NEW PARTNERSHIPS IN URBAN SOLID WASTE IN DEVELOPING WORLD 35
2.6. UNDER-UTILISED POTENTIALS
Looking at the dominant trends both in the literature on the collection and disposal of
urban solid waste and in policy practice several things stand out. First of all, reform in
this domain is predominantly motivated by a concern for service efficiency and effec-
tiveness. The former is largely economic – generating higher output from a given input
of resources – and leads to cost saving, while the latter is concerned with the quality
and coverage of services stemming from the desire to improve the overall public
health situation (a concern that has always figured high on (local) government
agendas). Therefore, impacts on labour conditions of people working in the sector
have been of secondary importance, whereas environmental considerations have been
virtually absent. In fact, views and policies on privatisation and partnerships in solid
waste collection and disposal are only marginally influenced by the debate on sustain-
able development. Secondly, in designing new policies for solid waste collection and
disposal comparatively little attention has been paid to ‘unofficial’ practices by
informal operators and/or community-based organisations, sometimes supported by
NGOs. Very often forms of ‘unplanned’ privatisation have developed in poorly served
urban areas long before privatisation policies became popular (Baud, 2000). As a
result of the implicit bias in official policies towards large-scale solutions and formal
businesses, city administrations tend to bypass what has already been established on
the ground and therefore remain unaware of the contributions these practices can (and
often do) make to sustainable development (Baud et al., 2001). A third, closely related
observation is that the literature on solid waste collection and disposal in the devel-
oping world largely ignores links with the other two major domains in solid waste
management, the reuse and recycling of inorganic waste and the reuse of (composted)
organic waste matter. The preoccupation of waste authorities with effective and safe
collection and disposal takes away their interest in these activities despite the fact that
they could help to reduce waste volumes substantially. Besides, significant parts of
these recycling and reuse activities take place outside government purview and
official attitudes often vary between benevolent neglect and downright harassment.
Little is known about possible commonality or conflict of interest between actors
working in several domains. Finally, there is an undeniable tendency to think in terms
of standard methods of private sector participation in urban solid waste collection and
disposal. Whereas in actual fact a multitude of actors and activities can be identified
- each having their own rationale – official policy often focuses on one particular
method. This does not do justice to the variety of circumstances and needs that have
to be catered for, more in particular those of residents living in poorly accessible,
usually low-income areas. The current study seeks to correct all these shortcomings to
some degree, at least in as much as the two cases allow for that.
A few more words need to be said with respect to partnership arrangements that have
only received scanty attention by (local) governments. In case of privatisation they
usually demonstrate a clear preference for transferring waste collection services to
large-scale enterprises. Government bodies are generally reluctant to create partner-