Waste separation at source

The social mobilisation set out to focus on the key message: sand/rocks/bricks are not waste; these should be separated from other household rubbish. The community theatre group=s performances focussed on this and follow up was done in houseBtoBhouse visits.

To chart the progress of the mobilisation, 20 families were selected in each of the five quarteraos. The mobilisers visited the families several times over a period of 12 weeks and the number of families separating sand from solid waste was recorded. The waste was visually checked to confirm that separation was occurring. The majority of the families were separating sand from the other waste. For those cases where sand was not separated, the explanation given was that it was the children who must have allowed it to happen.

In addition, a control group of two sets of ten families living outside the project area were visited. The majority of the families in the control group did not separate sand from other waste. Those that did separate explained they did so because sand can be used within the yard and sand significantly increases the weight, which makes carrying the waste to the dumpsite much more difficult. As well, if they burned the garbage, the sand made the burning more difficult.

Waste reuse and elimination of the dumpsite

Originally, the project was designed based on an agreement with ELISAL that a peri-urban waste transfer unit will be set up in the municipality of Cazenga with EU financing (hence this was one of the factors influencing the choice of the project area). Accumulated waste was to be removed from the dumpsites using heavy equipment provided by ELISAL and would then be hauled to the new transfer unit. But four months into the project=s operation, the institutional context on which the project design had been based had unexpectedly changed. This left the project faced with the challenge of removing waste out of the dumpsite on its own.

In the initial months of the project, confusion about the ownership of the land for the new transfer unitís location delayed its start up. In August 1997, when the Provincial Government of Luanda contracted Urbana 2000 to run ELISAL, the plans for a transfer subunit in Cazenga were canceled and equipment allocated to it was subsequently returned to service the city core. EU funding for the peri-urban unit was suspended. Further negotiations on EU funding, which were contingent on an agreement between the Provincial Government of Luanda and the EU, were also delayed because all three Vice-Governors of Luanda were replaced in September.

Thus the project found itself without the means of waste removal and had no budget allocation to hire a private contractor in ELISAL=s place. Support from Urbana 2000 though a possibility would take time to establish. To avoid delays, the project had to find ways to eliminate the dumpsite on its own. The task was to experiment with ways to reduce the volume of waste and to try to extract reusable portions. Recycling was one option but there was little industry still operating in Luanda and few possibilities for reprocessing recyclable items. No formal recycling programme exists and, in fact, little is known about the recycling done in the informal sector.

Given the results of the waste characterisation study which showed that a combination of sand and other inert (rocks, bricks) comprised 54 percent of the waste generated by families, the project investigated how this component could be extracted to reduce the volume and weight of waste requiring haulage. Should the separation be successful, the sand and inerts could then be used in road improvement.

Waste separation at the dumpsite

The project experimented with simple technology and manual labour to separate sand and inerts from the rest of the waste. The use of mechanised equipment for separation was ruled out as securing and maintaining mechanised equipment is difficult in Angola (all spare parts need to be imported). The aim was to develop methods and processes that would be easily replicable given the resources within the community and in the Angolan context.

The work at the dumpsite was to demonstrate that the volume of waste could be easily and significantly reduced in a very simple manner, contrary to popular belief that heavy equipment and containers were the only means. This would show the community that the waste problem is not insurmountable but can be tackled with simple technology and labour, both resources readily available in Luanda and in the project area.

Furthermore, the sand separation effort at the dumpsite could show that part of the waste can be reused, the project could avoid/reduce waste removal costs. This initiative also reinforces the message that sand is not a waste but rather a useful commodity that must be treated separately from the other household waste.

Work at the dumpsite began in September 1997 and ended in February 1998. The start up period (September and October) saw limited production because of the newness of the work, the presence of unexploded ordnance, and the subsequent introduction of necessary changes in work practice.

Organisation of Work. The work was organised as a food for work initiative. The workers were selected from the community giving preference to displaced persons, demobilised soldiers, and the unemployed. Trials with separation began with a team of four workers receiving food in payment. This expanded to five teams of six persons each. The teams worked between four and five hours per day.

The workers were provided with protective clothing: coveralls, work gloves, rubber boots and masks, but often would prefer not to use them particularly the masks because of the heat. Many argued that the protective clothing makes little difference given that they have lived and breathed close to the garbage all these years.

Technology and Method. Separation began using wire screens with openings of various dimensions (100mm, 50mm, and 10mm). The screen with an opening of 50mm offered the best results. The bulk of the material passing was sand and gravel with some organics and small pieces of broken glass and such. The larger pieces of plastic, paper, cloth, and branches were easily separated. The resulting pile of inerts appeared reasonable for use as road infill material (see Figure 5 in Appendix B).

In the end, the most effective separation process was as follows:

a backhoe loosened the waste;

hoes and shovels moved the waste onto the screen;

piles of sand under the mesh and waste in front of the screen were cleared away with shovels;

sand and waste was loaded onto trailers either manually or with a backhoe and hauled away;

the resulting pile of garbage was put aside for removal.

Originally, the compacted waste was loosened manually using a pickaxe. But the first encounter with unexploded ordnance required a change work practice. For safety reasons, the pickaxe was eliminated and a backhoe became a necessity.

The volume of waste separated per day would vary depending on its density (degree of compaction). With the backhoe loosening the waste, daily production by a team of six persons was about 3.5 m3 of sand and about 0.75 m3 of garbage. As the waste at the dumpsite was several years old, the organic components had already degraded, and smell was minimal. The main difficulty during separation was the presence of feces because without a sewage system, the unauthorised dumpsites usually serve as public ìlatrines.î

By February 1998, 450m3 of sand were produced. The volume of waste varied with the degree of compaction (density). In general about one quarter the volume of waste was produced for each volume of sand. The remaining garbage (after separation) was 600m3 or about 57 percent less than the volume that existed prior to the separation effort.

As the dumpsite was being eliminated, several small studies were conducted to determine the weight of sand in comparison to the weight of waste. The results indicate that the material passed through the screen (mostly sand) comprised between 75 to 90 percent of the total weight. Removal of this portion of the waste resulted in a significant reduction of the dumpsite and produced a potentially useable material.

Contact was made with Urbana 2000 and in January 1998, Urbana 2000 visited the project on two occasions. After the second visit, Urbana 2000 offered to assist the project with the removal of the 600 m3 of solid waste remaining after the separation. Once Urbana 2000 removed the remaining waste, the intersection was open to traffic for the first time in five years.

Two months after the final truckload of rubbish was removed, the informal market has expanded into the space previously occupied by the garbage dump. The comuna administration has issued permits to vendors and trucks (which load goods before traveling to the provinces) using the vacated space. Income generated from these permits will be used to maintain the area free of garbage.

Dealing with Explosives. Throughout the Angolan civil war, the city of Luanda itself had been relatively insulated from the proliferation of landmines and other explosives that plagued the rest of the country. Nonetheless, explosives were encountered at the dump on several occasions. Some were live; others were missing the firing pin. Regardless of the state, each was treated with the utmost caution. When an explosive was encountered, work activity ceased. The field teams were dismissed and INAROE (the state agency responsible for demining) was called to remove the explosive. The project often was delayed by the time it took to arrange the removal.

After uncovering the first explosive Development Workshop consulted the National Institute for the Removal of Obstacles and Unexploded Ordnance (INAROE), the national demining organisation and Norwegian People's Aid, an NGO specialising in demining. The project requested an opinion on the risks involved with continuing the work at the dumpsite and recommendations on how to safely remove the waste. Both organisations indicated the risk was minimal but suggested eliminating the use of pickaxes used to de compact the waste. Each organisation also provided a training and awareness course for the field teams on recognising explosives and how they function.

In total two grenades, seven 81mm mortars and one 60mm mortar were found and disposed of safely.

Road Improvement

As stated earlier, roads in the project area are mainly unsurfaced, dirt roads. There is neither base material nor sub-base material with traffic passing on the native soils. There is no surface water drainage along the roadways. Although the terrain is relatively flat, the roads contain many depressions.

The roads are passable for most of the year but in the four months of the rainy season, the depressions fill with water, which can remain for several months. As the rains dry, the depressions often turn into mud holes. Both vehicular and pedestrian traffic are severely restricted.

With the success of manual separation of sand from the waste, the project began the road in-filling phase. Community leaders were consulted and requested to select priority roads for in filling of the depressions with the separated material. Over 100 locations were identified within the target area of 300-meter radius from the dumpsite. Each location varied in size and depth but the average depth was about 0.5 meters with overall dimensions of less than ten square meters.

A tractor and trailer transported the separated sand to the infill location. The sand was dumped and manually spread in lifts of 10cm or less. Water was added, then the sand was compacted with either a plate tamper or a small vibrating cylinder. Water was necessary to increase the moisture content of the soil and attain to better compaction. Initially water was added sparingly because the city water supply did not reach the area; people bought water from private vendors. The project did not want to appear to be spending money in what the community might view as a wasteful manner even though the end result necessitated its use.

The project experimented with various types of infilling techniques. At most locations only the separated sand was used. However, at the two largest and deepest locations, solid waste from the dumpsite was placed in alternating lifts with the sand. Each lift was compacted with the vibrating cylinder and covered with a final layer of sand. In total 16 locations and 1,800 m2 of road was improved. In one area, the project was requested to construct a section of roadway that had been completely washed away during the previous rains, a combination of 15 car frames (from abandoned cars), garbage, and of sand was used to construct about 165 m2 of roadway. A total of 450 m3 of sand and 125 m3 of waste were reused in the road improvement effort.

At the end of the project, the infilled areas appeared in reasonable condition even after several heavy rains. All locations saw some settlement as a result of vehicle traffic with the majority happening after the first rain. Subsequent rains caused little or no additional settlement. The two locations where waste was used with the sand deteriorated rather quickly after its first rain. Both sites experienced large amounts of uneven settlement and parts turned to mud. Repairs and the addition of another lift of separated sand were all that were necessary to bring the locations to acceptable conditions. Figure 6 in Appendix B shows one location, which was infilled with alternating layers of waste and sand.

The geotechnical and chemical properties of the separated material still need to be evaluated. Several samples were sent to the engineering laboratory for testing and to South Africa for tests, which could not be done, in country. At the time of writing this report, results were not yet available.

The project recognises that:

using substandard material to infill depressions in musseque roads is an interim solution to road construction within the musseques;

using substandard material on the roadways may increase future costs of road replacement should resources become available to build engineering standard roads, since sub-standard materials will need to be removed before laying a proper sub-base;

potential health risks may be associated with using material from the dump and spreading it out over a greater, more accessible area (results from chemical testing of sand samples will yield more information on this point);

better levels of compaction would be necessary for optimal results;

roads without drainage will always be problematic.

However, given the present road conditions, the future prospects for improvement, and the presence of the many dumpsites, the overall results were favourable, both as a means of improving road conditions and of eliminating the dumpsites. Even after heavy rains when other areas were submerged or were well on their way to becoming impassable pools of mud, areas infilled by the project remained relatively dry and passable.

Most important, community responded enthusiastically to the road improvement efforts. Once the initial results were seen, the community put forward numerous requests for other locations. The project was limited only by the amount of material extracted from the dumpsite. Volunteers helped to remove abandoned car frames. Residents deposited sand that they separated at home to the infill areas near their homes. Several community meetings were held to discuss potential community contribution and participation in a longer-term initiative.

Creation of a new collection depot

Simply eliminating the unauthorised dumpsite serves little purpose if people do not have another option for proper disposal of their rubbish. While the dumpsite was being cleared, the community leaders prohibited residents from using the dumpsite in an effort to facilitate the project work. Residents were instructed to burn and bury their waste. Visits and conversations with the community by project staff indicated people were willing to burn and bury but they saw this as a short-term measure, something else needed to be arranged. Others, with limited space in their yards were immediately anxious for a disposal alternative.

Options for an alternative collection depot location were few, as little vacant space exists in the project area. Several meetings took place with Development Workshop assisting the community in identifying possible locations for the collection depot. The community proposed three sites and Development Workshop prepared a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each site. In a subsequent meeting, the advantages and disadvantages of each site were reviewed and discussed.

It became clear that the community was most concerned with the elimination of the dumpsite and ensuring that another does not replace it. It also became apparent that the leaders doubted the authorities would provide continued support without the involvement of Development Workshop.

Although it had several shortcomings, a nearby site located in an open area adjacent to the Kwanza market was selected. This location (referred to by the project as INDAP) is about 200 meters from the former dumpsite location (Figure 2 in Appendix A). Although this extra 200 meters would potentially inconvenience those who already live 200 to 300 meters from the former dumpsite, the community accepted this. The potential difficulty of having to pass through the market en-route to the collection depot was viewed as a minor problem that could be overcome by mobilisation. The leaders assumed the responsibility of working together with the project staff to promote the use of the new depot.

Another disadvantage of the selected depot location at INDAP is that heavy traffic because of the market and poor road conditions make road access difficult. The leaders have arranged for the local police detachment located beside the market to provide traffic control when Urbana 2000 comes in to remove waste from the location. For supervision of the collection depot, the leaders arranged with representatives of the market to oversee the use of the depot. Project staff are working with the market staff to train and assist them.

The project installed an attendant to monitor the waste coming to the depot to find out whether the concept of waste separation has been instilled among the population. The monitor checks if the waste being brought to the deposit is free of sand. The attendant had been in place for only one week at the time of writing of this report. Early indications are that the waste coming to the deposit does not have a significant percentage of sand.

The success of the INDAP deposit is difficult to gauge, as it has been operational for less than a month at the time of writing this report. Visits to houses in the project area were conducted to assess the reaction of the people to the INDAP site. Some people visited reiterated the disadvantages discussed during the site selection meetings. Residents indicated the new site is too far and that passing through the market where traffic is heavy can be dangerous especially for children. Others indicated they preferred to carry on with burning and burying. More work is needed to address the concerns of those who are not presently using the deposit to prevent them from resorting to unauthorised dumping. The local leaders have been advised and the mobilisers will work together with the leaders to motivate people to use the newly selected site.

Cooperation and partnership development

A key element in Development Workshop=s strategy to improve peri-urban musseques is the promotion of tripartite cooperation among communities, para-statal agencies or utilities providing services (e.g., water, sanitation company), and the local government authorities. Development Workshop initially acts as a facilitator or intermediary, bringing together and linking the different parties. As the three-way relationship progresses from more informal, short-term or narrowly defined joint actions to a longer term, formal co-ordination around a specific effort or program, Development Workshop gradually withdraws and turns over its responsibilities to the different parties.

For example, in its water programme, Development Workshop in 1993 by brought together the three parties in a project advisory committee for a standpost construction project. Today, the standpost community management system runs independent of Development Workshop=s input. The standard consumer contract of the provincial Water Company (EPAL) has been revised to allow neighbourhood water committees to sign communal contracts with the utility. The user fees collected by the water committees are divided among the users committee (to pay for the water monitor and minor repair/maintenance); the provincial water company (to pay for the water and servicing the main lines); and the comuna administration (to cover security).

The promotion of a similar tripartite cooperation in the solid waste sector is more complex. Years of under funding and management problems have left ELISAL with an operating capacity enough to service only 20 percent of Luanda=s population. Meanwhile the nature of solid waste removal limits action at the community level. Without proper off-site facilities and the means of eventually removing waste from communities into the landfill, community action will at best be a stop gap measure. Both local authorities and musseque residents doubt that the situation will improve.

Development Workshop=s partnership with ELISAL suffered setbacks as plans for ELISAL=s peri-urban waste collection transfer unit were canceled. A period of uncertainty followed after the government decision to contract out the management of ELISAL to Urbana 2000, a private company in August 1997. Then partnership building started anew with Urbana 2000. Currently, Urbana 2000 has no capacity to coordinate at the community level and undertake social mobilisation, both of which Development Workshop can do hence the partnership is mutually beneficial.

Starting in 1998, Urbana 2000 provided waste removal support to the project. Thus far, Urbana 2000, has shown a will to improve conditions in the musseques, helping to dispel the lack of confidence in the stateís removal capacity and the notion that the musseques are overlooked. Development Workshop and Urbana 2000 at time of writing are working jointly on waste removal at a second dumpsite.

Project Impact

Overall, the project=s immediate impacts have been positive. Its single most important impact is to challenge the widely held notion that trucks and containers are the only way to get rid of garbage and to keep the musseques clean. The project has demonstrated that there are feasible alternative methods of managing solid waste in the peri-urban environment. Waste reduction and waste reuse are viable strategies for waste management in the musseques. The project has also demonstrated that the active participation of the community and local leaders can help bring about significant improvements. Finally, it shows the potentials of cooperative action in solid waste management among the community, local authorities, and the private sector (Urbana 2000).

Impact at household and community levels

The project showed that, contrary to popular belief, the waste problem is not insurmountable but can be tackled with simple technology and labour, resources that are both readily available in the project area and in Luanda.

The initial attitude of demoralisation and skepticism about acting on the solid waste problem among residents turned into a motivation and willingness to cooperate with other initiatives. Residents have a renewed confidence because of the success of the project.

Household waste management practices changed with the separation of sand from other household waste thus reducing the waste generated by an estimated 54 percent (by weight). The project introduced households to the concept of waste reduction at source. Residents were taught that sand is not a waste but rather a useful commodity that must be treated separately from the other household waste.

Improved environmental sanitation conditions for an estimated 3,000 people with the elimination of the largest dumpsite within the community, the provision of continuous waste removal services at the new collection depot, and the repair of road depressions that become breeding places for disease carrying organisms in the rainy season.

Improved road access especially in the rainy season. The project improved 16 sections of roadway with a total area of 1800m2. Almost 600m3 of material taken from the former dumpsite were reused in road improvement.

Impact on income/employment

The project provided direct employment for 30 people working in waste separation and road improvement.

The Food for Work teams demonstrated how food aid could be used in public works programmes to improve living conditions in the musseques.

Increased income and employment opportunities were generated with the physical expansion of the Kwanza market into the space formerly occupied by the dumpsite.

Impact on local governance

The project had improved the management capacity and increased the confidence of local administrations that have been involved in the project since its inception. The project provided a practical experience in planning and implementing a community development initiative. Leaders have taken responsibility for promoting the use of the new collection depot, arranged for police to control traffic in area, and have negotiated with the Kwanza market staff to supervise use of the depot.

The expansion of the Kwanza market has provided an opportunity for local resource mobilisation. The local administration has begun issuing permits for vendors and trucks using the space created by the removal of the dumpsite. The money collected from these permits will go towards maintaining the area free of garbage.

The project has demonstrated to the local administration and to the community leaders the importance of social mobilisation to secure community cooperation

Impact on supporting organisations

Outside of the project area, the project also had an impact on government officials, ELISAL, Urbana 2000, other NGOs, donors and institutions with an interest in solid waste management and peri-urban area improvement.

Research conducted during the project contributed to a better understanding of the properties of waste, waste generation, and waste management practices at the household and community levels in peri-urban areas. The waste characterisation study was the first in Luanda to focus on waste generation in peri-urban areas; the research on scavenging was the first attempt to gather information about this activity.

The project has demonstrated the feasibility of waste reduction as a strategy for solid waste management. A reduction in the range of 75 to 90 percent (by weight) has been achieved by separating sand from waste in existing dumpsites. This significantly reduces the cost of waste removal from the musseques to the landfill. This cost reduction allows for increasing the area coverage of removal services; waste reduction also makes it easier to handle the waste. The experiments in separation of sand at the dumpsite yielded valuable information and the methodology can be replicated at other dumpsites.

The project introduced the concept of waste reuse by extracting sand and other inerts from piles of accumulated garbage at the dump and by using this as infill material to improve roadways within the community.

The project has demonstrated how cooperation between the community, local authorities, government, and the private sector (Urbana 2000) can effect changes in the solid waste situation.

The project has created opportunities for project partners to increase their capacity through training in social mobilisation, participatory research techniques etc.

The project has demonstrated an approach of combining applied research with ongoing project implementation as a means of developing strategies that are appropriate to the conditions in the peri-urban context.

The partnership between Development Workshop and Urbana 2000, though difficult to assess at this point, can potentially develop into a model for private sector-NGO cooperation in solid waste management and the provision of other urban basic services. The private sector can provide the services while the NGO does the necessary social mobilisation and coordination at the community level.

The project has helped create a greater awareness of the solid waste problem in the musseques and increasing acceptance among decision-makers of the alternative measures to deal with the solid waste problem. The Provincial Government of Luanda has recently undertaken a publicity and education campaign on awareness of the hazards of poorly managed solid waste. At one of the meetings with the Vice Governor of the Provincial Government of Luanda, the pilot project was cited as a successful initiative brought together by Development Workshop with the support of the community and local leaders. Both the Administrator of Cazenga and the General Director of Urbana 2000 made reference to the project. The Vice-Governor has offered a counterpart to the project who will act on the provincial governmentís behalf.

Project strengths, constraints and lessons learned

The project has identified innovative strategies for managing solid waste in Luanda=s musseques within the context of the resources and constraints in peri-urban Luanda. It set in motion an initiative that has taken hold in the community and the local leadership has acted to maintain the improvements that have been made. Its success to date has renewed the confidence and willingness of both musseque residents and the government to address what has been viewed as an almost insurmountable problem. But at the same time, the project had to confront deep-rooted views on the ìproperî methods of waste removal in the musseques. Changes in the institutional context as the project got underway, the weak capacity at the local level, and financing and cost-recovery for waste removal services posed added challenges. The project offers valuable lessons for replicating the effort in other musseques and for scaling up the activities into a citywide programme.

Strengths

The project has identified innovative strategies for managing solid waste in Luanda=s musseques within the context of the resources and constraints in peri-urban Luanda.

The project used mainly simple technologies and labour-intensive methods that are easily replicable.

Sand separation at the dumpsite used hand tools: shovels, hoes, pickaxes and screens on wooden frames. The methods developed used what is perhaps the most abundant resource in the communityñlabour.

At the household level, reducing waste at source by separating the sand was simple, easily understood, and did not require substantial modification of current practice in handling of waste. The idea made sense to the residents. Some households already separate sand from other household waste to reduce the weight of rubbish being carried to the disposal site.

The project was rooted in the community.

Participatory research techniques were used to gain an understanding of current waste management practices and the communityís views on feasible and desired improvements. Social mobilisation was then undertaken to facilitate public participation in the project. Residents and the leaders of the community were actively involved in planning and decision-making about the project. The project worked within the existing local government structure in the municipality and comuna and with the leadership structure within the sectors and quarteraos of the community.

The project invested front-end effort in social mobilisation and used popular communication methods (theatre).

A national NGO (ADRA) which had been active in health and sanitation efforts in the area had been selected as a partner. Social mobilisation preceded full implementation of project. Full-time mobilisers were assigned to the project. A theatre group augmented their efforts. In parallel, the projectís objectives and activities were promoted among key actors and organisations beyond the immediate project area to disseminate the projectís experience and to gain their support.

Constraints

The project had to overcome peopleís preconceptions about the ìproperî methods of waste collection and removal in the musseques.

Many envisioned a system of containers distributed in the musseque and trucks coming in to empty the containers even if it were clear that Urbana 2000 and its forerunner ELISAL had neither the containers nor enough trucks to service the peri-urban areas. The complexities of solid waste removal were not well understood and little was known about waste generation and handling in the musseques.

Local governments and communities have limited resources and skills to improve conditions in their areas.

To help ensure replicability and sustainability of the models developed, the project was designed to work within the existing local government structure in municipality and comuna and with the leadership structure within the sectors and quarteraos of the community. While this is among the projectís strengths it is paradoxically also a constraint. The combined effects of a centralised government structure, prolonged civil war, a limited resource mobilisation capacity at the local level, and a relatively recent history of democratic institutions have resulted in a weak capacity at the local level.

The community leaders have actively participated in the project and have acted to maintain the improvements made. But they have difficulty gaining access to decision-makers (e.g., Development Workshop could access the management of Urbana 2000 whereas the community leaders could not). This has contributed to the leadersí doubts that the authorities would provide continued support without the involvement of Development Workshop.

The financing and cost recovery for waste removal services still needs to be addressed.

Local government financing available for waste removal services in the musseques is very limited. In the longer run, the ongoing costs of solid waste collection, removal, road improvement and community supervision must be recovered if sustainability is to be ensured (see further discussion of this issue in section 5.4 Sustainability and future prospects).

Changing conditions in the projectís institutional context resulted in changes in the project design and slowed the projectís progress towards establishing the links among the community, the local leaders, and the authorities responsible for waste removal.

From the outset changes in the institutional context impacted on the project. The original project plan had to be altered when funding of the larger Infrastructure and Rehabilitation Project of the Government (within which the pilot was a component) was suspended. Development Workshop independently sought alternative funds but had to proceed on a reduced scale.

Later on, the cancellation of the planned peri-urban subunit of ELISAL (around which the project had originally been designed left the project without the means to remove the waste out of the dumpsite and an alternative strategy had to be devised. Another period of uncertainty followed after Urbana 2000 was contracted in August 1997 to manage ELISAL. It was not immediately clear how Urbana 2000 was going to be involved in waste removal in the musseques since the contract covered only the city core. Development Workshop itself had to develop a relationship with Urbana 2000 before it could facilitate links between the community and Urbana 2000. Finally, involvement of Urbana 2000 in the project did not materialise until January 1998, just three months before the end of the project funding cycle.

Given these unanticipated changes, the planned withdrawal of Development Workshop and the gradual transfer of its responsibilities to the local authorities and community leaders proceeded more slowly. At this point, Development Workshop continues to help the local leaders in organising the new collection depot at INDAP. Further work is needed in coordinating with the Kwanzas market association for supervision of the depot. Training of the supervisors from the market has begun and accompaniment by Development Workshop is planned to continue. Development Workshop remains the communityís link with Urbana 2000, the complete transfer of this responsibility to the local administration still needs to be done.

Lessons learned

It is more difficult to mobilise community action around the issue of solid waste compared to, for example, water. Rubbish removal ranks lower in priority for musseque residents (usually coming second to water or employment). Although they recognise accumulated solid waste as a serious threat to public health, they are wary of investing in rubbish removal services. There are limits to what can be done at the community level. Rubbish has to be hauled out to disposal sites outside the community but residents doubt the capacity of the government to maintain such services in the long term.

Social mobilisation is essential to success. Social mobilisation of musseque residents around issues of infrastructure implementation is a relatively recent concept in Angola but it is important to facilitate public participation.

Training and accompaniment provided by the NGO (Development Workshop) are integral elements of a community based solid waste management programme. The capacity at the local level needs to be strengthened to enable the local authorities and community leaders to manage the programme. Withdrawal and transfer of NGO responsibilities would have to be phased as the capacity and confidence of local partners develop.

The partnership between Development Workshop and Urbana 2000 is a potential model for private sector-NGO cooperation in solid waste management and the provision of other urban basic services. The private sector can provide the services while the NGO does the necessary social mobilisation, training, and coordination at the community level.

The management contract of Urbana 2000 indicates the potential for private sector participation in providing basic services. It needs to be monitored to assess its applicability in a community based solid waste management programme. Within the musseques, a continuous waste removal system can be linked to a private service provider. Residents deposit household waste at designated collection depots managed and monitored by the community, the private sector company picks up and hauls waste out to the landfill.

The issue of cost recovery and community contribution to waste removal services still needs to be addressed. In the longer run, the ongoing costs of solid waste collection, removal, road improvement and community supervision must be recovered if sustainability is to be ensured.

Waste generated at the household level can be reduced by at least 50 percent (by weight) by separating sand from other household waste. Some households who want to reduce the weight of rubbish they haul to the dumpsite are already practicing this. The potential for further reduction through recycling has yet to be evaluated.

Separating sand from waste in existing dumpsites can significantly reduce the cost of waste removal from the musseques to the landfill. A reduction in the range of 75 to 90 percent (by weight) has been achieved. The sand can be manually separated using simple tools although recently produced solid waste is much more difficult to work with using simple tools. This offers a way of reducing the backlog of accumulated wastes in unauthorised (informal) dumpsites throughout the musseques.

Sand recovered from waste can be used as suitable material for infilling of low spots and depressions as an interim measure to improve road conditions in the musseques.

Applied research combined with ongoing project implementation is a useful approach in developing feasible solutions to the solid waste management problem.

Food aid can be used in food-for-work programmes to improve environmental conditions in the musseque and provide employment for the large numbers of unemployed in these areas.

People's preconceptions about ìproperî methods of waste collection and removal in the musseques are slow to change.

Sustainability and future prospects

The main dumpsite (lixeira principal) is gone. Already the momentum of life in the musseque has taken over. Where previously there was a mountain of garbage, there are now market vendors setting up huts to sell their wares. The local authorities have issued permits to vendors. Revenue raised from permit fees is being used to keep the area free of garbage. The Kwanza market association is willing to contribute to improvements and the market supervisors are undergoing training to oversee the collection depot.

The pilot initiative has identified waste reduction and waste reuse as viable strategies for dealing with solid waste in the musseques and has set up a continuous removal system. Further work is required to investigate and to ensure that key factors affecting the sustainability of operations and maintenance of a community based solid waste management programme are in place. These factors include the financing of solid waste services, the continued support by the local leaders and by the community, and the availability of removal services from Urbana 2000.

The financing issue could not be addressed within the timeframe and resources of the pilot initiative but this is a priority for follow up. The ongoing costs of maintaining the collection depot, removal, road improvement, and community supervision must be recovered if the programme is to be sustainable. The local government has a very limited resource base to finance the cost of solid waste services. Part of the costs will therefore need to be covered from user fees.

However, the effective demand for waste removal services is lower relative to the more pressing need for water. Development Workshopís experience in its water and sanitation programme indicates that residents are more likely willing to contribute labour and resources on an ongoing basis to water projects (i.e. public standposts) than to efforts to remove rubbish from their neighbourhoods. Therefore one way to address the issue of financing waste removal services is to link it to cost recovery for the provision of water. The concept of covering the cost of rubbish collection within the fees paid for other services such as water, is widely practised in many countries.

Under the Development Workshop-EPAL Peri-urban Water and Sanitation Programme, each standpost serves about 100 families. It is managed by an elected water committee who collect user fees that pays for maintenance and repair costs. Development Workshop is yet to practically test the principle of income from water fees being invested in waste removal. But its water programme has been able to show that a surplus can be produced through water fees. Moreover, there exist a number of issues to address under this approach. Standposts and rubbish collection systems have different catchment or service areas, the services also fall under the administrative jurisdiction of two different para statal agencies (EPAL and ELISAL).

The local leaders have accompanied the project since its inception, their continued vigilance and supervision will be needed to ensure compliance to proper waste disposal. It is not clear if the leaders are committed to ensuring that the collection depot continues operating. They will need to be provided with resources and skills (through accompaniment and training) to enable them to carry out their responsibilities. Social mobilisation efforts will need to continue to ensure that residents who have not begun to use the collection depot at INDAP do so or dispose their waste in a responsible manner. The local leaders must address the concerns raised by some residents about the distance to the deposit and the hazards of passing through the market

Urbana 2000, thus far has an interest to improve conditions in the musseques and a willingness to work with the local government and with NGOs like Development Workshop on pilot projects but direct links between the community and Urbana 2000 still have to be developed. For years, there has been little faith in state companies and the sentiment that the musseques were marginalised was widespread. Urbana 2000's continued presence dispels the negative perceptions about the stateís removal capability.

Given the involvement of the Provincial Government and the improvements brought about by Urbana 2000, the outlook for the solid waste sector appears more positive than it has ever been in recent times. Informal dumpsites are disappearing and the volume of waste that goes uncollected has been drastically reduced. The Provincial Governmentís recent increased interest in the solid waste sector (as evident in publicity campaign to promote awareness of better solid waste management) may keep solid waste on the agenda of the government, which can ensure continued financial support.

With Urbana 2000 doing rotating weekend service in the peri-urban areas, removal now reaches all areas of the city. Reducing the volume of waste at source (at the household) will facilitate waste removal and increase the area covered by Urbana 2000. This pilot project has shown that through community participation waste reduction of at least 50 percent is feasible. The potential for further reduction through recycling has yet to be evaluated.

Bibliography

Alternatives, ADRA and Development Workshop. 1998. Comunidades e InsitutuiÁ
1es Comunit·rias em Angola na Perspectiva do PÛs-Guerra. A study prepared for Canadian International Development Agency, International Development Research Centre and the United Nations Humanitarian Assistance Coordination Unit. Luanda, Angola.

Austral Projectos e Consultaria. 1995. Evaluation of European Union supported Luanda Sanitation Programme with ELISAL. Report prepared for European Union and Provincial Government of Luanda, Austral, Luanda, Angola.

Austral Projectos e Consultoria. 1996, Accoes Prioritarias Para O Saneamento da Cidade de Luanda, Assistencia Tecnica e Equipamentos, II Fase, Relatorio Preliminar, October 1996", prepared for the European Union and Provincial Government

Dar Al-Handasah. 1996. Urban Land Use and Growth Management Plan and Road and Stormwater Drainage for a Pilot Musseque. Technical Paper 6: Urban Land Use and Environmental Assessment.

DENCONSULT and Austral Projectos e Consultoria, "Priority Actions for the Sanitation of the City of Luanda, Luanda, Angola May 1995.

Development Workshop. 1988. Luanda Emergency Sanitation Study. Report prepared for the National Institute for Public Health (INSP) and the Angolan Women's Organization (OMA), Development Workshop, Luanda, Angola.

_________. 1989. Sambizanga Pilot Project: Results of Water and Sanitation Survey. Development Workshop, Luanda, Angola.

_________. 1995. Beneficiary Assessment and Study on Informal Water and Sanitation for Luanda. A study prepared for the World Bank, Infrastructure Rehabilitation Engineering Project and the Provincial Government of Luanda. Luanda, Angola.

_________. 1996. Household Sanitation Study Val Saroca , Sambizanga municipality.

__________. 1996. National Habitat Report on Angola. Report presented at the UN Conference on Human Settlements HABITAT II. Istanbul, Turkey May,1996.

__________. 1996. Quarterly Progress Report to the World Bank Infrastructure Rehabilitation Engineering Project and the Provincial Government of Luanda. December 1996. Luanda, Angola.

Flintoff, F. 1984. Management of Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries, WHO Regional Office for Southeast Asia

Fillatre and Guber. 1994, "Preparation et esquisse de plan d'un secteur pilote", study on solid waste sanitation for the World Bank Infrastructure Rehabilitation Engineering Project and the Provincial Government of Luanda.

Government of Angola. 1995. First Roundtable Conference of Donors, "Programme of Community Rehabilitation and National Reconciliation: Abridged Version", Brussels 25-26 September 1995.

UNICEF Luanda Household Survey, 1990