**3. Conclusion**

ators, fees charged for waste collection varies but the average fees for different residential

The survey revealed that 79.4 % (where n=93) pay for waste collection and the service satis‐

When collecting primary data, there was a lot of hype from the local authority officers re‐ garding privatization of solid waste management services. This was particularly the case in Mwanza and Jinja where non-state actors have been formally involved in service provision. The term privatization has been applied to three different methods of increasing the activity of the private sector in providing public services: 1) private sector choice, financing, and production of a service;2) public-sector choice and financing with private sector production of the service selected; 3) and deregulation of private firms providing services. In the first case, the entire responsibility for a service is transferred from the public sector to the private sector, and individual consumers select and purchase the amount of services they desire from private providers. For example, solid-waste collection is provided by private firms in some communities. The second version of privatization refers to joint activity of the public and private sectors in providing services. In this case, consumers select and pay for the quantity and type of service desired through government, which then contracts with private firms to produce the desired amount and category of service. Although the government pro‐ vides for the service, a private firm carries out the actual execution of it. The government determines the service level and pays the amount specified in the contract, but leaves deci‐ sions about production decisions to the private firm. The third form of privatization means that government reduces or eliminates the regulatory restrictions imposed on private firms providing specific services. The cases studied are neither here nor there as far as privatiza‐ tion is concerned and therefore based on discussions presented in [3], the paper settles on network governance to describe the desirable direction for the arrangements in the three ur‐ ban centres. A network approach to governance is decentring the state as the unique organ for governance and replacing it with pluricentric forms of governance. Networks permit in‐ ter-organizational interactions of exchange, concerted action, and joint production in a for‐ mal or informal manner. These networks vary in composition from domain to domain, but they are likely to consist of government agencies, key legislators, pressure groups, relevant private companies and civil society organisations such as NGOs and CBOs [19]. Also citi‐ zens themselves may be engaged in such network arrangements but this has to be achieved

areas are revealed through the household survey as shown in table 5 below.

**Residential area Payment rates (Kshs./Month)** Low income areas 40.00 – 100.00 (USD) Middle income areas 150.00 – 250.00 (USD) High income areas 250.00 – 500.00 (USD )

**Table 5.** Payment Rates for SWM services. Source: Household Field Survey in Kisumu

faction from these households stands at 70.6%.

*2.5.4. Discourse*

228 Environmental Change and Sustainability

The policy arrangements for waste management in the three urban centres are different. The one in Jinja typifies an arrangement in which the market dominates. Here, private collectors are formally contracted to provide service with some assistance from the municipal authori‐ ty. The arrangement in Mwanza is community dominated with more than 14 CBOs and 2 private collectors formally contracted to provide service with some assistance from the city authority. In Kisumu, the urban authority itself solely provides waste management services. The involvement of non- state actors in Kisumu is unofficial and informal. Jinja and Mwan‐ za arrangements are not privatized per se but looking at the official involvement of nonstate actors and the outcome of the household survey in terms of quantities of waste collected, percentages of households covered and SWM satisfaction amongst households in these two towns, the chapter concludes that a balanced arrangement is needed where all so‐ cietal actors can play their role. It is clear that involving non-state actors as in a network governance arrangement is truly plausible and these actors, both formal and informal, need to work under an effective and strengthened government in order to afford all income groups access to solid waste management services and to ensure flexibility and robustness of the services provided. This means solid waste management services cannot be left to the state actors only. The collective effort by all actors in therefore is likely to ultimately contrib‐ ute to sustainable management of the Lake Basin. Since the three towns border the Lake Vic‐ toria, proper waste management by both the state and non-state actors in respective towns is expected to contribute to the total reduction of the pollution load into the lake waters.
