GOVERNMENT,MARKET AND COMMUNITY IN URBAN SOLID WASTE 263
dump can be taken on board at a fee that is both affordable to the consumers and prof-
itable to the entrepreneur. Privatisation of SWC on the basis of the full cost recovery
in Nairobi leads to the exclusion of those who cannot afford commercial rates. In addi-
tion, one has to remember that the indirect costs of privatised SWC – using up part of
the capacity of the municipal dump, environmental externalities – are not taken into
consideration.
In Hyderabad, the record of allocative efficiency is very poor. As long as the introduc-
tion of service charges is considered politically unfeasible, the entire system will
continue to rely on financing from the general municipal budget, and therefore remain
subject to political debate (choosing among rivalling priorities). It remains to be seen
if the system can be sustained, knowing that SWC expenses already constitute
one-fifth of the entire municipal budget and that the city depends on external financing
for all major investments in further improving the system. Only the VGDS has a
positive score in terms of allocative efficiency. The scheme attests to the willingness
of residents to contribute financially to better quality SWC. It also puts into perspec-
tive the reluctance on the part of political parties and unions to open the debate on cost
recovery in public service delivery.
A special remark should be made on the viability of collection efforts in slum areas.
In Nairobi, SWC in these areas is minimal and where it exists it largely depends on
active involvement of CBOs. These are usually organized through self-help and youth
groups that engage in other community services as well. As most slum residents are
not in a position to pay user charges, incomes of CBO-workers largely stem from
composting activities and sale of inorganic waste materials. The financial viability of
these CBO-activities is somewhat debatable (due to absence of stable markets for
recycled and compost products) and most of them continue to depend on financial
support by donor agencies. Such dependence on donor support is also noticeable in
Hyderabad’s slum areas, where NGOs face difficulties in getting residents to pay for
SWC services.
In terms of environmental hazards, the situation in Nairobi is considerably worse than
in Hyderabad. The collection performance in Nairobi is no more than 25 percent of the
total waste generated, while the Hyderabad actors together manage to collect about 70
percent. And although the slum areas in Hyderabad are certainly underserved, garbage
dumped in open spaces is at least taken away every now and then. The Nairobi slums
are virtually ignored by the authorities when it comes to SWC.
In both cases privatisation has had a favourable effect on the overall environmental
health situation due to more effective collection. The spontaneous privatisation of
SWC in Nairobi, however, has also induced uncontrolled dumping practices among
private operators seeking to reduce transportation costs and to avoid dealing with
dump gangs. In Hyderabad the privatisation process is highly regulated and dumping