Benchmarking performance of solid waste management and recycling systems in East Africa: Comparing Kigali Rwanda with other major cities

This paper aims to benchmark performance of combined solid waste management (SWM) and recycling systems in major cities of East Africa. The Wasteaware indicators are used to present a detailed systems analysis for Kigali in Rwanda, including a mass flow diagram; comparative data are taken from the Wasteaware database for Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Kampala, Uganda, Nairobi, Kenya, and also for neighboring Maputo, Mozambique. The stand-out result is the relatively high collection coverage achieved, in Maputo with extensive international technical assistance, and in Kigali using its own local resources. In both cases, governance factors are key. Kigali uses a public–private partnership, with exclusive franchises in 35 sectors being tendered every three years; households pay an affordable fee depending on their ability to pay (the service is free to the poorest category); and 95% fee collection rates are achieved, partly through co-collection with charges for local security patrols, which is a service people value highly given the recent history of the country. Another key priority to improve SWM across East Africa is to eliminate open dumping – only Kampala currently has an engineered disposal site. Recycling rates also need to be increased – only Nairobi currently has a good baseline to build on (30%). Common weaknesses include a lack of segregation at source, of institutional capacity, and of available and reliable waste data.

For the three physical components, quantitative indicators are defined, complemented by a 'quality' indicator derived from assessing performance against five or six qualitative criteria. Similar qualitative indicators are used for each of the five governance factors.
Each criterion (e.g. 1C.1, 1C.2 etc.) is assessed by the user against a standardized, five-fold scoring system following detailed guidance in the User Manual: no compliance scores 0, low compliance scores 5, medium 10, medium/high 15 and high 20. This assessment requires the User to exercise their professional judgment and to provide full details in the Indicator Form to ensure full traceability (see Section 2 of the main paper).
The resulting aggregate score is then converted into a five-fold qualitative assessment of the system's performance against that indicator -these assessments are colour-coded to allow rapid visual assessment of the tabulated data and to highlight areas of performance requiring immediate attention -as denoted by the colour red. The convention used is that an assessment of LOW corresponds to an overall score in the range 0-20% and is coded as red; LOW/MEDIUM to 21-40% and red-amber; MEDIUM -41-60%, amber; MEDIUM/HIGH -61-80%, amber-green; and HIGH -81-100%, green.
The same traffic lights coding system from LOW to HIGH has been used to rate performance for each quantitative indicator. The values that are currently considered good practice differ, which means that these indicators do not follow the same gradation pattern when assessing relative performance, and that gradation is not linear. Full details of this is provided in the original Wasteaware paper (Wilson et al., 2015a). Recycling rate 12% Calculated from the material flow diagram (MFD - Figure 3). Estimated based on observations and interviews, triangulating data from different stakeholder groups, including authorities in charge of solid waste management (SWM), waste companies, waste collectors and pickers, and eight recycling companies in Rwanda.
3R.1 Source separation of dry recyclables 5 Currently very little segregation at source, following the failure of an earlier attempt to introduce separate collection across the city. 3R.2 Quality of recycled organic materials 10 MFD shows two very small flows to two private composting companies (COOPED and AGRUNI). One flow is source separated and one is from mixed waste on the dumpsite. 3R.3 Focus on the top levels of the waste hierarchy 5 The City has tried in the past to prioritize recycling, both via separate collection of source segregated wastes, and the design of a new recycling facility at Nduba. 3R.4 Integration of the community and/or informal recycling sector with formal SWM system 10 Most recycling is carried out by the waste collectors employed by the officially-contracted private companies. Picking at Nduba and illegal dumpsites is outside of the formal system. 3R.5 Environmental protection in recycling 10 Most recycling by waste collection workers -so the residual waste after recycling is reliably transported to Nduba as per the company contract. 3R.6 Occupational health and safety 5 See also 1C.6 for protective clothing worn by the waste collectors/ pickers. Some of the dumpsite pickers wear gloves as the only type of personal protective equipment.

3R
Quality of recycling 45 Total score 38% Normalized score. Gives an overall assessment of Low/Medium (L/M) The budget allocated to municipal solid waste management is audited by the Auditor general office (as for all public institutions). Regarding the collected fees, the amount of money paid by households is very clear as that depends on their household social class Ubudehe classification.

5F.2 Coverage of the available budget 10
The City of Kigali's solid waste budget comes from central budgets and from gate fees at Nduba. This is mostly spent on the rental costs for heavy machines used for daily management and soil cover application at Nduba but is considered insufficient by the officer in charge. A separate budget is used to pay waste collection companies.
5F.3 Local cost recovery -from households 15 Households pay a graduated fee for waste collection. Payment rates 95%in most sectors, fee collected by the cell alongside that for security patrols.
5F.4 Affordability of user charges 15 In Kigali, citizens always get waste collection services at a fair price. Fees payable graduated according to Ubudehe classification, with the poorest receiving a free service.
5F.5 Coverage of disposal costs 10 At Nduba disposal site, companies depositing the waste are charged a gate fee of Rwf 3000 (US$ 3.6) per vehicle.
5F.6 Access to capital for investment 10 Private companies rely on private investments or loans from the bank for their infrastructures (underpinned by their contracts), while the Public sector relies on central government funds.

5F
Total score 70 Normalized score 58% Gives an overall assessment of Medium (M) Note: SWM -solid waste management There is a vehicle available in each sector to monitor waste collection activities. However, the supervision work is not well done.
6L. 6 Inter-municipal (or regional) co-operation 20 There is good inter-sectoral and inter-district co-operation, since they are headed by a single department at the level of the City of Kigali.

6L
Total score 60 Normalized score 50% Gives an overall assessment of Medium (M)