CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The literature review section of every academic scholarship reviews existing literature to acquaint readers with the available existing works/knowledge in the subject area (Abdulai & Owusu-Ansah, 2014). Therefore, this section of the research makes references to related researches and other important articles in the field of waste management to provide the focus and identify the gaps and context within which this study would be situated. It deals with issues related to the study which includes Concepts of waste management and impacts of waste management activities in developing countries; causes of waste problems in developing countries, Public-Private-Participation and challenges

2.1 CONCEPTUALIZING WASTE MANAGEMENT

Waste Management (WM) is a complex issue worldwide. Tchobanoglous et al., (1993) defines … WM as managing the processes involving … waste collection, treatment and disposal of waste generated…. To Othman, (2002) it is the control of waste generation, storage, collection, transfer and transport, processing and disposal of … wastes consistent with the best practices of public health, economics, and financial engineering, administrative, legal and environmental considerations.. WM is also carried out to recover resources from it. WM is driven by five principal factors: public health, the environment, resource scarcity and the value of waste, climate change, and public awareness and participation (Henry, Yongsheng, & Jun, 2006). It is beyond preventing pollution and moves towards the institution of a sustainable resource recycling society.  Nonetheless, Pohjola & Pongrácz, (2002) argue for the absences of a standard WM system – to the, WM concepts are relatively one that achieved greatest benefits. This possibly accounts for varying WM arrangements within countries. Filho et al., (2016) shared the same views in a separate study

The Integrated Sustainable Waste management (ISWM) approach is currently the highly used. Pires, et al. (2011) evaluated the ISWM as a comprehensive analytical framework of a city’s WM system. It divides into two overlapping ‘triangles’ – one comprising the three physical components focused on protection of public health, i.e. collection, recycling, and disposal. The recycling, reducing, and reuse are technological ways to managing waste. Consumers reduce discarded products, while reusing materials multiple times or for another purpose. Examples include, refilling a water bottle rather than buying a new one. Recycling involves scientifically turning waste in usable products (Kaseva & Gupta, 1996) while reduce and reuse help minimize waste produced. Young (1995) however makes a strong contribution that reducing and reusing will not work unless a market exists for this material, and the consumers of these recycled goods should be the public. It also embraces separating waste from source (Tia, 2012) while organizing huge sums of money to recycle waste. To reduce waste, pay-as-you go services are put in place where the penetrator of the waste pay in proportion to waste generated. The other comprise three governance aspects, i.e. inclusivity; financial sustainability; and sound institutions and proactive policies – the good governance strategies to deliver a well-functioning system (Wilson et al., 2015, p. 329). ISWM recognizes waste as not  a nuisance but a resource (Sha’Ato et al., 2007). ISWM combine government’s efforts of good governance and mechanical ways of managing waste to tackle the problem (Filho et al., 2016, p. 4378). However, this has been effective in the advanced countries but not in developing countries. The technology involves unaffordable huge sunk cost and free riders choose to dump openly instead of paying for services. The poor governance noted in developing countries usually fostered inefficiencies. In Ghana, ISWM practice is highly ineffective in the few examined areas such as the AMA, and KMA among other areas. Reuse, reduce and recycling is very low. Worse still, poor governance has abrogated more approaches to ISWM in the country. Traditionally solid waste management has evolved as mainly the removal of municipal wastes by hauling tem out of the city boundaries and dumping them there. This is in conformity with the ‘out of sight out of mind ‘philosophy.

The Zero Waste concept is also another. It started at Canberra, Australia, and aims to eliminate rather than ‘‘manage’’ waste; it is a whole system approach that aims for a massive change in the way materials flow through society—resulting in NO WASTE. It supports the ISWM. It encourages waste diversion through recycling and resource recovery, and a guiding design philosophy for eliminating waste at source. According to Shekdar, (2009) the world, including developing countries has their WM systems being oriented to concentrate on sustainability issues; mainly through the incorporation of 3Rs (reduce, reuse and recycle) technologies. Most of the latest efforts focus on ‘‘Zero Waste” and/or ‘‘Zero Landfilling” which is certainly expensive for weaker economies such as those of India or Indonesia.

The waste collection and hauling dominate WM (Johansson, 2006). In Johansson (2006) study, he revels that three different types of waste storage facilities are used in for collection namely rubbish depots, open depots, and containers. The rubbish depot is an enclosed storage area for wastes with concrete floor and surrounding walls, with two entrances at the front or side. The open depot is an open space without any built boundaries and is treated as an official storage point while Containers include four different types of containers with varying capacities used for waste storage. Open- type containers with smaller capacity of 0.75 and 1.0 m3 are open at the top. Containers of capacity 6.5 and 8.5 m3 are closed and have filling windows. Containers are usually served to households (Zia & Devadas, 2008). Communal containers are collected on daily basis while household bins are collected twice weekly. In a recent initiative, 3300 Swedish recycling containers have been fitted with level sensors and wireless communication equipment, thereby giving waste collection operators access to real-time information on the status of each container (Johansson, 2006).

In Ghana Oteng-Ababio et al, (2010), (2013), Asare & Frimpong (2013) and Aweso, (2013) among other have raised concerns about waste collection in Ghana among other developing countries. Waste collection in Ghana is currently dominated by Communal Container Collections (CCC), kerbside and House-to-House (HtH) collections services. Like Kanpur city there are rubbish depots, open depots, and containers. WM in the municipalities is done on a franchise and contractual basis. On the franchise basis, individuals are charged and the wastes are collected on HtH basis weekly especially in residential areas with good access roads. On the contract basis, waste contractors are paid by the Municipal Assemblies to perform communal container collection on daily basis. This often occurs in low income and highly populated areas, which lack proper residential planning, good access roads and other amenities. Very often, market places for commercial activities are also covered under this arrangement. Waste generators who use the communal containers do not pay any user charges (Bawakyillenuo & Agbelie, 2014).

The current practice of MSWM in all urban centres of the country is biased towards achieving 100% collection and its subsequent disposal, with partial or no treatment/ processing – for most developing countries. In contrast, advanced countries practice a WM system biased towards achieving 100% treatment/processing.

According to Batool, Chaudhry, & Majeed, (2008) recycling encourages resource conservation, establishment of jobs, provision of economic opportunity and reduction in the magnitude of waste disposal problems. In Lahore, Batool et al estimates, a well- planned recycling program indicates recycling can generate revenues of Rs. 530 million (US$ 8.8 million) per year and can also save enormous amount of energy, as well as the natural resources (Batool et al., 2008)

Many developing country partake of recycling in their own small ways throught the trading in resyclables by the informal sector (Wilson, et al., 2009). Aweso, (2013) assert, that, no significant waste recovery and reuse activities exist in Accra. There are a lot of scavengers that roam the streets and corners of various communities within the regions (Bawakyillenuo & Agbelie, 2014; Oteng-Ababio, 2011). Nevertheless developing countries are challenged with integrating the informal and formal sector. According to Wilson, et al., (2009).

The final disposal site of solid waste in the Metropolis is the landfill. Sanitary landfills have the following functional elements; treatment plant, leachate collection system, gas recovery and location are far away from human settlement and existing water body, weighbridge and internal access. However while this is common among advanced countries, this is not the case with the landfills in developing countries. Zia & Devadas, (2008), Asare & Frimpong, (2013), Aweso, (2013), Oteng-Ababio, et al., (2013) recorded the same in a separate study in Kanpur city. The facilities mentioned above may be present but they may not be functional. Zerbock, (2003) describes such landfills as open dumps. He indicated that open dumps are characterized by the lack of engineering measures, no leachate management, no consideration of landfill gas management, and few if any, operational measures such as registration of users, control of the number of tipping fronts or compaction of waste.

Aweso, (2013) emphasize , that, all over the country solid waste is ultimately disposed of in both authorized and unauthorized waste dumps. All kinds of wastes, regardless of their nature, are being dumped indiscriminately into depressions, sand pits, old quarries, beaches, drains and even in certain areas, along streets, without due regards to the nuisance and harm caused to the environment ( Ghana Landfill Guidelines Environmental Protection Agency, 2002). The methods for solid waste disposal in Ghana are: uncontrolled dumping of refuse controlled dumping, sanitary land filling, composting, and incineration (Danso, 2011).

2.2 CHALLENGES IN MANAGING WASTE

Scott et al. (2003) discusses challenges and solutions to poor urban sanitation in their book titled ‘Sanitation and the poor’. They argue that poor sanitation is a function of luck of communication hence the urban poor in advanced countries do not appreciate the relationship between poor sanitation, ill health and poverty. Proper sanitation has no demand or constrained through – for example – ignorance, misinformation, past bad experience, unwieldy bureaucracy, or regulation; this contrasts with other services such as water and power Seydel et al (2002). Sanitation programmes have traditionally been supply driven, lacking any significant consultation with users on what their requirements are.’ Drinking water and sanitation schemes mostly developed without the consult and engagement of local community and in the result a large number of them failed to run successfully (Scott et al., 2003, pp. 1–20). At times, budget allocations for improved sanitation are far inadequate or the insufficient funds mismanaged. They recommend that global targets and agreements for better-quality sanitation should be translated into state and indigenous targets supported by political will, decentralization, inclusion of beneficiary groups – example government, private sector, Non-Governmental Organizations, – all of whom operate within the framework of the programme, as well as mobilization of resources both human and financial. Another key issue include, better co-ordination between different sectors which have responsibility for sanitation (e.g. health, education, water); ensuring that vulnerable and marginalized groups are included; and capacity development around key skills, to deliver demand based approaches.

This suggest that lack of communication and political will, centralization, and lack of resources hinders improved sanitation. The study is very significant to this study as it provides a firm background on which to assess GEMA-ZL partnership. This study will therefore find out how the availability or otherwise of human and financial resources, political will and target group participation; co-coordination of decentralized units in sanitation programmes of private firms underwrite success or failure of PPPs in sanitation arena.

Filho et al., (2016, pp. 4377–4386) in their study on ‘Benchmarking approaches and methods in the field of urban waste management)’ using the three Baltic States – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They in addition to the above recommendations recommend a highly developed legislative framework for (ISWM), a cross-municipal co-operation and joining resources- strengthen resource capacity to organize efficient waste management systems through share ownership of facilities, infrastructures, financial and human. They assert’ dependency on the private sector without sufficient control may bring some undesirable consequences.

This study is very significant to this study as it confirms the necessity of local government capacity in WM systems adopted

Anyangwe, Mtonga, & Chirwa, (2006) used Zambia as a case study to highlight the difficulties and constraints to proper sanitation faced by developing countries. Most importantly, they found that political will was weaker in the improvement of environmental sustainability and provision of water and sanitation. The urban areas had not witnessed increase in the proportion of households with access to safe drinking water and hygienic toilet systems. They attributed it to the mushrooming of spontaneous habitations in per—urban areas, with neither water nor sanitation (ibid). Rapid urbanization (Murad and Siwar, 2007)  coupled with changes in consumption behaviour patterns is contributing significantly to the explosion in the quantum of waste generation (Mohan, et al., (2016). Mohan et al (2016), adds, that,WM lagged behind the jet-propelled pace of urbanization. The commendations include, tapping the affluence of both NGOs working in diverse socio-economic development and PPP arenas in solving national problems. The study highlight how technologies are not necessarily new but developed in cultural context. Nevertheless, they did not discuss reasons for exploiting PPPs nor its contributions.

On the other hand Khan & Javed (2007) in their research in Pakistan, ascribed poor WM to expensiveness of user charges and little community participation {Formatting Citation} in private waste management. They however, did not examine these reasons in detail manner, this study seeks to find empirical evidence to support or deny such assertion.

The Indian Government also failed using constitutional reforms in 1992 to ensure good governance, low-cost toilet facilities and low cost housing and rainwater harvesting; “Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2000” and partnerships not only from private but also from the civil society (Gu, et al., (2016). The participation particularly failed irrespective of immense opportunity for recycling and composting of municipal waste in India (Mohan et al., 2016, p. 158). This study is significant to this research. It particularly shows that reforms and participation also not ensure an automatic fix. Gu, et al (2016), recommends population control and good governance from the government. They also recommend detailed master plan for city WM with active practice of an ISWM, keeping an eye on population growth and projections on waste generation (Wilson et al., 2015). Most importantly  since the technical appropriateness may not be optimal from the start, must offer potential for improvement (Zurbrugg, et al., 2012; Zia & Devadas, 2008, pp. 58–73). Numerous studies however show mixed results. Countries have problems with one practice or the other.

Rotich et al (2005) discussed MSW challenges in developing countries – using Kenya as a case study. They identified that poor economic growth increases poverty level; rural urban migrations caused poorly planned sub-urban areas usually clumsy and inaccessible; political interference humpers smooth coordination in governance; bad project selection results in pollution  and poor participation from residents. Moreover poor servicing of WM vehicles, poor infrastructure and the lack of adequate funding militate sanitation. They recommend, they suggest enhancing rural economy to further manage migration; effective community-based organizations (CBOs), Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) participation as necessary for attaining any meaningful and sustainable WM.

In Ghana, Whittington et al, (1993) surveyed poor sanitation conditions in Kumasi and identified that Mismanagement of sanitation funds by Committees for Defence of the Revolution (CDRs) remain part of the reason for poor sanitation in Kumasi. Thrift (2007) argues however that getting a precise account of the current state of sanitation in Kumasi is quite challenging because (a) there is very little recent Kumasi-specific data, and (b) the available data are inconsistent. This shows a slur in the findings of Whittington et al (1993).

According to Frimpong (2010), In Ghana, the rapid population growth, lack of capacity, financial limitations, and luck of communication are prominent causes of poor sanitation. Moreover, power affiliations in society determined who got access to policymakers and better sanitation services while foreign donors dictated to their beneficiaries the use of their financial handouts- NGOs such as Coalition of NGOs in Water and Sanitation (CONIWAS) had shaped sanitation policies in Ghana. They usually shifted priority from sanitation to water. However, the study was in Madina, a suburb of Accra. This study will hence add to the information.

Oteng-Ababio et al., (2013) study titled “Sorting facts from fads” in Accra probed adopted technologies. Using case studies from Accra, they illustrate how investments in new solid waste management technologies were ill fated. While the authorities’ intentions may be laudable, the approach may be born out from an empirical vacuum. The necessary waste-stream composition data does not exist to justify such investments. Ma & Hipel, (2016) also shared similar views. In addition to integrating the informal sector, they add integrating proven innovations taking place in their own “backyard”. These modern technologies are expensive and consequently makes their WM unsustainable for developing countries (Oteng-Ababio, et al, 2013; Robinson, 2009; Shekdar, 2009). The huge cost involves accounts for most operators’ inability to sustain practice. As such, scholars such as  Oteng-Ababio et al., (2013), assert developing countries should reforms traditional means which are more sustainable instead of abolishing them. Central to the success of transportations is reuse, reduce and recycling (3Rs). These source separations will reduce the further cost for processing.

Ampadu-boakye, Dotse, & Laryea (2008) illustrate how both water and sanitation are complements. They pointed out the strengths of the District Water and Sanitation Plans (DWSP). Thus makes it easy to identify and elaborate on the water and sanitation needs of communities; and helps define and assign roles and stakeholder responsibilities. The study however pinpoints that effecting DWSP in hindered by poor public support in forms as untimely or inadequate internally generated funds (IGF), low technical knowledge and experience and poor maintenance cultures. Addressing these is necessary. However, they did not; examine the performance of ZL in sanitation services provision. This study analyses data from the study area to fill this begging gap.

Owusu, et al., (2012) also introduces issues on landfills. They argue that landfill-related conflicts are the result of the existing land ownership system and the consequent outcomes of poor spatial planning and management of metropolitan fringe areas. The study concludes that resolving landfill-related conflicts must start with tackling the land question, which should then create a space for promoting forward planning involving the active participation of chiefs and community members. Again, studies on the acquisition, management, and governance of landfills in the developed world could provide useful lessons for Ghana and other developing countries. The above studies, clearly calls for more studies accessing WM system and the way forward. Like  (Oteng-Ababio et al., 2013), management system still stand a chance to be inappropriate. Efficient and effective provision of public services is problematic in Ghana. This study will help look at all stakeholders and how they affect the waste management in GEMA.

2.3 HAVE GOVERNMENT EMBRACE PUBLIC-PRIVATE-PARTNERSHIP IN WASTE MANAGEMENT

Governments have and are increasingly embracing  Public–private partnerships in urban environmental services to reform the weak performance of the public sector, reduce cost, improve efficiency, and ensure environmental protection (Massoud, et al., (2003). They inject capital, expertise, technology, flexibility, and among others (Asare & Frimpong, 2013, pp. 113–124). For instance, in Britain, a number of furnished public infrastructures are via public finance initiatives, which is a variant of PPPs. In New York, private contractors collected commercial waste while city’s department of sanitation collected residential waste and refuse of not-for-profit organisations (Bailey, 1987).

While the definition varies, a corporate study by the World Bank, ADB, IADB and WB also define the PPP as a long-term contract between a private party and a government entity, for providing a public asset or service, in which  the  private  party  bears  significant  risk  and  management  responsibility,  and remuneration is linked to performance. According Awortwi (2004) actual delivery of services is the responsibility of the private sector where as the public sector is ultimately responsible for service provision. It inures to their mutual benefits. For the purpose of this study the definition from the ADB, IADB and WB will be used, especially for its typical PPP characteristics – such as being long-term, output based, or performance related. It also includes Sector regulation (backed by law which usually comes with law change); Partnership with private sector – not privatisation (for instance Petty Traders do not qualify as PPPs and Contract to provide public assets and services (Contract to assist government produce public goods). (Venatius, 2013). It is also considered because Ghana’s PPP policy is aligned to this tenets.

Bettings and Ross (2004), observed three main features of the new wave of PPP. Foremost, PPPs are extensions of contracting out to a greater number and diverse set of private companies. Following, there is allocation of tasks to a unique partner, either private or public (bonding of responsibilities). Third, the private partner bears the financing tasks. Private funds used to finance the provisions of public services have dominated the PPP landscape. In view of their potential benefits, PPP is gaining popularity in waste collection and management. PPP promises to offer efficiency and effectiveness for taxpayers. They fill that gap of scarce skills and expertise into the delivery of public services. However, like Hall and Lobina (2001), Bettings and Ross (2004) argued that some PPP have not worked out as expected. To Bettings & Ross (2004), it is due to ill-designed contracts and luck of transparency and accountability. This study also shares in this. Hence, this study will investigate whether the potential benefits and costs of PPP have translated into actual benefits and or costs in the sanitation arena.

Lund-Thomsen (2009) assessed the impact of PPPs. he contended that different stakeholders may not want to know about the effects of PPPs and impact assessment methods cannot produce gospel truths about the effects of PPPs but insights gained may be a learning resource. This challenge is shared also by González-Gómez et al., (2014) in their research titled “Beyond the public-private controversy in urban water management in Spain”. Appreciate the effects of PPPs appreciated from the broader context of the politics and power play that exist between the industrialized world and developing countries (Frimpong, 2010). This makes it very sensitive issue to explore. The assortment of private sector participation in the public services provision of and the different context within which they are applied also makes it challenging generalizing about the PPP outcomes. Engel, Fischer & Galetovic (2013) reviews the impact of PPPs on government budget. Government subdivisions fund PPPs in several industrialized countries, particularly when (realistic) user fees are not possible due to political constraints, thereby swelling government budget. Nevertheless, where user charges are made, governments’ revenue increase via distortions in taxes. Again, PPPs allow government to invest in socially desirable programmes when they face with credit constraints.

Notwithstanding, it is essential to study specific partnership agreements in their specific environment. This study researches into the outcome of the specific PPP arrangement between GEMA and ZL for waste management.

In a study in Latin America, Idelovitch and Ringskog (1995) also explored the need for private sector involvement in waste and sanitation services delivery. They ascribe the inadequacy of government supply of service – water, sanitation, electricity, telephone, gas, and transportation – on public sector monopolies. They recognized creditable causes for their poor performance and low productivity. They contend, public water companies faced operational and technical problems. In addition, while there was luck of maintenance culture, not less than 40% of treated water was unaccounted for water probably by Physical losses over illegal connection; timeworn pipes and leakage were partly responsible. Others include limited consumption metering, irregular readings, billings, and inefficient collection practice. Finally blotted staff and luck of clear regulatory responsibilities is exacerbated by political appointments, excessive political intervention and inability, due to lack of adequate incentives to attract sufficient managerial talent and qualified technical staff has become a canker. Political appointments and non-competitive wages resulted in frequent turnover of high staff (Idelovitch & Ringskog, 1995). The study rings the old bell, public sector incapacity, insufficient funds, and opportunistic attitude roots public sector failure.

Their conclusion is most relevant to Ghana’s sanitation sector. From then there was the need for private sector participation due to the proven record of poor performance and mismanagement of public enterprises. Moreover, governments had insufficient funds to meet the increasing investment needs of both water and sanitation sector and other sector. Meanwhile, private sector participation in Latin America and some African countries had been a success (Frimpong, 2010).

The study however focused on the account for the failure of public water companies, which, consequently calls for PSP. This study will fill the gap by assessing the outcomes of PSP in the delivery of sanitation services. It attempts to find empirical evidence in GEMA to support or deny the above conclusion.

Relatively new PPPs have become very popular in Ghana. Since the 1980s, both national and local governments have intended to rely on private sector participation in the provision of public services. Thrift (2007, pp. 1–23) argued that sanitation services delivery in Kumasi moved from public provision to PPP in the PPP in the 1990s. likewise studies with Accra and Wa as focus indicated this shift (Amoah & Kosoe, 2014; Asare & Frimpong, 2013; Gerbens-Leenes, Nonhebel, & Krol, 2010). Hitherto filth engulfs study areas and the country at large. Only 27% of urban Ghanaians had access to improved sanitation (Thrift, 2007).

In a research paper funded by the Netherlands -Israeli Research Programme (N-IRP), Obirih-Opareh, Broekema & Post (2000) provided deep insight into socio-economic outcomes of privatization of solid waste collection services in Accra between 1999 and 2000. The research found mixed impacts of privatization of solid waste collection in Accra. Efficiency and effectiveness improved but unattractive remuneration became first among the private solid waste workers. Again, its financial viability was questionable. The AMA struggled paying private contractors because the cost skyrocketed due to lack of precise data on the number of houses to pay user-charges and public resistance.

This study affirms that ability of the private sector to deliver services in an effective and efficient way is contingent on the capability of the public to build safeguards to ensure compliance with standards and fair competition However, the study is slur because it assesses the socio-economic aspects and uses only on households. Whereas Obirih-Opare and Post (2002, pp 95-112) expresses same views in an article in Habitat International , Asare & Frimpong, (2013) in another similar study, to ascertain the impact of PPP on sanitation in Madina shows evidence mixed picture. Efficient and effective provision of public services is problematic. The highly praised benefits of PPPs are not automatic and conventional high expectations were yet to manifest.

This work seeks to find out the effects of PPPs in sanitation from a more holistic perspective using a specific contract setting (GEMA-ZL partnership for waste management in GEMA). It considers other entities helping waste management aside through PPP.

2.4 CHALLENGES IN PUBLIC-PRIVATE-PARTNERSHIPS IN WASTE MANAGEMENT

According to Bailey (1987), dozens of private waste management firms could not ensure efficiency, contrary to government efficiency expectation of private institutions.  Many of the private firms were jointly owned by holding companies thereby hampering competition (González-Gómez et al., 2014; Bailey, 1987).

González-Gómez, et al (2014)’s study in Spain revealed that private parties shun non-profitable and un-corporative area with potential losses- but governments must provide adequate service. Hall and Lobina (2001) agreed with Biley (1987) on the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of PPPs attributing it to corruption. Corruption is particularly endemic in the award of contracts to private waste management institutions in developed countries. This hinders transparency and sustainability. In Grenoble, France, the water and sanitation services were privatized in exchange of contributions to sponsor electoral campaigns. The bribery of local politicians facilitated contracting while the lack of transparency and accountability plagued tending process. In brief, the tendency process was not open for competitive bidding. When the public official is corrupt, such delegation results in incomplete contracts being chosen too often (Iossa & Martimort, 2016). Liu, Wang, & Wilkinson (2016) assert the success of PPPs largely depends on the performance of tendering processes. Their study titled “Factors affecting Efficiency in tendering process” compares and analysis critical factors affecting the effectiveness and efficiency of PPP tendering in Australia and China. The research identified fourteen (14) critical factors underpinning the implementation of PPP tendering, under 7 dimensions: Robustness of business case development; Quality of project brief Public sector capacity; (4) Governance structures; (5) Effectiveness of communication; Balance between streamlining and competition; and Level of transparency of tendering processes. The analysis suggests there are statistically significant differences in factors between the two countries but ensuring effectiveness in these areas positions PPP projects to succeed. Hall and Lobina (2001) study is relevant to this investigation since it seeks to find out how corrupt governance contributed to the failure or success of earlier partnership contracts (before ZL). In addition, the study evaluates whether there is corruption in the GEMA-ZL partnership arrangement. It will equally explore how private contractors handle residents who are unable to pay and playing the game of hampering competition, or otherwise.

Calabrese (2008) however in his quest to answer the failure of private participation in infrastructure expressed differing opinions to Idelovitch and Ringskog (1995) on private sector provision of social infrastructure such as sanitation. He identifies that luck of strategic communication to stakeholders was responsible. Stakeholders were neither involved nor (well) knowledgeable about the transactions. He promised that strategic communication could help policymakers to base their decisions on a clear understanding of beneficiaries Calabrese (2008). A slur in his research is not examining other potential factors that explained the failure of privatization

Moreover, Kirama & Mayo, (2016) in their study “Challenges and prospects of private sector participation in solid waste management in Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania” evaluated effectiveness of private sector participation in solid waste collection and transportation in Dar es Salaam City. The study covered 20 private service providers in municipalities of Kinondoni, Temeke and Ilala and was limited by focusing only on collection and transportation, the results are significant to this research. The issues identified indicate that private sector service providers collected and transported 9% of the 29,764 tons of solid wastes generated per week although they provided employment opportunities to over 350 people, who are helping to keep the city clean and increased national income through payment of various taxes. It was also witnessed that private sector works in difficult conditions due to of low cost recovery, the use of inferior wastes collection and transportation equipment, limited scheduling, short contract duration, inefficient system of refuse fee collection, an absence of planned wastes recycling systems, inaccessible roads and weak implementation of relevant municipal policies and by-laws. Kirama & Mayo, (2016) further note that success of the system depends on accountability of municipal authorities through raising awareness of communities to improve enthusiasm to pay for refuse fees and discourage illegal dumping of waste by individuals, enforcing municipal by-laws, and planning and promotion of environmentally friendly waste management practices. Niyas & Muneera (2012) confirms, this that in the absence of good supportive environment, the partner has difficulty to manage the waste leading to failure in the project.

Gebreselassie, Gebreegziabher, & Sahlu, (2014) revealed that inappropriate technology and poor participation has weaken India’s ISWM. They add that though incomplete, the existing PPP in Mikelle City solid waste management is relatively strong. Gebreselassie et al., (2014) recommend, the municipality should introduce technological innovations (such as incineration, conversion to bio-gas, refuse derived fuel and composting, precast) to cater the ever increasing solid waste volume and create new opportunities for employment. Finally, further research is proposed on finding, adapting, and expansion of innovative SWM techniques, considering the ever increasing solid waste volume in response to the Mikelle city expansion and its population growth. This research is very significant to the study. Notably, is confirms ISWM in a cultural context as the ideal practice. Most importantly, it confirms the threat of population growth to even the best kind of sanitation model. The study will investigates more comprehensively, factors that address the failure of earlier private waste management institutions. It will explore how GEMA-ZL partnership ensures ISWM. It will also consider how its population threatens or promote sanitation in GEMA.

Writing on PPP and sanitation, Ayee & Crook (2003) in Ghana, the germane study show insightful disclosure on the impact of partnerships between public authorities and private and citizen-based organisations on public toilet in Accra and Kumasi. They concentrated on how politics has accounted for the failure of PPPs in toilet management in both AMA and KMA. According to Ayee & Cook (2003), such an engagement for service delivery sacrificed social equity. Regulation and contract management were also problematic. Remarkably, the primary discovery was that new metropolitan chief executives (MCEs) and Assemblymen used public toilets to reward their supporters and party faithful. Hence, the PPPs to run public toilets have so badly failed due to political conflicts, which resulted from political patronage. Certainly, Ayee & Crook (2003) did not to evaluate impact of PPP in the sanitation sector. This study seeks to fill the void by using observable indicators to assess PPPs in sanitation service delivery.

In a different fashion, Oduro-Kwarteng and Van Dijk (2008) revealed low vehicle productivity and utilization; irrational planning route planning and low supervision resulted in poor delivery. They recommend that the varying productivity between companies depend on how the companies organized their operations to use the vehicles in terms of the number of trips made in a day and the vehicles load. However, an assessment of the performance of PSP in sanitation ought to be broader – covering all aspects of ISWM not only market, vehicle productivity and utilization.

Fobil, Armah, Hogarh, & Carboo (2008, pp. 262–271) tried contributed to address the gap on study on performance in their research titled: The influence of institutions and organizations on urban waste collection systems: An analysis of waste collection system in Accra, Ghana (1985-2000). The analysis found that although collection service has increases (Pimpong & Bi, 2016), extortions have developed because of service inadequacy. They also complain of addressing local government capacity (Asare & Frimpong, 2013).This research in also flawed as it is based on waste collection performance.

In Oteng-Ababio (2011) : Missing links in solid waste management in the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area in Ghana, the paper and reveals that the policy worked well until one of the stakeholders failed to deliver. It maintains that harnessing the social support, acceptability, and participation is key to sustainable PPP. The paper calls for institutional and private sector collaboration.

The above studies indicate more study is required in Ghana, especially when it comes to ISWM. In Amoah & Kosoe (2014, pp. 110–117) study chronicling issues relating to solid waste management, drawing experiences from Wa, the regional capital of the Upper West Region, the study was based on solid waste generation, collection and disposal practices. They equally acknowledge improvement in delivery; efficiency and effectiveness in far from reach. They argued for a comprehensive approach combining infrastructure improvement, health promotion, and community participation in solid waste management processes to improve the inefficiencies to ensure quality sanitation. This highlights the essence to assess how other areas are faring with PPP especially in terms of ISWM. This study will cover this gap. According to Pimpong (2016), governments are reluctant when it comes to population control. This research will gather data to either support or rebut the claim. This research further seeks to present a more comprehensive performance evaluation of PPPs using ZL in environments sanitation in different milieu.

2.5 CONCLUSION

The reviews show that waste managements has moved from mere disposal. WM has moved to more of resource recovery. This has brought about the zeros waste concept which seek to burry no waste. The 3Rs (reuse, reduce and recycling) is central to the ISWM. Most advanced countries are doing well, but not for developing countries. While the population increased and the waste management became complex, the management became burdensome as the capacity of governments were overwhelmed by the pressure. The governments hence opened its arms for Public-private-partnership. Over the years most developing countries engaging in both contract and franchise terms. However, political instability, poor capacity of both government and the private party will result in poor accountability and subsequent poor delivery. The field requires more studies as to how to properly employ these mechanisms effectively. The NPP governments brought ZL to the scene in 2006. Since, they have become the largest private waste management company in Ghana. Moreover although the presence of ZL has advance sanitation in the country, existing studies indicate the impacts have not been as expected. Worse still studies indicate ZL faces similar challenges that collapsed the prior sanitation contracts.

This study is different for many reasons. First, none of the studies record how the whole Ga East managed its waste before ZL inception. This study will address this gap.

Secondly, it evaluates the impact of PPP in the whole of GEMA, This research will look at drawing the link between what was planned and what is actually in practice by the private vendor – Zoomlion.

The study is very important because it will evaluate whether there is both vertical and horizontal accountability in the GEMA-ZL- partnership. It will further tease out how strong GEMA institutions are. Most importantly, it will these out the nexus between the national and local government for which few studied comment on.

Moreover, most of these former studies are between 2000- 2013, hence it becomes relevant to find out new developments from ZL and what strategies they employ to effectively manage waste in GEMA.

Referenceas]

Amoah, S. T., & Kosoe, E. A. (2014). Solid Waste Management in Urban Areas of Ghana: Issues and Experiences from Wa. Journal of Environment Pollution and Human Health, 2(5), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.12691/jephh-2-5-3

Ampadu-boakye, J., Dotse, M. F., & Laryea, N. O. A. (2008). Challenges in the implementation of district water and sanitation plans in Ghana.

Anyangwe, S. C. E., Mtonga, C., & Chirwa, B. (2006). Health inequities, environmental insecurity and the attainment of the millennium development goals in sub-Saharan Africa: The case study of Zambia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 3(3), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph2006030026

Asare, B. E., & Frimpong, M. K. (2013). Public-private partnerships and urban sanitation : Do expectations meet realities in Madina-Ghana ?, 5(5), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.5897/JASD2013.0235

Aweso, D. M. (2013). Evaluation of Zoomlion Ghana Limited’s Participation in Solid Waste Management in Ablekuma Central Sub- Metropolitan Area. Retrieved from http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh/bitstream/handle/123456789/5264/DAVIS MAWUENA AWESO_Evaluation of Zoomlion Ghana’s Participation in Solid Waste Management in Ablekuma Central Sub-Metropolitan Area_2013.pdf?sequence=1

Batool, S. A., Chaudhry, N., & Majeed, K. (2008). Economic potential of recycling business in Lahore , Pakistan, 28, 294–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.12.007

Bawakyillenuo, D. S., & Agbelie, I. K. (2014). Waste as a Resource for Energy Generation in the Ga East and Awutu Senya East Municipalities : The Policy Discourse A Policy Case Study.

Chifari, R., Lo Piano, S., Matsumoto, S., & Tasaki, T. (2017). Does recyclable separation reduce the cost of municipal waste management in Japan? Waste Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.01.015

Colon, M., & Fawcett, B. (2006). Community-based household waste management: Lessons learnt from EXNORA’s “zero waste management” scheme in two South Indian cities. Habitat International, 30(4), 916–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.04.006

de Desarrollo, B. A., & de Desenvolvimento, B. A. (2014). P. P. P. R. G. V. 2. 0. (2014). Reference Guide Reference Guide, 2, 232.

Filho, W. L., Brandli, L., Moora, H., Kruopiene, J., & Stenmarck, A. (2016). Benchmarking approaches and methods in the field of urban waste management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 4377–4386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.065

Fobil, J. N., Armah, N. A., Hogarh, J. N., & Carboo, D. (2008). The influence of institutions and organizations on urban waste collection systems: An analysis of waste collection system in Accra, Ghana (1985-2000). Journal of Environmental Management, 86(1), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.038

Gebreselassie, A. G., Gebreegziabher, A. H., & Sahlu, D. T. (2014). Assessing the status, challenges, and opportunities of public-private partnership (ppp) in solid waste management (swm) in ethiopia: a case study on mekelle city, tigray, 5, 29–37.

Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., Nonhebel, S., & Krol, M. S. (2010). Food consumption patterns and economic growth. Increasing affluence and the use of natural resources. Appetite, 55(3), 597–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.09.013

Ghatak, T. K. (2016). Municipal Solid Waste Management in India: A Few Unaddressed Issues. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35, 169–175. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.071

González-Gómez, F., García-Rubio, M. A., & González-Martínez, J. (2014). Beyond the public-private controversy in urban water management in Spain. Utilities Policy, 31, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2014.07.004

Gu, Y., Wu, Y., Xu, M., Wang, H., & Zuo, T. (2016). The stability and profitability of the informal WEEE collector in developing countries: A case study of China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 107, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.12.004

Henry, R. K., Yongsheng, Z., & Jun, D. (2006). Municipal solid waste management challenges in developing countries – Kenyan case study. Waste Management, 26(1), 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.03.007

Iossa, E., & Martimort, D. (2016). Corruption in PPPs, incentives and contract incompleteness. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 44, 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2015.10.007

Johansson, O. M. (2006). The effect of dynamic scheduling and routing in a solid waste management system. Waste Management, 26(8), 875–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.09.004

Joseph, K. (2006). Stakeholder participation for sustainable waste management, 30, 863–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.09.009

Kairouz, A., El, J., & El, U. (2016). Sustainability of Public Management in the Developing Countries : the Case of Lebanon. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 221, 378–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.133

Kaseva, M. E., & Gupta, S. K. (1996). 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(4), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(96)01153-6

Kirama, A., & Mayo, A. W. (2016). Challenges and prospects of private sector participation in solid waste management in Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania. Habitat International, 53, 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.11.014

Liu, T., Wang, Y., & Wilkinson, S. (2016). Identifying critical factors affecting the effectiveness and ef fi ciency of tendering processes in Public – Private Partnerships ( PPPs ): A comparative analysis of Australia and China. JPMA, 34(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.01.004

Ma, J., & Hipel, K. W. (2016). Exploring social dimensions of municipal solid waste management around the globe – A systematic literature review. Waste Management, 56, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.06.041

Massoud, M. A., El-Fadel, M., & Malak, A. A. (2003). Assessment of public vs. private MSW management: A case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 69(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00104-X

Matter, A., Dietschi, M., & Zurbrügg, C. (2013). Improving the informal recycling sector through segregation of waste in the household e The case of Dhaka Bangladesh. Habitat International, 38, 150–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.06.001

Moh, Y. C., & Abd Manaf, L. (2017). Solid waste management transformation and future challenges of source separation and recycling practice in Malaysia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 116, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.012

Mohan, G., Sinha, U. K., & Lal, M. (2016). Managing of Solid Waste through Public Private Partnership Model. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35, 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.066

Niyas, M., & Muneera, F. (2012). Mohammed Niyas Fathima Muneera Public-Private Partnership ( PPP ) in Solid Waste Management Literature Review of experiences from Developing Countries with special attention to Sri Lanka.

Okot-Okumu, J., & Nyenje, R. (2011). Municipal solid waste management under decentralisation in Uganda. Habitat International, 35(4), 537–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.03.003

Oteng-Ababio, M. (2011). Missing links in solid waste management in the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area in Ghana. GeoJournal, 76(5), 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-010-9363-9

Oteng-Ababio, M., Melara Arguello, J. E., & Gabbay, O. (2013). Solid waste management in African cities: Sorting the facts from the fads in Accra, Ghana. Habitat International, 39, 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.10.010

Othman, S. N., Noor, Z. Z., Abba, A. H., Yusuf, O., Arif, M., & Hassan, A. (2013). Review on life cycle assessment of integrated solid waste management in some Asian countries, 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.043

Owusu, G., Oteng-Ababio, M., & Afutu-Kotey, R. L. (2012). Conflicts and governance of landfills in a developing country city, Accra. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(1), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.005

Parthan, S. R., Milke, M. W., Wilson, D. C., & Cocks, J. H. (2012). Cost estimation for solid waste management in industrialising regions – Precedents, problems and prospects. Waste Management, 32(3), 584–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.11.004

Pimpong, S., & Bi, V. K. (2016). Public-Private Partnership and Environmental Sanitation in Ghana : a Case Study of Accra Metropolitan Assembly ( Ama ) and Zoomlion Company Ltd ( Zl ), IV(6), 776–787.

Pires, A., Martinho, G., & Chang, N.-B. (2010). Solid waste management in European countries: a review of systems analysis techniques. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(4), 1033–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.024

Pohjola, V. J., & Pongrácz, E. (2002). An approach to the formal theory of waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 35(1–2), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(01)00116-1

Robinson, B. H. (2009). E-waste: An assessment of global production and environmental impacts. Science of the Total Environment, 408(2), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.09.044

Rockson, G. N. K., Kemausuor, F., Seassey, R., & Yanful, E. (2013). Activities of scavengers and itinerant buyers in Greater Accra, Ghana. Habitat International, 39, 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.11.008

Sabiiti, P. E. N. (n.d.). Evaluation of The Urban Solid Waste Management System in Kampala, Uganda.

Sandhu, K., Burton, P., & Dedekorkut-Howes, A. (2016). Between hype and veracity; privatization of municipal solid waste management and its impacts on the informal waste sector. Waste Management, 59, 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.012

Scheinberg, A., Spies, S., Simpson, M. H., & Mol, A. P. J. (2011). Assessing urban recycling in low- and middle-income countries: Building on modernised mixtures. Habitat International, 35(2), 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.08.004

Scott, R., Cotton, A., & Govindan, B. (2003). Sanitation and the Poor, (July).

Sha’Ato, R., Aboho, S. Y., Oketunde, F. O., Eneji, I. S., Unazi, G., & Agwa, S. (2007). Survey of solid waste generation and composition in a rapidly growing urban area in Central Nigeria. Waste Management, 27(3), 352–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.02.008

Shekdar, A. V. (2009). Sustainable solid waste management: An integrated approach for Asian countries. Waste Management, 29(4), 1438–1448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.08.025

Thompson, I. a. (2010). Domestic Waste Management Strategies in Accra , Ghana and Other Urban Cities in Tropical Developing Nations ., 1–13.

Thrift, C. (2007). Sanitation Policy in Ghana: Key Factors and the Potential for Ecological Sanitation Solutions. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm. Retrieved from http://www2.gtz.de/Dokumente/oe44/ecosan/en-sanitation-policy-in-ghana-2007.pdf

Tia, S. (2012). Assessment of the Performance of Public and Private Municipal Solid Waste Collection Institutions in the Tamale Metropolis. Sampson Tia, (Pg 3118209), 103.

Venatius, A. (2013). PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE: THE CASE OF TEMA METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY. Utilization of Iodized Salt among Households in the Danfa Community, 1(July), 1944–1966.

Verma, R. L., Borongan, G., & Memon, M. (2016). Municipal Solid Waste Management in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, Current Practices and Future Recommendation. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35, 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.059

Welle, K., Sanou, R., Bardo, M., & Zerdo, N. (2007). Sanitation and hygiene in developing countries : identifying and responding to barriers. A case study from Burkina Faso.

Wilson, D. C., Araba, A. O., Chinwah, K., & Cheeseman, C. R. (2009). Building recycling rates through the informal sector, 29, 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.016

Wilson, D. C., Rodic, L., Cowing, M. J., Velis, C. A., Whiteman, A. D., Scheinberg, A., … Oelz, B. (2015). “Wasteaware” benchmark indicators for integrated sustainable waste management in cities. Waste Management, 35, 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.10.006

Zia, H., & Devadas, V. (2008). Urban solid waste management in Kanpur: Opportunities and perspectives. Habitat International, 32(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.08.001

Zurbrugg, C., Gfrerer, M., Ashadi, H., Brenner, W., & Kuper, D. (2012). Determinants of sustainability in solid waste management – The Gianyar Waste Recovery Project in Indonesia. Waste Management, 32(11), 2126–2133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.01.011

Sabiiti, E. N., & Katongole, C. B. Evaluation of The Urban Solid Waste Management System in Kampala, Uganda.

Murad, M.W., Siwar, C., 2007. Waste management and recycling practices of the urban poor: a case study in Kuala Lumpur city, Malaysia. Waste Manag. Res. 25, 3–13, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242×07070766.