Palfreman (2014) Waste management and recycling in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.pdf

Palfreman (2014) Waste management and recycling in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.pdf


See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271441207

Waste Management and Recycling in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Technical Report · February 2014

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3196.4482

CITATIONS

11
READS

24,514

1 author:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Saferi.org View project

Capaciti.org View project

Joshua Palfreman

Freelance/Independent

20 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE


Waste Management and Recycling
in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Joshua Palfreman
(2ndEdition)


List of Contents

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. i

Executive Summary/Abstract ........................................................................................ii

List of Figures......................................................................................................................iv

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................iv

Abbreviations....................................................................................................................... v

Chapter 1.0—Introduction ..............................................................................................1
1.1—The Historical Background to Dar es Salaam’s Waste Problems..................... 2
1.2—Rationale .............................................................................................................................. 3
1.3—Aims and Objectives......................................................................................................... 4
1.4—Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.5—Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 7

Chapter 2.0—Domestic Waste Production, Composition & Perspectives, the
Togo Street Experiment....................................................................................................8

2.1—Waste Routes for Disposal ...........................................................................................11
2.2— The Politics of Waste—Public Perceptions of Waste Management and
Recycling.......................................................................................................................................13

Chapter 3.0—Recycling in the Informal Sector: The Remarkable Story of
Dar es Salaam’s Waste Recyclers ............................................................................... 13

Chapter 4.0—The Unrecognised Role of the Formal Sector: Government,
Business and NGOs.......................................................................................................... 14

4.1—Government ......................................................................................................................14
4.2—NGO’s and Charitable Organisations ........................................................................20
4.3—The Private Sector...........................................................................................................22

Chapter 5.0—The Economics of Recycling: A Material & Market Analysis . 24
5.1—Plastics (PET and HDPE)...............................................................................................24
5.2—Paper Products.................................................................................................................25
5.3—Glass .....................................................................................................................................27
5.4—Bones ...................................................................................................................................27
5.5—Comparative Analyses of Material Valuation........................................................28

Chapter 6.0—Adverse Consequences of Dar es Salaam’s Waste Problem .. 29
6.1—Health Consequences.....................................................................................................29
6.2—Environmental Consequences....................................................................................30
6.3—Economic Consequences...............................................................................................31

Chapter 7.0—Waste Management Legislation: A comparative review
between Tanzania and South Africa ......................................................................... 32

7.1—Tanzanian Legislation vs South African Legislation...........................................32
7.2—The Enforcement, Expertise, Finance and Infrastructure Gaps .....................35


Acknowledgements

I express my fullest appreciation to WASTEdar and the National Environmental

Management Council in Tanzania for their support, participation and guidance in the

publication of this report.

I would like to thank the Togo Street community, the Kinondoni Municipal Council

in Tanzania and a team of waste managementin South Africa, for their generous

assistance both in time and in providing the data and information I needed to

complete this report.

Lastly, I express my appreciation and love for my friends and family across the globe

whose ideas, questions and perspectives on my work and study always provided

valuable contributions.


Executive Summary/Abstract

Dar es Salaam, Africa’s third fastest growing city, has a serious waste

problem. Situated on the shores of the Indian Ocean the city has all the potential to be

one of the most beautiful in the world, instead, it is the world’s eighth filthiest.

This report comprehensively examines Dar es Salaam’s complex waste management

and recycling situation. The report uses an eclectic methodology—sourcing a mix of

original fieldwork, scholarly literature, official statistics and interviews in the UK,

Tanzania and South Africa.

Chapter one of the reportintroduces the city profile of Dar es Salaam, presenting

waste management issues in the city through a historical review before setting out the

rational, aims and objectives of the report. Later a review of previous scholarship on

waste in the city is critically analysed.

Chapter two of the report presents data from a waste collection and recycling

experiment among fifty low-income households. The study—which was carried out in

partnership with a local government authority––found waste production per capita as

high as 0.56kg per day, a higher rate than previous estimates found in scholarly

literature. The study also reported for the first time ever data on the composition of

common household recyclables as well as general waste, the waste routes for disposal

and public perceptions among householders on waste management and recycling

issues.

Chapter three of the report was rewritten in 2014 for publication by WASTEDAR as

an electronic conference paper titled ‘Waste Picking in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania’.

Chapter four of the report delineates for the first time the roles of various


analyses popularly recycled waste materials (such as plastic and paper) in Dar es

Salaam and investigates their domestic and international value and trade among

informal and formal actors in the waste recycling network operational in Tanzania

and abroad.

Chapter six of the report investigates the health, environmental and business impacts

of Dar es Salaam’s waste problems largely through the review of peer reviewed

journals published in Tanzania. It is concluded that poor waste management practices

in Dar es Salaam seriously impact public health (exacerbating diseases like cholera,

typhoid & malaria), adversely affecting the environment (causing flooding and

groundwater contamination) and disrupting commerce (threatening the hospitality,

tourism, and the food and beverage industries).

Chapter seven of the report provides a comparative review of legislation relating to

waste management and recycling in Tanzania and South Africa. The review finds that

laws in Tanzania, such as the 2009 Solid Waste Management Regulations are almost

identical on paper to the South African 2008 Environmental Management: Waste Act.

In implementation, however, the laws are worlds apart. Tanzania lacks South Africa’s

systems of enforcement, expertise and infrastructure. This asymmetry in

implementation, it is argued, goes a long way to explain why Tanzanian

environmental legislation fails to fulfil its purpose while its South African counterpart

does.


List of Figures

Figure 2.1—Household on Togo St………………………………………………….10

Figure 2.2—Receptacles on Togo St...........................................................................10

Figure 2.3—The Pugu Kinyamwezi City Dumpsite……………………………....…12

Figure 2.4—Comparative Importance on Waste Management……………...…....….13

Figure 2.5—Preferred Waste Route for Disposal…………………….....…………...13

Figure 2.6—Knowledge of Applicable Legislation……………………....………….14

Figure 3.1—Waste Recycler……………………………......………………………..14

Figure 3.2—An informal ‘middle man’ recycling site………………..............……..15

List of Tables

Table 2.1—Cumulative General Waste Composition (Togo Street)…………….……9

Table 2.2—Cumulative Recyclables Composition (Togo Street)……………….…..10

Table 2.3—Comparison of Primary and Secondary Data on Domestic Waste……...10

Table 3.1—Comparative Analysis of Literature on Informal Recycling Network…..15

Table 3.2—Comparative Analysis of Literature on Popular Recyclables……….…..17

Table 3.3—Comparative Analysis of Waste Recycler Income Potential……………18

Table 4.1—Governmental Agencies (Focuses, Successes and Shortcomings)……...19

Table 4.2—NGOs and Charitable Organisations (Focuses, Successes and

Shortcomings)………………………………………………………………………..20

Table 4.3—Comparative Analyses of Key Assets at Waste Companies…………….22

Table 5.1—Market Analyses (Plastics—PET and HDPE)…………………………..24

Table 5.2—Market Analyses (Paper Products)……………………………………...26

Table 5.3—Market Analyses (Glass)………………………………………………..27

Table 5.4—Market Analyses (Bones)……………………………………………….27

Table 5.5—Market Valuation Analyses……………………………………………..28

Table 7.1—Comparative Review of Tanzanian and South African Legislation


Abbreviations

CMW Common Mix

DCC Dar es Salaam City Council

DMDP Dar es Salaam Development Project

EMA Environmental Management Act

HDPE High-density Polyethylene

HL1 Heavy Letter One

KMC Kinondoni Municipal Council

NEMC National Environmental Management Council

NGO Non Governmental Organisation

OCC Old Corrugated Cardboard

PET Polyethylene Terephthalate

SWMR Solid Waste Management Regulations


Chapter 1.0—Introduction

Situated on the shores of the Indian Ocean, Dar es Salaam is the third fastest growing

city on the African continent and the economic powerhouse of Tanzania––East

Africa’s largest nation (The World Federation, 2013). While Dar es Salaam has the

potential to be one of the most beautiful cities in the world, in reality it is one of the

filthiest. In 2010, Dar es Salaam was rated as the world’s eighth dirtiest city by NYC

Consulting Group (Mwakyusa, 2010). The United Nations rates Dar’s sanitation,

waste management as ‘well below average’ (Siemens, 2010) and newspapers, pop

artists and films mock the city for its unsightly and smelly vistas (IPP Media, 2013).

Dar es Salaam is a tropical city on the Indian Ocean,situated approximately seven

degrees south of the equator. The average temperature throughout the year is 30

degrees Celsius; the average humidity is 80%. The city has two rainy seasons––one

between October and December and the other between March and May (CIA, 2013).

While the Tanzanian capital does not suffer from any natural weather hazards,

flooding occurs during both rain seasons due to poor infrastructure and urban

planning (i.e. lack of storm drains).

Dar es Salaam is the largest city in Tanzania. The city’s population, which has grown

from 840,000 in 1978 to roughly 4.34 million persons in 2013, accounts for

approximately 10% of Tanzania’s population. It’s a young city—over half of the

population are under twenty-five years old. It’s politically split up into three districts,

Ilala, Kinondoni and Temeke that cover an area of 1,800 km 2 of both water and land

mass (CIA, 2013).

While the city is the economic hub of the country, conducting over 70% of economic

activity, most of Dar’s inhabitants (>60%) live in poorly constructed unplanned

settlements and over 90% work in an informal sector—an invisible economy that is


1.1—The Historical Background to Dar es Salaam’s Waste Problems

Waste management services in Tanzania began in 1961 (the year of the nation’s

independence) and continued under complete government control until 1994 under

the authority of the Dar es Salaam City Council (DCC). The DCC did poorly in

managing waste, collecting as little as 5.5% of the city’s waste during this period due

to a lack of finance, equipment, skilled personnel and appropriate disposal sites. The

Tanzanian government did, however, make efforts to improve their collection rate

through attracting foreign aid. Between 1983 and 1989, for example, the Tanzanian

authorities sought aid from Japan and were awarded funding to acquire thirty refuse

trucks and refuse containers, three skip trucks and six compacter trucks. The new

equipment alone, however, without partnering expertise, human resources and

maintenance plans, quickly deteriorated. By 1992, only three years after receiving the

Japanese aid, twenty-six of the thirty refuse trucks, five of the six compacter trucks

and two of the three skip trucks had all broken down (Solomon, 2011).

In dire straits and with little to no domestic funds, the Tanzanian government sought

more aid from international donors. This time, however, donors, in the light of the

Japanese experience, insisted that the government privatise waste management

services. In 1992, the UNDP initiated The Sustainable Dar es Salaam City Project to

link NGOs, businesses and governmental stakeholders and launch the privatisation of

solid waste management services that would later begin in 1995 (Solomon, 2011).

By 2002, the collection rate of solid waste had risen to an impressive 30%, in part due

to small enterprises and businesses being permitted to participate in solid waste

management services. A significant contribution was made by Multinet Africa

Company Limited, the first company to be formally contracted by the government for

solid waste management services following privatisation in 1995. The roll out of

services by Multinet, however, met with significant challenges. The company was not


low (some 70% of clients did not pay their bills) and the government, which had

failed to anticipate and plan for the consequence had no legislative framework to

enforce the payment based collection service upon their clients. In practice,

contractors were not paid, had no ability to utilise legal services and in time went

bankrupt (Solomon, 2011).

Today, there are dozens of small enterprises offering waste management services

across the city. It is estimated that 40% of Dar es Salaam’s total waste production

(estimated in 2011 at roughly 4,200 tonnes per day) now finds a formal or an informal

route for disposal (DCC, 2011). The operations of waste companies however are often

short-lived due to poor management, corruption and lack of finance. Among large

contracted solid waste management contractors, Multinet, no longer exists—it went

bankrupt (Solomon, 2011). Three companies that have surfaced and remained in place

for several years are Tirima, Green Waste Pro and Eco Protection Limited. Their

operations are discussed in greater detail throughout the report.

1.2—Rationale

Because Dar es Salaam, Tanzania is such a rapidly growing city, policy makers and

stakeholders seeking to design and implement sound policy about waste management

and recycling issues require accurate, relevant and up to date data and critical analysis

of the issues (health, environmental and economic) involved. Unfortunately, such data

and analysis are lacking.

 In 2015, Dar es Salaam (in partnership with the World Bank) will initiate the

Dar es Salaam Metropolitan Project (DMDP) to develop waste management

and recycling infrastructure and social services for the general public. Yet the

latest literature on domestic waste and recycling available uses out of date data

from 2006 (The World Bank, 2013).


 In 2009 the government passed the Solid Waste Management Regulations, the

first ever-legal instrument exclusively targeted at waste and recycling. There is

no literature critically analysing this potentially landmark piece of legislation.

The study provides a much needed comprehensive and up to date analysis of these

important subjects—including domestic waste production, composition, waste routes

for disposal and recycling initiatives and fills in knowledge gaps on the contributions

of relevant stakeholders and legislative structure that exists in this field of research

and practice.

1.3—Aims and Objectives

The aims of this study are to:

1. Investigate Dar es Salaam’s waste management problem, examining the

volume and character of the waste, the attendant economic, environmental and

health consequences, and the political and legal dimensions of establishing a

sustainable policy.

The objectives of this study are to:

1. To conduct a comprehensive review of literature relating to the above aims

2. To collect, sort, analyse and dump waste and recyclables from fifty low-

income households in Dar es Salaam

3. To conduct one-on-one interviews and focus group discussions with multiple

stakeholders in Tanzania and South Africa including: individual waste

recyclers, middle men, doctors, environmentalists, economists, charitable,

private, industrial, governmental actors and the general public.

4. To compare and contrast legislation in Tanzania and South Africa through

interviews and visits with senior government officials and environmental


1.4—Methodology

The report used an eclectic methodology—sourcing a mix of original fieldwork,

scholarly literature, official statistics and interviews in the UK, Tanzania and South

Africa.

In chapter one, a comprehensive review of literature relating to waste management

and recycling in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania is performed. This review included

published studies (both peer-reviewed and non peer-reviewed), unpublished literature

in English, and literature in the native language, Kiswahili. Scientific peer-reviewed

journals were accessed via Science Direct (Elsevier), while more recent data and

developments were sourced through Internet searches on Google News and Google

Scholar. Hardcopy data from government offices, including legislation and municipal

reports were accessed in hardcopy through the Dar es Salaam City Council and

Google Internet searches.

Chapter two, which reports on a household waste audit, utilised a methodology

similar to that of Kaseva & Mbulingwe (2005, p.353) and Kaseva, et al. (2002,

p.243). A four week long waste collection and recycling experiment was conducted

among fifty households (some 268 persons) on Togo Street in the ‘Kinondoni A’

Ward of Kinondoni District, Dar es Salaam between 1st and 29th August 2013 in

partnership with the Waste Management Department of the Kinondoni Municipal

Council (KMC). Two receptacles were provided to each household (one for general

waste and one for dry recyclables), waste was collected once weekly using a lorry and

four labourers procured by the KMC. Waste was then transported to a compound

owned by the KMC in Kinondoni District, sorted into general waste and recyclable

categories, weighed and then disposed of either at the city dumpsite or at an informal

recyclers co-operative. Data on the waste weight, composition and routes of disposal

was recorded and utilised to provoke discussion on the public perceptions on waste


employed in getting rid of waste and the knowledge among respondents of applicable

national and local legislation on waste management.

Chapter three of the report was rewritten in 2014 for publication by WASTEDAR as

the electronic conference paper ‘Waste Picking in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania’.

Chapter four of the report delineates for the first time the roles of various

stakeholders—government, private, civil society, general public—working

exclusively in this major issue. Stakeholder included government agencies (the

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, the National Environmental Management

Council, the Dar es Salaam City Council and the Ilala, Kinondoni and Temeke

Municipal Councils), private sector actors (including Green Waste Pro, Tirima and

Eco Protection Limited) and charitable actors (including Nipe Fagio, Wonder

Workshop, Africraft, Neema Crafts Café, Shangaa, The Green Room, Jane Goodall’s

Roots and Shoots and the Bremen Overseas Research and Development Association).

Chapter five of the report reports on the market trends of the domestic and

international recycling market, sourced from a series of one-on-one interviews with

key waste producers and recyclers. These included senior management at five leading

industries in Tanzania: Coke, Pepsi, Bakheresa, SAB Miller Breweries and METL

and telephone interviews with representatives at Silafrica, Victoria Moulders, Centaza

Industries Limited, Kiboko Industries, Bonite Bottlers Limited, Jumbo Packaging

Printing Company Limited, Papcot Company Limited, Tanpack Industries Limited,

Kioo, Dar es Salaam Glassworks, Aluminum City Limited, Selebhai Glass,

Aluminum Limited and Shamo Group. Specific focuses in each interview included:

the industrial source and quantity of recycled and virgin materials, how recyclables

are processed and to create what, how much processed material is used within

Tanzania and how much is exported and what the average rates for the trade of


with it, or alternatively, give their own opinion on what they felt were the most

significant, health, environmental or economic consequences of waste.

Chapter seven of the report, which provides a comparative review of waste

management legislation in Tanzania and South Africa, utilised the human and

infrastructural resources of environmental experts and private sector waste recycling

companies in South Africa. The focus of the site visits and discussions with the

Environmental Coordinators was to gain an understanding of the infrastructural,

enforcement and legislative structures in place in South Africa in order to compare

with Tanzania.

1.5—Literature Review

Previous studies of waste management and recycling in Dar es Salaam are flawed in

several respects. Firstly, many studies utilise data that while acquired with

commendable methodologies and procedures are now very dated (commonly late

1990’s). The literature is therefore out of date and misrepresentative of the Dar es

Salaam city profile. Dar es Salaam is expanding and changing so rapidly that studies

can become obsolete quickly. Since the last report by Kaseva & Mbulingwe (2005,

p.353) (which presented data on household waste production from household waste

audits) the population of Dar es Salaam has grown by over two million inhabitants.

Another study by Kaseva & Gupta, 1996 that studied the waste routes and

infrastructure for disposal in Dar es Salaam atthe Vingunguti dumpsite is now of

purely historical interest only; as the author of this report notes, the Vingunguti

dumpsite has been closed since 2001 and been replaced by the Pugu Kinyamwezi

dumpsite. Lastly, studies that have included financial and monetary data have

confused matters by quoting in the local currency, the Tanzanian Shilling, a currency

with one of the highest inflation rates in the world (and only recent exchangeable data

with the US dollar). This has left studies such as Kasevea & Gupta (1996, p.299) and

Kaseva, et al. (2002, p.243) impossible to understand, due to readers not


et al. (2002, p.243) present substantial differences in estimates on the average income

per informal waste recycler. Kaseva & Gupta (1996, p.299) argue that the income

potential for one waste amounted to three times the minimum wage, while in Kaseva,

et al. (2002, p.243) this income potential had shrunk to only twice the official

minimum wage.

There is much more consensus regarding the health, environmental and business

impacts of poor waste management practice. Health impacts such as cholera, typhoid,

and malaria as a result of poor waste management practice were noted by Dodman, et

al. (2011, p.3), Penrose, et al.(2010, p.1), Sattler, et al. (2005, p.1), Castro, et al.

(2009, p.1475), Badowski, et al.(2011, p.1) and a key informant interviewed in this

study at the Muhimbili National Hospital in Dar es Salaam. Consensus on the

environmental impacts of poor waste management practice, particularly in relation to

flooding and water contamination were found in journal articles by Sugden (2006,

p.2), Sakijege, et al. (2012, p.1), Kiunsi (2013, p.321), Machiwa, (1992, p.562), and

Mwegoha & Kihampa (2010, p.763). Lastly, there is consensus on the business

impacts of poor waste management practice, particularly on the tourism and

hospitality industries. See, for example Kaseva & Mbulingwe (2005, p.353), Kaseva

& Moirana (2009, p.695), Kiunsi (2013, p.321) and a key informant interviewed in

this study at Tanzanian Investment Centre that seeks to attract foreign and domestic

investors to invest by beginning businesses in Tanzania.

Chapter 2.0—Domestic Waste Production, Composition &
Perspectives, the Togo Street Experiment

The previously mentioned Togo Street experiment found that the average general

waste and recyclables production per capita per day was approximately 0.45

kilograms and 0.11 kilograms respectively. A comprehensive chart of general waste

and recyclable sub-categories weighed each week is presented in Table 2.1 and 2.2


The experiment found substantial discrepancies in waste levels between week one and

weeks two, three and four. This may derive from a methodological artefact with the

Togo Street experiment. Focus groups and measured on site data revealed that in the

first week of the study an atypically large amount of accumulated waste was disposed

of. This was likely the case because no waste service existed before the Togo Street

experiment came into place. As a result the per capita per day average from the Togo

Street experiment is disproportionately high in week one.

Secondary data reviewed from Kaseva & Mbulingwe (2005, p.353) and Kaseva, et al.

(2002, p.243) that conducted similar household waste audit based studies indicated

lower per capita per day waste production levels than those recorded from the Togo

Street experiment. Table 2.3 below portrays the main differences in methodologies

and data recorded between the Togo Street Experiment and Kaseva & Mbulingwe

(2005, p.353) and Kaseva, et al. (2002, p.243).

Table 2.1—Cumulative General Waste Composition (Togo Street)

Item (kgms) Week #1 Week #2 Week #3 Week #4 TOTAL % of
TOTAL

Food 1048.72 604.52 608.23 602.12 2863.59 84.80%
Tissue paper 93.26 63.28 62.91 54.82 274.27 8.12%

Plastic (LDPE) 33.26 12.45 12.82 11.96 70.49 2.09%
Tetrapak 56.42 22.14 23.83 22.91 125.3 3.71%
Hazardous 10.44 5.32 4.89 4.71 25.36 0.75%
Textiles 7.44 3.24 3.85 3.26 17.79 0.53%
TOTAL 1249.54 710.95 716.53 699.78 3376.80 100%

Per capita 0.4498

Table 1.2—Cumulative Recyclables Composition (Togo Stree


Table 2.2—Cumulative Recyclables Composition (Togo Street)

Table 2.3—Comparison of Primary and Secondary Data on Domestic Waste

Study Palfreman (2013,

p.17)

Kaseva, et al. (2002,

p.243)

Kaseva & Mbulingwe

(2005, p.353)

Waste production per capita, per day0.56 0.39 0.40

Duration of study Four Weeks Three to Four

Months

Three to Four Months

No. of households participating 50 250+ 300+

No. of collections per week One Four Three

Item (kgms) Week #1 Week #2 Week #3 Week #4 TOTAL % of
TOTAL

Paper 39.91 18.32 14.22 17.11 89.56 10.85%

Cardboard 55.42 15.42 18.33 17.45 106.62 12.92%

Plastic (PET) 59.33 23.44 21.62 22.84 127.23 15.41%

Plastic (HDPE) 33.28 14.22 16.11 10.63 74.24 8.99%

Cans 65.43 21.03 18.93 22.74 128.13 15.52%

Glass 50.24 15.23 20.14 17.88 103.49 12.54%

Bones 121.84 35.42 38.91 32,66 196.17 23.77%

TOTAL 425.45 143.08 148.26 108.65 825.44 100%
Per capita 0.109


2.1—Waste Routes for Disposal

In partnership with the Kinondoni Municipal Council, general waste (a grand total of

3.37 metric tonnes) was dumped at the Pugu Kinyamwezi city dumpsite and

recyclable waste (a grand total of 825.44 kilograms) was handed over to a co-

operative of informal waste recyclers situated one kilometre from Togo Street on

Kinondoni Road, Kinondoni District, Dar es Salaam. As Tanzania has no hazardous

waste disposal facility, hazardous waste was mixed with general waste and dumped at

the city landfill.

The Togo Street experiment was unable to determine the subsequent routes the

recyclables collected took after being passed onto the recyclers co-operative due to

the small quantity of recyclables collected, however trends and recycling possibilities

related to informal recycling systems (i.e. individual waste recycling) and formal

waste recycling systems (i.e. domestic and international trade of waste items) are

discussed in greater detail later in this report.

The Pugu Kinyamwezi Dumpsite

The Pugu Kinyamwezi city dumpsite—the only official dumpsite in Dar es Salaam—

is situated thirty-five kilometres from the city centre in the Ilala Distrct. It covers an

area of approximately 75 hectares—the size of some 75 rugby fields. Despite being

managed by the Dar es Salaam City Council, the dumpsite operates in some of the

most deplorable conditions imaginable.

Kihampa, (2013, p.198) reported that a 2004 Environmental Impact Assessment

commissioned by the Dar es Salaam City Council (DCC) and conducted by the

Environmental Resources Consultancy group recommended that certain protective

measures should be put in place beforethe Pugu Kinyamwezi area was used as a

dumpsite. These included the installation of full leachate and gas management


Despite this advice, however Kihampa, (2013, p.198) reports that the Pugu

Kinyamwezi dumpsite opened in 2007 with no leachate and gas management systems,

no strategy for individual waste recycling, and no installed infrastructure other than a

weigh bridge that subsequently broke in 2010 and has since never been repaired.

Kihampa, (2013, p.198) highlights gross misconduct and misuse of the dumpsite, in

one example, the study cited that between 1,200 and 1,600 tonnes of hazardous,

electronic and medical waste is dumped on the dumpsite weekly.

The waste disposal operations at the Pugu Kinyamwezi city dumpsite directly violates

both the EMA 2004 that requires hazardous waste types to be treated through safer

and less hazardous disposal routes (EMA, 2004) and the Solid Waste Management

Regulations 2009 that require landfill sites to be built with full leachate and gas

management systems (SWMR, 2009).


2.2— The Politics of Waste—Public Perceptions of Waste
Management and Recycling

A range of issues relating to domestic waste management and recycling were

discussed during focus group discussions. Specific questions and prompts were used

by the moderator of both focus group discussions to gain a general understanding on

key domestic waste issues covered in the Togo Street experiment.

1. Focus group discussion (FGD) participants found waste management

important for their households and local community but unimportant in

comparison with other basic necessities. Participants were asked to rate the

importance of each service 1-5 (1=not important/5=important).

Figure 2.4—Comparative Importance on Waste Management


Figure 2.5—Preferred Waste Route for Disposal

3. FGD participants had little to no knowledge on the national and local by laws

that banned the illegal waste routes for disposal employed by households.

Figure 2.6—Knowledge of Applicable Legislation

Chapter 3.0—Recycling in the Informal Sector: The


Chapter 4.0—The Unrecognised Role of the Formal Sector:
Government, Business and NGOs

Part three of the report delineates for the first time the roles and responsibilities of

various stakeholders in this major issue, critically reviewing their focuses, successes

and shortcomings.

4.1—Government

Government agencies are tasked with the important duty of designing, implementing

and enforcing legislative structures in regard to waste management and recycling in

Dar es Salaam and nationally across Tanzania. While information on the focuses of

each governmental agency are sufficiently communicated to the general public online,

in print and physically through their offices, the successes and shortcomings of all

agencies reviewed are not well documented, often not existing online or in print at all

or only existing through third party websites not associated with the government.


19

Table 4.1—Governmental Agencies (Focuses, Successes and Shortcomings)

Agency Focuses Successes Shortcomings
The Ministry
of Natural
Resources and
Tourism

Designing, promoting and distributing
legislation in relation to environmental
issues, including waste management
and recycling

Design and publication of Environmental
Management Act (2004) and the Solid
Waste Management Regulations (2009)

Legislation is not available in hardcopy at The
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism or on
their website. Legislation is only available from
third party websites, not associated with the
Tanzanian Government.

The National
Environmental
Management
Council
(NEMC)

Enforcing environmental legislation
and setting environmental standards
through licensing, research and the
registration of environmental experts in
the country. Issuing, approval and/or
refusal of waste management and/or
recycling licenses for collection,
processing or transport based
operations and Environmental
Impact Assessments.

Recent partnership with Nipe Fagio, GIZ
and the Kinondoni Municipal Council to
clean, restore and set up an on the spot fine
enforcement system for the Mlalakua River
that floods annually due to illegal waste
dumping and a complete ban on the trade of
plastic bags from supermarkets and a ban on
the trade of plastic bags for all other
purposes under 0.3 microns.

Successes are not reported on the NEMC website
or through the media. The latest annual report
published online dates back to 2006. The plastic
bag ban meant to roll out in July, 2013 has still
not been released on the NEMC website or
through the media. No guidelines or fine and
disciplinary procedures on enforcement of the
ban have been provided to the enforcement
department of NEMC.

The Dar es
Dar es Salaam
City Council
(DCC)

Complements waste management
operations by each of the three city
municipal councils (Ilala, Kinondoni,
Temeke) by providing seven vehicles
and ten staff for the disposal of waste
in public areas in addition to the
resources that are independently held
by each municipal council

Plans to construct transfer stations and a
sanitary landfill site beginning in 2014.
Partnership with the World Bank on Phase 2
of the Dar es Salaam Metropolitan
Development Project (DMDP) worth over
$75 million that will seek to improve and
increase funding, resources, equipment and
infrastructure to develop waste management
and recycling systems.

No official print or online information by the DCC
concerning plans to construct transfer stations is
available. No official print or online information on
the DMDP Phase 2 Project is available from the
DCC or the media. All information was sourced
from interviews with the DCC and the World Bank.

The Ilala,
Kinondoni and

Management of independently and sub-
contracted private companies to

The Ilala Municipal Council under the
direction of Mayor Silaa has taken

No print or online information is available on either
the Ilala Beautification Project or the Waste


20

Temeke
Municipal
Councils

manage waste in their respective
districts. Public areas, roads and offices
particularly in the Ilala District where
the majority of Dar es Salaam’s parks
and public areas are situated are
managed by the municipal council
while all private properties are
managed by private waste management
companies.

leadership on waste management issues in
Dar es Salaam, founding the Ilala
Beautification Project in 2012 that saw
many public areas refurbished and
redesigned to include basic street furniture
such as benches and bins. Each municipal
council has also formed an independent
waste management department to address
waste management and recycling issues.

Management Departments at each municipal
council. As a result contact details are not available
and physical visits to each municipal council were
necessary.

4.2—NGO’s and Charitable Organisations
NGOs and charitable organisations have stepped up their focus on waste management and recycling programmes since 2010 in the light

of new legislation (i.e. the Solid Waste Management Regulations 2009) and public outcry on health, environmental and business

consequences of Dar es Salaam’s waste problem (Daily News, 2013). While capable of making strong statements and leading by example,

a common trend of scalability and lack of funding consistently came up as a shortcoming at the organisations.

Table 4.2—NGOs and Charitable Organisations (Focuses, Successes and Shortcomings)

Organisation Focuses

Nipe Fagio Advocacy and networking organisation that acts as a consortium of civil society,
private, governmental and environmental actors whom have an interest in waste

management and recycling issues for a range of reasons, from passion in environmental
management to corporate social responsibility. The organisation offers a networking
platform for various actors from various sectors to meet and collaborate on a monthly

basis.


21

Wonder Workshop, Africraft, Neema Crafts Café,
Shangaa and The Green Room

Advocacy for waste reuse and recycling through art. The organisations collects and
recycle waste and create arts and crafts from the recycled waste to sell.

Jane Goodall’s Roots and Shoots Provides educational materials and lessons regarding waste management and recycling
in Dar es Salaam through its secondary school network.

Bremen Overseas Research and Development Association
(BORDA)

Provides technical guidance on waste and recycling systems and engineers these
systems too for small clients such as schools, clinics and farms.


4.3—The Private Sector

The day to day operations of privately contracted waste management and recycling

companies in Dar es Salaam carry the mass of the burden in cleaning up the city and

managing waste. Taking a closer look at the reach and scale of the three largest

private sector waste service providers: Green Waste Pro, Tirima and Eco Protection

Limited, it is clear that the focuses of each company are very similar.

While the assets controlled by Dar es Salaam’s three leading waste management

companies are impressive, the companies operate an elementary operation, starved

from innovation. Private waste service providers only service wards in the city centre,

along the city peninsula and in isolated areas of national importance such as the

airport, port, national stadium and national/international bus terminal. Once waste is

collected private actors simply compact and dump the waste at the Pugu Kinyamwezi

city dumpsite. No efforts are made by the companies to diversify services (i.e.

providing standardised waste receptacles, offer recycling services, improving web

services so collections can be scheduled and payments can be made online).

Despite the simplicity of their operations, waste management companies report a long

list of challenges they face in their provision of services to clients, these include:

 Rate of bill paymentfrom clients to waste service providers is shockingly low.

Many householders refuse payment for waste management services. Kaseva &

Gupta (1996, p.299) and Kassim & Ali, (2006, p.769) show that on average

only 40% to 50% of clients pay fees to their waste management contractor for

services on time or at all. Discussions held by the author with key informants

of the sector relate closely to these figures also finding that on average the rate

of payment to contractors is 55% to 60%. Key informants felt that key reasons


the same amount as clients who rely entirely on the waste management

service for waste disposal solutions.

o Administrative challenges preventing effective enforcement; relating

to the lack of enforcement staff, incompetence, corruption and

inefficiency of the police and court system and lack of distance based

communication options to pursue clients (i.e. landline telephone,

email, personal mail box).

 Long distance to Pugu Kinyamwezicity dumpsite was cited by key

informants as the second most significant financial challenge to waste

management service providers. Key informants revealed that traffic

congestion made the journey to the dumpsite even more costly, claiming that

their vehicles were only able to make one to two visits to the dumpsite daily

due to spending an average of two to four hours on each trip in traffic.

 Poor compactor technology maintenancewas listed by key informants as an

additional barrier to efficient and economic performance. Poor road quality,

high organic and wet content in compacted waste and high levels of heat,

humidity and dust in Dar es Salaam led to frequent maintenance requirements

of vehicle compactor technology and internal electronics.


24

Chapter 5.0—The Economics of Recycling: A Material & Market Analysis

Part four of the study provides the first ever market analysis for informal and formalised waste recycling operations and efforts in Dar es Salaam.

The study analyses popularly recycled waste materials in Dar es Salaam and investigates their domestic and international value and trade among

informal and formal actors in the waste recycling network operational in Tanzania and abroad.

5.1—Plastics (PET and HDPE)

PET and HDPE plastics are the most widely produced, recycled and processed plastic based waste materials in Tanzania among both informal

and formal recycling networks. In Tanzania, Bakheresa Industries, METL, Coke, Pepsi and Tanzania Breweries Limited are the largest

producers of PET while Silafrica, Victoria Moulders, Centaza Industries Limited and Kiboko are the largest producers of HDPE.

While the plastics recycling industry is both busy and lucrative a report reviewing the plastics industry in Tanzania by the London School of

Economics (LSE) presented a number of key barriers to the growth and development of the plastics recycling industry in Tanzania. These

included: the absence of a ‘class A’ PET pellet service (a high enough quality for bottle to bottle recycling, where virgin material is not

required), a high dependency on plastics imports due to the lack of infrastructure and technology, a high excise duty on plastics (120% compared

with 50% for Kenya) and an unreliable electricity grid as well as corruption and inefficiency at the Dar es Salaam port (LSE, 2013). As an influx

of PET hits the Tanzanian market (due to Coke, Pepsi and Tanzania Breweries Limited switching from glass to PET bottling lines, the Tanzanian

government must better facilitate the trade of recycled plastics.


25

Table 5.1—Market Analyses (Plastics—PET and HDPE)

Item Source % of trade
domestic/international

Production Recycling Process Output

Polyethylene

terephthalate

(PET)

90% of PET is
recycled by
individual waste
pickers in the form
of plastic beverage
bottles.

30% of recycled PET is
processed and resold in
Tanzania. 70% is
exported, mostly to
China, India and
Indonesia.

4,000
tonnes per
month

In the most basic form for recyclable
processing, PET can be baled, to create
highly compacted PET. This allows PET
to reach an efficient and economic
payload in containers for export. A
second option for the processing of PET
is chipping or flaking PET in a grinder to
create even higher payloads in containers
for export. The third and most expensive
and sophisticated processing option for
PET is the melting and extrusion of PET
that has already been chipped or flaked.
This process produces PET granules or
pellets that has the highest payloads in
containers for export.

Alexander and Reno, 2012, p.106
report that PET flakes/chips most
commonly act as fibre filling for
toy animals, furniture, carpets and
interior fabrication of cars.
Bakheresa Industries in Tanzania
processes and uses PET
granules/pellets at a rate of 30% to
40% in the production of new line
bottles when mixed with virgin
PET. PET recycled by Bakheresa is
not Grade A PET and can thus not
be used at higher rates for the
production of new line beverage
bottles due to clarity issues.

High-density

polyethylene

(HDPE)

95% of HDPE is
recycled by
individual waste
pickers.

20% of recycled HDPE
is sold and processed
domestically, 80% is
exported.

1,500
tonnes per
month

HDPE can be bailed or grinded into
chips/flakes for more efficient and
economic payloads in export and
domestic transport.

Recycling and processed HDPE is
turned into polypropylene woven
sacks by Bakheresa Industries and
coils, pipes and hard plastic
containers by Kiboko Industries.

5.2—Paper Products
The grand majority of paper products in Tanzania including white paper (HL1), common mix (CMW) and cardboard (OCC) are imported. The

trade of recycled paper products is far less organised and sophisticated than that for plastics but functions significantly differently depending on

the quality of the paper product needing to be recycled.


26

When paper products are clean they are recycled very easily via market vendors whose more professional and formalised setting in market

places attract the general public and office workers to recycle comfortably. Once recycled paper products become wet or damaged however,

independent waste recyclers and middlemen return. Clean paper product recycling options are available at the Kariakoo, Buguruni, Kinondoni,

Kisutu and Kivukoni Markets among others while damaged paper recycling is commonly recycled and processed by Bonite Bottlers Limited,

Jumbo Packaging Printing Company Limited, Papcot Company Limited and Tanpack Industries Limited in order to produce tissue products and

paper cartons.

Table 5.2—Market Analyses (Paper Products)

Item Source % of trade
domestic/international

Production Recycling Process & Output

News, white
and brown
paper (clean)

80% is recycled by small
market vendors that buyback
clean, undamaged news, white
and brown paper from the
general public. 20% is sourced
from individual waste recyclers
that sell to the same market
vendors.

90% of news, white and brown
paper is sold and reused in
Tanzania.

140,000 tonnes of
brown kraft by
Tanzania Paper
Mills Company.
200,000 tonnes of
imported white and
news

Market vendors sort recycled paper and create
envelopes, cards and wrapping paper by hand, using
paper glue and scissors. They then wrap the paper
material for resale that is subsequently used widely
across the city by other market vendors as a cheaper
alternative to plastic bags for product wrapping.

News, white
and brown
paper and
cardboard
(damaged)

90% is recycled by individual
waste recyclers,

90% of waste is reused in
Tanzania.

Same as above, it is
expected that 5,000
tonnes of cardboard
are imported into
Dar es Salaam
monthly.

Tanpack Industries, the sole industrial buyer of news,
white and brown paper for domestic use produces
tissue paper products from processing recycled paper.


27

5.3—Glass
Glass recycling is led by breweries and beverage companies in Tanzania that hold existing relations to local glass producers who they source

their bottles and glassware from. Due to variety of reasons (i.e. accidents, spillages, rejected bottles) the companies accumulate large quantities

of broken glass and are therefore in an ideal position to recycle back to glass producers. Kioo Glass Limited, Dar es Salaam Glassworks (DGW),

Aluminum City Limited, Selebhai Glass, Aluminum Limited and Shamo Group are the key players in the glass industry in Dar es Salaam.

Table 5.3—Market Analyses (Glass)

Item Source % of trade
domestic/international

Production Recycling Process & Output

Glass 90% is recycled directly from
beverage and bottling
companies to Kioo Industries.
10% is recycled by individual
waste pickers.

100% of glass is sold,
processed and reused in
Tanzania. Due to the low
returns and complications in
processing recycled glass, it is
not economical to export glass
to overseas markets.

50,000 tonnes per
month produced in
Tanzania.

Glass is washed, sorted by colour, melted and
remodelled into new glass products.

5.4—Bones
Bone processing industries in Dar es Salaam (centralised around the Buguruni area of Dar es Salaam) run a simple and inexpensive processing

operation for sale to a domestic market. This cuts out middlemen recycling sites allowing individual waste recyclers to sell at any quantity and

benefit from higher and more consistent pricing. There are currently no international bone trade operations operating in Dar es Salaam.


28

Table 5.4—Market Analyses (Bones)

Item Source % of trade domestic/internationalProduction Recycling Process & Output

Bones 100% is sourced from
individual waste recyclers who
source bones from butchers,
restaurants and bars

100% of recycled bones are sold,
processed and reused in Tanzania.
Due to the low returns and
complications in processing recycled
bones, it is not economical to export
glass to overseas markets.

20,000
tonnes per
month

Bones are taken to small industries, grinded down and
sealed in plastic sachets for sale as various types of
livestock feed. Bones can also be sold to Lara
Industries Limited that produces basic kitchen items
such as plates and mugs from animal bones.

5.5—Comparative Analyses of Material Valuation
While individual waste recyclers normally source their recyclables for free, the valuation of their product is substantially undermined in

comparison with the formal industry based recycling market domestically and internationally. The variations in price for PET for example is

stark. PET that is flaked will fetch an average of 700 USD per tonne within the international market while if PET is processed into

granules/pellets it can fetch as high as 1,700 USD per tonne, more than five times the metric tonne value that PET is normally bought for from

waste pickers and informal recycling points across Dar es Salaam. As discussed above, many recyclables are only traded domestically (i.e.

bones), while others are traded more directly from source to industry more independent of the informal recycling network (i.e. cardboard).

Table 5.5—Market Valuation Analyses

Item Source to RecyclerRecycler to Recycling
Point (kg)

Recycling Point to Domestic
Industry (kg)

Domestic Industry to National/International Market
(metric tonne)

PET Free 0.20-0.26 USD 0.36-0.43 USD 700-1,700 USD1


1 PET prices vary significantly depending on whether they are sold as flakes or granules/pellets.


29

HDPE Plastic Free 0.15-0.21 USD 0.25-0.30 USD 500-600 USD

Paper Free 0.17-0.24 0.29-0.35 500-600 USD

Cardboard Free N/A N/A 60-70 USD

Glass Free N/A N/A 40-50 USD

Bones Free N/A 0.12-0.18 USD N/A


Chapter 6.0—Adverse Consequences of Dar es Salaam’s
Waste Problem

6.1—Health Consequences

Research has clearly supported the argument that poor waste management practice

has led to the degradation of health, particularly among low-income residents living in

unplanned settlements across Dar es Salaam.

In 2006, the Ministry of Health reported that 60% to 80% of hospital admissions were

due to sanitation related diseases. Health officers at the Temeke Municipal Council

additionally reported that 97% of out patients attending health centres were suffering

from sanitation-related diseases (Sugden, 2009). Dodman, et al. (2011, p.3) estimated

that up to 93% of urbanites relied on pit latrines, 5% had access to septic tanks or

sewage and 2% more had no formal excreta disposal facility. While many of the

illnesses contracted due to poor hygiene and sanitation are easily remedied, the health

situation has been exacerbated by the lack of human resources in the health sector of

Tanzania, the Medical Association of Tanzania for example reported in 2010, that the

doctor-to-patient ratio stood at 1:30,000 (MAT, 2010).

Specific diseases that have been related to improper waste management practice

include:

 Cholera,that the Ministry of Health reported 7,000 cases of between 1998

and 2005 and which Penrose, et al.(2010, p.1) associated with poor solid

waste management in a study of several unplanned settlements in low income

areas of Dar es Salaam.

Malaria, that Sattler, et al. (2005, p.1) and Castro, et al. (2009, p.1475) both


 Diarrhoea, that Badowski, et al.(2011, p.1) associated with poor household

waste management around the household.

6.2—Environmental Consequences

Improper waste management practice in Dar es Salaam has led to severe

environmental degradation. The most prevalent risks presented through a review of

secondary data includes increased flooding risk, soil and water contamination and the

degradation of marine life by the migration of heavy metals from the city’s waterways

into the Indian Ocean.

Sugden (2006, p.2) reported that of test boreholes drilled in the unplanned settlement

areas of Buguruni, Manzese and Mabibo roughly 30% showed nitrate values

exceeding the WHO recommended levels for drinking water of 50mg/l. This

contamination likely resulted from fertilser run off. Contamination of soil and water is

a regular occurrence due to the lack of proper sewage and rainwater catchment

systems in the city, particularly in unplanned settlements.

Sakijege, et al. (2012, p.1) and Kiunsi (2013, p.321) found increased flooding risk in

three wards of Dar es Salaam due to solid waste being dumped into storm drains and

other waterways as an informal solution for waste management.

Machiwa, (1992, p.562) identified high concentrations of the extremely toxic heavy

metal cadmium in the Msimbazi River along the Dar es Salaam coast that in turn led

to degradation in the marine environment. This is a serious economic concern for a

city that relies so heavily on its trade of fish from the Dar es Salaam coast.

In a study that tested water contamination in three wards surrounding the Pugu


Mwegoha & Kihampa (2010, p.763) found traces of cadmium and copper and higher

levels of chromium and lead than permitted by the World Health Organisation and

Tanzania Bureau of Standards in the Msimbazi River valley—a popular area for

vegetable farming. The finding of heavy metals in the soils surrounding popular

vegetable farms poses clear environmental and food safety risks.

6.3—Economic Consequences

Opinion research and government reports by Kaseva and Moirana (2009, p.695), the

International Ocean Institute—USA (IOI, 2009) and the Dar es Salaam City Council

(DCC, 2011) all found that the failure to manage waste would have an adverse impact

on the attractiveness of the tourism and hospitality industry in Tanzania.

Where preventative measures have not been taken the economical consequences of

poor waste management have been clearly seen in Dar es Salaam as well as in other

major urban centres across Tanzania. Kiunsi (2013, p.321), for example, reported on

the need for many businesses in the city to close due to the severity of the waste

problem particularly after seasonal rains when flooding is common. In another

example in 2012, seven luxury tourist hotels in Arusha and one luxury tourist hotel in

Dar es Salaam were fined, closed or shut down by local authorities and the National

Environmental Management Council due to illegally routing their liquid waste and

sewage into waterways including the Indian Ocean (Twenty Four Tanzania, 2013).

Such incidences have led to organisations––such as The Honeyguide Foundation—

which seeks to protect Tanzania’s national heritage, partly through sustainable

tourism—to publish a report on waste management to emphasise the importance of

this issue in tourism and hospitality (Honeyguide Foundation, 2010). Additionally,

Dr. Batilda Buriani, the Tanzanian Minister of State in the Office of the Vice-

President of the Environment, has called on the general public to take responsibility


Chapter 7.0—Waste Management Legislation: A
comparative review between Tanzania and South Africa

Chapter seven of the report provides a comparative review of legislation relating to

waste management and recycling in Tanzania and South Africa. The review finds that

laws in Tanzania, such as the 2009 Solid Waste Management Regulations are almost

identical on paper to South Africa’s 2008 Environmental Management: Waste Act. In

implementation, however, the laws are worlds apart.

7.1—Tanzanian Legislation vs South African Legislation

The two pieces of official environmental legislation that relate to waste management

and recycling in Tanzania are the Environmental Management Act (2004) and the

Solid Waste Management Regulations (2009). On paper, both acts portray a

legislative framework that if enforced and implemented correctly would lead to an

ideal waste management and recycling strategy in Tanzania. In practice, however, the

legislation is little more than rhetoric. From the lack of detail on enforcement

procedures and penalties to the absence of an implementation strategy (or even the

very infrastructure that is referenced in the acts that in reality do not exist), the

legislation is wholly inadequate to address Dar es Salaam’s waste crisis.

It is instructive to compare Tanzania’s legislative inventory in relation to waste

management and recycling with that of another country in sub-Saharan Africa—South

Africa. As we will see, South African legislation has similar objectives to Tanzania,

but provides the resources and enforcement muscle to make the law a realistic

achievement.


33

Table 7.1—Comparative Review of Tanzanian and South African Legislation Relation to Waste Management

REF Solid Waste Management Regulations (2009)—United Republic

of Tanzania

REF Environmental Management: Waste Act (2008)—Republic of

South Africa

38

(p.23)

Local government authorities shall ensure that [individual waste
recyclers] (a)- have adequate and appropriate working equipment and
tools, training and adequate provision of personal of protective gears
to waste handlers, (b) have the capacity to carry out segregation of
waste including recyclable wastes.

N/A Individual waste recyclers are unrecognised in South African
legislation. (Schoeman & Sentime, 2010) report that, ‘one of the
most recent challenges emanating from the recently promulgated
National Environmental Management: Waste Act 2008 is that it
does not recognise the role of ‘waste pickers’ in municipal waste
management’.

46

(p.28)

Any person who…liters…including in storm-water drains; or fails to
collect litter found outside his premises commits an offence

6 (26)

(p.40)

No person may dispose of waste, or knowingly or negligently
cause or permit waste to be disposed of, in or on any land, water
body or at any facility unless the disposal of that waste is
authorised by law; or dispose of waste in a manner that is likely
to cause pollution of the environment or harm to health and well-
being.

9 (1)

(p.8)

Any person who wishes to deal in solid waste as collector,
transporter, depositor or manager shall apply to a government
authority for a permit

5 (24)

(p.38)

No person may collect waste for removal from premises unless
such person is a municipality or municipal service provider;
authorised by law to collect that waste, where authorisation is
required; or not prohibited from collecting that waste.

15 (1)

(p.13)

Every occupier of any premises shall be obliged to use receptacles
approved by a government authority. Any person who does not
ensure that reusable receptacles are kept clean, maintained and in
good repair and ensure that each waste receptacle is used in a way
which protects the contents from spillage, rain, storm water, birds,
flies or other pests and vermin commits an offence.

5 (21)

(p.38)

Any person who stores waste must…ensure that the containers in
which any waste is stored, are intact and not corroded or in any
other way rendered unfit for the safe storage of waste; adequate
measures are taken to prevent accidental spillage or leaking; the
waste cannot be blown away; nuisances such as odour, visual
impacts and breeding of vectors do not arise; pollution of the
environment and harm to health are prevented.

17 (1) No person shall deposit into any receptacle any hazardous substance
unless that receptacle has been approved to contain hazardous wastes.

15 (a) All persons must recycle all hazardous wastes and ensure that all
collectable hazardous waste is placed into containers that will


34

(p.14) (p.12)2 prevent the likelihood of exposure during handling

20 (1)

(p.16)

Local government authorities must designate waste transfer stations
to adequately and appropriately prevent the release of waste to the
environment until appropriate recovery, recycling, treatment and
disposal options are available.

N/A Not required due to more formal settlements, streets, road access,
regular pick ups, compared with unplanned settlements and no
road access.

47 (3)

(p.30)

Where the court convicts a person of an offence against littering, the
court may, if it thinks fit, in addition to imposing of penalty, order the
offender to pay by way of compensation to the public authority
having control over management…to cover the cost of the removal of
the litter.

5 (23)

(p.38)

Waste collection services are subject to the obligation of persons
utilising the service to pay any applicable charges.

29

(p.20)

Government authorities shall…design sanitary landfill sites based
on…geological, hydro-geological and socio-economic investigations;
develop respective waste disposal plans to prevent occurrence of
environmental and health hazards; design site preparation and land
filling operations in a way that minimizes surface water runoff and
rainwater percolation into the waste and ensure that for each cell,
topsoil cover is compacted to reduce infiltration of water and
harbouring of vermin or insects.

8 (p.1)3 Relevant authorities and actors must ensure physical separations
of waste and groundwater, soil cover systems, compaction
technology and vehicles. A geohydrological investigation, an
EIA and the determination of end-use requirements will be
required. Soil, geomembrane and geotextile tests and leachate
detection systems must take place regularly.


2 From the Hazardous Chemical Substance Regulations (1995)
3 From the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill (1998)


7.2—The Enforcement, Expertise, Finance and Infrastructure Gaps

Tanzania lacks South Africa’s expertise, its systems of enforcement, and its

infrastructure. This asymmetry in implementation of relevant environmental and

waste management legislation arguably goes a long way to explain why Tanzanian

environmental legislation fails to fulfil its purpose while its South African counterpart

does.

It is only fair to note,however, that what South Africa has achieved in relation to

waste management has relied heavily on how well the country has developed

economically. The City of Cape Town for example, boasts an impressive inventory of

infrastructural resources that Hyman (2013, p.839) reports results in over 80% of the

cities waste being collected and properly managed. Dar es Salaam, a larger city, has a

collection rate less than half of Cape Town’s and has very little to show in

comparison to Cape Town’s infrastructural inventory. The underlying impediment to

Tanzania’s infrastructural development is finance and revenue, which without, very

little fair comparison can be made between the two cities.

Another problem Dar es Salaam faces is how to regulate its economy when such a

large proportion of businesses are operating informally. As Nahman (2010, p.155)

and Friedrich and Trois (2013, p.1013) report, a formalised business network in South

Africa combined with a robust and waste hungry recycling industry has allowed the

government to more easily rollout regulations including an extended producer

responsibility programme for packaging and a levy on the use of plastic bags.

Many developments in South Africa however could be easily replicated in Tanzania

through institutional reform and better guidance. Godfrey (2008, p.1660), for

example, reports on the success of reporting and guidance between local and national

government authorities through integrated waste management plans; plans that local


36

Table 7.2—The Enforcement, Expertise, Guidance and Infrastructural Gaps (Tanzania vs South Africa)

Study Tanzania South Africa

Enforcement

& Expertise

Tanzanian legislation delegates the responsibilities to enforce and practice
environmental law to local leaders, composed of ward leaders and ten cell
leaders (leaders elected to represent neighbourhoods). These leaders are
responsible for a range of governmental issues from taxation such as taxation,
social welfare and land rights, yet normally do not have any government
training and have not been educated past primary school level. The flaws in the
enforcement system led by local leaders in Tanzania are varied. In a review of
literature, Kironde (1999), Fjeldstad (2000, p.7) and Tripp (1989, p.2) all
criticise the local government governance and enforcement structure as corrupt,
apathetic and incompetent in dealing with environmental issues. Additionally,
the DCC reported in 2012 and 2013 that less than 10% of Dar es Salaam’s 73
wards reported on waste issues in their communities as required under Part Two
of the Solid Waste Management Regulations (DCC, 2011).

In South Africa, waste management officers (present
throughout local and national government) are delegated the
sole responsibility for enforcing waste management legislation.
Officers must hold competencies in environmental
management, attend trainings and report regularly to higher
government on their operations to be evaluated based on their
performance. Waste management officers hold no other
responsibility in connection with citizens on any issue other
than waste management and recycling.

Guidance Tanzanian environmental legislation does not benefit from any piece of
governmental guidance. Additionally, Tanzanian legislation itself is not clear.
National government acts for example are only available in English that despite
being a national language, is not taught in Tanzania until secondary school
level, to which the overwhelming majority of local leaders and the Tanzanian
population do not achieve the ability to attend. Legislation is also most easily
accessed online yet the internet penetration rate in Tanzania is estimated to be
as low as 7% even in Dar es Salaam.

The South African government provides dozens of official
guidance and complementary legislative documents many of
which are translated in to almost all of the countries eleven
national languages. These include: a 237 page guide on the
Minimum Requirements of Waste Disposal by Landfill
(Republic of South Africa, 2011), a 75 page National Waste
Management Strategy and a citizen guide on safe and
responsible disposal of general waste and hazardous waste
(RCMASA, 2013).

InfrastructureDespite stating requirements for waste transfer stations (20 (1) p.16) and
sanitary landfill sites (29 p.20), Tanzania has no waste transfer stations,
recycling facilities or sanitary landfill sites. The city of Dar es Salaam has under
forty waste compactor trucks (including those owned and operated by Green
Waste Pro, Tirima and Eco Protection) and less than a dozen governmental staff
(i.e. NEMC) dealing with waste management issues in the city.

South Africa has a network of impressive infrastructure to
manage and recycling waste. The City of Cape Town, Western
Cape, South Africa for example has three landfill sites, three
transfer stations, two materials recovery facilities, 25 public
drop-off sites, 968 full-time staff and 218 compactor trucks
operated by the municipal government (City of Cape Town,
2014).


Chapter 8.0—Conclusion & Recommendations

Dar es Salaam is a troubled city. As the population and economic activity booms in Africa’s

third fastest growing metropolis, its waste management challenges grow ever larger and

more burdensome.

This study found that policy makers have a poor understanding of domestic waste levels per

capita, per day, among low-income households in Dar es Salaam, and that the composition

of recyclables and hazardous wastes in domestic waste streams has been neglected by

previous scholarship. It additionally found a high level of public apathy towards waste

management, an alarming sense of willingness among the public to break the law through

illegal waste disposal practices, and a low level of public knowledge on applicable

environmental legislation.

This report concludes that one obvious way for the Tanzanian government confront this

apathy and waste crime is by more effectively disseminating information on the dangers of

waste as well as the relevant environmental legislation. Information released to the general

public should, of course, be provided in both English and Kiswahili (both online and in

print) and disseminated with the help of local leaders, via public notices or even the national

curriculum. Most importantly, however it must be done professionally with expert advice

from professionals in environmental science.

Information however is not enough. The government must also practice what it preaches.

This study found thatthe Pugu Kinyamwezi city dumpsite––the only formal and official

government waste route for disposal––is not adequately managed. Indeed, it directly violates

Tanzanian environmental legislation including the Solid Waste Management Regulations of

2009. Violations include the broken weighbridge, and absence of leachate protection/gas

management systems/fencing/waste recycler policy.


work collaboratively to improve available collection options so waste can be routed for

disposal.

A novel solution to this challenge would be to comprehensively ‘map out’ and ‘formalise’

the informal waste recycling network of individual waste recyclers. This might be done by

providing training, identification and personal protective equipment to individual waste

recyclers and waste recycling sites. That way this invisible human and informal

infrastructural resource can be better understood and utilised by formal actors in

government, the private sector and charitable organisations. As this study reports, there is

currently no comprehensive data on the size or collection capacity of this informal recycler

network or agreement between researchers on the monetary rewards these recyclers gain

from their work.

There is little information and transparency about interesting sounding initiatives (reported

by the author of this study) by, for example, NEMC, to clean up the Mlalakua River, or by

the DCC, in partnering with the World Bank to improve waste management infrastructure.

Such lack of transparency sends the wrong message from the Tanzanian government to the

general public as well as to private, industrial and charitable actors. This study concludes

that the government must make available in both English and Kiswahili, online and in print,

official and written updates on all its operations and programmes.

This report concludes that charitable actors by contrast are excellent at publicising

themselves but do not do enough to scale their operations; which often results in funding

and human resource shortages. One way that charitable actors could improve their

efectiveness is to connect with other charitable actors that address complementary

development issues (i.e. public health, agriculture, business). Charitable actors, this report

concludes, must do more to highlight the importance of waste management as an important

public health and business issue, while the health sector and business network in Tanzania


of bankruptcy due to difficulty in receiving payments for services provided to their clients

and the lack of routes for disposal in proximity to their operations. For clients, waste

management contractors must be more innovative with the payment options they provide to

their customers. Offering mobile money or online based payments (as one can do to pay for

electricity) or requiring payments prior to services beginning would allow for greater

flexibility and control of the business.

The private sector can also do more to partner with government. This report concludes that it

would be desirable for waste management companies to design, advocate for and even fund

alternative waste routes for disposal (i.e. waste transfer stations) in close collaboration with

government. One case that illustrated the positive influence private waste management

companies can have over government occurred in 2013, when those private companies

convinced the DCC to keep the Pugu Kinyamwezi city dumpsite open 24/7—so special

collection and dumping arrangements could take place overnight when traffic levels would

not deter or prevent efficient operations.

One alternative waste route for disposal that is increasingly being promoted by the private

sector is formal industry based recycling. This study reports that while the industrial based

recycling market has been effectively mapped out, market trends for different materials are

not well understood. An expected influx of the widely traded and lucrative PET—due to

transitions by Coke, Pepsi and Tanzania Breweries Limited from glass to plastic bottling

lines—has attracted the attention of large recycling industries including Bakheresa and

METL, but there is much still that can be done to strengthen this market. The industrial

based recycling market must push the Tanzanian government to better facilitate the plastics

recycling trade, firstly by reducing the plastics levy from its current rate of 120% to a more

competitive rate (i.e. 50%, in line with neighbouring Kenya) and secondly by improving the

efficiency of the Dar es Salaam port as well as basic utilities such as electricity.


infrastructural improvements such as sanitary landfill sites, waste transfer stations and

material recovery centres.


Key References

Badowski, N., Castro, C., Montgomery, M., Pickering, A., Mamuya, S., Davis, J. (2011)
The electronic journal: Understanding Household Behavioural Risk Factors for Diarrheal
Disease in Dar es Salaam: A Photovoice Community Assessment. Journal of Environmental
and Public Health. pp. 1-10. Hindawi. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2011/130467/ (Accessed: 2 December 2013).

Castrol, M., Tsuruta, A., Kanamori, S., Kannady, K., Mkude, S. (2009) The electronic
journal: Community-based environmental management for malaria control: evidence from a
small-scale intervention in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Malaria Journal.10, pp. 8-57.
[Online]. Available from: http://www.malariajournal.com/content/8/1/57 (Accessed: 29
November 2013).

CIA. (2013) The World Factbook: Tanzania. Available from:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tz.html (Accessed: 31
January 2014).

City of Cape Town. (2014) Solid Waste Management: Services. [Online]. Available from:
https://www.capetown.gov.za/en/SolidWaste2/Pages/default.aspx (Accessed: 2 February
2014).

Dar es Salaam City Council. (2013) Tourism Improvement in Dar es Salaam. [Online].
Available from: http://www.dcc.go.tz/projects/tourism-improvement.html (Accessed: 29
November 2013).

Dispatches International. (2013) A long way to a clean Dar es Salaam. [Online]. Available
from: http://www.dispatchesinternational.org/?p=26 (Accessed: 29 November 2013).

Dodman, D., Kibonda, E., Kiluma, L. (2011) Tomorrow is too Late: Responding to Social
and Climate Vulnerability in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Global Report on Human Settlements
2011.[Online]. Available from: http://www.unhabitat.org/grhs/2011 (Accessed: 5 December
2013).

Fjeldstad, O., Semboja, J. (2000) The electronic journal: Dilemma of Fiscal
Decentralisation. A Study of Local Government Taxation in Tanzania. Forum for
Development Studies. 27 (1), pp. 7-41. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.cmi.no/publications/file/966-dilemmas-of-fiscal-decentralisation.pdf (Accessed:
5 January 2014).

Friedrich, E., Trois, C. (2013) The electronic journal: GHG emission factors developed for
the collection, transport and landfilling of municipal waste in South Africa municipalities.
Waste Management. 33 (4), pp. 1013-1026. Science Direct Elsevier. [Online]. Available
from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X12005569 (Accessed: 2


Honeyguide Foundation. (2010) Tanzania Waste Directory. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.honeyguide.org/seminar_downloads/Tanzania%20Waste%20Directory-
%20your%20trash%20friend.pdf (Accessed: 29 November 2013).

Hyman, K. (2013) The electronic journal: Urban infrastructure and natural resource flows:
Evidence from Cape Town. Science of The Total Environment.461, pp. 839-845. Science
Direct Elsevier. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969713006529 (Accessed: 2
February 2014).

International Ocean Institute USA. (2009) Solid Waste Management in Dar es Salaam:
Privatizing and Improving Revenue Collection. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.ioiusa.net/view/article/141601/ (Accessed: 28 November 2013).

IPP Media. (2013) Filthy, stinking Dar es Salaam! [Online]. Available from:
http://www.ippmedia.com/frontend/?l=49937 (Accessed: 31 January 2014).

Kaseva, M., Mbuligwe, S. (2005) The electronic journal: Appraisal of solid waste collection
following private sector involvement in Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania. Habitat International.
29, pp. 353-366. BVSDE. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsacd/cd43/dar.pdf (Accessed: 5 December 2013).

Kaseva, M., Gupta, S. (1996) The electronic journal: Recycling—an environmentally
friendly and income generating activity towards sustainable solid waste management. Case
study—Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 17, 299-309.
Science Direct Elsevier. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344996011536 (Accessed: 6
December 2013).

Kaseva, M., Mbuligwe, S., Kassenga, G. (2002) The electronic journal: Recycling inorganic
domestic solid wastes: results from a pilot study in Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling.35, 243-257. Science Direct Elsevier. [Online].
Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344902000046
(Accessed: 6 December 2013).

Kassim, S., Ali, M. (2006) The electronic journal: Solid waste collection by the private
sector: Households’ perspective—Findings from a study in Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania.
Habitat International. 30, pp.769-780. Science Direct Elsevier. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197397505000469 (Accessed: 7
December 2013).

Kihampa, C. (2013) The electronic journal: Environmental Exposure and Public Health
Concerns of Municipal Solid Waste Disposal in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Journal of
Sustainable Development in Africa. 15 (3), pp.198-208. JSD Africa. [Online]. Available
from: http://www.jsd-africa.com/Jsda/Vol15No3-


Kiunsi, R. (2013) The electronic journal: The constraints on climate change adaption in a
city with a large development deficit: the case of Dar es Salaam. Environment and
Urbanization.25 (2), pp. 321-337. Sage Pub. [Online]. Available from:
http://eau.sagepub.com/content/25/2/321 (Accessed: 5 December 2013).

Machiwa, J. (1992) The electronic journal: Anthropogenic Pollution in the Dar es Salaam
Harbour Area, Tanzania. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 24 (11), pp. 562-567. [Online].
Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0025326X9290709F
(Accessed: 5 December 2013).

Medical Association of Tanzania. (2010) Proceedings of the 43rd Annual General Meeting
and 45th Anniversary. [Online]. Available from: http://www.mat-
tz.org/downloads/doc_download/16-mat-43rd-agm-proceedings.html (Accessed: 1 February
2014).

Mgaya, P., Nondek L. (2004) The electronic journal: Disposal frequencies of selected
recyclable wastes in Dar es Salaam. Waste Management.24, pp. 927-933. Science Direct
Elsevier. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X04000480 (Accessed: 7
December 2013).

Mwakyusa, A. (2010) It’s official: Dar amongst world’s filthiest cities. This Day. [Online].
Available from: http://www.thisday.co.tz/?l=10554 (Accessed: 31st January 2014).

Mwegoha, W., Kihampa, C. (2010) The electronic journal: Heavy metal contamination in
agricultural soils and water in Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania. African Journal of
Environmental Sciences and Technology.4 (11), pp. 763-769. Academic Journals. [Online].
Available from: http://www.academicjournals.org/AJEST (7 December 2013).

Mwita, S. (2013) Tanzania: Scavengers Should Be Discouraged. [Online]. Available from:
http://allafrica.com/stories/201310240702.html (Accessed: 1 February 2014).

Nahman, A. (2010) The electronic journal: Extended producer responsibility for packaging
waste in South Africa: Current approaches and lessons learned. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling.54 (3), pp. 155-162. Science Direct Elsevier. Available from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344909001578 (Accessed: 2
February 2014).

Penrose, K., Castro, M., Werema, J., Ryan, E. (2010) The electronic journal: Informal Urban
Settlements and Cholera Risk in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Neglected Tropical Diseases.
[Online]. Available from:
http://www.plosntds.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pntd.0000631
(Accessed: 3 December 2013).

Republic of South Africa. (1995) Hazardous Chemical Substance Regulations. [Online].


Republic of South Africa. (2008) National Environmental Management: Waste Act 59 of
2008. [Online]. Available from:
https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/nema_amendment_act59.pdf
(Accessed: 2 February 2014).

Republic of South Africa. (2011) National Waste Management Strategy. [Online]. Available
from:
https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/nationalwaste_management_strateg
y.pdf (Accessed: 2 February 2014).

RCMASA. (2013) Responsible Container Management Association of Southern Africa.
[Online]. Available from: http://www.iwmsa.co.za/UserFiles/File/IWMSA%2007-08-
03%20SANS%2010406.pdf (Accessed: 2 February 2014).

Sakijege, T., Lupala, J., Sheuya, S. (2012) The electronic journal: Flooding, flood risks and
coping strategies in urban informal residential areas: The case of Keko Machungwa, Dar es
Salaam, Tanzania. Journal of Disaster Risk Studies.4 (1). Aosis Open Journals. [Online].
Available from: http://jamba.org.za/index.php/jamba/article/view/46/62 (Accessed: 6
December 2013).

Sattler, M., Mtasiwa, D., Kiama, M., Premji, Z., Tanner, M., Killeen, G., Lengeler, C.
(2005) The electronic journal: Habitat characterization and spatial distribution of Anopheles
sp. Mosquito larvae in Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) during an extended dry period. Malaria
Journal. 4, pp. 14-28. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.malariajournal.com/content/4/1/4 (Accessed: 5 December 2013).

Schoeman, T., Sentime, K. (2010) Informal waste collection in Johannesburg: A case study.
University of Johannesburg. [Online]. Available from:
acreditacion.fisa.cl/ugi/.../19/SchoemanThea_201111839PXI5J_f.doc (Accessed: 3 February
2014).

Siemens. (2010) African Green City Index. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/features/greencityindex_international/all/en/pdf/report_afr
ica_en.pdf (Accessed: 31 January 2014).

Solomon, A. (2011) The Role of Households in Solid Waste Management in East Africa
Capital Cities. Available from: Google Books (Accessed: 31 January 2014).

Sugden, S. (2009) Excreta management in unplanned areas. London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine. [Online]. Available from:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTWAT/Resources/46021221213366294492/51062201
213649450319/1.8.1_Excreta_Management_in_Unplanned_Areas.pdf (Accessed: 1
February 2014).


http://www.nemc.or.tz/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=34&Ite
mid=185 (Accessed: 28 November 2013).

The World Bank. (2013) Dar es Salaam Metropolitan Development Project. [Online].
Available from: http://www.worldbank.org/projects/P123134/dar-es-salaam-metropolitan-
development-project?lang=en (Accessed: 31 January 2014).

The World Bank. (2013) Dar es Salaam: Informal Recycling Collection Points. [Print Only].
(Accessed: 1 February 2014).

The World Federation. (2013) As-Sadiq Housing Project in Dar es Salaam. [Online].
Available from: http://www.world-federation.org/Appeals/AppealHomePageID162
(Accessed: 19 December 2013).

Tripp, A. (1989) The electronic journal: Defending the Right to Subsist: The State vs. the
Urban Economy in Tanzania. Wider Working Papers. 59, pp. 2-50. [Online]. Available
from: www.wider.unu.edu/publications/working-papers/.../en.../WP59.pdf (Accessed: 7
January 2014).

Tukahirwa, J., Mol, Arthur., Oosterveer, P. (2013) The electronic journal: Comparing urban
sanitation and solid waste management in East African metropolises: The role of civil
society organizations. Cities. 30, pp. 204-211. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275112000595 (Accessed: 8 January
2014).

Twenty Four Tanzania. (2013) Smelly waste assails Arusha City hotels. [Online]. Available
from: http://www.24tanzania.com/smelly-waste-assails-arusha-city-hotels/ (Accessed: 29
November 2013).

United Republic of Tanzania: The Vice President’s Office. (2011) Dar es Salaam City
Environment Outlook. [Print Only]. (Accessed: 2 December 2013).

United Republic of Tanzania. (2009) Solid Waste Management Regulations. [Online].
Available from:
http://www.nemc.or.tz/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=34&Ite
mid=185 (Accessed: 1 February 2014).

United Nations Development Programme. (2013) The Millennium Development Goals:
Eight Goals for 2015. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.undp.org/content/tanzania/en/home/mdgoverview/ (Accessed: 31 January 2014).


Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54


Project


“Waste Management


ropa rap w2


Preferred Waste Route for
Disposal

Burning
‘= Burrying
Dumping
Garden Reuse


100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%


EMA (2008) SwMR (2009) Local Law