280 JOHAN POST AND ISA BAUD
A final issue concerns conflicts in financing different aspects of sustainable develop-
ment in SWM. It is virtually impossible to attach an accurate price tag to each of the
goals of integrated SWM as well as to allocate the costs fairly. Usually, there are only
two actors that contribute financially to SWM: the local authorities (albeit sometimes
with the help of central grants) and the waste generators Cost recovery can be used as
a method to increase financial viability through service charges, but in an urban
context with large numbers of low-income households, it is unlikely that the total costs
can be retrieved this way. Many poor residents cannot be charged according to their
use of services, but ignoring them will have important detrimental effects on overall
public health and ecological sustainability. Therefore, the local government will have
to accept the necessity of subsidizing the system from general revenues in order to
meet its statutory obligation to provide adequate collection services and to keep up
public health standards. However, severe budgetary constraints usually urge them to
compromise on considerations of equality and total coverage, at the expense of resi-
dents living in unplanned areas, spontaneous settlements or slums (with negative
spill-over effects for serviced areas). Furthermore, they will not be keen to invest in
systems for increased waste separation and recycling out of environmental considera-
tions. Therefore, various priorities in integrated SWM are excluded. The experiences
with the privatisation of solid waste collection in Hyderabad and Nairobi may serve to
illustrate this point once more. The negative trade-off of privatisation is that environ-
mental concerns are not included in the current regulations for private collection enter-
prises, as private contractors usually do not carry out waste separation. Efficiency and
effectiveness gains in waste collection through privatisation, therefore, result in an
increase of waste being offered for final disposal, thereby reducing environmental
sustainability (i.e. waste that could also have been diverted in case promotion of recy-
cling and reuse had been part of the agreement). This loss, however, is not translated
into monetary terms nor put on anyone’s doorstep.
13.5. AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND ACTION
The studies have brought out a number of issues on which further research needs to be
done: both to explore the analytical questions, as well as to examine the possibilities
for improving practice.
A major area for further research relates to how the ‘waste management hierarchy’ and
ideas concerning integrated sustainable waste management can gain more recognition
and acceptance by governments (both local and national) in developing countries. The
question concerns not only the role of research in analysing the trade-offs inherent in
the multiple goals of an approach integrating socio-economic and environmental
aspects in SWM, but also further study into how research results can be fed more
- An exception is the work by van Beukering (2001) regarding international trade flows in waste mate-
rials, although it does not cover the competition from virgin materials.