*2.5.2.3. Kisumu*

*2.5.2.1. Jinja*

224 Environmental Change and Sustainability

in capacity building.

within their own jurisdictions.

*2.5.2.2. Mwanza*

Looking at the three urban centres, Jinja's SWM arrangement is a close representation of the model of market and networks. This is because of the presence of economic actors in the SWM arena. It is a close representation because these actors are not exactly the determining players in the field of SWM, yet they provide most of the SWM services to the council and its people. The economic actors are private entities in form of companies with several em‐ ployees as casuals contracted to provide services. The casuals do the collection and sweep‐ ing. There are no coalitions or relations between the companies contracted. Field interviews with these contractors revealed that market competition prevents them from having any form of cooperation. As their contracts have an annual nature, they need to stay on top of the game to win the contract the coming year. Within this arrangement, the percentage of

The networks in this arrangement refer to other actors with shared interests in SWM though the degree of cohesion varies between them. There is the involvement of women and youth groups in the road sweeping and clean-up activities which are done occasionally and mostly on a voluntary basis. There are also environmental groups that are actively involved, includ‐ ing National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) as a wing of the government which has established pedagogic centers to showcase exemplary activities and is helping to source additional skips to be used in the council. Also involved are international institutions like Lake Victoria Region Local Authorities Cooperation (LVRLAC) who promote exchange of practices amongst the councils member of the organization. International Labour Organi‐ zation (ILO) and the Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC) have also actively taken part

Mwanza's SWM arrangements comes close to that which can be described as communities and networks. They come 'close' to this model because there are questions on extent to which the CBOs involved can exercise power. Although much of the SWM arena is domi‐ nated by CBOs (14 in number and 2 private firms) and these CBOs are the major implement‐ ers of the SWM policies, the local authority still dictates these policies, awards the contracts and generally steers everything that has to do with SWM. Unlike the situation in Jinja, as far as the contractors relating with each other is concerned, all the 16 groups interviewed in Mwanza belong to an association called the Mwanza Solid Waste Management Association (MASMA). MASMA meets once every month to share ideas on problem solving and oppor‐ tunities that can be explored further. Apart from the association, neighboring CBOs (that is CBOs working in neighboring wards) work together in sharing experiences and sometimes even the use of equipment in case the workload is more than expected. This arrangement has resulted to 82.5 % (where n= 200) of households receiving services. As an arrangement it also promotes social sustainability having includes local communities as service providers

Networks in the Mwanza arrangement are visible in the different actors involved in SWM albeit to different degrees. Apart from the local authority, CBOs and the private companies,

households receiving service stands at 60% (where n=218) (see table 2 above).

The situation in Kisumu comes close to the model of hierarchy and networks. This is the case because the local authority is still solely responsible for solid waste management and the management style is actually still of the command-and-control type. The Department of Environment receives its directions and authority from the line ministry of Local Govern‐ ment and implements them at the local level. Unlike Mwanza and Jinja, Kisumu has no for‐ mal/official arrangement that involves non-state actors in collecting and transporting waste or in sweeping the roads. The local authority does the road sweeping itself, as well as the collection, transfer and disposal of waste, but these local authority services are concentrated in the Central Business District and only a few residential areas also benefit from them. Non-state actors ( see table 3 below) provide service to most of the other residential areas in an unofficial manner. This is likely to affect the robustness of the system as the non-state ac‐ tors cannot be held accountable for the SWM services they provide.


**Table 3.** SWM Groups in Kisumu City Council and Those Interviewed Source: Field work in Kisumu

In terms of relationships between the non-state actors themselves, the study revealed that they work together during cleanups and some even share their working equipment. Like in Mwanza, they have also formed an association called the Kisumu Waste Managers Associa‐ tion. This arrangement has resulted to 46.5% (where n=200) of households receiving services (see table 4 below for the percentage of service coverage provided by the different actors).


**Table 4.** Service providers to Households in Kisumu N=200 Source: Household survey in Kisumu.

Just like the other two towns, the networks refers to occasional involvement of other actors like NEMA, LVRLAC, LVBC, UN-Habitat, Practical Action amongst others.
