This document summarizes a study on the privatization of solid waste collection in Kigali, Rwanda. It finds that privatization led to improved coverage but not environmental or financial sustainability due to weak regulation and oversight. Private companies' performance varied between sectors due to differences in infrastructure, income levels and oversight. The study recommends integrating waste picking and recycling into collection, promoting composting, extending service to commercial customers, and building capacity of local officials to improve regulation and cost recovery.

1. Privatization of solid waste
collection service as tool to
sustainable SWM in developing
countries. Lessons from the case
of Kigali, Rwanda Capital City
1
MSc presentation by - Pius NISHIMWE
Mentor - Dr. Jaap Evers
Supervisor - Prof. Wil Thissen
Examination committee - Dr. Ir. Leon Hermans

2. Background
2
Pop. Density:
1370 inhabit./Km2
Area: 730Km2
Pop.~1Million

3. Research objectives
The main objective
To explore the mechanisms of solid waste collection service in Kigali
after privatization and to draw practice- and regulatory-based
recommendations for improvement
Specific objectives
• To examine how and why solid waste collection service has been
privatized in Kigali
• To examine the impact of privatization on service coverage, financial
viability of service providers and service quality in Kigali
• To examine individual and environmental factors explaining variations
in solid waste collection in different monopoly zones (sectors)
• To provide recommendations for improvement based on the research
findings.
3

4. Research Methodology
Privatization outcome and factors shaping the outcome -
Conceptual framework

5. Results and discussion
Objective 1 Reasons and how private sector evolved in solid
waste collection Kigali
 Private sector involvement … a result of failure of KCC to
provide the service alone
 Before privatization…service fully provided by public
sector
 Weakness: Weak physical capacity of KCC
…evolving informal private sector involvement…rich
families

6. Results and discussion
Objective 1 Reasons and how private sector evolved in solid
waste collection Kigali
 …The Recognition of Informal actors since 2011
 Involvement of the regulator (RURA) with NO monopoly
obligation
 Weaknesses
• Access to service determined by ability to pay
• Exclusion of poor community
• Free riding, street littering

7. Results and discussion
Objective 1 Reasons and how private sector evolved in solid
waste collection Kigali
…Monopoly privatization since 2012
 Service fully provided by private sector
 Financing mechanism…user charges
 Implementation by
• Creation of monopoly zones
• Involvement of RURA as independent regulator

8. Results and discussion
Objective 1 Reasons and how private sector evolved in solid
waste collection Kigali
…Creation of monopoly zones following administrative
structure of Kigali
City of
Kigali
3
Districts
35
sectors
161 cells
1061
Villages
…Involvement of RURA as an independent regulator
 Behavior of companies
 Price/user charges caps

9. Results and discussion
Objective 1 Reasons and how private sector evolved in solid
waste collection Kigali
…Regulatory framework
 Key actors
 Key relationships
• Intergovernmental
• Public-Private
• Private-Citizens
• Public-Citizens

10. Results and discussion
Objective 2&3. Privatization outcome and factors shaping the
outcome
Environmental outcome …Findings
Sector N Performance in
waste separation at
household level
Fraction of
waste disposed
of (%)
Sanitary conditions
and waste overflow
Very good Good
Remera 40 100% 70% 18 21
Rwezamenyo 39 0% 100% 0 25
Kicukiro 38 0% 100% 0 36
Kinyinya 40 0% 100% 0 39
Kigarama 39 0% 100% 0 34
Kagarama 38 0% 100% 0 35

11. Results and discussion
Objective 2&3. Privatization outcome and factors shaping the
outcome
Environmental outcome …Consequences
 Water pollution
 Health & safety
problems for
dumpsite workers
 70% organic
waste…GHGs

12. Results and discussion
Objective 2&3. Privatization outcome and Factors shaping the
outcome
Environmental outcome …Factors influencing the outcome
Ultimate factor…inadequate regulation and lack of
institutionalization of waste separation
 No clear mandate on waste separation
 No civic amenities to households
 Prohibition of transfer stations/MRF
 Mixed waste at dumpsite

13. Results and discussion
Objective 2&3. Privatization outcome and factors shaping the
outcome
Financial outcome …Findings
Sector Company Cost recovery using user charges (%)
Remera P1 50-100
Rwezamenyo P2 100%
Kicukiro P3 70%
Kinyinya P4 100%
Kigarama P5 60%
Kagarama P6 50%

14. Results and discussion
Objective 2&3. Privatization outcome and factors shaping the
outcome
Financial outcome …Findings (other sources of income)
Company Sources of income
P1 Sell Recycled products, Sell recyclables, Waste service to Commercial
activities
P2 Agricultural and livestock farming, tax collection, public transport, Waste
service to Commercial customers
P3 Bank credit line; waste service to Commercial activities
P4 Waste service to Commercial activities
P5 Waste service to Commercial activities
P6 Waste service to Commercial activities

15. Results and discussion
Objective 2&3. Privatization outcome and factors shaping the
outcome
Social outcome …Findings
Sector jobs N Fair cost
distribution
Affordabil
ity
Extra
cost
Service
reliability
Service
coverage
(%)
Remera 192 40 X Fair X Reliable 96
Rwezamenyo 547 39 Expensive unreliable 100
Kicukiro 147 38 X Fair Reliable 99
Kinyinya 33 40 X Cheap Reliable 100
Kigarama 56 39 X Fair unreliable 67
Kagarama 23 38 X Expensive Reliable 97

16. Results and discussion
Objective 2&3. Privatization outcome and factors shaping the
outcome
Factors shaping the financial & social outcome
 Companies’ human and physical capacity
Non-improved trucks

17. Results and discussion
Objective 2&3. Privatization outcome and factors shaping the
outcome
Factors shaping the financial & social outcome
 General characteristics of sectors
Poor roads Urban rural characteristics

18. Results and discussion
Objective 2&3. Privatization outcome and factors shaping the
outcome
Factors shaping the financial & social outcome
 General characteristics of sectors
Inaccessible areas High income disparities
differences

19. Results and discussion
Objective 2&3. Privatization outcome and factors shaping the
outcome
Factors shaping the financial & social outcome
 Service regulatory framework
 Weak capacity of “Jyanama” and sector
 Low availability of sector unclear budget/financial autonomy
 RNP & KCC security and hygiene evaluation

20. Results and discussion
Objective 2&3 Privatization outcome and factors shaping the
outcome
Other Findings…re-centralization of the system

21. Conclusions (1)
• KCC has succeeded to develop a clear regulatory framework
shaping the market boundaries and control on private sector
but its effectiveness is affected by weak experience and
capacity of local authority at sector level

22. Conclusions (2)
• The weak capacity of both service providers and sector local
authority is resulting in the re-centralization of solid waste
collection where KCC tends to control the whole system,
which leads to a lax attitude of sectors and weak performance
of companies

23. Conclusions (3)
• Privatization has contributed more to the improvement of
social aspects while it is not leading to environmental
sustainability and financial viability of companies

24. Conclusions (4)
• The privatization outcome are more shaped by 4 factors:
regulatory factors, characteristics of operational zones,
physical and human capacity of companies and urban poor
inclusivity through cross-subsidy

25. Recommendations (1)
• To reduce waste to dumpsite by integration of recycling and
informal waste pickers into waste collection service
Collection
service
Waste
separation
& recycling
New
regulatory
framework
Incentives
Public
awareness

26. Recommendations (2)
• Promote composting at household level (for sectors with
peri-urban characteristics) and at final disposal level by
developing cross-sectoral and /or ministerial partnerships
MINAGRI MININFRA
KCC

27. Recommendations (3)
• Extension of the monopoly by integrating solid waste
collection service of commercial activities with households
to ensure financial sustainability
Collection
service to
commercial
Collection
service to
households
Physical
capacity of
companies
New
Regulatory
framework

28. Recommendations (4)
• Capacity building program for sector officials and “Jyanama”
to ensure adequate user charges
Sector
Private
operators
Jyanama
Households

29. Thank