*2.5.2.1. Jinja*

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

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 in capacity building.

#### *2.5.2.2. Mwanza*

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 within their own jurisdictions.

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, just like in Jinja, there is NEMA, different government ministries and regional organizations, in particular, LVRLAC to which Mwanza is a member and the LVBC. ILO has been very in‐ strumental in training the CBOs to earn their income from the waste collection and also urg‐ ing them to form an association.
