10 ISA BAUD
On the basis of previous studies, the following figure indicates a range of possible
partnerships in urban solid waste management. It must be considered a heuristic
analytical framework, ready to be tested against the empirical situation found in any
city. It originates from the models developed not only concerning public sector waste
management as seen from the public health perspective, but rather the sustainable
waste management perspective (van der Klundert and Lardinois, 1995). It also inte-
grates the specific concerns with the differentiation between the actors involved in
diverting organic waste and inorganic waste flows from the municipal streams, as
found in the studies by Furedy (cf. Furedy, 1997; Furedy 1998b).
Public-private arrangements in SWM
Public-private partnerships have received the most attention internationally, as part of
the global trends in public management reform. Private sector involvement in service
provision raises issues of public interest and acceptability. Governments must still
ensure appropriate standards, achieve co-ordinated provision, provide a competitive
environment, avoid monopoly control of essential services by non-accountable private
providers, and minimise corruption and inequity (Rondinelli and Iacono, 1996;
Burgess et al., 1997). Therefore, privatisation in service provision usually implies a
form of public-private arrangement, in which the responsibilities of both parties have
to be laid down. Although service implementation is contracted out to private enter-
prises (cf. Dillinger, 1994), governments retain some degree of power in setting
Figure 1.3. Actors and several possible partnerships in urban solid waste managementNGOs
Urban
householders
CBOsRural
farmersNational
governmentLocalauthorities Collectors TransportersInstitu-
tions
shops,
marketsWaste pickersLarge
recycling
enterprisesItinerant
buyers
Waste dealersSmall
recyclingenterprisesPrivatesectorGovernment
sectorCivilsocietyPartnership
relationDisposal site
managersEnergy
from waste
producers