower local levels(local authorities and urban councils). The objective of achieving sustainable environmental protection is prominent among other factors covered by the decentralisation policy.These key pieces of legislation provide for the involvement of the private sector in waste management by allowing the urban councils to engage them through contracts.Such councils have the full mandate for waste management services including the legal authority to make speci?c ordinances and by-laws.

The national strategy for solid waste management has not been implemented effectively due to several factors(?scal,material, technical,human resource and social)which are elaborated in this paper.Under decentralisation the strategy for waste management has not effectively evolved into easily implementable laws by the urban councils,which is attributed to the failure to mainstream environmental policy,lack of participatory planning,lack of?scal decentralisation and institutional weaknesses.Mainstreaming environment policy has been dif?cult to achieve because of the traditional sectoral approach to planning that is deeply rooted in local government’s institutional structures.The application of the decentralisation policy to solid waste management therefore has a big gap between discourse and action and the intended environ-mental protection policy objectives are yet to be achieved.Urban councils therefore,respond to waste crisis rather than adequately planning for solid waste management using the national waste management strategy.

Institutional framework

The reforms to strengthen local government management in Uganda include the decentralisation of environmental management functions including solid waste management.The decentralisation policy aims at empowering the local populations via democratisation, participation,accountability,transparency,ef?ciency and effective-ness.The institutional framework for decentralisation in Uganda is hierarchical in structure with responsibilities devolved to the Local councils(LCs)at management levels that stretch from the village(LC1) through the parish(LC2),the sub-county(LC3),the county(LC4)and the district(LC5).The main administrative and political powers at the local level are with the LC5which is the administrative political body of the local population.

The central government role in the decentralisation process is coordination,supervision,capacity building and monitoring of the local governments.The highest organ is the Inter-Ministerial Committee lead by the Ministry of Water and Environment.This committee works very closely with the National Environment Management Authority(NEMA)and donor agencies.Decentralised institutional responsibility related to waste management in Ugan-dan is summarised in Table2.

The rapid growth in the number of districts(33in1986to45in 1998,56in2003,80in2008and112in July2010)means contin-uous administrative reorganisation at the local level.This has caused more efforts(e.g.?scal,material and human resources)to be directed towards administrative rather than developmental tasks as observed by Oosterveer and Van Vliet(2010).

The local governing bodies are mandated by the Local Govern-ment Act(LGA)of1997to provide and maintain waste manage-ment infrastructures.They can contract private companies to manage waste under supervision.Typical solid waste management pattern is shown in Fig.1.According to Oosterveer and Van Vliet (2010)the devolving of environmental management responsibili-ties is imposed unilaterally by the central government on local governments,and in their view,the decentralisation process cannot be considered equal to‘participatory’environmental governance.

Even though there is an elaborate institutional framework for waste management there are still implementation de?ciencies.For example most urban council departments still strictly follow their pre-decentralisation mandates and are reluctant to cooperate in environmental management that they view as extra burdens.Local

Table2

Decentralised institutional responsibility related to waste management in Uganda.a

Management levels Central government Higher local government Lower local government

Institutional

arrangement Ministry of Water and Environment

(overall responsibility)

Other government ministries:

-Environment,health,local government,

agriculture,energy,industry

-NEMA(coordination and supervision)

National committees

District councils/city councils(coordination and

supervision at Local government level);LC5

Municipality/towns councils;LC4

Sub-county/division councils;LC3

Technical committees

Environment committees

-Parish Committees

-Village Committees

-NGOs/CBOs,

-Private companies

-Community

Responsibilities Policy,regulations,monitoring

-Overall planning&coordination

-Supervision&quality assurance

-Capacity development -District,city,town plans

-Coordination and supervision of LLG

-Service delivery

-Support to community

-Monitoring and reporting to central government

-Service delivery

-Participation in planning

-Monitoring and

reporting to HLG

Statutory instrument The Constitution of1995and the National

Environment Management Policy(NEMP)of1994

The overall goals,objectives and key principles

for environment management in Uganda.Key legislative documents for waste management in Uganda are:

B The Environment Act cap153:waste management modalities;pollution control;

EIA

B The Public Health Act Cap281of2000:reponsibilities in public health and

sanitation

B The National Environment(Waste Management)Regulations of1999:regulates

of wastes

B The Local Government Act of1997:decentralised environmental management that

devolves

waste management to Local Governments

B The EIA Regulations of1998(Annex3):EIA mandatory for waste

management projects

a Coordination,supervision and capacity building is top e bottom while reporting and information?ow is bottom up.

J.Okot-Okumu,R.Nyenje/Habitat International35(2011)537e543539

environment committees are either not functioning effectively or nonexistent and the implementation of waste management is a problem in all UCs.Of ?cers designated to manage wastes are in most cases fresh university graduates with little technical knowl-edge or experience and are inadequately facilitated (e.g.,?nancial and equipment)and receive little or no support from local political leadership.Ineffectiveness of waste management in developing economies has been reported by many authors such as Kaseva and Mbuligwe (2005)in Tanzania;Manga et al.(2008)in Cameroon and Supriyadi et al.(2000)in Indonesia.

The government of Uganda is implementing a sector-wide approach that aims at moving towards comprehensive programmes that are well coordinated in all aspects such as funding,equitable allocation of resources and eliminating duplication of efforts.Although well established at the national level,at the local government/urban council level the sector-wide approach is failing due to the lack of horizontal cooperation between departments and the absent or non-functioning environment committees.Adoption of sector-wide approach at local levels is vital for the achievement of integrated solid waste management because it employs a holistic approach to planning and management.For effective waste management therefore District Environment Of ?cers (DEOs)that are the focal of ?cers in charge of environmental management

should be supported by the local leadership and helped to effec-tively collaborate with other departments and stakeholders.

The unilateral decisions,lack of adequate structures and lack of interdepartmental cooperation are causing serious institution weaknesses that hamper waste management.There are also no avenues for effective community participation in waste manage-ment planning.This therefore raises the question of whether the decentralisation of environmental management in Uganda is ‘participatory ’or just ‘administrative ’(see Larson &Soto,2008).Institutionalisation of the roles of the community in the long-term plans for waste management is vital to the overall success of a waste management strategy.A participatory approach would facilitate consensus building leading to democratic decentralisation for sustainable waste management.Finances

Urban council ?nances originate mostly from the central govern-ment and other agencies such as the international donor partners and non-governmental organisations (NGOs)that are government-sanc-tioned.This means under decentralisation ?scal autonomy has not been realised by the urban councils.Although funding from central government has increased with decentralisation,it is still insuf ?cient

Fig.1.Typical solid waste management pattern in Uganda.

J.Okot-Okumu,R.Nyenje /Habitat International 35(2011)537e 543

540

to satisfy UCs requirements for environmental management.Uncon-ditional grants meant for decentralised functions are much less than the actual amount of money required.This implies that central government is not adequately cost-evaluating these decentralised functions.We also found that national priorities sometimes differ from individual urban council or local authority priorities.Conditional grants cover central government priority areas(e.g.,education and health)only and environmental protection measures such as waste management are not covered under this grant.

Urban council local revenue sources are licence fees,?nes, market dues,stamp duties,property rates and funds from special projects.Locally raised revenues are in some cases as low as3%of total annual local authority budgets.The suspension of Graduated Tax that was a major source of revenue(about67%)for local authorities has added to the existing?nancial woes.Money used for waste management is lower than10%of total budget of most urban councils similar to the situation in other developing coun-tries such as the Cameroon(Achankeng,2003),Indonesia (Supriyadi et al.,2000)and Sri Lanka(Vidanaarachchi et al.,2006). All the urban councils mentioned poor?nancial accountability as a big issue in sustaining urban service.The community do not pay any waste collection fees to the urban councils.The low levels of locally generated revenues,and the restrictions on the grants from the central government,limit solid waste management activities.

Willingness to pay for waste collection is at86.4%(of respon-dents)among the high income households1and54%among the low-income households.The amount of money paid by households to private waste collectors is between5.5and16.5US$/month.But willingness to pay for waste collection by low-income households is between0.11and2.7US$/month/household.The c2test(at P?0.05) indicates that willingness to pay was associated with the level of income reinforcing the?ndings.This implies that implementation of waste collection fees would be dif?cult,especially among the low-income urban households.These?ndings are different from what Vidanaarachchi et al.(2006)found for households in Sri Lanka where willingness to pay is not affected by income levels,which may be attributed to the very low amount(approximately0.50US$)paid per month for waste collection in Sri Lanka compared to Uganda. In Uganda however,the view of most low-income respondents (about70%)is that the urban councils should collect wastes without charging any fees,which concurs with the lower level of willingness to pay among this group of the community.It can be concluded that income,perceptions and attitude together in?uence willingness to pay for waste collection by the households.

Waste collection and transportation

Waste schemes and collection methods are summarised in Fig.1. The pre-collection phase involves waste transfer by household-paid labour to community to collection points(e.g.,skips,bunkers or road verges).Collection of wastes from community points to the land?ll or?nal dumping sites is done by UCs.Private companies do door-to-door collection of wastes especially from high income households.

Between15and60%of the wastes generated are collected with the highest collection levels in areas served by private companies. The urban poor receive very low to no waste collection services due to inaccessible roads,unplanned facilities and neglect by the urban authority.The situation is similar to other developing countries (Manga et al.,2008;Rotich et al.,2006).Uncollected wastes are treated by the community in different ways that include indiscrim-inate disposal(58.7%),designated area disposal(15.5%),back yard disposal(10.1%)and other methods(15.7%).Identi?ed constraints to waste collection are the lack of resources(e.g.,trucks,tools,funding, and labour force),poor planning,political interference and corrup-tion comparable to situations from other developing countries (Achankeng,2003;Vidanaarachchi et al.,2006;Yhdego,1995). Respondent levels of satisfaction with waste collection was low (14.3%),which could be attributed to the low waste collection frequencies,waste nuisance,reduced aesthetics and perceived health threats.Major waste problems identi?ed and prioritised by the urban community were,infrequent collection(54.3%of respondents), indiscriminate dumping(20.2%of respondents),and the long distance to disposal points(18.8%of respondents).Awareness of waste management problems(about70%respondents)is compa-rable(c2test at P?0.05)between the different income groups.

Waste picker salvage from households,while itinerants either buy or exchange(barter)items(e.g.,fruits and vegetables)for recyclable wastes(e.g.,bottles,plastics and old newsprints).The recovered items are sold to middle men who supply recyclers.Plastics are bought from waste pickers at0.1US$/kg and sold to recyclers at about 0.3US$/kg while scrap metal is bought at about0.1US$/kg sold to recyclers at about0.35US$/kg.These prices are not?xed or controlled but are negotiated between the sellers and buyers.

According to Wang,Han,and Li(2008)even though informal practices have positive contribution to urban waste management, they also bring about social problems.2To obviate such problems the informal system should be streamlined.The formalisation process could be assisted by community-based organisations (CBOs)and other community initiatives with backing from local decision makers.CBOs have been active in waste recovery,recy-cling,collection and drainage cleaning in Kampala(Tukahirwa,Mol, &Oosterveer,2010)and as such they could be a suitable agent for streamlining the operation of the informal sectors.

Management of uncollected wastes by the community

Uncollected wastes are burnt(74.1%)or dumped(15.2%)in open places.Some households and individuals,practice solid waste recycling,re-use,recovery,and composting and biogas production. These are waste minimisation options with social,economic and environmental bene?ts recommended by some authors like Mbuligwe and Kassenga(2004)for Tanzania,Mbeng et al.(2009)for Cameroon,Rotich et al.(2006)for Kenya and Wang et al.(2008) for china.Local authorities in Uganda have shown little interest in these alternative waste management methods.The NEMA therefore initiated a project in2006under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)for solid waste composting in nine municipalities of Uganda to address mounting solid waste management problems.This project should be studied to assess how it is progressing.

An integrated approach to solid waste management involving a mix of centralised and decentralised community-based alterna-tives such as recycling,re-use&recover(3Rs);composting and anaerobic biogas production could help to obtain sustainable waste management solutions.Mbeng et al.(2009)identi?ed information as critical for the success of the3Rs in waste management.

Final disposal of waste

Waste dumping sites are in most cases located in environmen-tally sensitive areas such as wetlands,forest edge,or adjacent to water bodies.Kampala is the only urban council with a sanitary

1Those who earn US$3000and more per month(1US$?UShs2250).

2Problems of waste pickers:nuisance and social disruption.Itinerants:may cheat or in some cases https://www.360docs.net/doc/562569814.html,rmal waste collectors compete for zones allocated to formal collectors causing?nancial losses to contracted collectors.

J.Okot-Okumu,R.Nyenje/Habitat International35(2011)537e543541

land ?ll owned by the city but operated by a private company.All other waste disposal sites are owned and operated by the UCs themselves and are poorly managed since most resources are allocated to waste collection and not to disposal management.Wastes of mixed origin (e.g.,domestic,industrial,healthcare and commercial)are disposed together at these disposal sites.Table 3summarises the major problems from solid waste disposal sites.Social and political issues

Community participation in waste management is mostly informal and there are no clear avenues for active formal partici-pation.Waste pickers work in informal groups with no clear control and do not follow safety and health regulations.The councils are also unable to enforce existing waste management laws because of lack of resources and political interference.People ’s perceptions and attitudes towards waste management are that it is the sole responsibility of urban councils and that being a waste worker is socially degrading.

Despite the existence of the decentralisation policy the top-down approach is still very strong and undermining the autonomy of the urban councils in waste management.Decisions for implementation of national environmental management strategies in some cases were found to re ?ect political inclination rather than scienti ?c validity.This is particularly important in the allocation of resources,contracts and enforcement.Political interference was found to be weakening local institutions and making the urban community hesitant about projects that are not backed by political leaders.

There is a big gap between the national solid waste manage-ment strategy and local practices.The realisation of sustainable solutions to waste management and environmental protection is therefore critically hindered.The national strategy therefore has not been transformed into real,effective and sustainable solutions to waste management.An integrated approach to waste manage-ment therefore should be explored by urban councils and it can be promoted through community participation and education involving the private sector.Conclusion and recommendations

While decentralisation has been seen as desirable for the improvement in service delivery,participation and accountability at the local level,it has been a challenge in many instances.Weak institutional arrangements with ineffective horizontal interactions at the local levels have caused poor implementation of the national waste management https://www.360docs.net/doc/562569814.html,ck of ?scal decentralisation is

hampering mobilisation of adequate resources for waste manage-ment.The decentralisation process is not truly participatory as envisaged by the policy objectives and environmental management is also not mainstreamed with other policies resulting in weak local development plans.These problems could be addressed through a participatory approach involving relevant council departments,the urban community and all other stakeholders (e.g.CBOs,NGOs).Waste minimisation approaches such as the 3Rs,composting and anaerobic biogas production that can provide social and economic bene ?ts to the urban community could be explored.Civil society could assist in such campaigns but the success of such programmes requires backing of key decision makers.The urban councils should also take advantage of the relative success of the private companies in waste management by engaging them more effectively.

The implementation of selected sustainable waste management solutions requires long-term planning and genuine decentral-isation of the management functions and empowerment of urban councils through gradual development of capacity for resource mobilisation and ensuring inclusive participation.The participatory approach will ensure democratic decentralisation where all aspects of waste management can evolve based on consensus such that policies,prioritisation of management actions and services are effectively implemented.Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the urban councils and individual stakeholders for providing information and the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable suggestions.We also thank Professor Derek Pomeroy for giving comments on the manuscript and helping with the English.References

Achankeng, E.(2003).Globalization,urbanisation and municipal solid waste

management in Africa.In Proceedings of African Studies Association of Australasia and the Paci ?c:African on a global stage .

Adebilu,A.A.,&Okenkule,A.A.(1989).Issues on environmental sanitation of Lagos

mainland Nigeria.The Environmentalist,9(2),91e 100.Cochran,W.G.(1977).Sampling techniques (3rd ed.).Wiley.

Fowler,J.,Cohen,L.,&Jarvis,P.(1998).Practical statistics for ?eld biology (2nd ed.).

John Wiley and Sons.

Kaseva,M.E.,&Mbuligwe,S.E.(2005).Appraisal of solid waste collection following

private sector involvement in Dar es Salaam.Habitat International,29,353e https://www.360docs.net/doc/562569814.html,rson,A.M.,&Soto,F.(2008).Decentralisation of natural resources governance

regimes.Annual Review of Environment and Resources,33,213e 239.

Manga,V.E.,Forton,O.T.,&Read,A.D.(2008).Waste management in Cameroon:

a new policy perspective?Resources,Conservation and Recycling,52,592e 600.Mbeng,L.O.,Phillips,P.S.,&Fairweather,R.(2009).Developing sustainable waste

management practice:application of q methodology to construct new strategy component in Limbe e Cameroon.The Open Waste Management Journal,2,27e 36.

Table 3

Summary of land ?ll,operational and environmental problems identi ?ed by the urban communities.Location

Operational

Environmental

Solution arrived at together with community Close to residential houses/institutions Dump sites not fenced,poor access roads,waste vehicles nuisance,?re hazard,dust and smoke

at disposal sites

Health hazard,accident risks,odour,vermin,?ies,stray animals,impaired aesthetics,waste pickers and scavengers

Site land ?lls far away from residential and public areas.Fence and restrict entry In wetlands Poor access roads,uncontrolled tipping,?re hazard

Water pollution,wetland destruction,impaired aesthetics

Construct land ?ll following the law and enforce laws,construct all weather roads to land ?ll.

Close to rivers and drainage channels Poor access roads,uncontrolled tipping Water pollution drainage blockage,?oods,impaired aesthetics

Construct land ?ll following law and enforce laws,construct all weather roads to land ?ll.On steep slopes

High accident risks,land slips

Erosion,pollution and destruction of downhill ecosystem

Construct land ?ll following law and enforce laws.Restrict entry.

Inadequate community collection points (e.g.skips and bunkers)Create adequate and convenient community disposal and collection points.Council should collect waste frequently

Indiscriminate dumping

Create designated community disposal and collection points.Local councils should pass by-laws on wastes and enforce it.

J.Okot-Okumu,R.Nyenje /Habitat International 35(2011)537e 543

542

Mbuligwe,S.E.,&Kassenga,G.R.(2004).Feasibility and strategies for anaerobic digestion of solid waste for energy production in Dar es Salaam city,Tanzania.

Resources,Conservation and Recycling,42,183e203.

National Environment Management Authority(NEMA).(2007).Clean development mechanism(CDM)e Uganda solid waste composting project.Analysis report. Oosterveer,P.,&Van Vliet,B.(2010).Environmental systems and local actors: decentralizing environmental management in Uganda.Environmental Management,45,284e295.

Republic of Uganda,The Local Government Act.(1997).The Uganda Gazette,XC(19).

Acts supplement no.1.

Rotich,H.K.,Yongsheng,Z.,&Jun,D.(2006).Municipal solid waste management challenges in developing countries:Kenyan case study.Waste Management, 26(1),92e100.Supriyadi,S.,Kriwoken,L.K.,&Birley,I.(2000).Solid waste management solutions for Semarang,Indonesia.Waste Management&Research,18,557e566. Tukahirwa,J.T.,Mol,A.P.J.,&Oosterveer,P.(2010).Civil society participation in sanitation and solid waste management in Uganda.Local Environment,15,1e14. Vidanaarachchi,C.K.,Yuen,S.T.S.,&Pilapitiya,S.(2006).Municipal solid waste management in the southern province of Sri Lanka:problems,issues and challenges.Waste Management,26,920e930.

Wang,J.,Han,L.,&Li,S.(2008).The collection system for residential recyclables in communities in Haidian District,Beijing:a possible approach for China recy-cling.Waste Management,28,1672e1680.

Yhdego,M.(1995).Urban solid waste management in Tanzania issues,concepts and challenges.Resources,Conservation and Recycling,14(1),1e10.

Zar,J.H.(1999).Biostatistical analysis(4th ed.).Prentice-Hall,Inc.

J.Okot-Okumu,R.Nyenje/Habitat International35(2011)537e543543